View Full Version : Peak Oil & Post Peak Oil Changes To Society Articles
Thread for Peak Oil articles/data and post Peak Oil articles - there are now thousands upon thousands of articles out there on these subjects, so please just post the most relevant/best expressed ones.
The energy crisis which we're only now seeing the relatively painless beginning of will be the defining event of all our lives...with Global Warming not far behind. While Global Warming may take decades to really adversely affect the average person, Peak Oil is here and now - a global economic collapse or spectacular contraction may well be just around the corner if the right 'trigger event' comes to pass...war in Iran or a US attack; a hurricane season in the US like last year; Nigerian freedom fighters gaining increasing success in their attacks on Shell holdings in Nigeria; more dramatic unrest in Iraq; diversion of Venezuelan supplies away from Western markets to the East...there are so many possible 'trigger events' it would take forever to list them all...the above are just some of the more likely to occur - hopefully not in tandum as is entirely possible.
From a Permaculturists perspective, Peak Oil is not necessarily bad news - I prefer to share David Holmgren's relatively optimistic view of looking at it as an opportunity rather than a necessarily bad event. People will be increasingly forced to take positive steps to restructure their lives in positive ways...increasing growth of local industries and relocalisation will become the norm, reversing many of the harms of globalisation...many ecologically and societally harmful industries will be severely hampered in their operations or outright cease to exist...there are too many 'benefits' to list, but they have the potential to eventually reshape the world along far more positive, sustainable lines than what we see today.
Below is some of the critically important reading material needed to begin to understand the concept of Peak Oil - how it will affect the global economy and us as individuals, and what can be done both on a global/national level, and at an individual level to avoid the worst of the fallout. Some of the articles are long, some are demanding, others are designed to be easily read and understood, IMO all are important. For balance, some more technical articles about the global economy and the fossil fuels industry are also included, though these are aimed more at those wishing further information than as vitally important reading.
Please feel free to contribute further articles (it's not easy to condense tens of thousands of articles down to a mere handful so I may miss an important aspect which someone may like to add) or comment on those included.
Peak Oil primer From Energy Bulletin Website (Click here to view Peak Oil Primer in full) (http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php)
...
Peak Oil is the simplest label for the problem of energy resource depletion, or more specifically, the peak in global oil production. Oil is a finite, non-renewable resource, one that has powered phenomenal economic and population growth over the last century and a half. The rate of oil 'production,' meaning extraction and refining (currently about 84 million barrels/day), has grown in most years over the last century, but once we go through the halfway point of all reserves, production becomes ever more likely to decline, hence 'peak'. Peak Oil means not 'running out of oil', but 'running out of cheap oil'. For societies leveraged on ever increasing amounts of cheap oil, the consequences may be dire. Without significant successful cultural reform, economic and social decline seems inevitable.
---------------------------------------------------
* NOTE - many links to more information etc at bottom of linked page.
THE PARADIGM IS THE ENEMY: The State of the Peak Oil Movement at the Cusp of Collapse (click here for full article) (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/042706_paradigm_speech.shtml)
A Speech by Michael C. Ruppert for the Local Solutions to the Energy Dilemma Conference
April 27-29, New York City, at Cooper Union
[This is the most important speech of my life. If you read anything I?ve written this year, read this ? MCR]
This is an excellent easy to read summary of the Peak Oil phenomenon which brings us fairly much up to date with the present (speech is from late April)
...
The Times of London on April 8th ran a story that should have pre-empted every other major story that day. Headlined "World cannot meet oil demand". The story's first sentence read, 'The world lacks the means to produce enough oil to meet rising projections for demand for fuel, according to Cristophe de Margerie, head of exploration for Total.' Later the story quoted Margerie as saying, "'Numbers like 120 million barrels per day will never be reached, never' he said."
- In the last year we have seen the collapse of Kuwait's super-giant field Burgan; accelerated decline in the world's second-largest field, Mexico's Cantarell; and an overall global decline rate approaching 8%. We have seen Saudi Arabia fail to increase production while at the same time finding it more difficult to hide deteriorating reservoir conditions in all of its mature fields, including Ghawar. As of tonight, more than 30 of the world's largest producing nations have entered steep decline.
- Discoveries continue to fall off a cliff. Over the last four years the world has been consuming 6 barrels of oil for every new one found. Publicity stunts, such as the recent attempt to reclassify Venezuelan tar as oil - even when applauded by dilettantes like Gregg Palast are having no impact on markets, prices or public policy. I think we can safely say at this point that we will soon see an end to the influence of charlatans and schemers like Daniel Yergin of Cambridge Energy. (Now there's at least one bright note.) At this point, the Peak Oil movement should avoid expending needless energy on any arguments about whether Peak Oil is real or not. That precious energy is needed elsewhere. We have won that debate.
- Soaring commodity prices for everything from copper, to uranium, to cement and steel are not only hampering needed infrastructure investment, they are also making it almost impossible to build new drilling rigs, especially deep water rigs. Commodity scarcities are the result of overpopulation, hoarding, over consumption and nothing else. Drilling rigs themselves are in extremely short supply around the world and I believe we should also stay away from any debates about whether new oil supply will even make a difference. It will not and we need only continue to breathe in and out to see this position vindicated also.
? The US government continues an unwinnable war in Iraq while building massive permanent bases and the largest embassy compound ever built. Not only does the US have no intention of leaving Iraq, it has committed-whether under Republican or Democratic leadership-to 'staying forever' whatever that means. The Empire's position is clear, not as a result of what it says, but as a result of what it has done. America's primary plan to deal with Peak Oil is to fight or intimidate for energy supplies wherever it deems necessary. That, of course, has forced the rest of the world-with a few notable exceptions like Norway and Brazil-to dance to the same sheet music. As a result, I would estimate that of every ten units of energy (or money) expended preparing for Peak Oil today, nine are spent preparing for war while only one is spent building lifeboats and teaching people how to survive. This is sheer insanity.
Some right up to date economic insight into the current effects of high energy prices on the global economy...the 'calm' before the storm, but still hurting many even at this stage.
Peak Oil Passnotes: The Oil Wave Ripples (click here for full article) (http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=20743)
By Edward Tapamor
16 Jun 2006 at 12:01 PM EDT
LONDON (ResourceInvestor.com) -- The Dow, the Nasdaq and the FTSE have all been centre stage. The rises, the dramatic falls, then the slight respite as we go to press. How the U.S. markets have seen 9% falls off of their heights. How it affects shareholders, business, investment. Everyone has been talking about it, the mass media have been all over it.
But here sits a primary problem of the way markets both act and are reported. All of which is centred around the reality of oil and energy and the way it is underreported on big networks and newspapers. Because if you watch, listen or read these news organs you might think that this problem was just something that affected the floor on Wall Street. But it is not so.
The U.S. and European markets have taken hits of anywhere from 9-12% it is true. But they did relatively well. In contrast India?s Sensex in Mumbai fell a terrifying 28%, in one month.
The basic reason is energy, and in the future the ones who will pay, are the weakest. It is the oil inflation chain, the ripples of the oil wave.
Let us look at the recent days as an example. To start with is the price of oil and gas. The price is caused by demand, war, regional disturbances, large scale theft, poor statistics, maturing fields and so on. We all know why, we have our own take on exactly which piece of the puzzle is most important. But the price is high, inflated.
This is causing general economic inflation. It is in much smaller amounts than before, but proportionately the room to manoeuvre for central banks is also squeezed. The fear of ? historically - small amounts of inflation causes markets to think the U.S. economy will slow. Goods and commodities will, are, becoming expensive. When that happens no one in the U.S. will purchase anything. So economists think.
A slightly technical article which is a refutation of common MSM (main stream media) type idiocy, but also a good insight into the historic decline in the oil discovery industry.
The 4 biggest oil fields in the world are in decline (click here for full article) (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/26/9229/79300)
by Jerome a Paris
Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:02:29 AM PDT
...
Only around 50 super-giant oilfields have ever been found, and the most recent, in 2000, was the first in 25 years: the problematically acidic 9-12 billion barrel Kashagan field in Kazakhstan.
(...)
In 2000 there were 16 discoveries of 500 million barrels of oil equivalent or bigger. In 2001 there were nine. In 2002 there were just two. In 2003 there were none.
...
The most skeptical of all is Houston banker Matt Simmons, who thinks, after painstaking examination of existing data (mostly from the 70s, before the Saudis clamped down) that Ghawar is in a really bad shape:
[quote:1y5tzqqo]Saudi's "king" of oil fields, Ghawar, is the world's largest oil field. Wildcat discoveries there from 1948 to 1952 proved reserves estimated at 170 billion barrels of oil in place and 60 billion barrels recoverable. Those numbers remained unchanged in Aramco's 1975 reserve estimates. Ghawar has accounted for 55 percent to 60 percent of all Saudi oil produced. If these numbers are correct, Ghawar's oil is 90 percent gone.
...
No super giant fields have been found in the past 25 years, and all the rock structures on the planet where such fields could be found are known.
We will not find more oil. We will squeeze more out of the existing fields, thus generating new "reserves" (in their economic definition), but we are already running out of the cheap and easy to produce stuff.
Peak oil is very real.[/quote:1y5tzqqo]
Peak Opportunity! Earth Liberation and the Oil Endgame (click here for full article) (http://peakoilanarchy.blogspot.com/2006/03/peak-opportunity-earth-liberation-and.html)
This is a unashamedly anarchistic take on the imminent energy crisis, but well worth including for both its easy to read format and its also easy to read analysis of alternatives to oil usage
Published in Earth First! Journal, Eostar (March-April) 2006 and online at http://PeakOilAnarchy.blogspot.com by Acornista
By now, all radical environmentalists?if not all humans?should be aware of the fatal ecological effects of civilization?s unsustainable energy binge. Yet many of us have been slow to grasp the true gravity of what our rapid depletion of non-renewable fossil fuels portends.
We must recognize three essential points about civilization?s imminent energy future: First, the unfolding ?energy crisis? is real and will soon manifest as chronic oil scarcity. Second, industry is seeking to quickly and quietly implement a nightmarish swarm of ultra-dirty oil ?substitutes,? ranging from coal-to-oil ?liquefaction? in Appalachia to nuclear-powered ?heavy oil? mining in northern Canada and biofuel plantations in South America. Rather than presenting feasible solutions, these ?alternatives? are unsustainable and ecologically destructive. Third, we cannot cling to the hope that scientists will unveil a magical cocktail of clean, oil-free ?alternative? technologies that will power a benign ?new civilization.?
Unless societies learn to sharply reduce their ecological footprints, any large-scale energy alternatives will ultimately prove ineffective because they would prolong and intensify destructive practices. It is time to seriously consider that our best hope for a biodiverse Earth and a biocentric future for humanity would be civilization?s collapse. Let?s dream our post-petroleum utopias unapologetically wild.
Envisioning a Hamlet Economy: Topology of Sustainability and Fulfilled Ontogeny (click here for full article) (http://www.jeffvail.net/2006/04/envisioning-hamlet-economy-topology-of.html)
This article is not as difficult to read/understand as the title and excerpt below suggests...and contains loads of worthwhile thoughts and concepts regarding the restructuring of cities, towns and villages in a post Peak Oil world.
The goal of this post is to outline a concrete framework for establishing a new economy based on rhizome structure that provides negative feedback against encroaching hierarchy, that ensures environmental sustainability, and that maximizes its compatibility with human ontogeny. I will first outline my approach to the problem, then look at one historical example?how the lattice network of Tuscan hill towns created a topology that addressed its unique circumstances, then analyze the optimal theoretical topology of a modern rhizome economy, and finally discuss some real-world concerns for the conscious design and establishment of a new hamlet economy.
...
If the average American could live the 'good life' of living in a stereotypical Tuscan villa, and if they are shown how they, too, CAN have this lifestyle, then people will literally flock to this structure. Ultimately, this is a POSITIVE vision of the future - not a reversion to feudal serfdom, but a progression to a more egalitarian and human-compatible life?
What the mainstream media are not telling you about the run up in oil prices (click here for full article) (http://www.energybulletin.net/15126.html)
A rundown on relatively current oil/economy news, with a (quite telling IMO) hypothesis as to why the average person is still largely unaware of the depths of the impending energy crisis - it's not at all in the interests of the key economic players (and the MSM as a result) for us to know.
Why Aren?t the MSM Discussing the Import Situation?
I think that we are seeing an "Iron Triangle" of sorts defending the status quo concept of ever expanding energy supplies: (1) most housing, auto, financing and related companies; (2) Most MSM companies that are selling advertising to Group #1 and (3) some major oil companies, major oil exporters and energy analysts that are working for the major oil companies and exporters.
The housing/auto group wants to keep selling and financing large homes and SUV's.
The MSM wants to keep selling advertising to the housing/auto group.
In my opinion, some major oil companies are afraid of punitive taxation, and some exporters are afraid of military takeovers. This group of oil companies, exporters and their analysts provide the intellectual ammunition for the other two groups, i.e., promising trillions and trillions of barrels of conventional and nonconventional oil reserves.
Easy To Read Article Which Delves Into How Oil Wells Deplete, How This Relates To Overestimated Reserves, And How The Information Is Misused And Hidden By The MSM And The Global Energy Giants (click here for full article) (http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/4/23/12186/9663)
The horribly long title I gave it almost says it all...:wink:...but also take note; oil extraction has been likened to eating a tub of yoghurt...the first half is easy, the closer you get to the bottom the tougher it is to get a decent spoonful...then imagine someone was trickling water (increasingly corrosive salt water in the case of Saudi Arabia) in at the same time.
The first, and most critical issue, is the one that we call depletion. When an oilwell is first put into production, the oil flows into the well due to the pressure difference between the fluid in the rock, and the fluid in the well. If there is no difference in pressure, then no oil flows, (see Newton) and the greater the difference in pressure, then the higher the oil flow rate. As the oil flows out of the well, however, it reduces the pressure in the fluid. (Simple, crude experiment - get a bottle of soda water, shake it up and stand it in the sink. Open the top. The gas pressure will drive some of the water out of the bottle, but after a short while the pressures are equal and more than half the water is still in the bottle. )
This basic knowledge has been around for a long time, and it has been recognized that it gets harder to get the oil out, and that it flows more slowly, as the volume of oil that is left in the rock around the well goes down. (And generally a single well can only, realistically drain the rock out to a certain distance from its location). Historically that number has been considered to that the well will deplete (or reduce production) by about 5% every year, from its peak level.
But this has recently changed, and the change has both merits that the Economist understands, and pitfalls that they don't appear to have heard of. The change comes about with the increasing practice of pumping water into the ground under the oil layer, so that as the oil flows out, water is pumped in to replace it, and the driving pressure remains the same. This extends the life that the well has at the higher pumping rate, but it has two downsides. The first is that it is very hard to control how the water flows up through the rock toward the well. And if the well is in the wrong geological conditions, then the water can get to the well before all the oil is removed, and production is lost.
James Howard Kunstler - Oil Spiel (click here for full article) (http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200605/james-howard-kunstler-oil-1.html)
Quite long, but very easy to read article summarising the views of JHK from recent speeches, author of The Long Emergency.
President Bush says Americans guzzle too much petroleum, and James Howard Kunstler would certainly agree. But the flamethrowing author of The Long Emergency?a wickedly entertaining and terrifying look into a future without cheap fuel?thinks the world isn't doing nearly enough to get ready, and nobody is safe from his wrath.
By John Galvin
"You're not going to run Walt Disney World and the interstate highway system on ethanol or hemp! Or biodiesel! Or hydrogen! Or solar power, or all of them together," booms the man at the podium in the conservative khaki suit. "That isn't going to happen!" he continues in a staccato blast of invective. "We are going to have to make other ar-range-ments for how we live!"
...
America, Kunstler argues, is about to become one fantastically miserable place. Why? Because our entire standard of living is propped up by cheap oil, and the days of cheap oil are over. "No combination of alternative fuels is going to allow us to run the United States the way we've been used to running it," he tells the Dallas crowd. And though tonight he'll resist calls to pinpoint when the nightmare will begin, he's told the online environmental magazine Grist.org that "we're going to be feeling the pain" in as little as three years, and suburban collapse might start in ten.
Sounds preposterous, on the face of it. But Kunstler bases his predictions on a geoeconomic concept called "peak oil" that is gaining credibility even within the petroleum industry. The theory holds that humankind has nearly, if not already, tapped 50 percent of the world's fossil-fuel reserves?the half that's highest in quality and easiest to pump out of the ground. Once we hit "peak," as the halfway mark is called, the global supply will decline and extraction costs and gas prices will skyrocket ($7 per gallon by 2010 is one ballpark figure that gets thrown around) while demand continues its inexorable climb. This doomsday scenario?along with what Kunstler calls the American propensity for "sleepwalking into the future"?is the basis for his hot-selling 2005 book The Long Emergency, now in its tenth printing.
The energy wars - by Michael Hirsh (click here for article excerpt - original full article no longer available) (http://www.energybulletin.net/15602.html)
Is well armed, comfort loving, "don't mess with our way of life" America going to take the onset of Peak Oil and a growing scarcity of energy lying down? It is unlikely (see the Iraq war). Are the rapidly expanding economies of China and India going to humbly stop all growth due to lack of energy? Also unlikely. When the two giants in this equation (China and the US) begin to butt heads over the issue and start gathering allies to their cause, we will more than likely face either small scale or (hopefully not) global scale warfare. Unless each side of this very serious equation can learn to get by with less energy, share and cooperate, this issue could take the world into a very dangerous era.
It is a mantra of the globalization crowd. In today's global economy, we are told, all that really matters is which country produces the best brains and skills. The world is flat, after all. The playing field is leveled. Wrong, wrong and wrong. What also matters, we are learning, is who controls the world's energy resources.
Evo Morales's abrupt decision earlier this week to nationalize Bolivia's natural-gas industry was only the latest worrisome move in a long-term trend. Morales, a leftist elected president last December, was apparently influenced by a meeting he had in Havana last Saturday with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who's rocketed to international prominence by doing much the same thing to his country's oil industry.
...The would-be czar of this new global energy elite is Vladimir Putin. Having spent the better part of his six years in office wresting control of his nation's vast oil and gas resources, the Russian president is now playing a brass-knuckle game of power politics.
...Today, oil and gas experts around the world are growing alarmed not just at future scarcity-the idea that the world may have hit 'peak oil' seems to be taking hold-but at who's in control of the precious stuff. As demand for energy explodes worldwide, there is less of it available and less exploration for it.
...What does it all mean? "Welcome to the age of energy insecurity," says [J. Robinson West, head of Petroleum Finance Corp.], a former Reagan administration official (and friend of Dick Cheney's, the man who once dismissed energy conservation as a "personal virtue"). "Worldwide production will peak. The result will be skyrocketing prices, with a huge, sustained economic shock. Jobs will be lost. Without action, the crisis will certainly bring energy rivalries, if not energy wars. Vast wealth will be shifted, probably away from the U.S. For the last 20 years, U.S. policy has discouraged production and encouraged consumption. If we dither any more, we will pay a terrible price, the economic equivalent of a Category 5 hurricane. Katrina was Category 4."
Washington appears as helpless in preparing for this crisis as it did in anticipating Hurricane Katrina.
Can oil companies handle more storms? (click here for full article) (http://www.csmonitor.com/advertising/kanoodle/usaTextAds_story.html)
US oil extraction companies based in the Gulf Coast are still reeling from the effects of hurricane Katrina...and an even more active hurricane season is expected this year. As the saying goes...when America sneezes the rest of the world gets a cold...the US is currently on the verge of a mighty big sneeze if predictions of hurricane activity hold true - not to mention the fact that last year's predictions for hurricane activity turned out to be an underestimate.
As they brace for next hurricane season, a manpower shortage slows efforts to secure offshore facilities.
HOUSTON - While the US Army Corps of Engineers scrambles to defend the Gulf Coast against hurricanes on land, oil companies are preparing to avoid the havoc that last year's big storms wreaked offshore.
They are fortifying mobile platforms and drilling rigs, putting backup communications systems in place, and working out advance contracts with tug and helicopter services.
But a manpower shortage is hampering these efforts. The shortage is so acute that many companies are still working on last year's equipment failures. Nine months after hurricanes Katrina and Rita moved through, 21 percent of the Gulf's oil production and 13 percent of its natural-gas production remain offline.
...
Predictions are for as many as 16 named tropical storms this season, with four to six forming into Category 3 hurricanes or higher.
The Gulf of Mexico produces 30 percent of the nation's oil and 21 percent of its natural gas, so a major hurricane can have a severe effect on prices. Last year, gasoline prices rose to almost $3 a gallon, with natural-gas prices jumping as well.
A REALTOR'S VIEW FROM HUBBERT'S PEAK: The End of Cheap Oil and Cheap Money (click here for full article) (http://www.ecorealty.org/peak_oil_and_real_estate.htm)
This is a very important 'must read' article for those still playing the 'real estate will keep going up' game, those with large mortgages, or those with investment properties.
How will peak oil play out in real estate? We'll look at this from three different perspectives:
- First, we need to understand why real estate has hyperinflated over the past 20 years, and why we will see property prices deflate as oil and gas prices soar.
- Second, the broader, deeper issue of why real estate has been a kind of sink of value throughout history -- though perhaps a drain of value is more to the point.
- Third, the effects of real estate inflation on farmers, and how decreased global trade in foodstuffs and deflating land values will be a godsend for farmers and local economies.
The maturation of Matt Simmons, energy-industry investment banker and peak oil guru (click here for full article) (http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=1)
...
Matthew R. Simmons, Chairman of the energy-industry investment banking firm Simmons & Company International, stepped forward and has recently become a phenomenon for our times. He is sufficiently independent to add up and share what he has been observing and learning over decades. His firm has completed for its clients' investment-banking projects that have valued over $65 billion. He has given 75 speeches since publishing his book on Saudi Oil, Twilight in the Desert (2005). "As I study the oil situation, the problems get worse... [but] the peak oil movement has grown from being a pimple to a pandemic," Simmons told Culture Change.
...
And when is peak? "Realistically, we?re probably at peak now. If not, production will fall faster later" as a result of rising demand. This definitive conclusion is from a data specialist on the main assets of the petroleum industry: reserves and the whole industry?s ability to extract, refine and distribute at a profit. He is not surprised that peak is here, nor that we are caught unprepared. He offers his audiences instances of the public and leaders ignoring past warnings, such as M. King Hubbert?s on the peaking of domestic and global oil extraction.
How did oil analysts and the government get caught with their pants down? "Price volatility masked price signals." People were and are expected to trust samples for oil reserves, but he has seen "no proof that reserves still grow." There has been "only a theoretical 1.5 million barrel a day production cushion" to last three years. But the spare refining capacity is not there: if there is, it?s only for light, sweet crude that?s dwindling fastest. "The best Saudi oil is gone? Middle East production will go down by one third by 2012." He reported that an Occidental Petroleum official told him that they?re in the business of producing "brine stained with oil." Saudi Arabia has been depleting its precious fresh water by pumping it into its aging oil fields, and this has meant using more and more salt water to the detriment of the fields and the equipment.
Simmons said that if any of the larger Saudi fields pumping up to six million barrels a day went off line, as he seems to anticipate will happen, then we can hit $500 a barrel: "A lights out issue."
...
The Energy Crisis has arrived." - his talk's title. He concluded, "Grow food at home."
...
"The entire world assumes Saudi Arabia can carry everyone's energy needs on its back cheaply. If this turns out not to work there is no 'plan B.' Global spare capacity is now 'all Saudi Arabia.' This is the world's insurance policy and no third party inspector has examined it for years. Conventional wisdom says 'don't worry. trust today,' but if conventional wisdom is wrong, the world faces a giant energy crisis." Calling for large-scale research into new energy sources, [Simmons] said: "If all these worries are wrong, it is like our preoccupation with nuclear war or future global warming. But even if part of it becomes true and not expected, the results are awful." Coming from someone who has advised the secretary of energy and the 2000 Bush campaign, this is a warning worth heeding.
With over 260 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, a quarter of the world's total, Saudi Arabia is not only the top foreign supplier to the United States - the world's largest energy consumer - but also essentially the sole source of liquidity in the oil market. According to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA), the world will become more dependent on Arabian oil in the next two decades. To meet global demand for oil, Saudi Arabia will need to produce 13.6 million barrels a day (mbd) by 2010 and 19.5 mbd by 2020. Both the International Energy Agency and EIA assume Saudi oil output will double over the next 15 to 20 years. In a new study soon to be released, Matthew R. Simmons, president of Simmons and Company International, a specialized energy investment banking firm, contends that this is not likely to happen. He argues that Saudi Arabia's oil fields now are in decline, that the country will not be able to satisfy the world's thirst for oil in coming years and that its capacity will not climb much higher than its current capacity of 10mbd. Considering the growth in demand, this could easily spark a global energy crisis.
Simmons analyzed 200 technical papers on Saudi reserves by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and his work was peer reviewed by a dozen senior technical experts. What he discovered tells a different story than the conventional wisdom.
Saudi Arabia has over 300 recognized reservoirs but 90% of its oil comes from the five super giant fields discovered between 1940 and 1965. Since the 1970s there haven't been new discoveries of giant fields. The most significant of the oil fields is Ghawar. Found in 1948, the 300-mile-long sliver near the Persian Gulf is the world's largest oil field and accounts for 55%-60% of all Saudi oil produced. Ghawar's current proven reserves are 12% of the world's total. The field produces 5 mbd, which is 6.25% of the world's oil production. According to Simmons, Ghawar's northern regions are almost depleted. Two other giant fields, Abqaiq and Berri, also seem to have peaked in the 1970s.
Link to an MP3 interview with David Holmgren, co-founder of the Permaculture concept discussing Peak Oil and the potential of Permaculture principles in a post Peak Oil world(click here to listen to/download interview) (http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RM/2005/09/DavidHolmgren20050910.mp3)
Sonya
30-06-2006, 06:56 AM
David Holmgren will be touring in coming months speaking about peak oil and permaculture. Check his website for details. Also interesting dvd - the Power of Community - How Cuba Survived Peak Oil. Explores how they survived using community gardens and permaculture after their oil was cut off.
Sonya.
caldera
01-07-2006, 06:12 PM
I would estimate that of every ten units of energy (or money) expended preparing for Peak Oil today, nine are spent preparing for war while only one is spent building lifeboats and teaching people how to survive. This is sheer insanity.
insanity
ignorance
inertia
its crazy
very very interesting times
i had a chat to day with 2 blood related people in my life who were worried what might happen if kim beazley wins the election and how good the last ten years has been with john howard in government
i'm becoming a immune to this "insanity" as all attempts to express what i feel to be the REAL issues (one of them being the predicted extinction of 20-50 percent of all species on earth in the next 50 years, not to mention the energy situation) are followed by a few seconds of silence and then talk of the footy or some other distraction
must try to remain centred and follow that niggle ... walk the talk and not take yourself to seriously
thanks for the links :wink:
Douglas J.E. Barnes
02-07-2006, 12:45 AM
i had a chat to day with 2 blood related people in my life who were worried what might happen if kim beazley wins the election and how good the last ten years has been with john howard in government
...all attempts to express what i feel to be the REAL issues (one of them being the predicted extinction of 20-50 percent of all species on earth in the next 50 years, not to mention the energy situation) are followed by a few seconds of silence and then talk of the footy or some other distraction
As scary as this prospect may sound, I think that psychology comes into play here. Scary because dealing with psychological problems is very difficult. Most people deal with terrifying facts by ignoring them - I know I have not been totally immune from this. How do you help someone out of denial? Can you?
Interesting times indeed Caldera!
Part psychology IMO Douglas, part not knowing much of real worth about history, economics, the nature of capitalism, energy etc - understanding Peak Oil really does entail delving into diverse fields of expertise which bore the heck out of most people! :lol:
Most people simply don't understand that Capitalism instantly becomes a horrible failure of a system without constant growth, nor connect the dots between constant growth and an absolute need for cheap, abundant energy. They don't understand what fueled (pun intended!) the growth which brought us our current standard of living...IMO it's typically thought of as stemming from a magical combination of our own intelligence and 'progress.' They don't know that historically there was a lot of starvation and poverty throughout the entire world before the industrial revolution. They don't recognise that an 'ultra-modern', wealthy country like Sweden (and many other examples) has only become genuinely capable of feeding itself in the last century...solely on the back of industrialised agriculture and our now dwindling fossil fuel reserves.
Peak Oil is still widely portrayed in the MSM as being a 'doom theory' which is about 'running out of oil'...not simply a theory about the dire consequences for the global economy if our constant need for economic growth cannot be met by dwindling supplies of cheap, abundant energy.
Most economists still don't really understand the consequences (mind you, NONE of them predicted the Great Depression - not one!), so it's not surprising the average person struggles to 'get it.'
The psychology element (denial if you like) is virtually impossible to get around IMO. Peak Oil is a concept that destroys most people's construct of the world and how they fit into it. Given this fact, it's natural for most people to not want to hear about it.
Combine that with the massive amounts of disinformation and outright 'easy lies' - generally put out there by those with a vested interest in things continuing on as 'normal' for as long as possible - and invariably most people will tend to stick with the 'easy lies' over facing the reality of the situation.
The concept of growing your own food, providing your own independent source of energy, radically scaling down inputs etc, unfortunately does not sit well with the average 'bred to consume' Westerner.
With oil topping $70 a barrel (and even those who push 'easy lies' not willing to say it will ever go down again...though avoiding saying it will rise dramatically further yet!) it gets harder for people to avoid thinking about it when they have to put fuel in the car every day, so while someone raising the topic a couple of years back may have been laughed at or treated with condecension, these days it's more likely to produce the sort of uncomfortable silence followed by a change of topic as Caldera describes.
Unfortunately, I think it will take much more serious economic pain for most people to move beyond the phase of denial...no amount of 'preaching' or reasoning can reach a person that isn't ready/willing to be reached.
If the person still in denial is someone that you care about, then IMO, the only productive thing you can do is - if you can financially afford to do so - make sure there is room for the people you care about in your 'lifeboat.'
Douglas J.E. Barnes
02-07-2006, 02:53 AM
Jez, I think you might appreciate this link (and audio file). (http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey/massey2004.html) It goes far in addressing the "progress" you mention.
caldera
02-07-2006, 09:20 PM
my life boat is taking shape
it could be a really amazing lifeboat in no time at all if there wasn't this "insanity" to deal with
my approach so far has been ... LOVE... to just understand where everyone in my circle at the moment is coming from (a life time of watching MSM and living the prescription) and to realise i too have to break out of the conditioning and practice widsom
hows this for crazy ... my dad brought a bag of oranges (who knows where from) and we have 3 navelina orange trees 6 metres behind our house (not to mention an orchid with many many subtropical fruits)
i was left dumbfounded... no one in my family understands or gets why i brought the chooks... why i am growing vegetables and why it would be great if we worked on a getting a micro hydro system going on the weir that is on our property ..
i dont think there will be ANY satisfaction if the life boat isn't quite ready and i have to remind everyone "I TOLD YOU SO"
ego has immunized reality
just gotta do what feels right and hope the lifeboat fits everyone
(living/working on a fruit tree nursery, if peak oil hit suddenly, i'd start instantly on a massive orchid ... we'd all have to learn the ways of old pretty quickly .. everything we have taken for granted
you don't know what you've got til its gone
still, can't help but feel blessed to be here now
:wink:
Cheers Douglas - SHoP is a great read and I also really enjoyed Wright's comparisons between civilisations in Stolen Continents. Haven't heard the Massey Lectures so this is a real treat - thankyou! My speakers are out of action ATM but I'm really looking forward to giving it a listen when possible.
Glad to hear you're already well advanced in your preparations for a post-Peak Oil world Caldera...it's not easy in terms of design and affordability if you're preparing for others as well. Sounds like you have a bit of land to work and family around you so that in itself is a good headstart IMO.
We're in the process of ditching the mortgage in exchange for a more isolated property we can own outright with a bit of money left over...without a mortgage a lot of preparation that has been postponed waiting for this move can go ahead...and not before time with the US hurricane season already underway and lots of other 'trigger events' looming on the horizon.
You're right, it's an amazing, wonderful planet we live on...I sincerely hope that most people are given an economic nudge toward starting to reconnect with it, as opposed to most experiencing the darker possibilities of a post-Peak Oil world.
Douglas J.E. Barnes
04-07-2006, 11:56 PM
I can imagine where others are coming from and the trouble they would have letting go when I think of my own life. I am caught in the middle between the failing consumer world around me and becoming truly free. One is the devil I know, well lit by neon. The other holds the promise of true freedom, but the path is a dark hole in an unlit cave. I cannot see what is there on the other side, but I know I want to go there. The devil I know is very easy and sometimes temping: I could hop on a plane and be back in Tokyo next week making $40 an hour (and ingesting dioxins, furans, ozone, and God knows what else) living each moment for my day off.
To try to find out where I'm going, I posed a question here last month: What do you do for a living? (http://forums.permaculture.org.au/viewtopic.php?t=2283) The responses were extremely helpful and gave me some ideas of what I should be doing. Now I am no longer paralysed of marching into the unknown. I am paralysed by a fear of entering this new world. No, fear of failing in this new world.
So that's me. I'm on all your side and this stuff terrifies me. I can imagine what it must be like for someone who is embedded in consumer culture and actually likes the bloody thing.
On learning the old ways, as Caldera says, I was reading some of Bill's autobiography last night about the old towns and their self-sufficiency. He spoke of so many thing's I'd never even heard of like storing winter meat under goose fat. I have a lot to learn.
Great post Douglas. We're trying to cut our necessary expenditures down as close to zero as possible as a means of surviving the coming era best...for us the main elements of this are having no mortgage to worry about...living in a place where no heating is necessary and we have a full year growing season...and engaging with other local people to try and set up a solid network of goods, produce and skills trading...we also plan to be as self-sufficient as possible as soon as possible.
If you can get to a situation where you have no rent/mortgage to pay, live in an area with cheap land rates, pay for as little food or entertainment as possible and have no pressing need for regular travelling/commuting, then to me that takes care of lots of the problems we'll face.
I don't know if that's helpful at all, that's just our little template put together with our measly financial resources, needs and wants...I know everyone is in different situations but that's our perspective FWIW.
Perhaps the best way to overcome a fear of failing in a post-Peak-Oil world is to start doing all the things you figure you'll need to be doing post-Peak as soon as possible? That way if you're doing them before the worst consequences of Peak Oil take hold you'll have a bit of a safety net in terms of the general economy - i.e. you can still buy food at a reasonable price if your first efforts at growing your own need work...there is still employment to be found if absolutely necessary...you can discover the trends of a business idea and more easily guage its viability and strengths longer term etc.
Maybe best of all, the sooner you discover problems you'll need to address, skills you'll need to learn, information you'll need to know/uncover/experiment with...the sooner you can resolve these issues...then you are better equipped for later on when it may really count heavily to have resolved them earlier.
Douglas J.E. Barnes
05-07-2006, 01:39 AM
Thanks, Jez. Everything I hear about how people are managing their lives and is helpful. Strategies are great, not because they ever work out as planned, but because they put one into action.
From the sounds of what you are up to, you are really, really involved and doing permaculture. The community building stuff is what we are after. I'm still in the stage of putting my life in order. Your advice is helpful on that.
I have been on a very steep learning curve over the past 3 months and have learnt some really vanuable information through failures here. There have been successes, though. There is no need to buy any herbs - we have more than we need already. Our first radishes are almost ready. Peppers are on the way. Tomatoes and squash are scheduled to make an appearance. Berries will come along and grapes. But the failures have taught a lot - mistakes that will not occur again.
All this is at my brother's place, mind you. My brother and I also own land in cottage country here, but the bloody rich people moving in have driven the taxes up to around $5000 a year. If I could find a nice used gravel pit somewhere, I'd snatch that up and keep the outside barren-looking to keep the tax assessment lower. Or maybe move to the arctic? The pattern seems to be that taxes go higher and higher to pay for progressively poorer education of the local youth. One way to save on those property taxes would be to trash the place. It's ironic that if you take a dump and repair it, you are punished for it by taxation. It would make more sense to make the people who broke it pay, not the people who fixed it.
Annual and especially perennial herbs are fantastic I reckon Douglas...even with the simplest of fare it's easy to make a tasty meal or a refreshing/healthy tea when you have a good range of fresh herbs...and we find they're also great for trading with others because they're mostly hardy and very simple to grow, yet quite expensive fresh at the supermarket. Same with varieties of loose leaf 'gourmet' lettuce and cherry tomatoes...both grow and self sow like weeds with zero input, yet if you're a regular salad lover, again they're quite expensive to buy. I'm sure all these things will still be popular in the future, but I'd suspect they'll gradually become increasingly difficult for the average person to purchase commercially ($10 for a tiny punnet of cherry tomatoes or a bunch of fresh basil or a box of lemon grass tea - and many, many other things - aren't going to be big sellers at the supermarket in a time of crisis!)...voila, you suddenly have a ready made local trading/market source from plants which require virtually zero input. The small growers will gradually begin to slay the big supermarkets in this area of 'gourmet' produce IMO...and this type of produce will have trade value far beyond its current value.
One thing we will be focusing heavily on early in the piece is establishing those perennials which provide good nutrition, take little input (mostly time and water are critical in our case), but take a few years to bring their first harvest - sounds like you're already going well at a similar strategy with berries, grapes etc becoming established.
The tax situation sounds a bit outrageous as a yearly expense, but as things pan out it may not be a problem. I read a fascinating article some time back about the consequences for mortgagees if they come to a point where they cannot make their payment. The financial expert who wrote it said that after the first wave or two of people (we're probably talking many millions mind you) have lost their house, it may well work out that after the banks (and the speculators) work out that they can't unload these properties for anything worth doing it in a rapidly falling market place, the banks may well start dealing with people along the lines of letting them stay on as it least it protects the bank's asset from being damaged - insurance is going to not exist very far into this crisis I doubt or be horribly expensive at the least...banks themselves may not either.
So drawing the same (admittedly optimistic) line through property taxes, I'd say that if you can pay them for a while then default like many people will, then you'd be pretty safe from repossession. Also, the governments of the world will already be dealing with a massively reduced revenue (one of the biggest problems in itself with our 'welfare state' societies), so dramatically reducing property taxes or abolishing them will probably be a very popular political move. Your $5,000 a year tax burden may well not be a problem long term.
Douglas J.E. Barnes
06-07-2006, 05:47 AM
Thanks, Jez. A big problem I have is undervaluing what I have accomplished. I tend to forget what I have done and the successes I have made.
On the tax end of things, I am at the point where I'd consider selling the property, as beautiful as it is. The location is very important to me, though. It's been in the family for about 150 years, and I have many fond memories of the place. But there will be no sale without the approval of my brother who is half owner. The plan now is to rebuild then rent it out. The cottage as it is (home to coons, bats, mice, wasps, porcupine, though not yet deer, moose, fox, wolf or bear) is assessed at something like $600,000 to $650,000 by our imaginative municipality. If people want to be there that badly, I reckon they'll pay up to and over $1000 per week to rent it out.
Douglas J.E. Barnes
06-07-2006, 11:44 PM
I've just found part II of that Ronald Wright lecture. Here it is. (http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=10474&nav=&)
Awesome Douglas - the entire series of lectures is for sale for about US$25 as I recall (bundled with SHoP for $35 or so) so it's great to get two of them for free! Thanks again!
Gotta reflect on your accomplishments a little I reckon even when there's plenty left still to do...personally I find it helps give me the energy and enthusiasm for what comes next!
----------------------------------------------
Today's link is an important one for some Australian readers:
Shocking the Suburbs: Urban location, housing debt and oil vulnerability in the Australian City (Downloadable PDF - 1.2MB) (http://www.griffith.edu.au/centre/urp/urp_publications/research_papers/URP_RP8_MortgageVulnerability_Final.pdf)
Jago Dodson and Neil Sipe, Urban Research Program, Griffith University:
The report examines the spatial vulnerability of Australian urban areas to fuel price and mortgage interest rate rises.
The report maps the extent of mortgage and oil vulnerability at the local scale. We note that outer and fringe suburban areas where there are higher proportions of households with mortgages, where car dependence is greater and where incomes are more modest are the most vulnerable to rising fuel price and interest rate impacts.
Very interesting reading...some may prefer to skip the more heavy scientific sections or take it a stage at a time - it's quite a lot to take in all at once.
ecodharmamark
07-07-2006, 09:45 PM
G'day Everyone :)
I lifted this from the ABC TV Site:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/ ... 680717.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1680717.htm)
Peak Oil?
Reporter: Jonathan Holmes
Broadcast: 10/07/2006
"The price of petrol is disgusting, absolutely disgusting…"
"It’s just going up and up…"
"It’s outrageous…"
"I get so mad – you ever get so mad you can’t even talk about it no mo’?"
(Vox pops – motorists in Australia, UK and US)
If, like these motorists, your fury rises with the numbers ticking over on the petrol bowser, get a grip. You may soon look back fondly on the good old days when petrol was $1.40 a litre.
The world is at the beginning of the end of the age of oil, according to a growing body of analysts. It stands at a precipice of "peak oil" – the point at which oil producing countries can no longer keep up with growing demand, where production climaxes and then plunges into irrevocable decline.
This, say the doomsayers, may send national economies spinning into turmoil, up-ending comfortable urban lifestyles that rely on oil for the cheap transport of people and goods and for the manufacture of thousands of mundane household and office items – from mousepads, banknotes and drink bottles to carpets, clothes, cosmetics and deodorants.
The crunch will come some time in the next few years, without warning, they say. "The worst case is that it’s occurring now or very soon because the world is unprepared, it’s absolutely unprepared," says one of the most influential pessimists.
But this is just scaremongering, say many authoritative oil industry voices. While they agree that oil is unlikely to get cheaper any time soon, they insist that oil production will keep pace with demand for decades to come. There is simply no end in sight to the black gold bonanza, according to these optimists.
They check off their list: vast untapped oil reserves claimed by Middle Eastern nations; the prospect of further discoveries; and smarter technology that will extend the life of existing oil fields and make new ones easier to exploit.
Even the optimists concede that massive discoveries of easy-to-reach oil are a thing of the past. But, they say, higher prices will make other ways of producing oil and alternative fuels commercially viable.
Who is right? Four Corners investigates a truly global issue that reaches into every home and every car and touches every human life. This special report* explains why oil prices are high right now and asks how long the world has left to prepare for a day when there is not enough oil to go around.
Reporter Jonathan Holmes goes in search of an answer in the Middle East, the US and Europe, interviewing the key protagonists. He asks if the world is being told the truth about the vast unexploited reserves that are claimed to lie beneath the desert sands of the Middle East. He looks at alternative oil sources and the obstacles to exploiting them. And he explains what peak oil means for Australians who depend so heavily on oil for transport and tourist income.
"Peak Oil?" … on Four Corners, 8.30 pm Monday 10 July, ABC TV.
This program will be repeated about 11 pm Wednesday 12 July; also on ABC2 digital channel at 7 pm and 9.30 pm Wednesday.
*Four Corners also presents a Broadband Edition on "Peak Oil?" … See the program in full; watch extended interviews with the experts; delve into interactive maps showing who produces the oil and who buys it; browse key reports about how much oil remains untapped; learn about the alternatives; and discover the impact of peak oil on Australia’s economy and way of life.
Cheerio,
Mark.
A small sample of the ongoing case against coal as a substitute fuel for oil:
In Goodell Company: An interview with Jeff Goodell, author of Big Coal - click here for abridged version (http://grist.org/advice/books/2006/07/14/coal/index.html) or click here for full (long) version. (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/7/13/231330/588)
Why coal-rich US is seeing record imports - click here for full article (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0710/p02s01-usec.html)
...thanks to growing global coal markets and clean air regulations, the US is witnessing a latter-day equivalent of "carrying coals to Newcastle" - a 230 percent leap in coal imports to the US since 1999.
Coal-fired power plants along the Gulf Coast and East Coast have long imported coal by ship in small amounts. But with transportation costs and the price of low-sulfur coal from central Appalachia and Wyoming rising, US demand is soaring for coal from South America and as far away as Indonesia.
Leaping from 9 million tons to 30.5 million tons in the past six years, US coal imports could jump to 40 million tons this year, government analysts say. And that trend is accelerating as demand for low-sulfur coal grows following last year's federal Clean Air Interstate Rule, a mandate for big cuts in sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants in the eastern US.
At the same time, US coal exports are declining sharply. If present trends continue, the US will be a net importer of coal by 2013, according to the Energy Information Administration of the US Department of Energy.
Coal gasification - (click here for full article with lots of extra links to relevant mentioned info in the article) (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/7/9/153431/5683)
Here are what I see as the big limitations on gasification/sequestration:
Coal boosters say we have 250 years worth of coal in this country. But as Jeff Goodell argues persuasively in Big Coal, this number is wildly exaggerated. Much of that coal lies under inhabited or wilderness areas; the estimate is based on outdated studies; it assumes our usage won't increase, but the whole point of "energy independence" would be to increase it substantially. In short, if we replace all oil with liquefied coal, we'd burn through the coal quickly and do immeasurable damage to our natural landscapes in the process.
Schweitzer brushes off concern about mining, saying the surface mining in Montana is safe and landscapes are reclaimed. The truth is a bit more complicated. (http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1122.html)
Right now, the only demand for CO2 sequestration comes from enhanced oil recovery. Do we really want to enable the recovery of tons more oil, which would bring the price of oil down and, oh yeah, get burned and release CO2?
Who's going to pay for all the sequestration that doesn't help recover oil? Remember, if coal-to-liquid is to replace any substantial percentage of our oil, there's going to have to be a lot of it, and that means a lot of sequestration. Sequestration requires a great deal of money and a particular set of geological features. How will it scale up?
...
Use of carbon dioxide to enhance oil recovery is not sequestration! The idea with sequestration is to find a place to put the stuff where it will stay. In enhanced recovery much of the CO2 dissolves in and comes up with the recovered oil.
Peak Oil Passnotes: Where Is the Recession? (click here for full article) (http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=21537)
Michael Lynch told everyone when oil hit $50 in 2004 that it would be $35 by the next spring. How right he wa?I mean he was 100% out. Way wrong. Wrongamundo. Gentlemen like this come from the ?keep shopping? school of philosophy and are generally admired by major corporate interests, both for their analysis and the way they get mass media coverage.
If you ? or I in fact ? were 100% out on our major topic despite having the benefit of a huge wage, volumes of exciting data and the fact that we were only predicting about eight months ahead, one thing would happen. We would be sacked.
...
Well, I am not going to make any bold predictions here. What I would like is to run through some probabilities. Firstly that energy costs have been absorbed by many ordinary people in the rich economies of the world, the OECD nations. Those costs have either been ignored by the very rich - I mean the top 1 or 2% of earners ? or they have been passed along the chain by regular earners.
The very poor are already starting to hurt, we can see this from anecdotal evidence of pensioners, students and other low income earners. Most people however have passed on higher energy costs just as they have passed on low wage increases, they turned it into debt. Then they turned it into more debt. The took advantage of the fear of a deflationary recession ? and resulting low interest rates ? to re-mortgage and so on.
In fact all over the OECD countries they have done the exact opposite of save. They have heavily indebted themselves. In an economy with a fear of deflation it became very easy. The fears of Alan Greenspan, and indeed most of the world including the European Union and especially Japan, simply refused to believe inflation was possible. But now, with oil broaching $76, as we said it must, suddenly things do not look so rosy.
A consolidated ?free market? economy has been able to also absorb high energy costs. There has been a round of consolidation across many industries, from cars, to oil companies themselves. There has been the reliance on goods from super-cheap countries mainly China. But now even the Chinese economy is showing signs of inflation.
But all the while, oil is showing few signs of slowing down. Nor is natural gas, especially in Europe, especially this coming winter. The key seems to be that the central banks, especially in America, would prefer a recession to deflation. Yet with the huge volumes of energy-induced debt, washing around the world?s richest countries, it could be an incredibly risky strategy.
The basic fundamentals that have driven the energy price, no supply cushion and geo-politics, are not going away. The rich are using more and more energy and middle income earners are trying their best to keep up.
When the oil price first moved up movers and shakers said it would be no problem until it got to where we are today. They could well have been right. In a tightening cycle, with an impending shake-out of the most indebted, well, in the next 12 months we could have problems. Serious problems.
Supermarkets and Service Stations Now Competing for Grain (click here for full article) (http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/Update55.htm)
Cars, not people, will claim most of the increase in world grain consumption this year. The U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that world grain use will grow by 20 million tons in 2006. Of this, 14 million tons will be used to produce fuel for cars in the United States, leaving only 6 million tons to satisfy the world?s growing food needs.
In agricultural terms, the world appetite for automotive fuel is insatiable. The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol will feed one person for a year. The grain to fill the tank every two weeks over a year will feed 26 people.
...
The profitability of crop-based fuel production has created an investment juggernaut. With a U.S. ethanol subsidy of 51¢ per gallon in effect until 2010, and with oil priced at $70 per barrel, distilling fuel alcohol from corn promises huge profits for years to come.
In May 2005, the 100th U.S. ethanol distillery came on line. Seven of these distilleries are being expanded. Another 34 or so are under construction and scores more are in the planning stages. The soaring demand for crop-based fuel is coming when world grain stocks are at the lowest level in 34 years and when there are 76 million more people to feed each year.
The U.S. investment in biofuel production in response to runaway oil prices is spiraling out of control, threatening to draw grain away from the production of beef, pork, poultry, milk, and eggs. And, most seriously, the vast number of distilleries in operation, under construction, and in the planning stages threatens to reduce grain available for direct human consumption. Simply put, the stage is being set for a head-on collision between the world?s 800 million affluent automobile owners and food consumers. Given the insatiable appetite of cars for fuel, higher grain prices appear inevitable. The only question is when food prices will rise and by how much. Indeed, in recent months, wheat and corn prices have risen by one fifth.
A bit more on coal:
Coal: a clean energy source for the future? (clich here for full article (http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/coal-clean-energy-source-future/article-156397)
Coal is making a comeback as a cheap and reliable source of energy. With global energy demand rising at an unprecedented rate, the world's vast coal reserves are attracting growing interest from governments in Europe, the US and Asia. But while the efficiency and cleanliness of coal-fired power stations is improving, coal remains the dirtiest of all fossil fuels. Genuinely clean coal - i.e.: one that emits close to zero CO2 thanks to carbon capture and storage technology - is not expected to become economically viable before twenty years. And with the growing sense of emergency surrounding global warming, coal is simply not the answer, environmentalists argue
...
WWF, the global conservation organisation, says coal power is the most carbon-rich of all fossil fuels, and therefore, the dirtiest. And according to the conservation organisation, the power sector alone is responsible for 37% of all man-made CO2 emissions.
Coal to oil: A limited solution (click here for full article) (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1758412.cms)
The price of oil hit a record high of $78/barrel last week. The energy crunch looks like going from bad to worse in coming decades. The BRIC report of Goldman Sachs predicts that between 2000 and 2050, India's GDP will rise almost 60 times and China's 40 times.
That sounds great, but if oil consumption in these countries rises at just half their GDP growth rate, China will need 160 million barrels/day and India 60 million barrels/day by 2050.
That's impossible: world production today is just 85 million barrels/day, and does not seem likely to rise much higher.
...
India has over 200 billion tones of coal reserves, the fourth largest in the world.
...
The proposed Sasol investment of $5.8 billion will be the biggest single foreign investment by far in India. Yet, such a plant will take five years to build, and will produce no more than 4 million tonnes of oil per year.
This will be less than one year's increase in consumption. More plants could be built, but scaling up will not be simple. Apart from the high cost and time involved, Sasol has found that the yield of oil in the CTL process is highly sensitive to the quality of coal.
This means that only a small fraction of India's large coal reserves may be suitable for conversion. So, while converting coal to oil looks an important and worthwhile prospect, it can play only a limited role in meeting India's future energy needs. Technology has yet to meet the challenge of providing alternatives to scarce oil.
RobWindt
22-07-2006, 04:39 PM
A letter from Greg Wood outlining our current situation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Full Monty
At last, here it is.
The complete, abbreviated (?) outline of how it all
might actually be – If, that is, you were to listen
to, let alone believe, an eccentric but fastidious
observer of things.
The imaginary poses as real. All things are equal.
Some are just more equal than others.
Relativist views abound. They are the trend
amongst the cognoscenti, and are generally accepted
in practical form by the bulk of our society. Post-
modernism has delivered us pluralism and an
abiding view that all things are possible, equivalently
entitled to exist and that we should not tolerate
intolerance. Absolutes are shunned as reactionary
and primitive.
Funnily though, within this bubble of social
enlightenment, subliminally projected mores in
favour of wealth, achievement and productivity
have become powerfully dominant. Much of the
apparent pluralist choice is manifest within a tight
scope of what this commercial powerhouse deigns as
righteously “progressive”.
In a further irony, post-modernism's legacy of
non-judgmental equivalence acts to keep palpably
extreme behaviors within our systemic operations
safe from any proper moral and intellectual scrutiny.
For example, science and technology are all good
simply because they are possible, and rootin' tootin'
impressive to boot. You'd be a redneck or a luddite
to disagree. This intolerance is conveyed as a passive
aggressive disdain and applied with the full weight
and breadth of the status quo.
The people that do demonstrate innate recoil to
our banal but excited surge “forward” are easily
marginalised. Many of them are “losers” within our
prevailing socio-economic machinery. Furthermore
it is true that many of these losers are both ignorant
and in regional locations, both attributes due in most
part to the centralising, elite generating function of
the system that they are griping about. Sadly these
attributes also mean that these objectors are often
clumsy, simplistic, ridiculous and even self-defeating
in framing their complaints.
Nonetheless their complaints are, in essence, very
real. Destiny now has it that they may not be left
to eat cake for a lot longer. Not because they will
effectively rise up, but because the hideously stupid
contrivance that burgeons above them will soon
collapse. More on that a bit later.
So what is real?
It is vital to realise that absolutes do exist, that
they are quite simple and discernable, and that they
need to be worked from and not sought via layers of
social or intellectual relativism.
We simply need to look to basic physics for our
fundamental pivot, which surely is not too much to
ask in a technologically proud world. Is it? Well it is
because our technology, and our scientists in most
part, are owned by entrepreneurs in tandem with
the economists and politicians that lick the mogul's
behinds for nutrition and favour. Scientific purpose
and application have been corrupted and now parade
quite precociously, just as the emperor's new clothes.
Simple physics tells us that everything, in our part
of the universe at least, is made of only two basic
components: matter and energy.
It also tells us that all matter takes its composed
form and function from the energy available to it.
Reduced energy means reduced material form and
function.
It also tells us that energy incessantly dissipates
from high concentration to low concentration. This
is defined as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the
loss of material form and function that accompanies
the dissipation is called entropy.
With just these three basic and widely accepted
physical tenets, we can understand a lot about
ourselves, our capabilities, and our most pressing
social obligations. If we want to!
Of course we do, so let's take a quick, guided tour
of physical reality as it relates to our daily existence.
Our sun is constantly dissipating its energy
according to the Second Law's definition. In about
5 billion years it will be cold and dead. No need to
lose any sleep over that though.
Objects in the path of this energy flow, such as
earth and the other planets, absorb it as it strikes
them in concentration. They also dissipate it back
into space as it diffuses through their mass and
presents itself in ambient concentrations above that
of the connected outlying void. The energy radiated
is always equal to the amount absorbed. Except for
Earth. Earth is different. Earth has life.
Life uses incoming energy to build complex, self-
replicating, expanding systems. As these grow in
mass and complexity, they are able to absorb even
more energy and to grow and diversify even further.
These life systems are an energy sink as well as a
circuit within which individual life units and groups
can draw energy and act, as semi-autonomous
appliances if you like, within an enormous grid. This
life mass also interacts with geophysical components
to further extend the sink and circuit capacity,
ie energy storage and flow. Such hybrid systems
include the water cycle and the carbon cycle.
In this completely unique manner life interrupts
entropy in its incessant charge toward complete and
utter diffusion of all things.
So what?
Well, basically the quality and diversity of life on
earth, its forms and networks of forms, is the only
means by which incoming solar energy is trapped
and accumulated on our planet. Essentially bio-
diversity is, in its layered interactive complexity,
a densification of solar energy storage and energy
delivery niches from which even more diversity can
operate and develop, thus in turn giving rise to even
more solar energy storage and flow capacity.
We are material beings and need energy to simply
survive at all, let alone to create social fabrications
within which to entertain our dreams as reality.
Consequently this natural energy supply system is
absolutely vital. As we are high-order predators we
need a lot of energy. This elevated demand makes
the fullness of life's diversity, with the attendant
depth and balance of its energy grid, absolutely
critical to our survival. Our various social and
psychological aspirations extend this energy demand
and dependence even further.
This is a grave paradox as our imagined needs,
actuated by our intellectual and physical capacity,
tends to drive us to strip form and space (both of
which we can imagine to be wealth, and worse,
privatisable wealth) from the very systems that we
need operational in abundance to just survive.
Many traditional social systems were long-
lived due to their development of mores and lores
that understood and maintained local energy
fundamentals. Codes of care and responsibility
to dynamic landscape form and function were
conveyed to all constituents, embedded and
celebrated via spiritual myth and legend. This
method recognises that most people are emotionally
(story) rather than intellectually (fact) oriented.
When the basis and objectives of the stories were
comprehensively sound, the culture flourished, not
by physical growth but by secure tenure upon local
landscape over vast time, and by an accumulating
depth of social experience and feeling. A vital aspect
herein is the extent to which the minority of thinkers
and planners feel connected to the lot and fate of the
believers or doers. This arbitrates whether the social
system will be one of synergy or manipulation. Scale
is a direct factor in this determination. It is also a
direct factor in the degree or rate of local energy
depletion. Social scale drives both the development
of manipulative elite power and ultimate social
collapse due to resource exhaustion. And it has
happened repetitively over history. Beyond a certain
quite modest social scale, it has happened without
exception.
Ours is the most recent of these over-inflated,
inequitable social manipulations. In a madness born
of arrogant theocratic and technocratic stupidity, we
have lost our view of the simple fundamental. Even
though our most basic science spells it out so clearly.
This provides a dire example of how we proudly
know so much but foolishly understand so little.
Our current social madness is purposefully
geared to expand and accelerate the extent and rate
at which it dismantles biophysical diversity and
function. It does this as it also elevates its embedded
energy demand via expansion of both population
and myriad complex synthetic systems that seek to
furnish the social expectations. Our socio-economic
vehicle can pursue this fundamentally dissonant
course solely because it is driven and armoured
by its opportunistic exploitation of huge stores of
fossilised solar energy. However this energy store
is finite. It is only a temporary adjunct to our more
permanent need to survive upon the temporal store
and flow of solar energy through bio-physical
systems - the very systems that we are stripping
madly in our intoxicated growth.
The adjunct nature of this power stream, and the
bounds and proximity of its finiteness, is completely
unappreciated if not actively ignored. Our social
attitude is that we have an innate unlimited power to
innovate and extrapolate our will. There is mad but
popular contention that we may not even need nature
anymore as we are so technically proficient. This
notion actually gets discussed seriously in public
and, more disturbingly, is quite evidently a default
parameter of economic and political decision-
making.
Even most environmental advocates seem to
see the web of life as an aesthetic pleasure and/or
a moral imperative rather than the only durable
battery and power plug we have through which to
draw our social and individual need for energy. Most
“alternate progressive thought” is thoughtlessly
subscribed to the new secular religion of humanism
and believes unassailably that we can continue to
grow a .triple bottom line' economy by way of
ethical and optimum technologies. They exhibit no
real understanding of the singular, basic source of
energy and its physical constraints. Or of its vital
requirement by ALL forms of material association
and activity, INCLUDING human innovation. And
that is the “good”guys. Oh dear.
But what does it all mean to us?
So, yeah, that's an unfortunate big picture but
we all have to get on with our lives don't we. We
can't all be pre-possessed with changing the world
(a popular little epithet for marginalising critics
of denial that rates up there with “he/she is so
passionate”).
There may be persons who think they could have
been in Aceh last year and ignored the tsunami
because it was just too big and too much to think
about. If so then they could equivalently ignore this
large topic. The point of this absurdity is to illustrate
that size of issue isn't the active arbiter of our
attention. It is imminence of impact.
Socially and individually we have a pressing
sense of the immediate that directs what we will
practically care about. We compel ourselves to look
after our children but don't really give too much of
a practical toss about their children, and certainly
not about their children's children. The most
amazing thing about the more competent traditional
cultures is the manner in which they connected
social attention to events and priorities that fell
across a huge time span far beyond the immediate.
Our rationalist scientific method derides the tools
they employed so effectively to do this as simple
superstition, fantasy and primitive barbarianism.
As it thinks this it dismantles tomorrow for today's
convenience on the unverified and religious
assumption that it can refurbish the devastation with
its own synthetic image of reality.
The time is nigh where we will see about this.
The faith is about to be tested.
Global oil extraction is about to or perhaps
even has already peaked. Demand for oil however
continues to grow. Our economy depends upon
material growth. Material growth, and the complex
order of mechanisms and systems manufactured and
maintained within it, depends entirely upon access
to energy. Basic physics – the 1st and 2nd Laws of
Thermodynamics. Just as with the bio-physical
model described earlier it must draw upon energy
to feed both growth and maintenance to its bulk.
However it does not and cannot autonomously
furnish and recycle it own supply. It mimics and
seeks to replace natural systems but is not self-
sustaining from ambient sunshine as they are. There
is much rhetoric to that end, but no substance.
Our huge socio-economic air-mattress gets the
energy for its ongoing inflation from…?
This is an utterly vital question that hardly anyone
ever thinks about. Everyone assumes a lot, but they
don't ever think much about it. Too big. Who wants
to save the world? Who's that passionate?
Can you imaging taking off across the desert in
a car with no fuel gauge and no map of the fuel or
water stops. Completely irresponsible. Wouldn't
do it. Certainly wouldn't take the kids along.
But we will happily head, with our kids, into an
eternity of travel across a desert of our own recent
and ongoing construction, with no concern for our
fuel consumption or its supply. And fuck me if our
generation's shift at the wheel hasn't been stuck with
the first coughs issuing out of the depleted tank.
Liquid hydrocarbons furnish 60% of global
energy consumption and about 90% of the
economically vital transport sector – think global
economy – resources and end products don't walk
themselves to market across an entire planet. Check
out the price trend at the local pump. It's not an
overabundance of the resource that is making
that sting. Global peak gas extraction is another
decade or so beyond this point, but will be rapidly
accelerated by demand replacement due to oil
shortage.
Have a look all around your house and make a list
of where it all comes from. These exotic products
will all get inordinately more expensive and even
unavailable as the liquid hydrocarbon market
continues to tighten. Think about what goes into
each of the things you buy each day. Did you know
that there are around 1000 hydrocarbon calories
embedded on average in each edible calorie of fresh
produce? It gets higher for processed foods. Did you
know that it takes 1000 litres of water to produce a
kilo of grain. Much of this water supply is dependent
upon energy to pump, process and apply. And of
course how many people walk to the shop or to the
job that pays for their shopping?
This universal multiplier will soon bring an
ever tightening grip upon everyone's budget as the
embedded energy costs in production and transport
begin to spiral. How will this budget constriction
effect jobs in key consumer industries like building,
tourism and hospitality? How will those people laid
off or cut back in hours deal with the rising costs?
Will they be able to be kept on regardless because
the new IR laws will follow the US trend example of
$3-4 an hour wages? Will we just need to get 2, 3 or
even 4 shitty paid jobs to make ends meet. For how
long? Until we get a medical bill?
This actually points to some possible avenues for
substituting portions of the depleting hydrocarbon
energy. The poor don't use as much and also provide
a source of cheap manual labor. Civilisations
before the industrialisation of fossil fuels were all
dependent upon bonded feudal labor and slavery.
For a smart society we overlook a lot of history. It is
prudent and timely to remember what history very
clearly tells us if we can just remove our mind for
a moment from the stupor of our peer intoxication.
Civilisation exists for the benefit of elites, and not
the general good. The latter is provided only as it is
convenient, necessary and not at any avoidable cost
to the core project.
But that is just the tip of it.
Economic growth is based upon the expansion of
the money supply that measures and makes manifest
notions of increased production and resultant wealth
– ie the capacity to purchase. For the very rich, the
latent capacity to purchase is power, even if they
don't actually do it. Our money supply is expanded
via the creation of debt. The huge wealth we now
see, smell and hear of all around us is mirrored
by an equally enormous personal and private debt
structure. Neither the wealth nor the attendant debt
match up to any actually available base of durable
resources (aka - real wealth).
The imaginary wealth economy has to keep
growing to maintain confidence that the associated
contracted debt levels can be re-payed. Without
that assumption of repayment being maintained
the wealth it promises to realise by its remittance
evaporates. The necessary expansionary confidence
is achieved by expanding the debt further. We are all
subscribed to a massive pyramid scheme.
As diminishing energy supply constricts growth,
initially by economic input cost pressure and
eventually by actual physical shortage, we will enter
economic recession and then depression. Activity
contracts, profits and salaries are squeezed, debts
are then defaulted, wealth estimates are reconciled
downward, thus more cut-backs and contraction and
even more debt is defaulted and so on.
Classic economic theory accepts these bust cycles
as “natural”. To normalise such socially awful events
as a product of the system is a very clear sign of
the redundancy and corruption of the system. But
normalisation is an effective tool, especially when
driven by the powerful psychological machinery
employed by the mass media. It prevents us from
considering the reality that these regularities are
systemic housekeeping events, intended to suck
up the real wealth (material and energy resources)
extracted in the previous boom, and consolidate into
select hands. When that adjustment is fully shaken
out, public money is then used to fuel the economic
flame for another boom cycle.
But what if there is no fuel available to re-prime
the economic pump?
And what about the rest of the structural tumours
accumulating to clog the near empty oil tap?
Personal debt levels leveraged against imaginary
property values are at a record peak. The sheer
volume of pending bankruptcies is poised to
take the market and whole segments of social
machinery completely to pieces.
Economic fundamentals are so overstretched
generally with regard to foreign account deficits,
public debt levels, dependency upon essentially
non-productive profit sectors, existing deficits
on public infrastructure demand, etc. that the
necessary extent of national response effort will
be beyond systemic capacity. Just as fat, sick
people cannot run in an emergency, neither can
fat, sick economies.
Heavily urbanised demographics will leave
most people stranded well away from close or
easy access to basic resources such as food and
water as prices rise and supply wanes. Many of
these pubic utility resources are now privatised,
presenting a further potential complication to
equitable management in crisis. If you're on the
public side of the crisis that is. It offers many
interesting opportunities to resource owners.
Dependency upon infrastructure systems such as
power and sewage has become enormous. How
could anyone live in many modern houses, let
alone in medium to high-rise units, without air-
conditioning? A serious cost factor even short of
supply failure.
Events are looming like a screenplay for
Capitalism meets Easter Island. But this will not be a
spectator's show. Everyone will be an actor.
So, how does it effect you and what can be done?
Just some questions:
Do you have a mortgage or any other individual
or cumulative significant debt?
Do you depend upon a lot of fuel for accessing
work and supply outlets?
Are your supply outlets remote from the
producers?
Is your water supply energy dependent and
accessed from remote storage?
Each yes, particularly the first one, adds cause
for concern. Not for immediate alarm but for some
serious consideration and research.
One question of primary value is:
What do you need to live, what is usefully
desirable and what is easily expendable filler?
This question will soon become a keystone topic
as the world we now see out of our window every
day, and believe in implicitly, gets wobbly and
gradually comes unstuck.
Smart people will begin to consider it very
earnestly now. Their well-considered findings will
define the various things - values, resources, people
and situations - that represent good options for the
future as against poor ones. The basic concept to
abide by is that things will soon no longer be the
same as they now are, and never will be again. The
operational patterns that are now accepted by rote
will no longer be either durable or safe.
How soon, how rapid and how exactly will
change be?
How long is a piece of string? The fundamentals
are clear, but there are a lot of moving parts.
Will the US and China begin a serious tussle over
the remaining oil?
Will China or the OPEC nations call in their
enormous investment in US Govt. Bonds and
utterly tank the US $ and economy.overnight?
A pyrrhic victory perhaps as the US is currently
their major market for manufactured crap and oil
respectively, but who knows what might happen
in what is ultimately a zero sum game anyway.
They're all mad at that level. Anything is possible.
Look at Iraq, and probably soon Iran.
Will the huge Saudi Ghawar oilfeild collapse next
week, next year or in a decade? Pumping now at
a 55% water cut (65% pretty much means a dead
field), anything is possible and nearly everything
that is actually happening there is secret.
When will another huge natural or contrived
event sweep out the last of the Gulf of Mexico
extraction capacity, the S.E. US refining capacity,
or another key oil production region?
Etc., etc., etc.
Will some happen all at once? Maybe rapidly as
soon as next year. Maybe slowly over a decade. The
fact is, things are actually changing already.
Fuel costs are beginning to soar and there is no
end to that in sight
Foreign and domestic policies are gearing up to
assist in the securement of key energy resources
and to enable tighter levels of social control.
Access to commons is tightening.
Traditionally public resources are being
commodified and privatised.
Public services are being consistently constricted
and charged for.
The last four are very dire signals of a possible
transition ahead to a neo-feudal state. Growth is a
social control device that provides very amenable
carrots and sticks. With growth rendered an
impossible strategy by energy shortage, elites will
return to more traditional means of acquitting the
core task of hierarchical civilisation. Time perhaps
to re-read 1984. The stage play could already be
underway. If so, the debt levels and location of
both individuals and their communities will be of
paramount importance. The indebted will be the
first into bondage and servitude if things go that
particular way.
There is also the possibility of quite softly
benign outcomes, but structurally significant and
needing preparation just the same. A shrinkage back
from rampant globalism, return of local political
autonomies and ressurection of production for local
need by local people, re-engaging them with some
purpose, dignity and meaningful community.
Things may well be good in some areas and awful
in others. Government may get (more?) patchy in its
influence without the intense energy supply needed
to generically manage and regulate vast areas.
There's still much of great interest to examine
in the social contexts of form and opportunity, as
well as attendant individual options But that's the
overview. You may want to discuss it and its various
extensions. I hope you dont want to simply dismiss
it. Not because it would hurt me. I think that option
would end up hurting you and those you care about.
The religious technological peerage will contend
that such system criticisms are madness. Methodical
scientific calculation says they are not. Go figure.
Not just ultimately, but also now immmediately,
what will protect us from the onslaught of entropy?
Machinery directed from a global political maze?
Hardly! It's time to choose. Not choosing is a choice.
Cheers Rob, much appreciated and thanks again to both you and Greg.
--------------------
The following article by a leading investment firm discusses recent massive economic setbacks for prospective 'tar-sands' extraction.
Of Oilsands and Caviar and Malthus (PDF) - click here for full article (http://www.sprott.com/pdf/marketsataglance/07-2006.pdf)
Eric Sprott and Sasha Solunac, Sprott Asset Management
...we were shocked two week ago when Shell Canada and Western Oil Sands announced that the price tag of their Athabasca oilsands expansion won?t be $7.3 billion (Canadian dollars) as initially projected, but rather $11 billion.
...
If that?s not inflation folks, then we don?t know what is. This isn?t the first, and we doubt it will be the last, cost increase that we?ll hear about in the oilsands. Costs there are a continually moving upward target.
Announcements like this make it most obvious that the era of cheap oil is clearly over, especially when it costs so much for the world to get that incremental barrel of oil production, especially from heretofore unconventional sources. Remember that the oilsands were supposed to be the great saviour of the world?s energy problems. It would appear that this purveyor of abundant energy is on its way to ignominity due to spiraling costs.
As unfortunate as that announcement was for oilsands producers, this article isn?t about the oilsands. More interesting is what it implies for the cost of all things going forward. To wit, this article will be a general discussion on two inter-rated principles, or perhaps more accurately, two inter-related perils.
One is cost-push inflation, and the other is Malthusian theory. As we?ve already said, we found the oilsands announcement to be shocking ? so much so that it effectively changed the landscape. Not only is it highly inflationary, but we fear that it is the kind of inflation that threatens to pervade absolutely everything. It is difficult to envision a scenario where the cost of energy soars without impacting the cost of all things, whether good or service. Just about everything we do comes from or relies on energy.
A bit more on carbon sequestration...
Important! Why Carbon Sequestration Won't Save Us
July 31, 2006 09:10 AM - Michael G. Richard, near Ottawa
Carbon sequestration, also known as geosequestration, seems like a good deal. "Have your carbon cake and eat it too." In principle, it works this way: You capture CO2 emissions at the source before they are released into the atmosphere, compress them until they become liquid and then inject them in deep underground holes. What could be simpler? It certainly sounds like a good tool to fight global warming while enjoying the Earth's huge coal reserves.
I used to think that it would indeed be one of the many solutions used to save ourselves from catastrophic climate change, but not anymore. In fact, I now think that it might be a counter-productive red herring. What has made me change my mind? What's the problem? Read on, please.
Tim Flannery, in his highly recommended book The Weather Makers, dedicates a chapter to engineering solutions to global warming. In it, he gives an overview of carbon sequestration technology, the problems that have to be solved before it can work, and what the coal industry has been doing so far.
Here are the problems in order:
Click Here For Rest Of Article (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/carbon_sequestration.php)
Michaelangelica
28-08-2006, 08:01 PM
Grow you own oil:-
http://forums.hypography.com/chemistry/ ... pher+plant (http://forums.hypography.com/chemistry/7979-oil-plants.html?highlight=gopher+plant)
This link details a largely unheard of (outside Europe) event in Britain during 2000 when the 'oil tap' ran dry for 10 days and what happened to society...very interesting reading:
Remember, Remember the 5th of September, 2000 (click here for full article) (http://www.peakoilblues.com/blog/?p=16)
...
On September 9th, a nation-wide panic buying of fuel began. A few days later, over half of Britain?s gas stations were shut down. When the first deliveries of gas began again on September 15th, 90 percent of gas stations were without fuel. Still, even though all protest had stopped, motorists were warned that they could still face a wait of up to two weeks for gas and delivering that gas posed a ?massive logistical problem.? (4)
The impact on critical infrastructure was devastating. Food didn?t get delivered to supermarket shelves. Ambulance services stopped as did blood supplies to hospitals. One hospital ran out of stitches and many more complained about being unable to move hazardous materials from their facilities, creating health risk. Medicines were not delivered to pharmacies. ATM machines weren?t loaded with money. The financial impact of the week-long fuel drought was estimated to top £1 billion. (5)
Despite a five percent increase in rider-ship on public transportation (causing overcrowding), trains and buses were required to reduce frequency or stop service on many lines because of lack of gasoline or drivers who couldn?t get to work. Hospital personnel shortages also caused all but emergency hospital care to be cancelled. The ambulances that did run were told to keep their speed below 34.2 km/ to conserve fuel. (6)
Food sales increased 300 percent, and as the sight of empty shelves became common, panic buying increased. By September 13th, having no bread or milk, a number of supermarkets began rationing food purchases.(7)
Postal services were gradually reduced and ?seriously threatened.? Guaranteed next day delivery was suspended, and plans had to be put in place to insure that social security checks were delivered to those dependent on them. (8)
Other businesses were equally troubled:
...
Michaelangelica
06-09-2006, 02:33 PM
[quote="Jez"]A bit more on carbon sequestration...
[quote]
Widespread adoption of Terra preta gardening and farming methods(see this forum and Hypography forum) have the potential to sequester our yearly production of carbon. (acording to calculations done at Cornell Uni).
This would at least "keep us running on the spot" until some better idea came along.
I don't think sequestration of liquid CO2 is viable
On coal; Dr Karl has an interesting take:-
(A new power staion has just been announced for lake Munmorah on the central Coast of NSW)
"Dr. Karl's" reaction to coal power stations
In his book "Sensational Moments in Science", ABC Press, 2001.
"In 1982, some 111 (US)nuclear-fired power plants consumed about 540 tonnes of nuclear fuel.
In the same year, coal-fired power plants released over 800 tonnes of uranium." into the atmosphere.
"If a single nuclear-fired plant released 8K of uranium into the bio-sphere. there would be . .an enormous outcry."
He says the nuclear content of coal has not yet reached general public awareness in the same way that the greenhouse effect AIDs, or the ozone hole have.
There are no nuclear regulations about the disposal of coal ash
Coal apparently contains a heap of uranium and thorium
He concludes that you will get three times more radiation from a coal fired power plant than a nuclear fueled power plant! That's if you include the complete nuclear fuel cycle mining, processing operating, disposal(!?)
If you don't include these your average coal-fired power plant puts out 100 times more radiation than a nuclear-fired plant.
p103-104
Yep, the last link I posted on the terra petra thread was all about using it for sequestration MA.
Very interesting on what Dr Karl says...shame he doesn't say it a bit louder and more publicly.
Probably time to add a couple of update articles in the wake of Chevron's deap sea discovery ('Jack') in the Gulf...accompanied by some wildly optimistic headlines and hype in the mainstream media.
Hyping Jack No. 2 (Click Here For Full Article) (http://www.energybulletin.net/20469.html)
The news of this great ?discovery? naturally was replayed by nearly every newspaper and TV network in the country. Katie Couric ran a segment about the discovery on her first evening news show. Most reporting emphasized the possibility that the US might have found another 15 billion barrels of oil in its own backyard, but tempered the jubilation with the news that the find would have no immediate impact on gasoline prices.
A few, mostly financial journalists, took the announcement as an opportunity to disparage the idea of imminent peak oil. These writers are aware that should world oil production go into decline within the next decade the world?s economy would be in a lot of trouble, not to mention the credibility of those who make a living by forecasting decades of growth ahead. Therefore, they eagerly accepted the dubious premise that this one test proves that plenty of oil can be found by drilling deeper so long as oil prices remain high enough to support the costs of ultra-deep oil production; advanced technology is used to the fullest; and environmental restrictions are lifted. Several pronounced peak oil a dead issue.
As the week wore on however, knowledgeable geologists and petroleum engineers began to question all the euphoria. First they noted that the Jack No. 2 test was not conducted on a single oil field that might contain 15 billion barrels oil. Rather, it was one test of a well in a zone that extends for hundreds of miles under the Gulf of Mexico. Whatever producible oil the zone contains will likely be found in numerous smaller deposits.
...
Assuming that producing oil from the Lower Tertiary turns out to be economically and technically feasible, will new production from the region have anything to do with delaying peak oil? The answer is an emphatic NO.
Knowledgeable observers who have commented on the issue agree that even if all goes well, it is unlikely that more than 300-500,000 b/d of production could come into production from all the possible fields in the Lower Tertiary over the next five to seven years. In the meantime, the world will have burned another 150 to 200 billion barrels of oil and US production from existing fields will decline from the current 5 million b/d to somewhere around 4 million b/d.
This suggests that it will take some spectacular and unlikely gains from new production to offset the natural decline currently underway in the US. Of still greater concern is production from Mexico?s giant 2 million b/d Cantarell oilfield, most of which is exported to the US. Creditable reports suggest that Cantarell is entering very rapid depletion and may be producing at a fraction of its current level five years from now. It would be virtually impossible for this level of new production from the Lower Tertiary to come online in the next five years.
So long as the world continues to consume some 31 billion barrels of oil a year, there is still nothing in sight that can forestall imminent peak oil.
Hit the Road Jack (Click Here For Full Article) (http://www.energybulletin.net/20119.html)
Moreover, it?s incredibly important to note that a successful test well doesn?t mean a huge supply of cheap oil will be hitting the market anytime soon. It will most certainly take several years and tens of billions of dollars to bring this oil to the open market. This is a deep sea well, and it?s going to cost a lot of money to get it.
The bottom line is that it?s highly unlikely that 15 billion barrels actually exist in the reservoir and, depending on how much more exploration drilling the companies want to do, it could take up to five years to begin production.
And I hate to rain on the parade, but the way I see it, the new discovery isn?t even close to being what we?ll need to stop the peak oil crisis.
In fact, even if there was 15 billion barrels in the ground down there, a reserve that size would only slightly delay the impending catastrophe.
Here?s why I say that?
Just for argument?s sake, let?s assume that the Chevron-led consortium is able to bring the field into production by 2010. And let?s also assume -- and this is quite an optimistic assumption -- that they?re really able to suck 15 billion barrels of crude out of the new field.
How long will that oil last us?
First we need to consider oil consumption in 2010.
There?s little debate over the future of global oil consumption. The consensus among the world?s leading experts is that global crude demand will only continue to rise over the next few decades.
As it stands today the world consumes about 85 million barrels of oil per day (MMbbls/d). The International Energy Agency (IEA) -- a Paris-based institute that acts as an energy policy advisor to 26 countries worldwide -- predicts global crude demand to rise to reach 93.7 MMbbls/d in 2011.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) -- a similar organization to the IEA -- reported similar findings. The agency recently estimated that global oil demand will increase nearly 2% a year to 103 MMbbls/d by 2015.
To make it simple, let?s assume global demand will be 90 MMbbls/d in 2010, about the time Chevron and friends will have the 15 billion barrel oil field into production.
With global oil consumption at 90 MMbbls/d, the 15 billion barrels from that field would last the world less than six months!
Interesting and informative article (plus following coments) on the current temporary price drop of oil.
Whither Oil Prices? (Click Here For Article) (http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/9/15/83251/5814)
greeny
20-09-2006, 04:04 PM
Thanks for the links and threads. Just want to let you know that they are being read. Keep it up. ..Wish I could think of something useful to add.
My pleasure greeny, thanks for your comment and I'm glad you're getting something out of the thread.
Link to an excerpt from the fourth 'Carbon Disclosure Project report' which gives a brief outline of Peak Oil and warns investors to not only factor global warming into their investments, but also to consider the impact of Peak Oil and gain a much better understanding of it.
The report is aimed at institutional investors with combined assets of $US31 trillion...between this group and the significant assets controlled by Matt Simmons' investment group (Simmons & Comapny International), it's increasingly clear that the savvy investors are seeing through the 'spin' over energy resources and realising that Peak Oil will play a huge role in determining future global economic dynamics.
Institutional investors warned about peak oil and climate change (click here for article) (http://www.energybulletin.net/20577.html)
Rig shortage to stunt oil output growth for years (Click Here for full article) (http://za.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2006-09-19T063630Z_01_BAN923759_RTRIDST_0_OZABS-ENERGY-RIG-SHORTAGE-20060919.XML)
LONDON (Reuters) - A global shortage of rigs will hamper attempts to raise global oil and gas output for years, oil service company executives and consultants said on Monday.
As producers look to boost crude and gas output to meet soaring demand growth, the global supply of rigs is stretched to the limit and is insufficient to meet industry needs.
"To get up to speed to meet the drilling needs of the industry, it's going to take a lot of time," said Pete Miller, Chief Executive of oil drilling equipment maker National Oilwell Varco.
Many rigs in service need to be replaced, Miller told an oil industry conference in London. He said the average age of rigs worldwide is now older than the average age at which they would typically be scrapped.
Production declines in spite of high oil prices - by Roger Blanchard (Click Here for full article) (http://www.energybulletin.net/20649.html)
While the price of West Texas Intermediate oil was above $70/barrel for much of the first half of 2006 and the average price of all oil grades was about $27/barrel higher than the average during 2004, global liquid hydrocarbons production declined more than 100,000 barrels/day (b/d) compared to the first half of 2005, according to U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (US DOE/EIA) data.
For comparison purposes, global liquid hydrocarbons production increased 3.43 mb/d in 2004 and 1.47 mb/d in 2005.
Much of the global liquid hydrocarbons production increase from 2003 to 2005 was due to OPEC, which increased production 3.66 mb/d as excess capacity was brought on-line. Now there is little or no excess capacity to bring on-line.
Many new oil projects have come on-line globally in the last few years and many will come on-line in the next 5 years. Unfortunately, many of the world?s large oil fields are declining rapidly and the price of oil has virtually no impact on the rate of decline for those declining fields.
Increases in production from new projects are largely being negated by production declines from old fields.
Analysis of the recent report to the Australian Senate regarding Peak Oil by Tom Whipple:
This report to the Australian Senate is important in that an independent public body, after reviewing a wide range of evidence for and against the imminent peaking of world oil production, has reached conclusions and made recommendations.
The report is refreshing in that it approaches peak oil backwards. Instead of launching into the reasons many believe world oil production will peak soon, the report begins by reviewing the reasoning behind the ?official? predictions that it won?t.
The ?official? arguments that most governments, oil companies, and international organizations use to argue that there are many decades of increasing world oil production ahead are roughly as follows:
- Estimates of world oil reserves continue to grow faster than the 31 billion barrels we consume each year.
- The US Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that there are still another two trillion barrels of conventional oil under ground ? either in known reserves or waiting to be discovered. High prices and improving technology will allow this oil to be discovered and brought to market.
- Current high oil prices are an aberration caused by a rapid, unexpected increase in demand, particularly from China, and the lack of sufficient investment to satisfy this demand in recent years.
- Tar sands, heavy Orinoco oil, and shale are cited as yet another reason there is even more oil left to be exploited.
The critique of the ?official? government and oil industry predictions by peak oil proponents starts by noting that their estimates of recoverable reserves are simply over-optimistic and that a geologic peak for conventional oil is likely somewhere in the next 25 years.
Peak oil proponents cite the following:
- World discovery of oil peaked in the 1960s. The world is presently using oil faster than it is finding more. Production in many major oil-producing countries is in decline.
- Oil reserves reported by Middle East countries are self-serving and untrustworthy. State-owned oil companies do not release detailed production data and do not permit independent audits.
- The USGS estimate of world oil reserves, made in 2000, is ?thoroughly flawed.? The estimated extrapolated US experience, under which new fields were assessed conservatively and then allowed ?to grow? over time, is criticized as not being applicable when the oil fields being found today are much smaller than those found in the past. If the USGS projection that there are still some two billion barrels of conventional oil underground is true, the world would be finding far more oil than it is today.
- The critics of the ?official? predictions note that while 500-600 billion barrels of non-conventional oil exist, the difficulty, cost, and environmental problems associated with exploiting this oil is so great that it is largely irrelevant to offsetting large declines in conventional oil production that are expected shortly.
In commenting on the two positions, the Senate Committee made some interesting observations. Those who assert that imminent peaking of oil production is unlikely commonly assert that increasing oil prices will bring more exploration and a higher rate of recovery from existing fields. The Committee notes that the increasing costs associated with advanced oil recovery techniques, such as ultra-deep drilling, may be reaching a point where the costs outweigh the benefits.
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.?
Link to the full report:
"Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels" (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/int_report/index.htm)
Update on Peak Oil and Beyond from Matt Simmons (audio - mp3,RAM, WMV)
Well worth a listen even for those familiar with Simmons' work.
(Click Here to choose a format and listen) (http://www.financialsense.com/Experts/2006/Simmons.html)
Australian Dr. Paul Roth has a site on medicinal matters relating to a post-Peak Oil world for anyone interested.
A recent article from the site:
Permaculture-inspired ideas for healthcare after peak oil
We will need to look at the big picture first, and not get lost in the details of a solution. The strategies used at each location will be different, and will likely need to be adapted to changes that occur over time (for example if there is a sudden influenza epidemic, severe drought, or other catastrophe).
As permaculture uses 'self-maintaining systems', the implication is that each individual will need to take more responsibility for their own body, and try to be as healthy as possible. There will need to be a change in focus from the treatment of disease to the promotion of wellness. This idea is derived from the principle of minimising waste, as it is wasteful to use scarce healthcare resources treating a preventable disease.
The system will also need to allow for changes in illness patterns. On the one hand, people are likely to be much more active, eat less processed food and lose weight. On the other hand, accidents, musculoskeletal injuries and infectious diseases may be more prevalent.
Additionally, it will be important to enlist the whole community in achieving good health, and the current boundaries that separate medical workers from the general public will become blurred.
Sustainable healthcare systems will probably include plant-based treatments (based on the ability of plants to catch and store solar energy). Holmgren says that 'herbal medicine might not provide a complete pharmacopoeia, but we can, to a very great extent, successfully treat many ailments with locally grown and processed botanical medicines.' While you may or may not agree with this assertion, it is the idea behind it that is important: that locally produced things can fix health problems.
The focus on diversity and small-scale and slow (or lower-tech) solutions is based on Schumacher's work. It is a concept that supports relocalisation, and the judicious use of technology on an appropriate scale (perhaps using a microscope to check a urine specimen for infection in a doctor's office, rather than sending the specimen off to the lab for culture).
Click Here for full article (http://peakoilmedicine.com/index/2006/10/08/peak-oil-and-healthcare-relocalisation/)
bella
14-10-2006, 11:18 PM
Whenever I have a question about Peak Oil, Jez, I come here and you've dug up a link or three that tell me what I need to know.
Thanks for this thread!
My pleasure Bel.
I've tried to cover all the many bases without making it too huge and without putting in too many difficult to read or overly technical articles...so it's great to have feedback that people are getting the answers they're after. 8)
Douglas J.E. Barnes
16-10-2006, 09:08 AM
Wow, this is bizarre. Bella, I typed out almost the exact comment on Friday but didn't hit send. So when I saw your comment, I though that it was mine for a second there.
Jez, this really is turning out to be a one-stop peak oil shop!
Thanks Douglas, glad you're getting something out of it.
The scary part is that I probably only post one out of every 50 or so articles I read on the subject. :lol:
Douglas J.E. Barnes
17-10-2006, 12:38 AM
It looks like you are posting into the void because there are not many comments. But rest assured that we see these posts. As Bella said, you've made quite a resource here.
:lol:
Yeah, I did wonder about the 'posting into the void' aspect Douglas, but then I noticed a while back that the thread's had quite a few views and it always keeps ticking upwards, so I guess a fair few people just have a look regularly and keep their thoughts to themselves...which is fine with me.
I'd just hate years down the track to have known the likely repercussions of Peak Oil and have not done the small amount I'm capable of towards spreading the word.
Lots of people on the forum know far more than me and have much more experience in a wide range of Permaculture fields, so this is one little way I can add to the forum on a topic I've got a fair bit of experience in.
Besides, all the Peak Oil sites promote Permaculture at every opportunity, so it'd be a shame if our Permaculture site didn't have some sort of resource on Peak Oil. :D
gnoll110
18-10-2006, 02:33 PM
Thanks Douglas, glad you're getting something out of it.
The scary part is that I probably only post one out of every 50 or so articles I read on the subject. :lol:
Cool Jez
So I assume you have them all scanned in on a hard drive somewhere?
I hope you load them into a wiki or behind a search engine sometime.
Any articles on broad acre grains, either/both for summer and winter grains?
Gnoll110
Cool Jez
So I assume you have them all scanned in on a hard drive somewhere?
I hope you load them into a wiki or behind a search engine sometime.
Any articles on broad acre grains, either/both for summer and winter grains?
Gnoll110
No, I save very few Gnoll...most of the ones I don't put here are really highly technical articles.
What were you after on grains? Viability in a post-peak world (or ATM for that matter with the ever rising costs)? Grain shortages? Something else?
gnoll110
19-10-2006, 10:49 AM
Yes, Viability in a post-peak world. Also studies of enviromental affect & any mitagation practices/research.
Anything about the Brigalow Belt would be of interest too.
Gnoll110
Sure Gnoll, I'll try and hunt up a few along those lines over the next week or so then post them onto a separate 'grain' thread. Don't think anything will be specific to the Brigalow Belt though. Most of the stuff I've read on grain has been specific to the dwindling global stores (at their lowest level in a long time) and the fact many grain farmers - even the heavily subsidised ones - are finding rising inputs difficult or impossible to manage. So there'll definitely be a few along those lines...I'll see what else I can find in various archives.
----------------------------------------------------------
This article is a ripper from Richard Heinberg on "post-hydrocarbon aesthetics." Not really specific 'need-to-know' Peak-Oil knowledge, but fascinating stuff nonetheless IMO and well worth a read.
post-hydrocarbon aesthetics (Click here for article) (http://www.energybulletin.net/21466.html)
gnoll110
20-10-2006, 03:37 PM
Hi Jez & All
Was after anything Brigalow Belt, as it's a large Bio-Region (related series of bio-regions really) extending from south of Dubbo in central-western NSW to Townsville on the north Queensland coast. Anything that might note things and relationships that might be useful in design (partually Zones 4 & 5).
Yes, it my understand that reseves have not been this low since the first oil shock in the early 1970s.
Gnoll110
bella
21-10-2006, 10:52 PM
Douglas, why didn't you hit send? Jez deserves thanks, LOL. I think (hope) others feel the same way and were too shy to post too. I'm sure Jez won't mind a bit of encouragement for his efforts. :D
Thanks again, Jez. Oh, and I found a great oral history of the Depression era called Weevils in the Flour. Thanks for that too. And the kids and I are reading some fiction as well.
G'day Gnoll,
Haven't got anything that specific and haven't been able to find anything...if you're up to speed on global grain levels and rising input costs then anything I have found or had probably wouldn't be much use.
I'll see if I can come up with something on diversified inter-cropping specific to grain farming in your sort of climate.
G'day Bel,
Yep, Weevils is a pretty good reference. I found a recommended reading for the GD from USYD (Click Here) (http://teaching.arts.usyd.edu.au/history/hsty2014/week4.html) which you might also find helpful - as I think I said before, most of the info available is in academic libraries which the public can't access (unless you happen to know someone with a student card!), so that makes things a bit tough.
Might be a few things on that list available in the public library though...the journal articles obviously won't be (and they are often the best), but the books listed (particularly the social impact section) could well be worth a try (Wheatley, Potts, Spencely, Cannon particularly) . Both the ones in the 'essential reading' are good for a big picture overview.
---------------------------------------------
Link to a few Heinberg audio interviews on various topics including Powerdown and The Oil Depletion Protocol (Click Here) (http://www.financialsense.com/Experts/2006/Heinberg.html)
Plus an article from Kurt Cobb which is a good overview on wildly fluctuating energy markets and the reasons behind this phenomenon:
Mr. Market, manic-depressive: Is there a cure? (Click Here) (http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2006/10/mr-market-manic-depressive-is-there_22.html)
For those interested, Google Video has Colin Campbell's 'The End of the First Half of the Age of Oil' available to watch - (Click Here To View Video) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-596805984521272213&hl=en)
Campbell is the founder of ASPO (Association For The Study Of Peak Oil) and the video is from a conference called 'Fuelling The Future' held in Kinsale during 2005.
fiona
07-11-2006, 04:55 PM
Not sure if this link has already been posted - its a few yrs old, but I just stumbled across it and found it very interesting reading. A different approach from most of the articles and books, but quite compelling.
http://www.richardheinberg.com/archive/110.html
"A Letter From The Future"
Fiona
Thanks Fiona...yep, Heinberg has a knack of putting things brilliantly.
Which brings me to his new book - The Oil Depletion Protocol - a plan to avert oil wars, terrorism and economic collapse - and a review by Rob Hopkins from Transition Culture (Click Here for the Transition Culture homepage) (http://www.transitionculture.org/).
Click Here for the book review (http://www.transitionculture.org/?p=506)
---------------------
Also, an important article by Luis de Sousa which looks into:
Oil Exports
This article is a first simplistic assessment of World Oil Exports, here defined has the total amount of liquid hydrocarbons that are surpluses in producing countries. This assessment is made by projecting in to the future fixed change rates that reflect current trends in liquids production and consumption in countries where presently the difference between the two is positive. The outcome of this assessment is worrisome.
(Click Here for full article) (http://www.energybulletin.net/22213.html)
There's a fair bit of data in the article, and it is a pioneer study meant to provide a rough idea rather than attempt a perfect analysis, but it is the first study to take into some account the likely (and current) rising consumption in oil producing nations as they begin to receive more income from their exports.
It also provides a good pie-chart breakdown of world oil exporters, their production rates and other useful data.
Personally, I think some of the data is very optimistic in places - as the author and the sources he's drawn from concede - but still paints an important picture.
If the article is a bit much for some, scrolling down to nearly the botoom of the page to have a look at Figure 23 and reading the conclusion is a good summary.
fiona
12-11-2006, 08:03 PM
Which brings me to his new book - The Oil Depletion Protocol - a plan to avert oil wars, terrorism and economic collapse - and a review by Rob Hopkins from Transition Culture (Click Here for the Transition Culture homepage).
Has anyone read "The Oil Depletion Protocol" yet? Any comments on it? I've seen it promoted, but have a bit of a backlog of books for the moment and wondered if it was worth getting.
Fiona
There's an audio lecture or full transcript with Heinberg outlining his ideas regarding The Oil Depletion Protocol available here (Click Here to go to download page) (http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/742) Fiona, and included is David Holmgren's accompanying lecture on Permaculture responses to Peak Oil - from their recent Australian tour.
Obviously the book is more detailed, but if you just want the gist of it the lecture is all you really need.
fiona
13-11-2006, 04:30 PM
Finally watched End of Suburbia right through today and have also started reading Powerdown - both things I've been trying to get to for a while. Both seem very worthwhile. Hoping End of Suburbia will make some of the info more accessible for people who aren't interested in committing to reading up about Peak Oil. Has anyone else used it to show friends/family who have been uninterested to help them see what the problem is? Any comments on results?
Fiona
newcroft
13-11-2006, 06:54 PM
I haven't shown The End of Suburbia (EOS) to anyone yet, but I can tell you it had a big impact on me. Although I've been 'green' for a while, I didn't really know much about permaculture until after watching EOS. That changed very very quickly. I realised that the current economy is going nowhere fast with peak oil approaching, so I'm currently learning all I can about sustainability and permaculture.
I'm keen to have some public showings of EOS, and would love to hear if anyone here has held public showings, along with getting local media involved etc.
I have some friends who will be showing the doco to a large group of their church soon. It will be very interesting to see how they go.
BTW, can't wait to see "The Power of Community - How Cuba Survived Peak Oil". Perhaps it's no good just showing the problem, some real solutions have to be suggested as well.
fiona
14-11-2006, 06:49 AM
BTW, can't wait to see "The Power of Community - How Cuba Survived Peak Oil". Perhaps it's no good just showing the problem, some real solutions have to be suggested as well.
Yes, I was thinking that End of Suburbia has a big focus on the lead up and background, a bit on what may happen, but not much on options for after. Was wondering about trying to do a series in a local community centre or something like that.
Fiona
newcroft
14-11-2006, 05:06 PM
Was wondering about trying to do a series in a local community centre or something like that.
Fiona
A group in Tasmania is actually doing a series of peak oil doco's now. Check this out;
http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/Refere ... ochure.pdf (http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/EventsDocs/TasBrochure.pdf)
greeny
14-11-2006, 07:37 PM
It took me about 5 hours to download 10 minutes on internet here, but it looked pretty good and I decided it needed circulating so I just ordered it from Byron Child. Ill be getting it to as many people as I can. I also ordered the Power of Community which sounds very positive. I haven't seen it yet.
My advice is Be bold, take it to community active people to start with. Like neighborhood center , if you don't get positive response don't give up. Make a public showing. Advertise it, have tea and coffee after. see what happens. I would like to eventually reach a teacher or two and then schools. I do feel it is important for people to see possible positive outcomes and a path to work towards. So that is why I hope to motivate a few active types first.
Yeah, it's occasionally a bugger not having broadband or ADSL eh Greeny?
-------------
A technical data article from The Oil Drum to complement the last one I posted a link to...lots of facts and figures which assess the production decline of those countries we know for sure are in decline.
Why We (Really) May Have Entered an Oil Production Plateau (Click Here to view article) (http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/2/204936/516)
---------------
There's a book that's been recently released entitled Peak Oil Prep which some people may be interested in. A blurb and list of topics covered is available here (Click Here to view) (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/11/prweb476440.htm).
I haven't read it, so this is not an endorsement or recommendation - just a heads up. Anyone who gets hold of a copy, please feel free to share your thoughts on the info within.
derek
15-11-2006, 07:26 PM
Hey Jez,
I too appreciate all the resources you have been sourcing and posting in this thread - really useful reading. Again, I really liked the article on health care post-peak and from a permaculture perspective. The more I think about it, the more I feel that health care provision to those who need it will be a really huge issue in the next three or four decades.
I have an old book called 'The Universal Home Doctor' which I think dates from the 1920s or 1930s. It is full of really simple (and some complex) ways to treat common illnesses, sprains, wounds, chronic complaints etc. Most of the remedies are a combination of hygeine, nutrition, good nursing techniques, rest and careful monitoring. What strikes me most of all, reading the book, is the wholistic approach it takes to health and recovery, including prevention. Perhaps we will have to rely more and more on this type of home medical treatment in the future.
Cheers Derek, glad you're enjoying it. I linked to another article you might be interested in on the Greer thread where we were discussing this that you might like to check out (incase you missed it), plus here (Click) (http://www.energybulletin.net/22428.html) and here (Click) (http://peakoilmedicine.com/index/2006/11/06/dan-bednarz-on-peak-oil-and-public-health/) are a couple more recent ones you may find worth a read.
We've got TUHD - it's a good resource I reckon. You're right about the wholistic approach...I was reading a book a while back about Hippocrates, Herophilus, Erasistratus and some of the very early physicians...these blokes were very limited in their understanding of the human body, but again, the wholistic approach (especially prevention, diet, surroundings and use of placebo to help with a positive patient mindset) went a fair part of the way.
--------------
Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) have just released a report which is critical of what it calls 'peakists' and Peak Oil theory in general.
The article and a good followup is available at Energy Bulletin (Click to view) (http://www.energybulletin.net/22381.html)...a few snippets of the after discussion:
The recent CERA report is both frustrating and encouraging.
On the one hand, CERA complains that peak oil proponents
have not made available a transparent and detailed analysis that would allow an objective and rational discussion.
And yet the short report cited by this press release is not publicly available (the 16-page PDF is sold for $1000).
In contrast, a vast quantity of peak oil literature is available online for free. The Oil Drum, for example, publishes a stream of reports and analyses, many by industry experts. Most of us who work on peak oil issues are volunteers - could not CERA make more of their arguments public, so that a true discussion might be held?
The Australian Senate Inquiry into Australia?s future oil supply and alternative transport fuels reached a strikingly different conclusion, stating:
Peak oil proponents have criticised official estimates of future oil supply with detailed and plausible arguments. The Committee is not aware of any official agency publications which attempt to rebut the peak oil arguments point by point in similar detail.
...
CERA frequently lumps unconventional sources of petroleum together with conventional sources. Peakists tend to analyze them separately.
CERA takes an optimistic view of technological improvements. Peakists are more conservative.
CERA does not mention EROEI (energy return on energy invested) in its press release or report. Peakists are constantly talking about the EROEI of energy sources.
Seems like more smoke and mirrors from another organisation purporting to be reputable, releasing 'debunking' press statements, yet hiding their actual data behind a $1000 dollar paywall. No doubt there will be some who pay the money (probably while CERA laugh all the way to the bank! :lol:) so we'll no doubt hear more on this 'debate' - where one side makes the other 'pay to play' - shortly.
Just thought I'd include this on the off-chance it's a big hit with the mass media over the next few days.
murray
16-11-2006, 05:12 PM
Today, the Cambridge Energy Research Associates (http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/about/about.aspx) released a report dismissing (http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=8444) the Peak Oil theory, suggesting that world oil production will continue to increase for the next 24 years (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15715744/), and then only level into a plateau.
The report, which suggests that world reserves are enough to last 122 years at our current rate of consumption, also blasts Peak Oil theorists for repeatedly making unscientific predictions and then shifting them whenever their predictions fail to materialize.
I take it you missed my above post Murray? :D
Is your last paragraph a quote from an article you haven't linked to or that I have missed, or your opinion?
-----------------
There's been numerous responses to the CERA press release over the last 24 hours or so, I'll link to a couple below.
I'll add a few of my own thoughts first in summary, some of which are echoed in the linked articles below...
Perhaps the most glaringly obvious 'stupidity' from the CERA press release occurs when they state that the notion of a peak is 'a dramatic but highly questionable image'...and yet their own graph (figure 1 from the press release) (http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=8444) confirms exactly that image plain as can be. Rather than 'debunking' Peak Oil, their own graph confirms it - the only actual difference of opinion being that they think 'non-conventional' oil sources will fill the breach once 'conventional' oil peaks, and that this will help provide for a longer total production plateau.
It's a nice comforting thought to assume non-conventional sources of oil can fill the breach once 'conventional' oil peaks (as the CERA graph demonstrates), but what do current facts regarding production levels tell us?
Oil shale currently provides the world with 1/10,000th of its oil needs. Global production has never been more than 25,000 bpd (barrels per day). To ramp up to a tiny 100,000bpd, Shell is currently building a 1200MW powerplant - which will make this project the largest consumer of electricity on earth (see Peddling PetroProzac below for more details). All recent shale extraction projects have had massive cost blowouts (see past articles on this thread), while other supposed 'non-conventional saviours' have similar or worse problems with the bottom line.
The very few 'scientists' railing against Peak Oil theory like those at CERA are great at telling us there's no need for alarm because there's plenty of oil sources left in the ground, then drawing pretty and comforting graphs , but typically short on the details of how and when it can be accomplished, the EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested) equation for these future projects, and most importantly, what the end cost will be to the consumer.
Having consistently failed to produce any data of the above nature, it is patently dishonest of CERA to claim production can continue expanding.
As the CERA press release shows, the US has the largest shale deposits in the world. Why then have they since the 70's imported vast quantities of oil from the other side of the globe and spent further trillions trying to secure access to it? Because it's massively expensive on the EROEI scale, and requires stupendous amounts of water and electricity to produce. The only reason US oil giants are now doing it is because rather than spend further billions on exploration in what limited areas remain open to them (80% of remaining global reserves belong to national companies and are off limits to Shell, Exxon etc), they are gambling on making wringing blood from a stone at home work - their limited future depends upon it.
In short, the US oil giants have pumped the vast majority of the 'easy' and 'cheap' oil they can get their hands on, and are now gambling that they will be able to pull off a massively expensive, resource intensive technology which can surpass the production levels of all the easy oil they're now (as proven by the fact they're undertaking it at all) close to exhausting.
CERA, again dishonestly, uses Hubbert as the leading proponent of Peak Oil, effectively debunking a bloke who made incredibly accurate predictions considering he did so in an age where he was working with a slide rule and pencil - rather than a computer. Yet, there again, large as life in the 2nd CERA graphic from the press release, is confirmation of his method. The Hubbert predicted decline in production may be out in terms of number of barrels produced, but it is almost spot on in terms of the curve - they are practically identical.
Rather than challenge the wealth of data from present day Peak Oil theorists, CERA would rather nitpick at the work of a man who had extremely accurate predictions for his time - again, as their own graphic confirms - and pretend that his work is the cutting edge of Peak Oil theory, rather than what it is...a very accurate theory for its time. What CERA has done is analagous to attacking the ancient Greeks because they were out by a few miles when they predicted the circumference of the earth so astonishingly well, and pretend that nobody has revised and refined the measurement since.
[cont]
Following the 'Hubbert deception', they attempt this gem:
Those who believe a peak is imminent tend to consider only proven remaining reserves of conventional oil, which they currently estimate at about 1.2 trillion barrels. In the view of many petroleum geologists, this is a pessimistic estimate because it excludes the enormous contribution likely from probable and possible resources, those yet to be found, and plays down the importance of unconventional reserves in the Canadian oil sands, the Orinoco tar belt, oil shale and GTL projects.
Who exactly are these mysterious "those who believe?" Would a credible scientific organisation directly refer to a piece of work, or a person, instead of offering up a vague "those who believe?" Then follow up with an equally vague "many petroleum geologists" - utterly failing to account for the fact that 'many petroleum geologists' are leading Peak Oil theorists? It's difficult to believe they were merely not willing to 'name names' out of professional respect after their attempted slur on Hubbert.
Funniest of all in the above quote, is that they credit the mysterious, unnamed "those who believe" with the belief that there are 1.2 trillion barrels of conventional recoverable oil left, then attempt to paint this belief as "pessimistic" because of the amount of unconventional oil left! :lol:
Evidently they have a moron for an editor, or have equal difficulty with presenting an honest statement as they do presenting honest science which takes full account of the facts. And this is just the abridged press statement...goodness knows what type of spin and BS the actual report contains.
Anyway, I could go on all night, but I'll leave it there and post the following links for those who want to read further:
Peddling PetroProzac: CERA ignores 10 warning signposts of peak oil (Click to view) (http://www.energybulletin.net/22442.html)
peak oil: the last skeptics capitulate (CERA) (Click to view) (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/15/181957/40)
More links on the 'CERA debate' in coming days...but I'll leave you with an article and quote from a REAL petroleum geologist (who I'm even willing to NAME :lol:) - Keith Skipper, the Managing Director of NorthStar Energy Pty Limited Sydney, Australia:
Vast resources of oil sands and oil in shales do not answer the issue. ('Point of View', April 24th issue). For example, if we accept 175 billion barrels of oil as resources in the Alberta oil sands, even at a production rate of 3 million barrels per day or 1 billion barrels per annum [Jez note: compare this wildly optimistic figure to the massive electricity and water cost for Shell's paltry 100,000 barrels per day project], the annualized 'rate of conversion' is less than 1%. This is less than the current global production loss per annum via field and basin? depletion.
We should all be aware that the 'rate of conversion' might be reaching a peak irrespective of demand, price, netback, crude quality and the speculated global endowment of resources. This 'peak' has already occurred in many oil and gas productive basins which have had an historical transparency in term of access, ready markets, favorable fiscal terms, security and perceived political risk.
Global oil production - 'Rate of Conversion' is the key. (http://www.energybulletin.net/22485.html)
murray
17-11-2006, 12:23 PM
I take it you missed my above post Murray?
sorry - yeah - i did :(
Hehe...never mind, better being on the thread twice than not at all huh? :D
The Oil Drum, courtesy of Dave Cohen, has released the first of their responses to the CERA release - it's a very comprehensive document which totally takes apart the CERA release...to quote just a section would not do it justice, so I'll just provide a link:
Does the Peak Oil "Myth" Just Fall Down? -- Our Response to CERA (Click to view article) (http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/15/83857/186)
It really is a crying shame that an organisation like CERA (who as Dave reveals, is a "wholly-owned subsidiary of IHS Energy (Click to view their wonderful corporate site) (http://energy.ihs.com/)) get such massive media exposure on the basis of bald faced lies and misinformation, while those actually telling the truth get nowhere near the same exposure. I guess that's fairly typical in our mass media though...
Jim Kunstler responds to CERA press release (not much which isn't said elsewhere, but Kunstler is always worth a read IMO) :
The CERA Report (Click to view) (http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2006/11/the_cera_report.html)
And a great piece from Kurt Cobb which, IMO, gets right to the heart of CERA's intentions with this release and clearly sets out their likely motivations:
Does The Oil Drum threaten CERA's market share? (Click to view) (http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2006/11/does-oil-drum-threaten-ceras-market.html)
Part one of Rob Hopkins from Transition Culture (http://transitionculture.org/) interviewing Richard Heinberg re. Peak Oil, public perceptions, future solutions etc:
An Interview with Richard Heinberg - 23rd November 2006 - Part 1 (click to view) (http://transitionculture.org/2006/11/27/exclusive-to-transition-culture-an-interview-with-richard-heinberg-part-one-peak-oil/)
Part two of the interview commenced in the above link:
An Interview with Richard Heinberg - Part Two? Powerdown and Transition Towns. (http://transitionculture.org/2006/11/28/exclusive-to-transition-culture-an-interview-with-richard-heinberg-part-two-powerdown-and-transition-towns/)
-------------------
Next up is a couple of links regarding recent US strategic moves to prevent Russia and other oil exporters from using their natural resources (most importantly, oil and natural gas) to undermine US interests and energy security.
NATO leaders will study at a summit starting on Tuesday whether the alliance should take more action to avert potential threats to energy supplies, for example by mounting patrols of key shipping lanes.
...
U.S. Senate Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Dick Lugar will open a conference on the sidelines of the Riga summit on Monday with a strong call on NATO to vow to come to the aid of any ally facing a threat to its energy supplies.
"NATO must determine what steps it is willing to take if Poland, Germany, Hungary, Latvia or another member state is threatened as Ukraine was," Lugar will tell a conference organized by the German Marshall Fund think-tank.
NATO eyes greater role in energy security (Click to view) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061127/ts_nm/nato_summit_energy_dc_1)
The article goes on to point out that Lugar does not mean to extend 'intervention' to direct military conflict with Russia, but you have to wonder why NATO (a military alliance) is being used rather than a diplomatic channel, if only non-military measures are to be used in resolving the dispute.
IMO, the big picture here is that the US is preparing NATO for a role it may well be used to pursue in the future - go from *protecting* shipments to using NATO to completely *control* the flow of oil to and from key strategic export and import points.
So while China is furiously setting up long term, price fixed contracts with a diverse range of major oil exporting nations (plus every minor player they can cut a deal with - particularly in Africa), the US - via NATO at least for the moment - seems to be positioning itself to be in a situation of profound influence, whereby all energy supplies to non-NATO countries must effectively be sanctioned by the US government and what could well amount to an extremely well armed and resourced naval blockade - set up originally under the guise of protecting shipments.
This blockade could be used to exert enormous pressure...adding very real teeth in the future to 'energy policy' statements like some of their recent ones:
U.S. Ambassador to Georgia John Tefft announced that his country is opposed to a long term strategic cooperation between Georgia and Iran regarding natural gas deliveries.
...
'We have understood when Georgia imported a small quantity of gas from Iran following a force majeoure situation when the gas link from Russia was broken and Georgia was left with no gas supplies in the winter. But long-term strategic cooperation in this issue [of gas deliveries] between Iran and Georgia is unacceptable to us,' the diplomat explained.
U.S. Opposes Long-Term Gas Deliveries from Iran to Georgia (Click to view) (http://www.mosnews.com/money/2006/11/27/usgeorgiagas.shtml)
ATM all they can do about such deals (unlike the above example, we're talking about energy shipments which require sea transport - which is a majority) is say they're 'unacceptable' - in the future, if the above NATO *protection* is implemented, they can back it with in-situ military force.
Not to mention the fact that US aligned 'terrorist pirates' could operate with impunity...'oops, that Venezuelan/Chinese/Russian (etc) supply tanker got captured/destroyed/disabled...but we're doing our best to get to the bottom of whoever did the dastardly deed.' ;-)
All the above is a major development in the global energy situation which could dramatically affect both the energy and political landscape in years to come.
-------------------------
And finally, a very interesting little blog piece comparing and contrasting the amounts of energy potentially available from human labour as opposed to electricity and oil - it's short and I highly recommend it:
What is Energy Worth? (http://www.cleantechblog.com/2006/11/what-is-energy-worth.html)
Would have been even more fascinating if they'd been able to compare the energy derived from traditional agricultural animals like oxen and horses.
The November 2006 Post Carbon Newsletter which includes:
1. Relocalization Network Update 2. Annual Fund Donor Profile: Patricia DeWitt 3. Energy Farms Update 4. Translation volunteers wanted 5. Global Public Media update and A call for programming 6. Featured Post Carbon Group 7. Calendar of Events 8. Next Newsletter Preview
Click here to view (http://postcarbon.org/news/newsletters/nov2006)
Things are going from really bad to worse in Iraq...with possible major consequences for near-term oil prices and global political stability. This article really sets out just how complicated the whole Middle-East has become since the invasion.
Why are the Saudi's continuing to produce circa 9 million barrels a day? Given the tight worldwide oil market, the Saudi's could cut their production in half; the price of oil would more that double; they would get richer; their oil fields would get a much needed rest; and there would be oil left for their great-grand children to export.
What keeps them from cutting production and reaping all these benefits? That too is simple, their relationship with the USA. So long as the US was their number one protector, and needed the oil to keep flowing, the Saudis historically would bend over backwards to help Washington out. The only exception was the short-lived oil boycott back in 1973.
Now, however, everything has changed. Against Saudi advice, the US charged into Baghdad and set 27 million Iraqis at each other's throats. America's partners in the invading "coalition" are bailing out one by one. The US people have just voted to change something and it is clear that "stay the course" is not going to obtain for much longer.
The key Saudi foreign policy objective at the minute clearly is to keep sufficient US military forces in Iraq to keep the lid on the situation for as long as it takes to keep the mess from spilling over into Saudi Arabia itself.
...
Could a major cutback in Saudi oil production bring down America? Maybe not, but it sure could do a lot of harm. The most blatant action would be cut their oil production in half. Taking 4-5 million barrels a day off the world oil market would get everybody's attention very quickly. Oil prices would certainly go well over $100 per barrel. In short order, the US and world economies would suffer greatly.
The peak oil crisis: the Saudi op-ed (Click for full article) (http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=586&Itemid=33)
newcroft
12-12-2006, 09:20 AM
Jez, You are giving us some great info and analysis on peak oil. Keep it up.
This article was in the SMH, and shows how short sighted planning for peak oil and food security is. More McMansions, more expansion, more everything - except food of course.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/good-living/ripe-for-development/2006/11/27/1164476117631.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
A couple of quotes...
But for Sydney, the reality begins about an hour from the CBD, just past Liverpool in suburbs such as Leppington and Austral, Catherine Field and Bringelly where some 2000 small farms grow 90 per cent of the city's perishable vegetables, almost 100 per cent of its Asian greens, 80 per cent of its mushrooms and most of our tomatoes, snow peas, lebanese cucumbers, herbs, spring onions and shallots.
...
Now many are under threat from Sydney's encroaching suburbs. In particular, the small farms around the Austral area have a shadow hanging over them because they are in the middle of Macquarie Street's designated south-west growth centre. About 115,000 new homes will be built in an area that also happens to be the site of about 40 per cent of the city's market gardens.
Thanks Newcroft.
Frustrating article you present...classic case of people in suits thinking that their 'daily bread' appears out of thin air...totally disconnected from reality.
At the same time, I read recently that Sydney is now tapping into an aquifer in the Western suburbs to help alleviate water shortages...all the while dreaming they can continue expanding an already overpopulated metropolis.
It's a shame nobody is advising the Hydroponic growers of the benefits of Aquaponics to expand their yield and reduce their need for artificial inputs. That's one area the government could actually help rather than go right out of their way to actively hinder.
--------------
Some interesting oil/politics reading...just be aware that it's a 56 page(!) PDF however:
Hysteria Over Iran and a New Cold War with Russia:
Peak Oil, Petrocurrencies and the Emerging Multi-Polar World (PDF - Click to download) (http://www.petrodollarwarfare.com/PDFs/Hysteria_Over_Iran_and_a_New_Cold_War_with_Russia. pdf)
I haven't found time to read it yet so no comments or endorsements...it's effectively like getting a large chunk of a recent book for free and I'm just adding it before I forget. Anyone who wants to add a comment after reading it please feel free.
RobWindt
13-12-2006, 09:09 PM
The following was shamelessly knicked from Big Gav at http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/
Rob
I'll close with a longish section from another email from the future that arrived today, this one (Vol 9 Number 18) written by John Petersen himself rather than the usual collection of snippets from elsewhere (the original has a number of other interesting pieces as well which are worth reading).
Getting to 2012: Big Changes Ahead - John L. Petersen
http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/futur ... ion_05.asp (http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/futuredition/futuredition_05.asp)
Consider this recent BBC headline:
“Current global consumption levels could result in a large-scale ecosystem collapse by the middle of the century, environmental group WWF has warned.” One that followed was: “Climate change threatens supplies of water for millions of people in poorer countries, warns a new report from the Christian development agency Tearfund”.
About the same time the Washington Post said: “Birds, bees, bats and other species that pollinate North American plant life are losing population, according to a study released yesterday by the National Research Council.”
Reuters added: “Failing to fight global warming now will cost trillions of dollars by the end of the century even without counting biodiversity loss or unpredictable events like the Gulf Stream shutting down.”
Author James Howard Kunstler chimed in: “The Long Emergency is going to be a tremendous trauma for the human race. We will not believe that this is happening to us, that 200 years of modernity can be brought to its knees by a world-wide power shortage. The survivors will have to cultivate a religion of hope -- that is, a deep and comprehensive belief that humanity is worth carrying on.”
Then, in a landmark report compiled by Sir Nicholas Stern for the UK government, comes the admonition: The world has to act now on climate change or face devastating economic consequences. Sir Nicholas estimated that at most humanity has ten years before the shift is unrecoverable.
What’s going on here? What does this all mean? These are extraordinary statements about massive earth changes. Are they just random trends that happen to be coincidentally showing up at the same time, or perhaps they reflect some big, historic, underlying dynamic – maybe the world is about to experience a shift unlike anything ever seen before.
There are reasons to believe the latter could be the case. Many sources, both conventional and unconventional, suggest that we are living in a special time – that between now and 2012 the world will undergo an epochal shift to a new era. This rapid evolution will produce a world that operates in fundamentally different ways than it has in the past.
The indicators are there. Take a closer look at what is already happening.
Demographics:
Nearly a half of all people on the planet are under the age of 25[i]. That’s the largest youth generation in history. The overwhelming majority of these young people live in the developing world and almost a quarter are surviving on less than $1 a day[ii] Most of them know about the quality of life in the West. Many have seen and used a computer or a mobile phone.
Peaking of the Global Oil Supply:
Regardless of the increased awareness that our oil resources are finite, demand for oil is growing. In the last years it grew from 79.8 (2003) to 84.3 (2005) million bpd[iii]. Even if the Chinese economy were to slow down, the growth is still likely to continue with a pressure from India.
Supply, on the other hand, appears to have peaked. We now have nine and a half months of "rearview mirror" action to look back and see that world oil production has retreated from its all-time high of just over 85 million barrels a day (m/b/d) achieved in December 2005 (just as geologist Kenneth Deffeyes of Princeton had predicted). For 2006, production has remained in the 84 m/b/d range every month reported so far, while demand has exceeded that.[iv]
Oil curse is a term coined to reflect the desperate situation of many oil rich but otherwise underdeveloped countries. The Chinese are now involved in a comprehensive international outreach to African countries, buying up resources (not just oil) in Nigeria, Angola, Congo, Sudan. So far oil importers used mostly economic and political means to compete for oil but will inevitably resort to military strategies as soon as they realize that they have probably passed peak oil threshold.
The report “Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management” prepared by SAIC for the Department of Energy concludes that humanity is facing asymmetric risks associated with the peaking of oil. Although mitigation actions initiated prematurely may result in a poor use of resources, late initiation of mitigation may result in severe consequences. Early mitigation measures are necessary to install production capacities for alternative energy in time for the peaking of oil.
Species Extinction
Despite an avowed reverence for life, human beings continue to destroy other species at an alarming rate, rivaling the great extinctions of the geologic past. In the process, we are foreclosing the possibility of discovering the secrets they contain for the development of new life-saving medicines and of invaluable models for medical research, and we are beginning to disrupt the vital functioning of ecosystems on which all life depends. We may also be losing some species so uniquely sensitive to environmental degradation that they may serve as our “canaries,” warning us of future threats to human health.[v]
The speed of species extinction has forced scientists to refer to the current era as the sixth extinction event comparable to only five other events in the known history of biosphere (That’s a few billion of years!)
A good example is a new study that shows that the oceans' fish are being depleted so fast that eating seafood might be just a memory in 40 years. The researchers say more is at stake than our diet, for they find the dwindling of fish stocks hurts the world economically and the ocean environmentally. Researchers say it is not too late to reverse the trend.[vi]
According to Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the challenge of reversing the degradation of ecosystems while meeting increasing demands for their services could be partially met under some scenarios that they have considered but these involve significant changes in policies, institutions and practices, that are not currently under way
Climate Change:
Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years, and is within 1°C of being its hottest for a million years. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon emissions will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the north from triggering runaway climate change[vii]
Feedback loops (the self-reinforcing relationships between the change in CO2, global warming and other factors) are driving the dynamics of climate change. In fact, they are the source of exponential rates of growth. We may be entering a phase in which global warming becomes a runaway train.
Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and if the present rate of retreat continues, they may be gone by 2035. More than 2 billion people - a third of the world's population, rely on the Himalayas for their water[viii]
An increase in global temperatures can interfere with the workings of the ocean conveyor belt and bring another ice age to Europe. The earth’s ocean system is characterized by thermal inertia. This means that it adapts slowly to global cooling and warming but once it starts to warm up or cool down, the process will extend for a long period of time. For us, it means that even if all human emissions were to stop now, thermal inertia of the ocean could sustain an increase in global temperatures.
According to conclusions of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
Major Economic Disruption
During 2003-4, in a concern about possible “deflation”, the Federal Reserve ran the interest rates that they charged banks down so low (1%), that mortgage lenders began offering below-prime mortgages with little or no money down. Refinancing of existing mortgages was at an all-time high. Huge increases in mortgages resulted (more than five times the amount between 2002 and 2006 than in the preceding five-year period). Many if not most of those loans (whose real interest rate was higher than “prime” mortgages secured in historical ways) had extra-low payments in the loan’s early years with a substantial increase in payments after the “balloon” period. People were buying homes whose income would never have allowed them to own a home previous to that time . . . and those least able to pay their loans began using credit card credit to make up for the shortfall in income.
In 2005 for the first time since 1933, the savings rate in America became negative. This happened about the same time that personal credit card debt reached its highest level ever (number of U.S. credit cards grew 75% from 1990 to 2003 while the amount that was charged increased 350%). Consumer credit as a percentage of personal income has never been so high (30 % increase since 2000 alone) and household debt as a percentage of house assets is at a record.
Independent analysis shows that credit card defaults begin about 24 months after a borrower has fundamentally overextended him or herself and therefore history suggests that we should see a dramatic increase in mortgage defaults starting in 2006. In fact, the percentage of U.S. subprime loans that were made in 2006 and delinquent in payments by 60 or more days by August of the year rose 100% over similar loans made in 2005.[ix] All banks have a great percentage of their assets tied up in mortgage-based securities. If the default rate on mortgages increases significantly it could well translate into a major threat to the solvency of many banks.
The debt situation will be exacerbated by the retirement of the baby boomers and implementation of the new banking regulations under the auspices of the Basel II Accords that demand the revamping of the global banking system, for which no banks are likely to be ready.
According to Warren Buffet, the current financial system is highly unstable. Highly complex financial instruments – derivatives – are time bombs and "financial weapons of mass destruction". “Derivatives generate reported earnings that are often wildly overstated and based on estimates whose inaccuracy may not be exposed for many years". “Large amounts of risk have become concentrated in the hands of relatively few derivatives dealers . . . which can trigger serious systemic problems” Derivatives can push companies onto a "spiral that can lead to a corporate meltdown".
Investor George Soros pronounced the same criticisms regarding the global financial system. He believes that unless fundamental reforms are implemented, the current system will continue on a spiral of crises[x].
Watershed Time?
Is the nexus of these forces a unique watershed time that will usher in a new era on this planet? Will the structures and institutions that we are all familiar with and depend upon struggle and even fail in the near future under the stress produced by breakdowns in multiple sectors?
Add to the litany above increasingly sophisticated terrorism, serious global shortages of drinking water, growing population pressures, and the possibility of other shocks like a global pandemic and you’ve got the line up for the potential for a major directional shift. The convergence of climate, oil and financial trends alone could produce a “perfect storm” that reorders the future of humanity on this planet.
A New Paradigm
If failure of the present system is what we’re looking at, it would certainly be followed by a new paradigm. If the old system came down, a new one would evolve that attempted to bypass the systemic frailties of the previous world. It would necessarily be a fundamentally different way of understanding reality, attended by new perspectives of science, ecology, economy, cosmology, governing, agriculture, and education, among the other basic intellectual structures which support human activity.
The new world, as in all paradigm shifts, would not make much sense from our present perspective. Never having seen group larger than a clan, a hunter-gatherer contemplating the future would have been hard-pressed to envision a world that included people living in towns and villages. Similarly, the future that may arrive with 2012 would necessarily seem strange in the context of most of our upbringing.
But as we get closer to the time of this epic shift the early outlines of a new future appear to be emerging. First of all, the new world is a highly interdependent and connected one. The complexity of our present communications systems link individual humans in ways that would have seemed impossible just two decades ago (the World Wide Web had not yet been invented only fifteen years ago!) As the ability to interact in increasingly more sophisticated ways develops, a point will be passed when humanity begins to act like an organism, rather than unrelated individuals and small groups. Ideas will transit the world like rumors in a small town. Concepts and perspectives will infect the global brain and produce behavior never before seen. We will see our future tied to others many thousands of miles away from us in ways that would have made no sense five years ago. We will rapidly become planetary citizens.
Similarly, ecological interconnectedness is also rapidly becoming obvious. For many of us, we now know that we are all related to the larger environmental system in which we live in ways that we never previously understood. The death of a third of the coral reefs in the world and ten-thousand other species a year will surely affect the system that supports human life . . . and certainly not beneficially.
All of this new knowledge will of necessity change our behavior in the future. We will see ourselves as an integral part of the whole system in which we live. We will know that we are all in the same life boat and each of our futures is a function of the future of all of us. Self-interest and security, whether characterized in personal or national terms, will very quickly encompass far more space and people than it has in the past. In the face of rapid climate change, for example, national security would approach becoming synonymous with global security.
We’ll also see ourselves connected in spiritual terms. Perhaps this is where the real paradigm shift will take place. More and more individuals are beginning to experience and internalize the fact that we are connected to each other and with animals, plants and even the earth in ways that even though inexplicable are nevertheless demonstrable. Serious new scientifically based books are now being written about how human behavior is connected to the larger cosmos and how that throughout history it has predictably reflected in how we behave. Agricultural systems are in place that claim to tap into elemental spiritual forces in order to grow crops better. Many studies now show that the intentionality of prayer significantly affects single-cellular life as well as humans . . . and it doesn’t make any difference whether either party knows the other one (or that they’re praying) or not. There is evidence now t hat somehow humans anticipate big disruptions to the system (like 9/11 and the Indonesian tsunami) and begin to have extraordinary precognitive dreams before these major events.
This spiritual awareness seems on a trajectory that will expand to include the ability to tap into the global collective unconscious and may even become somewhat predictive – marrying advanced knowledge technology with dreaming and other intuitive processes.
Growing numbers of thoughtful people are coming to the conclusion that intentionality directly shapes reality. How our thoughts translate into the reconfiguration of matter and different behavior in others is not clear, but for many, life-long experiences tell them that that is how it works. In all of this there appears to be an alternative dimension(s) for communication that facilitates this interconnectivity. Who knows, perhaps human telepathy may be emergent as we see ourselves more tightly committed to each other in the future. In any case, there are a great number of indicators, both historical and contemporary, that suggest that we are approaching a time of extraordinary change.
Although no one now alive has ever lived through a similar shift, the history of the planet, as we know it, suggests that these kinds of major upheavals have happened many times in the past – in fact, they are the fundamental evolutionary mechanism for the planet. Biological life moved abruptly from single-cellular life to multiple-cellular life after a very long period of equilibrium. Then multiple-cellular life was punctuated by a radical transformation that yielded vertebrates . . . which were followed by rapid shifts to mammals, early humans, and then homo sapiens.
Social evolutionary punctuations continued moving hunter-gathers into villages and towns, finally resulting in the printing press which enabled the industrial age. Perhaps the Internet represents the new communications infrastructure upon which the radically new paradigm will be built.
Perhaps we are about to experience another punctuation in the equilibrium of human evolution. Patterns from the past suggest that the time is right for another one. The question is, are we ready? If the change that seems to be forming on the horizon is anything like it appears it might be, then all humans will need to move into a new mode of living and thinking in order to survive the transition.
There will need to be a constant orientation of openness – having a wide aperture for sensing subtle indicators that point toward coming change and being receptive to newly emerging approaches to dealing with the rapidly changing environment. If one is not open to the suggestions and ideas of others, they will necessarily falter, as no one individual will have the capability to deal with this change by themselves. New ideas and explanations about how reality works will begin to bubble-up in many places; they must be openly considered and honestly evaluated. There must also be an openness to adapt – to rapidly change when it is required.
The survivors of this epochal shift will necessarily live closer to the earth. They will know that their food does not come from the supermarket . . . in fact, they may well know the farmer who grows it. They will be sensitive to the earth in ways that they perhaps previously reserved only for humans. The current movement toward “relocalization” – shifting one’s life and relationships closer to a sustaining support system – will probably be rather mature.
Effectively transitioning to this new world will require envisioning it into reality. We will all need to develop a basic, but coherent idea of what the new world might look like – the principles, values, structures, behavior, etc. – and begin to carry that common picture in our minds. We need to “get together” at regular times with as many others as possible to project the new images into the space from which everything comes. We should do it as though our life depends on it, as it probably does.
We are all blessed to live at this time of extraordinary transformation. Each in his or her own way has a special role to play in contributing to the ultimate shape and function of this new world. That’s probably why we are here at this time.
We should not hesitate to vigorously play our part. Time is short.
© John L. Petersen 2006
[i] http://www.unfpa.org/adolescents/facts.htm
[ii] ibid
[iii] International Energy Authority and Deutsche Bank
[iv] James Howard Kunstler, Swan Dive, Oct. 20, 2006
[v] Eric Chivian, Environment and health: 7. Species loss and ecosystem disruption — the implications for human health, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Jan. 2001
[vi] David McAlary, Washington, Voice of America News 02 November 2006
[vii] Jim Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 14288
[viii] Greenpeace International, ‘The Global Retreat of Glaciers’
[ix] Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2006; Page A1: As Home Owners Face Strains, Market Bets on Loan Defaults, New Derivatives Link Fates Of Investors and Borrowers In Vast 'Subprime' Sector, By MARK WHITEHOUSE
[x] See The Collapse of Global Capitalism by George Soros
Well, all of these perspectives (not just me) seriously suggest that we are into a very interesting and important period of time in the history of this planet and humanity. The common answer to the common question about what we should do is to think differently and act differently . . . soon.
Posted by Big Gav at 11:26 PM
Thanks Rob - good article.
For those who haven't visited his blog (linked above by Rob), Big Gav is an Australian who keeps a close eye on things both here and globally, so it's a great resource for the latest in energy news and analysis.
---------------------------------
An article which explores the impact Peak Oil will have on reserves of natural gas and energy as a whole:
...
Coming to grips with, even accepting the idea of Peak Oil has taken at least 10 years, like the acceptance of climate change and the need to do something about it - which has taken about 15 years. How long will it take for Peak Gas to be accepted as fundamentally linked and related to Peak Oil? The jury is out for deliberation on this one, and nobody knows when it will be 'politically credible' to advance the idea that world gas supplies are even today unassured, and sure to decline, tomorrow. What is important is the triad oil-gas-electricity which unlike coal are all highly interdependent. If one part of this three-leg stool falls away, the stool falls. Demand projections for world electricity - growth is running at 9% pa - all assume, either explicitly or implicitly, that 'abundant and cheap', as well as 'environment friendly' natural gas will take the strain. This is for the real world, outside the cosy images of windfarms, and nuclear power stations that will not be built. Removing cheap gas from the picture will very surely trouble the reassuring but impossible concept that after Peak Oil we will have a 'Gas Bridge' for decades, even for 50 years as some die-hard dreamers like to proclaim.
Peak Oil to Peak Gas is a short ride (Click for full article)
-----------------------------
Article which summarises a recent scientific analysis that explores the environmental repercussions of switching to low quality liquid fuel sources (link to original scientific analysis at bottom):
Soaring oil prices and demands for energy security are boosting the attractiveness of low-quality sources of petroleum, such as tar sands and coal, at the risk of causing significant environmental damage and increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, according to a new study.
Writing in Environmental Research Letters, an open-access, electronic-only journal debuting this month, University of California, Berkeley, scientists lay out the economic, security and environmental challenges currently standing in the way of exploiting these resources. They strongly warn that, as these challenges are addressed, the environment is likely to get the shaft.
Risks of the oil transition (original scientific article the above article is based on - click to view) (http://www.energybulletin.net/23462.html)
***I can't get the above link to activate after 20 mins of buggering around (yes there is a square bracketed /url on the end of it - it just vanishes in conversion)...must be a software glitch...so just cut and paste the following text into your browser address bar:
[url]http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/12/11_oil.shtml
Risks of exploiting low-quality sources of oil (Click to view) (http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/1/1/014004/erl6_1_014004.html)
newcroft
15-12-2006, 08:59 AM
If you can get ABC2 you might be interested in seeing a repeat of the Four Corners special on Peak Oil on Wednesday, 20th Dec on ABC2, at 7pm.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/abc2/200612/programs/NC0604H002D20122006T190000.htm
Or, view the online special edition at http://abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20060710/
murray
26-12-2006, 11:38 AM
KUWAIT: It was an incredible revelation last week that the second largest oil field in the world is exhausted and past its peak output. Yet that is what the Kuwait Oil Company revealed about its Burgan field. The peak output of the Burgan oil field will now be around 1.7 million barrels per day, and not the two million barrels per day forecast for the rest of the field's 30 to 40 years of life, Chairman Farouk Al-Zanki told Bloomberg. He said that engineers had tried to maintain 1.9 million barrels per day but that 1.7 million is the optimum rate. Kuwait will now spend some $3 million a year for the next year to boost output and exports from other fields.
However, it is surely a landmark moment when the world's second largest oil field begins to run dry.
(Read more (http://www.kuwaittimes.net/localnews.asp?dismode=article&artid=37595069))
Thanks Murray...it's worth noting that Burgan's 'optimum rate' is effectively as much as can be squeezed out and will make the post-peak downslope steeper than used to be typical...as evidenced by Norway and Britain's north sea fields. Using sophisticated techniques to 'stand still' in terms of field output (i.e. maintain as close to the peak rate as possible for as long as possible), ultimately ends up in a more dramatic decline.
----------------------------
Article from Hob Hopkins at Transition Culture (http://transitionculture.org/)...interesting reading as always:
'Happy Relocalisers', Doomers, Wheelwrights and the concept of Resilience. (Click to view) (http://transitionculture.org/2006/12/18/happy-relocalisers-doomers-wheelwrights-and-the-concept-of-resilience/)
And another follow up to the recent CERA report - 'Why the Peak Oil Theory Falls Down - Myths, Legends, and the Future of Oil Resources (Click to view summary of CERA report) (http://cera.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0236-821_ITM)...this time courtesy of Chris Skrebowski from The Oil Depletion Analysis Centre (ODAC):
Open letter to Peter Jackson of CERA (http://www.odac-info.org/bulletin/documents/cs_cera_letter.htm)
Good reading for anyone that's been following this 'debate.'
A great summary of Peak Oil related happenings during 2006, courtesy of ASPO (Peak Oil Review) via Energy Bulletin:
The peak oil story during 2006 (Click to view) (http://www.energybulletin.net/24274.html)
James Howard Kunstler article published by Orion Magazine...no amazing revelations, but as always with Kunstler, it's a worthwhile read and he ends with what is IMO, a terrific paragraph:
It's a daunting agenda, all right. And some of you are probably wondering how you are supposed to remain hopeful in the face of these enormous tasks. Here's the plain truth, folks: Hope is not a consumer product. You have to generate your own hope. You do that by demonstrating to yourself that you are brave enough to face reality and competent enough to deal with the circumstances that it presents. How we will manage to uphold a decent society in the face of extraordinary change will depend on our creativity, our generosity, and our kindness, and I am confident that we can find these resources within our own hearts, and collectively in our communities.
Click below for full article:
Making Other Arrangements: A Wake Up Call To A Citizenry In The Shadow Of Oil Scarcity (http://www.orionmagazine.org/pages/om/07-1om/Kunstler.html)
Khebab over at The Oil Drum has posted an article which puts quite a staggering perspective on how much energy we get from oil and condensates per year, then compares that figure with the energy we can obtain from other sources.
Getting a Grasp on Oil Production Volumes (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2186)
I strongly recommend viewing the original article, but just to summarise:
Globally, we produce (and use) 1 cubic mile of oil (CMO) per year.
The energy from 1 CMO (a year worth of current oil production) is roughly equal to what we can obtain from:
104 coal fired plants, each year, for 50 years (i.e. 50 years worth of production from 104 plants)
or
32,850 wind turbines, each year, for 50 years
or
52 nuclear power plants, each year, for 50 years
or
91,250,000 solar panel systems (2.1KW), each year, for 50 years
Obviously, to get the same energy we get from a year's worth of oil from any of the above in a single year, simply multiply the above number by 50 - i.e. 2,600 nuclear power plants, or 1,642,500 wind turbines, or 4,562,500,000 solar panel systems.
A few things to consider while digesting the above figures...
The US uses ~25% of our global CMO consumption, so to stand still (i.e. not accounting for any required future growth in energy) they would have to build - and fund - 25% of the above 'solutions' themselves.
Our current consumption of oil (1 CMO per year), does not include the gargantuan amounts of oil needed to implement even a fraction of the above 'solutions' - aside from other costs...many of them ongoing (electricity, raw material extraction etc).
The coal and nuclear options seem the simplest and almost plausible, until you begin to consider that the capital setup costs are very high per plant (and take quite a bit of time we really don't have), both are based on finite resources which would be quickly exhausted if they were forced to bear the load of a high proportion of our energy needs, both are reliant on oil or natural gas, while the environmental repercussions are very frightening.
The above is not a perfect comparison, more like a good estimate, but I hope it adds some perspective for anyone wondering exactly what we get from oil in terms of energy.
Past reports which have stated that the 2nd largest oil field in the world (Cantarell in Mexico) is on the verge of a serious decline have turned out to have been rather optimistic - Cantarell is declining (collapsing is perhaps a better choice of word) at a much faster rate than previously suspected.
Output fell from 1.99mbd (million barrels per day) in January 2006 to just 1.5mbd barrels in December 2006 - a staggering decline rate.
As we've seen around the world over the last few years, the more extraction technology used in a field to maintain 'high as possible' production levels, the faster the decline rate of the field - Cantarell is now the most spectacular example of this, with the largest field in the world - Gwahar in Saudi Arabia - swiftly following in its footsteps.
Mexico supplies around 11% of US oil imports - roughly 1.5 millionbpd - from which the Cantarell field supplies the majority. At the current rate of decline (which can only worsen), it's obvious that there will be a serious shortage in US oil imports developing (not to mention enormous consequences for the Mexican economy which is heavy reliant on oil export revenue).
Historically, shortfalls like the above have been easily covered by Saudi Arabia increasing production, but at the moment it is strongly suspected that their recent cuts in production were due to a desire to hide that their export capacity has in fact already peaked, more than to purely maintain prices.
All four 'super fields' (Gwahar, Cantarell, Burgan [Kuwait], Daqing [China]) are now confirmed beyond all doubt to be in a state of decline.
There are no more 'super fields' left to be discovered, and as for smaller/more expensive to exploit/more difficult to extract/lower quality fields, since the 1960's we've been using 3-4 times as much oil as we're discovering.
All this has been predicted and outlined in the past to some degree, but what is quite shocking about the latest info on Cantarell is that - much like Climate Change according to the latest data - the predictions of even the so-called 'doomsayers' are actually turning out to have been underestimates.
***I pieced the above info together from a stack of different articles, if anyone is interested in the raw data just say so and I'll put all the sources together and post them. I figured it was easier to present a cut-down summary/overview than put people through a few hours of reading in order to reach the above conclusions.
Jim Kunstler - author of The Long Emergency - in an article entitled 'Restating The Agenda':
Out in the public arena, people frequently twang on me for being "Mister Gloom'n'doom," or for "not offering any solutions." I find this bizarre because I never fail to present audiences with a long, explicit task list of projects that American society needs to take up in the face of the combined problems I have labeled The Long Emergency. That the audience never hears this, and then indignantly demands such instruction, only reinforces my sense that the cognitive dissonance in our culture has gone totally off the charts.
Kunstler goes on to state a few of his "reasonable responses to a new set of circumstances" - obviously there are more from a Permaculture perspective.
Full article available Here (Click To View) (http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2007/02/the_agenda_rest.html)
The report due from the Senate Inquiry into Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels has been released.
The report itself is available at the Senate website (click to view) (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/index.htm) as are a number of other relevant documents.
ASPO Australia (Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas) has released a press report - (Click to download * note: in MS Word {.doc} format) (http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/media/News_release0207.doc) commenting on the report, while on their website has a list of downloadable submissions (click to view) (http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/content/view/82/1/) to the Inquiry made by ASPO or associated working groups.
Phil Hart from ASPO Australia commenting further on the above Senate Inquiry:
Senate Report on Australia's future oil supply (Click to view) (http://philhart.com/senate_report)
The CERA rebuttals continue:
It's CERA Week -- Houston, we have a problem (Click To View) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2282)
CERA's peak oil critique has a credibility problem (Click To View) (http://www.energybulletin.net/26270.html)
Interesting article analysing the US military and its ongoing problems with oil:
US military oil pains (Click To View) (http://www.energybulletin.net/26194.html)
frosty
25-02-2007, 06:24 AM
from the last link
Yes, the US military is completely addicted to oil. Unsurprisingly, its oil consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities makes the Pentagon the single largest oil consumer in the world. By the way, according to the 2006 CIA World Factbook rankings there are only 35 countries (out of 210) in the world that consume more oil per day than the Pentagon.
added to that what about the amount of co2 they produce :evil: :evil:
it would be interesting to know if they are the worlds largest CO2 producer ?
they are after all the worlds largest polluter and now the worlds largest oil consumer ....... and no doubt the worlds largest mass murderer
I just cant understand why everyone isnt an anti military campaigner ...... :? if we got rid of the military a very large portion of the worlds problems would be alleviated
frosty
Richard on Maui
25-02-2007, 07:13 PM
No arguments here Frosty. I mean, from me. Someone here is bound to disagree with us. :wink:
From my perspective Frosty, the US as a whole and their military will be a thing of the past relatively soon.
Despite the waffle that comes from market-babble economists, they aren't far away from reaping the consequences of being the most unsustainable society on earth.
I realise the above are just relatively meaningless, throw-away comments when you actually live with the reality of having your personal space and health jeopardised by the US military and their messed up ideals, but nevertheless, they are already living on borrowed time.
frosty
26-02-2007, 06:04 AM
:D well at least 2 people agree and no one has stepped forward yet to support militarism :lol:
jez I so hope you are right not just from a personal point of view but for the millions of people all over the world who are suffering much worse than we are
meanwhile we need to spread the word
and jez thanks for all these great articles you post
8)
frosty
newcroft
26-02-2007, 07:37 PM
From my perspective Frosty, the US as a whole and their military will be a thing of the past relatively soon.
Hey Jez,
I'm surprised. Aren't you expecting further resource wars? I think it's a real danger, and I'm not expecting anyone to sign on to Heinbergs oil-depletion protocol.
Thanks Frosty, hope you're a little better mate.
Newcroft, yeah, I do reckon we'll see significant resource wars, I just don't see how any country can gain an upper hand in them - all attempts will just cancel each other out. That doesn't mean that there won't be serious consequences from resource wars, I just can't see anyone capable of occupying large parts of the globe and being able to impose their will.
The US economy is totally dependant on global cooperation (or at least cooperation with most of it), so however belligerent they may get in the future, the can't go overboard or it would financially ruin them quicker than will be inevitable anyway. On top of this, the US people may on the whole be insular, self-obsessed, overly confident in their tenuous supremacy etc, but there are also a lot of good people there who know the difference between stupidity and wise course of action.
If in the future, military solutions prove to be the worst kind of futility, with economic pain already there or just around the corner, I think a withdrawal to a sustainable future of some kind would actually be a politically viable proposition in the US. Of course, whether that or some form of collapse is their future, the end result is the same in terms of them being unable to maintain their current hegemony.
I should add, I meant the first sentence of my last post to read: "...the US empire as a whole and their military will be a thing of the past relatively soon..."not that the country itself would cease to exist, though that in itself is far from being impossible over the long term, with Mexico's economy set to implode and Canada becoming increasingly crucial to the US with its vast fresh water, uranium, gas and liquid fuel holdings.
We better start a new topic if we're going to discuss this further...better keep this one on topic as it's already very lengthy. :D
Peak Moment Television is a US channel dedicated to Peak Oil and related issues...you can watch online or there's heaps of DVD's etc to order...
Peak Moment Television (Click For Home Page) (http://www.peakmoment.tv/)
And a revealing article from the ASPO-USA which looks at how supposed international energy experts (both commercial and govt backed) have been significantly wrong in their predictions over a long period...but still persist in using the same flawed data models to produce conveniently rosy outlooks:
Smoke and mirrors (Click To View) (http://www.energybulletin.net/26474.html)
newcroft
04-03-2007, 12:34 PM
The big, big news is that Saudi production declined by 8% in 2006.
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/saudi_06_decline.png
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2325/saudi_06_decline.png
Stuart Staniford said;
Overall, I feel this data is clear enough that I'm willing to go out on a limb and conclude the following:
Saudi Arabian oil production is now in decline.
The decline rate during the first year is very high (8%), akin to decline rates in other places developed with modern horizontal drilling techniques such as the North Sea.
Declines are rather unlikely to be arrested, and may well accelerate.
Matt Simmons appears to be right in Twilight in the Desert, but the warning did not come until after declines had actually begun.
newcroft
04-03-2007, 06:24 PM
I should add that primarily it's the high rig count that makes this graph look so scary. If they are trying to pump more and getting less the decine will hit quite soon.
When Saudi peaks, the world peaks.
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/saudi_2_07.png
Thanks Newcroft.
A bit more on Saudi production peak and global decline in general...
Stuart Staniford has followed up with another analysis on Gwahar:
Why the Decline in Saudi Oil Production is Not Voluntary (Click To View) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2331)
An article from Matthew Miller which sums up (in an easily readable format) both Gwahar's decline and other global declines from formerly high production areas:
Ghawar Is Dead! (Click To View) (http://www.energybulletin.net/27024.html)
Chris Nelder (from Energy and Capital) provides another very readable summary of global decline and also focuses on future failure to provide anywhere near the highly optimistic projected levels of expected new liquid fuel supplies:
The Cavalry Stays Home (Click To View) (http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/renewables-oil-energy/377)
And last but certainly not least, Matt Simmons (who predicted Saudi and global declines years ago and contends that Peak Oil decline has already just begun) has three new articles on various PO related issues, which are available along with his older speeches and articles...
Here (Click To View) (http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches)
Richard Heinberg's comments to the National Petroleum Council:
1. The failure of official agencies
Official agencies have consistently failed to accurately forecast national and regional oil production peaks. Three examples:
During the 1960s, the U.S. Geological Survey issued successive reports forecasting a peak in U.S. oil production around the year 2000; this followed M. King Hubbert's controversial forecast of a peak around the year 1970. Confounding the official view, U.S. oil production did reach its maximum in 1970 and has been generally declining ever since, despite the subsequent discovery of the largest conventional oilfield ever found in North America - on the North Slope of Alaska - in 1968.
In their International Energy Outlook (IEO) 2001 report, the EIA stated that "The United Kingdom is expected to produce about 3.1 mb/d by the middle of this decade, followed by a decline to 2.7 mb/d by 2020," implying a peak around 2005. Britain's oil production from the North Sea actually peaked in 1999, two years before this forecast was issued, at 2.684 mb/d, declining to less than 1.7 mb/d by 2005.
In their IEO 2003 report, the EIA predicted that the country of Oman was "expected to increase output gradually over the first half of this decade" with "only a gradual production decline after 2005." In fact, Oman's production had already peaked in 2000, three years before the forecast was published.
Article Continues Here (Click To View) (http://www.energybulletin.net/27103.html)
digging
15-03-2007, 03:29 AM
Just in case no everyone reads all the articles here I just had to clip this last point made, it is so excellent!
"It won’t be long now until we realize that our world has come unplugged from the ancient sunlight that provides its artificial neon glow."
That is just the most perfect way of saying it.......
Digging
Yep, it's a good quote digging...that's how our oil deposits got there (for anyone who found the quote puzzling!).
------------------
Jeffrey J Brown (AKA 'west texas' - a Texan petroleum geologist), posits that Saudi Arabia may well have depleted 70% of its Ultimate Recoverable Reserves. Considering they provide a little under 1/10th of global oil supply, a rapid production decline rate there (as we're seeing with other large field producers) would have enormous consequences for oil supply capacity over the next few years - let alone long term:
Could Saudi Arabia Be More Than 70% Depleted? (Click To View) (http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/2007/03/could-saudi-arabia-be-more-than-70.html)
And an interesting interview with Geology Professor Craig Bond Hatfield - a man who devoted much of his career to trying to warn people about US and global oil depletion. The interview relates that when he retired in 1999 he felt that he had made little impact, and that it was already too late then for the world to avoid an energy crisis...well worth a read for both the historical perspective provided and how that links into today's Peak Oil movement:
The Cassandra of Toledo: A Requiem For Mitigation (Click To View) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2364)
newcroft
19-03-2007, 08:10 PM
Hi Jez,
Did you actually understand those stats from westexas? You know I follow the stats from The Oil Drum etc closely, but I didn't get this at all.
But, I always listen to what what westexas says and he says it Saudi could be 70% depleted. All of the data coming in indicates that it's past peak, and running faster to stand still.
Jeffrey J Brown (AKA 'west texas' - a Texan petroleum geologist), posits that Saudi Arabia may well have depleted 70% of its Ultimate Recoverable Reserves. Considering they provide a little under 1/10th of global oil supply, a rapid production decline rate there (as we're seeing with other large field producers) would have enormous consequences for oil supply capacity over the next few years - let alone long term:
Could Saudi Arabia Be More Than 70% Depleted? (Click To View) (http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/2007/03/could-saudi-arabia-be-more-than-70.html)
Sure Newcroft - he's basically saying that:
a) Unlike Saudi Arabia, we have a lot of data about Texas so we can make a very good estimate of Ultimate Recoverable Reserves (URR) by using the Hubbert Linearisation (HL) method.
b) Texas had an inflection (an upwards 'hump' in production) then subsequently returned back to its previous strongly linear pattern.
c) If we only use the Texas data prior to and including this inflection, we get an inflated URR which does not account for the subsequent return to the linear descent pattern (not 'corrupt' data as such, but misleading as it is only a temporary 'hump' in production which distorts the picture).
d) Saudi production was strongly linear from '91-'02, then had an inflection (as Texas did above) between '02-'05.
f) If we ignore the '02-'05 inflection and assume that it is based largely on the Saudi's maximising production to offset declines elsewhere (thereby avoiding what would amount to global panic!), and that following the inflection, production will return to the linear pattern (as it did with Texas), then Saudi Arabia's URR is significantly less than previously estimated (and what they declare they have).
g) Disregarding their inflection and returning to the HL pattern (as Texas did) to determine URR, Saudi Arabia is 70% of the way through their URR.
h) This is why we're seeing them drilling a lot more in a lot more places - running to stand still (and last year production went backwards).
i) Because they've used every trick in the book to maintain production levels, they've managed to get 70% of the way through their URR without a production decline (although last year's drop is most likely the beginning of that decline), but by doing so, we can also expect to see a spectacular decline rate along the lines of the North Sea and Cantarell - or possibly even higher. Something along the lines of losing 1% of global supply (just from Saudi Arabia alone) over the coming decade.
I hope that makes it clearer...it's almost an impossible article to summarise and simplify, but I guess sometimes just restating things slightly differently can trigger a better understanding. :D
More on Saudi Arabian production - again, very good analysis from Stuart Staniford over at The Oil Drum...
Water In The Gas Tank: Further Forensics on Saudi Oil Supply (Click To View) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2393)
And a great article from Jeffrey J Brown:
In this article, I will attempt to put some of the crude oil production and consumption numbers during the first term of the Bush administration in the context of the Peak Oil debate.
I will make three key points: (1) During George Bush's first term, the world used about 10% of all crude oil that has ever been consumed; (2) Based on our mathematical modeling, at our current rate of consumption, during the second Bush term the world will use about 10% of all remaining conventional crude oil reserves and (3) Net oil exports are falling much faster than overall world crude oil production is declining.
I also have some recommendations for actions on an individual basis.
George W. Bush, Meet M. King Hubbert (Click For Full Article) (http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/2007/03/march-26-2007-by-jeffrey-j.html)
Nate Hagen at The Oil Drum has put together a fantastic three-part series on Peak Oil which I strongly recommend:
If you're like me, you might have spent a moment or two in recent months pondering how billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens, oil banker Matthew Simmons, and many others are suggesting that the world is reaching Peak Oil now, and at the same time, Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) headed by Pulitzer Prize writer Daniel Yergin, and others such as Exxon Mobil, are not predicting a Peak in global oil production until circa 2040 followed by a slow gradual decline. How can such smart and successful people disagree by decades on a topic so vital?
Is it possible they use different data sources? Do they mean different things when they say "Peak Oil"? Do they get different secret handshakes from Saudi princes? Do they have different agendas? Are they using different boundaries of analysis? Is one of them kidding? This 3 part post will address how people can differ so much on something so important as a peak and subsequent decline in world oil availability, addressing both factual and psychological reasons. Does the world have plenty of oil? Maybe, but as I will discuss below the fold, this is not among the questions we should be asking.
...
Part One is a general background and history on why people can disagree so much on peak oil.
Part Two will explore the many factual areas that are confusing and lead to different conclusions.
Part Three will look at social and psychological reasons for disparate opinions on this critical topic.
Peak Oil - Whom to Believe? Part One - "There's Plenty of Oil, CERAiously" (Click To View) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2409)
"Peak Oil" - Why Smart Folks Disagree - Part II (Click To View) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2367)
***Part III coming soon!
Robert Rapier over at The Oil Drum has written a great deconstruction of 'thermal depolymerisation' (TDP), which some of you may remember was a much hyped process several years back which was going to allow the world to gain all it's liquid energy needs from all kinds of garbage and waste products, with the only by-product being clean distilled water.
As with all these 'techno-fix' solutions to our impending energy crisis, the hype fell a massive way short of the reality, but that didn't stop the media and those involved in the company at a management and technical level from making some outrageously optimistic claims and outright fabrications over the potential of TDP to revolutionise energy and ultimately replace oil.
Rapier also discusses and provides links to the failure of other similarly hyped technologies which have fallen prey to what he terms 'The Law of Receding Horizons.'
The article is a timely reminder that it always pays to be very sceptical and cautious about hype surrounding 'new' methods of energy production which are going to replace oil - particularly if you're the sort of person who might consider investing in 'The Next Big Thing'. Those who invested in CWT (the developers of TDP technology) lost around $US66 million.
Definitely recommended reading:
TDP: The Next Big Thing (click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2450&r=)
heuristics
19-04-2007, 12:52 PM
Re Digging's comment:
"It won’t be long now until we realize that our world has come unplugged from the ancient sunlight that provides its artificial neon glow."
I met a new person last week and I was impressed with their knowledge of Steiner, biodynamic farming and all sorts of stuff - but I mentioned Peak Oil, and got the most amazing response..........
She then produced a book - author's name I have already forgotten and Title also (useful, aren't I?)
Anyway this guy is arguing that oil comes from deep in the Earth's core and oozes to the surface - it's not fossil fuel at all.
He is arguing that PO is just scaremongering about artifical created shortages. and that Gaia will provide all the oil we need.........
Fascinating.
Or the ULTIMATE denial?!?!?!
digging
19-04-2007, 01:48 PM
IF this is true and Gaia will give us endless oil, then she really does want to get rid of us and she is far more alive and with power of reason than we have realized! (joking!!!!)
Digging
RobWindt
19-04-2007, 07:49 PM
google "abiotic oil", this furphy reappears every year or two and is seized with delight by denialists
This is a very even-handed treatment of the subject IMO Heuro:
The 'Abiotic Oil' Controversy (Click To View) (http://energybulletin.net/2423.html)
Almost a little too even-handed IMO...the reality that the biggest fields in the world are most definitely depleting and not refilling is pretty black and white to me. If oil got there through abiotic origins, you'd think it would be these massive super fields which would be the most likely to replenish - yet they don't.
Then we have the stark reality that Russia's current and future production is not expected (even by the most optimistic Russian industry pundits) to ever reach their Soviet era Peak.
Considering nearly all the abiotic oil supporters are Russian, that speaks volumes IMO - they're having the same troubles as everybody else.
And then you have to ask, how plausible do you think it is that Texan multi-billionaire oilmen have let their productive cash cow oil wells wither away to almost nothing without fully testing this theory first?
heuristics
20-04-2007, 09:03 AM
how plausible do you think it is that Texan multi-billionaire oilmen have let their productive cash cow oil wells wither away to almost nothing without fully testing this theory first?
Jez, a clinching, compelling argument, constructed in just one sentence!
heuristics
20-04-2007, 09:05 AM
how plausible do you think it is that Texan multi-billionaire oilmen have let their productive cash cow oil wells wither away to almost nothing without fully testing this theory first?
Jez, a clinching, compelling argument, constructed in just one sentence!
That's it Heuro...when very smart financial minds like Matt Simmons and T. Boone Pickens (probaly the richest Texas oil man of all) say the writing is on the wall, aside from the abundance of other evidence, that's pretty hard to ignore.
heuristics
21-04-2007, 11:30 AM
Jez,
A humble "thank you" for all the posts you do on PO and other topics here.
I have marvelled at how you manage it - you dedicate a lot of time to reading and posting.
I appreciate it.
I can barely keep up with this board and one or two others, so all the links and such you place here to other sites I dont know about, or forget to follow up with, are helpful and interesting.
Thanks for your generosity with your time.
Parsley
21-04-2007, 03:52 PM
peak oil propaganda is funded by oil company’s, they want to send the oil consuming people in the world to panic and fuel prices continue to rise and rise because it is becoming more scarce and expensive to extract. I don’t see what all the fuss is with peak oil. Sure our current way of life is dominated by this need for the liquid but we really don’t need to survive and be happy. All peak oil talk is doing is driving the price up and up. Its not stopping people using it consumption is growing. So in the view of permaculture when oil peaks if it hasn’t already we will get more and more work. It does not matter that the average person only has a vague idea of peak oil because they can’t change there way of life just because people are saying all this. It the same as a Christian learning about evolution yes the evidence is compelling but not conclusive and even scientists are not sure about it, did we have an aquatic faze why would we sweat if we evolved in the savanna. Nonetheless the Christian dose not change what he believes. Yes talking about peak oil is fun but it is not different than talking about what celebrities are wearing and how the weather is. When critical mass of understanding about the solutions not the problems have been reached then change will happen. Peak oil is the solution to the problem, of our consumption, if it exists, but at the moment the oil companies are laughing all the way to the bank.
newcroft
21-04-2007, 10:52 PM
Parsley, you might want to clarify what you are arguing. It's a little difficult to follow. But, peak oil talk is far more serious than talking about the weather (unless you mean climate change) or what celebrities are wearing.
The problem is that virtually everything (economy, food, transport, clothes, electricity) is currently dependant on cheap oil. The oil shocks of the 70's were extremely serious where prices doubled and trebled, even though the supply shortfalls were only 8 to 10%.
Given a massive increase in our debt based systems, peak oil represents a potential massive crisis. Peak oil 'talk' helps people see how they have been sucked into this crazy system, and gives them a chance to prepare in some way. If more people were aware of the peak oil crisis, perhaps even governments would listen and start transitioning away from policies that wholeheartedly depend on peak oil.
If you watch 'Crude Impact' on Tuesday night (SBS 8:30pm) you will see evidence that shows that oil producing countries have been up to in artificially inflating their reserves in order to sell more oil for short term gain.
I'd encourage everyone to tape it, watch it, and watch it again. Especially take note of the segment again that covers the basic info on the 'peak'. There's a lot of info there that they cover quite quickly.
Maybe there'll be an increase in demand for permaculturists, but in a massive recession or even depression receiving payment for your services may be difficult.
RobWindt
22-04-2007, 12:05 AM
Yes there is profiteering happening but ten dollars a litre would still be a bargain for this "one time only" resource
"Arithmetic, Population and Energy" http://globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461
"Eating Fossil Fuels" http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_eating_ ... ffer_d.htm (http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_eating_fossil_fuels_pfeiffer_d.htm)
Thanks Heuro, and thanks to Newc and Rob for adding your thoughts.
peak oil propaganda is funded by oil company?s, they want to send the oil consuming people in the world to panic and fuel prices continue to rise and rise because it is becoming more scarce and expensive to extract.
Parsley, none of that makes much sense to me. The oil and petroleum industries have spent a lot of money denying Peak Oil - just as they did with Climate Change. The last thing they want at this point is a massive push toward renewables and/or heavy taxation on their industry.
On the one hand you say that they are behind Peak Oil "propaganda" to drive up prices, on the other hand, you contradict that statement by acknowledging the reality the easily extractable oil is virtually all gone (to which I would add geopolitical tensions and some profiteering). Later you're back to "All peak oil talk is doing is driving the price up and up"...it would seem you're confused. Aside from which, the mainstream media, Wall St and many industry aligned study groups and research organisations, far outweigh the voices of Peak Oil academics.
For every Peak Oil related article which sets out the truth and gets reasonable exposure, there's a dozen saying the opposite - that there is nothing to worry about. None of these anti-Peak Oil voices are willing to debate the issue, and they are typically very easy to dismiss once you know a bit about the subject, but ATM, there are far more of them and they get far more exposure.
I don?t see what all the fuss is with peak oil. Sure our current way of life is dominated by this need for the liquid but we really don?t need to survive and be happy.
I'm afraid 99% of people wouldn't agree with you.
So in the view of permaculture when oil peaks if it hasn?t already we will get more and more work.
As Newc says, getting paid may well be a problem - not to mention getting to the site and paying a lot more for all inputs. I'm sure there will be an endless amount of work to volunteer for - if that's what you're after.
Yes talking about peak oil is fun but it is not different than talking about what celebrities are wearing and how the weather is.
Fun? Do you really think anyone talks about Peak Oil for fun? I know I sure don't.
As for comparing it to the most trivial gossip on earth, well, I'd imagine you could only do that because you don't really understand the concept - particularly in terms of impact.
When critical mass of understanding about the solutions not the problems have been reached then change will happen.
Almost all Peak Oil commentators strongly advocate moving towards change BEFORE a crisis makes it inevitable. It may well be too late in many parts of the world to enact change AFTER major crisis.
at the moment the oil companies are laughing all the way to the bank.
Always have and will for some time yet. The difference these days is that they are really struggling to have a viable future. The non-state owned oil companies control only a tiny fraction of global reserves, and are only likely to get a fraction of the research and development dollars they spend in the future back in revenue - and even for that they'll have to charge huge prices.
They are approaching the realm of diminishing returns at breakneck speed.
newcroft
03-05-2007, 10:09 PM
"Crude" an ABC TV doco on will be shown on 24th May. It looks like it will show some basic 'peak' info as well as highlighting just how dependant our society has become on oil.
Link here... http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200705/programs/SC0504H001D24052007T203000.htm
Crude
8:30pm Thursday, 24 May 2007
From the food on our tables to the fuel in our cars, crude oil seeps invisibly into almost every part of our modern lives. It is the energy source and raw material that drives transport and the economy. Yet many of us have little idea of the incredible journey it has made to reach our petrol tanks and plastic bags.
Coming in the wake of rising global concerns about the continued supply of oil, and increasingly weird weather patterns, Crude spans 160 million years of the Earth's history to reveal the story of oil; from its birth deep in the dinosaur-inhabited past, to its ascendancy as the indispensable ingredient of modern life.
Filmed on location in 11 countries across five continents, the program's award-winning Australian filmmaker Richard Smith consults the leading international scientific experts to join the dots between geology and economy and provide the big-picture view of oil.
Crude takes a step back from the day to day news to illuminate the Earth's extraordinary carbon cycle and the role of oil in our impending climate crisis. Nearly seven billion people have come to depend on this resource, yet the Oil Age that began less than a century and a half ago, could be over in our lifetimes.
Documentary Subtitles CC G
bamboogirl
04-05-2007, 11:01 PM
Maybe there'll be an increase in demand for permaculturists, but in a massive recession or even depression receiving payment for your services may be difficult.
newcroft i agree.
Just like the Peak Oil crisis Cuba had in the early 90's, Permaculturalists are going to be crucial in helping the masses learn to feed themselves.
David Holmgrem in his peak oil tour with Heinberg, made the point that there's going to be a great need for permaculutre educators in our 'energy descent' future.
All us permies could have a job afterall post peak!
Michaelangelica
06-05-2007, 03:48 AM
Re Digging's comment:
She then produced a book - author's name I have already forgotten and Title also (useful, aren't I?)
Anyway this guy is arguing that oil comes from deep in the Earth's core and oozes to the surface - it's not fossil fuel at all.
He is arguing that PO is just scaremongering about artifical created shortages. and that Gaia will provide all the oil we need.........
Fascinating.
Or the ULTIMATE denial?!?!?!
He is a professor from Adelaide University. I think I heard him talking on Late Night Live with Phillip Adams(Radio national ABC)
I tried to find a transcript or more details but couldn't.
The book is published by the Adelaide university press so is a little hard to find.
Could you get the guy's name and title of the book?.
-------------------------------------------------
This report on the IAI Conference was on the Peak Oil list
(See also the 'Terra preta' thread here.)
Another report on the conference. 3.30 am 6 may
This is an interesting perspective; asking the pertinent questions/challenges for the future of TP
http://sydneypeakoil.com/phpBB/viewtopi ... 1799#11799 (http://sydneypeakoil.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=11799#11799)
"the debates about the benefits to AGW are only just beginning.
In short, being a part of the conference could be compared to hearing an orchestra tuning up. There are skillful cellists and masterful tuba players preparing next to each other. The idea is potential for beautiful music, rather than cacophony. We aren't really sure who the conductor is yet – plenty of skillful people are taking part of that role. There is cooperation and the desire to share experience at all points – but this is a new kind of orchestra. "
waynemus
06-05-2007, 03:10 PM
The problem is that virtually everything (economy, food, transport, clothes, electricity) is currently dependant on cheap oil.
This is true, but does it have to be? Can't we adopt renewable alternatives to meed the needs?
Food: Growing locally, and distributing locally. Rather than Woolworths selling Chinese grown beans, we could all have a garden in our backyard. If we don't have the room, then a community garden could be erected.
Transport: At the moment Oil fueled trucking is the main logistical provider. If the government were to increase its rail infrastructure, we could have a more effective transport system. Also we can run some diesel cars on Bio-Diesel.
Clothes: Once again an example of a mass market commodity being outsourced to a distant provider. We need to develop our skills and learn to produce locally. Guess I should of paid attention in my Textiles classes.
Energy: Renewable is a far better option than the "one use" oil or coal. Just got to convince people that it is worthwhile.
I guess I'm just summarising the general tone of this post. There stands alternatives to the use of oil. Our lifestyles may have to vary, but oil isn't the only answer to modern life. The world will have to take lessons from their ancestors, rather than burn their traditions in a oil powered combustion engine.
ho-hum
06-05-2007, 06:54 PM
Great subject,
Is it about time this was split into threacds so we the 'great unwashed' can participate and enjoy being meaningul??
floot
Can't we adopt renewable alternatives to meed the needs?
Not quickly Wayne (say within two decades even with a 'Manhatten Project' type nationwide/global effort), not to anywhere near the same levels of energy as we use from oil, gas and coal, and not without using heaps of fossil fuels to construct these 'renewable' sources of energy.
How genuinely renewable are renewables which have to be replaced, endlessly using loads of unrenewable energy and resources to maintain somewhere near the current energy use of the average Western lifestyle?
Food: Growing locally, and distributing locally. Rather than Woolworths selling Chinese grown beans, we could all have a garden in our backyard. If we don't have the room, then a community garden could be erected.
Well, as Heinberg and others have stated, roughly 25% of us will have to become productive farmers in the future. ATM, about 1-2% are. The expertise within the majority of that 1-2% is very much geared to monoculture, high artificial input farming.
To get to that 25% wich we'll we need to be at quite soon will require a re-skilling of humanity on a scale which is extremely difficult to even imagine, let alone implement.
Transport: At the moment Oil fueled trucking is the main logistical provider. If the government were to increase its rail infrastructure, we could have a more effective transport system. Also we can run some diesel cars on Bio-Diesel.
Trains are a plausible part of some sort of 'solution', but the infrastructure is expensive both in hard cash and energy to construct and maintain it. Bio-diesel and ethanol have been proven many times to be merely a way of laundering fossil fuels using valuable farmland. In specific instances, they are practical to a limited extent. On a global scale, we'd need several more planets to grow the energy needed to maintain current energy use - let alone growing future energy use.
The simple equation, is that under our current system, economic growth is largely impossible without ever increasing energy usage. Without constant economic growth, economies falter then collapse.
We can't possibly hope to switch to renewables without totally changing the global economy and our whole monetary system. If we don't change the nature of the economy and how we interact with it, we'll be faced with the impossible challenge of expanding and replacing renewable energy sources endlessly forever.
Great subject,
Is it about time this was split into threacds so we the 'great unwashed' can participate and enjoy being meaningul??
floot
Over my dead body Floot. :P :lol:
I am only too happy to have and would strongly encourage discussions on specific aspects of Peak Oil to have their own thread(s), and personally, I put in the time and energy in almost specifically for those who are new to the topic, struggling with the concept or enjoy regular updates, but IMO, such an important topic needs its own 'reference centre' for important key articles.
Anything to do with Peak Oil topics you or anyone else wants to start and discuss can be done either here or with a new thread(s).
To illustrate my feelings about this thread as it is, look at the general subject of 'chooks' for example - undoubtedly an important topic. The info anyone new to or inexperienced in the subject 'needs' is spread across maybe 30-50 different threads, many with older members forced to repeat themselves over and over in giving advice or commenting, all from different time periods, and new members are forced to either trawl through the archives for hours on end (finding every mention of chooks even on threads which only contain just one instance of the word 'chook') to find relevant answers, or ask the same question which has more than likely been asked and answered before in one guise or another.
I barely have time and energy to maintain this thread, let alone repeat myself and find the relevant articles over and over again on dozens of different threads, which one by one get buried in the archives. :D :lol:
Besides that admittedly self-indulgent, self-protection mechanism, from the number of views so far, the way those views regularly tick over, and the feedback I get both privately and on the thread, there's been a number of people following it regularly from the beginning, plus a number of new people who find it worthwhile to pick it up from the beginning and read through to somewhere near the present.
All the info needed is in one place, on one easily browsable thread, and new, relevant material can be easily added for others to peruse.
That's all good IMO...and the only way it could possibly be done well as an information service for our little community. 8)
I'm really strapped for time ATM folks, so any new articles which obviously need adding, please do.
This one's a very brief rundown on the global oil supply situation ATM, which comes to the (IMO sound) conclusion that we're again going to see new records set for fuel prices once the US and northern hemisphere summer season kicks in. As always, supply to demand ratio is delicately balanced and any drops from the geopolitical situations in producer nations mentioned could have serious consequences.
The Peak Oil Crisis: The Summer Ahead (Click To View) (http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1241&Itemid=35)
More on this in much greater detail from ASPO-USA:
Peak Oil Review -- May 14, 2007 (Click To View) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=127&Itemid=76)
We've discussed Saudi production in some detail recently...some more detailed followup on that from Stuart Staniford:
Depletion Levels in Ghawar (Click To View) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2470)
One of the problems with calculating proven global oil reserves is that many state owned oil companies refuse to disclose their data for public scrutiny. When OPEC decided to allow member nations to produce a quota of oil based on the size of their proven reserves, all producers revised and raised those 'proven reserves' upwards to huge degrees - typically with no actual new major discoveries. The following article provides insight into Kuwait (and quite probably soon other large OPEC producer nations) now having to revise their previously inflated 'proven reserve' estimates downwards - so they can produce a new lower quota, rather than fall short on their old inflated one:
Kuwait’s Oil Minister should “Mind His Ps & Qs” (Proven, Probable & Possible – Quantity & Quality) {Click To View} (http://www.odac-info.org/bulletin/documents/BGC_Kuwait_Oil.htm)
More updates soon when time permits.
newcroft
22-05-2007, 09:28 PM
Don't forget "Crude" will be on ABC TV on 24th May at 8:30pm.
ABC have been following the peak oil story for a while, with specials from Catalyst, Four Corners, and interviews with Dr Karl.
With this doco it looks like they are really throwing their full scientific weight behind the story. Don't miss it.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200705/programs/SC0504H001D24052007T203000.htm
Michaelangelica
02-06-2007, 12:09 PM
Crude is available on line at the catalyst site.
i don't know how long it will saty there (usually 4 weeks)
You may like to download it and send to friends if you have the capacity
This was an interesting take on organic farming and global warming, I thought. (From the Terra preta list)
No thread here just on organic farming? I guess everybody just assumes it?
Sean has give me permission to reproduce it here
[quote:2z1fv233]We already make and use 150 million tons of industrial fertilizer a year worldwide. It is made primarily from natural gas, cracked into hydrogen (H2) from off-gassed copious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, then ammonia (NH4) is synthesized from nitrogen in air with the hydrogen (H2). The ammonia made this way is the main constituent in all industrially synthesized nitrogen based fertilizers.
Some of these fertilizers are pure anhydrous ammonia (NH4 liquid/gas), ammonium nitrate (NH4HNO3) of ANFO explosive fame, ammonium carbonate ((NH4)2HCO3), ammonium bicarbonate (NH4HCO3), and ammonium sulfate ((NH4)2HSO4), ammonium phospate ((NH4)2HPO4), and etc. Also there are many industrially synthesized pesticide and herbicide chemicals that are made directly a petroleum products.
All of the fertilizers are necessarily very water soluble (gas and salts) and many of them give off ammonia gas and nitrous oxide gas (N2O) when dissolved in water (e.g. NH4NO3 -> N2O(gas) + 2H2O(liquid) + heat). These salts dissolve into gases and free ions in water.
They pollute water flowing over the fields, leaching free oxidizing (acidic) ions into ground water, streams, rivers, and lakes. They pollute the atmosphere with nitrous oxide and ammonia off gassing.
N2O is a terrible green house gas, with 296 times more potent deleterious global warming effect on the atmosphere than that per mass unit of CO2! This means 150 million tons of NH4NO3 ((14+14+16)/(14+1+1+1+1+14+16+16+16) = 55% NO3 in NH4NO3, weight basis, or 82.5 Mt) would have the same effect on the atmosphere as ~24 billion tons of CO2 (296*0.55*150E6 = 24.4E9)! CO2 contains 12/(12+16+16) = ~27% carbon, so 24 Gt of CO2 is the same as ~6.7 Gt of carbon!
. .. If only half of the nitrous oxide (N2O) in the fertilizers is emitted, then I just proved that the nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from the worldwide annual use of industrial fertilizer could potentially be as bad as half the carbon dioxide problem! 150 Mt of industrially produced petroleum based fertilizer is as bad as 3 Gt of carbon emissions.
Our attempts a making soil amendments, actually directly from oil, is, in my opinion, way NOT something we want to continue doing! It is something we maybe better ought to stop as soon as possible.
Again, if anybody wants to review my analysis above and would like to differ, then I would, again, enjoy the rapport.[/quote:2z1fv233]
send any comments to (sean.barry@juno.com)
Dave Cohen has a good article currently on the ASPO-USA website which is well worth a read...especially for those who are fairly new to this topic:
On the Likelihood of Peak Oil (click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=143&Itemid=76)
Lots of other new articles, but nothing earth-shattering which by and large hasn't already been covered and/or discussed...so I'll save all our time by leaving them out. :D
Richard Heinberg has released an update on the Oil Depletion Protocol which is highly recommended reading (as usual with Heinberg):
The Oil Depletion Protocol: An Update (Click To View) (http://globalpublicmedia.com/richard_heinbergs_museletter_the_oil_depletion_pro tocol_an_update)
------------------
James Ward, Convenor of the ASPO-Australia Young Professionals Working Group, has prepared a document outlining practical steps that individuals can take to respond to the threat of Peak Oil.
Sections include:
Transportation
Shopping
Growing Your Own Food
Advocacy
You can download the 7-page PDF Here (Click) (http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Phil/PeakOil_WhatYouCanDoAboutIt.pdf)
Personally, I think a number of the "practical steps" are only practical in the short term (if that), but it's a good document for those who think along similar lines which has a stack of useful links included.
Good article on Peak Oil with regard to future urban transport planning from The Age (Australian newspaper).
It's heartening to see these type of articles becoming much more common in the major newspapers.
Petrol problems about peak oil, not snake oil - please note: 2-page article (Click To View) (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/petrol-problems-about-peak-oil-not-snake-oil/2007/06/13/1181414372167.html)
OPEC is on the warpath again...it's a good way to hide their inflated reserve estimates and the fact their production capacity is poised to go into major decline isn't it?...blame their customers for shifting a tiny portion of their fuel needs to biofuels, then pretend they've cut production by choice in retaliation. :wink:
Opec biofuel brinkmanship is a sign of things to come
It was always going to happen. Like a lover fearful they are about to get dumped for a younger rival, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) appears to have its scissors poised and ready to cut up the rest of the world's suits unless it stops flirting with those wanton biofuels.
According to the Financial Times, the cartel is now considering getting its retaliation in early by cutting investment in new oil production – a move that would drive oil prices "through the roof" – in response to the West's plans to increase consumption of biofuels.
Quoted last week in the FT, Abdalla El-Badri, secretary general of Opec, warned that the cartel may reduce investment in new oil production if the US and Europe continues its strategy of replacing a sizable proportion of the oil it uses with biofuels.
(Click For Full Article) (http://green.itweek.co.uk/2007/06/opec_biofuel_br.html)
blinkblink
20-06-2007, 11:29 PM
Here is a Irish doco on Peak Oil that was shown the other night in Ireland.
RTE (http://www.rte.ie/tv/futureshock/)
Cheers Blink. 8)
--------------------------
Notes from a presentation by Tom Petrie to the Institute of International Education in Denver on June 18, 2007 - reported by Steve Andrews.
Well worth a read:
A Strategic Perspective on 21st Century Energy Challenges (Click To View) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=158&Itemid=76)
christopher
28-06-2007, 01:48 AM
BTW, Jez, welcome to the rarified airs of the kiloposter club! Fitting it would happen in here on peak oil!
Onya!
ho-hum
28-06-2007, 07:30 AM
Jez,
Congratulations on joining the 1000 club and 1000 good posts too.
If you took the bulltwang outta my 1000 posts I would be up to about 150 by now... :D :D I am comforted though by the notion that 'it takes all types to make a world'.
cheers
floot
Sonya
28-06-2007, 09:35 AM
Thanks Jez for all the great articles on peak oil. Slowly but surely its getting out there. Today on the ABC website there was a story about 'Transport Poverty' a new social problem that's been identified at a Victorian conference.
Here is the link; http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007 ... 963181.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/27/1963181.htm)
I'm trying to get some peak oil action happening in my local area. I'm starting a new course based on David Holmgren's text (with David's consent) and addressing the social reorganisation needed to prepare - much along the lines of what Rob Hopkins has done in Kinsale and continues to do now in Totnes.
Also set up a website http://www.seac.net.au to try to encourage the community to get on board. We have the use of the building at the local community gardens to use - so we are in a great position to get this started.
On a positive note, we have great support from the Local Council (Maroochy) and the local uni for the projects - the course, a new energy action centre and getting energy descent action planning up and running.
Cheers,
Sonya
Cheers Chris...you know what they say about any club that would have me for a member?... :wink: :lol:
Thanks Floot, I don't think you're a kiloimposter...:lol:...you've contributed loads of great info and assistance to the board.
My pleasure Sonya...I think you're right, people are becoming more aware. Shame we couldn't have harnessed PO to the high publicity Climate Change bandwagon, but never mind, we'll get there...hopefully before reality makes it all too obvious.
The whole transport poverty/mortgage poverty phenomenon Kunstler and others predicted years back is really starting to take hold lately...arguably even more in the US than here...but we have plenty of vulnerable people. There's a post somewhere on this thread to an Australian study about the most vulnerable suburbs of each city by debt load and commuting costs/lack of public transport. I don't know if you checked it out, but it's a great visual aid to put that whole message across to those who should hear it sooner rather than later.
Best of luck with the new group and website...I think you're on the right track with Rob's groundwork and David's thoughts on the subject. Great work and congratulations on being so well organised and advanced even at this early stage. :thumbright:
If I can help in any way feel free to ask.
-----------------------
Just a little tidbit for today on Shell's progress with its giant white elephant 'shale oil' projects in Colorado:
The front-runner energy company in the effort to unlock oil shale in northwest Colorado has slowed down its research by withdrawing an application for a state mining permit.
Shell spokeswoman Jill Davis said the withdrawal of a permit on one of its three oil-shale research and demonstration leases was done for economic reasons: Costs for building an underground wall of frozen water to contain melted shale have "significantly escalated." (here we go again - Jez)
...
Shell's method involves heating shale over a period of years and encircling it in a wall of frozen water to prevent groundwater contamination.
Click Here For Full Article (http://test.denverpost.com/extremes/ci_6155257)
This is the 'oil of the future' folks...the same stuff the number manipulators keep inflating declining oil reserves with and using the fudged stats to tell us everything is fine.
That 'oil' is going to come very slowly and very expensively...if at all...and quite probably at a very high environmental cost.
Sonya
29-06-2007, 06:58 AM
Jez,
Thanks for the words of support, much appreciated - you feel like you're pushing the preverbial uphill most times but then I spare a thought for people like David Holmgren, Richard Heinberg and Colin Campbell who have been talking about this for ever..
Re the PO and CC information. I come from a background of communications; analysing public opinion, monitoring topical issues, developing key messages etc etc.
I think the big difference between these two issues, from the publics point of view is that while both are quite abstract to most (not really seeing the effects or not connecting events directly to these issues) and they are both complex, but climate change is an environmental issue - so making changes means animals and plants survive - change your lightbulb and save the polar bear.
Peak oil on the other hand is so entrenched in political deception and is so, so interconnected with global economies, the truth may never really come out.
If John Howard had a problem admitting climate change existed, imagine him admitting PO exists? Not likely.
Cheers,
Sonya
I think there's a strong possibility that from a general public perception PO will be buried in a myriad of other more easily grasped reasons for oil decline Sonya - uncooperative producer nations, geo-political factors, oil companies etc 'holding the public to ransom'...at this point (and most likely future points in time), admitting they hadn't forseen PO would be tantamount to politicians admitting they'd overlooked something they should not have missed. Much easier to blame something they 'couldn't possibly have forseen.' :wink:
--------------------------------------------
First up today, a rather amazing and groundbreaking admission from Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency (renowned for its radically over-optimistic predictions about global oil supply):
If Iraqi production does not rise exponentially by 2015, we have a very big problem, even if Saudi Arabia fulfills all its promises. The numbers are very simple, there's no need to be an expert.
...
I understand the Saudi government claims 230 billion barrels of reserves, and I have no official reason not to believe these numbers.
but unofficially, off the record, you know they're lying? - Jez
...
Unfortunately, there's a lot of talk, but very little action. I really hope that consuming nations will understand the gravity of the situation and put in place radical and extremely tough policies to curb oil demand growth.
Click Here For Full Story (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/27/165424/633)
Amazingly honest (refreshingly so) comments from an organisation usually so ridiculously optimistic (and proven so over and over again in their 'predictions').
Given a several year time lag to actually scale up Iraqi production, the current security situation there, plus the fact Iraq's parliament looks increasingly unlikely to do what the US want and take a very minority share while the US companies get filthy rich(er) getting the majority of oil revenues in return for infrastructure investment, I'd say counting on threefold production increases from Iraq by 2015 will be a very forlorn prospect.
------------------------------
Interview with Rob Hopkins and our very own Sonya (posting above) regarding creating local EDAP's (Energy Descent Action Plans) - well done Sonya:
Creating an Energy Descent Action Plan - stream, download or transcript (Click To view options) (http://globalpublicmedia.com/creating_an_energy_descent_action_plan)
------------------------------------
And finally, a June 2007 Peak Oil overview for beginners/intermediary people and anyone wanting a refresher - concise and well done IMO:
Peak Oil Overview - June 2007 (Click To View) (http://gailtheactuary.wordpress.com/2007/06/19/peak-oil-overview-june-2007/)
Euan Mearns at The Oil Drum has collated "50 links to Oil Drum articles from the past year is provided which combined provide a comprehensive overview of the issues surrounding peak oil and energy decline."
Some links are already on this thread or within the forum, but it's a good one to bookmark and check out anyway - very comprehensive overview:
Click Here For the 50 Links (http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2661)
---------------------------------
The MAV (Municipal Association of Victoria - Australia) held a conference recently entitled The Challenge of Global Warming and Peak Oil for Local Government. (at least one level of government has made the association between the two! :D)
As you'd expect, there is a bit of disinformation and outright fantasy solutions here and there from certain speakers and special interest groups, but on the whole the conference is very interesting, worthwhile reading, and a good starting template for anyone directly involved with or seeking to influence local councils.
Each speech presented at the conference is available as a transcript in PDF format, and available for download at the link below:
Click Here For Main Page To Download Speeches From (http://www.mav.asn.au/CA256C2B000B597A/ListMaker?ReadForm&1=45-Events~&2=10-Major+Events~&3=40-The+Challenge+of+Global+Warming+and+Peak+Oil+for+L ocal+Government~&V=Listing~&K=TOC+Global+Warming~&REFUNID=BB53DA974A86E780CA2572E400021A2E~&Count=10~)
Dave Cohen has written an article for ASPO-USA entitled "Peak Oil Down Under" which gives a very good overview of (declining) domestic Australian oil supplies in coming years, plus general comments on Australian governmental response to Peak Oil:
Peak Oil Down Under (Click To View) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=169&Itemid=91)
ho-hum
15-07-2007, 08:22 AM
Good thread,
Keep up the good work contributors - especially JB and Jez.
Is anyone else here suffered ''Peak Oil Fatigue''. I find it annoying that we have the information and the only thing that seems to be happening is that govts etc are looking towards $100 per barrel, to curb demand, as the only real fix-it they have on the horizon.
Does our government even have a plan for this contingency?
A bit of good news I did hear this week is that the price of fresh milk will rise due to increased farming costs. I cant remember the last time that farmers got a raise on the back of costs. Generally speaking for the past 30 years it has all been about 'economies of scale', 'cost cutting', and productivity increases due to hard work or some scientific breakthrough.
Sonya
15-07-2007, 09:01 AM
Qld Govt are hosting a roundtable of 160 business and community people to prepare for 'the long haul on climate change' in august.
The keynote speaker, Prof Thomas Homer-Dixon is discussing peak oil too. He authored a book called The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the renewal of Civilization. He discusses the scarcity of oil (interesting terminology) and global climate change and talks about the extraordinary opportunities we are presented with.
"We need to get as many heads working on our energy, climate and security problems as possible. We need to initiate an explosion of experimentation, learn rapidly from our failures, and communicate rapidly our successes across broad social networks. And we need to get ready for a future of enormous volatility - and enromous possibility."
His keynote address is Breakdown or Breakthrough Systemic Crisis and Renewal.
discussion leaders include Ian Dunlop from ASPO and Morag Gamble from SEED International.
I've received an invitation to attend and will let you know the outcomes.
Sonya
Does our government even have a plan for this contingency?
In a word Floot, no. :D
A bit of good news I did hear this week is that the price of fresh milk will rise due to increased farming costs. I cant remember the last time that farmers got a raise on the back of costs. Generally speaking for the past 30 years it has all been about 'economies of scale', 'cost cutting', and productivity increases due to hard work or some scientific breakthrough.
From what I've read, farmers are still absorbing more than their share of increased costs - i.e. not being able to pass on the full impact of the increase. I've forgotten where I read it, but I do have a link to the paper...somewhere. :wink:
-------------------------
Article by Dave Cohen discusses The National Petroleum Council (NPC) report "Facing the Hard Truths About Energy" and explores the history and likely future for EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) with regard to the notion it can make up some of the coming shortfall in global oil supplies:
Exaggerated Oil Recovery (Click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=177&Itemid=91)
Chris Nelder discusses the rather shocking (yet refreshing) recent IEA (International Energy Association) "Medium Term Oil Market Report":
Oil Supply and Demand: The IEA'S Come-to-Jesus Moment (Click to view) (http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/oil+demand-iea-peak+oil/470/)
And finally, a full transcript of the recent Le Monde interview with Fatih Birol from the IEA:
Le MONDE discussion with FATIH BIROL (Click to view) (http://www.peakoil.org.au/fatih.birol.interview.27june2007.htm)
It would seem even two of the most optimistic "anti-peak-oil" groups (the NPC and the IEA) now sit largely in agreement with many of the assessments made by the most respected Peak Oil campaigners and writers.
Even if they're pretending they don't. :wink:
A general article which depicts the difficulties oil companies are facing ATM:
CALGARY -- This decade's high crude prices mean there's plenty of incentive for Daniel O'Byrne, chief operating officer of Calgary-based Provident Energy Trust, to keep finding oil and gas for his company to produce. But he faces a problem - there's less and less reserves to locate, and the costs of developing them haven't stopped going up.
"Finding and development costs have had a huge ramp up in the last few years, but the size of the prize is getting smaller," Mr. O'Byrne said. "Hunting [for reserves] in Western Canada has become much more challenging than it used to be, and it will be a struggle for the whole basin to stay competitive in a global market."
It's a problem Provident, one of Canada's better performers in finding new reserves, is far from alone in facing. According to BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc.'s markets report released yesterday, the costs of crude oil and natural gas reserve replacement worldwide reached a record level of $14.53 (U.S.) a barrel of oil equivalent in 2006, a 25-per-cent rise from 2005 and a staggering 255-per-cent increase since 1999.
"The increase is a function of the world's maturing basins," said Randy Ollenberger, an analyst at BMO Nesbitt Burns and author of the report. "Companies are still spending capital but they are finding less reserves, while costs for land, equipment, steel and manpower are all increasing."
Click here for full article (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070725.ROILSERVICES25/TPStory/Business)
And a prediction from Goldman Sachs that $100 a barrel oil is probably only months away (unless OPEC increases supply - which it probably can't, and almost certainly doesn't want to anyway):
$100-a-barrel oil may be only a few months away (Click to view) (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/24/bloomberg/bxoil.php)
This probably doesn't strictly belong on the Peak Oil thread, but it's so interrelated I thought it was appropriate.
First is an article about the paper, below is the link to the paper in full for those who would like it:
Researchers have developed the first geographically detailed analysis of humankind's impact on the biosphere, as represented by a metric known as HANPP or human appropriation of net primary production. The results are presented and discussed in two papers published in the July 6 online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Using vegetation modeling, agricultural and forestry statistics, and geographical information systems data on land use, land cover, and soil degradation that localizes human impact on ecosystems, a team lead by Helmut Haber of Austria's Klagenfurt University show that humans are presently appropriating 23.8% of potential net primary productivity -- 15.6 pentagram of carbon per year. Of this amount, 53 percent of appropriation results from harvest, 40% from land-use-induced productivity changes, and 7% from human-induced fires. The work shows that humans are having a massive impact on Earth's resources.
"Our research has documented that Humans are indeed becoming a force in changing the global environment," David Zaks, a research assistant at the University of Wisconsin - Madison's Center for Sustainability & the Global Environment (SAGE), told mongabay.com. "The importance of these studies lies in reframing previously benign numbers into a story that more effectively portrays our collective actions on the planet."
Click here for full article (http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0725-pnas.html)
And a link to the PNAS website where you can download the full PDF from (located in the menu at top right of page):
Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth's terrestrial ecosystems (Click to go to download site) (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0704243104v1)
Gail E. Tverberg has a great knack for condensing great swathes of technical information and reproducing them for lay readers in a much more concise and clear layout. The article below is the 2nd chapter from a booklet she's currently writing with help from some of the folks at The Oil Drum. She focuses on 11 common questions regarding Peak Oil being a 'false alarm', then sets out to answer those questions in an easy to understand manner. Well worth bookmarking this one IMO:
Is this a false alarm? (Click to view) (http://www.energybulletin.net/32248.html)
And an article/overview from Dave Cohen for the ASPO-USA on how the poorer parts of the world are coping with much higher oil prices:
The ESMAP survey carried out by former World Bank officials polled 38 developing countries to find out what measures they were taking to cope with high oil prices (graph left, click to enlarge). Countries are divided up into (i) 16 non-oil producers (e.g. Cambodia, Senegal, Nicaragua); (ii) 13 producers who are net oil importers (e.g. Pakistan, Ghana, Thailand); and (iii) 9 net oil exporters (e.g. Argentina, Mexico, Vietnam). China and India fall into the second category, along with Brazil, who proclaimed their oil independence last year.
Of the 38 countries surveyed, 26 have suffered shortages or have resorted to rationing oil products or electricity.
Click here for full article (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=186&Itemid=91)
Chapter 3 of Gail E. Tverberg's Peak Oil booklet - this one focuses on the immediate and fairly distant future...what's ahead as Peak Oil takes hold.
Again, recommended reading and one to bookmark:
Peak oil: what's ahead? (Click to view) (http://www.energybulletin.net/33200.html)
Richard Heinberg and Public Policy Research have co-released a paper similar to the above, entitled The View from Oil’s Peak - again, recommended reading to complement the above pieces from Gail, plus the graphs, references at the bottom etc are worth having in and of themselves:
The View from Oil’s Peak (Click to view 'the view') :wink: (http://globalpublicmedia.com/richard_heinbergs_museletter_the_view_from_oils_pe ak)
newcroft
12-08-2007, 08:56 PM
Loads of high quality info continues to come out of The Oil Drum;
This one from "Ace"
Updated World Oil Forecasts, including Saudi Arabia
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2716
I'll just highlight this graph that shows the peak according to Ace.
World total liquids supply production (Fig 1) remains on a peak plateau since 2006 and is forecast to fall off this peak plateau in 2009. As long as demand continues increasing then prices will also continue increasing.
Forecast world crude oil and lease condensate (C&C) production retains its 2005 peak (Fig 2). The forecast to 2100 shows declining C&C production, using a bottom up forecast to 2012 (Fig 3). The forecast to 2012 shows a 1%/yr decline rate to 2009, followed by a 4%/yr decline rate to 2012.
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p237/1ace11/WorldCC200704.jpg
And just in case you haven't seen it before;
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p237/1ace11/ASPOIreland2007.jpg
gnoll110
13-08-2007, 01:03 AM
Is anyone else here suffered ''Peak Oil Fatigue''. I find it annoying that we have the information and the only thing that seems to be happening is that govts etc are looking towards $100 per barrel, to curb demand, as the only real fix-it they have on the horizon.
Does our government even have a plan for this contingency?
I think letting the oil price go to $100 or whatever is the contingency. Any organism will use a available resource to increase population. Not to do so risks being replaced by those who do. Just like Richard Heinberg's yeast in grape juice.
I think the best cause of action is to use lots of cheap oil in ways that use up as much carbon as they free up in its use, to produce long lived things/systems that don't use many ongoing resources to produce energy and/or food.
But here is the rub. Move too early and you risk others using improved methods later and making your investment outdated and maybe even unviable.
So using increasing price to prompt innovation may be the best ecological course of action.
... did hear this week is that the price of fresh milk will rise due to increased farming costs. I cant remember the last time...
Farmer costs might be the justification. The big questions are how much of the extra money get back to and stays in the farmers pockets and how much sticks to the middlemens fingers or goes into oil companies and governments pockets?
Gnoll110
Interesting article from the tech oil journal Rigzone regarding the 'scramble for Arctic energy reserves':
Technological and logistical factors are likely to preserve the Arctic region's huge reserves of oil and gas from exploitation for decades to come, said Norway's deputy foreign minister Liv Monica Stubholt.
"I think we would do well not to underestimate the difficulties" involved in any exploitation of the high north's natural resources, Stubholt told Thomson Financial News in a telephone interview.
And as far as drilling in the Arctic is concerned, "the technological challenges are (still) insurmountable ... I think we have decades ahead of us before the technology to do this in a safe and sustainable way is there."
Click Here for full article (http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=48818)
^^^Looks like another knight fell off his white horse before he even got out of the stable...but don't expect to hear about it in the mainstream media...they'll just keep raving about how many billion barrels of oil and gas *might* be up there... :wink:
-----------------------------
I thought I'd posted recently on this thread regarding the energy difficulties 3rd World countries are currently enduring, but it seems I haven't, so here's an article with a brief summary of recent energy crises around the world:
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/peak+oil-renewable+energy-shortages/490
*Edited to fix first link
Chapter four in the continuing Peak Oil booklet by Gail Tverberg, this part entitled "What Should We Do Now":
We know that peak oil will be here soon, and we feel like we should be doing something. But what? It is frustrating to know where to start. In this chapter, we will discuss a few ideas about what we as individuals can do.
Click Here For Full Chapter (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2857)
-----------------------
Jeff Vail has kicked off a series discussing EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested) over at The Oil Drum...probably a bit technical for most, but very interesting for some so I will include it:
EROEI Short #1: Boundaries & Calculations (Click To View) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2892)
---------------------
Michael Klare has an article on what he has termed "The Tough-Oil Era"...nothing particularly new for many perhaps, but a good article nonetheless:
Entering the Tough Oil Era: The New Energy Pessimism (Click to view) (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174829)
RobWindt
27-08-2007, 10:45 PM
Someone is betting that the US stock market will crash in three weeks
Quote
"This is an enormous and dangerous stock option activity. If it goes right, the guy makes about $2 Billion. If he's wrong, his out of pocket costs for buying these options will exceed $700 Million!!! The entity who sold these contracts can only make money if the stock market totally crashes by the third week in September." http://www.peakoilstore.com/forum/index ... 730.0.html (http://www.peakoilstore.com/forum/index.php/topic,6730.0.html)
Similar activity happened in the weeks before 9-11
Been hearing a lot about that Rob...not sure what to make of it really! :D
Three not strictly Peak Oil articles (nothing we haven't really covered quite well on that front), but closely related...
First up, an article about how much energy we get from oil, translated back to how many humans it takes to get that same energy output. We might have had a similar article before (I forget), but interesting reading nonetheless:
Energy slaves don't look like the workers honored on Labor Day: the lineman restoring your power after a storm, the backhoe operator digging a house foundation or the nurse changing a patient's bandages. They symbolize the energy sources that heat and cool the buildings and power the machines that run our society. One energy slave represents the power output from a human working as hard as a slave driver might drive a slave. A strong human working hard all day can put out roughly 100 watts of power. Working hard 12 hours per day, six days per year, 50 weeks per year, a human can produce about 1 million BTUs of energy — the amount of energy contained in eight gallons of gasoline.
From oil alone, 150 energy slaves serve the average person in the United States. The electrical line worker drives a truck everywhere; the backhoe makes digging a foundation in flinty soil seem effortless compared to digging by hand in sand; and the nurse uses bandages and medicines made with and from oil, in a hospital heated with oil.
But now the slaves are starting to slip away.
Click Here For Full Article (http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070902/FEATURES05/709020308/1014/FEATURES05)
And one on 'gas flaring'...
THE world's oil producers are wasting more than $50 billion a year of natural gas by burning it off in flares — and adding significantly to the world's greenhouse gas emissions in the process.
A study commissioned by the World Bank and carried out by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates that, based on satellite photos, 170 billion cubic metres of natural gas went up in oil producers' flares last year.
The bank said the amount was equivalent to 27 per cent of the entire US consumption of natural gas, and 5.5 per cent of global gas output. Had it been sold in the US at 2006 prices, it would have been worth $US40 billion ($A53 billion at 2006 exchange rates).
Click Here For Full Article (http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/world-bank-calls-on-oil-producers-to-cut-50bn-gas-fire/2007/08/31/1188067369022.html)
And one which gives an insight into deep-sea drilling for oil - the scale, costs etc...
Exploratory wells take several months to drill, and 65 percent or more fail. Koen projects a 1-in-12 chance of success in the Bob North field probe.
Chevron spends $500,000 to $850,000 a day to lease the Discoverer Deep Seas. The daily cost depends on how much hardware, what type of work, and how many people are needed on a given day.
The well will cost about $100 million, regardless of whether it produces oil.
Click Here For Full Article (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/5100867.html)
Couple of articles from distinguished Peak Oil scholars, the first from Robert Hirsch, the next four from Matt Simmons...parts 1-4 of a 6-part series (more to follow):
Planning for the Mitigation of Maximum World Oil Production (Click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=209&Itemid=91)
Meeting the Challenge: Matt Simmons Calls for Hard Look at ‘Conservation Production’ {Part 1 of 6} - (Click to view) (http://energytechstocks.com/wp/?p=237)
Meeting the Challenge Matt Simmons: Force All Oil Producers to Give Transparent Data {Part 2 of 6} - (Click to view) (http://energytechstocks.com/wp/?p=245)
Meeting the Challenge Matt Simmons: Look to The Oceans for New Sources of Oil {Part 3 of 6} - (Click to view) (http://energytechstocks.com/wp/?p=256)
Meeting the Challenge Matt Simmons: Take to the Water to Move People, Goods {Part 4 of 6} - (Click to view) (http://energytechstocks.com/wp/?p=270)
Sonya
16-09-2007, 07:13 AM
Peak oil was on the front page of Queensland's Saturday paper yesterday (the courier mail). Great articles, couldn't have asked for more really.
Peter Beattie resigned last week and we had a cabinet reshuffle when the new premier Anna Bligh was appointed.
Andrew McNamara, a Labor member from Hervey Bay has been made Minister for a new portfolio of sustainability. Sounds like the usual rhetoric, but McNamara has already been very vocal on peak oil.
He is in the front of Heinberg's The Oil Depletion Protocol endorsing the book and supporting the need for urgent action on peak oil.
In yesterday's article he called for a warlike response and listed all the ways we'll be affected. He's also commissioned a report on how peak oil will affect Brisbane.
There may just be a little light at the end of the tunnel, hopefully not a train.
Sonya
LarryLangman
16-09-2007, 05:52 PM
Just a little update on this post. The report that the Courier Mail is referring to is the Queensland Vulnerability Report commissioned in 2005. Andrew chaired the committee that provided the report. The report went to Cabinet in May of this year, as I recall. Now as a Minister he has some power to bring it to the public's attention.
The Brisbane report was a report commissioned by Brisbane City Council. The report was on Peak Oil and Climate Change. While the report was excellent, by time it got to a vote in Council, every action recommendation was changed to future tense. Every recommendation for Council to carry out was changed to read that the community should.
Apparently, according to a Greens comment at the time, the recommendations were too upsetting for councilors, and flew in the face of the strategic development plan that Council had already agreed to....eg more tollways, more cars.
I think this (Click) (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22419398-3102,00.html) is the article (or at least one of them) you're referring to Sonya?
Larry, first off, welcome.
As I recall, McNamara headed up a task force for the State government whose report was released last year...I think there's a link to it buried somewhere in this thread or has its own thread in this subforum, but I don't have time to look for it tonight - will do ASAP.
Ok, just to clarify, McNamara (and taskforce) have been working on "Queensland's Vulnerability to Rising Oil Prices" for a number of years and it's due for release soon. I think I got confused with the progress report from the same document.
It's discussed in the following audio interview:
Stuart McCarthy of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas talks to GPM's Andi Hazelwood about Queensland's new leadership, Andrew McNamara's recent appointment to Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation, McNamara's "Queensland's Vulnerability to Rising Oil Prices" report three years in the making and today's coverage of this landmark report in Queensland's Courier-Mail newspaper. Also on the table for discussion are McNamara's views on Queensland council amalgamations and nuclear, the recent response to a petition for the state to adopt the Oil Depletion Protocol, and the latest activities of ASPO international and in Australia.
ASPO's Stuart McCarthy on peak oil hitting the Australian mainstream (Click to go to audio download page) (http://globalpublicmedia.com/aspos_stuart_mccarthy_on_peak_oil_hitting_the_aust ralian_mainstream)
Also, the other Courier Mail story (Click to view) (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22419825-952,00.html)
RobWindt
20-09-2007, 09:54 AM
New Queensland Sustainability Minister on the future with less oil.
"There's no question whatsoever that community driven local solutions will be essential. That's where government will certainly have a role to play in assisting and encouraging local networks, who can assist with local supplies of food and fuel and water and jobs and the things we need from shops. It was one of my contentions in the first speech I made on this issue in February of 2005... that we will see a relocalisation of the way in which we live that will remind us of not last century, but the one before that. And that's not a bad thing.
Undoubtedly one of the cheaper responses that will be very effective is promoting local consumption, local production, local distribution. And there are positive spinoffs to that in terms of getting to know our communities better. There are human and community benefits from local networks that I look forward to seeing grow."
The Honourable Andrew McNamara, Queensland Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation
Link - http://globalpublicmedia.com/new_queens ... h_less_oil (http://globalpublicmedia.com/new_queensland_sustainability_minister_on_the_futu re_with_less_oil)
It's an encouraging statement Rob...I really hope the reality matches the rhetoric when it comes to the government assisting on relocalisation and greater community sustainability.
-----------------
Dave Cohen from ASPO-USA analyses OPEC spare capacity and the recent commitment to boost production:
Living On the Edge: OPEC Spare Capacity (Click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=215&Itemid=91)
Gail Tverberg over at The Oil Drum has embarked on the first in a series of three articles discussing the economic impact of Peak Oil - more to come:
Economic Impact of Peak Oil Part 1: A Flashback (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2977)
And finally, an interesting article from John Michael Greer on 'Fermi's Paradox', technology and progress:
Solving Fermi's Paradox (Click to view) (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2007/09/solving-fermis-paradox.html)
Khebab over at The Oil Drum has done his latest review of Production Forecasts and EIA Oil Production Numbers...below I am quoting the executive summary from the paper, with a link to the full article (with a truckload of linked references) for those who wish to delve a little deeper:
Executive Summary:
1) Broad revision (from 1980 to 2004) by the EIA this month but not significant in amplitude.
2) Monthly production peaks are unchanged:
[quote:1hleo67k]
2a) All Liquids: the peak is still July 2006 at 85.54 mbpd ( 0.11 mbpd), the year to date average production in 2007 (6 months) is 84.28 mbpd ( 0.02 mbpd), down 0.07 mbpd from 2006 for the same period.
2b) Crude Oil + NGL: the peak date remains May 2005 at 82.09 mbpd ( 0.01 mbpd), the year to date average production for 2007 (6 months) is 81.20 mbpd ( 0.04 mbpd), down 0.06 mbpd from 2006.
2c) Crude Oil + Condensate: the peak date remains May 2005 at 74.30 mbpd ( 0.15 mbpd), the year to date average production for 2007 (6 months) is 73.23 mbpd ( 0.14 mbpd), down 0.25 mbpd from 2006.
2d) NGPL: the peak date is still February 2007 at 8.03 mbpd ( 0.21 mbpd), the year to date average production for 2007 (6 months) is 7.97 mbpd ( 0.18 mbpd), up 0.19 mbpd from 2006.
3) Decline in crude oil + condensate continues: June 2007 estimate for crude oil + condensate is 72.82 mbpd compared to 73.11 mbpd one year ago and 73.92 mbpd two years ago.
4)Average forecast: the average forecast for crude oil + NGL based on 13 different projections (Figure above) is showing a kind of production plateau around 81 +/- 4 mbpd with a decline after 2010 +/- 1 year.
Click Here for full article (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3001)
[/quote:1hleo67k]
hedwig
26-09-2007, 03:29 PM
if we look at the graph, it doesn't seem to be THAT dramatic: 2020 there will be still the amount of oil available what we had 1995. And 1995 we didn't live that bad? Let's assume that world population drops with oil, maybe a bit unrealistic. And we will pay maybe the double for oil, demand will drop as well. Maybe a bit optimistic!
if we look at the graph, it doesn't seem to be THAT dramatic: 2020 there will be still the amount of oil available what we had 1995. And 1995 we didn't live that bad? Let's assume that world population drops with oil, maybe a bit unrealistic. And we will pay maybe the double for oil, demand will drop as well. Maybe a bit optimistic!
The first two new links below may go some way to answering your questions. Going back to 1995 production levels (as a 'best case scenario') from where we are now is very dramatic.
-------------------------------
Jeffrey Brown and Samuel Foucher fom the ASPO-USA on declining net exports from producer nations:
Declining Net Oil Exports--A Temporary Decline or a Long Term Trend? (Click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=218&Itemid=91)
The second article from Gail Tverberg in her three-part series on the economic impacts of Peak Oil (the first article is a few posts back on this thread):
Economic Impact of Peak Oil Part 2: Our Current Situation (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2983)
And the fifth (of six) part of the Matt Simmons series - four of which are a few posts back on this thread:
Fix Energy Infrastructure before the ‘Bridge Collapses’ (Click to view) (http://energytechstocks.com/wp/?p=285)
The Financial Times announced last night the government of Abu Dhabi has made an investment in the Carlyle Group, a Washington-based private investment firm with close ties to former President George H. W. Bush and his family, as well as to top government officials in the Reagan and Clinton administrations.
WND reported yesterday Dubai, in a complex set of transactions, is moving to acquire 19.9 percent of the Nasdaq stock market in New York, in the first equity transaction which would place a Middle Eastern government in an ownership position in a key U.S. stock exchange.
As a result of the transaction, Dubai will also acquire 28 percent of the London Stock Exchange, one of the oldest and largest stock exchanges in the world.
excerpts
http://noworldsystem.com/category/carlyle-group/
Big-spending Abu Dhabi National Energy Co. (TAQA) has made its most significant deal so far in Alberta's energy patch, spending $5-billion to buy PrimeWest Energy Trust as the United Arab Emirates-based firm continues to pursue ambitions of becoming a major player within Canada.
The deal - the third made by TAQA in Alberta since May - won't be the last as the company seeks to increase the size of its Canadian subsidiary, TAQA North, from $7.5-billion currently to $20-billion by 2012 through production growth and additional purchases, said CEO Peter Barker-Homek.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... y/Business (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070925.RTAQA25/TPStory/Business)
hedwig
28-09-2007, 02:05 PM
Jez, the second link is really good, the third scary.
I read some years ago in the "Spiegel" magazine that a financial crash in the US is likely, due to the hight of the personal debth of the households (not only mortgage).
Maybe there are two different things coming together.
My personal believe is that the US could have a economically growth with declining energy use (however the overall growth is limited and yet reached), simply because so much is wasted.
All what you can read at the moment is, that the economic collapse of the US is at the doorstep, will it take weeks, month? I bet not years.
How Cuba dealt with it.
http://globalpublicmedia.com/articles/657
from
http://www.permacultureportal.com/netwo ... urces.html (http://www.permacultureportal.com/network_resources.html)
hedwig
28-09-2007, 09:37 PM
Cuba is not a realistic scenario for peak oil. Because
1. many cubans left home (they're expatriated after two years abroad), so there were considerable less to feed
2. most of the cubans abroad send money home (dollars), like most latin americans abroad do.
And: the special period wasn't funny at all, that's the reason why so many left.
The sceneario will probably be different in every country depending on their consumption. The solutions could be much the same, curtail consumption and community cooperation. Cubans probably don't miss their Ronco pocket fisherman and dispoable lighters because they never had them.
http://www.communitysolution.org/solutions.html
money talks AND installs governments. big oil hires deniers, monsanto edits wikipedia (got that in a permaculture email this AM)
http://www.politicalfriendster.com/rate ... 19&id2=238 (http://www.politicalfriendster.com/rateConnection.php?id1=3219&id2=238)
there just isn't Time for that kind of thing, "tide and Time wait for no man."
John Howard's team revise history on Wikipedia
Staff from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have made at least 126 changes to various pages in the online encyclopaedia, according to a Fairfax report.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/s ... 468,00.htm (http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/John-Howard-s-team-revise-history-on-Wikipedia/0,130061733,339281468,00.htm)
U.S. Invades Cyberspace: The U.S. State Department is upgrading "foreign policy to Web 2.0 interactivity for the new electronic information age," with its first-ever blog, "Dipnote." The department "has already vastly expanded its Web presence and ... has set up a State Department YouTube channel." Meanwhile, the department's Digital Outreach Team is monitoring Middle Eastern blogs and Internet forums, sometimes adding comments.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Disinfopedia
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand." - Josh Billings
The power of the Internet is like a two-edged sword. It can deliver misinformation and uncorroborated opinion with equal ease. The thoughtful and the thoughtless co-exist side by side in cyberspace.
excerpts
http://www.cja-jca.org/cgi/content/full/47/7/713
One of the most frightening realities of teaching college history is that most students rarely have a clue what fascism is. They know about Hitler and the extermination of Jews, but they see little connection with Nazi rule in the 1930s and 40s and the current political milieu in the United States. Overwhelmingly, they cannot define fascism, nor can they define socialism or democracy. After all, they were pre-occupied during grammar school with becoming standardized human beings by way of taking standardized "No Child's Behind Left" tests, five hours a day, four days a week. So why would they know the definitions of fascism, socialism or democracy?
As for Wolf's suggestion in today's article that we "take to the streets", the police state is preparing for that eventuality as well by letting us know that it has developed severely injuring electromagnetic crowd control technology that will dramatically limit how many and how often people can "take to the streets." Welcome to full-spectrum "1984".
I repeat: the police state is right here, right now!
Moreover, some pivotal factors that Wolf has not addressed are global energy depletion, climate change, and global economic meltdown which are exacerbating the fascist shift about which she so brilliantly writes and which will continue to embolden that shift as energy scarcity, climate chaos, and financial crises add fuel to the fires of terrorism that the ruling elite have so consciously and carefully incited and fanned throughout America. As American society continues to unravel, the fascist shift will escalate, and what is left of our civil liberties will further evaporate.
excerpts
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e18426.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18426.htm)
Fascism can only gain hold in a society that refuses to plainly see it, and see beyond it. To get rid of a demon, so we learn in fairytails, we have to simply call the demon by its true name. That the emperor has been strutting around naked for nearly 8 years and the subjects have failed to kick him out of office is a sign of the work toward a mature facing of reality that needs to be done nation wide. We need to look at the situation from a bird'seye (Horus) point of view in order to know how to navigate this difficult passage.
As well as the web videos on Fascism it helps to look at those on Mind wars, MInd control and Cults...eg: How to be a Cult Leader. Also Jordan Maxwell for becoming symbol literate. Bill Deagle and Fred Bell.
http://www.livevideo.com/video/CTCC/265 ... happe.aspx (http://www.livevideo.com/video/CTCC/265D3117537743609B680E12EE4F1D7D/did-you-know-2-0-shift-happe.aspx)
Things are moving so fast now, the conditions that the fascist tumor is preparing for, will be obsolete by the time they try to implace it...as long as we are proactive, positive and working toward an awaken empowered society where facism cannot gain hold.
Spiritual prescience realized is the penetration of the tension of our internal defenses that have been building for centuries within our bodies so we can harvest their energies for our own catalytic expansion. The self in a closed collapsing universe lives in defense and defense is hostility. The self in an open expanding universe has all senses open to the Whole, hence is infinitely radiant with fecund life and awareness.
Each individual needs to mature, and to hold all Government-service people accountable to "maturity" also. New Age "Light chasing" will only contribute to global downfall. "The Secret" while holding part of the method of success, should not prevent us from doing the shadow work that will bring about Maturity.
The keys to the most elevated approach to evil/negative shadow:
1. Resistance is the hymen between the immature and the mature state.
2. When the baby of maturity emerges, it is as though it is fully formed, because it simply "is what is"...and was just hiding in the dark womb along with the Shadow-fear.
2. Negative ego/Shadow needs to be seen, understood and loved into submission. And a new more “Universal” vision implanted.
3. Fascism is prevented by magnifying the differentiation, genius and Presence of each individual.
4. Social-evil needs to be seen through an amoral lens as though it were a physical cancer—in this way the moral-emotional hardware is disengaged allowing a rational and non-reactive approach to the cultural shadow.
Do they still have the "no stopping" law on the hill in Boulder? I remember 30 years ago I was walking on the hill and I stopped to talk to a friend, a couple cops on foot patrol walked past and one of them mumbled something, I was in a conversation and didn't hear him and wasn't sure it was directed at me and I kept talking. The cops came at me, pulled out their nightsticks and yelled, "I SAID KEEP MOVING", we got moving. It has been coming for awhile. Do they have the chainlink and bulletproof glass corridors on the hill yet?
__________________________________________________ ______
A vast “rabble-proof” barrier has isolated the city, where underground stations are being closed and 5,000 police and soldiers will patrol the streets in the $300 million (£122 million) security operation.
Prison authorities will release inmates this weekend to accommodate arrested protesters, who will be taken away in a fleet of public buses converted into mobile holding cells. Blackhawk military helicopters and F18 fighters will patrol the skies above Sydney as the city prepares for what John Howard, the Prime Minister, says is the most important international meeting yet held in Australia.
excerpt
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 381674.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2381674.ece)
Because Americans have been raised in a controlled illusory environment (which has been fabricated by decades of corporate/government brainwashing), like rats in cages, and because of the very effective "filtering" system on all public communications systems, it is practically impossible for the "Paul Reveres" of the Internet to awaken the town.
We look at the challenge before us and are overwhelmed at the utter impossibility of it all – how can we stop the things that are about to be, and save those things that are about to be no more? Is it America's destiny to become the new "Reich?" Doesn't our greatly revered Constitution acknowledge our God-given rights to oppose dictatorship if it raises its head in our government, and even to abolish and change government that becomes abusive of these rights and the rights of innocent others? Yes, we have all these rights and more. (Most of the powers that belong "to the People" are yet to be defined [10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."], but that too has to change.) What we do not have is freedom of expression in this country for anyone who opposes the criminal actions by our government, or by those corporate elites who sit in the real seats of power, over them.
The great problem for us is that we have to deal with those who only deal in disinformation.
It is time to tell the people about the danger. We have to make the Congress investigate Cheney and the neocons, in order to stop their new war plans and to find out exactly how far they have gone in subverting the Constitution of the United States. We have to do it now.
We have to overcome the ideological forces that suppress the real news in this country and devise ways to get word to the people, past the filter that sanitizes our communication. One commercial on "Northwoods," then and now, with emphasis on the Israeli connection to the coming Iran war, might be a large enough dose of truth, to crack open the conspiracy known as "neoconservatism." Meanwhile, we have to counter the organized campaign of lies that now masquerade as truth.
excerpts
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/ ... e_twenty_f (http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/10/01/the_ideological_struggle_of_the_twenty_f)
I think in light of the above posts, it's probably a good time to state the purpose of this thread.
While the thread title is "Peak Oil & Post Peak Oil Changes To Society Articles", it was never the intention for the "changes to society" part to include anything other than the direct and possible societal results of energy shortages.
People visit the thread to get news on Peak Oil and articles which directly discuss post Peak Oil consequences. I don't think it's a good idea to divert an already large thread into discussions which don't directly relate to either of the former.
So please, Ojo and Jana, if you want to have a discussion about fascism in the US or anything else not specifically related to Peak Oil, could you start another thread to do so?
I'm not trying to hassle you or prevent you from disseminating information you think people should read - far from it, I fully encourage you to start another thread on the issues you've raised - I'm just trying to protect the integrity of the thread and make it as easy as possible for people to get information on Peak Oil.
Thanks for your (I hope) cooperation on this. :)
----------------------------
The following is an article by Glenn Morton..."a geophysicist in the oil industry. For Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corp., Glenn served as Geophysical Mgr Gulf of Mexico, Geophysical Mgr for the North Sea, Dir. of Technology and as Exploration Director of China. Currently he is an independent consulting geophysicist..."
It's an interesting article which touches on a wide range of topics:
...To Grandmother's House We Go: Peak Oil Is Here (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3014)
And a couple of very brief notes from the recent ASPO 6 conference...
Ray Leonard of the Kuwait Energy Company spoke about the Hedberg Conference, a formerly secret recent meeting of major oil industry figures. One outcome of the meeting was that using data provided by the companies present, it was widely agreed that realistically, the world has around 250 billion attainable barrels of oil left to discover, not the 700 billion barrels stated by the US Geological Survey - the latter being the figure that policy makers use to make decisions.
Dr. James Schlesinger (former US Energy Secretary and head of the CIA) made the comment "...we are all peakists now. Conceptually the battle is over, the peakists have won” during his presentation at the conference.
The last article of Gail Tverberg's series on the economic impacts of Peak Oil - this one focusing on future trends. Much of it is US specific, but it's still a useful read IMO:
Economic Impact of Peak Oil Part 3: What's Ahead? (Click To View) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2984)
For anyone that missed parts one and two, I'll re-post both links below:
Economic Impact of Peak Oil Part 1: A Flashback (Click To View) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2977#more)
Economic Impact of Peak Oil Part 2: Our Current Situation (Click To View) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2983)
Tom Standing from ASPO-USA has written an article which focuses on debunking the recent National Petroleum Council (NPC) report and their assertion that enhanced oil recovery (EOR) will contribute significant additional production in years to come:
Once Again, NPC Expects Too Much From EOR (Click To View) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=222&Itemid=91)
A couple of articles from Kurt Vail, the first on...
Geopolitical Feedback Loops in Peak Oil (Click To View) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3017)
The second is the first in a four-part series on Willits, one of the first communities in the world to become Peak Oil aware and start acting on it:
Willits and the problem of slow knowledge (Click To View) (http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2007/10/willits-and-problem-of-slow-knowledge.html)
------------------------
I'd also like to extend my warm congratulations to our very own Sonya Wallace, whose hard work and vision with SEAC has seen the Sunshine Coast be named Australia's first 'Transition Town.'
Read more about it Here (Click to view) (http://www.seac.net.au/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44&Itemid=32)
Well done Sonya. :thumbright:
Heaps of great watching...
Peak Moments "Peak Moment" is a weekly half-hour TV series featuring conversations about local food, renewable energy, transportation alternatives, preparedness, economics and other areas of concern as we move into a period of climate change and declining fossil fuels.
Website: http://www.peakmoment.tv
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?u ... moment&p=r (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=peakmoment&p=r) —80 TV programs
Big news folks, QLD Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation Andrew McNamara has released the QLD government report into "Queensland’s Vulnerability to Rising Oil Prices."
Media release is Here (Click to view) (http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=54417)
The report PDF can be downloaded from Here (Click to go to download page) (http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/publications/?id=2190)
Unsurprisingly, the report is conservative and optimistic in nature, but it is groundbreaking from a governmental perspective in that it clearly acknowledges the undeniable reality of Peak Oil, states that it will be factored into a whole of state government response, outlines that a big change in the way communities go about their lives and business is essential, and makes some suggestions for the mitigation of Peak Oil (some of which are wildly off the mark IMO, others are very positive if they are properly backed by government funding).
It's a major step - and don't forget that which direction Queensland heads in from here is something that lies with the will of individuals as much as it does the government.
caldera
12-10-2007, 02:59 PM
Change is the only constant ~
I heard recently that Queensland DPI (Department of Primary Industries) are sending all their boys and girls to the Nutri-tech Courses
and to think 50 years ago not one government in the world had a department for the environment
now we are waking up and remembering that we are nature, we are the environment... our bodies are made of the same elements that we find in all of nature
have no fear
change is here
No doubt about that Caldera, just a question of how effectively we can manage change...I'd agree there's a lot more open mindedness to new ideas these days.
-------------------------------------
Stuart McCarthy (Brisbane coordinator of ASPO - Australia) has a valuable critique and commentary regarding the recently released "Queensland’s Vulnerability to Rising Oil Prices" report:
Peak Moment for Peak Oil in Queensland (Click to view) (http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2081)
Richard Heinberg has revisited his book "Powerdown: Options and actions for a Post Carbon World" and offers his updated thoughts on the subject, along with a 'here and now' critique of our preparedness (i.e. lack of it) with regard to Peak Oil:
Powerdown Revisited/As the World Burns (Click to view) (http://globalpublicmedia.com/richard_heinbergs_museletter_as_the_world_burns)
John Michael Greer discusses Powerdown and an 'ecotechnic' society:
Climbing Down The Ladder (Click to view) (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2007/10/climbing-down-ladder.html)
Khebab over at The Oil Drum applies Hubbert Linearisation to Ghawar in his ongoing exploration of Saudi depletion:
The Hubbert Linearization Applied on Ghawar (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3050)
And an article posted on the Platts blog which summarises and discusses a recent CERA report into oil industry personnel shortages, which can perhaps best be further summarised with the quote:
"This analysis confirms that engineering and project management personnel are already insufficient to meet 2007 upstream project demand...
...
{There will be a}...10-15 percent shortfall of qualified, available staff by 2010 ... (which) will (result in) increased costs and further delays that will have cascading effects in other markets. As the project engineering talent pool continues to shrink and the number of technically difficult projects such as deepwater, heavy oil, or severe climate operations increases, the demand for the remaining highly qualified staff is expected to increase significantly."
Click Here for Platts article (http://www.platts.com/weblog/oilblog/2007/10/help_wantedlots_of_it.html)
Click here for original CERA report (http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=9006)
As mentioned before in this thread, a future shortage of skilled labour in the oil industry is going to be another big factor in production volumes and consequently, availability and declines of supply. Even the professional denialists at CERA admit it. :wink:
newcroft
18-10-2007, 08:31 PM
ABC News reporter Allan Kohler annouced peak oil with his version of the very famous graph 'The Growing Gap'
As he said about the rising oil prices "It's simple really"
I managed to take a photo, but for some reason I can't get it to load. You need to click on the link;
Allan Kohler on ABC news;
http://bp3.blogger.com/_cm8pUrAS2Tw/RxXzBs7utfI/AAAAAAAAAE8/eHlkgFhC-MQ/s1600-h/Kohler+007.jpg
The more famous graph of The Growing Gap;
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/7517/1710/1600/762511/GrowingGap.jpg
Strange bloke that Alan Kohler Newcroft...he's effectively said the opposite a few times too. :?
-------------------------------------
Larry G. Chorn, the chief economist for Platts has done an analysis on how much it's going to cost the oil industry to maintain infrastructure, upscale exploration etc in the future to try and keep up with demands. Take it with a bit of a grain of salt because it's likely to be an underestimate, but the numbers involved are staggering.
Declining production volumes are just one of many enormous challenges the industry faces...individually they present big problems, collectively they paint a picture of a massive looming crisis which is quite literally unsolveable.
Trillions in spending needed to meet global oil and gas demand, analysis shows (Click to view) (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/15/business/NA-FIN-US-Oil---Gas-Spending.php)
John Michael Greer has yet another excellent post on his blog - this time around the topic is The Age of Scarcity Industrialism:
The Age of Scarcity Industrialism (Click to view) (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2007/10/age-of-scarcity-industrialism.html)
German based Energy Watch Group has just released a report which claims, among other things, that:
...global oil production peaked in 2006 - much earlier than most experts had expected. The report, which predicts that production will now fall by 7% a year...
...
"The world soon will not be able to produce all the oil it needs as demand is rising while supply is falling. This is a huge problem for the world economy,"...
...
Global oil production is currently about 81m barrels a day - EWG expects that to fall to 39m by 2030. It also predicts significant falls in gas, coal and uranium production as those energy sources are used up.
...
"Anticipated supply shortages could lead easily to disturbing scenes of mass unrest as witnessed in Burma this month. For government, industry and the wider public, just muddling through is not an option any more as this situation could spin out of control and turn into a complete meltdown of society."
...
"The world is at the beginning of a structural change of its economic system. This change will be triggered by declining fossil fuel supplies and will influence almost all aspects of our daily life."
The 101 page PDF report and 13 page PDF executive summary can both be downloaded from Here (Click to view) (http://www.energywatchgroup.de/Erdoel-Report.32+M5d637b1e38d.0.html).
Jim Kunstler's summary of proceedings from the recent ASPO annual conference in Houston (along with a typically Kunstleresque diatribe about Houston and its surroundings! :lol: ) is available at his blog:
Hirsch went a little further now, two years on, than he had in his famous report, predicting a future of "oil export withholding", panicked markets, and allocation disturbances that would make the 1973 OPEC embargo look like a golden age.
...
Matt Simmons...also raised the specter of shortages, telling the audience that market allocation problems in the near future would almost certainly induce "hoarding behavior" among the public that would cripple the economy, lead to enforced rationing, and shock the nation.
...
He also repeated his oft-stated opinion that the drilling rigs and other equipment used around the world to pump oil out of the ground are so uniformly old and decrepit that they pose a problem every bit as dire as peak oil itself.
Peak Universe (Click to view) (http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2007/10/peak-universe.html)
Finally, just to round out the good news, the Australian publication Stock Journal reports that CBH chief executive, Imre Mencshelyi, has predicted that food prices will at least treble within the next five years (an analysis which, it must be said, beyond biofuels, entirely excludes the cumulative effects of Peak Oil).
Food prices to treble in five years: CBH (Click to view) (http://sj.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=46138)
Big Gav has been instrumental in setting up an Australia/New Zealand chapter of the highly informative and successful 'The Oil Drum' website:
The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand (Click to view) (http://anz.theoildrum.com/)
The site will feature oil and energy related news which is specific to these regions and is a great resource for those who want to keep up on regional developments.
-------------
The PeakOilWhen website from Case Western Reserve University is an interesting initiative:
Purpose: To develop a Global Best Estimate for the timing of Global Peak Oil in order to leverage the powers that be into a decisive remedial action.
Method: An aggressive outreach to oil-thoughtful people everywhere, extracting their wisdom in an integratable way, integrating those opinions through a scientific, results-neutral methodology; completely transparent, totaly exposed to critique and indepedent evaluation.
Tool: BiPSA: Binary Polling Scenrio Analysis. A scientifically sanctioned procedure developed by Dr. Gideon Samid, head of the Innovation Appraisal Group at The Department of Chemical Engineering at Case Western Reserve University
PeakOilWhen website (click to view) (http://www.peakoilwhen.org/)
They have just reported on their May-August survey (Click to download PDF) (http://www.peakoilwhen.org/Report_oct07.pdf).
Summary:
Case Western Reserve University has just published its May-Aug survey results, that attracted over 300 oil experts from around the world. Its conclusion: global agreement on peak oil occurring by 2010.
The full report, available on the survey site (http://www.PeakOilwhen.org), shows an alarming change from the 2005 survey. While geologists in both surveys warned about an imminent Peak Oil, in the older survey, economists and politicians disagreed. In the recent report the agreement on the results is across the board.
The survey puts them with a group including Chris Skrebowski (high profile Peak Oil expert and editor of UK Petroleum Review) who maintain that total liquids probably haven't quite peaked yet, but will over the next few years.
Chris has recently been interviewed on this matter and on the above Energy Watch Group report - both interviews are audio only (at this stage) - his take is that we're on a ~1200 day countdown to Peak Oil:
Global Public Media interview (Click to go to audio download page) (http://globalpublicmedia.com/chris_skrebowski_on_alarming_new_peak_oil_report)
David Strahan interview (Click to go to audio download page) (http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=65L)
It's important to keep in mind that there is significant disagreement on the above points - many believe we've already peaked, others believe new production coming on line between now and 2011 or so will result in a very slight increase on past total production.
The two things both camps agree on is that the correct answer will only be revealed in hindsight, and that one way or another, we may as well be on the downward curve after peak right now, because even if we do have another minor production spike over the next few years, it won't make much difference to the big picture on declines or the short and long term economic impact.
-----------------
Tom Whipple - long time Peak Oil commentator from Falls Church News Press - has a summary of the recent ASPO conference which is US specific, but well worth a quick read IMO:
What we in America have not yet begun to grasp is that numbers like this imply the near total demise of the private internal combustion powered automobile. Your local gasoline station is at the end of the distribution pipeline and is the most likely to be cut off. If gasoline available for distribution in the U.S. were to fall from 9 million barrels a day to the order of 5 million through a combination of declining production and declining exports, it is not hard to figure out what would happen when the government gets around to prioritizing uses.
Food production and distribution would come first, then public health (clean water, sewage, sanitation, medical services), then public safety including the armed forces, and finally some level of economic activity that uses petroleum products.
Thirty seconds of pondering this situation should leave you with the idea that there will be very little gasoline available for your gas station to sell to you. For sure, there will be a lot fewer gas stations around ten years from now and you are not going to like the prices.
The Peak Oil Crisis: A Message from Houston (Click to view) (http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1984&Itemid=35)
-----------------
Finally, as a little sideline for US people, it's interesting to note the recent statement from Jim Rogers:
Oct. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Jim Rogers, chairman of Beeland Interests Inc., said he is shifting all his assets out of the dollar and buying Chinese yuan because the Federal Reserve has eroded the value of the U.S. currency.
...
Rogers, delivering a presentation late yesterday at an investors' meeting organized by ABN Amro Markets in Amsterdam, said he expects the Chinese currency to quadruple in the next decade and that he is holding on to commodities such as platinum, gold, silver and palladium.
...
``The U.S. dollar is and has been the world's reserve currency, the world's medium of exchange,'' he said. ``That's in the process of changing. The pound sterling, which used to be the world's reserve currency, lost 80 percent of its value, top to bottom, as it went through the whole period of losing its status as the world's reserve currency.''
...
The bull markets in bonds and stocks are ``over,'' he said. ``Bonds will be a terrible place to be for many years and will in fact be going down for many years.''
...
``The number of hectares devoted to wheat farming has been declining for 30 years, the inventory levels of food are at the lowest level since 1972,'' Rogers said. ``Suppose we start having droughts again. God knows how high the price of agriculture is going to go, so that's where I'm putting more of my money now than in other things.''
He added, ``I think I'm going to make more money in agriculture than I make in precious metals.''
Jim Rogers Shifts Assets Out of Dollar to Buy Yuan (Click for full article) (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=news&sid=aqNT0qlW_zQE)
Double post due to lagging submission and slow update on the forum thread list not revealing the post had already gone through at the beginning of the lag... :rr:
Chris Nelder from Energy & Capital has posted extensive notes on every presentation from the recent ASPO conference for anyone interested - 47 page PDF:
ASPO Notes (Click to download) (http://peakwatch.typepad.com/ASPO_Houston_10-07_cnelder.pdf)
David Clarke has commenced a series of articles on the new Oil Drum (Australia New Zealand) website, which will discuss:
1. Where are we, how did we get there, what’s in our immediate future? The next 5 years in Australia.
2. Scenarios and threat analysis. Australia out to 2020.
3. Social solutions and personal preparations.
First article is available now and further updates as the next two are posted:
Australia: The Place To Be (Part 1) - (Click to view) (http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3147)
Personally, I think the article is overly optimistic about mostly the wrong things (not saying there isn't cause for optimism, just that it's founded on some shaky things in this instance) and not entirely accurate, but it has certainly sparked quite a bit of debate which is interesting in and of itself...particularely when viewed through the 'lens' of Permaculture.
Jen Mazer
31-10-2007, 12:45 PM
Hi
I have noticed on this sight animosity toward "offsetting".
I am trying to figure out the difference between carbon "offsets",
carbon "trading", and "cap and trade". I think I do not understand because
of math issues but I also think I don't understand because these simply do not make sense. They stink of consumerism and a market attitude.
How are these issues supposed to make sense?
Rising Tide North America has a great article on a "Greenwash Guerilla"
event that took place today.
Partial quotes from an email they sent me.
From Greenwash Guerilla David Lee-"Gifting free, tradeable property
rights to worst polluters does little to ensure reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions. Carbon trading, and the Lieberman bill are a subsidy for big
polluters disguised as a climate protection measure."
"Carbon offsets do little more than the selling of indulgences by
Catholic churches in the 16th century. It's time to get serious about stopping climate change and shut these false solutions down".
Check out NYC Indymedia
and Rising Tide North America.
In the US, Carbon Trading Legislation prepares to clear senate in November. I am scared.
Sorry I could not provide links. I am not very good at that.
I feel like screaming at all the environmental groups now-do I
trust them-no way!
Jen Mazer
http://woundmosaic.blogspot.com/
effigyoffaith
31-10-2007, 11:31 PM
In a cap and trade system the government limits the total emission at a certain amount. Then they distribute among the various polluters permits to emit a portion of that total. If a company is emitting more than the had permits for than they need to buy permits from others that polluted less. There are endless ways that the permits can be distributed originally. My favorite is that the are auctioned off by the regulating agency and proceeds used to fund research in the alternative energy sector.
The beauty of a cap and trade system is each year the cap can be lowered and the total emissions reduced. And that the biggest polluters have to pay the most and those that pollute less are at a economic advantage.
the wiki on emissions trading is pretty good
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
I'm less sure about offsets. I think the idea is that you pay someone to reduce their emission instead of doing it yourself. It seems to be the "in thing" for democratic US politicians these days.
One way I think that offsets might work is if they were for carbon sequestering as in biochar.
Welcome Jen and Effigy,
'Carbon offsetting' which you can buy is generally for individuals to 'offset' their emissions, usually by paying someone to plant an equivalent amount of trees to counter-balance what they have just emitted.
In many ways it encourages people to be guilt free about emitting, which is certainly not preferable to not emitting in the first place. Such a system also raises a whole bunch of problems, including:
How much carbon is actually being offset in the short term when you're planting new trees which take time to mature?
How to actually measure the amount of carbon offset? (at the moment it's mostly guesswork and wide open to fraud and distortion of reality)
How much money is being used to administer offsetting businesses?
How much do they profit?
And perhaps most importantly...what was the land already used for?
There's been numerous cases of forests being cut down in order to plant carbon offset businesses seedlings in their place. That's nothing short of outright damaging eco-fraud IMO.
Carbon trading and cap and trade is essentially the same thing because in most cases (but not all) a cap needs to be set in order to trade - and it runs much as Effigy has set out already. I believe we need to adopt an emission cap system which runs along the lines of Richard Heinberg's Oil Depletion Protocol.
Either system (cap and trade or carbon offsetting) could feasibly be used to encourage and financially back bio-char as a carbon sequestering method, and I agree with you Effigy that this could potentially be a good thing, but it would certainly require much stronger regulation than carbon offsetting currently has and way less loopholes than the current EU carbon trading model.
I'm obliged to point out that while this is an important topic, it's only very peripherally related to energy, oil and post-peak oil changes to society, so I would appreciate it if you started another thread if you want to discuss this particular topic in any more detail.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation and BTW Jen, there's an FAQ link at the top of each page which may help you with how to post links, start threads etc.
-----------------------------------
Now seems like as good a time as any to post a little reminder about the Oil Depletion Protocol website, which has grown out of the Richard Heinberg book of the same name. It's the best concept I've seen for sensibly managing transition to an era where we'll be using much less oil each year:
Oil Depletion Protocol website (Click to view) (http://www.oildepletionprotocol.org/)
A large chunk of the picture regarding long held suspicions that OPEC nations artificially inflated reserves has now fallen into place, following former Sadad al-Huseini’s admission that Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations all 'invented' reserves which didn't exist in order to get bigger production quotas.
This means that for decades the world has been told we have 300 billion more barrels of oil left in the ground than we actually do - roughly a quarter of the world's supposed remaining 'proved' reserves effectively just vanished:
The world's proved reserves have been have been falsely puffed up by the inclusion of 300 billion barrels of speculative resources, according to the former head of exploration and production at Saudi Aramco, and this explains the industry's inability to raise output despite soaring prices.
...
Mr al-Huseini began by noting the obvious inconvenient truth of the oil market of recent years: that production has barely increased despite a soaring crude price and massive investment by the industry. "It's telling us something. We should be listening to what the numbers are telling us, not what the politicians say - It's not about economics alone, you can increase prices, but you will not necessarily drive production up."
He also noted that 400 billion barrels of reserve replacement has been reported over the last decade, and asked why this had not been translated into new capacity. The answer, he suggested, was that a quarter of the world's claimed proved reserves are no such thing: not production-ready oil, but speculative sources. “Reserves are confused and in fact inflated. Many of the so called reserves are in fact resources. They’re not delineated, they’re not acessible, they’re not available for production”.
Click Here For Full Article (http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=68)
The above amounts to a major victory for a number of Peak Oil commentators who have argued that significant artificial reserve inflation occurred among OPEC members - that fact is now confirmed by the ultimate inside source. It's also a massive setback for CERA, Daniel Yergin and the others that have included these invented reserves as part of their attempted discrediting of Peak Oil...particularly seeing they sell their supposedly accurate insider information about reserves at a very high price. :lol:
Long term Peak Oil commentator Kenneth Defeyes (one of the few who - so far - accurately predicted a 2005 production peak for oil) has an article on his website which expands further on Jeff Vail's recent article about feedback loops combining to decrease oil availability post-peak:
Feedback Loops* (Click to view) (http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html)
* Since this article is currently in the 'current events' section of Ken's website, the link will change, so if you're using the above link much after it was originally posted, use the 'October 2007' link under the 'older articles' section to access it.
Completely buried by most of the mainstream media, Reuters reported the following yesterday:
OPEC is likely to discuss creating a basket of currencies for oil pricing at its next summit due to the steady decline in the dollar, Venezuela's Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez said on Friday.
"The need to establish a basket of currencies ... will probably be a point of discussion in the next OPEC summit," Ramirez told reporters during an evening event in the presidential palace.
"The dollar as a benchmark currency has been weakening quite a lot and it creates distortions in oil markets."
If OPEC do go ahead with 'a basket of currencies', to say the US economy will be in deep trouble would be an understatement. The full article goes on to sketch the history of the US' default on foreign debt back in 1971 and the subsequent removal of the gold standard (leaving the value of the dollar to be backed by oil) and the consequences of countries moving away from trading oil (and whatever else) in US dollars.
The Last Days of the PetroDollar (Click to view) (http://www.bitsofnews.com/content/view/6352/)
And finally, Daniel Lerch of the Post Carbon Institute has published a book entitled Post Carbon Cities: Planning for Energy and Climate Uncertainty - more details available at Energy Bulletin for those who are interested in learning more:
Building post carbon cities (click to view) (http://www.energybulletin.net/36468.html)
Jen Mazer
01-11-2007, 06:00 AM
To the moderator:
Could I please have a new thread under "carbon trade systems" and include my comment here and the last two replies? Or how do I do that myself?
Jen Mazer
Hot on the heels of Sadad al-Huseini’s claim that proven reserves from OPEC nations are considerably overestimated based on creative accounting (see above post), Faith Birol - chief economist at the International Energy Agency - has stated that the IEA's 2008 projections on proven reserves and global production capacity trends will be “addressing the limitations and uncertainties” of the info they've been provided by the United States Geological Survey:
For the USGS numbers to come good the world would need to discover 22 billion barrels of oil per year between 1995 and 2025. But as the USGS has now acknowledged, so far the world has only discovered 9bn bbls per year - a massive 60% less than forecast. Even if the rate of oil discovery were now to plateau at that level for the next two decades, the USGS resource numbers would still be 500 billion barrels too high. But since oil discovery has been in long term decline since 1965, despite rising oil prices and advancing technology, it is rather more likely that discovery will continue to fall and the USGS numbers prove yet more astray.
...
Given the widely-acknowledged over-inflation of the USGS figures - the Survey recently slashed its estimate for East Greenland from 47bn barrels to 9 billion - it is likely the IEA’s reappraisal will prompt a major downward revision in its long-term production forecast. And this in turn will undercut the generally sanguine view held by many IEA member countries such as the United States and Britain.
IEA reviews reliance on USGS resource estimates (Click to view) (http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=69)
I think when the 2008 IEA estimates come out, a lot of politicians and anti-peak commentators are going to get a massive shock. :wink:
Especially considering their 2007 report was already a huge step toward an admission of their past errors - it read like a Peak Oil document.
Tom Whipple has a short piece on 'After The Peak' which some may find interesting:
The Peak Oil Crisis: After The Peak? (Click to view) (http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2015&Itemid=35)
And finally, an article on the environmental consequences of using coal for energy - with a focus on what is happening in China:
World's growing dependence on coal leaving a trail of environmental devastation (Click to view) (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1030darkside.html?&wired)
Stuart Staniford has a good analysis of Russian production capacity over at The Oil Drum. Russia is the only major producer which hasn't been in decline over recent years (though production actually peaked during the Soviet era) so their production volumes will be critical to how quickly we go into the decline phase globally.
When Will Russia (and the World) Decline? (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3139)
Michael Lardelli - Senior Lecturer in Genetics at The University of Adelaide - has an article at Online Opinion which is interesting not only for the views on Australian energy it puts forward, but also from the comments from readers which follow. They're a good example of how far we still have to go in getting the realities of Peak Oil across to the public - particularly the preoccupation with 'solutions' which are anything but.
Sleepwalking over the oil peak (Click to view) (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6584)
Jim Kunstler has another ( :lol: ) go at the mainstream media and how they report on energy, oil and oil prices - particularly pertinent in a week where current oil prices are very much major news:
Ignoring the Obvious (Click to view) (http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2007/11/ignoring-the-ob.html)
My biggest laugh of the week...it turns out that Daniel Yergin (co-founder and chairman of CERA which is about the last remaining major critic of Peak Oil Theory) contributed to a book on Peak Oil nearly three decades ago...the very same thing he now says is "garbage!" Evidently there wasn't as much money in promoting awareness of Peak Oil as there was selling high priced lies to the rich and influential. :lol:
Ironically, most of the things Yergin and his fellow contributors predicted back in 1979 regarding Peak Oil and energy in general have come true. Meanwhile, he's been very handsomely rewarded for decades since then communicating the exact opposite to his earlier (correct) writings.
Young Daniel Yergin as peak oil activist (book review) (Click to view) (http://www.energybulletin.net/36930.html)
And finally, Rigzone (via Dow Jones Newswires) has an informative article about how much 'big oil' is struggling to bring any significant new supply online to offset declines, despite the massive recent rise in oil prices:
For major energy projects, cost inflation of two to three times has become common. For example, Royal Dutch Shell PLC's (RDSB.LN) budget for the construction of the 140,000 barrel a day Pearl gas-to-liquids project in Qatar has increased from $5 billion in 2003 to $12 billion to $18 billion today. Some industry observers believe the eventual cost may exceed $20 billion.
...
Basic drilling costs in the last two years have outpaced oil prices by 26% all over the world, while deepwater rig rates have seen a five-fold increase...
$100 Oil: Big Oil Struggles to Tap New Energy Amid High Costs (Click here for full article) (http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=52607)
Apparently George Bush understands and acknowledges the concept of Peak Oil - even if he refuses to use the term:
Q Okay. Mr. President, with oil approaching $100 a barrel, are you concerned that your hard words for Iran on its nuclear program are helping drive up oil prices, which can end up hurting the U.S. economy?
PRESIDENT BUSH: No. I believe oil prices are going up because the demand for oil outstrips the supply for oil.
...
Oil is going up because we use too much oil, and the capacity to replace reserves is dwindling. That's why the price of oil is going up.
Click Here For Full Press Release (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071107-5.html)
Reminds me of Brendan Nelson dropping the ball on the real reason for being in Iraq. :wink:
Recent news tells of a "monster offshore oil discovery" in Brazil...I thought I might put this "monster discovery" in its proper context.
a) It's going to be hugely expensive to bring to production - "the field lies under 7,060 feet of water, almost 10,000 feet of sand and rocks, and then another 6,600-foot thick layer of salt."
b) Initial production is estimated (and I emphasise this because so many 'estimates' turn out to be wildly optimistic) to be around 100,000bpd (barrels per day). Brazil alone uses 2.1 millionbpd, Australia uses about 900,000bpd, the US uses about 21 millionbpd.
A field capable of producing such a small flow of oil, which is so difficult and expensive to get at, counts to the mainstream media as a "monster discovery" in this day and age. The hype this discovery has been accorded is beyond belief if you put it in its proper context. :wink:
Offshore discovery could make Brazil major oil exporter (Click to view) (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2007-11-09-brazil-oil_N.htm)
Even most of the major oil company CEO's are starting to come clean (or should I say cleaner :wink:) regarding peak oil...mind you, at this point they don't have a lot of choice:
Comparing year-to-date through September, Mulva’s company (ConocoPhillips) is down 80,000 b/d in twelve months, Shell is off 69,000 b/d, BP is down almost 100,000 b/d, and Exxon is down 23,000 b/d. Since 2004, during a three-year period when the oil market was lavishly rewarding new production, Shell is down 18%, ConocoPhillips is down 14%, and BP is off 8%.
As Oil Flirts with $100, Industry CEOs Issue Warnings, Dead Enders Take Cover in Last Foxhole (Click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=252&Itemid=91)
These CEO's are still bullish about increasing production, but the facts don't even remotely add up when you examine where this new production will come from. They'll be back year after year with another round of excuses, which only serve to delay the declaration they'll inevitably have to make - Peak Oil is now, or has already passed.
And finally, along the lines of the last article:
A study released today by Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy finds that the "Big Five" international oil companies (IOCs) are spending less money on oil exploration in real terms despite a four-fold increase in operating cash flow since the early 1990s.
...
The study found that the Big Five (ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips), used 56 percent of their increasing cash flow on share repurchases and dividends, which were good for investors in the short term but put at risk the companies long-term oil reserves.
“The handwriting is on the wall. The oil majors are not replacing reserves,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, co-author of the report and the Wallace S. Wilson fellow for Energy Studies at the Baker Institute. “It’s as if they are slowly liquidating their long-term asset base. They may see a declining rate of production over time and eventually that is bad news for both their shareholders and consumers.”
Baker Institute study shows 'Big Five' oil companies limit exploration (click to view) (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/ru-bis111207.php)
"Handwriting" on the wall? Or flashing neon letters 50ft high? :wink:
caldera
14-11-2007, 11:46 AM
what's that quote ?
"May those with eyes, see... and may those with ears, hear"
incredible
Indeed Caldera. :wink:
Have you checked your PM's lately? I responded to your query and sent you another PM a while later to check if you got it (they sometimes go astray so I thought I'd better check seeing I hadn't heard back from you).
---------------------------
Kathy McMahon (Psy.D.), has an amusing and poignant article on the website 'Peak Oil Blues'...an exploration of 'doomerism' and psychological effects of Peak Oil which is a very good read IMO...I'll quote the beginning here:
Panglossian Disorders and Their Subtypes
Panglossian Disorder: “The neurotic tendency toward extreme optimism in the face of likely cultural and planetary collapse.”
Temporal Subtypes:
Scarlet O’Hara-ism- “I’ll just have to think about that tomorrow.” A strategy of denial that allows the person to temporally compartmentalize the feared event(s).
Futurism: “Sure, that will happen, but it will occur after all of us are long dead.” A belief that something that might happen in the distant future is no concern in the present.
Y2K features: “They said everything would collapse with 2000, and it didn’t.” A belief that any prior concern about societal problems that didn’t occur demonstrates the impossibility of any others happening in the future.
Angry Subtypes:
Rhett-Butlerist Features- “Peak Oil? Planetary Collapse? Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” Aggressive denial of information not in keeping with one’s world view.
Kill the Messenger Redirection: “Why are you telling me this? What kind of sicko focuses on these kinds of facts? You need help!” The belief that those who bring bad news are doing it for malevolent reasons.
Narcissistic Subtypes:
Rigid Cheney-ism: “The American Way of Life is non-negotiable.” The belief that any undesirable change can be avoided by a sheer act of will.
Survivalistic features: “Hey, if the rest of the world is doomed, I don’t worry about it, because I’ve got mine.” A belief that personal preparation is adequate.
Religious Subtypes:
Religiosity: “God/The Planet/Mother Nature loves humans. He/She/It would never permit massive die-off.” Or “If that happens, I just put my faith in my Savior.”
Neoliberal Econo-manic Tendencies: “The market will sort it out.” A belief that market forces control all— including geological realities.
Nascarian Features: “People love their automobiles. A solution will have to be found to keep us driving.”
Subtypes with Denial or Minimization as the Central Feature:
Pure Denial: “That can’t be right. It’s just impossible.”
Minimalization as a primary defense: “There may be some shortages, but I doubt it will be as bad as you say.”
Subtypes with Histrionic, Helplessness, Acquiescence or Submissive Features:
Submissive Features: You’re probably right. [Shrug]” Too hard/scary to think about… A response that acknowledges the reality of the threat, but is emotionally frozen or unwilling to devote emotional time and energy to the matter.
Histrionic Features: “I just don’t know anything about that. Oh, Golly, I hope you’re wrong. That’s all I can say. Oh Golly, I just can’t think about it.”
Subtypes with Delusional or Magical Thinking:
Meglomanic Features:“This simply won’t happen to me.” A belief in one’s specialness, which will save them from the consequences affecting those around them.
Paternalistic Features: “The government/corporations will sort it out.” A belief in the infallibility of organizational structures to resolve problems they aren’t willing to even acknowledge.
Doubting Thomas Features: “Peak Oil is a scam by the Oil Companies to raise prices!” Minimizing the possibility of the crisis by the belief that some one or some group has ultimate control over its happening.
Pure Cornucopian Features: “The more we need, the more they’ll be.” A belief that continued progress and provision of material items for mankind can be met by advances in technology.
The Flintstonian: “The stone-age didn’t end because they ran out of stones.” A belief that modern innovation is eternal.
Frank Zappa-ism: “As soon as things get really bad, they’ll come up with something.” A belief that necessity is the mother of invention.
Magical Thinking: “Don’t worry, we can build a car that can run on air!” Proposes solutions that are clearly outside the realm of physics.
MacGyver-ism Features: A belief that massive planetary problems can be solved with ordinary/common items found readily at hand. Eg.: “Pig dung will be the next fossil fuel.” Or “Coke Cans can be turned into solar panels.”
Economic and Planetary Collapse: Is it a Therapeutic Issue? (Click here for full article) (http://www.peakoilblues.com/blog/?p=132)
Dave Cohen from ASPO-USA has another good article, this one goes into oil prices and the effects of them feeding back into the wider economy:
Not Fixing To Walk (click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=253&Itemid=91)
Lastly, Big Gav from The Oil Drum (ANZ) has put together quite a thorough and interesting exploration of geothermal energy which is well worth a read (FWIW, as I've stated before, I think geothermal is by far the best 'alternative energy' option for Australia):
Geothermia (Click to view) (http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3215)
Roger Blanchard from Energy Bulletin has written a critique of the way the mainstream media portrays Peak Oil...or more to the point, typically dodges around Peak Oil to keep the wider public in the dark as long as possible:
Media's advice for increasing global oil production (Click to view) (http://www.energybulletin.net/37243.html)
Steven Athearn has compiled a list for Global Public Media of notable figures who have made comments about Peak Oil over recent years...a good PDF to download and save for reference:
Who's talking about peak oil (Click to go to PDF download page) (http://globalpublicmedia.com/whos_talking_about_peak_oil)
Kurt Cobb has written an interesting article exploring the difficulties of communicating Peak Oil to others - he describes much of society of being in the midst of 'Peak Fun'...a reference to the fact that at peak *anything*, there is by definition, more of it than ever before:
Peak fun (and the inevitable hangover) - (Click to view) (http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2007/11/peak-fun-and-inevitable-hangover.html)
And finally, energy investment banker and long time Peak Oil author and activist Matt Simmons has a couple of interesting comments in a recent interview:
Energy crisis is on horizon: Peaked Production Means Today's Oil Prices Are Cheap (Click to view) (http://www.kentucky.com/454/story/232359.html)
Another oil industry insider - Martin Payne - going public to inform people of the reality behind oil supplies:
I am an Austin, Texas-based petroleum engineer with 26 years of experience in the upstream oil and gas industry. I am a member of the American Petroleum Institute (API) - Houston Chapter (past Chairman), Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) and American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). In my spare time I am a Scoutmaster and volunteer fireman, and I serve on the board of Useful Wild Plants, Inc. (http://www.usefulwildplants.org ) - a 36 year effort to document the uses of essentially all species of wild plants in Texas and the surrounding areas.
Martin gives his thoughts and the general industry concensus from the recent ASPO US conference at his blog Peak Opportunity:
ASPO 10/07 - MP's Comments (Click to view) (http://peakopps.blogspot.com/2007/11/aspo-1007-mps-comments.html)
Tom Whipple commenting on the recent semi-backflip regarding Peak Oil by the Wall St Journal...where they rather amusingly take the 'we know Peak Oil is a fact but we better rebrand it as something else' stance:
The Peak Oil Crisis: Wall Street Comes To Reality (Click to view) (http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2123&Itemid=35)
Khebab over at The Oil Drum has a highly technical piece on world decline rates which is certainly not for the mathematically challenged...if your eyes glaze over from reading formula's and lots of graphic data then give this one a miss or just read the conclusions:
Estimating the World Production Decline Rates from the Megaproject Forecasts (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3203)
Llewellyn King from North Star Writers Group has a general summary of 'the mood' in Houston - a city he describes as 'the heart of the global oil industry' - and surmises that 'fatalism...now grips the oil patch.'
Energy Angst: Long-Term Oil Gloom Spreads In Houston (Click to view) (http://www.northstarwriters.com/lk017.htm)
And finally, bad news for future US energy supply and global prices...exports of natural gas from Canada are predicted to decline 30% by 2015 and further after that, while exports from the oil sands projects in Alberta will also decline due to 'rising costs' (what a surprise):
Bad News from Canada May Raise Short & Long Term Commodity Prices of Oil and Natural Gas (Click to view) (http://energytechstocks.com.previewmysite.com/wp/?p=540)
Certainly further compounds problems for the US with exports predicted to decline significantly from all their other major suppliers within the exact same period.
Megan Quinn Bachman has done a summary for Energy Bulletin of proceedings at the fourth U.S. Conference on Peak Oil and Community Solutions - well worth a read and gives links to DVD's from the conference:
Peak oil activists gather, plan for hard times, will lead the way (Click to view) (http://www.energybulletin.net/37751.html)
A new Dr. M.K. Hubbert (the 'grandfather' of Peak Oil) paper from 1972 has been uncovered:
Long and detailed analysis of the complete fossil fuel cycle by Dr. M. K. Hubbert. Originally published in the McGraw-Hill Encylopedia of Energy ca. 1976.
Click here to download 22 page PDF (http://www.mkinghubbert.com/files/hubbert_1974.pdf)
Dave Cohen has a very good piece at ASPO-USA on economics and Peak Oil:
Questioning Peak Oil Economic Assumptions (Click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=261&Itemid=91)
Parts two and three of David Clarke's interesting series on 'Australia: The Place To Be' (post-peak) are now available. I highly recommend reading the comments under each article as well as the articles themselves...all interesting and at times informative discussions which offer a good range of opinions. Part one was linked to earlier in this thread (previous page), or you can get to it via the beginning of part three:
Part 2. The Future in Australia: The Next 13 years (Click to view) (http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3166)
Australia, The Place To Be: Part 3a (Click to view) (http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3250)
And finally, for those interested, Gail Tverberg has an article - complete with photos - on her visit to Shell's Brutus off-shore oil/gas platform and New Orleans facility as an invited media guest. It's an interesting insight into the industry and the scale of these kind of offshore projects:
Visit to Shell's Brutus Off-shore Oil/Gas Platform and New Orleans Facility (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3278)
Absolutely fascinating article from Dave Kimble which examines and models how much fossil fuel energy it can take to convert to 'alternative energy' sources, when that energy can start reducing fossil fuel inputs, energy payback and other factors - the example he uses is photovoltaic solar panels.
I can't recommend this article highly enough...it really puts into perspective just how difficult it can be to scale up the transition from one energy source to another is when you're relying on energy from the old source to achieve it:
The energy dynamics of energy production (Click to view) (http://www.peakoil.org.au/news/index.php?energy_profit.htm)
Jeremy Faludi from World Changing has an interesting analysis on the role computers can potentially play in reducing fossil fuel use (and by extension, CO2 equivalent emissions):
Green Computing Update, Part 4: Computers As Green Tools (Click to view) (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007622.html)
And finally, just as an aside on computing in the future which feeds into the above article and is not really that related to the thread topic, the following article is about a report which suggests that the arrival of YouTube, Skype and other highly intensive bandwidth websites, means that unless US$137 billion is spent in the next two years, all internet users may experience regular interruptions of service ('brownouts') due to demand exceeding network capacity:
U.S. report warns of brownouts on overloaded Net (Click to view) (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=09c2ef4f-2374-4126-99d0-7d2d3b320133)
It's a lot of money to come up with in a short period considering the precarious state of the global economy...and obviously, the upgrade (and how many more into the future?) will come at a heavy fossil fuel and emission cost.
Food for thought.
Leading Peak Oil commentator and author Richard Heinberg discusses the link between food and oil, examining how food production will be affected by declining oil supplies, and explores ways to overcome the inevitable issues:
What Will We Eat as the Oil Runs Out? (Click to view) (http://globalpublicmedia.com/richard_heinbergs_museletter_what_will_we_eat_as_t he_oil_runs_out)
Tim Winton of The Permaforest Trust Centre for Sustainability Education in Australia explores Pathways to a Low Carbon Future during a community forum presented by Permaforest Trust, the Ethos Foundation and the Obono Institute - slide, video or audio format, no text:
Click here to go to download page (http://globalpublicmedia.com/pathways_to_a_low_carbon_future)
Big Gav of Peak Energy (and The Oil Drum ANZ) criticises (quite rightly) a recent article published in The Australian which makes quite a few poorly researched claims about factors relating to Peak Oil:
Peak Oil In The Australian (Click to view) (http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2007/12/peak-oil-in-australian.html)
Nate Hagens of The Oil Drum has a good article on how exploiting biofuels on a large scale effects water resources (US specific but useful for anyone else as a guide):
The Implications of Biofuel Production for United States Water Supplies (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3285)
And finally, I'm going to start a separate thread on this, but I thought I'd add it here as well because it is relevant to post-peak society and may be of use to some or many...the Hesperian online library of healthcare books. Definitely material worth saving/printing and having in case of emergency:
Hesperian’s Online Library (Click to go to download page) (http://www.hesperian.org/publications_download.php#wtnd)
Tom Whipple comments on the recent NYT article which focuses on the issue of rising internal consumption within oil exporting nations leading to declining exports. There are already articles on this topic here on the thread, but it is significant that the mainstream media is finally waking up to this phenomenon...although in this case they do fall back into the 'everything will be fine' outlook at the same time:
The peak oil crisis: the NY Times drops the first shoe (Click to view) (http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2221&Itemid=35)
The IEA is 'worried' about demand for oil exceeding supply, but states that nobody should 'panic', because oil that is yet to be even discovered - let alone begin to be produced - will magically appear...looks like we're overdue for another wildly optimistic and in hindsight, incredibly incorrect IEA production forecast...they must have been slapped on the wrist for being too close to vaguely honest lately...:wink::
IEA: oil demand has surpassed supply (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3331)
John Michael Greer has a piece on post-peak agriculture which outlines the cost of transition away from fossil fuels in the agricultural sector:
Agriculture: The Price of Transition (Click to view) (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/agriculture-price-of-transition.html)
Finally, two articles and a website on post-peak transport options:
Phil Hart for TOD ANZ on (among other things) electric bikes and the possible switch to "bi-modal size distribution of vehicles":
How Big is your Bicycle? (Click to view) (http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3302)
Richard Gilbert and Anthony Perl for ASPO-USA on preparing transport for oil depletion (please note, these guys are not really clued in about peak oil, despite the article appearing on the ASPO-USA website):
Preparing Transportation for Oil Depletion (Click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=256&Itemid=91)
And lastly, for anyone interested, part of the Solar Evolution website which focuses on Personal Rapid Transport (PRT) options for the future:
Personal Rapid Transport (Click to view) (http://www.solarevolution.com/PRT/)
richardgilbert1
15-12-2007, 10:03 AM
Richard Gilbert and Anthony Perl for ASPO-USA on preparing transport for oil depletion (please note, these guys are not really clued in about peak oil, despite the article appearing on the ASPO-USA website):
How are we not clued in?
G'day Richard,
It was intended to serve as a similar disclaimer to that which ASPO-USA has at the beginning of their articles, but in hindsight, I have worded the above comment clumsily as it comes off sounding disparaging, when my actual intention was to indicate that readers - in my opinion - should treat some of the 'facts and figures' contained within with a healthy degree of scepticism.
I apologise for the clumsy wording, it was unfair to make such a blanket statement, and I did actually agree with quite a few of the sentiments which were expressed in the article (which is why I posted the link to it). My comment was more a product of time limitations than actual intent.
The specific part of the article which concerned me was the following:
The year 2025 is the focus for this scenario-building, recognizing that it will be an early point in a long era of oil depletion; 2025 is far enough ahead to allow substantial change in transport systems, but near enough to impel early action.
The overall target, based on realistic expectations of oil production, is to reduce world oil consumption for transportation to 35% below a ‘business-as-usual’ projection for 2025, or about 17% below consumption in 2007. The reduction would be shared unevenly between richer and poorer countries so that the U.S. would reduce consumption by 40% from its 2007 level and China would increase consumption by no more than 25% above its 2007 level (still much below projected consumption).
The key parts of the above which I dispute, are that the figures you give actually represent an accurate portrayal of "realistic expectations of oil production," and that 2025 represents an "early point in a long era of oil depletion."
To offer just one example, the recent Energy Watch Group publication projects that oil production will have fallen to around 48 Mb/d (drawing the middle ground between their projections for 2020 and 2030, which are 58 Mb/d and 39 Mb/d respectively) by 2025.
This projection represents a fall of roughly 40% on current production volumes, while the figure you are aiming at in your 'scenario building' is a 17% global reduction on current consumption. There's a big difference, which is the reason I think it's prudent to not take for granted that a 17% reduction is anywhere near enough to provide for a 'soft landing.'
It is also worth acknowledging that while the EWG publication represents perhaps the most radical production decline projections from a number that could be used as source material, it doesn't begin to factor in the very important influence of Jeffrey J. Brown's (on occasion also with Samuel Foucher) Export Land Model.
Jeffrey demonstrates that while production declines in post-peak oil producing nations may run at 4% annual decline (purely a hypothetical decline rate example for the purpose of discussion), actual declines in the amount of oil exported will run at roughly seven times that amount - in this case, a ~28% decline in export volume. If the production decline rate is something like what we're seeing in the UK - just under 8% and probably closer to what we'll see in many places than the 4% example - then we're looking at a decline in exports of well over 50%.
For a country such as the USA (one of your examples) with massive reliance on the importation of oil, the ELM looms as a massive factor where the reduction of oil needed for transport to allow for a "soft landing," will in my opinion, by necessity, have to be significantly greater than the 40% by 2025 suggested in the article if it is to serve to offset a rise in oil usage among 'developing' countries.
As for the comment suggesting that 2025 is an "early point in a long era of oil depletion", I would suggest that a ~40% reduction in total global production volumes, with actual export volumes exacerbated by the ELM, represents anything but an early point in the era of oil depletion. It may well be in terms of years before the last barrels of oil are produced, but not in terms of a drop in global production and oil availability for importing nations - or more bluntly, overall impact.
While I'm fully aware that our contrasting views on this matter undoubtedly stem from the data sources we've each drawn our conclusions from, I feel it would be negligent of me to indicate to those who read this thread that I endorse the theory that a 17% global reduction in oil used for transport will be enough to provide for a "soft landing," when projections indicate that this may well not be the case.
I hope the above explains my reasoning adequately; in hindsight, a better way of introducing the article would have been to point out that the 17% ambition stated within falls well short of some projections for global production and export decline, and should therefore be viewed with a healthy scepticism - not the comment I did use, which as I said earlier, was unfair to use without any qualification.
richardgilbert1
17-12-2007, 05:27 AM
Dear Jez,
Thanks for your further words. We should stress that the ASPO piece concerned what was in our book, Transport Revolutions: Moving People and Freight without Oil, which was then forthcoming. The book should now have been published (in the UK).
We are great admirers of the work of Werner Zittel and Jörg Schindler (Energy Watch Group) and cited their reports on coal and uranium in the book. We finished writing the book in July 2007 and their excellent report on oil was not available until October. If we had had access to their report when writing the book we might well have been influenced by it. Instead, we made use of what we regarded as the best projection available to us at the time, that of ASPO. Thus, your basic criticism of our book may be no more than it was written too soon.
We’re not sure we would attach as much importance to projections that focus on exporters’ own consumption, including the work of Brown and Foucher that you noted (which we did not come across until October 2007) and that of Rubin and Buchanan (which we learned about in July, just after the book manuscript was sent to the publisher). This consumption is usually spurred by extraordinarily low retail prices, which could be caused to rise very quickly.
You seem to have twisted our statement about 2025 being an early point in a long era of oil depletion. We were scenario building for 2025, for the reasons given. We wanted to stress that this date will be far from being an end point in oil depletion, and that substantial further action to reduce transportation’s oil dependence will be required after 2025, even though our consideration of required future actions ended at 2025.
We also stress in our book – which is primarily about transportation – that projecting the future is a particularly challenging exercise. The main point of the book is to emphasize the need for a rational approach to transportation planning that takes into account the most trustworthy projections of energy availability. Our book illustrates how this can be done (for the U.S. and China). We believe it is unique in this respect. We emphasize the need to revise plans in the light of new data and analysis. Thus, your criticism of our book for not taking into account an analysis of oil availability produced after we had written the book seems especially unfair.
Another of your criticisms seems unfair: that readers should treat some of the ‘facts and figures’ within our book with a healthy degree of scepticism. All data and analyses of data should be regarded with scepticism. Your stressing this point in relation to our book suggests that you wish your readers to believe that it is deficient in data presentation. We think we’ve provided by far the most up-to-date and comprehensive survey of worldwide data on transportation and its use of oil products, and we took considerable care in checking these data.
If there are facts in the book (as opposed to projections) you believe to be incorrect, please point them out. We will post an appropriate correction statement, with credit, at the book’s Web site (http://www.transportrevolutions.info). We are working on an updating statement concerning oil prices, production, and projections of production since July 2007 that we will likely post at the book’s Web site during January 2008.
Richard
Thanks Richard,
That does clarify the situation regarding the data. What I have written was not intended to be a criticism of your work per se, more to provide a 'heads-up' to remind readers that there are other projections which suggest that oil depletion could well be significantly greater than your article suggests.
I agree that it would certainly be unfair of me to criticise the book on the basis of a publication which came out after you had finished your analysis, but I hope you would agree that it is fair for me to point out to readers that the work of the EWG does conflict with the projections you have based the book around at time of publication?
Also, please bear in mind that I linked to the EWG publication and commented on it back in October when it was released, so while you finished the book well before that and could obviously not be reasonably expected to have included it in your analysis, the article drawn from your book is coming out months after the EWG publication. My concern was partly that someone reading the article may place less credibility on the EWG publication because your work is obviously well researched, and at face value (without the hindsight your above comments have provided) appears to paint the EWG publication as 'unrealistic', by portraying a considerably different figure as the 'realistic' one.
I do fully understand that wasn't your intention at all, but as consumers of this information who are not privy to the full picture, we only have face value to go on. I also fully sympathise with the difficulty any author has in trying to grapple with the dynamic nature of Peak Oil analysis. As with Climate Change, the updates in projections and raw data come so thick and fast that it's enormously difficult to spend a period of time engaged in writing on the topic, without new information at times altering the basic data which was quite rightly assumed at the beginning.
We’re not sure we would attach as much importance to projections that focus on exporters’ own consumption, including the work of Brown and Foucher that you noted (which we did not come across until October 2007) and that of Rubin and Buchanan (which we learned about in July, just after the book manuscript was sent to the publisher). This consumption is usually spurred by extraordinarily low retail prices, which could be caused to rise very quickly.
Given that GDP growth is typically directly linked to growth in energy consumption, and that most major exporter nations have a positive balance of trade largely due to the price of oil, can we not make an educated estimate that they will continue to grow their economies by maintaining very low retail prices? Internal consumption among major exporting nations is running at around 5% annually and shows no sign of slowing. With a positive balance of trade and the strong probability that oil prices will only continue to rise over the next decade or two, why would these nations destroy their competitive advantage and cause possible civil unrest by raising internal prices radically, when exporting progressively less oil would be largely offset by a rising price, therefore continuing to contribute to a consistently positive trade balance?
Additionally, Brown and Foucher's ELM data for the UK demonstrates that there is probably little or no link between a post-peak fall in exports and the cost of fuel in the exporting nation (though I am aware you did use the word "usually" above):
It's also interesting that the UK and Indonesian net export declines were so similar, given the radical differences between the two regions. The UK is characterized by high per capita income, high energy taxes and a minimal increase in consumption (+0.2%/year over the net export decline period). In contrast, Indonesia is characterized by low per capita income, energy consumption subsidies and a fairly rapid increase in consumption (+4.1%/year over the net export decline period).
Click for full article (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=218&Itemid=91)
You seem to have twisted our statement about 2025 being an early point in a long era of oil depletion. We were scenario building for 2025, for the reasons given. We wanted to stress that this date will be far from being an end point in oil depletion, and that substantial further action to reduce transportation’s oil dependence will be required after 2025, even though our consideration of required future actions ended at 2025.
That's all entirely understandable and it was not my intention to misrepresent or 'twist' what you were saying. My primary reason for starting and maintaining this thread is to provide information for those interested which allows them to make rational plans for the future based on the best information available. Permaculture has a strong focus on planning for disaster and I'm sure we'd both agree that Peak Oil does, at the very least, potentially represent a disaster.
As I mentioned earlier with the 17% figure, challenging your use of 'early' in relation to oil depletion by 2025 is indeed unfair to you with the hindsight of knowing you didn't have the EWG data at time of writing, however, I hope you would agree that in light of the EWG publication, it is both the fair and responsible thing to do if I point out that 2025 may well not represent an 'early stage of oil depletion?'
We are working on an updating statement concerning oil prices, production, and projections of production since July 2007 that we will likely post at the book’s Web site during January 2008.
I look forward to reading it Richard and I will certainly include it here as soon as I am aware of it. I also look forward to reading the book when it is published here in Australia and I thank you for the time you've spent clarifying your position. Once again, I apologise that my earlier clumsy, rushed comment had the effect it did, though I am pleased that it has had a positive outcome through your additional input.
ASPO-USA is undergoing a transition from a wholly volunteer organisation to having a small paid staff and has a backer prepared to match public donations dollar for dollar to help ASPO-USA become more able to match it with the well funded corporations putting out the opposite message.
The above is explained more fully Here (Click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=280&Itemid=140)
The Wall St Journal has an article detailing Saudi Arabia's plans to build a huge industrial base using their oil dollars and oil itself as the primary energy source. This ties into the Export Land Model discussed before on the thread, demonstrating the strong likelihood that major exporters will be using far more of their own oil in the future than they currently are - meaning oil exports will be less available for the rest of the world:
Saudi Industrial Drive Strains Oil-Export Role (Click to view) (http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidDN20071211018063/SecMain/pagSaudi%20Arabia#DN20071211018063)
Kurt Cobb discusses Roger Bezdek's (co-author of the Hirsch Report) lecture from the 2007 World Oil Conference on the future of airlines, which theorises that their profitability will steadily decline and eventually lead to major problems for both them and the wider economy:
Welcome to Fantasy Air (Click to view) (http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2007/12/welcome-to-fantasy-air.html)
Jim Hansen for ASPO-USA on translating 'Peak Oil awareness' into investment strategies (please note this is the author's opinion, not foolproof investing advice):
Peak Oil and Portfolio Prudence (Click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=267&Itemid=91)
Rob Hopkins of Transition Culture reviews David Fleming's new book The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy, which Rob describes as "a thorough demolition of the case for nuclear power being a solution to peak oil and climate change":
David Fleming's New Book Provides Death Knell for Nuclear Power (Click to view) (http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/07/david-flemings-new-book-provides-death-knell-for-nuclear-power/)
Sharon Astyk has a critical evaluation of John Michael Greer's recent article (linked to a few of posts back) entitled Agriculture: The Price of Transition...decide for yourself who presents the more convincing case:
The Price of Things (Click to view) (http://casaubonsbook.blogspot.com/2007/12/price-of-things.html)
And finally, Roger Blanchard for ASPO-USA discusses the challenges, realistic expectations and future of oil production in the Gulf of Mexico region:
Oil Dreams in the Gulf of Mexico (click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=275&Itemid=91)
It's probably doubtful that there'll be much news coming out over the holiday period folks, so don't be concerned if there's no or very few updates between now and the New Year - most Peak Oil activists and authors will be taking a very well deserved break, and IMO it's a good time for all of us to say a quiet thankyou for all their hard work over 2007 to get the message out.
RobWindt
20-12-2007, 12:01 PM
A Modest Proposal
Weather the Weather
By: Bruce Haigh
http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articled ... 6&Homepage (http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetailmagazine.asp?ArticleID=2656&Homepage)\
ID=231
If governments are to meet the demands of climate change, they will
need more rather than less control over what used to be termed public
utilities and assets. In this light, NSW Premier Morris Iemma's
proposal to privatise the State's electricity companies flies in the
face of common sense.
Climate change will increase demand for electricity. Under Iemma's
short-sighted proposal, pricing and distribution decisions will reside
in the hands of private companies and uninterrupted electricity supply
will, over time, become a luxury only for those with money.
Telstra is a case in point. Look at Telstra and you see the
shortcomings of privatisation in a country where distance reduces or
negates profitability outside the major cities. There is a basic
incompatibility between delivery of service and the demands of
shareholders, and private power companies are not going to perform any
better for customers than the shareholder-driven Telstra.
In an Australia transformed by global warming, how will the Government
ensure the equitable distribution of water? As I write, major
irrigators — mainly cotton growers — are buying up licences in the
hope that if they own enough they will ensure a flow of water
sufficient to sustain the profitability of their enterprise.
The creation of water licences was an act of unbelievable stupidity.
The only thing a privatised market will achieve is an increase in the
gap between rich and poor.
How will the States handle consumer demand for the curtailment of
privatised essential services? As we have seen with Telstra, recourse
to the law — with endless delays and appeals — is not going to deliver
solutions as demand increases and supply diminishes.
The law will need to be upheld by force. Such force would be beyond
the resources of the State Police. To ensure the supply of water or
power from recalcitrant suppliers would require the intervention of
the armed forces, which would immediately bring into play the Federal
Government.
Shortage of resources, poor distribution, profit gouging and
corruption will bring Federally-controlled force to centre stage,
rendering the States irrelevant. Extreme events, whether climatic or
political, reinforce and deliver power to the centre. Climate change
and the centralisation of Government power will go hand in hand.
The need for survival will remove political niceties and rivalries
within the hallowed halls of Canberra and strip the large
Government-created monopolies of power and profit. Military pressure
on Australia from northern neighbours keen to access water and arable
land would see the Federal Government take over neglected national
infrastructure such as roads and railways.
Climate change has the potential to undermine sound democratic
structures in the same way that poor political structures have done in
countries such as Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Pakistan or Burma.
The Government would assume control over all aspects of life,
including the distribution and allocation of oil, petrol, diesel, coal
and gas. It would assume the power to compulsorily acquire property
and other private assets deemed necessary to ensure the survival of
the nation.
Of course, centralising power need not necessarily mean an end to
democracy. Protective structures might be put in place, providing
checks and balances to protect the basic rights of citizens. However,
if the 11 years of the Howard regime are any indication, there is not
much initiative among Australians to fight for democratic solutions
and institutions.
So Australia would become a military dictatorship, increasingly
engaged in military conflict to protect its shrinking resources. All
sections of the population would be drawn into militarisation as
troops, producers of military equipment and food.
Trade would become an increasingly hazardous undertaking and Australia
would slowly be militarily disadvantaged as its overseas-produced
military hardware is destroyed or wears out. To survive we would have
to adapt and become innovative, self-disciplined and self-sufficient.
It would be nice to end on an optimistic note.
The only way I can do that is to hope against hope and cast a wish
that Government and industry might face the above, put self interest
aside and create cooperative mechanisms to ensure equitable, prudent
and sustainable use of resources.
But even if we achieve that monumental task in Australia, how do we
achieve that degree of cooperation and equity in the rest of the
world? How do we help achieve it in the Indonesian Archipelago, where
military-sponsored corruption is endemic?
Set against all this, the Bali Climate Change Conference was a lost
opportunity to establish binding sustainable solutions.
The Energy Noncrisis
Ok, here we have it in Lindsey Williams 1-8 parts…the cause of the Middle East wars and how Americans pay inflated oil tax at the pump to feed IMF and the World Bank…how the 8 trillion US debt and oil price hiking are playing into current world drama and how peak oil is concocted because the Gull Island Alaska Oil field could supply the US with cheap oil for 200 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cYx0jbHPpY&NR=1 —IMF and World Bank rig the price of oil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbakN7SL ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbakN7SLdbk&feature=related) —Lindsey Williams - The Energy Non-Crisis - Part 1 of 8. Peak oil a scam
http://www.lwoil.com/ —9 DVDs and 2 books for $136.00
Sometimes it's better to say nothing. :wink:
--------------------------------------------
David Strahan comments on a recent presentation by Jeremy Gilbert (former BHP Chief Petroleum Engineer) which focused on past reserve growth, the contributing factors, and the folly of relying on it to continue into the future (there is also an audio link to the full interview with Gilbert at this page). This topic is a little 'dry' so some of you may wish to skip it:
The Limits To Reserve Growth (Click to view) (http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=101)
John Michael Greer continues his series of articles on post-peak agriculture:
Agriculture: Closing the Circle (Click to view) (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/agriculture-closing-circle.html)
Very in depth three-part series on biofuels by David Rotman for those interested in this topic (keep in mind where this article is published as it is both realistic and perhaps overly optimistic in places :wink:):
Part I: The Price of Biofuels (Click to view) (http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19924/)
Part II: The Price of Biofuels (Click to view) (http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19925/)
Part III: The Price of Biofuels (Click to view) (http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19926/?nlid=764)
Tom Whipple recaps 2007 from a Peak Oil perspective:
The Peak Oil Crisis: Issues (Click to view) (http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2255&Itemid=35)
And another from Tom discussing the 'perfect storm' brewing made up of the financial liquidity crisis, Climate Change and Peak Oil:
The Peak Oil Crisis: Storm of the Century (Click to view) (http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2290&Itemid=35)
Following on from recent articles posted here on the subject of post-peak agriculture, Jason Bradford has an interesting piece at The Oil Drum:
Does Less Energy Mean More Farmers? (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3415)
Finally, an important article by Kurt Cobb where he discusses Charlie Hall's 'balloon graph' - a graphical representation of the ERoEI of various energy sources, how their ERoEI has decreased over time, and a demonstration of the massive challenges we face in scaling alternative energy sources to meet future demand:
Charlie Hall's Balloon Graph (Click to view) (http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=14&idContribution=1305)
Obviously I am rooting to get off of hydrocarbons all together, as it is now possible with fuel cells, Magnagas and HHO and others. However we also have to take into account corruption at the highest levels which may be instigating a PREMATURE PEAK in order to bleed the populations further into poverty and vulnerability.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LZEiQ8-vf1Q —1 Megawatt Fuel Cell Power Plant UCLA—Northridge, Bill Sullivan—enough energy for 1000 homes
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IrDpzYkgQT0&feature=related —Oxyhydrogen gas generator similar to the Stan Meyer fuel cell...(Stan Meyer...example of a HUGE man)
This Lindsey Williams sure fills in a lot of the blanks...I mean did you know that the US tricked Saddam into going into Kuwait in order to instigate desert storm. How America thought it could keep the oil sales in US$ through brute force I have no idea. The soul of Americans is stained with the demise of the middle east, when Alaska contains enough oil to keep things going until new tech is fully established. I will have to get his book to know how the IMF and World Bank is running history, but it does appear that elections in the US are a waste of time...the economy is rigged, wars are rigged and politics is rigged. If history is predetermined by a bunch of invisible power-elite then is human life worth living? http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html
Stephen:"I spent the better part of the morning checking out industry estimates on the vaunted Gull Island field. In Saudi Arabia there are 260 billion barrels of proven reserves. On the total North Slope there are about 55 billion barrels estimated...at current levels of demand that would last the U.S. about 7.5 years on its own. Rule of thumb...if it seems too good to be true it probably is."
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/35317794.shtml
http://www.eia.doe.gov/
The oxyhydrogen, HHO, hydrogen on demand seem like the most promising transportation fuels.
The ASPO-Ireland has put out their January '08 update PDF on Peak Oil news...topics are:
897. In Memory of Ali Samsam Bakhtiari
898. ASPO AUSTRIA
899. Major Oil Companies pass peak
990. Living through the Energy Crisis
991. Marketing Peak Denial
992. Comments on an article in the Sunday Times of December 16th 2007
993. Reporting More
994. Brasil Analysis Updated
995. Zero-Sum Future
996. New US policy to cut oil consumption
997. Financial Times comments on the US Situation
998. The Pope addresses the Energy Issue
999. Data for 2007
Click Here For PDF Download (http://www.aspo-ireland.org/contentFiles/newsletterPDFs/newsletter85_200801.pdf)
I thought it would be an appropriate time to post a few 2007 summary articles for those new to the thread and as a recap for everyone else on the big news of the year.
Louis de Sousa has a summary for 2007 - "a collection of posts that reflects the most important events of 2007, from an energy perspective, or that otherwise were relevant on theoildrum.com."
2007 - The Year in Review (Click to view) (http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3440)
Robert Rapier, also of The Oil Drum has posted his Top 10 Energy Stories for 2007, which were:
... 1. Oil price soars as media becomes Peak Oil aware
... 2. Criticism of biofuels mounts
... 3. The Chevy Volt is announced
... 4. Nanosolar begins to deliver
... 5. LS9 starts up
... 6. Range Fuels breaks ground
... 7. First application for US nuclear plant in 30 years
... 8. Carbon capture & sequestration moves forward
... 9. Progress on next generation biofuels
... 10. US Navy funds Bussard Fusion
Top 10 Energy Stories of 2007 (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3424)
While on the subject of The Oil Drum, they issued their first press release the other day, which coincided with the first time the price for West Texas crude broke through the $100 a barrel barrier:
Oil Price Touches $100 a Barrel; Signal of Pending Oil Shortages Ignored (Click to view) (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/1/prweb598922.htm)
The cyclone hovering over northern Australia briefly 'shut in' around 260,000 barrels a day of crude oil and condensate production...something to keep in mind in the future as oil supply becomes more difficult to import...much of the production around the world is vulnerable to extreme weather activity:
BHP, Woodside, Santos Shut Oil, Gas Fields on Cyclone (Click to view) (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=abXpuaCRwlD4)
Dave Cohen for ASPO-USA has a good update article on the 'tar sands' in Alberta and the problems faced for further expanding production in the region:
What's New at the Tar Sands? (Click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291&Itemid=91)
Tom Whipple has an article which explores the rising global demand for diesel which is pushing the limits of supply capacity (gasoline for US readers):
If you think about it for a few minutes, you might conclude that a diesel shortage would be worse than a gasoline shortage. If the availability of gasoline gets tight, we can all cancel recreational car trips, play dates for the kids, and form commuting or shopping carpools. For the sake of some inconvenience, we could cut gasoline consumption by a whole lot.
It’s not the same with diesel however. Two farmers can’t jump on a tractor and plow both their farms at the same time. Most of those 18-wheelers barreling down the interstate are either full or on the way to be filled. One trash truck picking up in two neighborhoods at the same time doesn’t work either. In short, it is going to be a lot harder to conserve on diesel fuel, which for the most part does vital work, than it would be to conserve gasoline for our personal transportation.
Click here for full article (http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2322&Itemid=35)
And lastly, a draft version of Jeffrey's Brown's crucially important forthcoming paper on net oil exports from producer nations. The more the price of oil rises, the more income flows to oil exporters, with this extra income fuelling greater internal oil consumption. Ultimately, this means less oil is available for importer nations. This phenomenon is likely to be a very important factor into the future and we're fortunate to have Jeffrey's work on the topic available:
Draft of "Net Oil Export" paper - comments? (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3449#comment-283940)
One last summary of major Peak Oil events from 2007, this one from Tom Whipple for ASPO-USA:
The Year in Review (Click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=293&Itemid=91)
Jeffrey J. Brown and Samuel Foucher present a "A Quantitative Assessment of Future Net Oil Exports by the Top Five Net Oil Exporters."
A Quantitative Assessment of Future Net Oil Exports by the Top Five Net Oil Exporters (Click to view) (http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/2008/01/quantitative-assessment-of-future-net.html)
Stuart Staniford for The Oil Drum on "Modelling Biofuel Production as an Infectious Growth on Food Production":
Many people are aware that food-based biofuel production has had an influence on food prices. Many people also know that US ethanol production is growing rapidly and now using a noticeable fraction of the total corn supply. However, I'm going to argue that the situation in the near term is potentially more serious than is generally realized.
I will use a mixture of existing data, analysis of biofuel profitability, and simple modeling of biofuel production as an infection or diffusion process affecting the food supply, to demonstrate that there are reasonably plausible scenarios for biofuel production growth to cause mass starvation of the global poor, and that this could happen fairly quickly - quite possibly within five years, and certainly well within the life of the existing policy regimes. It doesn't have to be this way, but unless we start doing things differently soon, the risks are significant.
Click here for full article (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2431)
Sohbet Karbuz analyses the Peak Oil debate and the reactions to it by the various major oil companies:
The peak oil debate and oil companies (PDF Format - Click to download) (http://www.ome.org/sidosoft/pdf/GEM2%20Final%20_12-12-2007_.pdf)
Bruce Robinson, ASPO-Australia's national convener has written to the federal government urging them to consider adopting petrol rationing with fuel prioritised for those who need it most:
Record oil price sparks call for petrol rationing (Click to view) (http://business.theage.com.au/record-oil-price-sparks-call-for-petrol-rationing/20080108-1kv2.html)
And finally, Major Cameron Leckie (serving army officer and member of ASPO-Australia) has an analysis for the Australian Army Journal looking at the effects of Peak Oil on the Australian Army's operations and some methods which could help to mitigate its impact:
Peak Oil and the Australian Army (Click to view - 17 page PDF Format) (http://www.defence.gov.au/ARMY/lwsc/Publications/journal/AAJ_Summer07/AAJ_Summer07_leckie.pdf)
Matt Simmons dicusses the fact crude oil production levels still haven't surpassed the level they reached in May 2005:
Another Nail in the Coffin of the Case Against Peak Oil (Click to view) (http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/Another%20Nail%20in%20the%20Coffin.pdf)
Dave Cohen for ASPO-USA reiterates what the concept of Peak Oil actually means and contrasts that with the assumptions of those in the mainstream media:
Peak Oil Confusion (Click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=294&Itemid=91)
Indonesia joins the growing list of oil producers who are now 'post-peak' and becoming importers instead of oil exporters:
Indonesia: No Longer an Oil Exporter (Click to view) (http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=757)
Christophe de Margerie, CEO of Total (oil major and largest company in the EU) bucks the trend of 'big oil' CEO's by publicly declaring his belief that we're already beyond the point of Peak Oil:
Totally different (Click to view) (http://www.economist.com/people/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10496503)
Casey Research interview with Matt Simmons:
An Interview With Matt Simmons (Click to view) (http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/casey/2008/0109.html)
Lastly, Cliona O Conaill for New Consumer Magazine on local currencies (hosted at Transition Culture):
Slow Money Revolution: the global growth of local currencies (Click to view) (http://transitionculture.org/2008/01/14/the-slow-money-revolution/)
Greyharp
22-01-2008, 06:04 AM
I've been lurking on this forum for several months and thought I should finally get around to joining. I was waiting for this item to be posted here, but it looks as if perhaps not many saw it - the ABC's 7.30 Report ran a segment on Peak Oil a few days ago. Here is both a transcript and links to watch the video of the segment:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2141037.htm
Welcome Greyharp, thanks for adding that. Apologies for my tardiness in updating the thread folks.
-----------------------------
Sharon Astyk has a long but worthwhile piece which examines a little of the science behind Peak Oil and Climate Change, laying out the case for each in simple terms for those struggling to understand or still sceptical:
Why Is this Apocalypse Different than All Other Apocalypses: Making the Case for Peak Oil and Climate Change Now (Click to view) (http://casaubonsbook.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-is-this-apocalypse-different-than.html)
M. Jahi Chappell (PhD Candidate, University of Michigan Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology) examines the myth of industrial agriculture being far more productive than sustainable agriculture:
Shattering Myths: Can sustainable agriculture feed the world? (Click to view) (http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1778)
Tom Whipple has a piece on the numerous electricity crises going on around the world at the moment, in which he asks the question; "Are these shortages temporary or is the age of electricity, the way it is currently being generated, over for much of the world?":
The Peak Oil Crisis: We Are Starting To Dim. (Click to view) (http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2395&Itemid=35)
For those interested in solar, there was quite a detailed article in Scientific American...it's quite unrealistic in some areas IMO, but interesting nonetheless:
A Solar Grand Plan (Click to view) (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan)
David Strahan analyses coal supply and demand over recent years, then projects further into the future - i.e. the peak of coal as an energy source:
The Great Coal Hole (Click to view) (http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=116)
Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) have been at it again recently, with another 'we won't show the data' rosy prognosis for global oil production:
No Evidence of Precipitous Fall on Horizon for World Oil Production:
Global 4.5% Decline Rate Means No Near-Term Peak: CERA/IHS Study (Click to view) (http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080117005242&newsLang=en)
A couple of articles which are critical of the CERA release (no doubt there will be more to follow), the first from Randy Udall and Steve Andrews for ASPO-USA, the second from Edward Tapamor for Resource Investor:
CERA’s Depletion Study: The “Good News” About Running Up the Down Escalator (Click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=301&Itemid=91)
Peak Oil Passnotes: CERA's Silly Season (Click to view) (http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=39655)
CBC News reports that 90% of companies involved in 'oilsands' production in Alberta have been given a failing grade on their environmental performance:
Oilsands producers get failing grade on environment (Click to view) (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/01/10/report-oil.html)
Abdalla Salem el-Badri (OPEC Secretary-General) has an interesting interview with Petroleum World...it's the usual OPEC message, but with a few intriguing twists which leave little doubt that OPEC is not going to increase supply (if indeed it is capable - which there is significant doubt about) just to please Western motorists tired of high oil prices:
OPEC Secretary-General : 'International oil companies are the real dinosaurs' (Click to view) (http://www.petroleumworld.com/storyt08012102.htm)
And finally, a fascinating discussion has developed at The Oil Drum over a recent article by Stuart Staniford, which explores what he has termed the 'fallacy of reversibility' in relation to agricultural production - he contests the idea that we will go back to non-mechanised production in a post-peak world. The comments section below the article is full of good counter-points and I'd recommend continuing on beyond the article itself:
The Fallacy of Reversibility (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3481)
Greyharp
26-01-2008, 06:14 AM
And a response to Stuart Staniford's article that also makes interesting reading:
Is Relocalization Doomed?: A Response to Staniford’s "Fallacy of Reversibility" (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3541)
Gail Tverberg has a draft at The Oil Drum of the material she's putting together for a university course which is a basic introduction to 'Petroleum and Peak Oil' - well worth a read either as a good overview or for anyone who wants to fill in a few knowledge gaps:
Science 1101 - Petroleum and Peak Oil (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3562#more)
Another from Gail on the recent American Petroleum Institute (API) Blogger Conference Call:
US Petroleum Supply, Ethanol, and State of the Industry - API (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3531)
Robert Hirsch discusses the recent Wall Street Journal article about CERA's recent oil decline study:
The WSJ Article on a CERA Oil Decline Study (Click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=305&Itemid=91)
Richard Heinberg on 'Peak Everything Economics':
Peak Everything Economics, or, What Do You Call This Mess? (Click to view) (http://www.richardheinberg.com/peak_everything_economics)
'Investment guru' Jim Rogers in an interview with EnergyTechStocks.com, discusses the reasons why he thinks that the current price of oil will not slow demand, eventually driving prices much higher:
Investment Guru Jim Rogers: ‘It Doesn’t Look Like $90 to $100’ Will Be High Enough to Slow Oil Demand (Click to view) (http://energytechstocks.com/wp/?p=801)
Dave Cohen for ASPO-USA outlines the considerable problems with cellulosic ethanol, within the context of the recent 'Energy Independence and Security Act' recently passed by the US government:
False Hopes and Cellulose (Click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=302&Itemid=91)
And finally, in all likelihood a sign of things to come in the realm of industrialised agriculture; shortages of artificial fertilisers - at any price:
Supplies of nitrogen fertilizers, as well as phosphorus and potassium fertilizers, are tight throughout the United States, making this the time to plan ahead, a Kansas State University agronomist said.
In fact, it is currently difficult to buy fertilizer nitrogen for winter wheat topdressing and/or this spring´s row crops unless the supply has already been lined up---regardless of what the posted prices are, said Dale Leikam, K-State Research and Extension nutrient management specialist.
Click Here For Full Article (http://www.farmtalknewspaper.com/crops/local_story_022082331.html)
Slightly different tack this week folks, nothing earth shattering happening which hasn't been explored before on the thread, so I thought I'd go with some articles which look more at 'the big picture' of Peak Oil.
First up, one link which is undeniably Peak Oil specific and fascinating, but will probably appeal to only a very few (if any :wink:), Joules Burn has mapped the largest and probably most crucial oil field in the world (Ghawar) using Google Earth. Joules' site link:
Satellite O'er the Desert (Click to view) (http://satelliteoerthedesert.blogspot.com/)
Jeff Vail has an interesting article on Jevons' Paradox and productivity:
The Tata Nano Strikes Back--Does Jevons' Paradox Apply to Productivity, Too? (Click to view) (http://www.jeffvail.net/2008/02/tata-nano-strikes-back-does-jeavons.html)
Nate Hagens has an insightful and enjoyable article over at The Oil Drum which rather than summarise, I'll quote his intro:
The vast majority of Peak Oil writing and discussion centers around the upcoming date of an all liquids peak and what the subsequent decline rate will look like. There is also active debate on how we can best replace the coming shortfall in fossil energy with renewable flows. Fewer discussions are about relocalizing a global economy dependent on cheap fossil fuels, and how best to live in a world with lower energy availability. And fewer still delve into who we are, how we got here, and what we use energy for. Essentially, the majority of our energy conversations, at conferences, schools, institutions, and the blogosphere, focus on the means, and not the ends. The ends generally remain unquestioned. There seems to be an implicit assumption that worldwide energy demand will continue to grow something akin to a natural law. But in an economic system based on self-interest on a finite planet, the true drivers of demand will need to be better understood beyond the microeconomic mantra "price will change behavior".
This post looks at our own history on the planet, outlines how the ancient-derived reward pathways of our brain are easily hijacked by modern stimuli, and concludes that in very real ways, we have become addicted to the 'consumptive behaviors' linked to oil. "Traditional" drug abuse happens because natural selection has shaped behavior regulation mechanisms that function via chemical transmitters. Just as an addict becomes habituated to cocaine, heroin or alcohol, the 'normal person' possesses the neural architecture to become habituated via a positive feedback loop to the 'chemicals' we receive from shopping, keeping up with the joneses (conspicuous consumption), pursuing more stock options and profits, and other stimulating activities that a large social energy surplus provides. In order to overcome addictions, it is usually not enough to argue about which year the drug supply is going to begin its decline. Its a better path to understand the addiction, admit it before one hits rock bottom, and either begin the cold turkey process or become addicted to something else.
I am Human, I'm American, and I'm an Addict... (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3386)
And finally, from Sanders Research Associates Limited..."John Busby challenges the widely held conviction that modern technologies can outweigh the crippling cost of producing ever scarcer resources."
A very worthy article IMO:
A Material World (Click to view) (http://www.sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1340)
One thing I forgot to include...in light of the claims made about Alaska's future production capacity earlier in the thread:
Will Alaska Rise Again? (Click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=311&Itemid=91)
Dave Cohen for ASPO-USA examines what he has (very politely :wink:) termed 'CERA's Productive Capacity Ruse':
CERA's Productive Capacity Ruse (Click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=314&Itemid=91)
Still on the subject of CERA, the ASPO-USA is so confident CERA's recent analysis is wrong, that they have challenged the group to accept a $100,000 bet (CERA has been unavilable for comment :wink:):
Peak-Oilers Put Money Where Mouths Are (Click to view) (http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/02/07/peak-oilers-put-money-where-mouths-are/?mod=googlenews_wsj)
John Michael Greer uses the analogy of recent decades of cheap, abundant energy being akin to living 'down the rabbit hole' in Wonderland...and now we have to go...:
Back Up The Rabbit Hole (Click to view) (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/back-up-rabbit-hole.html)
Bob Wise for Resource Investor discusses emergy, the undervaluing of resources and the recent 5th biennial Emergy Research Conference:
Resources Undervalued, Biofuels Overrated (Click to view) (http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=40095)
The Australian Public Transport Users Association (PTUA) has a recent press release where they warn that the government is fast running out of time to fix the transport system:
Time running out to fix transport, Federal government warned (Click to view) (http://www.ptua.org.au/2008/02/04/fed-time-running-out/)
I've posted numerous articles which reveal that despite record profits, 'Big Oil' is becoming increasingly marginalised as many countries nationalise their oil reserves instead of opening them up to private companies. This shift in power has never been more apparent than right now, as they release their reserve replacement figures for 2007. The problems they'll face in the future are even being picked up on by the likes of CNN:
Oil Sector's Problem In Replacing Oil Reserves Could Worsen (Click to view) (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200802071055DOWJONESDJONLINE000765_FORTUNE5.htm)
One important question relating to the future availability of oil, is whether national companies can keep up with the technological and logistic demands as well as 'Big Oil' has for many decades. Going on recent history, you'd have to say that in many cases, that would be unlikely.
Lastly, Gail Tverberg for The Oil Drum has done two more revisions of her 'Science 1101: Oil as a Liquid Fuel' curriculum, the most recent of which is below for anyone who got something out of the first draft (which appears in an earlier posted link):
Science 1101 Part 2: Oil as a Liquid Fuel (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3587)
Steve Andrews for ASPO-USA has put out a 'Q & A' about its recent $100,000 bet with CERA (who apparently still refuses to speak on it, let alone accept it :wink:):
Some Q&A about that $100,000 CERA Bet (Click to view) (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=91)
Nate Hagens for The Oil Drum responds to recent press statements:
We have been writing for almost 3 years on this site about the privatization of energy data by IHS Energy and the negative impact the lack of accuracy that CERA's historically optimistic claims are having on energy policy.
...
Today at the IHS Energy Conference in Houston, the CEO of IHS Energy, parent of CERA and other energy information agencies, asserted that Peak Oilers don't have the data to support their claims. This post is a brief rebuttal to this 'news' coming out of Houston, and a plea to refocus the questions to what is relevant and probable, not on what is irrelevant and unlikely.
Peak Oil, IHS Data and The Broken Clock (Click for full article) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3627)
The February 2008 update for world oil production, courtesy of Ace at The Oil Drum:
World Oil Forecasts Including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE - Update Feb 2008 (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3623)
A brief piece from the Wall Street Journal blog about the recent debate on Peak Oil between Nansen Saleri, former chief of reservoir management at Saudi Aramco, and Houston-based investment banker Matthew Simmons:
Peak Oil: Simmons v. Saudis, Round Two (Click to view) (http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/02/12/big-peak-oil-debate-redux/)
Ugo Bardi for the European branch of The Oil Drum on the famous book 'The Limits To Growth' and its parallels with Peak Oil:
Peak Oil and "The Limits to Growth": two parallel stories (Click to view) (http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3550)
An analysis from Martin Payne of Peak Opportunities on the very rapid decline of Mexico's supergiant field - Cantarell:
Cantarell Update & Production Projection (Click to view) (http://peakopps.blogspot.com/2008/02/cantarell-update-production-projection.html)
Mike Whitney for The Market Oracle on the US financial recession/depression/collapse/bust (take your pick :wink:)...even if you don't read the article, the horrifying graphs speak for themselves IMO:
US Banking System Teetering on the Brink of Collapse (Click to view) (http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article3570.html)
And finally, the first two installments of a 5-part series by Jeff Vail which are very interesting reading IMO (remaining parts will be added in coming days):
Hierarchy must grow, and is therefore unsustainable (Click to view) (http://www.jeffvail.net/2008/02/hierarchy-must-grow-and-is-therefore.html)
Hierarchy is the Result of Dependency (Click to view) (http://www.jeffvail.net/2008/02/hierarchy-is-result-of-dependency.html)
For those who missed it, the ABC's 7.30 Report had an article on Peak Oil recently which, IMO, represents another step forward in mainstream reporting on Peak Oil in Australia:
The price of oil has peaked at $US100 a barrel and with production declining both locally and globally, experts warn that unless a major new oil field is found in Australia, there will be serious implications for the economy.
Click Here for full article (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2169087.htm)
Gail Tverberg at The Oil Drum has finished her two-part Peak Oil curriculum aimed at "introductory college science classes, advanced high school classes, and adult seminars" - she's done a very good job IMO:
Science 1101 Part 1: The Science of Oil and Peak Oil (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3586)
Science 1101 Part 2: Oil as a Liquid Fuel and Expected Peak Oil Impacts (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3587)
Aeldric from the ANZ branch of The Oil Drum has an article which applies Jeffrey Brown's 'Export Land Model' (which has been discussed in several articles on this thread) to Australia:
Australia and the Export Land Model (Click to view) (http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3657)
Dmitry Orlov discusses what he has termed 'The Five Stages Of Collapse':
Elizabeth Kübler-Ross defined the five stages of coming to terms with grief and tragedy as denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance, and applied it quite successfully to various forms of catastrophic personal loss, such as death of a loved one, sudden end to one's career, and so forth. Several thinkers, notably James Howard Kunstler and, more recently John Michael Greer, have pointed out that the Kübler-Ross model is also quite terrifyingly accurate in reflecting the process by which society as a whole (or at least the informed and thinking parts of it) is reconciling itself to the inevitability of a discontinuous future, with our institutions and life support systems undermined by a combination of resource depletion, catastrophic climate change, and political impotence. But so far, little has been said specifically about the finer structure of these discontinuities.
Click Here for full article (http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2008/02/five-stages-of-collapse.html)
Peter Hodson for the Financial Post on a topic which heavily affects the viability of deploying 'alternative' energy in the future:
Global shortage of metals looming (Click to view) (http://www.financialpost.com/trading_desk/mining/story.html?id=333806)
And finally, for anyone who doesn't already have a copy, Professor Garnaut's recent interim report on strategies to help Australia deal with Climate Change:
Garnaut Climate Change Review Interim Report - February 2008 - 470KB PDF (Click to download) (http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/Interim_Report_Feb_2008.pdf)
Highly recommended reading from Richard Heinberg:
Beyond Hope and Doom: Time for a Peak Oil Pep Talk (Click to view) (http://www.postcarbon.org/beyond_hope_and_doom_time_peak_oil_pep_talk_0)
Some more quite reasonable standard discussion on oil in Australia's mainstream media, this time from Peter Weekes in The Age:
Under the pump (Click to view) (http://business.theage.com.au/under-the-pump/20080301-1w4k.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2)
And similar from Jeremy Legget in the UK's The Guardian:
The crude fact: Peak oil is no academic debate - the $100 barrel is a harbinger of the energy shortage to come (Click to view) (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jeremy_leggett/2008/03/the_crude_fact.html)
Part three of Jeff Vail's series on 'The Problem of Growth' (previous parts in earlier posts on this thread):
Building an Alternative to Hierarchy: Rhizome Theory (Click to view) (http://www.jeffvail.net/2008/02/building-alternative-to-hierarchy.html)
Rob from Transition Culture on 'How Lessons from the Last Oil Shocks May Help to Inform This One.' There's a 'must-see' graph on how much the amount of money put into energy research and development has plummeted in recent years which I thoroughly recommend people have a look at:
How Lessons from the Last Oil Shocks May Help to Inform This One (Click to view) (http://transitionculture.org/2008/03/04/how-lessons-from-the-last-oil-shocks-may-help-to-inform-this-one/)
Scitizen has an interesting (somewhat flawed - see comments which follow the article) piece on the kind of footprint alternative energy can require - in this case, wind:
How Many Windmills Does It Take to Power the World? (Click to view) (http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=14&idContribution=1487)
Yair Wallach, in a guest post for The Oil Drum, discusses the link between grain and oil prices in the Middle East - but his points apply to the large portion of the world's people who live in countries where the government subsidises grain:
Bread and Oil: Rising Food Prices and the Middle East (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3690)
A couple of articles on the recent announcement from Saudi Arabia that they have 'discovered' reserves of another 200 billion barrels of oil - the first from Kjell Aleklett for ASPO-USA, the second from Ace for The Oil Drum:
ASPO and Peak oil theorists challenge Saudi Arabia (Click to view) (http://www.peakoil.net/press-releases/aspo-and-peak-oil-theorists-challenge-saudi-arabia)
Saudi Arabia’s Crude Oil Reserves Propaganda (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3665)
And finally, David Strahan for The Guardian summarises the now widely acknowledged probability that the world's coal reserves are much less than was previously thought:
Lump sums (Click to view) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/05/fossilfuels.energy)
caldera
14-03-2008, 09:44 PM
REALLY enjoyed richards pep talk ~!
all that matters in the final analysis is whether awareness leads to effective action that actually reduces the risk of worst-case scenarios materializing.
intention + attention + ACTION = MaNiFeStAtIoN
Very good Peak Oil overview in web, PDF and Powerpoint format by Gail Tverberg at The Oil Drum:
Preliminary data regarding oil production through December 2007 is now available from the US Energy Information Administration, so it is a good time to put together an updated summary of where we are now with respect to peak oil. The major themes of this presentation are
• The US oil story
• The world oil story
• Five myths
I have put this summary together in the format of a PowerPoint presentation plus notes. In this format, it is a multi-purpose document. You can
1. Read the post yourself, with or without my comments.
2. Use the presentation (PDF) as a handout, to give to one or two of your friends. My comments are intended to give you some more background, so you can better explain the presentation and answer questions.
3. Use the presentation for a group, using the PowerPoint format.
Click Here to go to download Page (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3726)
Rob Hopkins from Transition Culture has very kindly made his ‘Energy Descent Pathways: Evaluating potential responses to Peak Oil’ document which was once for sale, now freely available (bear in mind that some of the data in the document is now dated - but overall it's still an extremely worthwhile document):
Click Here to go to download page (http://transitionculture.org/essential-info/pdf-downloads/energy-descent-pathways/)
Matt Simmons' recent speeches and papers in PDF format:
Click Here to go to download page (http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches)
Gail Tverberg for The Oil Drum on oil reserves as stated and actual production:
The Disconnect Between Oil Reserves and Production (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3664)
Parts four and five of Jeff Vail's series on 'The Problem of Growth' (previous parts in earlier posts on this thread), plus a common link to the whole series for anyone wanting to bookmark them as one:
Part 4: Implementing Rhizome at the Personal Level (Click to view) (http://www.jeffvail.net/2008/03/implementing-rhizome-at-personal-level.html)
Part 5: Implementing Rhizome at the Community Level (Click to view) (http://www.jeffvail.net/2008/03/implementing-rhizome-at-community-level.html)
The Problem Of Growth - Full Series download (Click to view) (Part 5: Implementing Rhizome at the Community Level)
Robert Rapier for The Oil Drum with a 'little review of why ERoEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) matters':
An EROEI Review (Click to view) (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3707)
Andrew McNamara (Queensland State Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation) in a recent address to the Brisbane Institute:
Highway of Diamonds (Click to view) (http://www.energybulletin.net/40234.html)
Martin Payne from Peak Opportunities on the spectacular decline of Mexican oil production and the consequences for the US, which imports almost all Mexico's exports:
Mexican Oil Exports: Start Saying Adios! (Click to view) (http://peakopps.blogspot.com/2008/03/mexican-oil-exports-start-saying-adios.html)
And finally, Ali Hussain and Steven Swinford for the Times Online, tell of how some UK people who had low gas and electricity usage saw their bills rise by 40%+ through extra tarrifs - being effectively charged much extra for conserving energy. I wonder if this is a trend we'll see more widely?
Energy bills rise 50% for low use (Click to view) (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article3512217.ece)
permasculptor
01-04-2008, 09:33 PM
The Clean Energy Scam - Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 5,00.html# (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html#)
Gail Tverberg for The Oil Drum on the economic impacts of less available energy:
The Expected Economic Impact of an Energy Downturn (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3747)
Another article on a similar topic from Dave Cohen for ASPO-USA:
A Recipe For Disaster (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=343&Itemid=91)
Summary of an interview/debate between Matt Simmons and John Hofmeister, president of Royal Dutch Shell's US operations on CNBC’s 'Squawk Box', where Simmons outlines something which feeds into several topics we've covered here before; that the US 'big oil' firms are effectively in liquidation and that can only be temporarily altered by them gaining access to Iraqi oil fields - an occurrence which has been stalled for a long time by the Iraqi government:
Oil Firms 'In Liquidation,' Says 'Peak Oil' Advocate (http://biz.yahoo.com/cnbc/080325/23794175.html)
Two-part article from John Michael Greer which covers the phenomenon known as 'Jevons' Paradox' and how it relates to future oil supples and the global economy:
The Paradox of Production (Part I) (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/03/paradox-of-production.html)
Net Energy and Jevons' Paradox (Part II) (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/04/net-energy-and-jevons-paradox.html)
Kurt Cobb for Scitizen with an article along similar lines:
Why Energy Efficiency Won't Matter Without Energy Caps (http://www.scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2008/03/Why-Energy-Efficiency-Won-t-Matter-Without-Energy-Caps/)
Roger Corbett, former head of Woolworths (Australian supermarket chain) theorises that energy costs in Australia may increase "by a factor of five or 10 times - certainly five" over the next few years:
Soaring energy costs 'to change how society operates' (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23460581-3102,00.html)
Chazon and Neil King Jr for the Wall Street Journal on the recent setbacks Saudi Arabia has had with natural gas exploration (the article is behind a paywall, so I'll just quote the beginning of the article here):
Boast of Vast Reserves Faces Growing Skepticism as Firms Go Dry in the Empty Quarter
Saudi Arabia's boast that its southern desert region contains vast reserves of natural gas is facing growing skepticism, amid a string of exploration setbacks by international oil companies operating there.
The kingdom had hoped that gas in the Rub al Khali, a vast desert that translates into English as the Empty Quarter, would be a key source of fuel for its booming economy. If the region turns out to be as empty as its name implies, Saudi Arabia runs the risk of a gas-supply crunch within the next decade at today's rate of demand.
If that happens, and the kingdom has less gas than expected, it will be forced to divert more of the oil it produces for its own use, leaving less to fuel the rest of the world's cars, airliners and factories.
Russia's production has also begun to fall after several years of growth back to production levels which went fairly near Soviet era levels (when Russian production peaked and began its terminal decline - a decline which plummeted and has then risen, but still declined since the Soviet era peak):
Russian Oil Output May Fall for First Time in Decade in 2008 (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=arXTpOY4omL4&refer=energy)
Note: Saudi Arabia and Russia are the world's two largest oil producers.
Another somewhat related article from http://www.gulfnews.com outlining that exports from the Gulf of Arabia nations will fall in coming years due to domestic shortfalls of energy (essentially the Export Land Model - which we've had numerous articles on - at work):
GCC demand to curtail oil exports (http://www.gulfnews.com/business/Oil_and_Gas/10203450.html)
Richard Heinberg paper which he has based several speeches on recently:
Resilient Communities: A Guide to Disaster Management (http://globalpublicmedia.com/museletter_192_resilient_communities)
Big Gav for The Oil Drum (ANZ) on solar thermal power - an article which is very comprehensive and a 'must read/bookmark' for anyone interested in this area of energy production:
Concentrating On The Important Things - Solar Thermal Power (http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3791)
SMH article warning people to beware of solar suppliers/installers using imported, cheaper panels:
Beating the sunshine shonks (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/beating-the-sunshine-shonks/2008/04/04/1207249460489.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2)
Dan Greenberg for The Chronicle Review challenges the notion that energy reform is anything like the past 'super projects' mankind has undertaken and accomplished:
A Manhattan or Apollo Project for Energy? What Nonsense (http://chronicle.com/review/brainstorm/index.php?id=354)
Tom Whipple for FCNP on increasing global electricity shortages:
The Peak Oil Crisis: Load Shedding (http://www.fcnp.com/national_commentary/the_peak_oil_crisis_load_shedding_20080326.html)
And finally, a couple of articles not strictly Peak Oil related, but certainly peripherally related; firstly one from The Guardian in an interview with James Hansen, head of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, where he states that current CO2 emission targets outlined by international Climate Change organisations are too high, and that they have "grossly underestimated the scale of the problem."
Climate target is not radical enough - study (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/07/climatechange.carbonemissions)
And one from Robert Nadeau at Scientific American on the unscientific nature of the current models applied by mainstream economists:
The Economist Has No Clothes (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-economist-has-no-clothes)
Sorry for the lack of update folks, been working too hard lately and had no time.
A little satire from Julian Darley at The Post Carbon Institute to begin with:
Grounded aircraft to be converted into trains (http://www.postcarbon.org/grounded_aircraft_be_converted_trains)
Dr. Glenn Barry on our current 'convergence of crises':
Coming Ecological Collapse: Failing Ecosystems the Mother of All Bubbles (http://earthmeanders.blogspot.com/2008/04/coming-ecological-collapse-failing.html)
Big Gav has an interesting piece on coal to liquids (CTL) technology in Australia and its future on his Peak Energy blog:
Coal To Liquids In Australia (http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/04/coal-to-liquids-in-australia.html)
A quote from Dave Cohen in Energy Bulletin regarding the recent 'huge' oil find by Petrobas in Brazil, and a followup from 'Tony':
Regarding the Carioca field offshore Brazil --
It is completely irresponsible for anyone to whisper to the world that there are 33 billion barrels of -- what? oil-in-place? barrels of oil equivalent? technically recoverable oil? economically recoverable oil? -- in the Carioca offshore block BM-S-9.
Brazil has drilled a single test well at BM-S-9, which achieved a good flow as discussed in Rigzone's BG Participates in New Oil Discovery Offshore Brazil (September, 2007)
This very deep "pre-salt" field will yield its bounty reluctantly, no matter what the estimated recoverable oil turns out to be. (And remember, you always need to know how an estimate was calculated.)
There is no basis at this time for the "33 billion" barrels. Why not 43? Why not 53? The one thing we know for sure at this point is that the leaked number has been very good for BG, Repsol and Petrabras share prices.
...
As David Cohen has pointed out, this is not a confirmed discovery and I understand that Petrobras have even issued a denial of the story. However, I was interested in Al Polito's comment that a 33 billion barrel field could delay peak for a few years. This doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Firstly, we'd have to assume that this 33 billion is all recoverable, then we'd have to assume that it is extra to the future discoveries already factored into the peak date calculation. We'd also have to assume the that the production flow rates would be comparable with current conventional fields and that the field would be developed before peak. However, even those assumptions wouldn't account for peak being delayed by a few years. Adding 33 billion barrels adds about 16 billion to the half-way point (which is when fields generally start to decline). 16 billion represents about 6 months consumption. So peak would be delayed by about 6 months at best.
An examination of the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) of tar sands and shale oil, by Professor Charles Hall for The Oil Drum (Part Three in a series on EROEI) - pretty in-depth stuff only for those interested:
Unconventional Oil: Tar Sands and Shale Oil - EROI on the Web, Part 3 of 5 (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3839)
Article from Kevin G. Hall for McLatchy Newspapers on the soaring consumption of oil, gas and electricity in the Middle East Gulf States (the Export Land Model is coming on strong):
Mideast's own oil consumption helping to drive prices up (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/34056.html)
A similar topic from Gundi Royle for Gulf News:
Cheap energy in UAE is over (http://www.gulfnews.com/business/money/10206645.html)
Article from Justin Norrie for The Age regarding food shortages becoming more common in the most aflluent countries who don't produce much of their own food - in this case, Japan:
Japan's hunger becomes a dire warning for other nations (2 Page article) (http://business.theage.com.au/japans-hunger-becomes-a-dire-warning-for-other-nations/20080420-27ey.html?page=1)
Dave Cohen for ASPO-USA on whether or not Russia's production has peaked, and Khebab for The Oil Drum on the same topic:
Has Russia's Oil Production Peaked? (http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=359&Itemid=91)
Russia's Oil Production is About to Peak (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3626)
Peter Pogany for Energy Bulletin on the inability of economists to grasp what is happening in the world - particularly in realtion to Peak Oil and the 'credit crisis':
Despite its ostensible diversity and seeming contentiousness, economics remains stuck uniformly in a Newtonian worldview of idealized cyclicality that shows the future as a symmetric reflection of the past. Roland Barthes’ “The Death of the Author” became applicable to the Economist. The bottom line is that if a poll were taken across mainstream professionals (a category that excludes the refreshingly awakened group of ecological economists), it would probably indicate an expected decline in crude prices to the vicinity of $45/b by 2010.
Where are the economists? (Click Here For Full Article) (http://www.energybulletin.net/43046.html)
Richard Heinberg's Museletter on coal, transport, technology and "It's Happening":
It's Happening (http://globalpublicmedia.com/richard_heinbergs_museletter_193_its_happening)
Michael Lardelli at Online Opinion on Australia's Recent 2020 Summit:
The 2020 Summit - will Rudd’s children forgive him? (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7281&page=1)
Jeremy Leggett for The Guardian on the retreat of the big oil companies away from renewable energy projects:
Dawn of an energy famine: Just as the need for renewables becomes critical, the oil giants signal an alarming retreat (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/02/renewableenergy.energy)
Finally, a long but interesting article from Michael T. Klare at The Nation from his upcoming book, The New Geopolitics of Energy:
The New Geopolitics of Energy (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080519/klare)
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.1.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.