I understand your concerns Rob, but I think a sizeable difference can be made through individuals' choices in response to higher prices.  We need to be challenged to use energy more efficiently in this country and what better way to do it then with the almighty motivator.

 

Here are a few things I mean by individual choices...

- Drive less aggressively

- Drive slower on the highway

- Properly inflate your tires

- Consolidate trips to work, shop, etc...

- Drive the more fuel efficient car on longer trips

 

Those changes can be made regardless of social status or availability of cheap hybrid cars.

 

I agree with Rob. In fact he hit the nail on the head. Yes, we can do what you suggest, and should, but that won't change the overall equation that the auto is becoming less and less of an affordable means of transportation for low income and even middle call folk. Speaking for myself, I can't remember the last time I bought a car off the showroom floor.

 

When I think of the thousands I could save if I lived in a place that offered a real alternative to the auto...

How about: if you work downtown and don't have kids, move there and sell your car. Rent a new car on weekends for almost nothing when you need to go places you can't walk or take a bus to. Take cabs to fill the gaps during the week.

 

It's liberating, and you'll save a ton of money. Plus, you'll gain an hour a day in your life and you'll probably be healthier. What's that worth to you?

how much is it to rent a car on weekends in cincinnati?

 

Yes, we can do what you suggest, and should,...

 

We "should" have been doing this for decades...but haven't.  Nothing motivates people to change what they're doing like money.  Cynical, but true.

 

Increase the gas tax...public transit ridership goes up...demand increases...routes expanded...new systems installed...working poor rejoice...everyone wins.  It isn't a painless cycle, but the end result is a good one.

how much is it to rent a car on weekends in cincinnati?

 

 

My company has a corporate account, and so I don't know if this applies across the board, but I usually get something like Ford 500 (soon to be renamed a Taurus), and I spend about $22 per weekend day for it. They always give me new cars. Ever five or so rentals, I get a coupon for a free rental day. I charge the rentals on a premium AMEX card so I don't have to pay for the collision waiver - AMEX takes the risk. And my company has a Hired and Non-Owned Auto Liability that costs us about $200 a year. And a lot of this is tax deductible if I use the car for business.

 

I never feel like I lack for a car, and I doubt I spend anywhere near $1,000 per year for it. Oh, and twice we've taken rental cars to the West Coast for most of a month.

 

 

Exxon Chief Cautions Against Rapid Action to Cut Carbon Emissions

 

(There is some dissing of biofuels.  The title tells the story of this article.)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/business/14exxon.html?ex=1329109200&en=adb60e978b63d904&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

             

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS and JAD MOUAWAD

Published: February 14, 2007

 

HOUSTON, Feb. 13 — The chief executive of Exxon Mobil, Rex W. Tillerson, warned Tuesday that governments should not rush into policies that could damage the global economy in order to limit carbon emissions.

 

But in the same speech, Mr. Tillerson, who leads the world’s largest publicly traded company, gave an unalloyed defense of the oil industry and predicted that hydrocarbons would dominate the world’s transportation as energy demand grows by an expected 40 percent by 2030.

 

There is no significant alternative to oil in coming decades and Exxon will continue to make oil and natural gas its primary products, he said.

 

...SNIP...

Mr. Tillerson defended the energy industry as being environmentally responsible. “The footprint required of our activities is getting smaller and more efficient,” he said, “proving that energy production and environmental protection need not be a zero-sum.”

 

 

The idea that cutting carbon emissions will hurt the economy is a bunch of crap.  I'm tired of hearing this argument. 

I remember when the detergent makers protested that eliminating phosphates from their products would bankrupt the industry and turn American into a nation of dirty people wearing dirty clothes.

The idea that cutting carbon emissions will hurt the economy is a bunch of crap.  I'm tired of hearing this argument. 

 

Our country was built upon cheap abundant energy.  Well over half of our electricity comes from coal and natural gas, and nearly 100% of our transportation fuel comes from crude oil.  It's definitely not a bunch of crap.

Rob = winner.  Period.

Tillerman = loser...  -_-

Good game.

 

We can raise the price of gas to motivate lifestyle changes in some drivers, while using said price increases to help pay for alternative fuel R&D.  It wont change everyone, but some will certainly change how they handle vehicular travel/consumption.  However, as a society we should consider the poor in this equation.  Even with the successful introduction of ethanol and hydrogen fueled cars, the poor will have the worse trouble with the technological exchange (as usual) and any significant increase in the price of gas (should go without saying but...).  It can and should be done, but it should be done very carefully.

 

 

And now to end with some satire

 

"Steps on beating rising gas prices."

1. Sell Car

2. Shop Online for needs and wants

3. Walk for any needs and wants that are not online (or rent a car for a bit, thanks John S.)

4. Use the car only when absolutely necessary

5. ????????????? (something happens)

6. Profit

Rob = winner.  Period.

Tillerman = loser...  -_-

Good game.

 

We can raise the price of gas to motivate lifestyle changes in some drivers, while using said price increases to help pay for alternative fuel R&D.  It wont change everyone, but some will certainly change how they handle vehicular travel/consumption.  However, as a society we should consider the poor in this equation.  Even with the successful introduction of ethanol and hydrogen fueled cars, the poor will have the worse trouble with the technological exchange (as usual) and any significant increase in the price of gas (should go without saying but...).  It can and should be done, but it should be done very carefully.

 

 

And now to end with some satire

 

"Steps on beating rising gas prices."

1. Sell Car

2. Shop Online for needs and wants

3. Walk for any needs and wants that are not online (or rent a car for a bit, thanks John S.)

4. Use the car only when absolutely necessary

5. ????????????? (something happens)

6. Profit

 

OK everone. Let's brainstorm this. You are a typical person living in a suburb. Luckily you live within a 5 minute drive to/from work. Everything else is a bit farther away. A car is still a necessity. How do we live efficiently?

 

Work: Drive in bad weather (car paid off), bike in good weather?

 

food: Grocery store a bit far away for biking/walking and on the other side of some 

        dangerous streets. What to do here?

 

entertainment: no way to get to these without driving or taxi...very costly

 

restarurants: some close enough to bike to, others too far away.

 

little or no public transportation.

 

How do we make a lifestyle that  minimizes the auto, while not ending up living like a hermit? I hear some interesting thoughts here. Your thoughts, please.

Move out of the suburbs, you made a bad choice, now you have to deal with the consequences. 

 

He-man or Paul Bunyon is not going to pick up all the ranch houses and move them closer together, and even if he did that it still wouldn't be a very well designed neighborhood and probably would be car dependent because all the land uses are segregated and everything is more spread out due to huge surface lots.

Move out of the suburbs, you made a bad choice, now you have to deal with the consequences.

 

Love your attitude. Not as easy as it seems, bro'. That's where the job is. Good jobs are not easy to find. Most people are not going to find it easy to pull the plug and move.

 

Now let's see if we can come up with some real answers.

how about a segway.  those would be great for short trips like you describe.

What kind of car do I drive?  Trading a car in and downsizing is much easier than most people think.  A Honda Fit, Nissan Versa, Toyota Prius, and hell...even a Yaris would fit most people's needs (i.e. get from Point A to Point B with the occasional groceries or 2-3 passengers in tow).  If you're driving an SUV right now and handling $2/gal gas, you could easily double or triple your mileage.  In other words, I can now cope with $4-6/gal gas.

 

OK everone. Let's brainstorm this. You are a typical person living in a suburb. Luckily you live within a 5 minute drive to/from work. Everything else is a bit farther away. A car is still a necessity. How do we live efficiently?

 

Work: Drive in bad weather (car paid off), bike in good weather?

 

food: Grocery store a bit far away for biking/walking and on the other side of some  

        dangerous streets. What to do here?

 

entertainment: no way to get to these without driving or taxi...very costly

 

restarurants: some close enough to bike to, others too far away.

 

little or no public transportation.

 

How do we make a lifestyle that  minimizes the auto, while not ending up living like a hermit? I hear some interesting thoughts here. Your thoughts, please.

 

First off I would say that anyone living in a typical cincinnati suburb (I'm thinking west chester, liberty twnship, deerfield twship, hamilton township, all those similar places) that has a 5 minute commute is very rare - it should be more like 15 or 20 minutes.  From what I've seen there would be little, if any opportunity to bike (or walk) because all the subdivisions are located off of two-lane country roads - so you'd probably be stuck driving to your local Kroger (again 15 to 20 minutes).  Entertainment and dining options would also be dependent upon driving not to mention generic (deefield town centre) - I'm not sure about the living efficiently question but from what I just described this life would pretty much suck IMO. :wink2:  I agree with thomasbtw..you have to deal with the consequences of where you choose to live.

I'm really speaking of my own situation. I am fortunate that I am only 5 min from work, but you're pretty much stuck with a car here otherwise. I have thought very seriously about moving, but that is not easy, since I have a good job and don't want to a) give it up unless I can do about as well with whatever replaces it, or b) Move and end up with a long commute. I ended up here because a now-ex had kids and **she** wanted a house. Stuck here ever since.

 

I do plan to sell and move elsewhere, but the market is very soft and the house needed a lot of updates before it could go on the market. I do plan to buy rental property closer in and go into business for myself and at that point maybe I'd quit the job I now have. I can't afford miscues and have to proceed very carefully. We'll see how it all plays out.

 

Our country was built upon cheap abundant energy.  Well over half of our electricity comes from coal and natural gas, and nearly 100% of our transportation fuel comes from crude oil.  It's definitely not a bunch of crap.

 

Yes it is a bunch of crap.  One thing to remember:  Many of the things we need to do to reduce carbon emissions are the same things we need to do for energy independence, and it's stuff that will create jobs, grow new industries, and generally enhance the economy.

 

One of the chief ways we reduce fossil fuel use is to become a lot more energy efficient.  We waste a significant amount of energy in the US.  Since it's cheaper to save energy than it is to buy it, becoming more energy efficient won't bankrupt the economy, it will save it a hell of a lot of money.

 

At the same time we deploy more and more alternative energy.  These new industries grow and create jobs as the dinosaur fossil fuel industries contract.  Again, no net harm to the economy.  Whole industries have come and gone over the past 150 years, yet we've never had major economic harm from this. 

 

 

I would suggest people read some of the reports put out by the Rocky Mountain Institute about energy efficiency, renewables, reducing fossil fuel use at a profit, etc.  www.rmi.org

 

 

Too often, people see a change like being more energy efficient as an economic loss. That's because they are unable or unwilling to see what economic activity will replace it.

Too often, people see a change like being more energy efficient as an economic loss. That's because they are unable or unwilling to see what economic activity will replace it.

 

That's the real problem. 

 

It's also important to remember that the harm to the economy from doing nothing about global warming will be far greater than the cost of mitigating what we still can at this point.  We can't stop it entirely, but we still mitigate the worst of it if we act now. 

 

    ^----"Since it's cheaper to save energy than it is to buy it, becoming more energy efficient won't bankrupt the economy, it will save it a hell of a lot of money."

 

    Suppose I drive an SUV because it makes me feel better about myself. An environmental activist comes along and convinces me to sell the SUV and take yoga classes instead. So, I take him up on it, sell the SUV, and with all the money I save I take yoga classes.

 

    Then the yoga instructor buys an SUV with her extra profits.

 

    Sorry for the repetition, but this is the dilemma we are in. Our economy is not simple. If we all drive less to "save" gasoline, then gasoline becomes cheaper and easier for someone else to buy. Get it? The question isn't how much oil we as humans will use. The question is WHO will use it. Will I use it, or my neighbor? Will the U.S. use it, or China? In any case, SOMEONE is burning oil, virtually as fast as it can be extracted from the ground.

 

  That doesn't mean we should do our best to be comfortable. Traditional villages are more comfortable than sprawl areas, for example.

   

 

But your statements ignore the prior conversation. It was based on increasing the gas tax to encourage more people to make smarter, more sustainable choices that move the economy in a comparable direction. Ratcheting up the gas tax 20 cents per year over, say 10 years, would allow that transition. Of course, the other alternative is to phase out federal subsidies for the oil industry amounting to $200 billion to $300 billion. If the oil industry paid for those and passed those on to the consumer (rather than taxpayers footing the bill every April 15), the cost of gasoline would rise by $2 to $3 per gallon (some estimates place this cost much higher because it includes environmental and military costs of keeping oil shipping routes safe in politically unstable parts of the world).

 

See:

http://www.icta.org/doc/RPG%20security%20update.pdf

http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html

http://www.progress.org/gasoline.htm

 

 

    KJP, I see where you're coming from, but I think you're missing the point. You see, the money falls out of the equation. Think of money as an accounting device that determines who gets what. It doesn't change the amount of oil that is extracted.

 

    As a counter to you example, I agree that if the gasoline tax is raised, drivers will use less gasoline. But what happens to that money collected by the government? The government spends it! Supposedly they will build transit, do research, etc., but all of those activities use oil also. If nothing else, the researchers will take home their paychecks and buy SUV's.

 

  Or, maybe try this one. You are camping in the wilderness with 3 other buddies. You have $10 in cash, and your buddies have $50, $100, and $1. You are there for a week, and you together you brought a case of beer. At the end of the week, all of the beer will be gone, and the $161 did not disappear. Does it matter who ends up with the money, or who drank the beer? You can trade money for beer all you want, but as long as someone is drinking, by the end of the week, the beer will be gone.

 

    That's the alarming simplicity of Hubbert's theory: neither price nor fuel efficiency figure into the equation. We are consuming oil as fast as it can be extracted out of the ground, and I'm sorry to tell you that there's nothing we can do about it. Governments meddling with prices, charging taxes, or mandating fuel efficiency standards only shift the oil consumption to someone else, or change the kinds or number of vehicles we drive.

 

    (Sorry - been spending too much time on the oil forums.)

 

   

   

 

   

Your camping analogy doesn't make sense. Of course they're going to drink something they already paid for. But if the retail price of beer was doubled or even tripled, they might not have even bought the beer, or as much of it. They might not have gone camping, because what's the point of going camping without getting sloshed in the woods.

 

Here's what I know from hanging out at the oil AND transportation forums.... If you take total populations of the five most populous EU nations (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom), it comes to 308 million. That's just a shade more than the U.S.'s population. Yet their combined oil consumption is half of the U.S.'s. Their GDP per capita is 80 percent of the U.S.'s. So why do they use half the oil compared to Americans? Much higher fuel taxes, better land use planning, and greater investment in transit, rail and pedestrian/biking facilities.

 

To ignore the impact of price on supply/demand is to suggest a flat-earth approach to basic economics.

 

    ^----"Since it's cheaper to save energy than it is to buy it, becoming more energy efficient won't bankrupt the economy, it will save it a hell of a lot of money."

 

    Suppose I drive an SUV because it makes me feel better about myself. An environmental activist comes along and convinces me to sell the SUV and take yoga classes instead. So, I take him up on it, sell the SUV, and with all the money I save I take yoga classes.

 

    Then the yoga instructor buys an SUV with her extra profits.

 

    Sorry for the repetition, but this is the dilemma we are in. Our economy is not simple. If we all drive less to "save" gasoline, then gasoline becomes cheaper and easier for someone else to buy. Get it? The question isn't how much oil we as humans will use. The question is WHO will use it. Will I use it, or my neighbor? Will the U.S. use it, or China? In any case, SOMEONE is burning oil, virtually as fast as it can be extracted from the ground.

 

   That doesn't mean we should do our best to be comfortable. Traditional villages are more comfortable than sprawl areas, for example.

 

Your SUV analogy isn't really relevent.  It is very possible and very much doable to significantly reduce our fossil fuel use without harming the economy.  It's just a matter of getting the "economic rules" right.  Almost everything the government does influences the marketplace.  Sometimes the influence is good, but with respect to energy and pollution, the "economic rules" do not produce the desired outcome, in fact it encourages waste and pollution (despite EPA rules), and discourages the development of alternative energy sources and energy efficiency.   

 

If you get the “rules” right--  change what we tax and what we subsidize, and eliminate the barriers that discourage the marketplace from making better choices, you get the desired outcome.  And yes it CAN be done in a way that is profitable.  The city of Portland, OR has been a leader in encouraging a reduction in carbon emissions.  The result has been a net gain in employment and economic activity. 

 

Again, I suggest you read some of reports done by Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Intitute, read Natural Capitalism:  Creating the Next Industrial Revolution, and you’ll see what I mean.

 

^----"if the retail price of beer was doubled or even tripled,..."

 

  Then the beer makers would be making more money. It has been said that all money is connected. If I am on a steady income and the price of beer, or gasoline, or anything else goes up, then yes, I will consume less of it. But chances are that my income will not be steady. If I happen to be the beer maker, then my income will go up, and we are back where we started. Someone is going to have a good day if the price of beer doubled.

 

    Sorry for confusing the issue. My point was that on the surface, it appears that a government tax on gasoline will encourage people to use less gasoline. It's more complicated than that. A government tax does not increase or decrease the supply or demand of oil. A government tax takes money away from someone and gives it to someone else. Gasoline taxes have only gone up, and so has oil consumption.

 

    If Portland people live happier lives because they have a more comfortable community, then great! Reducing the number of cars in the built environment has its benefits.

 

  I should stop now.  :drunk:

 

   

 

 

   

Federal gas taxes have stayed the same since 1993, but risen six cents per gallon in Ohio. The overall rate has actually fallen in constant dollars since 1993. As you know, demand for oil has proven to be quite price inelastic, but to say it's totally inelastic is giving oil way too much credit. There is a point where demand stops growing. We saw it last year when oil neared $80 per barrel. But we don't know the price point when demand starts to fall.

 

I do agree that the higher price, whether caused by a rebalancing of supply/demand, the elimination of federal subsidies for oil production, or an increase in gasoline taxes will cause money to be redistributed. The question is, what activities, capital improvements or programs does society want it distributed to?

Actually, the demand for oil might be slowing. Data from APTA suggests that auto use has plateaued, while transit ridership has increased over the past couple of years. And this with only a modest increase in gas prices.

 

One trend that surfaced is that people who switched to transit when gas hit $3 per gallon have stayed with transit.

Admittedly off topic from this thread, but Boreal did post an article on climate change.  This is for those who don't believe that we can cut carbon emissions without harming the economy:

 

More Profit with Less Carbon:

http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/Lovinsforweb.pdf

 

Climate:  Making Sense and Making Money:

http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Climate/C97-13_ClimateMSMM.pdf

 

What can we do to fix the climate problem?

 

"Climate protection, like the Hubble Space Telescope’s mirror, got spoiled by a sign error: in fact, climate solutions are not costly but profitable...

 

http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Climate/C06-10_FixTheClimateProb.pdf

 

An article about how Portland, Oregon is booming economically while reducing carbon emissions:

 

A Liveable Shade of Green

NY Times 7/3/05

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/opinion/03kristof.html?ex=1171774800&en=2045ce0f796179c8&ei=5070

 

Getting off Oil

 

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid1237.php

 

From the Rocky Mountain Institute Spring 2007 Newsletter

Then there's this from the Financial Times: "Study sees harmful hunt for extra oil"

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/11ba213e-bf7e-11db-9ac2-000b5df10621.html

Getting off Oil

 

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid1237.php

 

From the Rocky Mountain Institute Spring 2007 Newsletter

 

Decisive evidence will emerge that stabilizing the earth's climate is in fact not costly but profitable (because saving fuel costs less than buying it).

 

Amory Lovins sure does take big leaps in his arguments.  He loves to paint these images that the energy future is going to be painless or even fun.  What he does not do is to present the details or build the case.

 

Amory Lovins sure does take big leaps in his arguments.  He loves to paint these images that the energy future is going to be painless or even fun.  What he does not do is to present the details or build the case.

 

In more general articles such as this, he does not get into details because they get too technical for general audiences.  The proof lies in his more technical writing and in the clients he and the Rocky Mountain Institute consult for.  One example: some years ago, RMI consulted for Interface Corporation (manufacturers of commercial carpet and flooring systems).  The result:  Company profits doubled even as the number of employees nearly doubled and carbon emissions declined (I forget by how much, but it wasn't insignificant).  You'll probably find the details of Interfaces experience in Ray Anderson's book:  Mid-Course Correction. 

 

There are plenty of other examples.  If Amory's ideas didn't work, RMI wouldn't have any clients. 

$2 gas says its farewell for '07

CINCINNATI POST | February 27, 2007

 

A gallon of gas, which sold in the tri-state for two bucks a gallon a month ago, is up 40 cents and likely to go higher, as analysts warned that 2007 is shaping up to be a pricey year at the pump.

 

"We are way ahead of last year's pace,'' said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst for Oil Price Information Service.

 

"By this weekend we will be paying $100 million more a day for gasoline than when the president made his State of the Union address."

 

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270353

Here's an eye-opening graph from the Dept. of Energy.  To think that we haven't had the "Katrina effect" to blame (should free up more gulf production), saw record prices last year (should have killed some demand), and investments in refineries, and drilling has been through the roof (should be paying off).  It's all very counterintuitive when you look at the chart, isn't it!  Could be a fun summer!

 

everything i need is within walking distance, heh suckers.

^---- Don't laugh too soon! Chances are that everything you need gets there by truck.

 

 

^---- Don't laugh too soon! Chances are that everything you need gets there by truck.

 

  

 

Yep, that's the problem. There aren't any winners, only losers who lose less.

everything i need is within walking distance, heh suckers.

 

You know, I really dislike smug attitudes.  :behind:

 

Eight and State and John Schneider are absolutely correct. Everyone will be impacted by a Peak Oil scenario...even those who think they have everything they need within walking distance.

Unless you're Amish, you're going to get hit no matter where you live. But if you live on a navigable waterway with a port served by rail, you'll do better than those who aren't.

Unless you're Amish, you're going to get hit no matter where you live. But if you live on a navigable waterway with a port served by rail, you'll do better than those who aren't.

 

Even the Amish will feel the pinch; go to any of the towns in Amish country (I grew up ten miles from Berne, Indiana) on a Saturday morning. You'll find Amish families arriving in vans driven by "English" drivers and shopping for groceries, hardware items and clothing. Some Amish farmers use modern farm machines adapted for horse-drawn operation, and many use commercially produced fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Some hire "English" farmers with tractors to do heavy tillage work.

 

Amish homes are often heated with propane and may have gas refrigerators and ranges. I've shopped in an Amish hardware store that uses gas lighting fueled by propane.

 

Still, the Amish will be able to adapt more readily to scarce oil supplies than the general population. Their livelihoods are built around an agrarian model, and they possess the basic skills for producing and preserving food with or without the help of fossil fuels. Even the Amish who work outside farming are generally in professions like carpentry that will be invaluable in providing shelter and making use of renewable resources. Most have a strong work ethic and a strong sense of community in which people look after one another with minimal reliance on commercial institutions. They'll be safer on the road in their buggies, too, without so many careless auto drivers.

 

 

Been a while since we checked in with Jim Kunstler. So I did today:

 

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/26973

 

March 5, 2007

 

Singing the Vegetable Opera

    The jive-finance economy had a few acidic burps last week -- or, at least, that's how it may seem in the days ahead as the equity markets finally upchuck the toxic notional junk "money" they have been gorging on in recent years. Has there ever been a financial collapse with brighter or louder warning signals?

    I suppose the expectation (or hope) is that the quasi-mythical "plunge protection team" -- a "working group" of federal reserve officials and bankers -- will jump in and administer some soothing pepto-bismol, but frankly I don't see how that's possible this time. The poison at the bottom is a fetid mass of "non-performing" mortgages, billions upon billions of loans that strapped borrowers are not paying back, loans which, in the meantime, have been rolled over, rebundled into jive "securities" (ha!) and sold, and rolled over again and used as "leverage" for massive exotic bets and bloated arbitrages involving mere abstract figments of electronic digital pulses completely removed from any reality-based productive investment activity.

Wow! Even more scathing than usual.

 

While some denounce Kunstler as excessively apocalyptic in his views, I feel like he's much better than I am at articulating what I've felt intuitively for a long time. Much as we don't like to hear what he's saying, I find it hard to refute.

 

Uncharacteristic amount of potty-mouth in that particular column, though, isn't it?

 

Edit: After going back and reading some of his previous blogs, I guess that last comment I made is without substance.

Nah, looks like the usual shot between the eyes from JHK. No unusual profanity from him. Learned stuff about Ditech I didn't know before, too!

     Evidence now conclusively shows that Saudi Arabia's oil production was down 8 percent in 2006 over 2005, even while the number of oil rigs went up substantially -- indicating that the Kingdom is drilling as fast as it can and still losing ground. (Production slipped from 9.9 million-barrels-a-day to about 8.4 mm/b/d.)

Peak oilers keep saying this, but ignore the political and technical realities.  OPEC announced cuts during the second part of the year and there is evidence that the Saudi's and Kuwaiti's are the only ones complying with them.  It's not that the can't produce more, it's that they aren't producing by choice.  They also announced two mega fields that will be developed towards the latter half of this decade.  That explains the massive increase in rig count.  There is also a lag of about 3-5 years between a surge in rigs and a surge in production.  Wells aren't drilled in a day.

 

Mexico's Cantarell field is crashing (minimum 15 percent annual decline and possibly much steeper rate, meaning in a year or two the US will cease getting oil imports from its number two foreign supplier). The North Sea is crashing, too. Russia is about show steep decline. Iran is past peak. Iraq, as every six-year-old knows, is the world's clusterfuck poster child. Indonesia (OPEC member) is now a net oil importer. Venezuela is past peak and full of loathing for the US. Nigeria is collapsing politically. No amount of corn is going save the Happy Motoring utopia, and that's really all our economy is now based on.

 

Well...this part is mostly true.  :-D

The Apollo Alliance-- a national group pushing for energy independence-- has connected the dots between excessive auto-mobility and energy use.  They advocate intercity rail, more urban mass transit, and better designed cities as important parts of the solution for our energy problems. They are  getting national media attention and gaining clout.  Several governors and many members of Congress are working with the group.

 

They have issued a  "New Energy For America" report which includes a 10 point plan to help the nation acheive energy independence.

 

http://www.apolloalliance.org/docUploads/ApolloReport%5F022404%5F122748%2Epdf

 

Point #7:

 

Improve Transportation Options: Increase

mobility, job access, and transportation choice by

investing in effective multimodal networks including

bicycle, local bus and rail transit, regional high-speed

rail and magnetic levitation rail projects.

 

Several Democratic governors unveiled a four point initiative with the Apollo Alliance to advance clean energy and and new jobs.  It included several pieces of model legislation to help American achieve energy independence and deal with climate change.  One of the act is "The High Performace Cities Act" which emphasizes smart growth and investing in high speed rail and mass transit.

 

General info on the initiative:

http://www.apolloalliance.org/stateleadership/

 

High performance Cities Act (one of the pieces of model legislation under the initiative):

http://www.apolloalliance.org/stateleadership/hpcities.cfm

 

Some interesting economic and job numbers in Ohio for their proposals too:

 

http://www.apolloalliance.org/state_and_local/Ohio/index.cfm

From the US DOE, the gas taxes fo the several states.

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/gasoline_taxes.html

 

Alabama * 18 06/01/95

Alaska             8 07/01/70

Arizona  * 18 07/01/90

Arkansas * 21.7 09/01/01

California * 18 01/01/94

Colorado * 22 01/01/91

Connecticut * 25 07/01/00

Delaware             23 01/01/95

Dist. of Col. 20 10/01/94

Florida *             13.9 01/01/02

Georgia             7.5 07/01/71

Hawaii *             16 07/01/91

Idaho *             25 04/01/96

Illinois *               19 01/01/90

Indiana *             18 04/01/03

Iowa *             20.3 07/01/03

Kansas *             24 07/01/03

Kentucky * 16.4 07/15/94

Louisiana * 20 01/01/90

Maine *             22 08/01/99

Maryland 23.5 05/01/92

Massachusetts 21 01/01/91

Michigan * 19 08/01/97

Minnesota * 20 06/01/88

Mississippi * 18.4 07/01/93

Missouri * 17 04/01/96

Montana * 27 07/01/94

Nebraska * 24.6 07/01/03

Nevada             25.7 01/01/03

New Hampshire * 19.5 07/01/95

New Jersey * 10.5 07/01/88

New Mexico * 18.5 10/01/00

New York * 22.65 01/01/02

North Carolina * 24.2 06/01/03

North Dakota * 21 07/01/99

Ohio *             24 07/01/03

Oklahoma * 17 07/01/89

Oregon *             24 01/01/00

Pennsylvania * 25.9 01/01/03

Rhode Island * 30 07/01/02

South Carolina 16 01/01/89

South Dakota * 22 04/01/99

Tennessee * 21.4 04/01/03

Texas *             20 10/01/91

Utah *             24.5 07/01/97

Vermont * 20 08/01/97

Virginia *             17.5 07/01/92

Washington * 28.00 07/01/03

West Virginia * 25.35 01/01/02

Wisconsin * 28.5 04/01/03

Wyoming * 14 07/01/98

 

     Evidence now conclusively shows that Saudi Arabia's oil production was down 8 percent in 2006 over 2005, even while the number of oil rigs went up substantially -- indicating that the Kingdom is drilling as fast as it can and still losing ground. (Production slipped from 9.9 million-barrels-a-day to about 8.4 mm/b/d.)

Peak oilers keep saying this, but ignore the political and technical realities.  OPEC announced cuts during the second part of the year and there is evidence that the Saudi's and Kuwaiti's are the only ones complying with them. 

 

Here's the problem in saying anything with certainty about Saudi Arabia's oil reserves data -- that data is a closely guarded state secret. The only way we'll know with some certainty whether SA's production is up or down by choice or by capacity is after some period of time, possibly years. Wouldn't it be nice for SA, as the globe's central bank of oil, to tell us and the rest of the world when their stock is at risk of decline? Of course, the reason why they won't is to keep the Wahabi revolutionaries from storming the royal family's palaces.

^ My real beef is that people like Kunstler throw things around as fact when they don't really know.  They're just spectators in the show like you and I.  The statement that the kingdom is drilling as fast as it can and still losing ground is baseless.  It was a result of Kunstler and others looking at two peices to a complex puzzle (rig count and production) while ignoring the rest.

 

I do know this...the Saudi's have never failed to deliver on one of thier promises.  If they say that they're going from 9 Mbpd to 12 Mbpd by 2012, I'm inclined to believe them.  If they can't, things could get ugly.  We'll have a hard enough time dealing with Cantarell crashing without problems in SA.

Kunstler's information is likely coming from here:

 

Saudi Arabian oil declines 8% in 2006

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2325

 

Since none of us here claim to be experts, if you have a problem with the argument, you should probably contact the person who posted this piece on The Oil Drum, discuss it with him, then let us know what you find out. 

 

Last year a former Saudi Aramco VP said on many occasions that the promises Saudi Arabia was making about how much oil the kingdon was planning to increase production over the next few years weren't achievable. 

 

I for one don't believe the Saudi's.  They've always been very fuzzy about their true reserve data, and as the world's swing producer for so long, they have every interest in trying to keep the illusion of that alive for as long as possible.  Only time will tell.  Some oil industry insiders are starting to think that Saudi Arabia's recent announcement of production cuts (a month or so ago, and it was an announcement by Saudi Arabia for their own production, not OPEC as a whole, as I recall) is due to production declines and their argument that prices were getting too low was just cover. 

 

The truth will only come with time.