http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_7345309

 

Legislature begins planning for oil shortage

KEN DIXON [email protected]

Article Last Updated: 11/01/2007 10:47:14 PM EDT

 

HARTFORD — Lawmakers led by Rep. Terry Backer and Sen. Bob Duff on Thursday warned of potential dire consequences if Connecticut ignores the soaring price and plummeting worldwide availability of oil.

 

Backer, D-Stratford, and Duff, D-Norwalk, on Thursday formed the General Assembly's Peak Oil & Natural Gas Caucus to investigate the issue and plan for better mass-transit, more efficient land use and better technology to cope with the coming shortage.

Man, this whole thread is depressing. I'm going to go sulk now in a corner.

You're looking at it in the wrong way. Urbanists, public transportation advocates and environmentalists can all find things worthwhile, and yes, even exciting, in what's happening on the energy stage.

 

What scares me are the potential reactions of people. I fear that too many will want to hold on to the car-crazy, suburban-sprawling American lifestyle of the last 50 years at the expense of all other uses of petroleum -- medicines, medical equipment, fertilizers, home/business heating, food transportation, clothing, computer equipment, etc.

 

We won't have to cut much into the auto use, sprawling growth patterns to make a huge dent in fuel consumption. However, we will have to keep cutting into it to support economic growth (albeit in a more sustainable way) and to adjust to continued petroleum depletion (albeit a more  manageable decline).

What scares me are the potential reactions of people. I fear that too many will want to hold on to the car-crazy, suburban-sprawling American lifestyle of the last 50 years at the expense of all other uses of petroleum -- medicines, medical equipment, fertilizers, home/business heating, food transportation, clothing, computer equipment, etc.

 

Ah, so well put, thanks for thinking for me KJP!

 

I can just imagine those in Lorain commuting to downtown Cleveland asking for a gas commuter subsidy or the reduction of the gas taxes.

And those same very people will be complaining when the roadways they drive on deteriorate from a lack of funding. As if the General Highway Fund for the Federal Government isn't already going into the red in 2009 anyhow...

And those same very people will be complaining when the roadways they drive on deteriorate from a lack of funding. As if the General Highway Fund for the Federal Government isn't already going into the red in 2009 anyhow...

 

My thoughts exactly.  Just wait until the inevitable Telecommuting Boom of 2013. 

 

Should be fun to watch the gas tax go to $1.50/gal to compensate for the shortfall.

I don't know if this is really the right place for this, but since I saw something about auto use and thought the message might have a tie-in.

 

Amtrak is breaking ridership records...this from the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP). This should give us some indication of a long-term shift to trains and away from autos, due at least in part to high gas prices and other factors.

 

Amtrak was the highlight of the Travel Industry Association of America’s latest Industry Performance Indicators report.  According to the IPI report for September 2007, domestic air passenger enplanements rose 1.8 percent over the previous year and year-to-date, while the demand for motor gas rose just 0.2 percent and 0.9 percent respectively.  However, Amtrak boardings increased 8.4 percent for the month and 7.1 percent for the year-to-date.  This demonstrates that public demand for the rail travel option is now growing faster than that of the travel industry as a whole, even while the supply of seats on Amtrak is constrained in many markets by limited frequencies and/or shortened train consists.

 

Here's another story, with an important passage in red.

 

Robert Puentes, a Fellow in the Metropolitan Policy Program at The Brookings Institution, presented some excellent testimony to the House Budget Committee on October 25, available in full at

 

http://budget.house.gov/hearings/2007/10.25Puentes_testimony.pdf

 

Below are some key quotations.

 

Very much in the vein of past STPP statements, Puentes says fuel taxes are distributed “to states without any kind of purpose, oversight or accountability. Nor are the funds tied to any goals such as keeping bridges in good repair, mitigating the rise in congestion, improving air quality, or connecting workers to jobs and education.”

 

 

He also notes two “oft-cited sources for transportation investment needs,” the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Report Card for America’s Infrastructure and FHWA’s Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance Report to Congress.  “As a tool for determining the level of national ‘needs’ these analyses, by their own admonition are limiting. For one thing, they only include highways, bridges and public transit, and ignore intermetropolitan modes, freight and passenger rail, and intermodal transportation facilities.  Further, the analyses focus on capital expenditures and exclude the costs for maintaining and operating the new facilities.

 

 

“But they also do not take into consideration investments that could obviate the need for future investments. They do not consider land use impacts or effects. By separating highway and transit investments, the potential for the modes to work together is missed…

 

“Simply put, the limited focus on the condition of infrastructure without regard to desired outcomes is the wrong approach to determining national investment needs.”

 

Later on, in the revenues discussion: “In recent years, the increase in vehicles miles traveled (VMT) for the country as a whole has begun to level off. During the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, it was 4.3, 3.2, and 2.5% respectively. So far in the 2000s, the average yearly increase is only 1.8%...In fact, recent data shows that 20 of the 50 largest metropolitan areas saw VMT declines between 2000 and 2002.  Metropolitan areas such as Charlotte, Portland (OR), Dallas, Los Angeles, and Milwaukee saw some of the largest declines.

 

“But what is often lost in this discussion—especially around finance—is that these trends are extremely positive for the nation as a whole. Lower fuel consumption is vital to our energy security which, coupled with the leveling off of VMT, is important for the health of our metropolitan areas and for mitigating the challenges associated with climate change.  Indeed VMT reduction should be an integral part of the conversation around investment needs…

 

“The [transportation] program’s laxity is astonishing for several reasons. One is due to the sheer size of the program: nearly $50 billion federal dollars every year. Another is the inconsistency with other recently reformed federal programs such as welfare and education. Congress established a management assessment system for public housing agencies and created a performance measurement and reward system in the 1996 welfare reform law… [u.S. DOT] does not hold the recipients of federal highway funding accountable for their performance nor is funding linked to success…

 

“The formulas for allocating federal highway trust fund dollars are largely made on the basis of roadway mileage and use. While this may seem intuitive on some level, it also presents obvious problems in that it sets up an insatiable desire for more funding as the roadway networks expand. There is no reward for reducing consumption in any of these formulas…Within many metropolitan planning organizations, transportation plans are based on centrifugal growth projections that many consider to be unsustainable and undesirable.”

Man, this whole thread is depressing. I'm going to go sulk now in a corner.

 

Inevitably, anyone who follows peak oil news for a while gets depressed at some point.  Then you start looking for solutions and to realize that people are also talking about and proposing real solutions (not the fake ones like corn ethanol).  Most also realize that there are changes they can make in their own lifestyles to at least lessen the blow on ourselves a little bit.  Then begin to see that there is a way out and that there are good things that can come out of it. 

 

It's not going to be an easy ride by any stretch of the imagination.  There will be pain and difficulty, but we can preserve the project of civilization if we make the right choices. 

 

It takes a while, but the depression does give way to so at least some hope. 

 

 

These messages have led me to wonder what might happen with transportation in a peak oil scenario and how government and the private sector might react. Here's a few thoughts:

 

HIGHWAY:

 

> Doubling federal and state gas taxes to maintain what we have and to make up

  for the loss of purchasing power for road maintenance and construction.

> Conversion of all Interstate-type highways into toll roads, complete with distance

  and peak pricing. The farther you drive the more expensive it gets on a per-mile

  basis. Driving during rush hour? You'll pay more for that, too.

> A complete ban on new highway construction, with any excess dedicated to

  other, more energy-efficient forms of transportation. Ditto for toll road revenues.

> An end to independent over-the-road truckers, who cannot compete in a world

  of high energy prices, except to move loads that can't be transported any other

  way.

> Likewise, large trucking companies will be forced to become intermodal container

  forwarders of freight that comes in via the nearest railhead. Over-the-road

  trucking will become very expensive.

> The gasoline powered automobile will still be with us, but will be declining in favor

  of plug-in hybrids, NEV's and other alternatives. Government may place huge

  surcharges on those who insist on buying the latest Hummer. Driving itself will

  decline, as people simply drive less and use other modes more.

> Government will actively discourage auto use, by promoting alternatives and

  penalizing those who continue to resist their travel habits.

> Auto manufacturers will have to adapt or die. That means building energy-

  efficient vehicles or getting into construction of light rail cars, railroad equipment.

  Govenment may institute a crash conversion of these heavy manufacuring

  facilities to building railcars or electric vehicles.

 

AIR:

 

> No new airport construction, except to maintain what we now have.

> A ban on air travel of less than 500 miles.

> Cut-rate airlines will be a thing of the past, for obvious reasons.

> Passenger facility charges will increase to make up for the loss of short-haul

  passengers to rail.

> A huge collapse of the commercial aviation industry, with maybe one or two

  carriers surviving on the public support, where needed. Throw away your

  frequent flyer miles.

 

BUS:

 

> Jammed, as people try to find new ways to get around.

> Massive expansion into rural areas long since abandoned by Greyhound and

  others.

> Automakers diversify into bus construction.

 

RAIL:

 

> Freight railroads are overwhelmed by huge volume. Govenment intervenes by

  spending billions on new infrastructure. Four track main lines are the rage in some

  areas, single track lines seem to get a second track overnight.

> Nearly all intermodal traffic now moves by rail as trucking collapses.

> Large-scale electrification programs underway, with government aid.

> Rail passenger services flourish and provide an alternative--if you can get a

  ticket. Government dumps vast sums into new rail passenger projects, complete

  with dedicated, passenger-only tracks, high speeds and electrification. Dozens of

  new passenger trains operate on trunk routes with more to come. Ridership

  records are shattered.

> Passengers easliy change from bus to rail and back at gleaming new intermodal

  hubs, much like Europeans have had for years. Through ticketing is the norm also.

> Like the bus, passenger trains begin to reach into the far corners of the country

  on a scale not seen since the 1920's Any operating losses are made up for by

  government.

> The long-distance train makes a huge comeback to cater to at least two

  markets: Overnight business/express market and transcontinental services to

  make up for the loss of air service. Amtrak's timetable starts to resemble that of

  the New York Central or Pennsylvania from the 1940's.

> Very high speed trains, like the TGV will take a back seat to simply moving the

  masses, as decision makers face a choice between fast trains or simply keeping

  people mobile.

 

TRANSIT:

 

> Light rail,trolleys expand as fast as money can be had. Portland leads the way by

  adding 150 miles of trolley operation on city streets. Others are not far behind.

> Commuter rail explodes as trains are added as fast as is humanly possible.

> Many cities that lost transit years ago or never had it see new systems go on line

  at a dizzying rate. Many are electric.

> The long-dead interurban makes a comeback, as outlying areas off existing rail

  lines demand service.

> City buses expand rapidly as well, so workers can reach their jobs.

> Ditto for regional rail. Towns off the beaten path will see new rail lines that will

  bring resident into the big city to work or for entertainment.

 

OTHER:

 

> Walking increases, biking becomes huge as people use it to get to work as well as

  for recreational uses. People are healthier, happier.

> Land use patterns change to encopurage transit use, and discourage auto-

  dependent sprawl. Developers scramble to change with the times, or perish.

> Exurbs implode into urban areas, where good transit is available, causing social

  problems. Development in urban areas booms. This could be a downside as some

  are displaced. Government will have to play a proactive role. McMansions stand

  as vacant symbols to a past age of excess.

> Some big-box retailers might fade unless they change with the times. Not many

  will be willing to keep a guzzler on hand for the occaisional trip to Wal-Mart.

 

There you have it. That's my story and I'm sticking to it! Add your ideas. let's have some fun with this!

 

Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) is the lone voice in the US Congress trying to sound the alarm about peak oil.  On November 1 he gave something like his 6th or 8th presentation to the US house about peak oil.  The transcript is way to long to post here, but here's the link followed by some key excerpts that I broke up into categories:

 

http://www.energybulletin.net/36647.html

 

There are two bills before the Congress, and I want to mention those before we start. These would be pretty good bills if we were offering them 25 years ago, but this is not 25 years ago. And I would submit that these bills are woefully inadequate to address the challenges that we have today....

 

Our children, our grandchildren looking back on today will wonder how could we ever have thought that these bills would address the enormous challenge that we face today in energy...

 

There you have it. That's my story and I'm sticking to it! Add your ideas. let's have some fun with this!

 

 

Wendell Cox and Ronald Utz try to say that it would be more energy efficient and cheaper to use the diesel fuel that is powering expanded Amtrak and commuter trains for diesel powered SUV's. :laugh:

WOW.

 

There you have it. That's my story and I'm sticking to it! Add your ideas. let's have some fun with this!

 

 

Wendell Cox and Ronald Utz try to say that it would be more energy efficient and cheaper to use the diesel fuel that is powering expanded Amtrak and commuter trains on diesel powered SUV's. :laugh:

 

Where will these assholes be when the s*** hits the fan? maybe they could end the energy shortage with all that gas they spout off.

Pay close attention to the last three paragraphs....

 

http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1984&Itemid=35

 

Published on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 by Falls Church News-Press

 

The peak oil crisis: A message from Houston

 

By Tom Whipple

 

We gathered at a hotel near the Convention Center, some 525 of us from 18 countries and 36 states attending the Association for the Study of Peak Oil-USA’s 3rd annual conference. The PowerPoints flashed by at mind-blowing speed as speaker after distinguished speaker shared the latest thoughts and insights into the peaking of world oil production.

 

For those of us acquainted with the field, there was nothing startling. World oil production has either peaked already or is certain to do so within the next few years if the world’s petroleum industry manages to eek out a little more production. But the good times are clearly over.

Here's a poster you can put on the wall of your office, cubicle or den. A reduced-size sample appears below with a link to the full-sized version (3.5 mb) below....

 

 

The full-size version (3.5mb download):

http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/npr/publications/Peak_Oil_-_the_Turning_Point.pdf

 

This and other energy-related posters are available for free from the U.S. Department of Energy at:

http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/oilgas_educational_posters.html

After "plunging" to $93, oil has bounced back. A new record intraday price was reached today: $97.10.

 

Just $3 more to go to the one-double-o.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices

 

Oil rises to record above $98 a barrel

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer 30 minutes ago

 

Record oil prices edged closer to $100 a barrel Wednesday amid expectations of declining U.S. supplies. The weak dollar and OPEC's apparent reluctance to pump more crude into the market also boosted prices.

 

Light, sweet crude for December delivery surged $1.24 to $97.94 a barrel by midday in Europe after earlier reaching a record $98.62 in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange...

 

 

 

BTW, it's too bad the article blames India and China when the U.S.A. blows both of them away in terms of oil consumption.

 

Also, Ralph Nader wrote a disappointing article the other day about oil prices and the role of speculative buyers of oil futures. He said it's their fault as their is no shortage oil forcing oil prices higher. What he failed to grasp is that the cheap, easy-to-get, fluid and sweet oil is in short supply and we've had to turn to more expensive types of oil, including sour stuff, tars, sludges that's harder to get, harder to refine and is in less politically stable places.

 

And while we're not in a shortage in the richer countries, the poorer countries have not been able to participate any longer in the bidding for oil supplies. Oil is in shortage in those places. Oil inventories are falling in the richer countries so someday we'll be in that situation, too.

Also, Ralph Nader wrote a disappointing article the other day about oil prices and the role of speculative buyers of oil futures. He said it's their fault as their is no shortage oil forcing oil prices higher. What he failed to grasp is that the cheap, easy-to-get, fluid and sweet oil is in short supply and we've had to turn to more expensive types of oil, including sour stuff, tars, sludges that's harder to get, harder to refine and is in less politically stable places.

 

I haven't read the Nader article, but I've heard this before and it doesn't make sense.  What Nader has really said is that oil was previously underpriced, but now speculators in the market are forcing consumers to determine what the true value of oil is to them.

 

Oil is sold on futures contracts right?  So if I, Joe Speculator, pay $98 for a barrel of oil for December delivery, I can hang on to that contract and have a barrel of oil in December.  I won't do this of course, so I'll sell that contract before it comes due to someone who will actually use it, refine it, process it, make widgets with it, whatever.  I'm never going to take delivery for oil, so how am I artificially inflating the price?  I'm not affecting supply or demand when the front-month contracts rollover.  I'm simply selling it to someone who is willing to pay $98/bbl for it. 

 

Even if speculators are shorting the market, or playing games with it, there's only so much oil, and people are still willing to pay $98 for that oil.  That's the market price.  The only thing the speculators are doing is forcing a bidding war among the users of crude that may not have existed before.

Here's Nader's piece....

_________________________

 

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader11062007.html

 

November 6, 2007

 

Of Speculators and Cartels

Who Determines the Price of Oil?

By RALPH NADER

 

Question of the day: who and what is determining the price of oil and your gasoline and home heating bills? Don't ask Uncle Sam, because George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are running a regime marinated in oil that does not issue reports which explain the real determinants of petroleum pricing beyond the conventional supply-demand curves.

 

First, let us create a historical framework to provide some background. In the good 'ole oil days, before the producer-countries' cartel in the Third World gained pricing power, there were seven giant oil companies called the 'seven sisters' led by Standard Oil (now Exxon) and Shell. As chronicled in Robert Engler's classic book, The Brotherhood of Oil, they were able to affect pricing through extra-market means. Economists called them a tight oligopoly.

Funny stuff KJP.  Thanks!

 

Question of the day: who and what is determining the price of oil and your gasoline and home heating bills?

 

The short answer:  We are.  Despite our knee jerk reaction to blame others for high oil prices, we actually make a concious decision to buy gasoline and fuel demand.  Earth shattering stuff, I know.  The system is not really that complex...you drill for oil...people bid on that oil...the oil is delivered...refined...consumed.

 

I also found it funny how he portrayed speculative trading as some incomprehendible, evil black box... 

 

"speculation at ever higher abstract electronic levels of futures trading"

 

Oh my!  I'm frightened by such big technical words!  :-o

 

Those trading bastards!!!

It turns out that the EIA's "This Week in Petroleum" publication tackled this very issue...

 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twiparch/071107/twipprint.html

 

Why Are Oil Prices So High?

One of the most discussed topics in the media today, besides the 2008 Presidential races, is the high price of oil. Crude oil prices have increased dramatically this year, with West Texas Intermediate (WTI) prices climbing from an average of nearly $55 per barrel in January to over $95 per barrel at the beginning of this month. EIA believes that supply and demand fundamentals, including strong world economic growth driving growth in oil use, moderate non-Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) supply growth, OPEC members’ production decisions, low OPEC spare production capacity, tightness in global commercial inventories, worldwide refining bottlenecks, and ongoing geopolitical risks and concerns about supply availability, have been the main driver of oil price movements over the past year.

 

With the rapid rise in prices, oil markets have been drawing increased interest and participation from investors and financial entities without direct commercial involvement in physical oil markets. The role of these non-commercial futures market participants in recent price developments is difficult to assess, particularly over short time intervals. However, general principles favor a focus on fundamentals, rather than consideration of alternative price drivers, when the explanatory power of fundamentals is high.

 

Strong world economic growth has resulted in strong world oil demand despite higher price levels. China, the United States, and the Middle East countries are the main drivers of consumption growth, and China and the United States alone are projected to account for half of world oil consumption growth in 2007 and 2008. The Chinese economy has shown few signs of slowing down, and the economies of oil exporting countries in the Middle East and Russia have also benefited from higher oil revenues, boosting oil consumption. In addition, the decline in the value of the dollar against other currencies supports continued oil consumption growth in foreign countries because oil is traded globally in dollars, and a declining dollar has made the increase in oil prices less severe in foreign currencies.

 

And with the below text, I'm sticking with my slogan for 2007 as "The Year the Canary in the Coal Mine Croaked"

 

A key factor contributing to high prices has been the inability of non-OPEC production growth to keep pace with global oil consumption growth. Non-OPEC production increased by 0.2 million barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2006, and is projected to rise by 0.6 and 0.9 million bbl/d in 2007 and 2008, respectively, significantly less than the increase in global oil consumption. Non-OPEC production growth remains concentrated in a few areas, and has experienced some downward revisions in recent years due to project delays and growing decline rates in some non-OPEC nations, especially Mexico, the United Kingdom and Norway.

 

When non-OPEC supply growth is less than growth in global consumption, the gap needs to be filled by OPEC members’ production increases or draws from global inventories will result. OPEC’s decisions to cut production in November 2006 and February 2007 played a critical role in reversing the oil price slide at the end of last year. OPEC’s announcement that it would increase production this month has not yet dampened upward price pressure, and it is unlikely that these higher volumes will be enough to halt the downward trend in commercial inventories over the next several months. In addition, fairly low OPEC surplus production capacity (concentrated in Saudi Arabia) leaves the market with little flexibility to respond to surprises in supply and demand. EIA’s outlook for continued rising oil consumption and moderate non-OPEC production growth suggests that world surplus production capacity will remain fairly low at around 2-to-3 million bbl/d.

 

OPEC’s production cuts, in combination with continued strong demand growth exceeding the growth in non-OPEC production have led to declining commercial oil inventories (see chart below). While OECD commercial inventories were 150 million barrels above their 5-year average at the end of September 2006, EIA projects that OECD commercial stocks will be about 10 million barrels below the 5-year average by the end of this year. EIA projects that inventories will continue to decline relative to the average in the first quarter of 2008, and will move toward the lower end of the 5-year range through 2008.

 

They are basically saying that Saudi Arabia is our last hope.  If they can't open up the spigots, then the party is over.

 

One of the gloomiest outlooks I've ever read from this always optimistic publication.

if you look at the 2005 oil shockwave simulations, the first question is who can increase production, the answer is saudi arabia (which may or may not still be the case) and they want concessions from the US in the form of no more democracy pressure, unfreeze terrorist assets, etc.  the us says no.

 

at that point it is basically the ballgame. 

One of the gloomiest outlooks I've ever read from this always optimistic publication.

 

Agreed.

 

at that point it is basically the ballgame.

 

Also agreed.

 

But of course, the Canadian oil sands and the Venezualan Orinico Belt will save us...  Certainly, we don't need all that home-heating natural gas so it can be used for turning the oil sands (sludge) into oil. And when we can do undersea mining operations to tap the Orinico Belt in a cost-effective way, that means that the overall market price for oil has climbed awfully high.

all of those are possibilities but you run into EROEI issues, water use issues, energy density issues.  In the 10-15 year term those technologies may come on line, but the short to mid term is the part that will be an issue.

gosh, how many years did they know about the Tarsands for? (before actually trying to get oil out of it).

 

Also I'm not a geologist but i hear that the tarsands is an environmental disaster. Lets say the oil is 25% of the sand. You remove 25% of an acre, return the sand, i'm not a mathematician, but you can't return nature back to normal.

The tar sands have been known for quite some time, but it was cost prohibitive to obtain the sand. It's very costly and environmentally degrading -- on the scale of mountaintop removal -- that disrupts ecosystems in once pristine locales. _Nothing_ is worth it for that.

http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2048&Itemid=35

 

The Peak Oil Crisis: The Washington Post

Written by Tom Whipple 

Thursday, 08 November 2007

 

On Monday, our colleagues over at the Washington Post ran a front-page story in an effort to explain to official Washington why oil prices have soared by $25 a barrel in the last ten weeks and just what it might mean.

 

Now anyone who follows the peak oil story knows the answer already. World Oil production stopped growing two years ago; consumption of oil in China, India, and the major oil producing countries themselves continues to grow rapidly; a gap between demand and supply is opening which for a while will be filled by drawing down world stockpiles; increasing prices are forcing the poor nations to get by with less oil.

 

Those who follow peak oil also know that within the next few years, unless a really bad economic recession cuts consumption massively, depletion from existing oilfields will run ahead of efforts to develop new oil fields and alternatives. Liquid fuels production then will begin to drop.

Here's another thoroughly unintelligent and unsupported piece (of...). But I present this to you to show you that many believe we can drill our way out of this mess.

 

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=279417967231724

 

http://www.investors.com/images/editimg/issues01110907.gif

 

An Energy Crisis Of Our Own Making

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

 

Posted 11/8/2007

 

Energy Policy: As oil climbs toward an unprecedented $100 a barrel, we can only blame ourselves. By falsely demonizing oil in the debate over global warming, we assure an energy-impoverished future.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It would be nice if we could lay this at the doorstep of just one party. Unfortunately, it's a bipartisan mess, created by politicians on both sides of the aisle who are being stampeded into action on climate change.

 

Take Rep. Bob Inglis, a Republican from South Carolina. He says he realized something needed to be done when his own children threatened to vote for his opponent if he didn't take on the warming issue. Based on this valuable input, Inglis has deduced that Republicans will "get hammered" if they don't do something.

 

Excuse us, but we'll all get "hammered" if they do.

 

........

^ Good. I may be one of the few to say that.

Oil discovery rocks Brazil

Story Highlights

 

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) -- A huge offshore oil discovery could raise Brazil's petroleum reserves by a whopping 40 percent and boost this country into the ranks of the world's major exporters, officials said.

 

The government-run oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA, or Petrobras, said the new "ultra-deep" Tupi field could hold as much as 8 billion barrels of recoverable light crude, sending Petrobras shares soaring and prompting predictions that Brazil could join the world's "top 10" oil producers.

 

Petrobras President Sergio Gabrielli said Thursday the oil from ultradeep areas, including the Tupi field, would give Brazil the world's eighth-largest oil and gas reserves.

 

Find this article at:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/11/08/brazil.oil.ap/index.html 

 

Good news for Brazilians!

 

And 23,000 feet is no joke.  That's incredible.

 

I wonder how quickly they'll be able to pull the easy half of that 8 billion barrels out of the formation...on-line in 5-10 years...in production for 20-30 years?  They should be able to export that oil for $500/bbl by then.

That's a great discovery. When that field comes online in the next 5-10 years, hopefully it will be able to keep the global slide more gradual.

^---- On the Brazil discovery:

 

"That's a great discovery. When that field comes online in the next 5-10 years, hopefully it will be able to keep the global slide more gradual."

 

8 billion barrels is a big number, but divide that by another big number, the amount that the world burns every day.

 

8 billion barrels / 80 million barrels per day = 100 days.

 

Granted, the extraction rate is not constant, and in reality would be spread over many years, but this math shows that this discovery really isn't all that great in the big picture. Finally, if you think that the peak oil curve as presented by Hubbert is accurate, all new discoveries have already been taken into account. The global slide is not affected.

80 mil a day is low for the projected demand in ten years.

That's a great discovery. When that field comes online in the next 5-10 years, hopefully it will be able to keep the global slide more gradual.

 

Always be wary of estimates that say a field could hold "as much as".  When petroleum geologists calculate estimates for the amount of recoverable crude, they give a range of numbers using a system of "P" estimates.

 

The high number is referred to as the P10 estimate which means there is a 10% probability of having X number of recoverable barrels.  The low number is P90 which means there is a 90% probability of having Y barrels.  The P10 estimate is always the highest and least accurate.  The P90 is always the lowest and most accurate.  The P10 estimate is what almost always gets reported by the media when a new field is discovered. 

 

So, look for the actual number of recoverable barrels to be less than 8 billion. 

 

I just did a different calculation than 8th and State:  even if the number is 8 billion, that represents 400 days of US consumption at 20 million barrels per day.

 

I seem to recall from Matt Simmons' book that we need a Saudi Arabia about every 8-10 years just to keep the current level of production going for the next several decades.   

Let's see how long this stays on the White House web site.....

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071107-5.html

 

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 developing countries still use a lot of 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.

Always be wary of estimates that say...

 

Yep.

Just found this. Surprisingly few people have RSVP'd....

 

http://oilawareness.meetup.com/297/calendar/6462679/

 

When:

Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 7:00 PM 2007

 

Where:

First Unitarian Church of Cleveland

21600 Shaker Boulevard Room 209

Beachwood , OH 44122

216-751-2320

 

Description:

The plan for this meeting is to discuss Peak Oil and related topics. The long term goals are to increase public awareness of the many issues connected to Peak Oil, and begin the development of a community action plan to mitigate the effects of Peak Oil and related resource depletion.

 

RSVP limit:

Only 30 members (including guests) can RSVP 'Yes' or 'Maybe' for this event. There's still room for 27 more.

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 developing countries still use a lot of 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.

 

Can't believe I'm about to type this, but George W. Bush is absolutely 100% correct. 

 

Holy crap!

Not a bad piece this morning on NPR regarding $100 per barrel oil:

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16108561

Just found this. Surprisingly few people have RSVP'd....

 

http://oilawareness.meetup.com/297/calendar/6462679/

 

When:

Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 7:00 PM 2007

 

Where:

First Unitarian Church of Cleveland

21600 Shaker Boulevard Room 209

Beachwood , OH 44122

216-751-2320

 

Description:

The plan for this meeting is to discuss Peak Oil and related topics. The long term goals are to increase public awareness of the many issues connected to Peak Oil, and begin the development of a community action plan to mitigate the effects of Peak Oil and related resource depletion.

 

RSVP limit:

Only 30 members (including guests) can RSVP 'Yes' or 'Maybe' for this event. There's still room for 27 more.

 

FYI, attendees may save a little gas by knowing the address is incorrect- this church is in Shaker, not Beachwood. 

Just found this. Surprisingly few people have RSVP'd....

 

http://oilawareness.meetup.com/297/calendar/6462679/

 

When:

Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 7:00 PM 2007

 

Great.  Another meeting.  Actually, I have a meeting "conflict" on Wednesday evening.

That's a great discovery. When that field comes online in the next 5-10 years, hopefully it will be able to keep the global slide more gradual.

 

there is plenty more oil all around russia too, the governement & business have just be too much in political and economic flux to take advantage of it until very recently. in 5-10 yrs that will help too. or so i've read, who knows?

 

of course that may help for our lifetime, but after that i can't imagine there are many more 'untapped' oil bonanzas out there.

there is plenty more oil all around russia too, the governement & business have just be too much in political and economic flux to take advantage of it until very recently. in 5-10 yrs that will help too. or so i've read, who knows?

 

of course that may help for our lifetime, but after that i can't imagine there are many more 'untapped' oil bonanzas out there.

 

Russia is due to hit its peak in the next few years, maybe middle of the 2010's at the latest.  They also may have damaged many of their fields by overpumping them in the 1980's (which reduces the total amount of recoverable oil).  And, there is a lot less oil in the Caspian basin than was originally thought. I caught an article on Energybulletin.net that was about how Russia has begun having internal dialog within the government and with China about "post oil".

 

 

The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas says Russia hit its peak of oil production in 1987 -- though admittedly a major reason for that was a lack of investment. Still, it hasn't pumped any more oil in the 20 years since.

 

    Russia is the odd one in the group, in that she has two peaks. Apparently she peaked in 1987, not due to geology or economics but due to politics. She is due for a second peak soon.

The Bushies and the Saudis colluded to "put more oil on the market and drive the price down" during the Bush41 administration.  The Soviets had been making a good profit selling oil when prices were high in the early 1980s.  The fall in the price of oil led to a balance of trade problem for the Soviet Union and its eventual demise.

 

The era of godless Soviets is now over and oil is now in the control of people with a more devout belief in God.

 

The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas says Russia hit its peak of oil production in 1987 -- though admittedly a major reason for that was a lack of investment. Still, it hasn't pumped any more oil in the 20 years since.

isn't russia in a unique position though because of their massive amount of natural gas amounts? I thought it was something like between them and their former republics, they have ~50% of the known reserves?

 

(some economist article last april)

isn't russia in a unique position though because of their massive amount of natural gas amounts? I thought it was something like between them and their former republics, they have ~50% of the known reserves?

 

(some economist article last april)

 

They do have a lot of gas, that's true.  But, even that's a finite resource.  The fact that they have begun thinking about a post-oil economy is very telling.