ExxonMobil is out to convince people that peak oil is in the far distant future.
The Oil Drum and It’s the Environment, Stupid are among those commenting on ExxonMobil’s recent paid advertisement, which begins:
Will we soon reach a point when the world’s oil supply begins to decline? Yes, according to so-called “peak oil” proponents. They theorize that, since new discoveries have not kept up with the pace of production in recent years, we will soon reach a point when oil production starts going downhill. So goes the theory.
The theory does not match reality, however. Oil is a finite resource, but because it is so incredibly large, a peak will not occur this year, next year or for decades to come.
Exxon is also spreading the message to shareholders that it expects to be contributing directly to that production increase. In a presentation to Wall Street analysts last week, new CEO Rex Tillerson said the company’s oil production could grow by 3% per year over the next five years.
One purpose of such announcements is to address the concerns of those who say companies like ExxonMobil have not been reinvesting enough of their profits in new oil production and refinery capacity. In his statement before the analysts, Tillerson noted that over the last 15 years, the company has consistently invested more than it earned.
 |
As I noted here, comparing gross investment with net income is in some ways comparing apples and oranges. The reason is that oil companies must invest huge sums just to replace depleted oil fields and obsolete and worn-out equipment. These imputed depletion and depreciation costs are already subtracted from revenues before one arrives at profits. The question is not how big is gross investment relative to net income but rather how big is net investment– investment over and above what is required for depletion and depreciation– relative to net income. I would expect the long-run ratio of net investment to net income for a healthy industry with solid investment opportunities to be somewhere around 50%. My earlier post pointed out that in 2004, ExxonMobil’s net income came to $26 billion, but, depending on how you do the accounting, you could actually arrive at a negative value for their net investment for 2004.
Another way to cut through the accounting is to count the teeth and look at how much oil ExxonMobil’s actually been producing. The green line on the graph at the right gives ExxonMobil’s crude oil and natural gas liquid production over the last decade, with the 2005 entry based on the second quarter; (more on the purple line shortly). If ExxonMobil has indeed been making big investments beyond those needed to replace depleted oil fields, they don’t have a lot to show for it so far. Yes, in gross terms they invested a huge amount. But, as the graph reveals, you have to do that in this business just to stay in the same place.
Granted, the company is currently favorably situated in a number of big projects that should be producing a lot of new oil in the near future, and just finished negotiating a nice cut of Indonesia’s Cepu field. The question is, how much of that new production will be needed just to replace declining production from existing fields?
Which reminds me, I said I’d explain the meaning of the purple line. That’s the projection from Exxon’s 2001 Annual Report, in which the company predicted that their oil and gas production capacity would grow by 3% per year between 2001 and 2007.
Technorati Tags: oil supply,
oil company profits,
peak oil,
ExxonMobil
Good post:
Checking the track record of their prior predictions.
What a fascinating way to look at the “peak oil” question! Peak oil may not depend on the actual amount of oil in the ground or in whether it’s profitable to get it out but on whether it’s profitable enough to make it worth the while for the corporte giants who dominate the industry. That’s as much a question of psychology and government policy (maybe more so) as it is a question of geology and economics.
Mexico announces a find possibly larger than their biggest existing field. All the peak oil theory in the world and one pesky fact tosses it all out. Again. Exxon/Mobil doesn’t increase production because they make more money running their aging refieries near capacity than they would if they produced more at a lower price after investing tens of billions.
The Looking Glass World of Big Oil
`Well, in our country,’ said Alice, still panting a little, `you’d generally get to somewhere else — if you ran very fast for a long time, as we’ve been doing.’
`A slow sort of country!’ said the Queen. `Now, here, …
ROBERT COTE:
“Mexico announces a find possibly larger than their biggest existing field. All the peak oil theory in the world and one pesky fact tosses it all out. Again.”
Really?
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cantarell.htm
Mexico’s biggest existing field: Cantarrel
Size: 35B
Production: 2.1 Mbd
Decline Rate: “Cantarell is expected to decline rapidly over the next few years, falling as far as 1 MM b/d by 2008.” That’s over a 50% decline in 3 years.
Will your “possibly larger” new find be able to ramp up production and replace the Cantarrel decline? In time?
If this new find is, say, 35B barrels, how much would that offset production peak?
World production: 31Bby — i.e., about 1 Cantarrel (the 2nd largest field on earth) each year.
Get real.
I thought Carl Pope made a good catch, noting some of Exxon’s earlier statements:
– more here
There’s no discussing this with peak oilers. They not only won’t listen, they’ve been defensive about being so wrong for so long that they can’t even keep a civil tongue. We’ve extracted more oil since 1975 than was known to exist in 1975 and still have as many years left as we had in 1975. Being wrong for three decades has done to them what slot machines do to gambling addicts. They think they are “due.”
The peak oliers have been saying that there have been no significant discoveries for many years and just this morning we find out about the discovery of what might be the worlds second largest oil field and the reaction is “yeah, but…” There’s just no pleasing them. It is a religion, their gods are Campbell and Hubbert. It’s only been a half a day since the worlds supply of oil has been extended by more than the wildest maximum undiscovered oil possible according to the peak oilers and they are already calling everyone who has been absolutely correct since 1855 idiots. It’s 2006. The die we toss once a year now has 152 sides and only on pip. Someday the peak oilers will be correct. When that time comes we may have a few as 75 years to move away from oil dependency. I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that that day and I’m certainly not going to sell my SUVs and move back into a 4 story cold water walkup tenement high density crime crib rabbit warren when it does. Get real. Better yet, get civil.
Interesting comments Robert. There does seem to be a common theme with the Peak Oil discussion community that things can only get worse. Examples: 1)Enhanced oil recovery methods only steepen the decline 2) Every energy alternative(hydrogen/ethanol/bio-diesel/nuclear/wind/wave/solar/tar sands/oil shale/coal etc. etc.) is doomed to failure because none can singlehandedly replace oil 3) Investment in energy research/resources somehow damages the economy rather than growing it 4) Society is on the brink of collapse anyway and limited oil supplies will somehow push us over the edge! 5) Technology cannot improve EROEI on any alternative regardless of what G.E. or M.I.T. say…Typically on this site there is a more rational audience. Sometimes not. What I find disturbing is the Peak Oilers negativity. Snap out of it! The most successful, highest earners on this planet are optimists. I’ll be making a lot of money whether we have a bunch of oil or whether we don’t. The only people the Peak Oilers are dooming are themselves.
Mr. Cote, doesn’t the peak oil crowd survive by simply finding new young blood? They did frighten me 30 years ago when I was just a lad. Not sure if it was Ronald Reagan or Wharton professors who showed me all the monsters in the closet were make-believe.
The Peak Oil whiners are going to be about as relevant to the global energy discussion in one or two more decades as were steam locomotive engineers once we switched to diesel and diesel-electric hybrid locomotives.
They fail to recognize that the following global conditions and problems eclipse any worthwhile concerns about peak oil:
1. The planet’s nations have thus far only consumed one fourth of the known reserves and available sources for oil extraction. There is no pending shortage. We will have more problems pulling together the investment funding necessary to extract and refine oil that we will locating new unexplored sources.
2. The accelerating rate of meltdown at both polar caps pushes forward the impact of rising sea levels, which will require relocation of major population centers and major economic activities along coastlines, creating large economic disruptions. The meltdown impact will be felt before we ever run out of crude oil supply from all available sources.
3. The forthcoming potential downsizing of the U.S. economy and perhaps global economy will scale back the immediate growing need for larger quantities of crude oil derived fuels. Rates of economic growth based on deficit spending at present thresholds in the U.S. are not sustainable. The U.S. economy will undergo major challenges during the next two to fifteen years. Present GDP growth rates will not be sustained based on existing U.S. trade policies, taxation, and corporate offshoring practices. The U.S. economy will shrink, as will industrial and household demand for crude oil feedstocks and fuels.
4. The panic associated with rising sea levels will likely create a ban on consumptive use of crude oil fuels for all light duty vehicles and other deemed “non-essential” uses of crude oil derivatives. The move to accelerate the development and expansion of other fuel sources will occur at an increasing rate, again long before crude oil supplies ever run out. The anti-carbon emission movement will be huge in a few decades. That such initiatives will not impede the meltdown at either polar cap is irrelevant, as crude oil fuels will suffer the same fear and disdain as did DDT and SUVs.
The sky is falling doomsayers of the Peal Oil supposed “reality-based community” will be increasingly ignored while others address the solutions. Their feet are mired in crude oil. They really don’t get it. We will move on.
Here is an excellent report regarding future energy needs and sources. One read of these 91 pages, including the appendix charts, provides a noteworthy understanding of our energy situation. No regrets on this read. No emotional outbursts, either.
Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management
Robert Hirsch, Roger Bezdek, and Robert Wendling, MISI
February 2005
Another document of interest is the ExxonMobil 2005-2030 Energy Outlook presentation. This document is filled with excellent charts. While some may dispute the projections presented, there is no question that the ExxonMobil and Hirsh, Bezdek, and Wendling reports are worth reading and discussing.
The Outlook for Energy – A View to 2030
ExxonMobil
Hopefully, these reports will be discussed further by Jim Hamilton and others.
I recommend reading the following testimony presented today to the U.S. Congress.
Rex W. Tillerman
Chairmand and CEO, Exxon Mobil Corporation
Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing
March 14, 2006
Excerpts from written testimony:
“ExxonMobil is the largest non-government company is this industry…”
—
“In fact, seven of the top ten oil and gas companies worldwide today, as measured by liquid production, are state-owned. ExxonMobil is the largest non-government energy company – and we rank number five on the list. No other American company is in the top ten.”
“Increasingly, these national oil companies, benefiting from government support and preferential access to resources, are not only producing their own nations’ reserves, but also competing against non-government companies like ours for access to other nations’ resources.”
—
“In fact, today we [ExxonMobil] account for a smaller share of the world’s total energy production than Exxon and Mobil together did eight years ago.”
“And what percentage of the world’s total energy do we now produce? Believe it or not, less than two percent.”
“It would take about 55 companies the size of ExxonMobil to meet today’s world energy demand.”
—
“Last year we spent $185 billion buying crude and products – making us the largest single net buyer of refining feedstock.”
“You might find that surprising, given that we are a major oil producer.”
“We do not, however, produce nearly enough to sufficiently feed our refineries. We produce about 2.5 million barrels of crude oil a day – about 3.5 million barrels less than we refine.”
—
I’m a pessimist by genetics, upbringing and disposition. Nevertheless energy ain’t sumptin to worry ’bout. Hybrid ceramic/metals will allow near adiabatic combustion processes. Composites will allow both mass-energy conservation and storage advances. Room or near-room temperature superconduction will quadruple effective electric energy capacity. GM will allow plastic corn to grow in the desert. GM will allow rooftop septicsystms to decant more biodiesel than the average home can consume. Amorphous solar will see at least an order of magnitude reductin in generating costs. It is theoretically possible for crystaline PVs to see 2 orders of improvement. Fullerenes can trim a quick and easy 5% of all translational loses. CO2 injection can extend marginal petro source production by many decades at the same time it sequesters the [incorrect] worst byproducts.
There was a time in the depths of the 70s when I was coming of age before I was kicked out of all those expensive east coast universities and I thought gold was going to run out and oil prices were going to infinity and the US on the short end of a long stick and I thought oil was a defineably finite commodity but I grew up. Peak oilers are those of us that never grew up and/or matured. You’d think that being wrong every single time for the last 151 or more years would count for something but instead it only spurs them on. I am reminded of the prophet walking the sidewalks of the city in worn robes and sandals carrying a sign, old and faded from decades of daly use; “THE END OF THE WORLD IS TOMORROW!”
Snigger except the prophet doesn’t go out of his way to bstruct my path.
A lot of the commentary on this thread demonstrates how the phrase “peak oil” roots out the doomers and the cornucopians like the recent rains brought more ants into my house.
I waited in gas lines in the 70s. I didn’t think the world was going to end. I think oil production is tight and is likely to remain tight. I think the squeeze is near and I don’t see any non-ideological substantial arguments to make me think otherwise. I’ve got a physics degree and engineering experience.
The late Richard Smalley had a lot of insight into this issue. He was concerned. I’ll lend greater credence to his insights, and the analysis I’ve seen here and at the OilDrum. The information discussed above in this thread (from Robert Cote et. al. I just don’t find compelling).
Holy hannah, is this what happens when you put disputational paranoiacs in the same room and lock the door?
All I can say is, read the business press. Did Mexico replace their one large field? Cf http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=aIBxl_BqGlFU&refer=latin_america
For the record, I own XOM puts *and* believe the evidence indicates “peak oil” is real and near. You really can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Robert Cote – Global oil discoveries have been falling since 1960. These are graphs of acutal discovery figures:
http://stevegloor.typepad.com/sgloor/2005/12/a_couple_of_gra.html
The peak on the graph is Ghawar at about 120 billion barrels of oil. Cantarell was when it was discovered was 11.5 billion barrels of oil which is only 10% of the largest field ever discovered. Also this new field is:
“This new field is a deep-water find that is 950 meters (3,117 feet) underwater and a further 4,000 meters (13,120 feet) underground. Interestingly, though, the article goes on to say that it might take more time to get at the oil than might be expected:”
This is fully inline with Peak Oil as we are now exploiting the smaller and harder to get reserves that are also sour and heavy. To realise the fantasy of Exxon-Mobil URR figures we would have to find one Ghawar size field every year for 20 years. While there a remote possibility that there is one of this size still to be discovered there is not 2000 billion barrels to be found.
A bit of a tangent but I think it’s pretty amazing: UK spot gas prices rose by 300% yesterday to the equivalent of $40 dollars per million btu (U.S prices are about $8).
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1730185,00.html
That’a quite a few $20 dollar bills that some people couldn’t be bothered to pick up.
Glad we’re not relying on the market to give price signals to avoid future energy scarcity 😉
Isn’t the most reliable measure of whether a product is likely to be more scarce in the future the price of its futures?
If the production from all these new big finds was going to dwarf the output of current fields, then wouldn’t the suppliers in the know sell short to lock in the high price before the upcoming collapse?
Looking at the history of production in the US shows that the peak oil hypothesis is plausible. The price of oil is higher, but we are producing less than previously.
The question to those that think that ‘Peak Oil’ is only a cult, how much oil have you sold short? If you’re right you could certainly become rich since the market seems to be pricing oil as if it wasn’t getting any easier to get out of the ground*.
* I grant that there is a terror premium built into the price now, but if we have already maxed out oil production, or the converse where we are on the cusp of a new golden age of oil because of the incredible new fields just around the corner, then that secular trend will swamp all the other noise in the price.
Pessimism doesn’t generally pay because the optimists of the world create change, but the Peak Oilers do have a point when they say you can’t trust the oil companies that project growth where no growth has been (see graph above) or the state-run oil companies who say ‘Trust me’ when asked to disclose data about their fields.
Cote,
You are hacking at straw men, stabbing people who talked in 1975. Get over it.
For a realistic assessment of the oil issue, read the Hirsch report cited by Movie Guy.
Here are some snippets from the report. Note the definition implicit in the first quotation:
When world oil production peaks, there will still be large reserves remaining.
Peaking means that the rate of world oil production cannot increase; it also
means that production will thereafter decrease with time.
The questions at hand are:
1. Can production increase to meet rising demand?
2. What will be the economic consequences if it cannot?
3. What kind of technologies do we have to replace oil?
4. Is the time frame for bringing these technologies to the public short enough? Hirsch puts a successful transition at 20-25 years.
All these questions and more, Hirsch addresses.
Consider the following Hirsch quotations. The first echoes Simmons assertion in Twilight in the Dessert. The second addresses a growing reality that peaking, i.e., production is close to not keeping up with demand, is closer than we think. In short, Hirsch is a peak oiler.
A unique aspect of the world oil peaking problem is that its timing is uncertain, because of inadequate and potentially biased reserves data from elsewhere around the world.
Because oil prices have been relatively high for the past decade, oil companies have conducted extensive exploration over that period, but their results have been disappointing. If recent trends hold, there is little reason to expect that exploration success will dramatically improve in the future.
There is absolutely no doubt that Hirsch is very, very worried.
Movie Guy:
We agree that global warming and environmental destruction pose monstrous problems. We agree also that we must get away from carbon-based energy as quickly as possible to mitigate the coming disaster.
In short, two forces are converging to move us off carbon-based energy: The economics of Peaking and global warming. The question is: Which force hits first? I would posit the following: Most people will feel the economics of peaking before they feel the real effects of global warming. Jim Hamilton is ahead of most economists in terms of peak oil.
While Hirsch remains quiet about the exact timing of peaking, most of the experts he cites put it within a ten-year period. My uninformed opinion sides with the pessimists. In which case, peak oil hits before the real effects of global warming. Maybe peak oil is a blessing in disguise. I think so.
Where economists are not going is to global warming. Give them a few years.
Concerning Exxon’s putative dearth of investment, perhaps they are merely exercising intelligence. Would you want to invest your money in Russia, Iraq, Venzuela, Nigeria, or even Saudi? And environmentalist will not allow you to drill in North America.
Furthermore, Exxon was probably burned in 1980 by investments made when oil prices were peaking then. I suspect they are being rational.
That’s an interesting point about futures prices. The odd thing is that prices going out as far as 2012 are about the same as today. If there were going to be a huge glut, we’d expect the prices to be going down; if there were a huge shortage, we’d expect the price to be going up.
Granted, there are structural limits in terms of how much the price can go up or down per year, but even so it is odd that there is no clear trend in the futures prices.
Actually as JDH showed a few weeks ago, the markets are quite uncertain about future oil pricesl; the 95% confidence level for Q4 2008 goes from 20 to 180 dollars per barrel! So at this point I don’t think the market is ruling out either a shortage or a glut, but neither is either one seen as particularly likely.
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2006/02/oil_at_1530_a_b.html
Just to update on the graph slightly. In their 2004 annual report, Exxon projected growth in liquids production of about 3 1/2% through 2007. However, actual 2005 production was down 2 1/2% from 2004. This despite, one assumes, every price incentive to increase production. Given flat Exxon production for a decade in which global oil supply mostly grew at modest rates, and then a modest but noticeable decline in their production last year when global oil supply was essentially flat, Exxon is fairly steadily losing market share. If Exxon has strong arguments against the hypothesis that peak oil is fairly near, they certainly don’t seem to be able to put them into practice.
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/2/15/202152/001
If anyone wants to read and see what ExxonMobil senior representatives actually presented during the recent analyst meeting, here is the link. Slide set included.
ExxonMobil Corporation Analyst Meeting
Wednesday, March 8, 2006 9:00 AM ET
Some of the news reports do not match information provided in the press release or slide set.
Note this standard disclaimer at the bottom of the press release:
“CAUTIONARY STATEMENT: Expectations and business plans in this release are forward-looking statements. Actual future results, including resource recoveries and project plans and schedules, could differ materially due to changes in market conditions affecting the oil and gas industry or long-term oil and gas price levels; political or regulatory developments; reservoir performance; timely completion of development projects; technical or operating factors; and other factors discussed under the heading “Risk Factors in Item 1A of ExxonMobil’s most recent Form 10-K and posted on our website (www.exxonmobil.com). References to the “resource base” include quantities of oil and gas that are not yet classified as proved reserves but that we believe will be produced in the future.”
Cowboys, Cornucopians, and those Neo-Malthusian Indians
Global Warming vs. Peak Oil – Part I: “The entire planet is out of balance”
There is no question that I position global warming issues above peak oil handwringing on the global action order of priority. We have roughly 80 years of crude oil available. We don’t have 80 years to sit around and ponder what to do about global warming. And we don’t have 40 years to add to the problem.
We need to act now on global warming. We also need to act on mass scale alternatives for diminishing supplies of crude oil. But don’t overlook global warming. We can always ride a bicycle, but not if we destroy the planet.
Please take a moment and look at the following chart. Note the projected growth by global region and major nation.
Global Carbon Emissions, 1990-2100
Global carbon emissions are projected to triple from 1990 levels by year 2100. The implications are clear. This is not a projection based on a sustainable environmental course of action and economic plan. Continued growth in carbon-based fuels usage will only lead to quicker destruction of the polar ice caps and the environment in general. Yet, this is the path that we are on. It’s not sustainable. And it has to be changed.
Pollution soaring to crisis levels in Arctic
Guardian Unlimited
12 March 2006
Excerpts:
In the past two decades, carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen from 350ppm to 380ppm and scientists warn that once levels reach 500ppm, there could be irreversible consequences that would tip the planet toward disaster: glacier melts triggering devastating sea-level rises and spreading deserts across Africa and Asia.
Scientists and campaigners are desperate for politicians to reach agreements that will prevent the 500ppm “tipping point” being breached in the next half-century. These new facts suggest they may have a far shorter period of time in which to act.
A Global Warning
60 Minutes, CBS News
16 February 2006
Excerpts:
“The entire planet is out of balance,” says Bob Corell, who is among the world’s top authorities on climate change. He led 300 scientists from eight nations in the “Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.”
Corell believes he has seen the future. “This is a bellwether, a barometer. Some people call it the canary in the mine. The warning that things are coming,” he says. “In 10 years here in the arctic, we see what the rest of the planet will see in 25 or 35 years from now.”
Over the last few decades, the North Pole has been dramatically reduced in size and Corell says the glaciers there have been receding for the last 50 years.
There’s long been a debate about how much of this is earth’s naturally changing climate and how much is man’s doing. Paul Mayewski, at the University of Maine, says the answer to that question is frozen inside an ice core from Greenland.
Mayewski says we haven’t seen a temperature rise to this level going back at least 2,000 years, and arguably several thousand years.
As for carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, Mayewski says, “we haven’t seen CO2 levels like this in hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions of years.”
What does that tell him?
Even if we stopped using every car, truck, and power plant – stopping all greenhouse gas emissions – Mayewski says the planet would continue to warm anyway. “Would continue to warm for another, about another degree,” he says.
That’s enough to melt the Arctic – and if greenhouse gases continue to increase, the temperature will rise even more. The ice that’s melting already is changing the weather by disrupting ocean currents.
One big supporter of climate science research is the Bush administration, spending $5 billion a year. But Mr. Bush refuses to sign a treaty forcing cuts in greenhouse gases.
“When you look at the American government, which is saying essentially, ‘Wait a minute. We need to study this some more. We can’t flip our energy use overnight. It would hurt the economy.’ When you hear that, what do you think?” Pelley asked.
“Well, what I do then is, I try to tell them exactly what we know scientifically. The science is, I believe, unassailable,” says Corell. “I’m not arguing their policy, that’s their business, how they deal with policy. But my job is to say, scientifically, shorten that time scale so that if you don’t push out the effects of climate change into the long, long distant future. Because even under the best of circumstances, this natural system of a climate will continue to warm the planet for literally hundreds of years, no matter what we do.”
Cleaner Air Aids Global Warming
Christian Science Monitor/CBS News
27 December 2005
Excerpts:
New measurements of tiny particles in Earth’s atmosphere contain a sobering message: All those hard-won efforts to cut air pollution may unwittingly accelerate global warming.
The result: The planet is likely to warm more and faster than current projections suggest, according to a team of British and American scientists.
The group has produced the most precise estimates yet of how tiny particles, known as aerosols, could affect the world’s climate. Aerosols, which include pollutants, have a cooling effect on the atmosphere, and the team’s work suggests that the cooling effect is strong – nearly as strong as the top estimates of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Thus, the dwindling presence of aerosols means that global average temperatures could rise faster than previously estimated and reach toward the high end of projections for the end of the century.
Those estimates currently range from 2.7 to 7.9 degrees F., depending on how emissions of greenhouse gases and other factors play out in coming years.
Future Global Energy Prosperity: The Terawatt Challenge
Richard E. Smalley
2 December 2004
There was not a brighter mind than Richard Smalley. He was focused on solutions. Every imaginable solution. And we should follow his example.
—
Cowboys, Cornucopians, and those Neo-Malthusian Indians
Global Warming vs. Peak Oil – Part II: “By 2025, we’re going to be back in the Stone Age.”
It’s time to move on to the solutions, the Next Plan.
Kenneth Deffeyes said, “Crude oil is much too valuable to be burned as a fuel.” I agree.
On 11 February 11 2006, Kenneth Deffeyes said, “In the January 2004 Current Events on my website, I predicted that world oil production would peak on Thanksgiving Day, November 24, 2005. In hindsight, that prediction was in error by three weeks. An update using the 2005 data shows that we passed the peak on December 16, 2005.”
Ken goes further, saying, “Since we have passed the peak without initiating major corrective measures, we now have to rely primarily on methods that we have already engineered. Long-term research and development projects, no matter how noble their objectives, have to take a back seat while we deal with the short-term problems. Long-term examples in the proposed 2007 US budget (Feb. 9, 2006 New York Times page A-18) include a 65 percent increase in the programs to produce ethanol from corn, a 25.8 percent increase for developing hydrogen fuel cell cars, and a 78.5 percent increase in spending on solar energy research. The Times reports that solar energy today supplies one percent of US electricity; the hope is to double that to 2 percent by the year 2025. By 2025, we’re going to be back in the Stone Age.”
“Ethanol, fuel cells, and solar cells are not the only shimmering dreams. Methane hydrates, oil shale, and the Yucca Mountain radioactive waste depository would be better off forgotten. There are plenty of solid opportunities. Energy conservation is by far the most important. Initiatives that are already engineered and ready to go are biodiesel from palm oil, coal gasification (for both gaseous and liquid fuels), high-efficiency diesel automobiles, and revamping our food supply. Every little bit helps, but even if wind energy continues its success it will still be a little bit.”
“That’s it. I can now refer to the world oil peak in the past tense. My career as a prophet is over. I’m now an historian.”
Kenneth’s 11 March commentary was followed by Robert B. Semple Jr.’s related article in the New York Times on 1 March 2006, available here without the firewall.
The end of oil
by Robert B. Semple Jr.
New York Times
1 Mar 2006
Excerpts:
“When will oil peak? At least one maverick geologist says it already has. Others say 10 years from now. A few actually say never. The latest official projections from the Energy Information Administration put the peak at 2037, or 2047 ? depending, of course, on how much of the stuff is out there and how fast we intend to use it up. But even that relatively late date does not give us much time to adjust to a world without cheap, abundant oil.”
“Mr. Deffeyes, for instance, puts the “undiscovered reserves” figure at 100 million barrels, max.”
“Despite their differences, neither Mr. Hubbert’s disciples nor the optimists showed the least interest in doing a straight-line calculation to figure out when earth will yield its last drop of oil (a calculation easily done, by the way – dividing USGS’s 2.3 trillion by today’s average annual consumption of 30-plus billion gives us about 80 years until the fat lady sings).”
So, we have an indication of when peak oil has or will occur, and also have an indication of how much more oil can be extracted from the ground, expressed in years of production yield. 80 years. Plus whatever other quantities of oil are extracted from other less efficient production sources, such as oil tars, coal, and any quantity that can be added which results from technologies thus far not made available or invented.
It’s time to stop whining or worrying, and focus on potential solutions.
There is where Richard Smalley’s thoughts and ideas take over. The following article by Richard is an excellent read. None better.
Future Global Energy Prosperity: The Terawatt Challenge
Richard E. Smalley
2 December 2004
As Richard so eloquently points out, there are many opportunities available to address the problems of peak oil and other major problems that must be addressed in a timely manner by the citizens of Earth. Richard was not afraid of thinking outside of the box. Whatever you do, read the article.
Instead of being defeatist and negative like so many in the Peak Oil doom and gloom club, it is essential that others focus maximum attention on a successive group of alternate energy sources and solutions that improve the opportunities to make timely adjustments as opposed to watching the Earth’s human population go back to the Stone Age, as one key Oil Peak proponent said metaphorically. Unfortunately, I believe that he has thrown in most of the towel. On that point, I disagree wholeheartedly.
By all accounts, we’re behind the curve on implementing timely solutions and alternatives. It’s time to pick up the pace. Robert Hirsh, Rodger Bedzek, and Robert Wendling explain in their February 2005 paper:
“When world oil production peaks, there will still be large reserves remaining. Peaking means that the rate of world oil production cannot increase; it also means that production will thereafter decrease with time.”
“The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem.”
“The challenge of oil peaking deserves immediate, serious attention, if risks are to be fully understood and mitigation begun on a timely basis.”
“Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking.”
“Peaking will result in dramatically higher oil prices, which will cause protracted economic hardship in the United States and the world. However, the problems are not insoluble. Timely, aggressive mitigation initiatives addressing both the supply and the demand sides of the issue will be required.”
“Mitigation will require a minimum of a decade of intense, expensive effort, because the scale of liquid fuels mitigation is inherently extremely large.”
“While greater end-use efficiency is essential, increased efficiency alone will be neither sufficient nor timely enough to solve the problem. Production of large amounts of substitute liquid fuels will be required. A number of commercial or near-commercial substitute fuel production technologies are currently available for deployment, so the production of vast amounts of substitute liquid fuels is feasible with existing technology.”
“Prudent risk management requires the planning and implementation of mitigation well before peaking. Early mitigation will almost certainly be less expensive than
delayed mitigation.”
“Since the potential economic impact of peaking is immense and the uncertainties relating to all facets of the problem are large, detailed quantitative studies to address the uncertainties and to explore mitigation strategies are a critical need.”
“Intervention by governments will be required, because the economic and social implications of oil peaking would otherwise be chaotic.”
“Mitigation initiated earlier than required may turn out to be premature, if peaking is long delayed. If peaking is imminent, failure to initiate timely mitigation
could be extremely damaging.”
“In summary, the problem of the peaking of world conventional oil production is unlike any yet faced by modern industrial society. The challenges and uncertainties need to be much better understood. Technologies exist to mitigate the problem. Timely, aggressive risk management will be essential.”
Ok. We’re there. And we’re behind the power curve. It’s time to work overtime to address and implement the solutions.
Peak oil is old news. It’s not as though we didn’t know it was happening. Focus on the solutions and stop screwing around.
Think smarter. Think beyond peak oil.
—
The Bllomberg article on the Mexico find is interesting for 2 things:
i) the exploratory well is 120 miles from the caost- how much of the oil and gas wells damaged by Rita and Katrina are still locked in?
ii) David Shields, an independent energy consultant in Mexico City, says: “Noxal is the third exploratory well Pemex has drilled in deep water, which isn’t enough to determine the size of the field,” and “The 10 billion barrels would be a substantial amount if there were a basis for it and there’s not at this point,” Shields said. “All of it at this point is highly speculative.”
Finally, look at the experts who said less than a year a go there wasn’t any problems with the UK North Sea production- what price did natural gas just hit in the UK?
Hope you Yanks can find ways to keep warm with your 4 years of indigenous oil production and 7 of indigenous gas when the Muslims and Canadians close off their exports to keep it for themselves?
Kinda funny that the Air Force actually considers running its planes on coal:
There are all kinds of things that could be read into that, but it seems at the very least a recognition of a changed game.
Dave-Oz,
Here’s the source for your first question:
Hurricane Katrina/Hurricane Rita Evacuation and Production Shut-in Statistics Report as of Wednesday, March 8, 2006
http://www.ocsbbs.com/Hurricane_katrina_evacuation_stats_March_08_2006.htm
Summary of Tuesday news from optimists and pessimists. New large deepwater discovery in Mexico: Optimist- This is great news for the Mexican economy and anyone else who may need to be involved to help bring the resources to market. Pessimist- The Mexicans are liars, they can’t technically develop the field, it’s bad and sour crude, it’s probably not nearly as big as they think, it won’t even offset the declines from other fields, only a corrupt few will benefit, and the earth will be punished as a result of this evil substance. Item 2-Afghanistan has 18 times the oil and triple the natural gas reserves than anyone knew. 1.6 billion gallons of oil. 15.7 trillion cubic feet of gas. Optimist- Great that should help provide energy security, improved standards of living, and additional tradable commodities for a country desparately in need. Pessimist- See above Mexican comments. DAVE-OZ, great illustration of what I’m talking about. You slam the Mexicans for being speculative about the potential for their discovery, and then blithely speculate that the US is doomed to suffer after the rest of the world shuts us off. Thanks for your expertise. I’m glad I don’t have to count on you.
Rick, my suggestion is that anyone offering you a “precise” description of the future should be viewed with suspicion. This includes doomsday types, who as you say cast around for any reason for doom (confirmation bias). It also includes the superficial optimists, who also cast around for any hope (confirmation bias, revisited).
In a general sense (without false precision) we know that oil supply and demand are tight. We know that new projects will take time to come on line (5-10 years?). We will certainly see, with increasing clarity, what will follow this short term crunch.
Either we will have enough discoveries and inventions to change the game, or this game will continue (and perhaps amplify).
I do think it is telling that no one on the optimist side can stick with one refutation of “peak oil.” One day it’s discoveries, the next day it is new sources (shale, etc.), and the day after that it is new technology (hydrogen, etc.). Life was much simpler when all it took was discoveries to quell the Club of Rome.
Still they may be right, a (good) “wild card” may come through .. but I don’t think a rational observer is going to count their wild cards before they are hatched.
Especially not when all we have to do is watch …
BTW, speaking of casting about for hope .. these “yellow gas cap” commercials are getting really annoying to me. Does everyone notice that just about every image on the screen is a large SUV, fueled by corn ethanol?
Do the math, man … large SUVs get ~15 mpg in the real world. E85 gets about 2/3 the mpg of gasoline, and so the solution is 10 mpg E85 SUVs.
Any economists want to take a whack a what corn and ethonol subsidies we need to get the whole country on the road at 10 mpg?
Odograph, I agree with you about caution regarding future predictions. Like most of you guys I like reading about economics and energy, but it hasn’t transformed me into Nostradamus. I do take issue with those that think the market will fail to provide solutions to our collective energy needs. It seems a large segment of people support top down government imposed solutions(gas tax, subsidies etc.) to a problem that is clearly hard to quantify as far as its severity. I believe that’s a mistake. Right now, today, if I stock my lot with electric vehicles just because I’m projecting oil shortages or high prices, I’ll struggle to make a living. If the shortages/super high prices arrive, I’ll scramble and find alternative transportation to sell. I will. The mistake is assuming people can’t change behavoir quickly. Whenever I read about the inelastic nature of oil consumption I always think that it’s because the incentives for change really aren’t that significant. When they are, people will change or do without…and fast. The idea that government should provide the solutions so no one will suffer is a fantasy. Life includes pain. When oil becomes too expensive, some will suffer, some entrepreneurs will gain. Let’s look for the opportunites to win, not sit around wringing our hands hoping the government will save us.
I have read (and very much recommend) “A Thousand Barrels a Second” by Peter Tertzakian. He makes some interesting points about the size of our installed base (220+ million cars in the US alone), and the supply chains feeding them.
I think it is true that people can change their attitudes fairly quickly, but I’m not sure how fast that can be translated into a new fleet or new fuels. Currently, less than 5% of the US automobile fleet is retired in any given year.
Perhaps my greatist pessimism comes from things like the GM ethanol campaign. The fact that they even do it might be taken as an obvious confirmation of peak oil – but it also shows that there will be interests who need to sell “bad solutions” for their own purposes (in GM’s case survival).
And of course the farm states want to be the next OPEC (subsidized, of course).
Another random idea I’ve heard is that electrics are great, but with home charging you don’t need gas stations. Therefore, every actor with an economic interest in preserving fueling stations will oppose electric power. They might perfer anything that they can sell you by the gallon, or the kilogram.
It’s a mess, but time will (ultimately) tell.
“If the shortages/super high prices arrive, I’ll scramble and find alternative transportation to sell. I will.”
While at the micro level this might be true, if it were true at the macro level, GM wouldn’t be in such bad shape, now would they?
One thing that worries me, wrt Mexico, is that there seems to be something approaching a critical mass for action on better energy systems around. It hasn’t historically taken much short-term good news to disrupt such a consensus.
Regarding how many cars are replaced annually, I think this is a bit of a nonproblem. Surely one of the top – in fact the top determiner of that is the cost and benefit of retaining one’s current car? At the moment, buying a new car is a big luxury item. The marginal benefit ain’t huge unless the current one is really dire.
And GM’s problem isn’t that people want too many of their cars.
“The idea that government should provide the solutions so no one will suffer is a fantasy. Life includes pain. When oil becomes too expensive, some will suffer, some entrepreneurs will gain. Let’s look for the opportunites to win, not sit around wringing our hands hoping the government will save us.”
Run for office, Rick. You’ll have my vote and a campaign contribution.
Alex, you could flip it the other way and say that the 5% retirement is supported by the current auto produciton capacity (and half that capacity is SUVs, currently).
That might lead to an interesting situation, if the transition to “dire” is not too smooth.
Rick says: “If the shortages/super high prices arrive, I’ll scramble and find alternative transportation to sell. I will.”
Or you will go out of business. You have to accept that this may be what the market decides and, your personal qualities and efforts notwithstanding, there is nothing you can do about it.
For today, you have to operate under current conditions. It doesn’t make sense to stock up on electric transportation. Though it would have made sense to invest in oil, Toyota and to dump GM. And uranium mining operations by the way. This is not hand wringing. It’s trying to guide one’s personal decisions based upon global factors. Just as I keep in mind the historical ebb and flow of P/Es which, I’m thinking, are just about ripe for a good ebb.
The world is globalizing, operating at fairly high debt levels (spend today what you hope you earn tomorrow), and may run into REAL energy shocks in the coming years.
I’m not a doomer, but the historically rare occurrence of energy constraints in a globalized indebted industrial economy may lead to economic dislocations that you have trouble imagining.
This is not a request for govt intervention. It’s a request for solid analysis of what the implications are, how the economy might respond, etc.
Oh dear, this can’t be good. Exxon’s out there somewhere making oil and our only hope is to quit using oil. What’s a few silly old hurricanes and tornadoes when you’re talking lifestyle? Will we drown or run out oil first? Anyone care to hazard a guess?
A couple of responses to Movie Guy’s posts above.
First, he quotes estimates that carbon emissions will triple by 2100. These are not credible estimates as they assume no significant technological improvements in 100 years! Similar extrapolations in 1900 had us buried in horse manure by today. It is simply unbelievable to try to extrapolate a technology-intensive business like energy forward for 100 years.
Another point: he quotes Deffeyes as saying we are heading back to the stone age. Deffeyes has repudiated this quote and now says “my fingers got away from me”. Let’s hope he recovers them. Courtesy of Peak Oil Debunked:
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/03/259-ken-deffeyes-starts-backpedaling.html
One other point: with regard to the CO2 “tipping point”, the previously quoted level was 400 ppm. Unfortunately we are already past that if you factor in the contributions from other greenhouse gasses. I guess telling people this does not have the desired political effect, so they have moved the goalposts and now the tipping point is at 500 ppm. Is there any scientific basis for that number? Strange that tipping points are always at multiples of 100. I guess God uses the metric system.
Sorry, I meant to include this link to document the previous tipping point level and the fact that we have passed it:
http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-mccarthy110206.htm
Hal,
I’m glad that you read the posts.
Did you have an opportunity to look at the carbon emission chart? I didn’t invent the rate of growth which was based on a study. The results are portrayed in the chart. Sure, it’s not a perfect nor exact chart, but the trend lines are obvious.
All one has to do is review what is happening in China right now to appreciate the carbon emission load that is being added to over there…and to the planet. It’s remarkable. Sure, their emissions may very well improve later on, but we’re watching large carbon emission gains on the planet. China is but one source for the additional gains. Note Eastern Europe. And so on.
Now, if anyone is a certified carbon emission expert, then she/he can explain what happens as regions of the developing industrialize further and do not have to meet the level of emission controls in the U.S. or Western Europe.
There will be a major timeline lag factor that should be factored in to such an emissions analysis.
It really doesn’t matter if the carbon emission load only doubles. That’s not sustainable. Part of the sources are not manmade, but rather from the oceans and melting permafrost. There are studies underway right now that are focusing on those issues. It’s almost as though some emissions have caught them off guard.
I quoted Kenneth Deffeyes accurately, but I also explained that his statement was a metaphor.
Here is what Ken really said: “My fingers got away from me and typed out: “By 2025, we’ll be back in the Stone Age.” I’m sorry that some readers thought that I actually meant that we would be wearing furs and hunting buffalo with flint spear points. It’s called “hyperbole.” Nevertheless, I have been looking into acquiring some property on the Arkansas novaculite belt. Great flint.”
He didn’t back off all the way. He may have taken some heat for his remark, but note how he closes out his thought in the follow up.
Original source: http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html
Your last point about 400 ppm vs. 500 ppm is an issue that you may want to take up with the author and/or science editor or publisher of the news article that I not only quoted but provided the URL link. I believe that you should pass along the other news link and ask some questions.
I don’t disagree with your point about 400 ppm, as it is apparent that the meltdown rate at the northern polar cap is accelerating faster than they anticipated last year and the previous year. The article is a good read. They are worried.
I a bit surprised at some of comments this morning.
The issue isn’t to continue waiting for a definite peak oil answer. That’s a waste of time, and Hirsh, Bedzek, and Wendling make that absolutely clear, as did Richard Smalley prior to his death last year. Their thoughts are available for anyone to read in an above post.
Peak oil is old news. The focus right now has to shift to an acceleration of alternative fuels for multiple applications.
If you wisely factor in the growing evidence of advancing global warming, then an urgency to minimum carbon emissions moves to the center of the table. And it stays there. It becomes the overriding issue of concern.
The nation and its citizens have to move the ball. We have to shift greater focus on the solutions, whether known, in development stages, or dreamed up a week from now.
This should be a major issue for the 2008 Presidential election.
Imagine the implications.
Hey Robert Cote, You must be a proffesional blog commenter since I see you all over the place. Just Kidding.
It is a legitimate concern to be worried that the peak is near or past as Deyfess has suggested. There is no reason to set up strawmen on all the peak oilers.
Energy is not technology. Tech uses energy, tech figures out new sources but it is not energy. To a scientist there are only 3 usable sources of energy for us earthlings.
The sun, the earth, and the stars. Just kidding again. Well not really.
The sun – including direct sunlight PVs and ancient sun sources like fossil fuels.
The earth – geothermal activity and the sort.
The stars – I made this up but maybe one can say nuclear energy is really made from the stars.
Have fun, keep it lighthearted and no one is taking away the oil. We are just burning it and reving our motors.
MG – thanks for all the links, I’m just starting to read them. Also for the thought that global warming impacts combined with the inevitable economic recession (crash?) will mitigate or postpone the effects of peak oil. I have the feeling we will be using very high priced petroleum in our crash programs to build nuclear reactors and adjust to or address the warming impacts.
What I don’t understand is this “tipping point” concept. It seems to me that the CO2/methane train has already left the station and we have no idea what conditions will be like when the earth reaches steady state. Each additional incremental gas loading just shifts the eventual steady-state condition. Maybe the tipping hypothesis refers to when the earth becomes warm enough to release the methane currently frozen in the tundra in which case Mr Cote will have his work cut out for him.
Fred W,
I agree with you on all points.
We have to move to other fuel sources quickly. We need to get the nuclear program back on line with the latest designs as soon as possible, considering the lead time required. The other major fuels programs will require similar levels of investment and concentration of construction effort.
It’s the same story for vehicle transportation and drivetrains. We need to accelerate the non-gasoline program platforms. The skateboard platform design appears to hold great promise. That’s the one that I believe will represent the next generation of light duty vehicles.
The CO2/methane train really has left the station. We don’t know to how bring it back. At best, we’re just trying to slow it down. But it’s too late based on what I have read. We will lose the ice at the northern polar cap, including Greenland. So, we are going to have rising sea levels. But we’re trying to determine how to slow the rate of meltdown. Not much success should be anticipated on that front. I would say that the 300 scientists who have continued to study and monitor the developments at the northern polar cap are a bit shocked at the meltdown acceleration. It’s not looking good.
Similarly, the expectation appears to be that the Gulf Stream will stop keeping Europe warm. We should also experience more severe hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and along the East Coast.
Granted, some of this is speculation, but not very much of it. The ice meltdown is really happening. Carbon emissions will rise, whether from manmade or natural sources.
We need to be mature and alert enough to do whatever we can to minimize our future problems. We don’t have to become rabid environmental dogs, but we’re past the point of quibbling over when peak oil hits or whether global warming will have any impacts. There is no point in staying back at those crossroads and arguing. It’s time to focus our collective attention on the next steps in the decision cycle. Then act. And keep taking positive actions as quickly as we can.
One of our major problem will be a lack of leadership.
The technocrats are fine for tier two and tier three support staff, but they’re not going to be the effective leaders. They can’t think effectively outside of their disciplines.
Projects like this require recruitment of people who can create the teambuilding bridges between the scientists, support groups, general capitalists, and government politicians. Those will be the real leaders.
We’re experiencing a shortage of generalists who have the skills necessary to fill those valued positions. And that’s going to a major problem.
I have been through this drill a few times on major national projects. If it were my call, I would be pulling together a class of leadership recruits in the general age group of 35 to 44 years old. That group would have enough fire and determination plus the staying power to walk us through one or two phases of the U.S. and global efforts. I am talking about leaders who have the ability to stay sharp while willing to work 72 to 96 hour stretches as required. I’ve seen it and done it. It will require our best and brightest leaders to move these projects forward.
There is a major U.S. Government/corporate program underway at this time that I am not at liberty to discuss in detail, but recent developments support my position that we are suffering from corporate and government leadership shortages. Last week, an outstanding and well focused leader in his late 50s was brought in reorganize the massive program effort. The previous younger leader in his 40s, a bright fellow with excellent credentials, couldn’t control his alpha technocrats who are at the highest pay grades and expertise in government and the corporate community, nor could he get the overall agency program missions pulled together quickly enough. He’s now the deputy (at least temporarily), and the new alpha leader is wasting no time in building and reorganizing the team. Plenty of senior government and corporate people are in a state of shock, but they get over it or get kicked out the door quickly. This is no time for ego stroking or chest beating.
If we didn’t have a leadership experience shortage in the younger age groups, we wouldn’t have to do things like this to salvage major national initiatives. I made the recommendation to those involved a few weeks ago to cut their losses and bring in a heavy and get it cleaned up fast or risk losing the program which is significantly over budget in the billions. I didn’t want to make that recommendation, as I am team builder, but enough was enough.
We have obstacles to overcome in our junior leadership ranks that did not exist previously. It’s a mentality problem compounded by systems specialization. And it’s a clock killer when you have to launch a major effort. We have to go to the corporate and government campuses and build some more teams of leaders who know how to lean into the wind. They have to be able to shoot on the run, meaning that have to be able to make outstanding decisions quickly without becoming bogged down in paperwork, regulations, and all the other distractions.
If we pull together and develop core leaders who can lean into the wind, stay focused on the milestones, and know how to pull, not push, their teams to accomplish their collective and pressing goals, we will succeed. Otherwise, we can anticipate a delay of one decade or more as we build the action plans to address these national and global problems. We can’t afford a ten year delay compounded by wasted funds, but I expect unfortunately that we will see those problems early on.
I can only hope that we still know what leaning into the wind really means. It’s impressive when you build a program around that type of leadership. And it works very well. I wish them great success.
Not DOE! Not the hydrogen economy! Please tell me it’s some other hotshot agency working on this. But I guess they’re all we’ve got. They did crank out some good weapon systems, reactors, etc. at one time so I guess it has to be them. I think they have some very good folks in the labs but Im not sure the politicized, consultant-heavy, DOE HQ can provide adult supervision.
We still have a massive education effort in front of us. The world did get behind the effort to address ozone depletion which is very encouraging. And part of the world is already trying to reduce CO2 emissions. Except it will take a lot more – like fertilizing the ocean, planting stratospheric aerosols, or maybe building space elevators conveying power from sun shield/solar panels in geosynchronous orbit. Oops, time for my medicine.
Okay, you guys have convinced me. There is indeed a massive shortage of a material necessary to keep society from tipping over into uncontrollable chaos; lithium to manufacture enough antidepressants to keep the doom and gloomers from grabbingb the nearest sane person and jumping off a glacier. 7500 of the last 10,000 years were warmer than any of the warmest years of the last century. Anyone who suggests radically altering human behavior has an agenda that has nothing to do with global climate change.
I commented way up above about the US Air Force considering coal as a source for jet fuel. That seemed to be the kind of thing that could only happen if (a) peak oil was real, or (b) peak oil fear was spinning off pork barrel projects.
I considered it a sign of a changed game, but not a cincher. It is interesting now to see that the CEO of commercial carrier Jet Blue is also talking about making jet fuel from coal (link)
My first reaction is that two people with this crazy idea to fly on coal is enough to cinch it (as if GM doing ethanol commercials was not) … peak oil is real.
The Air Force has research projects for intertia dampening. Does that mean we are running out of gravity? Sheeesh.
Well Robert, this is a market system … and while win-win is absolutely possible, sometimes it helps to have a sucker born every minute.
GM is waiting for you, with a brand new E85 Avalanche, give them a call.
Robert Cote is a wealth of fallacious anecdotes and analogies, debating strawmen in his head. Conversation with him seems pointless. I suggest not doing so.
Robert,
If you haven’t seen the behaviors that have been altered since you were sitting in gas lines during the mid 70s, then you just missed it.
Just look at the drugs that the educational system and medical community stuck our kids on to maintain “control”. I can name a number of college campuses where Riddlin and steroids are the drugs of choice. It’s easy to spot the Riddies in classrooms because they’re not keen on taking notes. Friends who are professors and deans talk about this frequently. Of course, the Riddies are among the first to seek full up retraining after working in industry for a year or two because they forget what they learned. I have a friend running such a retraining program and he is seeing familiar Riddlin faces every six months. He predicted this industry outcome years ago.
The behavioral transitions that have occurred since the time you were sitting in gas lines during the mid 70s are noted by many in various industries. Accepting full responsibility and moving forward quickly is the key to remaining competitive. We have glimpses of that here and there, but it’s not a trained art as it once was. A few excellent natural leaders, but nothing on the scale of what we once had.
Hell, look at FEMA and certain other elements of DHS. That’s hardly the model that we will need to build on. What a adolescent joke. It’s the land of puppies struggling with regulatory overcompliance instead of leading and employing common sense.
Note this mess: http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/060311wardens.shtml
Your focus on looking for agendas is a wasted exercise. I have no doubt that you may not be part of the solution, but it’s unlikely that you will slow the national effort. It’s already underway, but it’s just too slow. They will pick up the pace when more factually based reports are submitted by the scientists. It’s not going to be a problem based on the latest satellite intelligence.
A number of key corporations are already involved and seeking additional support. Even President Bush has received enough briefings recently that he has changed his tune. I have been impressed with his recent remarks. He knows what is happening.
A friend of the family, a well known Harvard graduate, had the audacity to tell my brother and others recently that the only thing that mattered in America was making money. It didn’t matter if we lost all of our hard skills, R&D, plants and so on. Well, all hell broke loose as my brother is an academy grad who has been in industry for a long time. Smart guy to say the least. He just ripped into his arrogant argument. And he should have, as that elitist attitude is part of what is taking down our country. It’s just one example of the typical elitist “knowledge” being “ordained from above” on younger leaders in business, industry, and government.
This is the kind of junk that some of us are dealing with at various levels. It gets old.
As to the global warming issue and the peak oil analysis, the picture is clear to those who have good foresight. We will move on to alternate fuels and do the best we can. It’s not an insurmountable undertaking, but industry and government will have to ramp up to make it happen. We’re behind schedule, but we can make up some of the time. I have confidence that we get on track.
I knock the Peak Oil groupies because many of them are stuck on knowing exactly when crude oil hits peak, as if that changes anything. Hell, the recognition of the potential crude oil problem coupled with the verifiable meltdown at the northern polar cap changes the perspective. It’s time to move forward and switch out the fuel sources that we can. The lollygagging is over. Emissions are driving the train, not peak oil.
Even the stragglers will get with the program once they find ways to optimize their financial rewards for participation.
Robert Cote is a wealth of fallacious anecdotes and analogies, debating strawmen in his head. Conversation with him seems pointless. I suggest not doing so.
I suggest that anyone who is reduced to attacking the person and not the propositions has already done so.
Movie Guy – I just did a line count on my computer. You have posted 776 of 1528 lines of commentary on this thread, or just over half. Do you think your opinions count more than everyone else’s added up? If not, you might want to moderate your posting volume.
On another note, I’d like to direct attention to a comment I added belatedly to an earlier thread, on an article describing reasons why oil producers are not taking advantage of high forward futures prices for hedging. It is presently the last comment at:
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2006/02/oil_at_1530_a_b.html
Peak oil is nothing more than a fabrication created by the oil speculators media machine. It is used to spook the herd when necessary.
The “theory” of peak oil is exactly that, a theory which cannot be empirically proved.
The evidence against peak oil far outweighs the theory.
This evidence ranges from OPEC to oil companies to experts in the field denouncing that oil is in short supply or a finite resource.
Anyone believing in peak oil, might as well also believe in little green men, the loch-ness monster, bigfoot and the boogey-man. Because you are being played bigtime.
If you want the truth and can handle it, follow the speculators and how they profit.
When all else fails, its all about the money and always follow the money to find the truth.
There is enough at this link to dispell even the hardest core “peak oil” advocate.
http://naybob.blogspot.com/2004/07/peak-oil-redux-series.html
Nobody EVER discusses the real problem – the single cause of all of our well documented woes. It’s OVERPOPULATION. If we were 2 billion people instead of the 6+ billion now living – there would be no energy or pollution problems. And as an added bonus – most of the country vs country spats would be history; there would be plenty of land for each of us.
Seems funny that every person who speaks out against the very real problem of population maldistribution seems universally unwilling to lead by example.
Peak oil is fatally flawed. Not just that the evidence unfailingly since 1855 has proven them wrong but the theory itself is fatally constructed. The flaw is in thinking gross production is neither fungible nor economically driven. The “Peakinese” (you heard it here first) assume the Oil INdustrial Cabal (oinkers in their minds) are out there scouring the ends of the earth hellbent on pumping every last bit of dinosaur detrius as soon as possible. then they compound by assuming this flat out unconstrained effort has no price based feedback mechanism.
Wow, you guys are pumped up today! M1Ek mentions Macro level and you guys go off. We’ve got global warming out of control, way too little or way too much oil depending on the writer, irresponsible youth, and overpopulation to boot. No wonder things like Peak Oil theory cause so much despair.
It’s overwhelming to try and get your arms around a worldwide solution. If a group of farmers in Iowa decide to produce, use, and sell a little ethanol, it may be a great solution for them…and I bet the EROEI works out fine. It may not be the best solution for a metro area thousands of miles away like a plug in hybrid might. Long haul truckers may find a niche for bio-diesel.
Not every potential societal challenge requires a macro solution. It’s not as much fun as commenting on macro problems, but using your energy and passion to affect the micro sure is more likely to be successful. What are you going to do about overpopulation Mike? Answer: Nothing. World history indicates that living standards generally improve. I think more is better, even if we don’t have enough oil.
Hal,
I am glad you have taken the time to do a line count.
Rest assured that I will not have my opinions or external material links and excerpts silenced by individuals who are not moderators of this blog.
By the way, you have never answered the question that I asked you.
I am confident that you and all others have every opportunity on a 24 hour basis to post your commentary on Jim’s fine blog. There is no waiting line, nor any Gestapo Polizei.
There is, of course, the question of Bushstapo, as explained by Roger Fredinburg.
On July 7, 2002 Roger said, “For the first time in my life as a public figure, I am afraid to write or say those things most pressing on my mind.”
Well, aside from the possibility of being sent to GITMO involuntarily, I will state my views freely unless Jim advises otherwise.
Good luck in your future posting efforts.
odograph,
I noted with interest that you made the following statements:
“Do the math, man … large SUVs get ~15 mpg in the real world. E85 gets about 2/3 the mpg of gasoline, and so the solution is 10 mpg E85 SUVs. Any economists want to take a whack a what corn and ethonol subsidies we need to get the whole country on the road at 10 mpg?”
“GM is waiting for you, with a brand new E85 Avalanche, give them a call.”
It’s apparent that you are not a fan of Ethanol/Gasoline fuel blends (E85). I have some concerns with the programs also, but not for the reasons that you have stated.
Let me help clarify that MPG figure that you were quoting. There are only 3 vehicles using E85 engines which deliver city mileage at 10 mpg or less based on federal data available at AFDC. Those vehicles are the (1) Dodge Durango, (2) Dodge Ram Pickup, and (3) Nissan Titan.
All nine automobiles (cars) available with E85 engines provide city and highway mileage better than 10 mpg. The two light duty vans provide city and highway mileage above 10 mpg. The other four light duty SUVs also exceed city mileage of 10 mpg, but only by 1 mpg; highway mileage is better. The other four light duty pickup truck models with E85 engines from Ford and GM exceed 10 mpg city and highway.
The next generation of GM full-size SUVs, available for purchase now, are using AFM, so it’s possible that the E85 versions of that 5.3 liter engine will provide better highway fuel economy than the models cited below.
The brand new E85 Avalanche that you mentioned comes in at 11 mpg city and 14 mpg highway.
I am interesting in learning whether the Toyota Prius will ever be offered with an E85 hybrid drivetrain.
Here is the Alternate Fuels Data Center fuel mileage information on the entire Ethanol/Gasoline E85 vehicle line up.
Flexible Fuel E85 Ethanol/Gasoline Vehicles
* includes three natural gas vehicles (only ones listed at AFDC)
** includes one dual fuel natural gas vehicle (listed at AFDC)
Cars
Chrysler Sebring – 2.7 liter – 15/20
Dodge Stratus – 2.7 liter – 15/20
Ford Taurus – 3.0 liter – 15/20 vs 20/27
Ford Taurus Wagon – 3.0 liter – 14/19
Ford Crown Victoria – 4.6 liter – 12/18
Honda Civic GX – 1.7 liter – Natural Gas – 30/34 vs 29/38
Mercury Lincoln Town Car – 4.6 liter – 12/18
Mercury Grand Marquis – 4.6 liter – 12/18
Chevrolet Impala – 3.5 liter – 16/23
Chevrolet Monte Carlo – 3.5 liter – 16/24
Mercedez-Benz – 2.6 liter C240 – ? (2005 model)
Mercedez-Benz – 3.2 liter – C320 – ? (2005 model)
Vans
Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan – 3.3 liter – 13/17 vs 19/26
SUVs
Dodge Durango – 4.7 liter – 9/11 vs 16/25
Chevrolet Tahoe – 5.3 liter – 11/15 (* the older model w/o AFM)
Chevrolet Suburban – 5.3 liter – 11/14 (* the older model w/o AFM)
GMC Yukon – 5.3 liter – 11/15 (* the older model w/o AFM)
GMC Yukon XL – 5.3 liter – 11/14 (* the older model w/o AFM)
Pickups
Dodge Ram Pickup – 4.7 liter – 9/11 vs 16/25
Chevrolet Silverado – 5.3 liter – 12/16
Chevrolet Silverado – 6.0 liter – Natural Gas – 9/12
Chevrolet Silverado – 6.0 liter – Bi-Fuel Natural Gas – 9/12
Chevrolet Avalanche – 5.3 liter – 11/14
Ford F-150 – 5.4 liter – – 16/20
GMC Sierra – 5.3 liter – 12/16
GMC Sierra – 6.0 liter – Natural Gas – 9/12
Nissan Titan – 5.6 liter – 10/14 vs 14/19
* I offered comparative mileage figures for those AFDC vehicle listings where I noted that gasoline MPG was identified. The other data is available, though.
Source: Alternate Fuels Data Center
“Robert Cote is a wealth of fallacious anecdotes and analogies, debating strawmen in his head. Conversation with him seems pointless. I suggest not doing so.”
Now that’s not nice!
Robert Cote and I don’t always see eye to eye, but I’ve learned a lot from him. Sometimes he can be damned funny. I did appreciate this line:
“Seems funny that every person who speaks out against the very real problem of population maldistribution seems universally unwilling to lead by example.”
Thanks John. We’ve been knocking heads since Nov ’03 over some of these issues haven’t we? As I said then, my humor has about a 50% detection rate. Maybe we are running out of gravity.
“The brand new E85 Avalanche that you mentioned comes in at 11 mpg city and 14 mpg highway.”
That’s basically where I’m starting, and applying a rough adjustment … assuming the classic “miss” by the EPA, assuming typical city/highway mix, and etc.
I’m also trolling for someone to speak up who actually has a big SUV, runs it on E85, and calculates his mileage.
There are fleet customers who can provide estimates of mileage info.
I believe you’re focused on the wrong vehicle in some respects. There may be more E85 pickups and cars than SUVs. Fleet purchases might bear this point out. I expect so, considering the period involved from the introduction of the E85 engines to present day.
The real benefit of an Ethanol/Gasoline engine isn’t the notion that one would roll over and stay with the blend, suffering the complete loss of miles per gallon over extended usage. The better approach would be to use gasoline in city/local usage travel, and flip over to E85 for some of the long trips. Then it might pay off financially. The owners and operators can jump back and forth. Similarly, the can bump up the percentage of gasoline per tank and that should boost mileage.
Think about how fleets and private owners would use the cars vs the pickups. If you hauling tonnage in the pickups, then stay with gasoline. If not, jump to Ethanol/Gasoline to save money.
The simple advantage of all E85 vehicles over gasoline vehicles is the potential to completely switch over to Ethanol/Gasoline blends during periods of major price jumps or regular gas delivery shortages. Yes, the regular gasoline engines can burn E85 fuels for a very limited period without causing major engine damage, but limited is the operative word.
I don’t see a downside of owning an E85 engine equipped vehicle. It makes good sense.
The new GM SUVs with AFM pushes the mileage up over 20 mpg on the highway according to friends who are driving them now. Flip off the AC, and remove the roof rack and you can pick up another 1-2 mpg. I’ve done it. The 5300 V8 engine is an efficient small powerplant. I am already getting 21-22 mpg on the highway with my 5300 engine and I don’t have AFM. Moreover, speed range under 90 mph doesn’t affect my mileage very much at all. GM’s computer and powerband design work exceptionally well in this regard. I’ve talked to a few GM engineers to get a better understanding of how well the system works. Finally, I stopped worrying about my speed. And the highway mileage has held up very well. I don’t have any doubt that the 5300 AFM engines will deliver improved highway mileage.
I think you need to step back and look at why GM does the commercials. It is because gas prices are up, SUV sales are down, and customers don’t (didn’t) believe they had an answer.
So, by selling the image of these Avalanches (and yes, the certainly populate the TV ads for the yellow gas cap campaign), they propose a future.
Do the math, big SUVs, E86, and go ahead, use a slightly more generous mpg than I have done:
The United States consumes almost 9 million barrels of gasoline daily. At the same time, current ethanol production levels work out to an average of 255,000 barrels per day.
How much to you need to expand ethanol production to get the TV audience on E85?
(if you sell them Avalanches you need to work a lot harder than you would if you sold them small Brazilian-styled flex-fuel cars.)
BTW, I live in southern California, where everybody drives through tough traffic, essentially getting EPA “city” mileage or worse. Once a year they take a road trip, and total up their “highway” mileage.
The smart ones quote their typical daily mileage …
Odo,
You get lousy mileage because you are using “california gas.” This is just like real gas except it has 10% less energy. I’ll post the details and science on my blog later today.
I get 50 mpg, city driving. YMMV.
The “you” in my post was the generic you as in “you get worse gas mileage in California in part because of the lousy gas.”
http://exurbannation.blogspot.com/2006/03/california-gasoline.html
Well, Professor, anytime things get dull on Econobrowser, a PeakOil piece gets the pot boiling again. Also, I think MovieGuy should be prohibited from using Cut & Paste. At least for 30 days.
I wouldn’t dream of banning Movie Guy– he’s come up with an incredible number of useful observations, insights and links.
However, Rich has a point that maybe there’s something to be said for just providing a link with a one-paragraph summary to any one source. What do you think about such a policy, Movie Guy and other readers/commenters?
Also, let me remind everyone to please always try to address the substantive ideas being expressed without attacking the person who voices them.
I don’t believe that Dr. Jim Hamilton needs an external big brother or DHS type trying to tell him how to run his life or his affairs, including HIS blog.
Jim,
I posted the excerpts of the text from those key sources to make the point that peak oil is not, in my judgement, the number one issue. Yes, I was attempting to show the other side of the picture. And, yes, I was pushing it. But I usually try to limit that level of effort to one thread per subject.
Normally, unless there is a technical support discussion ongoing involving automobiles, I am not overly keen on pasting too much of the quoted text at Econbrowser. Sure, anyone can go back and say that I have violated that statement 4,000 times, but I will only push quoted text to make a point.
Certainly, I will try to reduce many elements of posts to paragraph summaries plus the link, but there may be a string of links and supporting paragraphs. Or not.
I will abide by whatever you decide, but I will ignore all the blog robocops. I am sick of that mentality in this society.
Any of these guys can send you or me an email. It’s just not that hard. But they will need to send you emails to try to silence my presentations or thoughts. I’m not playing the little “I only want a soundbite game”. That is one of the things that has dumbed down our society since the mid 80s. And it is dangerous to our future well being.
Movie guys pasting probably is a bit excessive for me but I’ve learned how to use the page-up/page-down feature on my computer. Others should try it. Just look around on your keyboard.
Regarding the idea of keeping to the point and not attacking the person: true. But I think that should be generalized:not attacking a class of people. Because it is equivalent. For example, if person A makes argument X which is a common argument in support of general theory Y, and then person B says that all people who believe in theory Y are idiots, it’s pretty clear that it’s just a way to say that person X is an idiot.
I always find it easier, when that occurs, to either (a) ignore the person or (b) point out clearly the implications of what they are saying or, if push comes to shove, just tell them (c) they are an idiot and the conversation is over.
Or something like that.
The point is, these peak oil debates get totally completely boring very quickly when it’s all about you cornucopians are “this” and you doomers are “that.”
Staying on topic means bringing concrete data and references if possible or a brief summary of their opinions based on reading of data.
There is a considerable difference between verbally attacking an individual poster and attacking or criticizing the values and presentations of a class of people (your words) or a political ideology, economic ideology, or political party.
If we’re going to have politically correct blog robocops attempting to smother the voices of dissent against other ideologies and groups which represent them, then we’re headed for another type of central government in the United States of America.
Democracy is not easy. We have to fight for it. On the blogs. At the PTA meetings. In the libraries. And at Capitol Hill.
I reject your politically correct notion. It’s not going to happen with me. If I want to bitch about the economic policies of the Republican leadership, the weakness of the Democrat minority, or the handwringing of the Peak Oil groups, I will most certainly do it.
This is still the United States of America, not Communist China or Russia.
Hybrid Plus E85
Odo,
I believe that you attacking E85 fuel concepts and fueled vehicles for the wrong reasons. Your heart is in the right place, but your logic doesn’t make any sense to me. We’re talking about two different national objectives and technologies being incorporated into vehicle platform/drivetrain designs.
If GM and other manufacturers offer E85 equipped engines in some of their forthcoming hybrid models, including full two-mode hybrids, then the owner has the multiple advantages of (1) hybrid technologies and fuel savings, and (2) substitute fuel for the gasoline engine. That’s a three way win. GM”s full two mode vehicles begin arriving next year or early thereafter, and will include AFM and VVT plus any other improvements. Add to those considerations the option of the same gasoline engine having E85 capability. That’s an excellent combination of performance and environmental options.
E85 fuels development does not have as a focus the issue of fuel efficiency. The E85 fuels program focus, instead, is on (1) reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and (2) renewable domestic sources of energy. Ethanol usage reduces hydrocarbon, benzene, and carbon dioxide emissions, though one has to factor in and subtract lost mpg performance.
You appear to be knocking the idea of buying an E85 capable engine vehicle simply based on fuel economy consideration. The cost difference of optioning for an E85 engine in the same vehicle platform is negligible. What the heck, take it if it is offered, and be prepared to jump to the alternate E85 fuels if all other gasoline blends are unavailable or too costly in comparison. E85 capability is the equivalent of having a full size spare tire in a vehicle. Where is the negative in that idea? No one is making you mount the spare tire and run it. It’s just there for pennies on the dollar.
Yes, you’re right that E85 fuels do not offer equal or better fuel economy. Ethanol is less efficient, even though it has an octane of approximately 105. But ethanol is biodegradable and will not contaminate ground water.
If GM and other manufacturers offer E85 equipped engines in some of their forthcoming hybrid models, including full two-mode hybrids, then the owner has the multiple advantages of (1) hybrid technologies and fuel savings, and (2) substitute fuel for the gasoline engine. That’s a three way win.
Now, there are some other advantages as outlined below. The bottom line is that key drivetrain components are beefed up (improved) to battle corrosiveness. Again, I see no negative in moving in that direction.
Most questions can be answered here:
National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition – Frequently Asked Questions
As an illustration, I will focus on one issue:
“What are the differences in an FFV [E85 engine] compared to a regular gasoline-only model? Are different parts used?”
Response:
“There is only one major additional part that is included on an FFV – the fuel sensor that detects the ethanol/gasoline ratio. A number of other parts on the FFV’s fuel delivery system are modified so that they are ethanol compatible. The fuel tank, fuel lines, fuel injectors, computer system, anti-siphon device and dashboard gauges have been modified slightly. Alcohols are corrosive. Therefore, any part that comes in contact with the fuel has been upgraded to be tolerant to alcohol. Normally, these parts include a stainless steel fuel tank and Teflon-lined fuel hoses.”
Gasoline/Electric Hybrid plus E85 should be a winning combination until something better is developed. And that may be the skateboard vehicle platform.
A brief answer to the partisan and ad-hominem comments unleashed here at peak oil “whiners” like me.
I am not advocating any particular policy. I haven’t said a word about the Iraq war, the environment, or gas taxes. Except to criticize the idea of gas taxes everytime someone brings it up.
I am simply recognizing that, whether peak oil happens five or fifty years from now, it will be accompanied by some non-zero risk of political instability and economic recession. One way to personally hedge against it is to expand one’s skill set so that one could remain useful even in a collapsed economy. Another way is to preserve and spread the knowledge needed to restart the industrial tool-chain after a collapse.
I also think it’s a good idea to actively pursue a vaccine against the avian flu. But look, they’ve been talking about avian flu for several years now, and it still hasn’t happened! Am I an avian flu whiner now also?
Is it really so difficult to grasp the idea of preparing for contingencies ahead of time?
DoD Global Warming and Fuel Efficiencies Initiatives
Odo,
You showed some interest and surprise (in my judgment) in the USAF initiatives to seek alternate source for their JP-8 jet fuel program.
Aside from global supply and cost considerations related to crude oil, DoD has a goal (1) achieving as much energy independence as possible and (2) maximizing fuel efficiencies across the board. The coal substitution program supports goal 1 and further addresses the single consideration that is wounding some of the major airlines at the present time – fuel costs. They are wise to seek alternate sources for JP-8 production and commercial jet fuels (commercial blend is not Jp-8).
Anyway, here are some good links to copy and save if you so desire. This is primer info, but it’s a good introduction to DoD alternative fuels, and energy savings initiatives. DoD is one of the prime national leaders in adopting both energy initiatives.
Defense Environmental Network & Information eXhange
DoD and Global Climate Change
DoD Global Climate Change Links
DoD Alternate Fuels and Alternate Fueled Vehicles
Summary Report to Congress – FY 2002
DoD Initiatives on Climate Change and Fuel Efficiencies under SecDEF Cohen
Petroleum Fuels: Basic Composition and Properties, August 2005
Fuel Cell Developments
JP-8, The Single Fuel
Diesels Tank Engines (includes more general fuels usage info and smart reader comments)
JP8 Fuel Engines (Light Aviation / Military)
MovieGuy,
You don’t understand military objectives, direction and/or priorities. The military seeks operational efficiency and effectiveness not energy efficiency and not energy independence. I’m not sure how to explain further given your worldview. The war colleges spend unknowable hours evaluating worst case, worse than worst case contingencies. The USAF spent years on nuclear aircraft and wierder ideas. Good for them. Money well spent.
There isn’t some secret report somewhere in the Pentagon or White House laying out an end to energy supplies. Move on.
I agree with you, Texas Al. We need to move on and get with the program. Our future depends on developing alternate fuel source energy programs with a sense of urgency.
Now, I’m the guy who popped off the Peak Oil whiners remark early on, but I qualified my whiner remark around the very concept of what you have said. Let’s move forward. We need not sit on the porch and wait for it to rain.
We can sit around and watch the oil rigs all day, and keep an eye of what the oil majors are doing in terms of new or additional exploration and retrieval. But that doesn’t solve our emissions problems. Any reluctance to act more agressively on alternate energy sources does not help our future well being as a nation, or planet of tribes of people.
I love the V8 engine and have built many of them. Some very efficient, but they’re still fossil fueled engines. The gasoline engine is DOA. We will continue to use the powerplant for a while, but it is part of our past, moreso than our future.
The fourth generation gasoline engines from GM are very good, certainly ahead of all other mainstream manufacturers including the 4 valve configurations which are poor performers on the low end of the powerband. But the next generations, gen 5 and gen 6, will still be burning fossil fuels. The emission problems will likely persist, although I have been impressed with dynamometer results on some prototypes. Very low emissions, which is good.
I will miss the V8 and V6 engines for their great performance and, more recently, marked power to weight performance capabilities, but they’re still generally DOA because they are thus far tied to the wrong primary fuel source (if crude oil is the base).
I hope we are smart enough to get after this global warming mess quickly. Very quickly, indeed.
Robert Cote,
You have me laughing at your “know all” attitude about my background. What a joke.
You have no idea what I know. None. I am a fourth generation U.S. military officer who is very familiar with DoD goals and objectives considering that I wrote some of them along with joint forces interoperability, including energy requirements and milestones for implementation.
I suppose that you read all of those links quickly that I provided to Odo. And supposedly understood the purpose of my information sharing with Odo.
You can always send me an email instead of telling me and others what my military and commercial background are, since you have no clue.
Robert, you wouldn’t know what secret Pentagon plans exist with regard to fuel sources, or you wouldn’t make such a statement or supposed “know all” disclosure. Those who really know about those types of reports on any given classified subject would never discuss any aspect of their existence in a public forum to to those who do not have that level of security clearance or need to know as identified in writing.
I simply provided Odo with basic DoD sourced information available in the public sector of Internet communications. Nothing more.
You need not ever tell me again that I do not understand military objectives, direction and/or priorities. I know the difference between sharing what must or should be kept close to the vest in accordance with U.S. Code, and what can be shared in the public domain.
If you want to continue to act like you know everything about DoD operations and plans, do charge on. I will enjoy the laugh.
Robert Cote,
You have me laughing at your “know all” attitude about my background. What a joke.
Movie Guy, I think you are assuming parts of my position that I am not stating. I’m fine with ethanol in the abstract. I am fine with governments funding research into ethanol. I am fine with an ethanol market developing, naturally. I am less trustful of a subsidy-driven market, in which governments fund not just research but offset (perturb) the costs of production.
I specifically scoff at GM’s yellow gas cap campaign because I consider it “green washing” in the worst sense. They reinforce not a rational view of a natural ethanol market, but rely on a value network built up around unrealistic expectations (that there will be an ethanol to fuel the large trucks and SUVs that populate their television ads).
To disprove that, to prove GM rational, I think you have to show how you will get enough ethanol to fund their E85/SUV worldview. 50% of new car sales are still SUVs? How much ethanol do you need to feed them? What would be the subsidy cost for that ethanol given current structures?
On jet fuel, I think it is interesting that coal-based fuels indicate the following concerns:
– there is not sufficient domestic oil production to power the military even on a “war footing” (rationing, etc.)
– there is not sufficient oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to power the military even on a “war footing” (rationing, etc.)
… as an outside guess, I think the military might sense that congress will use the SPR to offset consumer prices, and thus it cannot be counted on for “strategic” risks in the military sense.
Movie Guy: You’re perception and/or interpretation of my point is very extreme. For example, I say that if someone makes the comment that “peak oilers are fools and idiots,” it is not useful, and has attributes similar to ad hominem comments, little different than those who say “economists are idiots.” When I say this is not useful, you mention robocops and thought police and the likes. Not the point of my post at all.
When we’re told that those who give might give a litlte credence to the concept of peak oil are a cult or a religion, the dialog is already going downhill.
I say this as one who has made such remarks in the past. I’ve guilty of it. But I’m also honest enough to know and admit what I’m doing. And that pointing this out in a public forum has nothing to do with thought control or thought police.
Hope we could skip the carping. Personally, I find MG’s extended posts substantive and his links very useful. (Unlike most of the rest of us just stating opinions.)
Anyway, it would useful to follow-up on Texas Al’s suggestion that we should be preparing for contingencies ahead of time. It doesn’t seem that Congress or the Admin are going to address these huge issues and the American people, face it, are more interested in gay marriage, Barry Bonds, and who wins the Academy awards. I see no significant change in policies until it’s too late. So do we learn to trap squirrels or what?
Cote – your continued behavior and immaturity is unnecessary. You know that, fella. Back off. I am retired from the military and civilian government service; now corporate. I will say anything within reason that doesn’t violate the law or my honorable obligations to fulfill prior contracts with my nation.
You have my email address. Send a phone number if you want to talk. Your personal assertions are childish. Abide by Jim Hamilton’s request for communications between posters or go play elsewhere. You don’t want to mess with me.
Elliot – I stand by what I said. No apologies.
I seldom step way over the line in general criticisms of group, ideologies, and organizations. But I will not abide by the repeated attempts from multiple directions to eliminate blog voices – it’s a common observation on other blogs.
Jim asks for basic civility toward other posters. I support that goal and only respond if personally attacked or discredited based on phony assertions.
Any suggestion of acting out politically correct roles on blogs is one step toward not being able to express opinions in public. I saw that in Finland during the 80s. Never again. We already have too much robocop mentality flowing down to our children. And on the blogs.
FredW – Thanks. And Texas Al is on the money in my judgment.
Not looking for apologies. I’m not even sure what that means. You do seem very defensive though. I wasn’t even referring to you when I made my point. Yet you apparently have decided it was directed towards you. My comment also had nothing to do with political correctness.
But we are way off in the weeds. Unfortunately, this particular thread, as often happens in peak oil discussions, degrades into noise.
Elliot,
I have no personal beef with you.
odo,
Your points are well taken in my opinion.
DoD, of course, is the largest energy consumer in the USA. There shouldn’t much surprise that the U.S. Air Force, with its exceedingly tight budget problems at present, would be researching the benefits of extracting JP-8 refined product from coal, attempting to double up on its prime support sources. Particularly if such a venture could ultimately be combined via DOE with major U.S. air carriers. It might fly. Maybe or maybe not, but they’re not ignoring the potential source.
The President is making a new push to further develop alternate energy sources and also seek other methods of capturing some finished petroleum products/equivalent from other sources – coal, tars sands, et al. There is a quieter message in what he has been saying for a few weeks. There are interesting developments in the background, only a few of which we appear to know much about. Just a speculative thought based on what I am hearing, reading, and seeing.
If we have many hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico this year and beyond for a few years, including landfall strikes on refinery locations as well as rig hits in the Gulf, the dynamics of the energy picture change.
We still have over 20% of Gulf pumping shut-in from Katrina. I posted that source above. That’s only down from the original 28% (I believe) that went offline as Katrina walked around the Gulf. That’s not good.
If new refineries aren’t located elsewhere, then the Colonial pipeline will lose pressure once again and the Greensboro, NC tanks will not be topped off or maintained. And so on.
Yeah, I believe that the U.S. Air Force should be looking at another potential source of JP-8 finished product. After all, the citizens of our country are probably going to grow tired of more shortages or near shortages. Last year, the Governor, State of Georgia, pulled the state school buses off the road for a few days as diesel supplies tightened…and so on.
DoD would have national priority on fuel requirements (as needed), of course, but the nation isn’t of the WWII mentality. We’re not the model of immediate sacrifice now. The ‘me gen’ hangover is still out there. I admit that I was impressed with the conservation that occurred in the Southeast U.S. last fall for a couple of months (whether price or personal consideration driven), but that may only play well for a few runs. People eventually blow off all sorts of warnings. So do I, as I ignore the DHS color code warning system as a rule. They overused it.
What do you suggest, Odo, to offset refinery production or crude oil deliveries to the U.S.?
What would you DECIDE if you were the SecDEF and had to inform the President on Monday as to the DoD course of action to support current and future energy sourcing requirements? What are you going to tell the President during that 3 minute segment of your 12 minute Oval Office briefing with him at 10:15 AM, Monday?
What do I suggest? It is opaque to me. I am trying to deduce their data from their stated strategies, rather than starting from the same sources 😉
My gut says that there is enough domestic oil for war production, and will be for some time, but that there is something funny and political going on. I’d hate to think the Air Force will use (expensive) coal-to-fuel while the rest of us use unrestricted volumes of gasoline in our cars. That seems another way to present war as “costless” to the American people.
On second thought, there is also the possiblity that all the “addicted to oil” talk is a chess move, intended in good part to tell oil suppliers that they don’t have as much bargaining power as they think they have.
Sorta’ like telling the Soviet Union that Star Wars defense was going to work.
Odo,
Well, let’s play this out in a scenario. The other night a logistics economist who works for DoD was playing mental chess on what we should do if a combination of events impact the U.S. Government.
He hit me with this list:
(1) Venezeula tightens up supply to the U.S. this year;
(2) Nigeria stays offline for an extended period;
(3) AQ gets smarter and starts using asymmetrical warfare tactics to keep about 5-7 million bbls/day offline for the next two years while nations grapple with reorienting defense forces and commercial security to adequately protect all oil platforms, oil fields, pipelines, and depots;
(4) we lose more production in the Gulf of Mexico between June and October this year, plus we have three refineries slammed pretty hard;
(5) Alaska production goes down or simply continues to drop;
(6) Economic growth in the U.S. picks up a little more steam, requiring a greater supply of finished petroleum products;
(7) and anything else that might impact crude oil or finished product supply with a high probability of occurence.
Whew. Well, I thought about it. And I returned a call to him later that night with my recommendations.
What would you have told him?
Would you still feel that the U.S. has adequate domestic oil and refinery production capacity to support DoD, commercial, and household needs?
Do you believe that we will continue to have unrestricted availability of gasoline (as an example) under such conditions?
Now, allow me to make this harder for you. Based on the above ‘new’ conditions, what would you DECIDE to advise the President if you were the SecDEF and had to inform the President on Monday as to the DoD course of action to support current and future energy sourcing requirements? What are you going to tell the President during that 3 minute segment of your 12 minute Oval Office briefing with him at 10:15 AM, Monday?
This is Friday evening. You only have 64 hours, 19 minutes, until you meet with the President and recommend a course of action. What’s your plan to sort this out and reach decision points in your analysis?
Can someone look in on MovieGuy and make sure everythng is okay? He’s been reading things that haven’t been written and so forth. Does anyone else see a problem with:
“Cote – your continued behavior and immaturity is unnecessary. You know that, fella. Back off. I am retired from the military and civilian government service; now corporate. I will say anything within reason that doesn’t violate the law or my honorable obligations to fulfill prior contracts with my nation”
Apparently anyone who disagrees is uninformed BUT educating them is a violaton national security. Wow. I’ll lock the doors in case the black helicopters show up.
Cote – Are you still at it? Geez. You don’t get the message.
I didn’t tell you what you thought or knew. Stop playing the innocent. You started it, fella. Go away.
Cote – here’s what you said:
[to MG] – “You don’t understand military objectives, direction and/or priorities. The military seeks operational efficiency and effectiveness not energy efficiency and not energy independence. I’m not sure how to explain further given your worldview.”
This is so wrong it’s not funny. I wasn’t talking to you in the previous post. I was passing along basic info to Odo on DoD’s environment and energy programs, including JP-8 fuel plus other fuels in the DoD inventory. Programs which according to your general assertion must not exist.
You don’t know what you’re talking about wrt DoD energy policies, programs, and milestones. You have no clue based on the above remarks.
Let me take another stab at this civility thing. I would suggest that when you call somebody an “idiot”, whether individually or as part of a group, it rarely proves to be an effective strategy for encouraging them to change their mind. A more subtle variant on that same dead-end street is an argument that begins, “you say that because…” fill in the blank– because you’re ignorant, because you’re crazy, because I think you believe something else that you didn’t actually say. That line of argument– imputing underlying causes for the other side’s position– also usually proves both uncivil or unproductive.
Instead, I would suggest that the essence of communication is to trust the other person to tell you why they say what they say, and respond to the reasons they give, not to reasons you make up for them. When you start treating people that way, you may find there’s more subtlety and complexity to their positions than had appeared to you at first.
In any case, let me repeat the fair warning here– attacks that I deem to be too personal in nature will be deleted. This forum is intended for the exchange of ideas, not to try to put anybody down.
Movie Guy says: “What are you going to tell the President during that 3 minute segment of your 12 minute Oval Office briefing with him at 10:15 AM, Monday?”
I don’t want to be ad hominem. But I’ve also worked in business long enough–military and commercial technology–that I prefer to speak openly and clearly. I mentioned above that I was ignoring Cote’s points because he’s already concluded that peak oil is not an issue. Having looked at data presented by Hamilton, looking at the work posted at the OilDrum, holding my nose on occasion to see what’s happening at peakoil.com, and having read umpteen zillion papers and books that have come out on the topic in the last sevearl years, I’m convinced we have issues. I’m not sure how they will play out. Similar with Global Warming. So Robert Cote’s approach to this, which I find tantamount to the “what me worry” or Julian Simon school of analysis, doesn’t do anything for me.
In the case of Movie Guy, I’m probably in sync with his assessment of global warming and peak oil, I’ve read most of the sources he’s provided, followed Smalley’s efforts, etc etc, but I’m having a hard time syncing up with what he’s arguing in this thread since it’s evolved–actually I would say devolved–to this hypothetical scenario of 3 minutes with the president, when in fact everyone knows that if we’re talking about the current president, that 3 minutes is meaningless because he’s incompetent.
My opinion in a moment. First a brief aside on opinions versus facts. Facts can be organized and massaged in such a way to make compelling arguments that are little more than disguised opinions. My own experience in business and elsewhere is that the best solutions usually come out of broad reading and then gut instinct. The leaders of successful companies don’t pull out scads of data to prove each and every step they take. The best seem to have been immersed in the data, in one way or another, and then they lead based on intuition.
Perhaps that is self-serving, since I going to give my opinion. But I’ve seen enough experts facing one another off with opposing opinions and “facts” to know that in the end the facts will not win out. Granted, the facts are important.
My opinion on this whole global warming/peak oil issue. The government should be funding next generation technologies of almost every sort. Solid state physics. Bacteria that belch hydrogen. Fission designs and waste handling. Fusion (though I think recent analysis indicates this is a blind alley). And perhaps–an energy trading scheme in which the use of energy is rationed to ensure those at the bottom are not totally squeezed out, with the opportunity to sell their credits on the open market.
As far as Global Warming, I think humans are more than likely to continue to dump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
It’s all a matter of economics. And I don’t mean economics in a free market economics sense or anything like that. But human needs are going to take precedence. I’m not saying its right. But I just think it’s going to happen. The path forward will be driven by cost and scarcity. The government won’t and probably can’t subsidize our way out of this. We could, for example, place MPG constraints on cars and taxes on fuel to improve mileage. Result?: Cheaper energy costs so the world will consumer more through economic growth.
I think that’s what Odo was saying earlier and I agree with him. Fund research and development, always a valuable role for government, even if some or much goes to waste, but not much more than that. The military issues are totally different. The military never has been a free market. It’s a constrained largely closed system not that different from a communist totalitarian environment. Health care. Industrial planning. Long-range planning. Etc.
I don’t think we should be mixing the two issue. They are significantly different, e.g. the path forward for the military (in use of energy) and the path forward for the economy overall.
Here we’re contemplating the end of civilization and the stock market’s hitting new highs. What’s with these divergent realities. Of course, if one expects a currency collapse maybe owning something is better than holding cash
Fred, now I’m reading “Irrational Exuberance” by Robert Shiller. The bit I pick up on is this:
“Understanding the factors that precipitate market moves is doubly difficult because the timing of the major market events tends not to be lined up well with the timing of precipitating factors. The precipitating factors often tend to be medium-term trends that catch the public’s attention only after they have been in place for a long time.”
Did we dodge the bullet with the ’05 fuel crisis … or is there a medium term trend that does not have public attention?
Movie Guy, I don’t think I want to abandon the “imprecision” I spelled out in my “March 15, 2006 07:23 AM” comment.
Anyone watch the CNN special report on energy supplies and consumption, We Were Warned, which aired Friday afternoon and Friday night? It will air twice Saturday and perhaps Sunday if you are interested.
—
It’s rather obvious why I created the scenario in response to Odo’s interest in U.S. Air Force initiatives, T.R. Elliot. Asymmetrical warfare and natuarl events that mimic the effects of peak oil demonstrate the very points that Simmons made during his interview for the CNN special report which aired yesterday and will do so again this weekend.
It is illogical to dismiss the role that DoD plays as the largest consumer of energy supplies in the USA. Any major component or consideration removed from the energy extraction, supply, and consumption puzzle distortions the reality of the U.S. response to peak oil and similar conditions.
No meaningful analysis would move forward without including all major pieces of the puzzle.
Odo,
Are you saying that you are not up to leadership task of playing a responsible role in a oil gaming scenario based on known, anticipated, or projected issues that have a bearing on real world adjustments prior the specific occurence of a determination of peak oil?
By my count, you have rougly 46 hours 40 minutes until such time as you would make appropriate recommendations to the President as the scenario’s SecDEF. I would not put much credience in Elliot’s assertion that the President is too “incompetent” to render a decision based on your briefing. That may be Elliot’s personal belief, but that doesn’t make it a fact.
You can handle the decision process based on the information provided in the scenario that I shared with you. There is no academic grade involved nor will real human beings die as a result of your SecDEF decision.
Lean into the wind. Be a leader. Use your Committee of Twelve.
Sorry…you have 45 hours 35 minutes until you brief the President.
The President is at Camp David, not Texas this weekend. He will be at the White House Monday morning.
What makes you think that the wisest people are making the most detailed predictions?
If the data does not support precision, the obviously restraint is the wise course.
IMNSHO.
BTW, your game reminds me a little to much of Dungeons and Dragons, which I did not play as a kid. I don’t feel a strong need to start now, as you roll your 12-sided dice, and come up with 7 oil events for me to respond to. 😉
Odo,
There are no wise people left.
We’re doing the best we can with what have, whether presently serving or wanting to serve.
Some may have to be pulled into leadership roles to straighten out our overall situations.
Maybe I’m obtuse but I fail to see the appeal of E85. I get the net reduction in carbon emissions. I get the need for an alternate fuel source for times of emergency. But even using the numbers of the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition it takes 100 BTUs of energy to make 138 BTUs of ethanol. It just doesn’t seem that you can make much headway running on that treadmill.
And why the need for tax subsidies. If ethanal can’t make it on its own at $60 a barrel there must be something wrong in the numbers. I’m a little suspicious of a program that only seems to have appeal during the Iowa caucuses.
One thing I didn’t notice until yeserday is that flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) receive a CAFE credit:
“A provision in the CAFE regulations allows alternative-fuel vehicles, such as those running on ethanol or natural gas, to earn an artificially high fuel economy credit for automakers CAFE calculations. While the intent of the CAFE credit is to encourage the production and sale of vehicles that run on alternative fuels, automakers have largely embraced this incentive as a way to improve their fleet-average fuel economy figures and help meet mandated CAFE requirements without making across-the-board improvements on all their engines efficiency.”
more here
I should type some more about my dismay with GM and their yellow gas caps, knowing as I do now that those FFVs reduce their need to improve overal miles-per-gallon … but I’m numbed.
On a happier note, Jerry Flint, writing at Forbes is surprisingly pro-alt-fuel.
Global Arc Light – The Introduction
Odo,
The brief scenario I provided to you is based on a gaming strategy and rules structure more closely aligned with Global Thunder MBX.
I have named the econ/military response strategy ‘Global Arc Light’ based on Operation Arc Light, used extensively during the Viet Nam War.
I’ve just pushed one minor Global Arc Light scenario on the table this time. Plenty more.
Here are the rules and technical information for Global Thunder MBX:
Official rules and modeling system for the Global Thunder MBX
It’s a pretty good read for stepping up to the next level of decisionmaking based on existing intelligence capabilities.
For our purposes on this thread, I have only created a basic shell Global Arc Light scenario. Simple enough to launch decisionmaking.
If Global Arc Light takes off on the econ blogs, we will watch some interesting international play. And we might learn something. I am hoping for teams aligned along blogs battling one another. You know, blog sponsors. If done well, CNN’s Blitzer with his so-called Situation Room (Global Arc Light has one, too) , Lou Dobbs, and others in the news media would follow each series of battles, along with WaPo and other news outlets. It could be big. Huge, actually.
I have a good feel for whom I want on my USA nation team among blog posters. I have studied them carefully for a long time, over a year. I believe that they will be very difficult to defeat, even from positions of initial weakness.
There can be hundreds of teams playing roles as nations, asymmetrical warfare terrorist groups (any number of them, by the way), political parties, support organizations slightly renamed such as WTO, IMF, World Bank, UN, Transnational Corporations (TNCs), and Financial Brokerages/Hedgefunds.
Essentially, this could be largest and most interactive economic geopolitical game on the planet. In the expanded version, hundreds of thousands of decisionmakers could be in play on any day. URL registration will help prevent duplicate play, but a software corporation owner friend in D.C. is advising on that aspect. We don’t need it at this stage. Maybe a year after it launches, if that ever happens in the public arena. This could help take blogging up a few steps from the current level based on what I and others refer to as the controlling, nondecisionmaking, melting permafrost mentality (CNM-PM). It’s an inside joke.
The Global Arc Light team represents the United States of America will be slightly different from current reality, as we’re not going to play the silly politics dodgeball game that we see in Washington, D.C., as that would slow the play. There can be party influences, but we are Independents, not Republicans or Democrats, so we have a free hand in that regard. Similarly, the Independents control enough votes in the Congress that we are not at constant stalemate. Bargaining, yes, but no brick wall. That’s secondary level play.
I have built a two part 2010-2020 economic policies scenario for Global Arc Light over at Brad Setser’s web log which I would like to use with our team. A background feeder supported by an action plan. Info can be found here:
Part I – Selling Off the United States of America and the Hard Skills of Our Citizens
Written by Movie Guy on 2006-03-16 05:58:16
Scroll to the bottom of this web page
Part II – U.S. Government Constitutional Amendment and Federal Program Changes – 2010 through 2020 Implementation
Written by Movie Guy on 2006-03-17 01:33:48
Scroll to the bottom of this web page
Hope to see you in the Global Arc Light arena if I decide to go public. It could shake up the blogs, stimulating new interest.
And, by the way, Global Arc Light has a 72 hour decision implementation visibility delay feature.
A decison that a team makes today can not be viewed and compared to other team moves at the end of the day or the next day. So, when you screw up, there is pain because there is no quick fix available, and the other teams are watching you fall out of the sky. The team really has to have its act together to stay in successful play. If the team loses, their members are out, as may be the old team. That’s a call by GALOC (Global Arc Light Oversight Council).
This is a hair-raising game. You have to pick your teammates carefully, and you have to be willing to rotate the chairs at the table and those “sitting” in tier two seating along the walls. Everyone can be fired from a team job, but you can fill another chair. Or sit along the wall and catch your breath, wondering how you could have screwed so badly. ha.
GAL and GALOC will kick your brains in. Very cool. It makes television news look like a slow motion repeat show.
Odo — BTW, your game reminds me a little to much of Dungeons and Dragons, which I did not play as a kid. I don’t feel a strong need to start now, as you roll your 12-sided dice, and come up with 7 oil events for me to respond to. 😉
Decisionmaking reality happens every day. At all levels. Government. Corporate. Household. Individual. Groups. Organizations.
Now, if you’re concerned about stepping up to a bigger role in society, that’s a issue and decision that you have to resolve.
I have have presented the following problems as possible short term events. This is based reality experiences that all U.S. Government Departments and Agencies within the Executive Branch of government must deal with on a daily basis.
My list is not, in any sense of the word, overwhelming or absurd. It represents a real world scenario that can easily occur in the next twelve months. If you are concerning about evaluating only seven (7) issues to reach a decision on DoD courses of action for self-sustaining operational preservation, then your previous remarks about “war footing” have no appreciable merit in my judgment. A “war footing” capability would involve many more considerations than seven (7) variables.
I wouldn’t have given you this small challenge had I not read your “war footing” presentation and assumed that you were capable of stepping up to the table and addressing a few real world challenges that could knock your previous assessment out of routine peacetime orbit. Anyone who believes that normal “war footing” and DEFCON 2 or DEFCON 1 preparattion is based on the peace and quiet of normal couch life in America is sadly mistaken.
This was not a difficult decisionmaking drill by any stretch. It represents typical real world adjustments that are very much on the table of consideration at this time.
The potential or known problem list:
(1) Venezeula tightens up supply to the U.S. this year;
(2) Nigeria stays offline for an extended period;
(3) AQ gets smarter and starts using asymmetrical warfare tactics to keep about 5-7 million bbls/day offline for the next two years while nations grapple with reorienting defense forces and commercial security to adequately protect all oil platforms, oil fields, pipelines, and depots;
(4) we lose more production in the Gulf of Mexico between June and October this year, plus we have three refineries slammed pretty hard;
(5) Alaska production goes down or simply continues to drop;
(6) Economic growth in the U.S. picks up a little more steam, requiring a greater supply of finished petroleum products;
(7) and anything else that might impact crude oil or finished product supply with a high probability of occurence.
Anyone else have the courage to assume the role of SecDEF? Or SecENERGY? Or SecSTATE? SecARMY? SecNavy? SecAIRFORCE? SecDHS?
Who isn’t afraid to address suitable courses of action for the first six (6) items on the problem list? They must be viewed as a collective requirement, not individual independent little responses.
Decisionmaking reality happens every day. If you are disatisfied with the decisions of the President and his SecDEF, but are willing to call the President “incompetent” in private as opposed to his face, then surely you have sufficient wealth of knowledge and reasoning skills to handle the six (6) problems outlined above plus whatever other problems you are willing to put on the table.
Who is competent enough to tackle the decisionmaking recommendations necessary to provide potential solutions for the six (6) problem identified above?
Apologies for the grammar and spelling errors. I just walked in from doing too much work. Time for a break. And a sandwich.
Isn’t everybody going to want to be a asymmetrical warfare terrorist. It’s just a game so why not be the bad guy and have the greatest challenge. Also, to duplicate the real world, shouldn’t the players be handicapped – like you can only play after you’ve had three beers?
Movie Guy: I’d be more than happy to call the prez incompetent to his face. And it looks like a majority of american people would as well. I’ve called him incompetent in public letters to our local papers, and had people chasing down the hallways of our local schools (parents) to tell me how they had met the prez (at a fund raising event of course) and how he is such a nice guy.
So you get me the meeting, I’ll do the calling. But the problem is that the current prez, unlike real competent leaders, is unable to deal with criticism. That is a fact.
I’ll ignore this particular thread now, it’s way out in the weeds. But I agree with Odo: I find your contributions turning into a boring game. They encompass micromanagement (discussions about how many hours people are going to work to save the world), global security issues, etc etc. The phrase “throwing everything into the mix, including the kitchen sink” comes to mind.
For me, the issue is not the “courage” of people to respond to these questions. I suspect they simply have better things to do with their time than play crisis games with 6–count them six–scenarios stacked up. Actually, 7, if you count the “anything else” scenario.
T.R. ELLIOT — I’d be more than happy to call the prez incompetent to his face.
Talk is cheap. I don’t think you have the stones to go face to face, as an individual interviewed on CNN stated today.
Anybody can write little letters to the editors of local newspapers. Grandmothers do that, as do a number of incompetent people based on reading of such letters. That’s not to say, of course, that there aren’t competent letters cited as well. But that’s a far sight from going face to face with the world’s most powerful leader.
Any competent individual can arrange a meeting with a U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative, who in turn, can help you arrange your personal showdown with the President of the United States if your intent has merit. Stand up and start making those calls. You don’t need my help. But I have their numbers.
Or would you rather just meet with the First Lady and tell her that her husband is incompetent? Members of Congress could probably arrange that meeting quicker. You have the stones for that type of lessor though cruder showdown?
In the meantime, I would like to see you post a copy of a certified letter on this blog that you can write and forward directly to the President which states exactly what you would say to him in person. If you include the U.S. Postal certified return receipt number, as would be necessary for verification, that letter can be traced and verified as received by the White House staff.
Charge on, Elliot. Back up your statement. Prove it.
T.R. ELLIOT — For me, the issue is not the “courage” of people to respond to these questions. I suspect they simply have better things to do with their time than play crisis games with 6–count them six–scenarios stacked up. Actually, 7, if you count the “anything else” scenario.
The United States of America does not have the luxury of glossing over such a scenario. There are people working late hours in Washington, D.C. who would be at home. And, yes, some are working on scenario simulations very similar to the one I presented on this blog.
Among some bloggers on the Internet, I sense panic, indecision, and a likely failure to understand the scope and intent of the Advanced Energy Initiative developed by the National Economic Council for the President of the United of America, in addition to the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992. The summary for the Advanced Energy Initiative was made available for public consumption on February 20, 2006.
The reality of injecting a real world scenario consideration is essential to grasping the DoD shift to alternate fuels, a single combat vehicle fuel (JP-8), and more recently, the U.S. Air Force initiative to explore research related to liquid fuels and perhaps gaseous fuels derived from domestic coal sources. Such an initiative would demonstrate compliance with and support for the Advanced Energy Initiative of 2006 and the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992.
Many peak oil concerns are based on the expectation that available crude oil supplies will roll over and go in decline, thereby creating supporting fuel shortages for the economies of the world. More importantly, though, the broader issue of which peak oil is just one part is the matter of crude oil supply, extraction, refining, and distribution disruptions, caused by various sources and problems in a real world environment. Many known or anticipated disruptions do not anything to do with the limited concept of peak oil. So, it is most assuredly relevant to address the end result of other critical ongoing and realistically projected considerations that create the equivalent condition of peak oil. The end results address the same problem, not enough crude oil or available end product at the retail, industrial, and government operation levels. The scenario exercise I shared is very similar to the oil shock scenario played out in one afternoon last summer in Washington, D.C., by former government officials.
The scenario that I outlined for Odo (by implication, willing others) began with three questions posted on March 17, 2006 03:14 PM:
“What do you suggest, Odo, to offset refinery production or crude oil deliveries to the U.S.?”
“What would you DECIDE if you were the SecDEF and had to inform the President on Monday as to the DoD course of action to support current and future energy sourcing requirements? What are you going to tell the President during that 3 minute segment of your 12 minute Oval Office briefing with him at 10:15 AM, Monday?”
Odo followed up with two posts which stated:
“What do I suggest? It is opaque to me. I am trying to deduce their data from their stated strategies, rather than starting from the same sources ;-)”
“My gut says that there is enough domestic oil for war production, and will be for some time, but that there is something funny and political going on. I’d hate to think the Air Force will use (expensive) coal-to-fuel while the rest of us use unrestricted volumes of gasoline in our cars. That seems another way to present war as “costless” to the American people.”
“On second thought, there is also the possiblity that all the “addicted to oil” talk is a chess move, intended in good part to tell oil suppliers that they don’t have as much bargaining power as they think they have.”
“Sorta’ like telling the Soviet Union that Star Wars defense was going to work.”
Realizing that Odo may not have understood the full implications of my questions, which were originally related to his interest and concern in U.S. Air Force research on fuel refining of coal and then on to the notable differences between the points that he stated on March 17, 2006 01:51 PM and March 17, 2006 03:22 PM, I elected to expand the questions into a slightly broader, though realistic, scenario.
I added this list of scenario considerations:
(1) Venezuela tightens up supply to the U.S. this year;
(2) Nigeria stays offline for an extended period;
(3) AQ gets smarter and starts using asymmetrical warfare tactics to keep about 5-7 million bbls/day offline for the next two years while nations grapple with reorienting defense forces and commercial security to adequately protect all oil platforms, oil fields, pipelines, and depots;
(4) we lose more production in the Gulf of Mexico between June and October this year, plus we have three refineries slammed pretty hard;
(5) Alaska production goes down or simply continues to drop;
(6) Economic growth in the U.S. picks up a little more steam, requiring a greater supply of finished petroleum products;
(7) and anything else that might impact crude oil or finished product supply with a high probability of occurrence.
This list only includes 6 principal issues with one flowover that can be eliminated by a ill-informed responder (she/he can zero out item 7) and concentrate on the top 6 issues. There is nothing overwhelming about this list that isn’t already on the President’s table of consideration at this time. Items 2-6 are most assuredly under consideration, and item 1 is a wild card that has potential in light of President Chavez’s ongoing war of words with our Secretary of State, reduction of U.S. airline flights to/from Venezuela, weapons arming ramp up of Venezuela’s armed forces, and recent oil contracts negotiated with China interests, not to mention President Chavez’s relationships with certain groups and leaders elsewhere in the world.
Now, the question is simple. Should the SecDEF recommend to the President that DoD pursue alternate sources for current and future energy sourcing requirements? SecDEF has the DoD mission, not the DOE mission, so the initial consideration related to Odo’s prior comments related to DoD needs. This is not a question that requires supercomputer modeling, or hour upon hour of leadership and technical analysis. The answer can be as simple as Yes or No, followed by very brief commentary that could be shared within the 3 minute window of discussion on this subject with the President as part of an allocated 12 minute briefing. This is very typical for a packed Monday morning that any U.S. President could be facing. President Bush will be handling any number of real world internal or external meetings in the forthcoming week. Those meetings and actions include decisions while in a travel status, whether in a secure motorcade or on Air Force One.
This is not a difficult exercise for a well informed blogger, reader, or one who is willing to expand her/his level of current event knowledge. Panic and potential “thought fatigue” over 7 crude oil issues, of which 6 are ongoing in various forms, is unfortunate. Wait until we’re dealing with 20 or 30 issues. That’s when serious thinking will be required.
Let me move on to CNN Presents, Executive Branch initiatives, and ShockWave.
Perhaps a few readers will appreciate the grounded in serious reality perspectives and concerns provided by CNN, SAFE, and NCEP. SAFE and NCEP fully understand energy supply scenario simulations, and the critical need for such decisionmaking exercises. Similarly, CNN has established a relationship with SAFE which resulted in the current documentary, “We Were Warned – Tomorrow’s Oil Crisis”.
Schedule for CNN Presents: “We Were Warned – Tomorrows Oil Crisis”
For those who have thus far missed CNN’s presentation, it is still available tonight (Sunday), 11 PM Eastern; Monday, 2 AM Eastern, and supposedly 4 AM Eastern, based on another news release from CNN.
The documentary will subsequently air on Saturday, March 25, and Sunday, March 26 at 6 AM and 2 PM Eastern.
If you are on the West Coast it should at 8 PM, as it did on the East Coast.
CNN Presents – “We Were Warned – Tomorrow’s Oil Crisis”
The program, “which was created in consultation with Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE), looks at the world’s sources of oil, illustrates the growing demand for oil, explores a hypothetical scenario illustrating the vulnerability of the world’s oil supply and the consequences of an oil price shock, and discusses the potential of alternative fuels and vehicles.” – SAFE (a subsequent post discusses SAFE’s Oil ShockWave scenario exercises by former government and industry officials.)
CNN Presents – “We Were Warned – Tomorrow’s Oil Crisis”
March 17, 18, 19, 20 25, and 26 Airings
“The [2009 scenario] events depicted are hypothetical, but oil experts believe the scenario is entirely plausible.”
CNN Presents Investigates What Happens When World Runs Out of Oil
3/7/2006
CNN Pressroom
Securing America’s Energy Future (SAFE)
Alternatives to Powering the Planet: “It’s time to get serious.” – Frank Sesno, CNN
CNN Presents – “We Were Warned – Tomorrow’s Oil Crisis
March 17, 18, 19, 20 25, and 26 Airings
Behind the Scene – Powering the Planet
By Frank Sesno, CNN
Friday, March 17, 2006
“The world uses 84 million barrels of oil every day. Every day. And demand is expected to grow by 40 percent in the next 20 years as America’s appetite grows and China and India modernize. …Three quarters of the cars sold in Brazil are now flex fuel vehicles. …And an astounding 40 percent of the transportation fuel used in Brazil is ethanol. Brazilians say within the next year, they won’t need to import a drop of oil. Independence. One official who was in on the ethanol program in its earliest days 30 years ago smiled impishly and told me, “We won.” …In the U.S., ethanol represents only 3 percent of the fuel we burn.”
“We are vulnerable. We know we have to come up with another way to power the planet. How long we have is the big question. It’s time to get serious.”
Frank Sesno also serves as a professor of public policy and communication at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.
“If you don’t worry about energy disruptions, you are living in somewhat of a fool’s paradise”. – James Woolsey, CNN Presents interview
(I don’t have a transcript handy, but I believe that Woolsey’s statement is accurately quoted; if not fully accurate, very close.)
CNN Presents Classroom: We Were Warned: Tomorrow’s Oil Crisis
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
“President George W. Bush proposed weaning the U.S. from its dependence on imported oil. He asked Congress to support a new plan called the Advanced Energy Initiative. With a national goal of replacing more than 75% of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025, the initiative calls for investments in new fuels and technologies that will change how we power our homes, businesses and automobiles. …According to the report, what is “tomorrow’s oil crisis”? How might a massive disruption of existing oil supplies impact the U.S. socially, politically and economically? To what extent do you think that, as former CIA director James Woolsey asserts, leadership, conservation, and a genuine commitment to alternative fuels and hybrid technology are matters of national security? State your rationale. …What factors can impact worldwide demand for oil? What does oil analyst Matthew Simmons believe will happen to the balance between the supply and demand of oil in the near future?…Throughout the program, CNN’s Frank Sesno interviews government officials, consumers, oil company and automotive executives, geologists, oil analysts and entrepreneurs. What roles do each of these representatives play in developing U.S. energy policy? Who or what do you think has, or should have, the greatest impact on energy policies in the U.S.? Explain.”
CNN Student News Extra!
Alternative Fuels
U.S. Energy Policy – The Road Ahead
State of the Union: The Advanced Energy Initiative
January 31, 2006
The White House
“In 2001, the President put forward his National Energy Policy, which included over 100 recommendations to increase domestic energy supplies, encourage efficiency and conservation, invest in energy-related infrastructure, and develop alternative and renewable sources of energy. Over the past four years, the Administration has worked to implement these recommendations and improve the Nation’s energy outlook. …Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources. Tonight, the President announced the Advanced Energy Initiative, which provides for a 22% increase in clean-energy research at the Department of Energy (DOE). The Initiative will accelerate our breakthroughs in two vital areas; how we power our homes and businesses; and how we power our automobiles. …The United States must move beyond a petroleum-based economy and develop new ways to power automobiles. The President wants to accelerate the development of domestic, renewable alternatives to gasoline and diesel fuels. The Administration will accelerate research in cutting-edge methods of producing “cellulosic ethanol” with the goal of making the use of such ethanol practical and competitive within 6 years. The Administration will also step up the Nation’s research in better batteries for use in hybrid and electric cars and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen.”
U.S. Energy Policy – The Advanced Energy Initiative
Advanced Energy Initiative
February 20, 2006
National Economic Council
The White House
or the pdf version (larger print)
“Keeping America competitive requires reliable, affordable, and clean supplies of energy. …For the sake of our economic and national security, we must reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy – including on the natural gas that is a source of electricity for many American homes and the crude oil that supplies gasoline for our cars. To achieve this objective, we will take advantage of technology. My Advanced Energy Initiative provides for a 22-percent increase in funding for clean-energy technology research at the Department of Energy. Applying the talent and innovative spirit of our citizens, we will foster economic growth, protect and improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on foreign sources of energy a thing of the past.”
This document provides a good overview of the purpose and intent of the Advanced Energy Initiative Executive Branch program prepared by the National Economic Council and endorsed by the President.
Securing America’s Energy Future (SAFE)
SAFE’s objectives, Oil ShockWave scenario simulations, and member participation are worth noting. The non-profit organization is based in Washington, D.C., and is a sponsor of SAFE.
“The time has come for all CEOs and prominent members of the private sector to actively concern ourselves with the future of our oil dependent economy. We must speak out. Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE) is playing a critical role in pushing the business community to the forefront of this economic and national security issue.” – John H. Bryan, Retired Chairman and CEO, Sara Lee Corporation
SAFE members include:
Robert M. Gates, former Director of Central Intelligence;
Richard N. Haass, former Director of Policy Planning at the Department of State;
General P.X. Kelley, USMC (Ret.), former Commandant of the Marine Corps, member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;
Don Nickles, former U.S. Senator;
Carol Browner, former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
Gene B. Sperling, former National Economic Advisor;
Linda Stuntz, former Deputy Secretary of Energy;
Frank Kramer, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, and;
R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence.
correction:
Securing America’s Energy Future (SAFE)
SAFE’s objectives, Oil ShockWave scenario simulations, and member participation are worth noting. The non-profit organization is based in Washington, D.C..
“The time has come for all CEOs and prominent members of the private sector to actively concern ourselves with the future of our oil dependent economy. We must speak out. Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE) is playing a critical role in pushing the business community to the forefront of this economic and national security issue.” – John H. Bryan, Retired Chairman and CEO, Sara Lee Corporation
The National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP) is a sponsor of SAFE.
SAFE members include:
Robert M. Gates, former Director of Central Intelligence;
Richard N. Haass, former Director of Policy Planning at the Department of State;
General P.X. Kelley, USMC (Ret.), former Commandant of the Marine Corps, member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;
Don Nickles, former U.S. Senator;
Carol Browner, former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
Gene B. Sperling, former National Economic Advisor;
Linda Stuntz, former Deputy Secretary of Energy;
Frank Kramer, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, and;
R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence.
The National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP) is a sponsor of SAFE.
The National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP)
“NCEP is a bipartisan group of 16 of the nation’s leading energy experts – was established in 2002 by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and its partners to develop a national energy plan to addresses concerns about oil security, adequacy of energy supplies, and the environment. The NCEP published a long-term energy strategy, “Ending the Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet America’s Energy Needs,” in December, 2004.”
NCEP is a sponsor of SAFE.
What Is the National Commission on Energy Policy?
August 1, 2005
This reference discusses the political backgrounds of many individuals associated with NCEP. Anyone who claims that NCEP is a pure rightwing organization is ill-informed. Whether there are any conservatives involved is not addressed by this author.
The Oil ShockWave Scenario
What is Oil ShockWave?
Securing America’s Energy Future (SAFE)
“Oil ShockWave is a scenario exercise developed by Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE) and the National Commission on Energy Policy. In this half-day exercise, top former government officials take part in a series of Principals meetings of the Cabinet over a seven-month period in order to advise the President on how to respond to a series of events that affect world oil supplies. The event starts six months into the future in December 2005 to provide some distance from current events. …The purpose of a simulation exercise is to provide participants and observers with an opportunity to think through simulated emergency situations–in this case involving oil supply disruptions–and to discuss solutions to problems posed as part of the scenario. The sponsors of this exercise have made every effort to ensure that the events portrayed are highly credible and realistic. Experts in the fields of national security, world oil production and distribution, and macroeconomics were drawn upon to develop and verify the authenticity and plausibility of all aspects of the scenario from the oil market disturbances to the impact on oil prices and the economy.”
“The Oil ShockWave executive simulation will use sophisticated video and computer modeling where participants will assume cabinet-level roles, such as Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security, in a dynamic, unscripted, real-time environment demonstrating the impacts of major disruptions in the world’s oil supply. The event will feature three simulated global oil disruption events, with pre-produced breaking news reports and policy briefings.”
Oil ShockWave – Oil Crisis Executive Simulation of 23 June 2005
Participants prior knowledge:
“On June 23, 2005, a group of nine former White House cabinet and senior national security officials convened to participate in a simulated working group of a White House cabinet. Their task: to advise an American president as the nation grapples with an oil crisis over a seven-month period. As they enter the room, they are unaware of the circumstances or nature of the oil crisis.” – NCEP
23 June 2005 Oil ShockWave – Oil Crisis Executive Simulation – Background
SAFE
“The event, Oil ShockWave, will simulate a decline in world oil production due to instability and terrorism, consider likely economic and national security implications, and present the deliberations of a simulated US government cabinet-level meeting whose task is to advise the president regarding a national response. The event, spearheaded by Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE), [took] place from 12:30 pm to 6:00 pm on Thursday, June 23rd at The Four Seasons Hotel in Washington. To ensure Oil ShockWave presented participants with a credible and realistic set of circumstances, the scenario included substantial input from former members of the oil industry, oil analysts and traders, former and current military officials, intelligence and national security experts, and other specialists. These individuals include David Frowd, former Head of Royal Dutch/Shell Upstream Strategy and Planning Department; and Rand Beers, former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Combating Terrorism.”
CNN Video Clip
ShockWave Crisis Simulation – 23 June 2005
4 minutes, 11 seconds / 10.4 MB
or here
Fox Video Clip
ShockWave Crisis Simulation – 23 June 2005
Less than 4 minutes / 7.7 MB
or here
23 June 2005 Oil ShockWave – Oil Crisis Executive Simulation – Results Summary
Statement released on 24 June 2005
NCEP
“The scenario removed only 3.5 million barrels of oil from a global market of more than 83 million barrels, resulting in the following consequences:
– Gasoline prices of $5.74 per gallon;
– Global oil price of $161 per barrel;
– Heating oil prices of $5.14 per gallon;
– Fall of gross domestic product for two consecutive quarters;
– Drop in consumer confidence by 30 percent;
– Spike in the consumer price index to 12.6 percent;
– Ballooning of the current accounts deficit to $1.087 trillion;
– Decline of 28 percent in the S&P 500;
– Aggressive pressure on the U.S. from China to end arm sales to Taiwan, and;
– Demands from Saudi Arabia for changes to U.S. policy regarding the Mid-East peace process.”
“This simulation serves as a clear warning that even relatively small reductions in oil supply will result in tremendous national security and economic problems for the country,” said SAFE President Robbie Diamond. “This issue deserves immediate attention.”
23 June 2005 Oil ShockWave – Oil Crisis Executive Simulation – Additional Statement related to Congressional testimony
Statement released on 6 September 2005
NCEP
“Oil Shockwave Report Finds Severe Economic and National Security Risks From Small Global Oil Supply Disruptions” …Once oil supply disruptions occur, short-term options for protecting the U.S. economy are limited. In addition, these options are generally not sustainable for more than a few months to a year. …U.S. foreign and military policy is influenced and often constrained by our oil dependence. Military options offer little recourse in the event of a supply crisis. Oil ShockWave participants repeatedly found that military intervention was not only unfeasible given existing U.S. commitments, but unlikely to be effective in responding to the scenarios they confronted, even when requested by a host government.”
23 June 2005 Oil ShockWave – Oil Crisis Executive Simulation – FULL REPORT (pdf)
NCEP
or here
“Consultations were held with oil traders and investment researchers to develop and/or verify the impact of simulation events on the price of crude oil. Special thanks to Neil McMahon Ph.D, a prominent Oil Analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC, and his team for providing independent, in-depth analysis. Sanford Bernstein has subsequently issued a 27-page report that is available upon request.”
The simulation full report is an excellent, brief read. It should be noted that many of the scenario conditions of 23 June 2005 were based on events which has since played out to various levels. This is indicative of realistic, forward looking intelligence estimates being applied to the ShockWave simulations.
2006 SAFE/NCEP Activities
Oil ShockWave at Davos – January 26, 2006
SAFE
“Senior government decision makers and business leaders participated in the exercise – Oil ShockWave at Davos – as part of a closed-door session of the Forum’s Industry Partners program.”…”In Oil ShockWave at Davos, energy markets are destabilized by simultaneous terrorist attacks on key chokepoints in the global energy supply chain. As a result, oil prices rise to unprecedented levels, with experts projecting that prices will remain at historically high levels for the medium term. In response, G8 leaders establish a “CEO Advisory Board” tasked with recommending emergency measures and addressing strategic challenges.”
Davos Forum news article – January 30, 2006
—-
Business Leaders Roundtable on Oil Dependence
28 February 2006 in Washington, D.C
SAFE
The event was “co-Chaired by Frederick W. Smith (Chairman, President and CEO of FedEx Corp.), David A. Brandon (Chairman and CEO of Domino?s Pizza, Inc.), and Robert D. Hormats (Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs International). General P.X. Kelley, the 28th Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps and a former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” moderated the discussion. The Roundtable was organized by Securing America?s Future Energy (SAFE).
—-
Design Issues for Market-based Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies
1 March 2006
NCEP
Related materials:
1. NCEP Climate Workshop Series: Design-Issues in Market-Based GHG Reduction Strategies
September and November 2005 Workshops
2. Section-By-Section Analysis of the Climate and Economy Insurance Act of 2005
The “purpose of this subtitle is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions intensity within the United States beginning in 2010 through an emissions trading system designed to achieve reductions at least practicable cost to the U.S. economy.”
An interesting lengthy read, but initiatives like the Climate and Economy Insurance Act of 2005 are seldom discussed in my judgment. We are treated to frequent ill-informed claims that the U.S. has no alternate plan to the Kyoto Treaty, even on a delayed basis. The information regarding current and proposed programs and initiatives is available for those who are willing to conduct the research.
3. NCEP Climate Principles Adopted as “Sense of the Senate” Resolution
* Scroll down to locate this document. Many sublink documents are available for review.
Crude Oil Consumption in 2006
CNN Money Special Report: Oil Crunch 2006
Diesel: Using oil to cut oil use
Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
* Plus all of the great references from Jim Hamilton and all posters.
None of this is very heartening. Sure, maybe some higher level former administrators are finally listening to the peak oil folks and working on some scenarios regarding supply interruptions(stalking horse for peak oil declines?). (Where were they when they were in gov.?) And yes, the president did throw out his oil addiction meme and come up with the neat-sounding “Advanced Energy Initiative.” But he says lots of stuff, he even said we’d found the weapons of mass destruction and that we should teach creationism.
But does it mean anything substantive? Reasons for doubt:
1. This president doesn’t do nuance and according to many reports doesn’t do policy either.
2. This is same adminsitration who stuck us in the tarbaby of Iraq, is making us increasingly reliant on loans from China, doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about our incredidible runup in debt, doesn’t believe in stem cell research, and denies we even have an impact on global warming. What makes us think that somehow they’ll pull it together and do a good job managing the energy squeeze (or even believe it exists).
3. Better late than never but the fact that it took till now to come out with the AEI is appalling and indicates a serious comprehension gap. Does the Admin even have anyone looking at peak oil with as much attention as TOD? My guess is that the USGS has the understanding that they are to support the fact that oil reserves will grow forever, just like the CIA understood that they had to find evidence of WMD in Iraq. I’ll bet that only policy folks in the various military branches have taken an interest and are concerned because they’re damn sure the Admin isn’t going to ensure they’ve got fuel for the tanks. Virgin Airlines is looking at making their own fuel, the USAF should be doing the same.
4. Poor advice – the AEI is still pushing the hydrogen economy – a non-starter as can be explained by anyone familiar with thermodynamics, and a criminal waste of billions of taxpayers dollars. The only reason I can imagine it’s being pushed is that someone on high thinks that with enough subsidies it will allow the same gasoline station-type energy distribution system to remain viable.
5. Underfunding – so a few more peanuts get thrown at alternative energy sources. Just window-dressing so far. Japan outspends us something like 10:1 or more on PV research.
Basically, these guys don’t get it – oil is peaking soon, if it hasn’t already, and your oil shortage scenarios are going to play out even without specific incidents.
6. The unexpected – Who anticipated that Argentina and GB would fight a mini-war. Who anticipated a year before that we’d be in Afghanistan. This admin can’t even anticipate the obvious – how can we expect them to game historical singularities.
7. Other fragilities – The US is tottering on the brink – massive debt with no end in sight, global warming accelerating and maybe dropping into overdrive, pandemic possibilities, the random terrorist attack, housing bubble, massive world liquidity with all sorts of weird financial shenanigans, all to be dealt with by a hedonistic passive population. These all need to be addressed together, energy is just one piece.
We have only one overriding goal – get a new administration. I presume you marched yesterday.
Well, at least we get to free-ride on more realistic energy R&D coming out of Japan. That’s how I got my Prius, right?
Odo — “Well, at least we get to free-ride on more realistic energy R&D coming out of Japan. That’s how I got my Prius, right?”
You mean like the new “cutting-edge technology” $54,900 Toyota Lexus GS 450h, powered by a 3.5-liter V6 gasoline with electric motor, pumping out a combined 339 horsepower? The same vehicle Toyota is marketing as a vehicle which can accelerate from 0-60 mph in 5.2 seconds and will only provide a combined city and highway average of 28 mpg? The same vehicle with low projected sales of 2,000 units in the USA and Europe in 2006, and 1,800 units in Japan? And the Toyota Lexus GS 430 which will supposedly average combined city and highway driving of 21 mpg?
That’s the right green thumb and energy conservation focus, right?
Plenty of hype and free green marketing with Toyota’s hybrid plus vehicle offerings.
I said Prius, and the Prius does as far as I know provide the best midsize car mileage, real world, offered by any vehicle in America.
Shared MPG Estimates
Now, if you want to move on, to how the Japanese technology is translated for the American market … that gets a little more intesting.
Be honest, do we not get the efficient fleet Toyota (etc.) offer in Japan because Toyota (etc.) are withholding them (with evil intent), or is it because they percieve the US market as only ready for things like the new “cutting-edge technology” $54,900 Toyota Lexus GS 450h …
BTW, I think the Ford Focus is a good little car. The Ford Focus Wagon could benefit more from a hybrid drive than the Escape … but none of that gets canceled by Ford’s introduction of the 330.1 cu in, 550 bhp, 500 ft lbs, 205 mph, Ford GT.
The GT doesn’t disprove to me that Ford is making an effort.
Let me chew on that GS450h a bit more.
Yeah, it’s probably a nice ride for $55K plus taxes, fees, and insurance. But it can’t launch as fast as any of my Typhoons or Syclones (and I’m only talking about the factory spec ones; no chip reprogramming or chip upgrades). One hot Syclone that I sold last year will rocket out 0-60 mph in 2.8 seconds. With a little more tuning, we felt that it could do 2.4 seconds and a heads up nationally respectable hot run on the 1/4 mile. It screams. And you can still run it on the street, emissions legal, but you swap out the meat rubber and go back the 245/50-16 bicycle tires. 🙂 This one is a beast with five-point belts, cage, and so on. Last I heard, it’s still trading hands. I think some of the guys/gals are a bit scared of it. ha. Imagine that. It captured my attention. And, no, officer, I really wasn’t going that fast. (Faster, actually, but hey)
Anyway…
I’m interested in reading about the Japanese technology. How much of the original design would you attribute to American R&D, rolling platforms, and pre-existing products of any type using the general hybrid gas-electric technology? You’re welcome to start with the battery, and work your way to the other stuff. 😉
It’s my understanding that Toyota (trivia: named not for the family name, Toyoda, but offset to separate it from other Toyoda businesses) didn’t have good success with its two SUV hybrids in Japan, and 1,800 units on the GS450h (or other designation in Japan) doesn’t make it sound like a big seller. Show and tell, but who knows what happens later.
I don’t know what Toyota or Toyota Industries is holding back, but thus far they haven’t apparently found a way to reduce hybrid component costs substantially (should be coming soon, though) nor are generating a profit on hybrids. That should pose a big problem once the Camry hybrid flys, and they bring on the others.
Ford.
Well, that 550 bhp, 500 ft lbs, 205 mph, Ford GT won’t be packing a hybrid label. Maybe hyper…as in sonic. That will be quite a ride. Off to the autobahn between Stuttgart and Munich, mountains and wide open flats. Refuel and rest for 5 in Augsburg, then buckle up and on to Munich. Hammer down. Hurry. All that stuff you passed is gaining. Flick of the lights back about 1 to 1/2 km rolling up on another leftlaner. Make that Beemer move. And that single light running up from behind…the fast one…is either a BMW or Italian bike. He’s coming hard, too. Slide to the right. Quick. Ah, he’s gone… Roll back out, let’s go. (Yeah, it was good life. Very good. I miss it.)
There are really only two speeds in Germany post-midnight. Idle and flat out.
Now, what were you saying Toyota?
That is a nice link, isn’t it?
I clicked on 2003 Toyota Land Cruiser. Nope. Too painful. Yeah, Prius looks much better.
Your Z-28 didn’t look bad. Very reasonable for a quick ride.
It’s a good link. I always I enjoy it when taking a break if over on that general web site. I wish more individuals would contribute to the data base.
Did you look at the GM vehicle with 132 mpg? Yeah, it’s a model truck. ha.
Sustainable oil?
May 25, 2004
By Chris Bennett
? 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
About 80 miles off of the coast of Louisiana lies a mostly submerged mountain, the top of which is known as Eugene Island. The portion underwater is an eerie-looking, sloping tower jutting up from the depths of the Gulf of Mexico, with deep fissures and perpendicular faults which spontaneously spew natural gas. A significant reservoir of crude oil was discovered nearby in the late ’60s, and by 1970, a platform named Eugene 330 was busily producing about 15,000 barrels a day of high-quality crude oil.
By the late ’80s, the platform’s production had slipped to less than 4,000 barrels per day, and was considered pumped out. Done. Suddenly, in 1990, production soared back to 15,000 barrels a day, and the reserves which had been estimated at 60 million barrels in the ’70s, were recalculated at 400 million barrels. Interestingly, the measured geological age of the new oil was quantifiably different than the oil pumped in the ’70s.
Analysis of seismic recordings revealed the presence of a “deep fault” at the base of the Eugene Island reservoir which was gushing up a river of oil from some deeper and previously unknown source.
Similar results were seen at other Gulf of Mexico oil wells. Similar results were found in the Cook Inlet oil fields in Alaska. Similar results were found in oil fields in Uzbekistan. Similarly in the Middle East, where oil exploration and extraction have been underway for at least the last 20 years, known reserves have doubled. Currently there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 680 billion barrels of Middle East reserve oil.
Creating that much oil would take a big pile of dead dinosaurs and fermenting prehistoric plants. Could there be another source for crude oil?
An intriguing theory now permeating oil company research staffs suggests that crude oil may actually be a natural inorganic product, not a stepchild of unfathomable time and organic degradation. The theory suggests there may be huge, yet-to-be-discovered reserves of oil at depths that dwarf current world estimates.
The theory is simple: Crude oil forms as a natural inorganic process which occurs between the mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and 20 miles deep. The proposed mechanism is as follows:
Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found in quantity throughout our solar system ? huge concentrations exist at great depth in the Earth.
At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000 feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams of compressed methane-based gasses hit pockets of high temperature causing the condensation of heavier hydrocarbons. The product of this condensation is commonly known as crude oil.
Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate into pockets and reservoirs we extract as “natural gas.”
In the geologically “cooler,” more tectonically stable regions around the globe, the crude oil pools into reservoirs.
In the “hotter,” more volcanic and tectonically active areas, the oil and natural gas continue to condense and eventually to oxidize, producing carbon dioxide and steam, which exits from active volcanoes.
Periodically, depending on variations of geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of Mexico and Uzbekistan.
Periodically, depending on variations of geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free and replenish existing known reserves of oil.
There are a number of observations across the oil-producing regions of the globe that support this theory, and the list of proponents begins with Mendelev (who created the periodic table of elements) and includes Dr.Thomas Gold (founding director of Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research) and Dr. J.F. Kenney of Gas Resources Corporations, Houston, Texas.
In his 1999 book, “The Deep Hot Biosphere,” Dr. Gold presents compelling evidence for inorganic oil formation. He notes that geologic structures where oil is found all correspond to “deep earth” formations, not the haphazard depositions we find with sedimentary rock, associated fossils or even current surface life.
He also notes that oil extracted from varying depths from the same oil field have the same chemistry ? oil chemistry does not vary as fossils vary with increasing depth. Also interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities among geographic formations where assays of prehistoric life are not sufficient to produce the existing reservoirs of oil. Where then did it come from?
Another interesting fact is that every oil field throughout the world has outgassing helium. Helium is so often present in oil fields that helium detectors are used as oil-prospecting tools. Helium is an inert gas known to be a fundamental product of the radiological decay or uranium and thorium, identified in quantity at great depths below the surface of the earth, 200 and more miles below. It is not found in meaningful quantities in areas that are not producing methane, oil or natural gas. It is not a member of the dozen or so common elements associated with life. It is found throughout the solar system as a thoroughly inorganic product.
Even more intriguing is evidence that several oil reservoirs around the globe are refilling themselves, such as the Eugene Island reservoir ? not from the sides, as would be expected from cocurrent organic reservoirs, but from the bottom up.
Dr. Gold strongly believes that oil is a “renewable, primordial soup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attached by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs.”
Smaller oil companies and innovative teams are using this theory to justify deep oil drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, among other locations, with some success. Dr. Kenney is on record predicting that parts of Siberia contain a deep reservoir of oil equal to or exceeding that already discovered in the Middle East.
Peak Oil? Maybe not!
I think I calculated the actual mpg in my z28 once, didn’t like it, and stopped calculating. Of course, I would open it up … basically every day. I might have seen 100mph once a week. I never crashed or hurt anybody, so I will now take the no harm no foul defense … but you all are probably safer with me in a Prius. Especially as I age.
On the tech front, we probably all remember those Clinton-era hybrids being developed by Chrysler. Here is one link describing them.
What did the Japanese do? The argument could be made that they believed our program, and set out to compete with it. When we pulled the plug they were left alone at the finish line.
By the way, with respect to the “10 mpg” I was throwing around earlier:
– more here
Odo,
Dave’s also up there in cold weather. E85 is not a cold start friendly fuel. And there’s plenty of stop/go uphill/flat/downhill roads and highways in the Chicago and outlying areas of Illinois. I don’t know anyone in Illinois who routinely brags about mileage.
You may not like the limited U.S. E85 program, but it will be larger by 2012. At least that is the projection. Unlike Brazil, we probably won’t convert the average daily operational load of 150-160 million vehicles (not 220 million operational per day – that’s registration) over to E85 unless there is a more significant crisis. Brazil, though, flipped over 40% of its vehicle base to E85 since 2003, and is projected to finish most of the campaign within a few years.
The negative “GM’s ethanol greenwash” message is a bit over the top. I am not convinced that you and others would be complaining if Toyota was marketing E85 or using yellow gas caps. Seriously.
The U.S. has been working with ethanol programs since the late 70s. We’re not blasting forward at breakneck speed, but we could ramp up the E85 and E95 programs quicker. At a given price point, corn and grain exports may be curtailed slightly to expand the E85/E95/E10/oxygen fuels programs further. The E10 program or its rough equivalent, in various forms, is spread across the USA.
Odo, you’re running ethanol in your Prius in Southern California.
Odo,
The hybrid gasoline-electric initiatives date back much further in the U.S. and elsewhere.
In recent U.S. history, the 1972 Buick Skylark converted by Victor Wouk of Caltech fame stands as one of the funded projects ongoing in the mid 70s. Of course, other initiatives were undertaken in 1966 and thereafter.
Anyway, here are some questions and historical info that I forwarded to someone who was disputing the U.S. record of efforts regarding hybrid gasoline-eletric developments. This only scratches the surface, but it’s a start.
U.S. Hybrid gasoline-electric technology sources and developments:
Are you familiar with the details of any of the following initiatives, related federal funding, prototypes, resulting hybrid designs, or battery technology?
Diesel-electric submarines?
GM’s diesel-electric train locomotives design and final product offerings, prior to GM’s sale of this division?
Origins and development of nickel-cadmium battery?
Origins and development of the lithium ion battery?
1898
Dr. Ferdinand Porsche, at age 23, built a hybrid electric-gas car “using an internal combustion engine to spin a generator that provided power to electric motors located in the wheel hubs. On battery alone, the car could travel nearly forty miles.”
1900
“A Belgian carmaker, Pieper, introduced a 3-1/2 horsepower “voiturette” in which the small gasoline engine was mated to an electric motor under the seat. When the car was “cruising,” its electric motor was in effect a generator, recharging the batteries. But when the car was climbing a grade, the electric motor, mounted coaxially with the gas engine, gave it a boost. The Pieper patents were used by a Belgium firm, Auto-Mixte, to build commercial vehicles from 1906 to 1912.”
1905
“An American engineer named H. Piper filed a patent for a petrol-electric hybrid vehicle. His idea was to use an electric motor to assist an internal-combustion engine, enabling it to achieve 25 mph.”
1910
“Commercial built a hybrid truck which used a four-cylinder gas engine to power a generator, eliminating the need for both transmission and battery pack. This hybrid was built in Philadelphia until 1918.”
1920 – 1965
“Dormant period for mass-produced electric and hybrid cars. So-called alternative cars became the province of backyard tinkerers and small-time entrepreneurs.”
The “1921 Owen Magnetic Model 60 Touring uses a gasoline engine to run a generator that supplies electric power to motors mounted in each of the rear wheels.”
1966
“U.S. Congress introduced first bills recommending use of electric vehicles as a means of reducing air pollution.”
1969
The GM 512, a lightweight hybrid prototype vehicle which used electric power and a two-cylinder gasoline engine.
1970s
“With the Arab oil embargo of 1973, the price of gasoline soared, creating new interest in electric vehicles. The U.S. Department of Energy ran tests on many electric and hybrid vehicles produced by various manufacturers, including a hybrid known as the – VW Taxi – produced in Volkswagen in Wolfsburg, West Germany. The Taxi, which used a parallel hybrid configuration allowing flexible switching between the gasoline engine and electric motor, logged over 8,000 miles on the road, and was shown at auto shows throughout Europe and the United States.”
1970
Are you familiar with:
U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970?
U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970 required emissions be reduced by a factor of 95 percent by 1976?
U.S. Federal Clean Car Incentive Program (FCCIP) initiated in 1970?
Victor Wouk of CalTech?
Charlie Rosen of Brooklyn Poly, now renamed Polytechnical Institute?
David Cole, chairman of the automotive engineering department, University of Michigan?
David Cole, (the same) who nows heads up Center for Automotive Research?
Dr. Thompson, director of the GM Technical Center, in Warren, Michigan?
Eric Stork, director, mobile systems emission section, EPA?
Beta Electric Corporation?
Electronic Energy Conversion Corporation?
Gulton Industries?
Electronic Energy Conversion Corporation?
Gulton and American Motors Corporation contract on a hybrid electric prototype?
The origins of nickel-cadmium batteries?
Caltech president Lee DuBridge, “who convened an informal seminar of physicists and chemical and electrical engineers to explore the question of building better batteries”?
Aerospace Corporation in Los Angeles, CA?
The EPA contract with Victor Wouk that led to the development of the hybrid gas-electric 1972 GM Buick Skylark provided to Victor Wouk after the 1972 Skylark was out of production?
1976
Are you familiar with:
U.S. Law 94-413, U.S.Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development & Demonstration Act of 1976?
The implementation of the Act “not only brought government and industry research engineers together, (a good thing as it turned out ), it also brought federal funding. A number of hybrid vehicles – not all of them gasoline-electric – were built and tested. Significant engineering occurred during 1978 and 1984, and in fact, engineering work by TRW Inc. has carried over into today’s hybrids and can be found in the Toyota Prius and Ford Escape.”
“Among the laws objectives were to work with industry to improve batteries, motors, controllers and other hybrid-electric components.”
1979
“Dave Arthurs of Springdale, Arkansas, spent $1,500 turning a standard Opel GT into a hybrid car that could get 75 miles per gallon, using a six-horsepower lawnmower engine, a four-hundred-amp electric motor, and an array of six-volt batteries. Mother Earth News used the Arthurs plan to build their own hybrid, which averaged 83.6 miles per gallon. Sixty thousand Mother Earth News readers wrote in for the plans, when the magazine published their results.”
1980
Subaru pioneered the feature of turning off the gasoline engine when not needed for power in the early 1980s. Volkswagon did the same with the Lupo 3L.
1982
“”All About Electric & Hybrid Cars”, written by Robert J. Traister, is published by Tab Books. Traister “wonders” if the problem of battery energy storage could be solved by installing a generator to the drive shaft, allowing the generator to automatically charge the batteries as the car traveled down the road.”
1990s
Various hybrid prototypes built by American automobile manufactures.
1991
“The United States Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC), a Department of Energy program, launched a major program to produce a “super” battery to get viable electric vehicles on the road as soon as possible. The USABC would go on to invest more than $90 million in the nickel hydride (NiMH) battery. The NiMH battery can accept three times as many charge cycles as lead-acid, and can work better in cold weather.”
1992
“Toyota Motor Corporation announced the “Earth Charter,” a document outlining goals to develop and market vehicles with the lowest emissions possible.”
1997
“Toyota Prius went on sale to the public in Japan. First-year sales were nearly 18,000.”
1997 – 1999
“A small selection of all-electric cars from the big automakers – including Hondas EV Plus, GMs EV1 and S-10 electric pickup, a Ford Ranger pickup, and Toyotas RAV4 EV – were introduced in California. Despite the enthusiasm of early adopters, the electrics failed to reach beyond a few hundred drivers for each model. Within a few years, the all-electric programs were dropped.”
2000
“Toyota released the Toyota Prius, the first hybrid four-door sedan available in the United States.”
2005
Are you familiar with Solomon Technologies, Inc., headquartered in Tarpon Springs, Florida?
September 2005 – “Solomon Technologies Inc. has filed a lawsuit against Toyota Motor Corp. in U.S. District Court in Tampa for infringement of Solomon’s electric wheel patent. Solomon alleges that the hybrid transmission drive in the Toyota Prius and Highlander infringes a number of claims contained in its U.S. Patent No. 5,067,932. In the lawsuit, Solomon is asking for an injunction barring further infringement as well as damages for the unauthorized use of its patent by Toyota.”
David Cole, (the same as above) heads up Center for Automotive Research?
What remains to be seen is whether Toyota and other automobile manufacturers can produce net profits on the sale of any gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles, whether ground up creations or add-on hybrid plus variants.
I think the key issue here is that the Japanese, with fewer domestic sources of energy, are pushing harder on bringing these technologies to market.
What good would all that US research and development have done, had the Japanese not pressed the issue?
IMO it would have rotted in the wings, while everyone fantasized hydrogen.
(BTW, who owns the patents generated by our public funding of automotive research? Us?)
Odo,
Yes, the corporate and government leadership of Japan do face slightly different circumstances. Full electric vehicle sales should be stronger in Japan than presently exist. Or so I believe.
I’m surprised that the Japanese aren’t reworking their gasoline engines with more intensity. Toyota did try to capture GM generation three and four engine technology, but GM wouldn’t hand it over. Same story, subsequently, at Ford.
I agree that Japanese manufacturers, Toyota and Honda, deserve full credit for pressing forward with the reassembly and slight refinement of the hybrid technologies, for which they hold specific design patents on some of the technology applications.
I also agree that the “supposed” success has pulled the other global manufacturers into the gasoline-electric hybrid marketplace. But, the issue remains one of net profits. Nissian raised this point last year, even though it is releasing a model. And so on. Profits are still the bottom line less government subsidies, and the subsidies do most assuredly exist for hybrid programs, fleet build share, and company/corporate/household ownership.
I wouldn’t totally discount hydrgen so quickly. BMW is planning to release its first dual fuel capable hydrogen-gasoline vehicle (a 7 series) within two years. And BP announced that it shall build a hydrogen plant in California. Other initiatives are being addressed elsewhere.
Patents on development vehicles are interesting. The independent designs created by contract competitors should all remain as private patent filings, I believe. Solomon Technologies, rightly or wrongly, filed suit last Fall against Toyota over the hybrid tech it is using.
EPA (or another Fed agency) is presently building a stand alone vehicle platform that may be adopted by many manufacturers. I assume that we’re talking about a mixture of patent ownership, and rights to share certain technologies. Not sure how this will work.
Net profits supported by government driven initiatives and tax breaks for various alternate fuel and vehicle design considerations remain the issues that should determine which programs will succeed.
Is hybrid gasoline-electric all that efficient and ownership cost efficient? It falls within the window of consideration if manufacturers can reduce the premium add-on costs to the consumers/fleet operators.
Is hydrogen a good or bad technology? Well, it’s clean; it’s the vehicle fuel of choice in that regard at the moment less other types of fuel cells. But it may not be affordable to manufacture. We will find out.
Batteries and fuel cells. It appears to me that the U.S. controls most of the advances in that technology. Sandia Labs and so on for batteries, and plenty of other sources for fuel cells. But these are the major hurdles for the future. We should note great advances within five to ten years.
Hybrids are an ok stop gap measure, but we either go all the way with fuel cells and E85 hybrids (I’m still waiting for them), or we are probably in real trouble.