Blind Spot

Really nice production here, with most of our friends: Heinberg, the Bartletts (Albert and Roscoe), Tainter, Savinar, etc. Puts just about everything in perspective, with easy to understand explanations. In a different culture, works like these would be a wake-up call, but not in the US. Not too hard to realize why, and the film takes a pretty good stab at it.

Staring Into The Abyss: Wicked Problems Revisited

Chaos has posted before on one sentient being's take on wicked problems, but the subject deserves a second look, since these are becoming ever so much more visible to the naked eye (and by naked eye, Chaos is referring to visibility by the great masses of unconscious individuals who make up most of the public). Specifically, industrialized society is now faced with multiple predicaments that resist solutions or even an honest appraisal of the scope of the problems, i.e., global heating, the exhaustion of fossil fuels, overpopulation, habitat destruction, water depletion, and many more. In the US, wicked problems continue to manifest in the area of drug "wars," the healthcare system, major and growing inequality, and quite recently, the economic debacle. Chaos finds the discussions and attempted "solutions" to wicked problems to be fascinating, since they illuminate the black holes of industrialized society: areas of nonmatter which suck up energy and resources without any tangible reward. The very nature of wicked problems ensures that most efforts to solve or at least mitigate them are doomed to failure at best, and might even be counterproductive.

The New York Times Catches Up...

Nothing new here, to readers of the Edge and other aware individuals, that the country of Norway has not succumbed to the bubblicious greedfest that permeated the US and rest of the world's economies in the last few (or many) years. The culture of that country dictated that, since its oil resources were limited (as of course, are all natural resources, but this is necessary to state, since the idea of limits is a startling one for many people), provisions should be made for the eventual running out, resulting in an actual (as opposed to say, the US Social Security fund) trust fund for the benefits of all citizens. This in addition to the many many social benefits and real security enjoyed by the country's citizens. Of course, the purpose of the piece is to highlight that vast differences between the US and Norway, which it does, but there's another interesting comparison that's not being made, and it lies in oil production and decline. Since the nations of Norway and Great Britain are owners of one-half each of the oil resource (the North Sea), it's quite instructive to note that while Norway prudently managed its inevitable decline in oil production (and this is undisputed, that the North Sea has reached and past peak), Great Britain played the grasshopper role, and heedlessly squandered its resource on frivolities.

In Chaos' opinion, the fact that the nation's paper of record has now noticed the situation in Norway is an interesting and revealing sign that the US is now in an entirely different place, economically, at least, and probably in many more ways than just that.

The Lifeboat...

Chaos bets you've never considered the implications of having a boat, as a way of responding to the peaking of global oil supplies, but someone has, and here it is, in an interesting article sponsored by our friend Dmitry Orlov (Chaos regrets that time has not permitted the perusing of his latest, Reinventing Collapse). A good one to expand your mind, and your alternatives.

Silly Stories About Oil

It is an indication of the depths of the US public's denial (as well as their lack of intelligence) that a series of ridiculous falsehoods concerning energy has permeated the zeitgeist, to the extent that many of these are accepted by many many members of the voting (and for sure the nonvoting) public. (No fake: an insurance agent repeated the one about China drilling in offshore Cuban waters to Chaos last week). One has not the time or inclination to spend mowing these down (most especially, when they appear with regularity in one's hometown newspaper), but here's a nicely written article debunking some of the dumber ones. Enjoy...

A Peak OIl Overview: Dissonance

Here's a fine article on the basics of Peak Oil, and along the way, some excellent thoughts on the dissonance one finds upon fully recognizing the implications. One does not exaggerate in stating that the revelation that the world is at or near peak in oil production completely changes the way one looks at the world. Also notable is the appearance of this article in a somewhat mainstream US glossy magazine (alongside the article is something called The Upgrader: A life-altering guide to the world's best stuff...). Rare indeed is a piece in the MSM that gets its facts right, which this one does (hint: tar sands from Canada won't save us).

Why The Capitol Remains Ignorant

Checking in on a seemingly innocuous local story, we find good reasons why the truth about peak oil remains hidden in plain sight. Ostensibly about the now becoming widespread practice of US motorists close to the border obtaining their liquid fuel from the "other side," thereby taking advantage of the lower (somewhat subsidized) price of our southern neighbor, the article delves a little deeper and even interviews some semi-local experts to give some context (emphasis is Chaos'):

"But [Mexico's] proven oil reserves are shrinking, and it lacks refining capacity, particularly for low-sulfur diesel being phased in under the North American Free Trade Agreement. (This mysterious phrase enables the author to dance around the fact that Mexico oil production has peaked and is in rapid, irreversible decline.)

"So even while the nation still exports crude oil, it imports about 40 percent of its fuel"

Further:

"Pemex has been having difficulties. According to the U.S. government's Energy Information Administration, Mexico's net oil exports dropped from 1.7 million barrels a day in 2006 to 1.46 million per day in 2007. A 28-year graph of proven reserves shows a sharp downslide." (Yeah, a 13% yearly decline in productions of one's largest oil field tends to produce a few "difficulties." And again with the proven reserves language. Did the author pick that up from some expert or what? Keep tapdancing...)

Concluding with some nods to the impact of higher oil prices on the poorer citizens of Mexico, the article ends on a slightly confused note, i.e., was the point the cheap Mexican gas, so attractive to American motorists close to the border, the declining production (although this word appears nowhere in the piece), the impact (and potential riots) on the poor, or something else?

Well. Chaos has many thoughts for such an article, most strikingly that it somehow left out some rather important facts about Mexico, one of the top 5 sources of oil for the US. How an article concerning itself with this subject could somehow fail to mention Cantarell, one of the largest oil fields in the world and source of a majority of Mexico's oil production. The field has peaked and entered a rapid decline such that Mexico is on track to move from an oil exporter to an oil importer in the next five years. New discoveries may slow the decline but will not affect the end result. Be assured, readers, that these facts are not unknown, or obscure in any way; a few seconds of "googling" will call them up. In Chaos' humble opinion, when the one of the top ten oil producers peaks and begins a catastrophic decline, it should in fact be a front page headline for pretty much the entire nation. The fact that it is not, and further, that this muffling by the so-called media "watchdogs" continues, serves to reinforce Chaos' view that, for whatever reason, the facts will not be faced in the US until they are so blatantly obvious that they can no longer be ignored, even by the most somnolent of the public. Want more proof? Check out this ridiculously irresponsible opinion (by a "business columnist") as to why $200 oil just won't happen. Really. It just won't. Look for the Faux News "kill the messenger" fallacies, the Las Vegas-style gambling that apparently constitutes the current corporate culture, the ad hominem attacks, and (get ready) even a reference to the viability of shale oil. Yikes! This columnist's solution for the public? "At a minimum, we'll buy a more fuel-efficient car or even go the extra step and car pool!" (Chaos cannot help but be stunned at this person's energy illiteracy, but then again, it's quite obvious that most folk in the Empire are equally delusional).

Peak Oil Roundup, Redux

Since the concept is now on everybody's mind (well, maybe not quite yet, but soon), it's worthwhile to pick through the various outlets and see what's been happening. First off, if you, like Chaos, have become annoyed (or maybe just puzzled) by the constant chantings of Faux News types that the only thing standing in the way of the US becoming oil-independent and driving down those pesky gas prices is the "wacko-environmentalists" who prevent Alaska and off-shore drilling, read this to clarify the fact that there just isn't oil out there in sufficient quantities to make any difference (long and somewhat technical article, but has the virtue of being true).

Next off, in an interesting development, our friend James Howard Kunstler, fresh off completion of his newest (an entertaining work of fiction, entitled World Made By Hand), is featured in an editorial in, of all place, the Washington Post. The point here is not the content of the piece, since Kunstler repeats what most of us have read weekly on his blog, but the fact that it appears in a national newspaper in its unvarnished bluntness. Is the US public finally ready to hear some unpleasant facts? Doubtful, but interesting nonetheless to watch the tone of the discourse change so quickly.

In more doomer news, truckers are going out of business at an alarming rate, and car loans are not much available anymore, adding to the auto industry's woes (which are already considerable). This in addition to the continual downward spiral of the airline industry, which last week decided to add yet another level of annoying surcharges and inconvenience to the passenger experience, clearly aimed at driving more and more people to forsake air travel completely. Chaos should probably have listed more examples of this trend, but it seems too obvious and common to belabor.

Peak Oil News

It should not be a surprise to a reader of this blog to note signs of the arrival of global Peak Oil; nonetheless, today's news is particularly significant. First, our friend and seminal author Matthew Simmons has a new powerpoint-type presentation on the current situation. New and notable is Simmons' emphasis on the aging infrastructure of oil well equipment: apparently, it's all made of steel, and steel rusts. Go figure. Needs lots of money spent to rehabilitate said equipment...will it get done? Doubtful. Also interesting is Simmons' (almost obligatory) expressions of hope at the end. Chaos can find no reason or evidence that justifies such beliefs, but at any rate, this is a nice presentation (if you wonder about certain points, by all means search for expansion among the literature). Secondly, news of the day indicates that the Grangemouth refinery in Scotland, which supplies approximately 10% of the UK's oil needs, is closing as of now due to workers striking over pension benefits. The event is having major impacts, including lines for fuel, and hoarding behavior. A harbinger of things to come, in Chaos' view, and soon enough. Look for gasoline prices to head higher, and don't neglect converting the projected UK gas price of 5 pounds per gallon...makes gas in the US seem cheap, doesn't it?

News Release You Won't Read In The News

One of the most useful links here at The Edge is TheOilDrum.com. Providing a plethora of energy and collapse news and articles daily, it's an addicting read. If you've noticed that the price of oil recently has hit new highs, you're not alone. Here, in its entirety, is the news release by the editors of The Oil Drum (note the realistic, fact-based view of the situation):

A Signal Ignored

Coming as it does on the eve of the Iowa caucuses, the breaking of the $100 dollar barrier for oil prices will likely be treated by many as an almost imperceptible change in our world. By Friday it will likely be lost in the discussion of the political events unfolding.

The $100 a barrel price is a sign that times will never be the same again. According to TheOilDrum.com, the world is entering a new era, where the supply of energy will come to dominate the political landscape in a way that is currently not recognized by any of the leading candidates.

Over the past two years, citizens have been repeatedly assured that there is no problem with future oil supply. Because of a perceived need to present both sides of the argument, the public has heard false promises of lower future prices, and been beguiled by the possibility of a price collapse in the face of excess supply.

Recently, various qualifiers have started to appear in oil discussions. These qualifiers include the need for increased investment in exploration and improved production technologies. The media fails to mention that the needed investment will be at an increasingly diminished rate of return, to the point where it becomes economically unattractive to search harder and harder for very small quantities of oil and gas.

Both oil and natural gas resources around the world are found in underground reservoirs of a finite size. Many of these oil reservoirs have now been producing for over fifty years. In that time, the vast quantities of oil that were in place have been reduced. As the quantity of oil remaining in place falls, the rate at which oil can be recovered also falls. This makes it necessary to drill additional wells into the reservoir in order to maintain the level of output.

According to TheOilDrum.com, at some point enough oil will have been extracted that no matter how many more wells are drilled, overall production from the field will go into irreversible decline. And as field after field reaches this condition, the overall production of oil for the region will begin to fall. This happened to the United States in 1970 when oil production reached a peak. US production has since declined from a maximum of over 9.6 million barrels a day (mbd), to the current level of around 5 mbd. More recently, the oil fields of the North Sea, the Alaskan fields on the North Slope, and the huge Cantarell field in Mexico have entered irreversible decline.

As these fields deplete, smaller fields have been brought into production, but these small fields do not last as long. Drilling activity must be increased in order to find even smaller fields. These, in turn, deplete more and more rapidly, exacerbating the need for new wells.

According to TheOilDrum.com, the world is now reaching the point where all of the oil fields of the world are in aggregate coming to peak production. As peak world production draws near, the rate of increase in oil production can be expected to stall because of constrained resources. This can happen even with rising demand. Once production falls short of what is needed, oil prices can be expected to increase, so that demand is brought in line with available supply.

At this point, countries that still have a surplus of oil to export are seeing their economies boom. This growth brings an increase in their own demand for oil, which reduces the amount that can be made available for export. This higher oil use by exporting countries reduces the available supply to importing countries, further accelerating the rise in price. The countries least able to afford the increase are likely to be affected most.

The consequences of energy supply shortages can be surprisingly great. Energy shortages can lead to public unrest, such as occurred recently in Myanmar. In times of inclement weather, energy shortages can lead to a loss of export supply, if the supplier finds that domestic demand is consuming all that is available. Problems for importing nations then suddenly become worse. One such example is the Iranian gas import situation this past week, and the consequent cut in exports to Turkey.

According to TheOilDrum.com, the world has now entered a period of fragile balance between demand and available supply. Unfortunately the situation cannot be expected to improve. The increasingly limited ability of nations such as Saudi Arabia and Russia to increase oil production is already becoming evident, leading to a reduced potential for raising world production.

It now appears unlikely that the world will ever see a daily oil production rate of 90 mbd, even when natural gas liquids and condensate are included. Thus, future projections that speak glibly of numbers above this level are foisting a canard on the world's population that all will come to regret.

In the coming months, the $100 per barrel marker will be lost in the debate over other issues. According to TheOilDrum.com, limited oil supply is not an issue that will go away. Rather, it is an issue that will steadily increase in importance. Eventually, the cries for action, and for culprits to blame will become over-riding -- at a time well within the first term of the presidential candidates.

These candidates now pay little attention to energy policy, but that must and will change. Hopefully, greater concern for energy policy will occur before events force a change, but so far the grim markers along the way have largely been ignored.

Now, contrast that with this clueless MSM article which appeared in the local rag a couple of days ago:

$100 oil likely to hit pocketbooks soon

Web Posted: 01/06/2008 08:08 PM CST

Brett Clanton
Houston Chronicle

U.S. consumers are likely to feel the sting of $100 oil soon, and in perhaps more ways than they realize.

Crude reached the symbolic milestone, albeit briefly, a couple of times last week, before closing Friday at $97.91.

More directly ominous for consumers, AAA reported Friday that the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline nationwide was $3.07, up from $2.32 a year ago. In Houston, the average price at the end of the week was $2.92, up from $2.18 last January. (San Antonio: $2.94, compared to $2.17)

Higher gasoline prices likely will pinch consumers the most as more crude costs are passed through to drivers, analysts said.

But if oil prices stay up, Americans also may see higher prices for a host of other petroleum-derived products, from lightbulbs and paint to golf balls and deodorant.

"There's oil in everything around us," said Edward Morse, chief energy economist at Lehman Bros. in New York. So it's impossible not to be touched in some way by $100 oil.

"Whether it's the direct impact of heating oil or diesel or gasoline, the indirect impact is sort of ubiquitous in the world we live in," he said. "And it affects everyone's pocketbook because it affects the amount we can spend on the things we need and want."

Oil prices continued their ascent in the first days of this year after climbing nearly 60 percent in 2007 amid rising global energy demands, geopolitical tensions and betting by speculators in commodity markets.

Yet the effects of the sharp increase in oil prices have been slow to hit consumers.

Profits dipped for most major oil companies in late 2007 because crude oil costs rose faster than their refining operations could pass those costs on, leaving the companies stuck with the bill. Other industries also have been absorbing higher energy costs to avoid raising prices for their products, analysts said.

"But somewhere down the line, if (oil) prices are sustained at where they are today, you'll probably start to see it creep into consumers' pocketbooks," said Brian Youngberg, energy analyst at Edward Jones in St. Louis.

That creep is well under way at the gas pump.

It was on the minds of drivers late last week at a Shell station in southwest Houston, where regular unleaded sold for $3.14 a gallon.

"It takes a toll," Chris Emuchay, 20, a security guard, said as he gassed up his aging Cadillac Sedan DeVille. "It makes you worry about just going to work and getting home."

David Dixon, 37, said higher energy costs have spurred him to hunt for bargains at gas stations, to install more energy-efficient appliances at his home in Pearland and to cut unnecessary spending.

"Anything we don't need to spend money on, we're trying not to," said Dixon, a service manager at a local sign manufacturer, who was filling up his 1992 Mitsubishi Montero SUV.

Dixon may not be alone. Recently, the Federal Reserve has warned that higher energy costs could force many consumers to pull back spending in other areas and lead to a broader slowdown of the U.S. economy.

That worry has deepened in recent weeks amid signs of slower growth in several parts of the economy, prompting speculation by analysts that a recession is near. Those signs include softer growth in retail sales, continued trouble in the housing market, declining industrial production and slower job growth.

Many eyes also remain on consumer spending, which accounts for about two-thirds of the U.S. economy.

Growth in consumer spending, at 4 percent in the first quarter of 2007, fell to about 1.4 percent in the second quarter amid higher gas prices, but then recovered to 3 percent in the third quarter. Economists expect consumer spending numbers for the fourth quarter, which have not yet been released, to show slower growth.

"You would not expect high gas prices to depress consumer spending growth forever," said Nigel Gault, an analyst with economic forecaster Global Insight. "What we would expect to see is if gasoline prices go up, that squeezes spendable income. People adjust to that."

For some, that may mean driving less. During the last four weeks, as pump prices have climbed, U.S. gasoline demand rose only 0.1 percent compared to the same period a year ago. Analysts consider year-over-year demand growth of less than 1.5 percent to be soft.

A similar pullback occurred last spring and early summer when gasoline prices hit record levels, said Michael McNamara, vice president of research and analysis at MasterCard Advisors, which collects data on gasoline demand based on MasterCard receipts and other payment types.

"In 2007, it seemed to be that at the $3.00 to $3.10 per gallon level, people began to pump less gas," he said.

While $3 gas has appeared during the peak summer driving season in recent years, prices always fell again in the fall on softer demand for motor fuels. But in November and December of 2007, average prices surpassed the $3 mark for the first time ever in each of those months, AAA said.

If oil stays high, gasoline prices could continue their march upward, hitting new records, analysts said.

The record national average of $3.23 per gallon was set May 24, according to AAA.

Tom Kloza, oil analyst with the Oil Price Information Service in Wall, N.J., believes gas prices could keep rising this year, but probably won't reach $4 a gallon.

"I think a range of $3.25-$3.75 is a reasonable guess of where gasoline prices may peak in 2008," he said.

About 3.5 percent of U.S. household budgets now goes to gasoline and fuel costs, up from 3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2006, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

From early 1986 to 2004, families never dedicated more than an average of 3 percent of their total spending to gasoline. In the fall of 2006, gasoline expenditures jumped to 3.8 percent. The record was 5.2 percent in 1981, when oil prices, adjusted for inflation, were about where they are today.

With gasoline price spikes in recent years, Americans have responded by cutting vacations, saving less and borrowing more on credit cards, said Christian E. Weller, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C., think tank, and professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston.

"The main point still holds that families cannot adequately plan for large jumps in gasoline prices," Weller said. "And that they will have to cut back elsewhere."

Very few facts here, mostly just spin for the masses. Let's not inquire too closely into the actual situation, folks, the entire economy depends mostly on "confidence" (now there's a loaded term).

Peak Oil For The Holidays!

Returning to an old theme, here's an interesting take (realplayer may be required)on what the major oil companies are doing in response to the gradual decline of the most liquid and useful fossil fuels, that of oil. Recall that Chaos began this journey by studying the phenomenon of Peak Oil (through the Matt Simmons book, "Twilight In The Desert") so it is fitting that as the blog now comes full circle, we return for a bit on this subject.

One American Who "Gets It"

Prepared Statement of Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-6-MD)
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
Hearing on Energy
June 15, 2007

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today before the Members of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission concerning energy.

The Commission has been charged to examine and report to Congress about energy considering: “The effect of the large and growing economy of the People’s Republic of China on world energy supplies and the role the United States can play (including joint research and development efforts and technological assistance), in influencing the energy policy of the People’s Republic of China.”

Energy is a topic of intense interest and concern to me. I have been studying energy, and in particular oil, for the past 40 years. I believe that energy will be the dominant issue affecting our nation and our world in the 21st Century. In 8,000 years of recorded history, we are 150 years into the Age of Oil. This period of 150 years has lulled Americans, but not our counterparts in China, into a false sense of complacency.

I am among few people in America and the West who believe that we’re about half-way through the Age of Oil. I say that, although all petroleum experts acknowledge that the world will peak in oil production – reach a maximum – with declining production at ever increasing costs after that time. Most petroleum experts reviewed in a March 27, 2007 GAO report that I commissioned project that for all practical purposes peak is imminent – that it will occur before 2020. Global peak oil might not be a problem if demand were not increasing exponentially about two percent per year. Because demand is increasing and the U.S. is the most oil dependent economy in the world, GAO projects the consequences of peak for the U.S. will be devastating. After the world peaks in oil production we’ll continue to use oil for about another 150 years – but in declining amounts, instead of the increasing amounts that we’re used to.

Most people in the world and certainly most Americans are ignorant of peak oil. The Chinese are not. Peak oil was first publicly identified as a phenomenon by American oil geologist M. King Hubbert in a speech on March 8, 1956. He had noticed that all oil field production follows a bell curve. It increases, reaches a peak in production and declines thereafter. He reasoned that if you added up all of the peaks from many fields, you could calculate the peak for larger regions, countries and the world. In 1956, he projected that the U.S. lower 48 states would peak in production in 1970. At that time, the U.S. was the King of world oil production -- the biggest oil producer and consumer in the world. Hubbert was vilified. But he was right on. The U.S. peaked in oil production in 1970. Hubbert predicted the world would peak about now. If Hubbert was right about the U.S. and the U.S. is a microcosm of the world, why wouldn’t he be right about the world? In fact, 35 of the 48 major oil producers in the world have peaked in oil production.

I led a delegation of nine Members of the House Armed Services Committee on a trip to China over the New Year that focused on energy. Without exception, every Chinese official that we met began our discussions by telling us that they were planning for “post-oil.” Post-oil. The Chinese are planning for global peak oil in 2012. They are planning now for a world without oil as a major energy source. I wish our government leaders and Americans understood the necessity to prepare for a post-oil world.

The Chinese understand that the Age of Oil will be a blip in world history. Global peak oil will not be the end of oil – but it will be the end of cheap oil and cheap energy. Because we have built a lifestyle and a civilization in the United States that is totally dependent upon cheap oil and cheap energy, peak oil poses a challenge that our country must overcome.

I referred earlier to a report that I commissioned by the GAO. This was the fourth federal government report warning about peak oil. The Department of Energy commissioned two reports about peak oil by a team led by Robert Hirsch so they’re known as the Hirsch reports. The first Hirsch report was released in February 2005. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers commissioned a report released in September 2005. I also recommend the Commissioners read a an incredibly prescient speech about energy given by Admiral Hyman Rickover, the father of the nuclear navy just about 50 years ago on May 14, 1957. All of these reports and the Rickover speech are posted on my website at www.bartlett.house.gov/EnergyUpdates.

What concrete steps can we observe that China is taking to prepare for peak oil and post-oil? They have a five point plan. 1. Conservation 2. Increase the proportion of domestic sources of energy. 3. Diversify sources of energy. 4. Limit negative impact on the environment 5. Engage in international cooperation. These are exactly the correct steps and steps that the U.S. should be undertaking.

I have attached to my testimony two charts. The first is called The World of Oil. It depicts countries based upon the proportion of oil reserves. The second chart illustrates that China is scouring the world and buying up oil assets. They are also aggressively building a blue water navy. They don’t need a blue water navy for Taiwan. American government officials have told me the Chinese don’t understand that in a world market, energy is fungible. I don’t find this argument at all persuasive. I think China is preparing for a world where resource nationalism, not market forces govern the allocation of energy. China is preparing for cooperation or confrontation to address a post-oil world.

The U.S. is not preparing at all.

America and the world will transition from fossil fuels, including oil, to sustainable, renewable sources of energy. We can choose to do it on our timetable or we can be forced to transition by geology. What America needs to do to avoid a really bumpy ride from peak oil, and this will require Presidential leadership, is to develop a program with three attributes: the total commitment of World War II; the technology focus and intensity of the Apollo program to land a man on the moon; and the urgency of the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bomb.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss these points in more detail. Thank you very much.

The 55 MPH Speed Limit Revisited

Uh oh, someone else has now thought of this...remember when Chaos suggested that a prudent nation would be doing something really simple and easy, like lowering the speed limit to 55mph, in response to the impending energy shortage? Well, Chaos would now bow to a much more eloquent writer on the subject, but would also have to point out that the citizens of the Empire are still no more likely to do this than stand on their heads in heavy freeway traffic....nice work, though.

Where Oil Comes From...A Story in Pictures

Did you wake up this morning wondering where the gasoline in your vehicle originated? Didn't you spend many sleepless nights thinking about where oil comes from? Did it just get deposited in the ground by magic or wasn't there something about dinosaurs? Chaos knew you did, and now there's an actual video (yes! no reading! because people just learn better with pictures!) showing just exactly how oil got made, many long years ago. Although it is quite long, with many parts, Chaos recommends you view it. Maybe it will change your perspective; who knows?

Introduction to Tom Whipple

This writer, who scribes for the Falls-Church News Press, of all places, is a consistent and effective reporter of the effects of peak oil and the Empire's lack of response to it. Today's piece, reproduced here in its entirety since Chaos has become aware of just how difficult it is to 'click' on a 'link,' gives one both a sense of the scope of the changes necessary to deal with the looming catastrophes and the ever-onrushing deadlines which will not even be acknowledged until the last minute. Something for both doomers and the kumbaya crowd, in other words. Here's the article:

"News on the gasoline stockpile situation was delayed this week due to the Memorial Day holiday. As gasoline consumption figures over the long weekend won’t be available until the middle of next week, we may get a better insight into prospects for this summer then. While waiting, however, it seems like a good time to start thinking a bit about the years ahead and what we should be doing to get ready for them.

There are two areas of energy consumption we, as individuals, can do something about: transportation and buildings. The cost and availability of our food is something that few of us have much control over. If food becomes too expensive, then we simply reduce or forego eating out; reduce our use of prepared, packaged, and expensive foods; or even reduce the quantity we consume until the costs of food meet our budget.

Commercial use of energy to make and distribute things will be sorted out by the market – here again, there is little most of us can do to effect change other than generally reducing consumption either because we are trying to save the world’s resources, or, more likely, we simply can’t afford to pay what stuff is going to cost.

Unaffordable gasoline will affect each of us differently depending on how dependent we are on our automobile and what our alternatives are. In the U.S. we have something on the order of 210 million cars and light trucks in service and, even if the resources are available to replace a fleet of this size, it will be many decades before they can be replaced with vehicles that use little or no gasoline. Worldwide, the situation is even worse.

It probably won’t be too long before we figure out whatever supplies of motor fuel are available will be better spent on growing and distributing food and maintaining vital-to-civilization systems such as water, sewers, electricity, and communications rather than being burned in private cars. For the immediate future though, unaffordable gasoline will be coped with through a combination of increased public transit and a lot more ride sharing.

Soon, there will be lots of room for changes in public policy as we tackle the job of reworking our transportation systems. For now, we are not ready to think seriously about changes, for the reality of imminent oil depletion is not widely recognized. Another three or four dollar increase in gasoline prices should do the trick.

Buildings, however, are another matter -- be they offices, factories, commercial space, or homes. In the developed world, most use prodigious amounts of energy. Although our electricity and natural gas bills currently are not increasing as fast as gasoline prices, price increases for other forms of energy won’t be many years behind. Unlike a gas guzzler which can be parked, used infrequently, or scrapped for a more efficient vehicle, few of us will have the opportunity to replace our buildings for more efficient ones.

A couple of hundred years ago most homes were heated and lit by wood plus a little candle wax. That’s obviously not going to work anymore. My guess is that most people’s access to firewood, if any, would be sufficient for a couple of days or, at best, a couple of weeks. For awhile, there will be a rush to huddling around electric heaters, but just as natural gas, oil, propane will soon be too expensive to for many to afford, large amounts of electricity will not be far behind. We are going to have to transition to solar and maybe a little wind energy to control our personal climates.

One of the redeeming features of our current living and work place arrangements is that we waste prodigious amounts of energy in heating, cooling and lighting them, so that there is a lot to be saved. We all know by now that eliminating incandescent bulbs and moving first to compact fluorescents and then, as they become more affordable, to LED’s most of the lighting costs in homes and offices can be eliminated.

Equally big jumps in household efficiency can be achieved by disconnecting clothes dryers and going back to clothes lines. Pulling the plug on the central air would be the third big energy saver.

Given the trends in fossil fuel availability, it is clear that our goal will have to be zero net energy for all our inhabited buildings. This means that the preponderance of the energy used in buildings will soon have to come from the sun, wind, water power, and perhaps a little biomass and will not be delivered in by pipe and power lines or in trucks.

The course from our current building stock to highly efficient ones will be long and difficult. Starting on this course is not difficult or particularly expensive. Plugging air leaks, adding some more insulation, and perhaps improving the window and doors is a good place to start provided one knows what to do, where to start and is physically and financially capable of taking action in the face of rapidly rising energy costs.

Later steps on the way to zero net energy buildings, such as major insulation and window upgrades, solar heating and electric panels, new heating and air conditioning equipment will be very expensive and perhaps unaffordable for many in an inflation-wracked world of depleting oil.

It is at this point that governments at all levels will need to get involved. First they must recognize that the bulk of our inhabited buildings will need to be overhauled to be useful in a world of very high priced energy. Cost/benefit ratios for steps to improve the efficiency for nearly every existing building need to be worked out.

Building codes will need massive overhaul to prevent further construction of buildings that are premised on cheap energy and that will have a very short useful lifetime. Construction of sub-divisions that do not take into account optimum sun angles should come to an immediate halt. Obsolete laws and covenants that frown on efficiencies from clothes lines to solar panels must be abolished as soon as possible.

There is much to be done and the time is growing short."

Investment Ideas From Matt Simmons

Those in the know about Peak Oil, know Matt Simmons....energy investment banker, and author of vastly important book on Saudi oil reserves (hint: they aren't as large as stated, and are probably declining more rapidly). For those readers who are interested in investment tips, here (pdf file) is Simmons' latest slide and bullet point presentation. Even if you have little or nothing to invest, the peak oil points are significant.

Survey Says....US Public Infantile, Delusional

To continue on yesterday's theme (or perhaps embroider it just a bit), as gas prices head up, the clueless population of the Empire starts to whine and complain. Something must be done, they say. Of course, by "something" they mean "something that doesn't cause me pain or cost me money." If you think Chaos is being oh, a little mean, perhaps, consider these findings from a national survey undertaken for the Civil Society Institute:

"The vast majority told researchers from Opinion Research Corp. that they want sharp increases in automotive fuel economy standards, as well as new windfall profit taxes on oil companies, with the proceeds used to develop alternative fuels and to reduce dependence on unstable Mideast oil supplies." Although Americans can talk the talk, recent history demonstrates, unfortunately, that they don't walk the walk:

"Whether consumers will actually adjust their driving behavior is an open question. In the past, despite rising prices, American motorists have tended to gulp, complain, and continue their old patterns. Despite the publicity given to hybrids, such as the Toyota Prius, they still make an insignificant dent on the sales charts. And as Solo noted, during the news conference, there are now fewer cars rated at 40 mpg than just five years ago.

'People want (their) problems solved for them,' conceded Civil Society spokeswoman Ailis Aaron Wolf."

Need Chaos remind readers at this point that this national infantilism and cluelessness is likely to be a hindrance when oil begins to decline?

Some Scary Stuff

Here's a couple of items to keep you on the edge of your seat, so to speak...

The first is "A Crude Awakening: Oil Crash," which premiered the other night on the Sundance Channel, and is set for a few more showings this weekend. A fine documentary which covers all the basics of the subject; the visualizations are scary and excellent. Gather any "nonbelievers" in your circle and plop them down in front of this one, if you can.

Our second entry comes from the blog of esteemed poster Greyzone on The Oil Drum....a near future scenario laid out in enough detail and drawing upon currently known facts. Quite fine, and frightening in its possibilities.

Enjoy your day in the Matrix, readers.

Does the Government Want You to Know About Peak Oil?

The headline above was not rhetorical, so....no, it does not. Here's the proof: the Energy Information Administration, charged with looking at all the data and coming up with predictions for energy usage and prices in the near and far future, has, well, quite a track record when it comes to prognostication. One might say Panglossian, to be kind, but at any rate, this article should enlighten those who wonder why more people aren't actually aware of how oil is going to stop flowing some day soon. From the article: "EIA’s monthly and annual predictions have only one purpose: to prevent the mainstream media from alerting the driving public to the fragility of the domestic energy picture." Yes indeed. Peruse it and weep, readers.

Friedman Savaged By Carmudgeon Realist: A Study in Contrasts

Just the other day, a long and detailed piece by the NYTimes international columnist Thomas Friedman appeared in The Magazine (a weekly feature, for those unfamiliar with the nation's paper of record), the subject of which was how development of "green energy" would lead the US out of its increasing dependency on unstable Middle East countries (which would in turn eliminate the so-called "oil curse"), put the productive capacity and brainpower of the nation to work to produce more "clean technology," which developing nations (China, India) would purchase, and simultaneously enable the US and the world to make progress on global warming.

Well.

There are many objections someone who is familiar with the issues of the end of cheap energy, global heating, and the effects of exponential growth on finite resources might make; language like this, for example, not only gives one pause but tends to undermine whatever value the rest of the article might contain:

"After World War II, President Eisenhower responded to the threat of Communism and the 'red menace' with massive spending on an interstate highway system to tie America together, in large part so that we could better move weapons in the event of a war with the Soviets. That highway system, though, helped to enshrine America’s car culture (atrophying our railroads) and to lock in suburban sprawl and low-density housing, which all combined to get America addicted to cheap fossil fuels, particularly oil. Many in the world followed our model.

Today, we are paying the accumulated economic, geopolitical and climate prices for that kind of America. I am not proposing that we radically alter our lifestyles. We are who we are — including a car culture. But if we want to continue to be who we are, enjoy the benefits and be able to pass them on to our children, we do need to fuel our future in a cleaner, greener way."(emphasis Chaos')

The effects of the continuation of ridiculously wasteful American lifestyles is obviously not going to be addressed by Friedman; why not? Perhaps Friedman's audience would find that too disturbing to consider. What soporific effect is meant by "we are who we are"? In fact, transportation uses quite a bit of energy, but simply stating that citizens may have to drive less is "beyond the scope" of this article; why? Another interesting question might be: how does an optimist like Friedman expect to handle the energy needs for the "extra" 100 million citizens of the US who are projected to "arrive" by 2050? In fact, the overall tone of the article seems calculated to induce a pleasant sensation: just a little old-fashioned American ingenuity and government incentives, and these problems will just go away. Overall, the piece is disturbing, in that it contains a bedeviling mixture of facts and delusions that together give a much more optimistic tone than is reasonably warranted by the nature of the looming multiple catastrophes. (Chaos is adopting a more strident tone in preparation for the introduction of the next writer).

Chaos will now leave off the criticism of Friedman or, more properly, turn it over to James Howard Kunstler, who addresses this piece in his weekly blog, Clusterfuck Nation. Besides being screamingly funny, the man has put it all together, in such works as The Geography of Nowhere, and The Long Emergency, both highly recommended. Chaos thinks that it might help readers to get a sense of just how large the problems are by reading Friedman's piece and Kunstler's response to it. Further, what lurks behind the NYTimes article (and many others like it in the MSM) is the plain fact that it is impossible to tell the truth to the American public. Any solutions proposed will have to account for this "energy ADHD" aspect (hint: few, if any of them do).