Home  

Sustainability
Water
Agriculture & Forests
Agriculture Alternatives
Energy, Oil
Natural Gas
Energy Alternatives
Third World Energy
Minerals/Phosphate
Overconsumption
Sprawl
Carrying Capacity
Exploitation
Shortsightedness
Solutions
Eco-Economy
Sustainbility Links
Sustainability News
Sustainability Headlines

Sustainability:
Energy, Oil
November 17, 2008




Peak Oil Links and Publications.     March 18, 2004   Dynamiclist.com 010079

Although the world has not run out of oil and North America has not run out of natural gas, and there are still lots of potential kilowatts to create, we have run short of any way to grow the supply of each of these energy sources. There is little growth in worldwide oil supply from new projects coming on stream.
January 16, 2003   USA Today 008046

The Holdren Scenario
as presented by Paul Erlich

  Population
[billions of people]
  X   Energy/Person
[killowatts = 103 watts] 		  =   Total Energy Use
[terawatts = 1012 watts]
1990
Rich 1.2   7.7  9.2
Poor 4.1  1.1  4.5
  5.3       13.7
2025
Rich 1.4  3.9  5.4
Poor 6.8  2.2  15.0
  8.2      20.4
2100 10  3  30 (>2X now)
003126 Sustainability_EnergyOil`B


An Interview with Peak-Oil Provocateur Matthew Simmons.   Matthew Simmons, a well-connected industry insider has concluded that some of the world's largest oil beds may be on the verge of collapse. Author of the recently published Twilight in the Desert: The Coming, Simmons is founder of an investment bank that handles mergers and acquisitions among energy companies and has predicted that the price of a barrel of oil could hit the high triple digits within a few years. To postpone this he says we should be drilling in the Arctic and other contested spots. At the same time, he's calling for improvements in efficiency, as well as a return to local farming and manufacturing. He said that we are either at or very close to peak oil and have to assume that five or 10 years we'll be producing less oil than today. And yet we expect that oil usage will grow by 30% to 50% over the next 25 years. It's a problem that could end up leading to more geopolitical fights and give way to a very ugly society. The odyssey began in the early 1980s when Simmons realized that his firm was threatened by a collapse in the oil business. So many experts in the energy market, including government analysts, don't base their opinions on actual data, because the relevant data are confidential. No major oil-producer allows audits of the data on their reserves which leaves the experts playing a guessing game. An inventory of the top oil fields showed that nobody had ever listed even the top 20 oil fields by name. There are only about 120 fields in the world that produce half of the world's oil supply. The top 14, which make up 20% of global supply, are over 53 years old. In Saudi Arabia there are only five key fields producing 90% of their oil. During a trip to Saudi Arabia they plied us with data that didn't add up, even vaguely. The major Saudi fields are at risk of reaching their peak, at which point they will see their output decline. Simmons started a year ago saying that we need to prepare for triple-digit oil prices that will be set by demand and supply. Current oil prices are cheap, consider that $65 a barrel translates to 10 cents a cup, cheaper than bottled water. For decades, Saudi Arabia has been injecting water in each key oil field to keep pressure high. The Saudis are injecting between 15 and 18 million barrels a day of water to recover 8 million barrels a day of oil. What they are doing is rapidly depleting the high-quality, high flow-rate oil, so they'll be left with vast amounts of oil that just won't come out of the ground without massive water input or thousands and thousands of wells being drilled. Sadad al-Husseini, a former executive of Saudi Aramco, corroborated this thesis. The foreign minister of Saudi Arabia spoke at Rice University and said, "We're as transparent as anybody." Until we force that same standard of disclosure on Exxon and Shell and BP, there's no reason to expect Saudi Arabia to behave better. Ultimately, we have to create new forms of energy. Solar and wind are not helpful on the transportation front. Biofuels need to be examined, but corn-based ethanol is a scam because it requires such intensive oil inputs. There are some 220 million cars on the road in the U.S. and the problem with hybrids and hydrogen, which many people think is the alternative energy, is it will take 30 years to turn over the entire vehicle fleet. We don't have 15 or 20 years, much less 30. We have to find more energy-efficient methods of transporting products by rail and ship. We have to liberate the workforce and let them work in their village, through emails, faxes and video conferencing. We need to return to local farms and attack globalization. Manufacturing things close to home will begin to make sense again.   November 06, 2005   Grist 015488

US California: PG&E Plans Big Investment in Solar Power.   PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric) will buy 550 megawatts from OptiSolar, who would install thin-film solar panels on 9.5 square miles of ranchland in San Luis Obispo County and buy an additional 250 megawatts from SunPower Corp., that would use an additional 3.5 square miles of San Luis Obispo land. The purchase could show that photovoltaic power can be affordably produced on a large, centralized scale and makes large-scale solar an increasingly large part of the energy in the West. California's utilities are under a state mandate to generate 20% of their energy from renewable sources. PG&E received just 11.4% of its energy from renewable sources in 2007, while Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric got 15.7% and 5.2% of their power from renewables. Together with the 800-megawatt deal, solar contracts would increase renewable energy to 24% of PG&E's portfolio by 2013. Solar power until now has been too expensive for utilities, costing about 40 cents per kilowatt hour, compared with 10 cents for natural gas and 12 cents for wind power. The contracts would not affect electricity rates paid by consumers. OptiSolar and SunPower said they are able to offer a lower rate than traditional photovoltaic projects for a variety of reasons. Some experts cautioned that there are hurdles to cross before those 800 megawatts of power become a reality. The plants will need approval from state and local government. Environmentalists will complain because of the amount of land involved. PG&E will have to develop transmission lines to move the power to its customers. And OptiSolar and SunPower will need to finance construction of all those solar cells. PG&E has said the deals are contingent on Congress reauthorizing tax credits for renewable energy that are due to expire at the end of this year.   August 15, 2008   San Francisco Chronicle 023236

Coastal Governors Stand in the Way of Offshore Drilling, Even If Congress Approves it.   President Bush repeats his call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. Interior Secretary Kempthorne said that his department is laying the groundwork so offshore drilling in new areas could begin in three years. But many of the untapped offshore areas would likely remain off-limits. GOP leaders all say that states should decide whether to open their shorelines to drilling. But many governors in coastal states are saying, "No, thanks!" Some 8.3 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico were opened up to drilling two years ago, so Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi don't matter in this debate. What's at stake is an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil off the coasts of other states. Some 10 billion is in Californian waters, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants it left alone. Chances are slim that Arnie and other state lawmakers would permit drilling near their shores. Gov. Gregoire (D) and Oregon Gov. Kulongoski (D) want to fight for more offshore drilling. New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) and North Carolina Gov. Easley (D) spoke against offshore drilling, citing the damage it could do to their states' tourism, real estate, and natural resources. Maine Gov. Baldacci (D) and other political leaders say "no way," fearing for their state's fishing industry and environment. Massachusetts tried offshore drilling and found there wasn't much oil plus opposition to drilling is "fierce." Maryland's governor is opposed. It's proved politically unpopular in Virginia. Florida Republicans have backed McCain's drilling call, and a number of Florida voters are shifting in the same direction. Public support for drilling has jumped from 50% to 60%. Most Democratic leaders in the state remain bitterly opposed. About 57% of Americans would support drilling in places currently off limits if it would bring down gas prices. Economists and energy experts say drilling wouldn't do a dang thing for prices in the short term, and very little in the long term.   August 04, 2008   Grist Magazine 023219

Exxon’s Second-Quarter Earnings Set a Record.   Exxon Mobil reported the best quarterly profit ever for a corporation. Record earnings for Exxon have become routine as the surge of oil prices filled its coffers. The company's income for the second quarter rose 14%, to $11.68 billion, compared to the same period a year ago. Exxon's profits were nearly $90,000 a minute over the quarter, but it was less than Wall Street had expected. Exxon's shares fell 4.6%. The disappointment from investors put pressure on Exxon Mobil's chief executive to search for new fields. The sell-off in Exxon stock continued a trend as oil and natural gas prices have fallen sharply from record levels. But problems surfaced in the company's report, a 10% drop in oil production and a 3% decline in natural gas production from the second quarter of 2007. The production decrease was viewed with concern by energy analysts. "High commodity prices are driving the record earnings, not growth in production. Crude oil prices in the second quarter averaged 91% higher than the same quarter in 2007. Natural gas prices averaged $10.80 for every thousand cubic feet, up 43% from a year ago. Exxon earned $10 billion in the quarter from exploration and production, up from $6 billion a year ago. But the company's $1.6 billion in profit from refining was less than half that in last year's quarter. Earnings from its chemical business of $687 million were down $326 million from last year. The company intendeds to disburse $125 billion in capital spending over the next five years to produce more oil and natural gas. Royal Dutch Shell, Eni and Repsol, three of Europe's largest oil companies, also reported strong profits. Shell reported its output had declined by 1.6%. Repsol's by nearly 20% percent. Shell, reported a 33% increase to $11.56 billion, from $8.67 billion in the period a year ago. Oil companies are under pressure to find new reserves. Adding together the output of all the major oil companies, this appears to be the fourth straight quarter of production declines. The total decline might exceed 600,000 barrels a day, reflecting the difficulties the oil companies had in gaining access to make up for the decline of mature fields. Exxon's production tumbled because of Venezuela's expropriation of Exxon's assets last year, and declining production in many fields around the world. Democrats in Congress were quick to criticize Exxon's profit. "Big Oil is plowing profits into stock buybacks instead of increasing production. Exxon said oil companies needed the profits to search for more oil and gas and that Congress needs to give us access to those areas that are currently off limits to the industry.   August 01, 2008   New York Times* 023216

The Beginning of the End for Coal.   With concerns about climate change mounting, the era of coal-fired electricity generation in the US may be coming to a close. In 2007 151 coal-fired power plants were in the planning stages in the US. But during 2007, 59 were either refused licenses or abandoned. Close to 50 coal plants are being contested in the courts, and the remaining plants will likely be challenged when they reach the permitting stage. What began as local resistance to coal-fired power plants is evolving into national opposition. Growing concern over pending legislation to regulate carbon emissions is creating uncertainty in financial markets. Leading to downgrading coal stocks and requiring utilities seeking funding for coal plants to include a cost for carbon emissions. In 2008 there was introduced a bill to ban new coal-fired power plants without carbon emissions controls nationwide until federal regulations address greenhouse gas emissions. If Congress passes this bill, it will deal a death blow to the future of coal-fired power generation.
Karen Gaia says: in order for this to happen, we need to put more money into renewables and conservation right now.   July 06, 2008   Earth Policy Institute 023157

U.S.: To Ease Gas Prices, Obama Eyes Speculators.   Senator Obama proposed tightening the regulation of oil speculators to ease high gasoline prices. He proposed closing a legal provision requested by Enron that exempts crucial energy commodities from government oversight. He also proposed preventing traders of American crude oil from routing transactions through offshore markets to evade American limits and he called on the Government to investigate market manipulation and oil futures. How large a role investment plays in pushing up commodity prices is not clear. While some analysts believe that large flows of money into largely unregulated exchanges have distorted markets and pushed up prices, most energy experts see no support for that theory. They point out that traditional market forces, like growing demand from emerging countries, and limited growth in oil supplies, can easily account for the increase in prices. As news emerged that Saudi Arabia planned a production increase, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, welcomed the Saudi move but said that it would dampen prices only "a little bit." Obama supporters assailed Mr. McCain for saying that he now favors allowing coastal oil drilling by states that want it. McCain supporters said that opening up offshore drilling would signal that betting on future high prices is risky. Mr. Obama received support from former Bill Clinton who predicted Congress would pass a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions.
Karen Gaia says: it is a fact that there is a growing demand from emerging countries, and limited growth in oil supplies. These two alone would easily account for the increase in prices. We need to educate Obama.   June 23, 2008   New York Times* 023109

China Increases Lead as Biggest Carbon Dioxide Emitter.   China has overtaken the US as the leading emitter of carbon dioxide, its emissions increasing 8% in 2007. In 2007 China's emissions were 14% higher than those of the US. China's emissions are likely to continue growing because they are tied to the country's economic growth and its mix of industry and power sources. China is dependent on coal and has seen its most rapid growth in industrial sectors: cement, aluminum and plate glass. About 20% of China's emissions come from its cement kilns. The average American is responsible for 19.4 tons. in Russia 11.8 tons; in the EU 8.6 tons; China, 5.1 tons; and India, 1.8 tons. The data emphasized the importance of getting China to sign on to any new global climate agreement. The Kyoto Protocol will be replaced by a new agreement to be signed in Copenhagen at the end of 2009. Late last year, UN experts warned that the world had only a few years to reverse growing emissions. China had been acting progressively on environmental policy in the past year. There cannot be a solution to the climate change without China, but Chinese leaders would not become more engaged unless the US also made new commitments. Emissions in the original EU states fell 2% in 2007, though this drop was at least partly attributable to a warm winter. High oil prices have created an interest in coal-fired power plants, which are heavily polluting. Eighty percent of the world's coal demand comes from China, but the US is also a major user of coal.   June 16, 2008   New York Times* 023090

Fuel Protests Erupt in Asia as Oil Hits $139 a Barrel.   Protests over fuel prices erupted in Asia as truckers in Hong Kong and demonstrators in India and Nepal added their voices. As oil hit $139 a barrel, businesses said they can no longer cope with pump prices. Two protesters were killed, one in Spain and one in Portugal, as they attempted to block traffic. Truckers in South Korea voted to strike, and Malaysian Prime Minister pledged about $306 million to maintain support among provincial lawmakers angry over the fuel costs. Several hundred trucks and buses in Hong Kong snarled traffic. Drivers were demanding reductions in fuel taxes. The protests in India and Nepal were smaller but reflected spreading anger over prices. Fuel taxes are the issue for truckers in Europe, because they account for a large portion of the retail price of fuel. "We're doing this for our industry and our customers," said an organizer of a go-slow protest in Scotland. Protests began to hit home as Spanish media reported that gas stations in some areas had run out of fuel and some markets were reporting shortages of fresh produce. Traffic jams formed at a crossing on the French border, where Spanish drivers refused to let foreign trucks enter. The Spanish Interior Ministry announced that the first fatality was a protester struck by a van at a picket line in Granada. The van's driver, accelerated when protesters started throwing rocks at him as he tried to drive past. The second death was a protester in Portugal who was run over as he tried to signal for a truck to stop. In Britain, Prime Minister Brown cautioned the public against panic buying of gas and diesel ahead of a threatened strike by 500 oil tanker drivers. Officials worry that the strike, could create fuel shortages at the pump.   June 11, 2008   Washington Post 023062

Oil and Gas Rust - An Evil Worse Than Depletion.   In his latest report "Oil and Gas Rust - An Evil Worse Than Depletion", Simmons lays out the result when Peak Oil meets aging equipment. Almost all oil and gas fields reside thousands of feet underground. Almost all "newer" oil fields lie under the sea. Oil has to be extracted, processed, refined and transported over long distances. The entire oil value chain is built of steel. Steel begins to corrode the day it is cast. Had the world appointed an energy czar, he would have ordered a forced abandonment of rusting oil systems when leaks became too toxic. Leaks are dangerous to human health. Because rust never sleeps, leaks remain constant threat. As oil declines, brine generally takes its place, sweet light oil turns into sour heavy oil. Declining oil basins rarely have facilities replaced, and these factors accelerate corrosion and rust. The presentation gets scary as Simmons says that based on April 2008 figures from world oil production peaked in 2005! Please follow the link to this powerpoint type PDF for an eye-opener that even the simplest person can follow.   April 2008   Matthew Simmons website 023014

U.S.: The 25x'25 Alliance.   Biofuel is a renewable fuel that is not sustainable. Production of biofuel from crops in a relatively underpopulated nation like America, is one thing. Production of biofuel from crops where rainforest stood a year earlier, is something else entirely. Biofuel will not make a significant dent in global energy production, yet it is profitable. Biofuel is playing its part in rainforest destruction, and we need to put equal energy into monitoring the health and extent of our rainforests. Sustainability principles for biofuel are absolutely essential. We are learning how to extract biofuel from crop residue, timber industry byproducts, animal and municipal wastes. Policies need to be structured to accelerate these 2nd generation methods of extracting and refining biofuel. Better yet, technology needs to deliver 3rd generation biofuels that are grown in factory environments. With these sorts of innovations the goal of producing 25% of all energy from renewable sources by 2025 may not have been ambitious enough. One of the biggest challenges will be to watch for unintended environmental consequences. Sustainability must strive to produce 25% of all energy from renewable sources by 2025 - by the 25x'25 Alliance, March 2008 Congress affirmed that 25x'25 is the goal of the US, to derive 25% of its energy use from renewable resources by 2025. 25x'25 Sustainability Principles Renewable energy producers and consumers should have equitable access to renewable energy. Renewable energy production should improve air quality. Renewable energy should maintain or enhance landscape biodiversity. Renewable energy production should bolster the quality of life in communities where it occurs. Renewable energy production should be energy efficient, and conserve natural resources. Renewable energy production should result in a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Introduced or non-native species can be used for renewable energy production when there are appropriate safeguards. All regions should have the opportunity to participate in renewable energy. New technologies, can play a significant role in renewable energy production, provided they protect environmental values. Renewable energy production should maintain or improve water quality. Renewable energy production systems should maximize water conservation, and protect water resources. Renewable energy production should enhance wildlife habitat.   March 22, 2008   EcoWorld.com 022866

Ecuador's Yasuni Park: Oil Exploration Or Nature Protection?.   The Yasuni National Park is a 2.5 million acre rainforest at the intersection of the Andes, the Amazon and the Equator. It is also the heart of a struggle between oil exploration and to permanently protect one of the most biologically diverse regions of the planet. Only 2.5 acres of this forest contains as many tree species as in the US and and is home to jaguars, woolly and spider monkeys, and harpy eagles. Some of the species live on the brink of extinction. This was the home of 16,000 Waorani, but yoday, there are no more than about a thousand. One of the key reasons is the arrival of multinational oil companies in the latter part of the 20th century. A new plan could bring a halt to this exploration. Tasuni falls between Ecuador and Peru. The Ecuadorian government granted an environmental license for Petrobras, the Brazilian state-owned corporation, to drill for oil in Block 31 that is believed to hold up to a billion barrels of oil. The Peruvian government has approved environmental impact studies for two areas. Armed with new contracts, the companies have attempted to win over the people of the forest by offering the indigenous villagers clothes and candy in return for permission to drill. With the tacit permission of the villagers, Petrobras started to set up the infrastructure for oil exploration on the outer edges of Yasuni. Local authorities soon started to complain about Skanska's work in the area, saying Skanska behaved in a suspicious manner. An official in the provincial environmental office in Coca says that the company refused to cooperate with them. Petrobras' permit was revoked and the company was asked to conduct an environmental feasibility study. Villagers say that Skanska hired people from the local population to perform dangerous jobs. They are accused of having purchased food supplies in the villages, but failed to pay. One of Skanska's regional managers, an Argentinian oil exploration veteran said that "People here are slightly backward. You never know when the barbarians are going to start shooting arrows from the bushes". Skanska engineeers pay for security guards, but the company also has an agreement with the military for support. The oil companies supply the military with infrastructure, food, fuel, living quarters and emergency medical care in exchange for protection. Attorney Bolivar Beltran says that the contract violates Chapter V of Ecuador's constitution. The population is being exposed to health hazards related to oil spills and waste dumping while they live in fear of the companies. Today the future of the ITT fields remain uncertain. The government would refrain from exploiting Yasuni in exchange for receiving at least $350 million annually from the international community. A number of groups have put their weight behind it, but the plan has yet to get commitments for the full sum of money.   March 21, 2008   CorpWatch.org 022864

Coal Can't Fill World's Burning Appetite With Supplies Short, Price Rise Surpasses Oil and U.S. Exporters Profit.   Coal is suddenly in short supply and high demand worldwide. International spot prices of coal have risen by 50% or more, surpassing the escalation in oil. Forty five ships were in Australian ports waiting for coal deliveries slowed by torrential rains. China and Vietnam, banned coal exports, while India's import demands are up. Factory hours have been shortened in parts of China, blackouts across South Africa and Java. Mining companies are enjoying a windfall. Coal buyers have begun locking in long-term contracts at high prices. In the US coal exports helped lower the trade deficit. Coal exports account for 2.5% of US exports, and grew by 19% to $4.1 billion. Many companies are wondering whether high prices are here to stay. World consumption of coal has grown 30% in the past six years, twice as much as any other energy source. Meeting rising demand will prove difficult. The United States will need to make major investments in mines, railways and ports. Consol Energy, one of the biggest U.S. coal producers is trying to decide whether to expand output at its Appalachian mines and to add capacity in Baltimore's harbor. High prices would raise the cost of US electricity, half of which is generated by coal-fired plants. Coal generates 39% of carbon dioxide emissions. Legislation could impose higher costs on those who burn coal, forcing utilities and factories to become more efficient and curtail its use. China, is the world's largest consumer of coal, and its consumption is increasing by about 10% a year. China has vast coal resources, but its growing appetite has outstripped production. In January 2007, it imported more coal than it exported. Because of shortages, electricity was rationed in 17 provinces, most of them in the south. Concerned about inflation, Beijing is freezing electricity prices even as coal and oil prices soared. Demand has created incentives for small illegal coal mine operations. The government has shut down 11,155 such mines since 2005, further crimping supplies. India relies on outdated energy policies while trying to keep pace with booming demand. By 2012 India expects to add 76,000 megawatts of power. About 94% of India's coal mining is in the hands of government-owned companies. Because the government is worried about social unrest, the prices for coal and electricity are kept low. Although India's coal reserves are vast, they haven't been fully developed. The government hopes to boost coal production by 50% by 2012 and quadruple it by 2030. India expects to import 51 million tons by 2012. By 2022, imports could climb to 136 million tons. British coal consumption has climbed steadily over the past six years. Coal has surpassed gas again as the leading fuel for electricity plants. Britain imports coal from Russia, Australia, Colombia, South Africa and Indonesia. Follow the link to read the long and very detailed report.   March 20, 2008   Washington Post 023079

U.S.: A Real Freak Out.   The train wreck of bad debt meets the Saint Paddy's Day Parade of bacchanalian excess at the grade-crossing of destiny. The train is carrying America's financial system, but the engine driving it is peak oil, because declining energy resources means declining capital wealth that leads to the reinvention of American life by other means. There are those who believe we will 'high-tech' our way out, and those who believe we'll organize our way out. One of the implications is the probability that we will try anything besides the right things to keep the old game going for a while. The touting of hybrid cars, and the flimflam of energy independence, the "environmental" crowd" squanders most of its attention on how to keep all the cars running on something other than gasoline. I hate to think of the political consequences when their disappointment catches up to the reality that the suburbs and the way of life they entail will not be rescued. Now, we'll also bail-out all those who tried to become rich by getting something for nothing at both ends of the the housing bubble. The bail-out is likely to accomplish nothing except the more rapid bankruptcy of government at all levels and a second Great Depression. One game is to prevent the "assets" of Bear Stearns from going to the auction block, on which they would be discovered to be nearly worthless. The next thing in store for America will be oil-and-gasoline shortages. While frightened money pours into the oil futures markets, driving the price up, imports of oil and gas to the US may not be as reliable as it had been. The exporters may be changing their terms of doing business with us. Shortages are going to be a real freak out.
Karen Gaia says: with the growth of population and availabilty of cheap transportation, we have pushed ourselves out from the congested city centers. We have nearly used up the huge reserve of oil and natural gas and coal when we should have been conserving for our grandchildren and the bulging population we have produced. We will pay the price of our greed in the near future.   March 18, 2008   Kunstler.com 022853

Oil and Ghana's Future.   Nigeria is the 10th largest producer of crude oil in the world and the fifth largest supplier of oil to the US. As of January 2007 Nigeria had 36.2 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. To date Nigeria has made about $650 billion but has very little to show for it. Around 70% of the 130 million Nigerians live on less than $1 a day with life expectancy barely topping 50 years. In the Niger Delta where most of the oil reserves are found, the rivers have been polluted. The fish in the local rivers are gone. Agricultural land can no longer grow food. Shell has shipped oil from Nigeria for over 50 years, leaving the Niger Delta undeveloped. Nigeria's refining capacity is insufficient to meet local demand and Nigeria imports petroleum products. Ghana needs to be very circumspect with how it handles the emerging oil boom. The government must make sure that the oil companies take business and social responsibility seriously. The oil companies must address the provision of facilities to improve the lot of the local communities. Our justice system must bring such crooks and recalcitrants to book irrespective of the person's social, economic, or political standing. The expected oil windfall is an opportunity for the government to take steps to reverse the brain drain. The country will need Ghanaian technocrats in all fields to come home to support the harnessing of our capabilities towards the take off of the Ghanaian economy as has happened with India and Singapore. We must start to train new and additional personnel and technicians. We must eschew waste, apathy, corruption, lack of foresight and lack of accountability. In an age of industrialization, and computerization, we cannot afford power outages. The current power outages have caused many businesses to lose their equipment and machinery. The mining industry has been hit and there are reports that cat-scan machinery at our hospitals have been damaged resulting in many untimely deaths. Our hospitals are badly maintained and have been no new major ones being built despite the increases in the country's population. in the population of the elderly and retired. We need to increase the contribution of industry, creating more employment opportunities. In the rural areas nobody cares about living conditions. Most are not fit for habitation by humans. If we want the rural areas to be attractive they must be upgraded. Rural industries must be cited in these areas to encourage the youth to stay. This will call for the provision of good roads, electricity, water, etc. We have failed to maintain the road and rail systems we inherited from our colonial masters. There must be super-highways linking all major towns and cities in the country. Ghanaians need to develop maintenance for sustainability. New and first class highways must be constructed from the north to the south. Successive governments must maintain development projects started by the previous government. We need creativity and innovation in our political dispensation. We need new and bold ideas from our political leadership. Every house in Accra and all other cities and towns must be required to construct water closets employing the use of septic tanks until we develop an elaborate and efficient sewage system. However, we need water to flush the waste. The government, has to make sure there is provision of adequate and constant running water before it can enact such a law. When it rains in the cities like New York City, the water running into the curbs and underground drainage systems are as clear as tap water or water that falls on the roofs with no sediments to block the drains. In Accra all the silt is washed into the gutters causing them to overflow resulting in severe flooding. The government must ensure that the necessary infrastructure, constant flowing electricity and water, expanded and reliable communications system, conducive business environment, effective, efficient, and reliable court system, efficient transportation and ports systems, efficient health care delivery system, well equipped schools across the country, to mention, but a few, are in place if we want Ghana to progress towards a middle-income status. The government needs to re-examine the role of the central government in society. The opposition must criticize positively and provide better alternatives, instead of simply debunking and opposing recklessly every measure that is tabled by the ruling party. For an improvement in the quality of life, we need to monitor and match the country's natural growth by increasing infrastructure to keep pace with our population growth. The 21st century will call for greater collaboration among government, private industry, and higher education for complex research and development projects in the fields of technology, agriculture, health, the sciences and engineering. This must begin with formal networking among individuals in the universities/polytechnics, private industry, and the government.
Karen Gaia says: no mention is made of the need to curtail population growth and the solution: voluntary family planning.   March 12, 2008   Modern Ghana 022834

Energy Warning for Bric 3.   China, India and Brazil will more than double their energy use and greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 if they fail to improve energy efficiency. Cost-effective retrofits could reduce these countries' energy use by at least 25% and advanced technologies reduce their energy demand growth by 2030 by at least 10% and CO2 emission growth by 16%. Good solutions can work as long as the financing and investment environment is in place and there's commitment from policymakers. China, India and Brazil are among the world's top 10 energy consumers and are home to 40% of the world's population. They account for more than half of all energy demand by developing countries and will be responsible for 42% of growth in energy demand by 2030. The main obstacles to energy efficiency are inadequate organization and institutional systems and the necessary funds, but there is gradual improvement in terms of energy efficiency. A commercially viable energy-efficiency sector is now emerging in China after a decade of strong government support. In Brazil, an energy-efficiency fund provides a platform for further improvement. China has launched measures to promote energy efficiency and reduce pollution, trying to ensure sustainable growth.   February 29, 2008   China Daily 022792

The Price of Biofuels.   The exuberance over ethanol has given way to a dreary hangover, especially among those who invested heavily in the production facilities. Biofuel factories, clustered largely in the corn-growing states, will produce 6.4 billion gallons of ethanol this year, and another 74 facilities are under construction. Now many are losing money. The price of a bushel of corn is near $4.00 again. At the same time, ethanol prices plummeted and profit margins vanished. The use of corn-derived ethanol as a fuel has economic problems all its own. Even though companies that use ethanol in their gasoline receive a federal tax credit of 51 cents per gallon, ethanol struggles to compete economically. The boom in ethanol production is driving up the price of food. In the US in 2007, about 20% percent of corn went to ethanol. Since most of the rest is used to feed animals, the prices of beef, milk, poultry, and pork are all affected by increases in the cost of corn and The could bring about shifts in agricultural markets worldwide and cause food shortages. This comes at a time when the need for alternatives to petroleum-based fuels is becoming urgent, and worries about the greenhouse-gas emissions from the 142 billion gallons of gasoline used every year in the US are deepening. Expanded use of biofuels is central to the federal government's long-term energy strategy. Hitting both targets will require significant technological breakthroughs. In the US ethanol means the corn-derived version. Proponents of corn ethanol say that its production levels cannot go higher than around 15 billion gallons a year. Advocates of biofuels have called for ethanol to be made from alternative feedstocks but the technology is four to five years from commercial viability. Advanced biological techniques for creating other biofuels, such as hydrocarbons, are still in the lab. The economic and market limitations of corn ethanol are a reminder of the difficulties facing developers of new biofuels. The problem is so huge that technology has to do it at a price that is competitive. The numbers speak for themselves. At $4.00 a bushel of corn, ethanol production costs $1.70 a gallon; to gain a 12% profit the producers need to sell at $1.83 a gallon. Corn derived ethanol is not a "green fuel" because making ethanol takes a lot of energy. About 25% more energy is squeezed out of the biofuel than is used to produce it, other fuels yield much bigger gains. You're getting a slight saving in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions, but not much. Corn-derived production could have repercussions throughout the agricultural markets. Not only are corn prices up, but so are soybean prices, because farmers planted fewer soybeans to make room for corn. The volume of corn required by the ethanol industry is sending shock waves through the food system. Because a larger percentage of their income goes to food, he says, this is going to hit poor people. All these factors argue against the promise of corn ethanol as a solution to the energy problem. Even if all the corn planted in the US were used for ethanol, the biofuel would still displace only 12% of gasoline consumption. Since the oil crisis of the 1970s, chemical and biological engineers have chased after ways to turn the nation's reserves of "cellulosic" material such as wood, agricultural residues, and perennial grasses into ethanol and other biofuels. The U.S. DOE announced up to $385 million in funding for six "biorefinery" projects that will use various technologies to produce ethanol from biomass. The country has enough forest and agricultural land to produce 1.3 billion tons of biomass that could go toward biofuels. It takes less energy to grow cellulosic materials than to grow corn, and portions of the biomass can be used to help power the production process. For decades, scientists have known of bacteria that can degrade cellulose and produce some ethanol. Yet none can do the job quickly enough for large-scale manufacturing. One bacteria, Clostridium phytofermentans, decomposes nearly all the components of the plant, and produces prodigious amounts of ethanol. A company in Amherst, SunEthanol, will attempt to scale up ethanol production using the bacterium. By 2050, the world will need a billion hectares more land for food. That's the land mass of the entire United States just to feed the world. It makes sense to grow biomass for fuels on infertile land no longer used for agriculture. Instead of ethanol, California startups are planning to produce novel hydrocarbons fermented from sugars, but more closely resemble gasoline, diesel, and even jet fuel. The problem is that nature offers no known examples of microrganisms that can ferment sugars into the types of hydrocarbons useful for fuel. If eventually commercialized, the hydrocarbon biofuels could overcome many of the economic disadvantages of ethanol. Unlike ethanol, hydrocarbons separate from water during the production process, so no energy intensive distillation is necessary. Sugar cane offers the most viable way to make biofuels today. Khosla envisions biofuel production increasing over the next 20 years. Production of corn ethanol will level off at 15 billion gallons a year by 2014, but cellulosic ethanol will reach 140 billion gallons by 2030. At that point, biofuels will be cheap and abundant enough to replace gasoline for almost all purposes. In the Midwest, there are lingering questions about how the nation's agriculture will switch to biomass. The main point is whether corn ethanol will lead to new technologies--or stand in their way. Unless the cost is reduced significantly, cellulosic ethanol is going nowhere. If cellulosic biofuels are to begin replacing gasoline within five to ten years, facilities will need to start construction soon. This fall, A company announced that it had begun work in Georgia on what it claims is the country's first commercial scale cellulosic-ethanol plant. It will use thermochemical technology to make ethanol from wood chips. A facility in Tennessee will be the first cellulosic-ethanol plant built to use switchgrass. But these production plants are federally subsidized or are a result of partnerships with state development organizations; attracting private investment for commercial-scale production will be a huge and risky challenge. It will take another 10 years to optimize production processes for cellulosic biofuels.   February 2008   Technology Review 022596

$2500 Car Raises Tough Questions.   Recently introduced by India's Tata, the Nano costs $2,500 and promises to improve the quality of life for the thousands of Indians who are starting to form a growing middle-class. Up to five people can fit into a Nano - although there's no air conditioning, radio, power steering or electric windows. But it gets about 54 miles to the gallon. As countries like India and China continue to post strong economic growth, individuals begin to prosper and the demand for cars begins to take shape. Some have denounced the Nano as a source of further CO2 emissions in an over-polluted country. Why not invest in more public transport, instead of putting hundreds of thousands of cheap little cars on the roads of India? But why should they not be entitled to the same conveniences that we take for granted? There are about 18.5 million vehicles registered in Canada for a population of 32 million. The US has .8 vehicles per person. We use around 53 billion litres of gas or diesel fuel. The governments we have elected have made limited progress with the formulation of a comprehensive environmental policy. Telling voters that they have to tighten their belts is never considered a popular tactic at the polls. There's no question that people in India and China are as entitled to the consumer comforts that we've enjoyed for so long. The question is whether they'll learn from our mistakes - or merely be the victims of them.   January 20, 2008   Sympatico MSN Finance 022559

Oil Demand, the Climate and the Energy Ladder.   Energy demand is expected to grow in coming decades. Jeroen van der Veer, Royal Dutch Shell's chief executive, recently offered his views on the energy challenge facing the world and the challenge posed by global warming You go from six billion people to nine billion people in 2050. Many more people climbing the energy ladder creates that enormous demand for energy. Politicians think we have a choice between fossil fuels and renewables. We have to grow both fossil fuels and renewables. And that will be a huge effort. In the very short term, carbon emissions will increase. But over time people will figure out ways, that while using fossil fuels, you try to find carbon solutions. The problem is that many of the renewables, if you take the subsidies out, are still too expensive. There is no lack of oil or gas, or coal. The problem is that the easy-to-produce oil or gas will be depleted. But if you look at difficult oil or gas, which the industry call the unconventionals, such as oil sands or shales, they may be exploitable. But per barrel, you need more technology and investments, and per barrel you need a lot more brain to produce it. It's much more expensive. If carbon is the bottleneck, you get more carbon reduction for less money by tackling the power sector and maybe the building sector.   January 19, 2008   New York Times* 022624

Ethanol -- Solution Or Boondoggle?.   Ethanol from corn promises an unending supply of renewable energy. Yet some energy experts calculate that producing ethanol consumes about as much energy as burning it releases. When ethanol production began, calculations of benefits were theoretical. Now we have data and the news isn't good for ethanol. As production ramps up, we should see gasoline use ramp down if ethanol is really a net benefit. Since ethanol makes up about 3% percent of our vehicle fuel, we should see a corresponding decrease in gasoline use. But U.S. gasoline consumption has increased by 1.4% annually for the past five years. If ethanol had replaced gasoline, we should have seen a 1.6% decrease in gasoline use (1.4 - 3%. Total miles driven increased only 1.2% from 2005 to 2006. The only explanation is that growing corn and distilling it into ethanol uses as much energy as it offers. One reason is that the appearance of corn growing by solar energy is an illusion. About 9/10ths of the energy that goes into corn comes not from sunlight, but from oil and gas. Tractors run on oil, fertilizer is made mostly from natural gas and moved around on oil-consuming trucks, combines harvest using oil and the list goes on and on. Ethanol production is a disaster, one that will get worse as new distilleries come online in the Midwest. We are seeing higher prices for milk, chicken and other corn-based products. High corn prices hurt us and cause suffering in the third world. We should do the following as soon as possible: Phase out the federal subsidy of ethanol production. This costs billions. End tariffs on imported biofuels, Brazil and other countries can make ethanol with minimal fossil fuel inputs. Increase CAFE fuel economy standards. The energy would actually not diverted to a new fuel infrastructure. European passenger vehicles get about 47% better fuel economy than American ones, and they still cruise the autobahns at breathtaking speeds. Promote renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. The major obstacle to a rational policy is not engineering, but politics. We will continue to need small amounts of ethanol as an oxygenating additive, safer than the MTBE it replaces. But corn-based ethanol as a gasoline substitute is a tragic illusion.
Karen Gaia says: having other countries make biofuels has been equally disasterous. Otherwise I agree with this article.   December 23, 2007   Sentinel 022590

Earth Policy News - is World Oil Production Peaking?.   Data from the International Energy Agency IEA show a loss of momentum in the growth of oil production during the last few years. From 82.90 million barrels per day (mb/d) in 2004 to 84.15 mb/d in 2005, output only increased to 84.80 mb/d in 2006 and then declined to 84.62 mb/d during the first 10 months of 2007. The combination of world production starting to decline while demand continues to rise rapidly is putting upward pressure on prices. If production growth continues to lag behind the increase in demand, how high will prices go? There are many ways of assessing the oil production future. One is the relationship between oil discoveries and production, by the Hubbert who noted that the discovery of new reserves in the US peaked around 1930, and correctly predicted in 1956 that U.S. oil output would peak in 1970. Globally, oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s. Each year since 1984, production has exceeded new discoveries, by a widening gap. In 2006, 31 billion barrels of oil were extracted, exceeding the discovery of 9 billion barrels. The world's 20 largest oil fields were all discovered between 1917 and 1979. Annual output from the aging fields is falling by 4 mb/d. Offsetting this decline with new discoveries is becoming increasingly difficult. Among the post-peak countries are the US, which peaked at 9.6 mb/d in 1970, dropping to 5.1 mb/d in 2006; Venezuela, peaked in 1970; and the United Kingdom and Norway, peaked in 1999 and 2000. Russia is now the world's leading oil producer. Two other countries with substantial potential are Canada, largely because of its tar sands, and Kazakhstan, which is developing the Kashagan oil field in the Caspian Sea. Other pre-peak countries include Algeria, Angola, Brazil, Nigeria, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Production may be peaking in Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and China. Saudi officials claim they can produce far more oil, but the giant Ghawar oil field-the world's largest by far-is 56 years old and in its declining years. Saudi oil production for the first eight months of 2007 show output of 8.62 mb/d, a drop of 6% from the 9.15 mb/d of 2006. If Saudi Arabia cannot restore growth, then peak oil is on our doorstep. In Mexico, output apparently peaked in 2004 at 3.4 mb/d. Mexico could be an oil importer by 2015. Production in China, may also be about to peak. Geological knowledge has improved in the past 30 years and it is inconceivable that major fields remain to be found. When oil output is no longer expanding, no country can get more oil unless another gets less. Oil-intensive industries will be hit hard. Cheap airfares will become history. The airline industry's projected growth will evaporate. The food industry will be affected by rising oil prices, since modern agriculture and food transport are oil-intensive. Pressures will intensify on the auto companies that are developing plug-in hybrid cars to bring them to market quickly. Higher oil prices have been needed to reflect the indirect costs of burning oil, such as climate change, and to encourage more-efficient use of a resource that is fast being depleted. The US has neglected public transportation and 88% of the workforce travels to work by car. Efforts to prevent oil prices from rising depend on reducing demand, largely within the transportation sector. And the US must play a lead role in cutting oil use. If governments fail to act quickly and decisively to reduce oil use, oil prices could soar leading to a global recession or a 1930s-type global depression.   November 15, 2007   Earth Policy Institute 022560

Peak Oil.   World oil production will fall by half as soon as 2030, and shortages of fossil fuels will lead to wars and social breakdown. Global oil production peaked in 2006 earlier than most experts had expected. The report predicts that production will fall by several percent a year. The world will not be able to produce all the oil it needs as demand is rising while supply is falling. The most alarming finding was the steep decline in oil production after its peak, which is now behind us. Official industry estimates put global reserves at about 1.255 gigabarrels, equivalent to 42 years' supply at current consumption rates. But it thinks the figure is only about two thirds of that. Global oil production is about 81m barrels a day. But EWG expects that to fall to 39m by 2030. It also predicts falls in gas, coal and uranium production as those energy sources are used up. The report presents a bleak view of the future unless a radically different approach is adopted. Anticipated supply shortages could lead to mass unrest as witnessed in Burma. The world is at the beginning of a change of its economic system, triggered by declining fossil fuel supplies and will influence almost all aspects of our daily life. The world has to move quickly towards the deployment of renewable energy and a dramatic increase in energy efficiency.   November 07, 2007   Guardian (London) 022231

The End of Oil is Upon Us. We Must Move on - Quickly.   The International Energy Agency has made it clear that only a massive and immediate investment in sustainable energy will prevent a global crisis. "Alarming" growth in worldwide energy needs will within a generation threaten energy security, accelerate global climate change and possibly bring worldwide shortages and conflicts. It's an unusually pessimistic view from an agency that has long said oil production, with trillions of dollars of investment, could meet rising energy needs. But the explosive growth of China and India has caused a seismic change in thinking at the IEA, which says we must move swiftly, boldly and decisively beyond fossil fuels if we are to avert a crisis.   November 07, 2007   Wired Blog Network 022248

Feed People, Not Cars.   A growing group of human rights and environmental activists point to the dangers that biofuels pose to environmental sustainability and the livelihoods of communities around the world. Most of the policies envision substituting biofuels for fossil fuels without reducing our overall consumption of energy. These proposals are backed by agribusiness, biotech companies, and oil interests that are now investing billions in ethanol and biodiesel plants. But agrofuels are not easily renewable because the Earth's landmass is itself a finite resource. To produce 7% of the energy that the US gets from petroleum would require converting the country's entire corn crop to ethanol. Growing agrofuels on a mass scale is already jacking up food prices, depleting soil and water supplies, destroying forests, and violating the rights of indigenous and local people. Agrofuel plantations in Brazil and Southeast Asia are being created on the territories of indigenous peoples who have traditionally lived in and protected these ecosystems. Agrofuel expansion threatens to divert the world's grain supply from food to fuel. Corn will become more expensive. Already in June soaring demand for biofuels is contributing to a rise in global food import costs. Small-scale farmers in Colombia, Rwanda, and Guatemala feel compelled to grow luxury crops such as flowers and coffee for export while their families go hungry. The crops required to make enough biofuel to fill a 25-gallon tank could feed one person for a year. Agrofuels Don't necessarily reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. The most common method of turning palm oil into fuel produces more carbon dioxide emissions than refining petroleum. Corporate plans for expanding biofuel production involve destroying ecosystems to create massive plantations that rely on chemical fertilizers and toxic pesticides to maximize production. A five-year moratorium on the conversion of land for agrofuel production should be accompanied by the development of new energy technologies that do not compromise global food security. Creative and practical solutions for meeting our energy requirements -including some local, sustainable biofuel programs - are being developed around the world. We can support proposals for developing sustainable renewable energy sources, while recognizing the need to reduce overall consumption and protect everyone's basic right to food.
Ralph says: If the world population continues to grow the use of corn for bio-fuel will no make much difference. Many will starve.   October 31, 2007   Jerusalem Post 022177

Steep Decline in Oil Production Brings Risk of War and Unrest, Says New Study.   According to a study by the German-based Energy Watch Group, World oil production will fall by half as soon as 2030, and extreme shortages of fossil fuels will lead to wars and social breakdown. Oil production will now fall by 7% a year. This is a huge problem for the world economy and is in contrast to projections from the International Energy Agency, which says there is little reason to worry about oil supplies. However, this study relies on actual oil production data which are more reliable than estimates of reserves still in the ground. The group says official industry estimates put global reserves at about 1.255 gigabarrels, 42 years' supply at current consumption rates. But it thinks the figure is only about two thirds of that. Global oil production is currently about 81m barrels a day expected to fall to 39m by 2030. It also predicts falls in gas, coal and uranium production as those energy sources are used up. Britain's oil production has dropped by half to about 1.6 million barrels a day. The report presents a bleak view of the future unless a different approach is adopted. Supply shortages could lead to mass unrest as witnessed in Burma this month. For government, industry and the wider public, just muddling through is not an option any more. The world is at the beginning of a change of its economic system, triggered by declining fossil fuel supplies and will influence all aspects of our life.   October 22, 2007   Guardian (London) 022321

Discussion of Energy and Canada's Future.   During the period of industrialization, the human population has been related to the amount of energy we have used. As industrialization progressed, the amount of per capita energy has risen from 1.2 TOE (ton of oil equivalent) in 1966 to 1.7 TOE in 2006, global energy supply tripled, the population doubled. Global energy consists of oil 36%, natural gas 24%, coal 28%, nuclear 6%, hydro 6% and renewable energy such as wind and solar about 1%. A standard measure is called the tonne of oil equivalent (toe). Our oil supply is finite, non-renewable, and subject to a declining production rate, known as Peak Oil. When we start producing oil from a region, we develop the most accessible oil fields first and as they go into decline try to replace them with new fields that tend to be smaller and don't compensate for the decline of the large fields. About 60% of the world's oil supply is extracted from only 1% of the world's oil fields. A number of well informed people have declared that the peak has arrived. The post-peak decline rates vary all over the map. In most countries the demand for oil is increasing. In oil exporting nations, rising oil prices have stimulated economic growth which has resulted in a higher domestic demand for oil. When the exporting nation's production begins to decline the amount of oil available for export declines at a faster rate than the production decline. If the oil export market should dry up, the US would be forced to accept a reduction in industrial activity, GDP and lifestyle, and enter into long-term supply contracts with producing nations, or even military action to secure foreign oil supplies. The supply situation with natural gas is very similar to that of oil. Gas reservoirs show the same size distribution as oil reservoirs and we drilled the big ones first. The natural gas supply will exhibit a similar bell-shaped curve to what we saw for oil. The gas market is small due to the difficulty in transporting gas. Most of the world's natural gas is shipped by pipeline that limits gas to national and continental markets. The peak of world gas production may not occur until 2025, but we will have less warning than we had for Peak Oil, and the decline rates may be shockingly high. Coal has a terrible environmental reputation, going back to its widespread use in Britain in the 1700s. Weight for weight, coal produces more CO2 than either oil or gas. Coal is abundant. If electricity is to replace some of the energy lost due to the decline of oil and natural gas, this will put more upward pressure on the demand for coal. China is installing two new coal-fired power plants per week. A model projects a continued rise in the use of coal to a peak in 2025. There will be mounting pressure to reduce coal use. The model has the annual decline in coal use from 0% in 2025 to a 5% annual decline in 2100. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) which involves the capture and compression of CO2 from power plant exhaust, which is then pumped into played-out gas fields for long term storage. This technology is in the experimental stage, and there is much skepticism surrounding the security of storing CO2 in porous rock. Since nuclear reactors have a lifespan averaging 40 years, a lot of the world's reactors are approaching the end of their life. The replacement rate from the UIC planning table is only about three to four reactors per year for at least the next ten to twenty years. Within the next twenty years we will have retired over 300 reactors, but will have built only 60. The drop in capacity between now and 2030 is the result of new construction not keeping pace with the rapid decommissioning of large numbers of old reactors. After 2060 we will start losing global industrial capacity due to the decline in oil and natural gas. As a result, by 2060 we won't have the capability we would need to replace all our aging nuclear reactors. To stay with the rate of decommissioning of our current reactor base we would need to build 17 new reactors a year forever. Hydor power is relatively clean, has the ability to supply large amounts of electricity quite consistently. Its problems include destruction of habitat, the release of CO2 and methane from flooded vegetation, and the disruption of river flows. Hydro power has capacity growing to about double its current level by 2060. It then declines back to the current level by 2100 due to a general loss of global industrial capacity and a reduction in water flows due to global warming. Renewable energy includes such sources as wind, photovoltaic and thermal solar, tidal and wave power etc. The whole renewable energy industry is still in its infancy and at the moment, shows little impact but enormous promise. Wind power, for example, has experienced annual growth rates of 30% over the last decade. Proponents of renewable energy support a conviction that all things are possible. Dreams of replacing the world's gasoline with ethanol and biodiesel are struggling against the limits of low net energy in biological processes. It's unrealistic to expect that they will achieve a dominant position in the energy marketplace. Peak contribution will be in 2070 and then declines because many renewable energy sources are dependent on a high level of technology and manufacturing capacity. Fossil fuels are the most important contributors to the world's current energy mix, but all three are in rapid decline by the second half of the century. Unfortunately, the loss of fossil fuels means that the total amount of energy available to humanity by the end of the century may be less than one fifth of the amount we use now. While our per capita food energy consumption has remained relatively constant the energy we each use for the rest of our activities has grown almost thirty times from our early agricultural days. The world's population has increased from 200 million in to 6.6 billion today. The consumption of an early industrial man in 1875 was 2.5 TOE per year. For comparison, the global average per capita non-food energy consumption in 1965 was only 1.2 TOE per year. A declining world energy supply would affect countries at opposite ends of the consumption spectrum quite differently. Human beings need a significant amount of energy to sustain even a relatively poor quality of life. As energy supplies decline and per capita energy falls, the quality of life of those on the bottom end of the consumption scale will be drastically affected. Those at the bottom of the economic ladder have no ability to reallocate their discretionary spending and they will be out-bid and have to do without some amount of fuel or electricity. Over 4.5 billion of the world's 6.6 billion live in countries that have per capita energy consumptions under 2.0 TOE per year. As energy supplies decline, these countries are at risk of vast increases in mortality and their populations begin to fall below the minimum energy level required for sustaining life. Some oil producing countries will sell much of their product on the international market for the money it will bring. Such actions may result in a deprived and discontented population, giving rise to fuel riots and even the threat of revolution. This will result in a wave of nationalization of oil resources so that governments can direct its distribution and control the local price. Oil importing nations will need to reallocate their discretionary money toward the purchase of oil. If that cannot buy enough to satisfy their needs they will be forced to reduce their consumption. Producing nations that are keeping their oil off the world market will be at special risk of becoming targets in a resource war. Under those assumptions, the world population would rise to about 7.5 billion in 2025 before starting an inexorable decline to 1.8 billion by 2100. The carrying capacity of a given environment is the maximum number of individuals that the environment can support sustainably at a given level of activity. It is obvious that the current level of human activity is not sustainable. The fact that it has been possible at all is mainly because of the use of fossil fuel, a non-renewable resource. When a population rises beyond the carrying capacity of its environment, the existing population cannot be supported and must eventually decline to match or fall below the carrying capacity. There are two ways a population can regain its balance with the carrying capacity. If the population stays constant or continues rising, its activity must fall. If per capita consumption stays constant, population numbers must decline. Populations in serious overshoot always decline. This population reduction is known as a crash or a die-off, and can be very rapid. Our use of oil has allowed us to perform prodigious feats of resource extraction and waste production that would simply have been inconceivable without the one-time gift of oil. At the same time, the use of fossil fuel and other high-intensity energy has allowed us to mask the underlying degradation of the Earth's carrying capacity. As our supply of energy begins to decline, we will see the true extent of our ecological depredations. As we have to rely more and more on the unassisted bounty of nature, the consequences of our actions will begin to affect us all. With less energy we won't be able to hide the existing ecological losses. As our energy supply declines we will do ever greater damage to the ecosphere in our attempt to forestall the inevitable. The impact of diminished carrying capacity will start now, and will reach about 40% by 2100. This 40% number represents the extent to which carrying capacity has been diminished and can no longer be masked by energy use. The human race is out of time. We are staring at hard limits on our activities and numbers, imposed by energy constraints and ecological damage. We have come to this point so suddenly that most of us have not yet realized it. The first impacts from oil depletion will be felt within five years, far too short a time to accomplish any of the unraveling or re-engineering it would take to back away from the precipice. We are committed to going over the edge into a major population reduction. The need for action is more urgent now than ever. We need to start now to put systems, structures and attitudes in place that will help cope with the difficulties. We need to develop new ways of seeing the world and each other, new values and ethics. We need to minimize the misery and ensure that as many healthy, happy people as possible emerge from this long trauma with the skills and knowledge needed to build the next cycle of civilization.   October 17, 2007   The Oil Drum 022086

Consuming the Earth.   Dick Dalton, a professor at Lincoln University, suggested that for the world to change for the better, each individual is going to have to contribute. Dalton's was one of several messages delivered recently at Westminster College, which addressed dozens of topics related to conservation, natural preservation and energy consumption. Robert Kennedy Jr. has devoted himself to environmental causes and sued to stop companies from polluting the Hudson River. Paul Roberts, one of the symposium's featured speakers, predicted a shock when gasoline prices begin reflecting the actual cost of exploration, refining and pollution control. Roberts said it's going to take a lot of work to convince people about the energy-related challenges that loom on the horizon. We will have to come up with a new way of thinking about how we use energy. Many people have yet to reach the point where the price of oil affects lifestyles. Roberts predicted that as China builds its economy, it will compete for access to what remains of the world's oil supply. He said for every three barrels consumed only one new barrel is discovered. He said ethanol production was not a solution and predicted the coming oil crisis would lead to the rediscovery of small communities. Gasoline is more expensive in Europe and in Russia motorists pay a tax to cover carbon dioxide emissions. One student said her hometown has a population of more than 50,000 but that it is easy to get around by walking or by public transportation. Americans are going to have to make a major shift in their living habits and give up the idea of always using a car to get around. "Green buildings" use reusable and recycled materials, regionally-manufactured, as well as the building's ability to save energy. One thing is the use of "green roofs," in which vegetation is used to clean and retain water as well as reduce heat effects. Kennedy said there was a close bond between a vigorous democracy and the protection of the environment. The biggest threat to the environment is the corrosive power and control of the government," Kennedy said. "They have put polluters in charge of virtually all of the agencies that are supposed to be protecting Americans from pollution," Kennedy said. "Over the past seven years, a negligent press has let down American democracy in informing the public about environmental crimes," Kennedy added. "We need an aggressive and independent press that is willing to stand up and speak truth to power." Kennedy said saving plants and wildlife is not the end goal of environmental protection. It's all about giving future generations the chance to communicate with God through the "undiluted work of the creator."   October 07, 2007   Columbia Tribune 022027

Climate Change: Development Offsetting Gains in Efficiency.   Doha is the capital of Qatar, a tiny state east of Saudi Arabia. Since I was last there, a skyline that looks like a mini-Manhattan has sprouted from the desert. This once sleepy harbor now has a profile of skyscrapers, thanks to a huge injection of oil and gas revenues. Dalian, in China had a mini-Manhattan area and seems to have grown two more since. It is a blessing that their people are growing out of poverty -- they're following the high-energy growth model pioneered by America. "Americans" are popping up all over, people who once lived low-energy lifestyles but, by dint of wealth or hard work, are now moving into U.S.-style apartments, cars and appliances. Our planet cannot tolerate so many "Americans," the world consumed about 66.6 million barrels a day of oil in 1990. We're now consuming 83 million barrels a day. Demand for oil has grown 22% in the U.S. since 1990. Chinas oil demand has grown nearly 200% in the same period. By 2030, the thirst for oil is forecast to increase by another 40% if we maintain business as usual. We're fooling ourselves. There is no green revolution, or, the counter-revolution is trumping it at every turn. Without a technological breakthrough in the energy space, all of the incremental gains we're making will be devoured by the exponential growth of all the new and old "Americans."   September 19, 2007   Climate Change 022089

Peak Oil, Carrying Capacity and Population Overshoot.   At the root of all the crises of the world is overpopulation. Too many people using too much of our planet's finite, non-renewable resources and filling its waste repositories of land, water and air to overflowing. It is becoming clearer every day that bringing about a sustainable balance between ourselves and the planet will require us, in very short order, to reduce our population. Our numbers must not generate more waste than natural processes can return to the biosphere, and that most of the resources are either renewable through natural processes or are entirely recycled. A sustainable population must not grow past the point where those natural limits are breached. It is obvious that the current human population is not sustainable. Carrying capacity means the sustainable level of population that can be supported and implies that all the resources a population uses are renewable within a meaningful time frame. A graph of world population makes it obvious that something has massively increased the world's carrying capacity in the last 150 years. The population rose very gradually as humanity spread across the globe. Around 1800 this began to change, and by 1900 the human population was rising dramatically. Oil first entered general use around 1900 when the global population was about 1.6 billion. Since then the population has quadrupled. Are there other factors besides oil? The main one is the increase in food production created by the growth of industrial agribusiness. You find at its heart our friend petroleum Industrial agriculture as practiced is supported by mechanization, pesticides/fertilizers and genetic engineering. The first two are dependent on petroleum to run the machines and natural gas to act as the chemical feedstock. Food production is showing strain as it struggles to maintain productivity in the face of rising population, flattening oil production and the depletion of soil fertility and fresh water. World grain consumption has exceeded global production in six of the last seven years, falling over 60 million tonnes below consumption in 2006. Global grain reserves have fallen to 57 days from a high of 130 days in 1986. Without large quantities of cheap oil, this revolution could not have occurred. As the oil supply begins its inevitable decline, food production will be affected. Over the next decades the food supply key to maintaining our burgeoning population will come under increasing pressure, and will be subject to its own decline. Oil and natural gas together make up about 60% of humanity's primary energy. Oil is at the heart of humanity's enormous energy economy as well as at the heart of its food supply. Humanity's use of oil has quadrupled the Earth's carrying capacity since 1900. If the population stays constant or continues to rise, per capita consumption must fall. The population may fall to a lower level than was sustainable. We are getting signals from our environment that all is not well and seem to be telling us we are approaching the maximum carrying capacity. While humanity has not yet reached the carrying capacity of a world with oil, our population today is at least five times what it was before oil came on the scene, and it is still growing. If this resource were to be exhausted, our population would have no option but to decline to the level supportable by the world's lowered carrying capacity. The theory of Peak Oil says that the world's oil production will decline and the signals of Peak Oil are all around. The decline in oil supply will reduce the planet's carrying capacity, thus forcing humanity into overshoot with the inevitable consequence of a population decline. The rapidity of the decline following the peak will determine whether our descent will be a leisurely stroll down to the canyon floor or a headlong tumble. This is a looming catastrophe that is the product of our species' continuing growth in both numbers and ability, an exponential growth that is taking place within the finite ecological niche of the entire world. Our recent growth has been fueled by the draw-down of primordial stocks of petroleum which are about to deplete while our numbers and activities continue to grow. This is a simple recipe for disaster.   September 15, 2007   Paul Chefurka website 021923

National Petroleum Council Pictures Life After Conventional Crude.   The National Petroleum Council, in a draft report released this week, confirms that conventional crude oil supplies won't keep up with global demand in the next quarter century. It recommends an array of future approaches, such as improving vehicle fuel economy; pushing biofuels, oil shale, and tar sands; opening off-limits areas to drilling; and curbing carbon dioxide.   July 17, 2007   Houston Chronicle 021592

U.S.;: New Battery Packs Powerful Punch.   A new type of a room-size battery, (NaS) may be poised to store electric energy almost as easily as a reservoir stockpiles water. Compared with other batteries plagued by limited life spans or unwieldy bulk, the sodium-sulfur battery is compact, long-lasting and efficient. Utilities could defer construction of new transmission lines, substations and power plants. The batteries make wind power a more reliable resource. And they provide backup power in case of outages. Power demand is projected to soar 50% by 2030 and other methods of expanding the power supply are facing obstacles. Congress is likely to cap carbon dioxide emissions by traditional power plants. Communities are fighting plans for high-voltage transmission lines needed to zap electricity across regions. American Electric Power (AEP), has been using a 1.2 megawatt NaS battery and plans to install a larger one next year. If you've got these batteries distributed in the neighborhood, you have, in a sense, lots of little power plants. The NaS battery is the most advanced of several energy-storage technologies that utilities are testing. The oldest collects water after it spins a turbine and uses a small amount of electricity to send it back and repeat the process. Lead-acid batteries last about five years because the acid corrodes components. A NaS battery, uses a porcelain-like material to bridge the electrodes, giving it a life span of about 15 years and takes up about a fifth of the space. Ford Motor pioneered the battery in the 1960s. Japanese businesses have installed enough NaS batteries to light about 155,000 homes. In the USA, AEP is using the 30 by 15-foot-high battery to supply 10% of the electricity needs of 2,600 customers. The battery, which cost about $2.5 million, is charged by generators at night, when demand and prices are low, and discharged when power usage peaks. The battery lets AEP postpone by about seven years the $10 million upgrade of a substation. After it upgrades the substation, AEP can move the battery to another location. A more intriguing goal is to wring more energy out of wind farms. Wind typically blows hard at night when power demand is low, producing energy that cannot be used. NaS batteries could let AEP store wind-generated power. AEP plans to install another NaS battery in West Virginia to provide backup power in case of an outage. In Long Island, N.Y., a group of utilities plans to install a NaS battery that is charged at night, when power prices are low, and discharged during the day to pump natural gas into tanks for the buses. That cuts electric costs and eases stresses on the grid. The biggest drawback is price. The battery costs about 10% more than a new coal-fired plant. Mass production is expected to drive prices down. A group of Iowa municipal utilities plans to use wind turbines to compress air to be stored in an underground cavern. The air would be released at peak periods to run turbines and generate power for about 200,000 homes.   July 04, 2007   USA Today 021503

Banks Take Steps Towards Carbon Credit Regulation.   A group of more than 10 banks agreed a standard for "carbon offsets" bought by companies and individuals. They were reacting to a risk to their reputations following reports of problems in the market for carbon offsets. In April the FT found examples of companies trading carbon offsets that carried no environmental benefits. The main problems lie in the fact that - unlike the market for credits set up under the United Nations-brokered Kyoto protocol and the European Union's greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme - there are no standards. The banks agreed to base their standard on a system of checks set up by the UN under the Kyoto protocol. Companies will have their operations checked by independent third parties. Offsets must be based on projects that clear methodologies for cutting carbon. Companies cannot claim offsets from generating nuclear power or from hydroelectric dams. The banks hope that by publishing the criteria they can encourage companies and consumers buying offsets to check that their offsets meet the criteria. Most credits are issued under Kyoto, by which developed countries agree to cut their emissions by about 5% by 2012. The UN issues credits to projects that cut emissions in developing countries, and the credits can be bought by developing country governments to count towards their emissions reduction targets. The market for carbon credits under Kyoto was worth about $5bn (€3.7bn, ÂŁ2.5bn) last year. Environmental groups say buying offsets salves consciences rather than resulting in a reduction in emissions.   June 28, 2007   The Financial Times 021469

What Role Coal? U.S. Rep. Edward Markey Weighs in on the Controversial Fuel.   Coal has provided the majority of our electricity and has been a principal source of energy since the Industrial Revolution, but also produced the global warming issues we face today. We must combine the economic reforms of a new industrial revolution based on clean energy. There are two main issues: "coal-to-electricity" and "coal-to-liquids." Capturing carbon pollution and sequestering it underground would make it possible to use coal as a major electricity source; turning coal into liquid to replace gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel would make global warming worse. The process is not new. It was adopted on a large industrial scale by the Germans in World War II, and later by an embargoed apartheid South Africa. Without carbon capture and storage, liquid coal fuel contributes more than double the pollution produced by a burning petroleum-based fuels. But when carbon capture systems are added, it is worse for the environment than regular gasoline. Liquid coal is also expensive with small returns compared to the amount of energy needed to create it. The water resources would be staggering: 4.6 billion gallons per year of liquid fuels from coal would require 21 to 60 billion gallons of water per year. China backed off from liquid coal fuels. Instead, they are relying on fuel economy standards. Here the Markey-Platts bill mandates a fuel economy increase to 35 mpg by 2018, and 4% a year after that. This would reduce America's oil dependence by 10%. Compared with ethanol, made from grasses that grow wild, and garbage, liquid coal just doesn't stack up. Cellulosic ethanol's total heat-trapping emissions can be as low as a quarter of those from conventional gasoline. The other coal technology is carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). But we have a huge stake in solving the CCS problem, without it we are unlikely to convince China and India that they can grow while controlling global warming. We need to enact policies to create the market for cleaner fuels. That means a market-based system for capping heat-trapping emissions and giving businesses flexibility. But we'll also need new standards to ensure coal-fired plants are using this technology.   June 21, 2007   Grist Magazine 021414

New Energy Rules Could Unleash An Economic Boom and Help Quash Climate Change.   It's clear that it will be more costly not to act on global warming than to act. Voters, investors, activists, business leaders, and policy experts are pushing for clean energy to create jobs, limit climate change, and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. But the laws, regulations, subsidies, and tax credits continue to make fossil fuels a less expensive choice for consumers. The three largest technology IPOs of 2005 were solar-energy companies and clean energy is the opportunity of the 21st century. Wind power now costs about 5% of what it did 25 years ago. Solar energy costs are down more than 90% since 1970. The price of renewable energy will drop another 45% over the next 20 years. Support for a new energy future is coming from everyone, and includes the CEOs from DuPont, GE, and Duke Energy. But our energy habits are stuck in the past. Carbon dioxide emissions are up 19% since 1990 and still rising. Oil imports are up 70% since 1990 and still rising. Renewable sources provide 6% of America's energy and that share is not rising. Consumers will not change their energy habits until we reach the point at which clean energy beats coal and oil in price, convenience, and availability. If we want to change the future, we have to change the rules. Good rules align the interests of individuals and corporations with the public interest. Capitalism, bounded by smart rules has in the past delivered the desired result more easily than anyone thought possible. But the world is different today. Geologists estimate that the Middle East has over 6% of the world's oil reserves, the U.S. just 3%. Emissions from our power plants and vehicles are wrecking the world's climate. The rules today give oil and gas companies billions of dollars in tax breaks and research subsidies but do not factor in the indirect costs of oil. Auto companies sell cars that get as little as 13 miles per gallon. Utility companies make more money when their customers waste energy and less when they save it. Until 1984, telecommunications in the US were monopolized by AT&T. For a time, that ensured dependability during the early years of the industry. But when rivals emerged, the government changed the rules. The market took over, and the telecom revolution began. Many of our competitors are moving more quickly to capitalize on the new jobs and industries that will come with clean energy. Because of their rules, our competitors are farther along than the US in the transition to new energy, and have captured most of the growth and jobs along the way. Japan is now the world leader, producing 43% of the world's solar-energy products. Europe produces 90% of the world's wind turbines. Brazil has led the way on biofuels. We still have a chance. Our educated workforce, top-level universities, and culture of innovation still position us to capitalize as the world moves to clean energy. * Clean energy: We'll use more biofuels, wind and solar. * Energy efficiency: Our buildings, cars, and appliances will require less energy. * Carbon capture: Emissions from coal-fired power plants will be pumped underground. * A "smarter" grid: Digital technology will make the power grid more efficient, reliable, and better able to draw on renewable resources. Here are five rule changes that would reduce emissions, give consumers new choices, launch new businesses, and accelerate the transition to new energy technologies: Put a price on carbon, that would create a market for any technology that reduced global-warming emissions. Carbon limits should be broad-based, predictable, and achievable. Congress should pass tough standards for "carbon efficiency." This is the technology of the future, and it is where Detroit should be making its investments. EPA should require oil companies to phase out the harmful additives in their gasoline. Benzene, toluene, and xylene. Today, these toxic additives make up more than a quarter of every gallon of gasoline. Make energy efficiency the business of utilities. When a utility can make more money helping people save energy rather than use energy, that's a smart set of rules. Utilities should be able to earn a return on structural investments in energy efficiency just as they do in a new power plant. Utilities should be compensated for buying solar panels and geothermal heat pumps. Modernize the electric power grid to be more efficient. A modernized, digitally connected national electricity grid will be more secure, reliable, and resilient. A modern grid will also be able to manage intermittent power flows from renewable-energy sources and give producers. The government should boost incentives and dramatically increase R&D spending for clean energy. Coal can continue its large role in meeting the nation's power needs only if its global-warming emissions can be sequestered. A program of research and development is needed in this area. To pay for this work, we can cut back our handouts to the oil companies. Subsidies for clean energy should be increased as the price of oil falls, and reduced or eliminated if oil stays near current levels. Within a decade, clean alternatives to oil will not need subsidies if the scale of markets is large enough.
Karen Gaia says: the author of this article seems unaware of the pitfalls of biofuels.   May 22, 2007   Grist Magazine 021219

Global Rush to Energy Crops Threatens to Bring Food Shortages and Increase Poverty, Says UN.   The rush to energy derived from plants will drive deforestation, push small farmers off the land and lead to serious food shortages and increased poverty unless carefully managed. Rich countries want to see crops grown for fuel to help stabilise the price of oil, open up new markets. But the UN urges governments to beware their impacts. The report, which predicts winners and losers, will be studied carefully by the emerging multi-billion dollar a year biofuel industry which wants to provide 25% of the world's energy within 20 years. 17 countries have committed themselves to growing the crops on a large scale. Last year more than a third of the US maize crop went to ethanol, a 48% increase, and Brazil and China grew the crops on nearly 50m acres of land. The EU has said that 10% of all fuel must come from biofuels by 2020. The crops have the potential to stabilise the price of oil, but forests are being felled to grow plantations of palm oil trees. The UN warns: The use of large scale cropping could lead to significant biodiversity loss, soil erosion, and nutrient leaching. One school of thought argues that these crops will take the best land, which will increase global food prices. Growing biofuel crops can be harmful to farmers who do not own their own land, and to the poor who buy food. Biofuel programmes can result in a concentration of ownership that could drive the poorest farmers off their land. The crops could transform the rural economy potentially leading to problems. Still larger companies will enter the rural economy, controlling the price paid to producers. Using biofuels results in some reductions in emissions but this is provided there is no clearing of forest that store centuries of carbon. You cannot fight climate change by large scale deforestation. Investments need to be planned carefully to avoid generating new environmental and social problems.   May 08, 2007   Guardian (London) 021155

Pentagon Study Says Oil Reliance Strains Military; Urges Development of Alternative Fuels.   A new study warns that the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil will make the US military's ability to respond to hot spots around the world "unsustainable in the long term." The study concludes that all four branches of the military must take immediate steps toward fielding weapons systems and aircraft that run on alternative and renewable fuels and apply new energy technologies that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption. Weaning the military from fossil fuels quickly would be a herculean task, as the bulk of the US arsenal is dependent on fossil fuels and have been designed to remain in service for several decades. Pentagon advisers believe the military's growing consumption of fossil fuels leaves Pentagon leaders with little choice but to break with the past as soon as possible. We are at the edge of a precipice and we have one foot over the edge. Just cutting back won't work. "Transforming the Way DoD Looks at Energy," is a potential blueprint for a new military energy strategy and includes a detailed survey of potential alternatives to oil. The report adds a powerful voice warning that, as oil supplies dwindle during the next half-century, US reliance on fossil fuels poses a serious risk to national security. The Department of Defense is the largest single energy consumer in the country. The military's energy consumption has grown as its arsenal has become more mechanized. In WW II, the US consumed about a gallon of fuel per soldier per day, In 2006, the US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan burned about 16 gallons of fuel per soldier on average per day. The Pentagon's strategic planning has placed a premium on being able to deploy forces quickly around the world from the US. The National Defense Strategy calls for an increased US military presence around the globe to be able to combat terrorist groups and respond to crises. The US military will have to employ new technologies, and manage a more complex logistics system. The costs of relying on oil are consuming an increasing share of the military's budget. Energy costs have doubled since Sept. 11, 2001, it says, and the cost of conducting operations could become so expensive that the military will not be able to pay for some of its new weapon systems. The US spends an average of $44 billion per year safeguarding oil supplies in the Persian Gulf. Achieving an energy transformation at the Department of Defense will require the commitment, personal involvement, and leadership.
Karen Gaia says: wouldn't it have been a whole lot easier taxing gasoline starting twenty years ago and using the money to develop renewable energy? Then there would have been no need for this terribly costly war. Let's not kid ourselves - it's not a war on terror - it's a war to protect oil.   May 01, 2007   Boston Globe 021114

Oil Futures Bidding to Heat Up as Energy Crisis Looms.   Oil ended 2006 at just over $60 a barrel. This reassured the public that all talk about Peak Oil was hysterical blather from a lunatic fringe. But another ominous trend can account for the stalling of oil prices in 2006. Third World has dropped out of bidding for it and using it. They cannot afford $60 a barrel. This is manifesting itself in local resource wars, genocides, falling life expectancies, and in places, an unraveling of the sociopolitical order. The major trend on the oil scene for the past 12 months has been the inability of the world to lift production above 85 million barrels a day. It is unclear how much more demand destruction will come out of the Third World before bidding intensifies between the developed nations. One commentator is advancing the idea that we are entering an oil export crisis that will presage a more permanent world-wide oil emergency. Major oil exporting nations are using so much of their product, because of rising populations, that their net exports are falling at an alarming rate. This combines with depletion rates around 3% a year. The question of total oil reserves remains murky, but using a straightforward mathematical model, the world is at the same point in production as the lower-48 United States was in 1970. We know that three of the four super giant oil fields are past peak and there is plenty of evidence that the greatest of them all, in Saudi Arabia, is perhaps "crashing" into a super-steep decline. Discovery of new oil remains paltry. Meanwhile, companies developing tar sand production announced that their costs of production were rising substantially, and how much of Canada's fast-disappearing natural gas reserves will be squandered in melting tar. American corporate farmers have entered into a racket with congress to subsidize ethanol production from corn and biodiesel fuel from soybeans. America remains ignorant of the futility of this project, which is a net energy "loser." Americans will have to choose between food and making fuel. Everybody believe that this is the only thing we need to worry about. The truth is that we have to make other arrangements for the activities of everyday life, farming, commerce, transport, settlement patterns, but we are so over-invested in our suburban infrastructure that we cannot face reality. Expect the bidding on the futures markets to regain intensity between the United States, China, Europe, and Japan. The sad truth is that we burn up most of the oil we use in cars, and American life is now so hopelessly based on incessant motoring that citizens cannot even go down to the unemployment office without driving. Over the next decade, the gap between U.S. demand for natural gas and dwindling supply may amount to one-and-a-half times the current equivalent of our oil imports. Natural gas is used for heating and accounts for just under 20% of our electricity production. Gas prices are responding only to the shortest-term signals, rather than to the catastrophic long-term reserve picture. We are unlikely to solve our natural gas problems with imports because of the cost and difficulty of moving the stuff by means other than pipelines and most of the remaining gas in the world is in Asia.   April 20, 2007   Daily Reckoning 020975

Op Ed by Charles Hall and Nate Gagnon on Oil Supplies.   An article "Oil innovations pump new life into old wells" by Jad Mouawad is misleading. The author would have us believe that technological innovations will increase the oil recoverable from known fields to compensate for the dearth of new discoveries. It gives a false sense of security about our difficult oil situation. Steam injection has been used in the Kern River field since 1965 and oil production in this field peaked in 1984 and has been declining sharply since about 1997. Most of the innovations are old technologies, implemented in the 1920s. Depletion is more important than technological development. The increases in production from the Kern River and Duri fields are small relative to the production declines from many of the world's most important oil fields. All have been subject to the kind of technologies mentioned, sometimes for many decades, and all are clearly in steep decline or have ceased production. The best oil field technology in the world has not stopped the US production from declining by 50% since its peak in 1970. Furthermore, many of the technologies mentioned in the article tend to be extremely expensive in dollars and in energy. Making steam and pumping it into the ground to dispersed oil-field sites, requires enormous investments of energy. The dismissive comments about peak oil theory are ill informed and ignore the importance of the message from geologists, other scientists, environmentalists, financiers and citizens who see a serious situation ahead of us for oil and, especially in North America, natural gas. Hiding our heads in the sand and putting our faith in technological developments seems to us to be a very bad idea.   April 05, 2007   OpEd by Charles Hall and Nate Gagnon on Oil Supplies 020812

The Peak Oil Crisis: the GAO Report.   The Government released its report on peak oil and it is clearly a milestone through the oil age and the first time the staff of a major government agency has looked at the issue. It concluded that if peak oil occurs soon, it could cause world-wide recession. The US, as the world's biggest consumer of oil, is the most vulnerable. 60% of the world's oil reserves are now controlled by unstable countries; at best, the US could hope to replace about 4% of its liquid fuel consumption with alternatives by 2015;. The key question is "when will it happen," and "when will the economic troubles begin?" The GAO concluded that peak production will between now and 2040. Judging from the blogs, most people following peak oil are outraged at the judgment that the most that can be said about the timing of peak oil is "sometime in the next 33 years." Despite quiet preparations for peak oil, no national leader has as yet said anything similar - the consequences are simply too unpredictable. No responsible government agency will officially conclude that serious economic problems are coming. It is likely that the world will muddle into the era of peak oil as it has muddled into global warming. The real dilemma of coping peak oil, is simple. If the government should lay out the full ramifications of peaking the most immediate consequence is likely to be serious economic setback. The alternative is to leave the future with room for hope. Talk about reducing dependence of foreign oil instead. No responsible government wants to see economic troubles start any sooner than necessary. The National Petroleum Council is poised to pronounce on the issue in the next few months. If governments have their way, we will stumble into peak oil over a period during which gasoline prices cycle inexorably upwards.   April 05, 2007   The Peak Oil Crisis 021136

The Peak Oil Crisis: the GAO Report.   The Government released its report on peak oil and it is the first time a major government agency has concluded that peak oil could cause a world-wide recession. The US is the most vulnerable to the consequences of peaking. 60% of the world's oil reserves are controlled by unstable countries. At best, the US could only replace about 4% of its liquid fuel with alternatives by 2015. A hydrogen-based economy is not in the immediate cards. The GAO concluded that peak production will come before 2040, thereby removing any sense of urgency. Despite quiet preparations for peak oil in many countries around the world, no national leader has as yet said anything the consequences are too unpredictable. No government agency will officially conclude that serious economic problems are coming soon. Those who had hoped the report would confirm that world oil production was hovering at the edge of a collapse were bound to be disappointed. The GAO could make an even bigger splash by convincing the president to go on prime time tell the American people that all available evidence leads to the conclusion that, soon, gasoline will be too expensive for them to afford. They should immediately sell their gas guzzlers, put their over-mortgaged houses on the market, stop using credit cards, dump all their stocks, and plant a garden. It is likely that the world will muddle its way into the era of peak oil in much the way it has muddled into global warming. If the government should lay out the ramifications of peaking, the immediate consequence is likely to be serious economic setback. The alternative is to leave the future a bit murky with room for hope. There will probably never be an unambiguous report on the timing of peak oil. If governments have their way, we will stumble into peak oil over a period during which gasoline prices cycle upwards and various compensating actions are taken. The GAO did their job by warning Congress that peak oil might be a very serious problem very soon.   April 05, 2007   The Peak Oil Crisis 021416

More US College Students Studying Clean Energy.   More US college students are looking into careers in alternative energy, and US universities are adding courses on clean energy and the environment. The number of Berkeley undergraduates in introductory energy courses has tripled and a new class in solar photovoltaics signed up 70 students. Venture capital cash is fueling new companies and alternative energies like nanotech solar cells and biofuels. Venture capital for energy and environmental technology nearly doubled from a year earlier to US$1.28 billion. At Stanford University the Petroleum Engineering Department has renamed itself the Energy Resources Engineering Department and The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering has offered courses in green architecture and sustainable development. A Stanford conference, which included senior partners from some of Silicon Valley's top venture capital firms, had 1,400 attending. 60% to 70% were students, hoping to talk about opportunities with venture capitalists. Students want good jobs in clean-tech companies and to help move the energy industry to renewable fuels. The clean tech industry will have a direct impact on our world in the next decade. There is a 'fad' dynamic to this, but it is going to be a long-term thing. Technological innovation, the rising cost of oil, conflict in the Middle East and the public's growing awareness of global climate change are having an impact. The environment is part of every aspect of the world.   March 29, 2007   Reuters 020747

Oil Innovations Pump New Life Into Old Wells.   Within the last decade, technology has made it possible to unlock more oil from old fields, and, higher oil prices have made it economical to go after reserves that are harder to reach. In a study published in 2000, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that recoverable resources of conventional oil totaled 3.3 trillion barrels, of which a third has been produced. More recently, an energy consultant, estimated that the total base of recoverable oil was 4.8 trillion barrels. That is likely to grow with new technology. There is still a minority view that oil production has peaked, but the theory has been fading. Environmentalists do not think that consuming an increasing amount of fossil fuel is desirable. Increased projections for how much oil is extractable may become a political topic. But by reassuring the public that supplies will meet demands, oil companies may find legislators more reluctant to consider opening areas to new exploration. Petroleum Exporting Countries will likely see its clout reinforced in coming years. The 12-country cartel, is poised to control more than 50% of the oil market in coming years, as Western oil production declines. Oil companies say they can see few alternatives to fossil fuels which means that global carbon emissions will continue to increase. The quest for new discoveries is taking place alongside returning to old or mature fields because there are few virgin places left to explore. At Bakersfield, Chevron is using steam-flooding technology and computerized three-dimensional models to boost the output of the field's heavy oil reserves. Some forecasters, have argued that at some point by 2010, global oil production will peak if it has not already and begin to fall. “I am very, seriously worried about the future,” said the president of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas. “Oil is in limited supplies.” Oil executives say peak-oil theorists fail to take into account the way that technology