Observations From The Weekend

[Pidgey]

Peak Oil as an applied theory encompasses far more than simple gross production--you need to consider the net energy delivered on a per capita basis as well as the per capita cost of that energy as a relative fraction. Personally, I don't care how much you install "above-ground factors" in the equations, the net direction is what it is--only the slope changes.

 

[Andy]

Peak Oil as an applied theory encompasses far more than simple gross production--you need to consider the net energy delivered on a per capita basis as well as the per capita cost of that energy as a relative fraction. Personally, I don't care how much you install "above-ground factors" in the equations, the net direction is what it is--only the slope changes.

So you are trying to claim that you can reach Peak Oil production, even if production is increasing? Now that's something I had not considered.

 

[Pidgey]

EROEI.

 

[top gun]

Over the weekend, after viewing a volume of news programs and interviews on all the major broadcast and cable networks, there are two observations that surfaced.

On program after program, journalists rolled out a dazzling array of “experts” to offer up their analysis on the economic mess, the automotive meltdown, mortgage foreclosures, and Bush’s newfound ability to recognize reality with this admission we’re in a recession and have been for over a year. Opinions flowed like the Mississippi River in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans during Katrina. Every broadcast had a cast of “experts”, and none came without a series of detailed points to offer.

The question occurred to me as I became dazed from the volume of thoughts expressed, where were all these “experts” when it counted the most? Where were they when their free flowing opinions might have headed off these policy-created, horrific problems?
If they knew then, what they claim to know now, why weren’t sirens wailing and alarm bells clanging?

Then there was the noticeable absence of virtually all the high profile Republicans. As President-elect Obama continues to prepare his new administration to fix these problems, and daily advances the selection of key members of his team, Republicans that were quick to issue doom and gloom predictions during the campaign about his “lack of leadership experience”, are strangely silent now. It appears they’re now stunned by his display of leadership during the transition, and have decided to just get out of the way so his new administration can undo the damage.

You make a lot of great observations Greco.

The fact is the Bush administration knows there's no covering things up anymore. They are all on their way out and the sunlight that's going to shine on the past fraud & trickery will be very bright.

In other words... The Bush administration just wants to get out of town. And the rest of the Republican Party is trying to stay clear of as much fallout as possible. BUSH IS TOXIC!

It's a good thing we elected a seriously intelligent guy with the calm demeanor and a very methodical nature. We're really going to need it in the next couple years to start to turn this clusterfock of unbelievably bad policies around.

 

[Andy]

EROEI.

I'm a bit confused as to how this matters. Energy return on investment is irrelevant provided the cost is within limits. Nor have I ever heard that this has anything to do with the peak oil theory, that being a maximum world production of crude oil.

For example, if the price of a gallon of gas is low enough that I can afford to fill up my massive land yacht, what do I care how much energy is used to created that amount of gasoline?

Further, I'd even wage that the EROEI is actually not that bad because energy costs money. It would be nearly impossible to invest so much energy to produces so little oil, and not have that effect the price, which clearly it isn't.

For example, if it cost $50 worth of energy to produce one barrel of oil, oil could not be selling for $40, or the companies would be bankrupt in a short time. Oil tankers carry millions of barrels. That a heck of a net loss on cost-to-produce.

 

[Andy]

You make a lot of great observations Greco.

The fact is the Bush administration knows there's no covering things up anymore. They are all on their way out and the sunlight that's going to shine on the past fraud & trickery will be very bright.

In other words... The Bush administration just wants to get out of town. And the rest of the Republican Party is trying to stay clear of as much fallout as possible. BUSH IS TOXIC!

It's a good thing we elected a seriously intelligent guy with the calm demeanor and a very methodical nature. We're really going to need it in the next couple years to start to turn this clusterfock of unbelievably bad policies around.

Another resounding displaying of nothing to say.

 

[Pidgey]

I know--it gets complicated. When you go buy a crescent wrench from Wal-Mart eek, there's a sticker price that's not negotiable--you don't pay more or less for it, the price is what it is. Commodities aren't like that: prices rise and fall today based on relative demand. It's basically an auction. Producing fields, regions, countries, etc. are forced to produce first and take what revenues they can get. Futures markets attempt to create some stability there so that the business side of things isn't so damn volatile that it can't be conducted at all. In point of fact, most oil is sold in longer-term futures markets, often years out. The price breakdown of a gallon of gas that you buy today would be a mix of cheaper and more expensive barrels--some bought years ago mixed with some bought just months ago.

The worst part of the EROEI is that "once upon a time" we'd get upwards of a hundred barrels of oil by way of "investing" the energy that we got out of single barrel. Today, that number has gone down substantially. Some fields will ultimately get as bad as three-to-one or so. This means that to keep producing from such fields, you have to drill more and more holes, install more and more equipment, etc. until it's just no longer cost-effective to bother.

And then there are heavier oils--oils that have a lower API gravity require far more processing and different processing equipment in a refinery to make the products that you want. A lot of what Saudi has left is heavier oils that nobody really wants because they don't want to have to retool to that extent. BigOil's going to have to take all those evil profits and reinvest them in order just to try and maintain an even production keel as it is.

 

[Greco]

Nah, actually he said a lot. His few sentences spoke volumes of fact. You're indepth analisis? You just dismissed it. That's pretty much a "resounding display of nothing to say".

 

[Sihouette]

I've heard that same sentiment for a long time now. I don't suppose you could break it down into something more definitive, couldja'? That doesn't mean I'm saying you're wrong, by the way, just that I'd like to see it expressed more like a mathematical proof. ~ Pidgey

Mathematical proof?

How about circumstantial and eyewitness evidence? That's what I'm waiting for. It's out there. We just need some good US attorneys to round it up and present it at a Congressional hearing.

Maybe some of the ones Bushco fired would be looking for work?

 

[Pidgey]

Mathematical proof?

How about circumstantial and eyewitness evidence? That's what I'm waiting for. It's out there. We just need some good US attorneys to round it up and present it at a Congressional hearing.

Maybe some of the ones Bushco fired would be looking for work?

Like a mathematical proof.

Let's try it another way:

The BigOil monopolies have been hard at work using their record profits http://everydayecon.wordpress.com/2006/04/26/oil-profit-margins-vs-other-industries/to pad the right pockets (conjecture--not admissible in court) , including the Auto industry (careful, now--you'll end up indicting BigLabor here, too... ) , Congress (specific names?) and subsequent administrations (subsequent to whom?) , to, in essence, bring us to our financial knees and place us in a strategically vulnerable position..[sic] (obviously to get screwed, but by whom?)

In short, they sold out our country (to whom?) for money (that's diminishing in value on the world markets--just wait for the hyperinflation part coming to a wallet near you next year!) . And that is called treason.

Scores of joblessness, record foreclosures and soaring inflation of basic goods isn't a recession? (rhetorical question, no comment required) Our country was tooled ("tooled"?) , willfully, to be dependant [sic] on oil for its very existance [sic] (a bit over the top--is anyone putting a gun to your head to make you use oil?) . It didn't have to be that way (detail an alternative with an initial point with a to-date projection). And yet here is where we find ourselves slipping away, as experts predicted decades ago..all thanks to BigOil. (you'd rather have stayed with Little House on the Prairie?)

Silly of me that they should be held responsible (we're the consumers--we're all responsible) and liable for restitution to those they (we) have wilfully harmed. ie: The United States Of America. (us)

Make them pay (yes, we will) . It's very simple. I don't care how long the trail of bribes and conspiracy is, find those most responsible for coercion and fine them. (that would be our tax dollars at work, yes... )

 

[BigRob]

Over the weekend, after viewing a volume of news programs and interviews on all the major broadcast and cable networks, there are two observations that surfaced.

On program after program, journalists rolled out a dazzling array of “experts” to offer up their analysis on the economic mess, the automotive meltdown, mortgage foreclosures, and Bush’s newfound ability to recognize reality with this admission we’re in a recession and have been for over a year. Opinions flowed like the Mississippi River in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans during Katrina. Every broadcast had a cast of “experts”, and none came without a series of detailed points to offer.

The question occurred to me as I became dazed from the volume of thoughts expressed, where were all these “experts” when it counted the most? Where were they when their free flowing opinions might have headed off these policy-created, horrific problems?
If they knew then, what they claim to know now, why weren’t sirens wailing and alarm bells clanging?

Then there was the noticeable absence of virtually all the high profile Republicans. As President-elect Obama continues to prepare his new administration to fix these problems, and daily advances the selection of key members of his team, Republicans that were quick to issue doom and gloom predictions during the campaign about his “lack of leadership experience”, are strangely silent now. It appears they’re now stunned by his display of leadership during the transition, and have decided to just get out of the way so his new administration can undo the damage.

So far the only plan we have seen is massive spending increases after telling us that we were spending to much the last 8 years.

Also, there were tons of people screaming doom and gloom well before the housing market imploded and brought the economy with it. The news simply chose not to listen....

 

[Sihouette]

I guess Silhouette is the only one here not allowed to have opinions. I must now always offer mathematical proof for my stance...

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Everyone must from now on, supply "mathematical proof" for their imput....lol...

 

[Pidgey]

Personally, I'd rather just have polite, genteel and productive conversation, heavy on the productive part. I don't see the point of stating a controversial point, drawing a line in the sand and daring anyone to step over it with the only means of judging who's right being who can yell the loudest. Usually, the answer to dilemmas like the current one are either completely different from everyone's views or some compromise between the two sides. Categorically stating that "the other side is evil!" is almost never correct.

Believe me, I get that a lot of folks are in a lot of financial trouble right now and it's going to be very, very, very bad. I knew it was coming back in the '70s and decided not to have children. Ever. I also made it a point to not get into debt, choosing rather to save. I buy used stuff a lot, excluding food of course. The point is, I chose to be careful and frugal. It's a choice that anyone can make, living within one's means.

But I still include myself as one to be blamed for our rampant use of energy. While I probably conserve a lot more than most, I still use a huge amount more than a bushman from the Kalihari, so guilty as charged. When we get into trouble, it's just human nature to try and blame others for our problems. All I'm saying is that if you're going to categorically blame BigOil, then include yourself as a consumer who created the demand in the first place (you're not a bushman from the Kalihari, are you?).

There's a small logical problem of blaming BigOil for an intent to deceive for decades now and bring us all to ruin: it requires that they were completely prescient about the total quantity of oil that's "out there". Sure, M. King Hubbert made some predictions but most folks in the oil business didn't believe him. Shoot, most conservatives (Republicans, The Evil Ones, whatever you want to call them... ) don't believe in Peak Oil, either.

I don't care what premise you start with, about the only way to have avoided our situation today would have been to have simply not let the population run up like it has. It's like saying the unthinkable: too much peace is a bad thing.

Sure, you can have an opinion... but it's often not a good thing to keep it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It's very simple. You investigate BigOil's culpability with respect to the illegal war for their oil interests in Iraq, lying to Congress, theft of the Treasury and Armory. Then when you've got the goods on them, you try them, find them guilty and fine the crap out of them over a period of a decade or so.

In other words, think of BigOil like a lying, cheating ex-spouse that owes child support and restitution to his wife for abusing her. Let's say that guy is working at a gravy job, making a killing and not only isn't giving her a dime, but is instead entering her house at night and robbing her larder of what little mac and cheese she has to feed her kids...all the while laughing and going to the bank.

OK, now we just insert BigOil into that description, and garnish their wages (record profits) until such time that the Law deems restitution has been satisfied.

When there's a problem, I may be unconventional in saying you should go to its source.

In the larger sense I agree with you, but I think you have too narrow a focus. Big Oil is only one of the players; Big Military, Big Military Suppliers, Big Weapons Research, Big Religion, all play a part. Basically, it's Big Money/Power that runs the show and like the Hydra it has many heads--Big Oil is but one of them.

But there is no way to deal with this problem without taking from the rich and giving to the poor just like Jesus said (He was a socialist). As long as it is acceptable for the rich to take from everybody else through manipulation of the system, getting laws passed in their favor and for their protection, we will not be able to address the problem.

In the Bible people were commanded to have Jubilee years in which wealth was redistributed because it was recognized even then that the accumulation of wealth generation after generation would destroy their society. The American Indians of the Northwest had the "potlatch" or the festival of giving in which wealth was redistributed voluntarily by the richest people and there was great honor and respect gained thereby. Many cultures have mechanisms for making sure that the greedy people don't come to own everything. One of the African tribes has a saying, "A poor man shames us all." They realize that having poor people in a world of plenty should bring shame on those who are wealthier. But we, in our wisdom of greed, have forced the Indians to stop the potlatches, most Christians don't even know about Jubilee years, and we honor the rich and scorn the poor despite the fact that there are nearly 2000 references in the Bible to caring for the poor and unfortunate.

 

[Pidgey]

'Tis true about the ancient Israelite system of redistribution back then. Such a system, if still practiced by all peoples, probably would have kept us from utilizing energy to the extent that we have allowing us to have developed such a huge population, too. I'm definitely not saying that would have been a bad thing.