Barbados Underground

← →

Dick Got Balls

June 27, 2008 · 88 Comments

AND JESUS WENT OUT, and His disciples, to the towns of Caesarea Philippi; and He asked them: “Whom do men say that I am?” Nowadays, of course, Jesus would simply have checked the blogs to find the answer to that question. The blogs are scary. You go there for the lowdown on Kingsland or the split in the party only to find your name knocking dog and anonymous people discussing you like if you are somebody.

Lowdown’s Article

Our favourite Nation columnist Richard ‘Dick’ Hoad decided to join the crowd and ‘pic-pun’ the blogs today. He claims that the blogs ’scandalizing’ his name. He went so far as to flirt with being blasphemous by suggesting that if Jesus Christ were alive he would check the blogs for feedback and ignore his trusted disciples.

Man Lowdown you too funny!

He seems to have a beef about anonymous people being able to visit the blogs and ‘air’ people business in the virtual world of the Internet. The BU household has a message for Lowdown. It takes ‘balls’ or should we say a ‘dick’ to use ones baptized name in a place like Bimshire. Of course because Lowdown is a ‘Dick’ he has the ‘balls’ to do his thing.

As always his article is thought provoking but represent a minority view in a Barbados which has become fixated to achieve developed status come hell or high water.

Related Links

Categories: Barbados · Blogging

88 responses so far ↓

  • Bajan // June 27, 2008 at 7:38 PM

    I agree with Lowdown. I would sacrifice alot of today to recover yesterday.

  • Bimbro // June 28, 2008 at 3:47 AM

    We once had a sugar cane industry, too but, as I understand it, no one wants to work in the field these days! Does he propose to force, people to do so!

    I used to think Hoad had something important to say, until I read this article!

  • xenophobe chick // June 28, 2008 at 5:59 AM

    Tragic old codger.

  • Anonymous // June 28, 2008 at 6:57 AM

    Mr. Hoad’s article has very little to do with blogs and he has only mentioned blogs, in passing, as an introduction to the main focus of his article which is to express that “living in the past” is not necessarily a bad thing.
    If there was a cataclysmic event that took place such as a nuclear event or a successful world wide terrorist event that left Barbados isolated and without oil and gas imports and therefore no electricity, no cars on the road and no food being brought in, how many of you would be ready? How many of you, would be able to step up to the plate and survive such a crisis through the means that Mr. Hoad has mentioned in his article? Does your government even have a “plan” should such an event take place?
    I agree totally with Mr. Hoad. The word “progress” is a word that has been embued with all sorts of positive connotations but progress comes at a far too hefty price when it enslaves humanity to the point where they no longer remember how to survive without it.

  • Gabriel the Horn Blower // June 28, 2008 at 7:00 AM

    Lowdown is not about the past. He is very much about the future. A future where the people of Barbados (and what they know and can do) really matter.

  • David // June 28, 2008 at 7:22 AM

    Don’t for a minute don’t think that we don’t get where Dick is coming from. He is very concerned that as a developed country we have become a slave to the goal of being developed and in the process we have done what the late Errol Barrow warned us about repeatedly i.e.become mendicants. The problem with our people is that we have allowed ourselves to become indoctrinated in the ways of others.

    We doubt that Barbados has the capacity to drag itself away from its current path. But we will keep trying.

  • JC // June 28, 2008 at 8:24 AM

    We dont have a choice but than to try David our futurre depends on it;

  • NO MORE MARINAS EVER AGAIN // June 28, 2008 at 8:27 AM

    It’s not a question of being “developed” or not. Whatever that means. “Underdeveloped” countries have their own set of problems and let’s hope we never have to revert back to them.

    (Although that might kick some sense into us.)

    No, our problem is we’ve become totally ungovernable. As a result of the ruling class educating us. As long as we were all stupid they got away with the crap they’re doing today but we were too dumb to realise it. Or object.

    Put another way we’re too intelligent for our own good. There was a fleeting window of opportunity when our rulers considered reacting to our basic needs and desires.

    But since there are now so many diverse needs and desires and not all can be accommodated the plunderers plunder, the warmongers make war, the profiteers profit and the rulers do whatever it takes to get elected.

    Did you see Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama tonguing each other yesterday?

  • John // June 28, 2008 at 8:46 AM

    Very often Lowdown speaks in parables and it takes time to come to a realisation of exactly what he is saying.

    Given his love for God’s creatures, I guess the goat in the Kingsland saga must have piqued his interest.

  • anotherview // June 28, 2008 at 8:57 AM

    Hoadie was featured in the newspaper sometime and it seems to me that if something bad were to happen say to the shipping or airline routes, we would all have to go to Hoadie’s farm and beg for some milk or use the computer.

  • Technician // June 28, 2008 at 9:04 AM

    #

    Bimbro // June 28, 2008 at 3:47 am

    We once had a sugar cane industry, too but, as I understand it, no one wants to work in the field these days! Does he propose to force, people to do so!

    I used to think Hoad had something important to say, until I read this article!
    ———————————————————————————–
    If you used to think Hoad had something important to say until you read ‘this’ article…then you give the impression that you never read his articles before. In doing that, you would surely have missed his points. You claim to have Barbados at heart yet still you dont have a clue on the history of this island. To be dismissive of Hoad, shows your true ignorance of anything Bajan.

  • Green Monkey // June 28, 2008 at 10:58 AM

    A few years down the road as oil prices continue to skyrocket, Mr. Hoad and those of his ilk will be seen as visionaries. Hopefully, it will not be too late for us to heed their call.

    Mother Earth’s Triple Whammy
    Why North Korea Was a Global Crisis Canary

    By John Feffer

    SNIP

    In the 1990s, North Korea was the world’s canary. The famine that killed as much as 10% of the North Korean population in those years was, it turns out, a harbinger of the crisis that now grips the globe — though few saw it that way at the time.

    That small Northeast Asian land, one of the last putatively communist countries on the planet, faced the same three converging factors as we do now — escalating energy prices, a reduction in food supplies, and impending environmental catastrophe. At the time, of course, all the knowing analysts and pundits dismissed what was happening in that country as the inevitable breakdown of an archaic economic system presided over by a crackpot dictator.

    They were wrong. The collapse of North Korean agriculture in the 1990s was not the result of backwardness. In fact, North Korea boasted one of the most mechanized agricultures in Asia. Despite claims of self-sufficiency, the North Koreans were actually heavily dependent on cheap fuel imports. (Does that already ring a bell?) In their case, the heavily subsidized energy came from Russia and China, and it helped keep North Korea’s battalion of tractors operating. It also meant that North Korea was able to go through fertilizer, a petroleum product, at one of the world’s highest rates. When the Soviets and Chinese stopped subsidizing those energy imports in the late 1980s and international energy rates became the norm for them, too, the North Koreans had a rude awakening.

    Like the globe as a whole, North Korea does not have a great deal of arable land — it can grow food on only about 14% of its territory. (The comparable global figure for arable land is about 13%.) With heavy applications of fertilizer and pesticides, North Koreans coaxed a lot of food out of a little land. By the 1980s, however, the soil was exhausted, and agricultural production was declining. So spiking energy prices hit an economy already in crisis. Desperate to grow more food, the North Korean government instructed farmers to cut down trees, stripping hillsides to bring more land into cultivation.

    Big mistake. When heavy rains hit in 1995, this dragooning of marginal lands into agricultural production only amplified the national disaster. The resulting flooding damaged more than 40% of the country’s rice paddy fields. Torrential rains washed away topsoil, while rocks and sand, dislodged from hillsides, ruined low-lying fields. The rigid economic structures in North Korea were unable to cope with the triple assault of bad weather, soaring energy, and declining food production. Nor did dictator Kim Jong Il’s political decisions make things any better.

    But the peculiarities of North Korea’s political economy did not cause the devastating famine that followed. Highly centralized planning and pretensions to self-reliance only made the country prematurely vulnerable to trends now affecting the rest of the planet.

    As with the North Koreans, our dependency on relatively cheap energy to run our industrialized agriculture and our smokestack industries is now mixing lethally with food shortages and the beginnings of climate overload, pushing us all toward the precipice. In the short term, we face a food crisis and an energy crisis. Over the longer term, this is certain to expand into a much larger climate crisis. No magic wand, whether biofuels, genetically modified organisms (GMO), or geoengineering, can make the ogres disappear.

    http://tomdispatch.com/post/174945/john_feffer_are_we_all_north_koreans_now_

    See also “How not to be the next North Korea” at: http://energybulletin.net/node/45482

    Eating Fossil Fuels
    By Dale Allen Pfeiffer

    SNIP

    The Green Revolution

    In the 1950s and 1960s, agriculture underwent a drastic transformation commonly referred to as the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution resulted in the industrialization of agriculture. Part of the advance resulted from new hybrid food plants, leading to more productive food crops. Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250%.4 That is a tremendous increase in the amount of food energy available for human consumption. This additional energy did not come from an increase in incipient sunlight, nor did it result from introducing agriculture to new vistas of land. The energy for the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil), and hydrocarbon fueled irrigation.

    The Green Revolution increased the energy flow to agriculture by an average of 50 times the energy input of traditional agriculture.5 In the most extreme cases, energy consumption by agriculture has increased 100 fold or more.6

    In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994).7 Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:

    · 31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer

    · 19% for the operation of field machinery

    · 16% for transportation

    · 13% for irrigation

    · 08% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)

    · 05% for crop drying

    · 05% for pesticide production

    · 08% miscellaneous8

    Energy costs for packaging, refrigeration, transportation to retail outlets, and household cooking are not considered in these figures.

    To give the reader an idea of the energy intensiveness of modern agriculture, production of one kilogram of nitrogen for fertilizer requires the energy equivalent of from 1.4 to 1.8 liters of diesel fuel. This is not considering the natural gas feedstock.9 According to The Fertilizer Institute (http://www.tfi.org), in the year from June 30 2001 until June 30 2002 the United States used 12,009,300 short tons of nitrogen fertilizer.10 Using the low figure of 1.4 liters diesel equivalent per kilogram of nitrogen, this equates to the energy content of 15.3 billion liters of diesel fuel, or 96.2 million barrels.

    Of course, this is only a rough comparison to aid comprehension of the energy requirements for modern agriculture.

    In a very real sense, we are literally eating fossil fuels. However, due to the laws of thermodynamics, there is not a direct correspondence between energy inflow and outflow in agriculture. Along the way, there is a marked energy loss. Between 1945 and 1994, energy input to agriculture increased 4-fold while crop yields only increased 3-fold.11 Since then, energy input has continued to increase without a corresponding increase in crop yield. We have reached the point of marginal returns. Yet, due to soil degradation, increased demands of pest management and increasing energy costs for irrigation (all of which is examined below), modern agriculture must continue increasing its energy expenditures simply to maintain current crop yields. The Green Revolution is becoming bankrupt.

    http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

    For some encouraging reports on how well organic farming without large scale fossil fuel input can work go to http://www.i-sis.org.uk/susag.php

  • Bimbro // June 28, 2008 at 11:19 AM

    If you used to think Hoad had something important to say until you read ‘this’ article…then you give the impression that you never read his articles before.

    ****************

    Only to u, Tech! I’ve been aware of the farmer for years!

    How’s ur daughter? And be mindful of my warning about smoking around er!!!! :)

  • Bimbro // June 28, 2008 at 11:20 AM

    Is it hot in Bim, today!!

    Laaaaaaaaaddddddddddddddddd!!!! :)

  • David // June 28, 2008 at 11:24 AM

    We are aware that Hoad in all of his humility, and he is a humble man is a Barbados Scholar and a man of great intellect. Yet when we read his columns in comparison to others one can never tell as he manipulates the complicated language of English to communicate with all and sundry.

  • Negroman // June 28, 2008 at 11:26 AM

    Hoad loves to write tongue in cheek and plays the devils advocate.Very few of his articles are of nationl interest.I really do not get much informtion from Hoad’s columns.

  • David // June 28, 2008 at 11:33 AM

    Negroman you are entitled to your opinion of course but you should remember that the ‘national interest’ must be embodied in the personal goals and ideals of John Citizen.

    PS. There is a reason why Hoad’s column is the most emailed on the Nation Website by the way.

  • Bush tea // June 28, 2008 at 12:34 PM

    The thing is that most seem not to realize how fragile our ‘development’ is.

    What we call development is layers of technology siting on top of each other… and we have configured our lifestyles and our very existence on top of this pyramid.

    … for example – let us look only at one that we take for granted -WATER.

    Barbados’s water is scarce, UNDERGROUND for the most part, and very EXPENSIVE to pump and distribute….
    But since it has worked for the last 60 years we take it for granted. There are hundreds of actions that could disastrously disrupt this aspect of our lives – including scarce oil supplies.
    Many day to day aspects of our lives are similarly exposed….

    Hoad questions the wisdom of allowing ourselves to become hostage to such risks, when true happiness seems not to be derived from such development anyway. …and in fact, he argues, can be more readily found in the simple secure lifestyle…

    Hoad has been consistent and clear in this position…..

    Negroman, you understand immigration issues well, so which part of this you did not get?

  • Green Monkey // June 28, 2008 at 12:36 PM

    Keep on preaching Reverend Hoad. Don’t let the naysayers silence your message.

    Civilization’s golden era is teetering on collapse
    New millennium has brought a turning point in history, yet we ignore meltdown

    Hans Tammemagi, Special to the Sun
    Published: Saturday, June 28, 2008

    The period from 1950 to 2000 will be remembered as the Golden Era of modern civilization, the pinnacle reached by humans after a million years of evolution. This brilliant half-century was sponsored largely by fossil fuels, especially oil, which brought unprecedented economic growth, plentiful transportation and a rich and diverse lifestyle.

    But the new millennium has brought the end of cheap oil, and civilization is suddenly teetering on the edge of collapse. Even if we manage to scrape through (and it would require heroic efforts), life will change. We’re at one of the most important turning points in history, yet we persistently ignore the coming meltdown and just want to party on. Nero would be proud.

    So, why is civilization teetering?

    First, peak oil has arrived. There is no better signal than the price of oil, which has skyrocketed past $130 and shows no sign of slowing. Some shrug and claim there’s still a lot left, technology will find it and extract it. Others, as represented by the editors of Maclean’s magazine, feel that we have grappled with costly oil before and by applying determined conservation and new efficiencies, we will cope.

    Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Peak oil, this two-syllable piece of jargon, is another way of saying we are on the threshold of a major crisis. From now on the supply of oil will diminish each year, but population and demand will continue to grow. This is truly frightening because our modern industrial society is built on and totally dependent on this versatile fuel. It is the foundation for transportation, industry, agriculture, fishing and much more. As the gap between what economies and nations need and what they can get widens, bidding wars will erupt (they already have) and then shooting wars (one already has).

    SNIP

    Second, the world is facing a major food shortage. It took two centuries but the Malthusian Devil is finally banging on the door. For seven of the past eight years global production of cereal grains has not met consumption. The price of cereal crops such as rice, corn and wheat has doubled in the past year. Poor countries are hardest hit and food riots have broken out in more than 10 countries including Egypt, Cameroon, Morocco and Indonesia.

    SNIP

    Major changes are in the wind. At the very least it will mean paring back our lifestyles including, for example, less flying and driving, which will drive a stake into the heart of tourism, one of the world’s largest industries. Tourism-dependent places such as Phoenix that are located in a desert with obscenely sprawling suburbs are particularly vulnerable, and violence and societal breakdown are likely.

    James Kunstler, in his book, The Long Emergency, predicts that the United States will degenerate into a set of autonomous regions, with major urban centers replaced by numerous villages.

    Societal breakdown won’t happen quickly nor everywhere, but be sure of this: Change is coming and although poor nations will be hardest hit, North America will not be spared.

    We clearly need to think smaller eco-footprint with hybrid cars, smaller homes, diets with less meat, more bicycling and better recycling. If we all pitch in, these changes will buy us time-but only a little.

    While oil brought good times, it also allowed human numbers to soar well beyond the carrying capacity of the planet. We cannot continue to ignore this basic underlying problem. It will yield not one millimeter of progress if we decrease our environmental footprint by, say, 20 per cent but the population increases by 20 per cent over the same period.

    http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=2eeece50-285f-4c4b-bb37-2d053d04d4e8&p=2

  • Technician // June 28, 2008 at 12:52 PM

    #

    Negroman // June 28, 2008 at 11:26 am

    Hoad loves to write tongue in cheek and plays the devils advocate.Very few of his articles are of nationl interest.I really do not get much informtion from Hoad’s columns.
    ————————————————————————————
    I beg to differ on this issue with you for once Negroman.
    From as long as I can remember reading his articles, all of his contributions have been of National interest.
    What I do find however, is that we as a people have become so dependent and indoctrinated on the materialistic ways of life that we find it hard and most difficult to relate to the simplistic way in which his message is put across.
    Maybe if he wore a suit, drove a BMW or chose a 18 oz. steak from Sandy Lane rather than one of Hammies’s or Riley’s hamcutters, just maybe others would relate and listen.

  • reluctant nonbeliever // June 28, 2008 at 11:54 PM

    Hoad’s a stuck record. How many times have we heard this sentimental back-to-the land stuff from him?

    I have nothing against the dude (he’s a decent-enough columnist) but think his so-called wit and erudition wildly overrated. He’s mildly amusing, sure. But nothing to get excited about.

    His great virtue is that he’s a reassuring, familiar voice in a world of change, as familiar (and predictable) as pudding and souse on Saturdays.

    But I’m with xenophobe chick:

    He’s basically an old codger (though I’d omit the tragic part) whose only appeal is to other old codgers.

    Sorry, old timers!

  • Bimbro // June 29, 2008 at 12:03 AM

    That’s extremely, prfound Tech. This is n’t of national interst on the same basis as Hoad’s column, I don’t suppose, but how much is a hamcutter from Riley’s place, these days?

    I’ve forgotten!

  • Bimbro // June 29, 2008 at 12:10 AM

    I gine home for Xmas an need to ensure having sufficient foreign currency.

  • Tony Hall // June 29, 2008 at 12:43 AM

    Anybody who says that Hoad’s articles are nonsense is woefully out of touch. I look forward to his column every Friday, and if one understands his use and and manipulation of the English language one would realise that he is discussing serious issues affecting or likely to affect Barbados. You see some of us Barbadians take ourselves too seriously.We are stuck in a straight jacket.

  • Bimbro // June 29, 2008 at 6:32 AM

    I look forward to his column every Friday,

    ***********************

    Tony, it’s conceivable that you don’t lead as exciting a life as myself and Tech! Had u thought of that!

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    We are stuck in a straight jacket.

    **********************

    And the weather in Britain’s so warm these days that I hardly, ever find the need to wear a jacket at all!

  • Yardbroom // June 29, 2008 at 7:18 AM

    It is easy to look at bye gone days, as beautiful days of yore. When pleasant people did wonderful things. I am of an age to remember them well and at times delighted to have been there.

    Who can forget drives along the West Coast with beautiful vistas to the sea, so regular they seemed a continuous panorama.

    Buses laden with produce from the country, old ladies being helped with their bountiful loads. The bus stand at night, women balancing trays with sugar cakes, nuts, comforts and a plethora of sweet delights. Accents of people from Grenada, St Vincent, St Kitts, St Lucia mingling with deep Bajan in the city.

    A drive in the country meant just that, acres of sugar cane, stalks shimmering in the sun, they seemed to go on for ever.

    To offend in an area meant your parents would be responsible and your family called to account.

    They were nice days and in my innocence of life and its true meaning…I enjoyed them all. However, there was another side, almost all the shops in Broad Street, Bridgetown employed either white or fair skinned people. A very black face behind a counter was the exception… in a country with a…large majority of blacks.

    The Yacht Club – the main sailing club of an island people – was open to whites, a few blacks only a few could darken their doors. The Aquatic Club to a lesser degree was the same. My mother once told me of a professional black Barbadian, who had married a white woman abroad. On his return to Barbados he had to wait in the car park if his wife wanted to visit the Aquatic Club.

    St Winifreds school was peopled by mostly whites, there was always the odd black face, but it was odd indeed.

    Many households used kerosene lamps for their means of lighting. Hundreds of poor black boys in fading light, so studied. In the morning the poor had to catch water from the stand pipe to decant into barrels, before setting off for work.

    To those who could not afford a kerosene stove – and there were many – three stones in the back yard supported a cast iron pot heated by twigs, bits of wood and the ubiquitous dried nuts of the mahogany tree. Picturesque it might be but when the rain fell or was falling, picturesque it was not.

    Long tracks muddy and wetleading to houses almost in the middle of fields. People traversed them to go to church. It was not unusual to take ones shoes off before you reached…the front road.

    The majority were in charge…but they were not in charge.

    In seeking the halcyon days of yore you cannot have the pleasure without the pain, they go in tandem.

    I long for yesterday, but yesterday brings with it yesterday’s joy as well as yesterday’s pain.

    They were “some” who never felt the pain, they were cushioned from such. It is not perfect now – never will be – but the wind that blew away the pass also brought problems as well as benefits.

    The pass will”never” come again it is how we as a people, manage the “present” that matters.

    Dare I suggest, the depletion of fossil fuels is a separate issue.

  • Technician // June 29, 2008 at 8:36 AM

    Yardbroom as usual on a Sunday morning…..You need your own column sir. It makes for good reading.

  • John // June 29, 2008 at 8:40 AM

    Yardbroom

    Of course you may dare to suggest such a thing about fossil fuel.

    But shouldn’t you also explain why?

    The last line seems to be unsupported by the body of your contribution which lists the pains of the past we don’t want. You have not in my view connected the two.

    The inescapable conclusion is that we are living beyond our means.

    One of these days we will be forced to have our suits cut to the cloth we can afford ….. so why not accept the reality of our situation and make the choice while we can.

    We have come so far from the land that sustained our ancestors for centuries that many no longer even know that there is a diference and even worse, we don’t respect it.

    It is only old codgers like many of us bloggers who can appreciate the difference.

    Me, I think I would rather be poor and happy than poor and miserable.

    …. and if by management you mean the crap that has gone on in the past 50 years and built up billions(?) of dollars in debt, … no thanks.

    The pains you list from the past pale to insignificance when compared with the corruption, bribe taking and general mediocrity that persists today.

  • Georgie Porgie // June 29, 2008 at 8:40 AM

    Beautiful piece of prose Yardbroom. My English Teacher at HC would have been proud of you!

  • Bimbro // June 29, 2008 at 11:35 AM

    Tech, it’s not very mannerly, when ur asked a question and don’t reply. I still need to arrange my currency!

  • Green Monkey // June 29, 2008 at 11:49 AM

    Author Richard Heinberg on “Peak Everything”:

    Petroleum is not the only important resource quickly depleting. Readers already acquainted with the Peak Oil literature know that regional production peaks for natural gas have already occurred, and that, over the short term, the economic consequences of gas shortages are likely to be even worse for Europeans and North Americans than those for oil. And while coal is often referred to as being an abundant fossil fuel, with reserves capable of supplying the world at current rates of usage for two hundred years into the future, a recent study updating global reserves and production forecasts concludes that global coal production will peak and begin to decline in ten to twenty years.4 Because fossil fuels supply about 85 percent of the world’s total energy, peaks in these fuels virtually ensure that the world’s energy supply will begin to shrink within a few years regardless of any efforts that are made to develop other energy sources.

    Nor does the matter end with natural gas and coal. Once one lifts one’s eyes from the narrow path of daily survival activities and starts scanning the horizon, a frightening array of peaks comes into view. In the course of the present century we will see an end to growth and a commencement of decline in all of these parameters:

    * Population
    * Grain production (total and per capita)
    * Uranium production
    * Climate stability
    * Fresh water availability per capita
    * Arable land in agricultural production
    * Wild fish harvests
    * Yearly extraction of some metals and minerals (including copper, platinum, silver, gold, and zinc)

    The point of this book is not systematically to go through these peak-and-decline scenarios one by one, offering evidence and pointing out the consequences – though that is a worthwhile exercise. Some of these peaks are more speculative than others: fish harvests are already in decline, so this one is hardly arguable; however, projecting extraction peaks and declines for some metals requires extrapolating current rising rates of usage many decades into the future.5 The problem of uranium supply beyond mid-century is well attested by studies, but has not received sufficient public attention.6

    Nevertheless, the general picture is inescapable; it is one of mutually interacting instances of over-consumption and emerging scarcity.

    Our starting point, then, is the realization that we are today living at the end of the period of greatest material abundance in human history – an abundance based on temporary sources of cheap energy that made all else possible. Now that the most important of those sources are entering their inevitable sunset phase, we are at the beginning of a period of overall societal contraction.

    This realization is strengthened as we come to understand that it is no happenstance that so many peaks are occurring together. All are causally related by way of the historic reality that, for the past 200 years, cheap, abundant energy from fossil fuels has driven technological invention, increases in total and per-capita resource extraction and consumption (including food production), and population growth. We are enmeshed in a classic self-reinforcing feedback loop:

    Fossil fuel extraction

    –> more available energy

    —-> increased extraction of other resources, and production of food and other goods

    ——> population growth

    ——–> higher energy demand

    ———-> more fossil fuel extraction (and so on)

    http://www.richardheinberg.com/museletter/185

    If you have a high speed internet connection you can watch Heinberg discussing Peak Everything on these 6 Youtube videos.

    Part 1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybRz91eimTg

    Part 2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3_mYowxlEg

    Part 3
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p6U-ZvR5Yk

    Part 4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyO0WS79Xec

    Part 5
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5EcK-CdLNA

    Part 6

  • John // June 29, 2008 at 12:10 PM

    In between working on the computer(s) and watching cricket I am also keeping an eye on the blogs.

    A hard drive is making threatening noises and I need to backup!!

    Nothing on the computer can be done in less than 5 minutes.

    While watching cricket on the TV I saw that the elecronic scoreboard is not working and the commentators are saying that neither the crowd nor the players know what the score is.

    There is also no manually operated scoreboard at the ground. I am pretty sure some of the cricketers don’t need the scoreboard but most of the crowd do.

    This is an example of the way of doing things in the olde time days of yore being replaced by millions of dollars in modern technology which apparently removes that pain ……. but which alas has unfortunately broken down.

    The question I think is did we get value for the money we owe in debt which we incurred supposedly to remove our pains from the olde time days of yore?

    Do we need to keep things, or ways of doing things from the days of yore to ensure that we can keep score effectively?

    I think we do!!

    It sure beats buying a second scoreboard as a backup.

    … of course some will argue that some kinds of pain are good, … the mind keeps active finding ways to overcome it.

  • Hopi // June 29, 2008 at 6:48 PM

    Hoad is so right. The mindset of the Bajan is deplorable. They’ve never led always followed, allowing others to define them. There is absolutely no PEAK OIL nor GLOBAL WARMING. This is the mother of all scams. Had the greasy oil companies gotten their grimy hands on Iraq, Iran, the Caspian Sea and Venezuelan oil everything would be fine. This scam is just another method of control. Just like the US, the bajans have fallen for this scam, simply because they’ve allowed others to define their development. Instead of cushioning their arses against inevitable they sit around waiting for the inflated price of oil/gas to fall. Do not wait for the penstriped prostitutes to pass a law telling you what to do, prepare yourselves for the coming cataclysm. This present system cannot sustain itself.

  • Green Monkey // June 29, 2008 at 7:20 PM

    If anyone thinks Peak Oil is a scam and we can continue operations as normal and fuel a perpetual worldwide economic growth by pumping oil out of the ground in endless quantities, I advise them to watch the lecture by physics professor Albert Bartlett on exponential growth. Professor Bartlett shows with very simple mathematics the very large cumulative effect that even quite small rates of continuous exponential growth in consumption has on resource depletion.

    http://globalpublicmedia.com/dr_albert_bartlett_arithmetic_population_and_energy

    Here’s another useful video “Are Humans Smarter Than Yeast?” that explains exponential growth and doubling times and shows how the problems inherent in exponential growth patterns (e.g. resource depletion) don’t generally become plainly evident until it is too late to take effective action.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM1×4RljmnE

    Remember: to think there is no limit to growth on a finite planet is precisely, mathematically equivalent to thinking that you may have a stabilized, steady state economy on a perpetually shrinking planet. Both claims are precisely, equally ludicrous!

    http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEFAQs.html

  • Green Monkey // June 29, 2008 at 7:45 PM

    For those who don’t like the Real Player format,
    Professor Bartlett’s lecture on exponential growth mentioned in my post above is now on Youtube as well:

  • Hopi // June 29, 2008 at 10:02 PM

    Green Monkey…..

    Yes I do think that Peak oil is a scam. Yet I will be the first to agree with Hoad that we should change our way of life. Dr. Albert A. Bartlett is from the same school of thought as Rockefeller i.e. Eugenics. Bartlett’s theory on exponential function leads to one conclusion and that is Population Control. One of his arguments is that people in the “underdeveloped” countries want to increase their material standard of living to his level i.e. western level, thus material consumption on their part will increase. As I mentioned in a previous post that it was ok for the US, UK and other western nations to develop and guzzle up as much of the earth’s resources as they wanted but now that the tables are turned and China, India and other are doing the same the west has a problem with that, therefore they hire people like Bartlett with a few letters in front of their names to try and use figures to confound the masses. You do not need to be in his field of “study” to know that Peak Oil and Global Warming just like the bogus War on Terror is fraudulent. The “brotherhood” has an agenda and high up on their list is the extinction of about 80-90% of humanity and one subtle and effective way to do this is by using people like Bartlett to convince you that you nothing but a useless eater to be eradicated.

  • John // June 29, 2008 at 10:37 PM

    Hopi

    Check out the Social and Economic report 2005 for BArbados … Government Printery.

    Appendix 28 will show you that since 1996 the Barbados Water Authority has reached a peak volume of water.

    I suspect it cannot go any higher because the water resource is finite and thats all there is in the currently exploited coral area.

    The difference between water and oil is that water is renewable resource, it is part of a cycle, but oil is more than likely not. Some argue it is, some differ.

    Then go to the Public Library when it reopens and ask to see the Stanley Resources Study on Water done back in 1978.

    You will find that the behaviour you see in the economic report matches the projection made in the study.

    …. then think a bit more on how oil occurs.

    Water is a big problem too!! It snuck up on the politicians even though the studies were there to show how and when it would occur.

  • Micro Mock Engineer // June 29, 2008 at 10:38 PM

    Green Monkey,
    Peak Oil will be characterized by a fall in demand and/or efficiency improvements in our production and use of oil, rather than a fall in resource availability… as was the case for Peak Stone, Peak Iron, Peak Whale Oil, Peak Coal, Peak Agriculture etc. etc.
    The process will be driven by the development of alternatives – alternative energy sources as well as alternative energy conversion systems.
    Peak oil advocates fail to recognize that humans “create” natural resources by identifying useful applications (read: creating value) for naturally occurring substances. In the overall scheme of things the only natural resource of import and consequence is the human mind.
    Modern “Peak” theories originate with Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus in his “Essay on the Principle of Population” in which he concludes that human population increases at an exponential rate while food supplies increase at an arithmetic rate, and therefore population would inevitably exceed food supply leading to widespread famine. It should be quite obvious to anyone who examines global population and food supply growth over the past couple centuries that this is flawed thinking… indeed, not only has food production also been exponential but it has increased faster than population growth… using significantly less land per ton of food produced… hunger and malnutrition while still with us, is far less prevalent in the world today than in 1798 when Malthus wrote his essay, and in many cases is related to poor governance rather than genuine food shortages. Furthermore, population growth rates are actually NOT exponential – just check the statistics in developed countries and even right here in Barbados. Interestingly, empirical evidence suggests that the more affluent a country or society becomes the slower its population grows and in fact it often plateaus or declines.
    Despite being proven wrong time and time again, it seems one more resource we will never run short on is “Peakers” and “Preachers” spouting doom and gloom. Undoubtedly, one day your civilization collapse/end of world scenarios will be correct, but so far your failure rate is 100%.
    Trust me, BBE will return like a thief in the night. You (and many others here) are wasting valuable time and energy trying to predict it.

    As for BU’s favorite columnist, I think that he is often mistakingly accused of living in the past. Living in the past is just plain silly. We should cherish the past, particularly the good aspects, but not to the extent that we become nostalgia freaks. Living only for the present is equally silly, and demonstrates immaturity i.e. the inability to delay gratification. We should live IN the present while cherishing the past and planning for the future. In planning for the future we should direct or energy and ingenuity to making the most of the resources over which we have dominion, until His return. We were given just enough to last until then… no more and no less. Stop worrying and start problem solving.

  • Hopi // June 29, 2008 at 11:15 PM

    John….

    Can I access that report on the net. However, I do find you to be contradictory. In one sentence you say that “water resource is finite” and then you say that “water is renewable.” Which one is it?

  • John // June 30, 2008 at 1:06 AM

    It is both!!

    The finite nature is determined by the quantity of rainfall and the area on which it falls.

    Barbados isn’t growing (well at least not significantly) and there is 20-40 inches of rainfall in an average year.

    Quantity available for extraction determined by the lower rainfall figure and is estimated to be 44 million gallons per day from the coral area.

    The Scotland District is not yet exploited except for a few springs, Newcastle and Codrington. Greenland was once zoned as 1, a water catchment area for the public water supply.

    The renewable nature is determined by the hydrologic cycle. Google Hydrologic Cycle.

    Please note that renewable does not mean infinite.

    A water well will never run dry so long as the extraction does not exceed what nature puts back through rainfall.

    An oil well … that is different. There is no oil which falls from the sky. I don’t know what process produces the oil under ground or whether the process is eternal/infinite/renewable but I doubt it. I won’t argue the point because I don’t know.

    Will search and see if the report is available on line.

  • John // June 30, 2008 at 1:08 AM

    PS

    … water is magic!!

  • David // June 30, 2008 at 6:33 AM

    With the imminent threat of Bush examining the prospect of invading Iran because of its suspected nuclear capability this has the possibility of plunging the world into more economic turbulence.

    Let’s hope and pray the old codger don’t have the last laugh.

  • John // June 30, 2008 at 7:23 AM

    John // June 30, 2008 at 1:06 am

    It is both!!

    The finite nature is determined by the quantity of rainfall and the area on which it falls.

    Barbados isn’t growing (well at least not significantly) and there is 20-40 inches of rainfall in an average year.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Sorry, it is 40-60 inches rainfall per year that BIM gets.

    Also, another natural resource which is renewable is Timber. However, it is a finite resource as the removal rain forests by logging shows.

  • Inkwell // June 30, 2008 at 7:28 AM

    John, your argument on the finite nature of water is sound…as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough. The quantity of rainfall is relevant only when it occurs in the world’s deserts or the interiors of large land masses that are not blessed with fresh water lakes or rivers.

    What it (your argument) does not take into consideration is the other major method of water recovery… desalination. As a result of the hydrologic cycle, the great majority of the world’s water is deposited in its oceans, where it can be readily recovered.

    Also, the great majority of the 20% to 40% of Barbados’ annual rainfall runs into the sea and we would do well, instead of griping about the low levels in our wells, to make greater efforts to capture some of the rainwater before it runs into the sea or failing that, recover it after it does.

  • John // June 30, 2008 at 7:46 AM

    Inkwell

    The sea is finite!!

    Its big, but it is finite.

    The energy which drives the Hydologic cycle is “free” and natural.

    The energy to desalinate the water comes in most instances from oil and is expensive. Thus the Oil states have large desalination facilities, Singapore likewise.

    The estimates I have seen for Barbados gives 10% runoff, 10% percolation to the underground aquifer and 80% Evapotranspiration!!

    Plants, trees, ….Nature, consumes much of the water that falls and puts it back into the atmosphere through transpiration, like our perspiration.

    We perspire/sweat and that too goes back into the atmosphere by evaporation.

  • Inkwell // June 30, 2008 at 8:02 AM

    For the purposes of this argument, the sea has to be considered infinite since water, whether it is drunk, transpired, evaporated or used to wash cars is not lost, it is not “consumed”, it is simply recycled. If that is not the quality of infinity, I don’t know what is.

    I’d be interested in knowing the source of your data that claim only 10% rainfall runoff in Barbados. I seriously doubt that. In any event, we should be making sure that runoff is minimized, by employing dams or other water catchment methods.

    Who says that desalination has to be oil driven. The technology is available. Why can’t Barbados have the world’s first solar powered desalination plant? Let’s think outside the box.

  • Green Monkey // June 30, 2008 at 9:06 AM

    Micro Mock Engineer // June 29, 2008 at 10:38 pm said:

    Green Monkey,
    Peak Oil will be characterized by a fall in demand and/or efficiency improvements in our production and use of oil, rather than a fall in resource availability… as was the case for Peak Stone, Peak Iron, Peak Whale Oil, Peak Coal, Peak Agriculture etc. etc.

    The process will be driven by the development of alternatives – alternative energy sources as well as alternative energy conversion systems.

    So far you are staking our future on pie in the sky. Just because we want desperately to find alternative sources of energy to replace oil and hydrocarbons and allow us to continue our energy extravagant lifestyles is no guarantee that these alternative sources will be found, or that they will be found in time to allow us a smooth transition to these sources and away from hydrocarbons.

    There is no law of nature that says civilizations must always progress onwards and upwards. In fact if you look through history, we can see civilizations have always risen and fallen in cyclical patterns, and frequently the decline is associated with the degradation of natural resources that fueled the growth of the civilization in the first place.

    I also think you are underestimating the difficulty we will have to implement these new energy sources if oil is in decline and we are attempting to create new infrastructures to support and use the new forms of energy while the oil based infrastructure we rely on for our day to day activities is in decline.

    [b]The Paradox of Production[/b]
    By John Michael Greer

    One of the things that makes the challenge of peak oil so insidious, and so resistant to quick fixes, is the way in which many things that seem like ingredients of a solution are actually part of the problem. Petroleum provides so much of the energy and so many of the raw materials we take for granted today that the impacts of declining oil production extend much further than a first glance would suggest.

    Read through discussions of the energy future of industrial society from a few years back, for example, and you’ll find that many of them treat the price of coal and the price of oil as independent variables, linked only by the market forces that turn price increases in one into an excuse for bidding up the price of the other. What these analyses missed, of course, is that the machinery used to mine coal and the trains used to transport it are powered by diesel oil. When the price of diesel goes up, the cost of coal mining goes up; when supplies of diesel run short in coal-producing countries – as they have in China in recent months – the supply of coal runs into unexpected hiccups as well.

    I’ve pointed out in previous posts here that every other energy source currently used in modern societies gets a substantial “energy subsidy” from oil. Thus, to continue the example, oil contains about three times as much useful energy per unit weight as coal does, and oil also takes a lot less energy to extract from the ground, process, and transport to the end user than coal does. Modern coal production benefits from these efficiencies. If coal had to be mined, processed, and shipped using coal-burning equipment, those efficiencies would be lost, and a sizeable fraction of total coal production would have to go to meet the energy costs of the coal industry.

    The same thing, of course, is true of every other alternative energy source to a greater or lesser degree: the energy used in uranium mining and reactor construction, for example, comes from diesel rather than nuclear power, just as sunlight doesn’t make solar panels. What rarely seems to have been noticed, however, is the way these “energy subsidies” intersect with the challenges of declining petroleum production to boobytrap the future of energy production in industrial societies. The boobytrap in question is an effect I’ve named the paradox of production.

    It’s crucial to understand that the problem with our society’s reliance on petroleum is not simply that petroleum will become scarce in the future, and will have to be replaced by less concentrated or less abundant fuels. It’s that a huge proportion of industrial society’s capital plant – the collection of tools, artifacts, trained personnel, social structures, information resources, and human geography that provide the productive basis for society – was designed and built to use petroleum-derived fuels, and only petroleum-derived fuels. Converting that capital plant to anything else involves much more than just providing another energy source.

    Consider the difficulties that would be involved in building the sort of hydrogen economy so often touted as the solution to our approaching energy crisis. We’ll grant for the moment that the massive amounts of electricity needed to turn seawater into hydrogen gas in sufficient volume to matter turn out to be available somehow, despite the severe challenges facing every option proposed so far. Getting the electricity to make the hydrogen, though, is only the first of a series of tasks with huge price tags in money, energy, raw materials, labor, and time.

    Hydrogen, after all, can’t be poured into the gas tank of a gasoline-powered car. For that matter, it can’t be dispensed from today’s gas pumps, or stored in the tanks at today’s filling stations, or shipped there by the pipelines and tanker trucks currently used to get gasoline and diesel fuel to the point of sale. Every motor vehicle on the roads, along with the vast infrastructure built up over a century to fuel them with petroleum products, would have to be replaced in order to use hydrogen as a transport fuel.

    The same challenge, in one form or another, faces nearly every other energy source proposed as a replacement for petroleum. It’s not enough to come up with a new source of energy. Unless that new source can be used just like petroleum, the petroleum-powered machines we use today will have to be replaced by machines using the new energy source. Furthermore, unless the new energy source can be distributed through existing channels – whether that amounts to the pipelines and tanker trucks used to transport petroleum fuels today, or some other established infrastructure, such as the electric power grid – a new distribution infrastructure will have to be built. Either task would add massive costs to the price tag for a new energy source; put both of them together – as in the case of hydrogen – and the costs of the new infrastructure could easily dwarf the cost of bringing the new energy source online in the first place.

    Factor the impact of declining oil production into this equation and the true scale of the challenge before us becomes a little clearer. Building a hydrogen infrastructure – from power plants and hydrogen generation facilities, through pipelines and distribution systems, to hydrogen filling stations and hundreds of millions of hydrogen-powered cars and trucks – will, among many other things, take a very large amount of oil. Some of the oil will be used directly, by construction equipment, trucks hauling parts to the new plants, and the like; much more will be used indirectly, since nearly every commodity and service for sale in the industrial world today relies on petroleum in one way or another. Until a substantial portion of the hydrogen system is in place, it won’t be possible to use hydrogen to supplement dwindling petroleum production, which is already coming under worldwide strain as demand pushes up against the limits of supply. Instead, the fuel costs of building the hydrogen economy add an additional source of demand, pushing fuel prices higher and making scarce fuel even less available for other uses.

    SNIP

    If the new energy source turns out to be more abundant, more concentrated, and more easily extracted than the source that it’s replacing, this effect is temporary; if the new source can be distributed and used, at least at first, via old technology, the effect is minimized; if the new source is introduced a little at a time, in an economy reliant on many other sources of energy, the effect can easily be lost in the static of ordinary price fluctuations. All three of these were true of petroleum in its early days. It started as a replacement for whale oil in lamps, and was distributed and consumed in existing technology; decades later, it found a niche as a transportation fuel, and relied on the old lamp-oil distribution system until a new one could be constructed on the basis of existing revenues; its other uses evolved gradually from there over more than half a century, until by 1950 it was the world’s dominant energy source

    None of the proposed replacements for petroleum, though, have those advantages. None of them yield as much net energy as crude oil under natural pressure, and none combine petroleum’s unique mix of abundance, concentration, ease of production and distribution, and fitness for a world of machinery designed and built for petroleum-based fuels. The fuel they need to replace remains by far the most important energy source in the world today. Nor do we have half a century to ramp up a new energy system for the industrial economy; conventional petroleum production is already declining steadily, and the most reasonable projections of future production show it dropping off a cliff within the next decade or so.

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/03/milestone-in-dust.html

    There are three take home messages.

    The first:

    1. We are close to, or at, both of these inflection points now:
    peak oil production
    oil demand/production crossover

    But what about transitioning to renewable energy sources?

    That would be a good idea. But we should have started 30 years ago to avoid a very difficult transition period.

    Ready for the second take home message? Be sure you are sitting down, because the first time this sinks in, it is rather like taking a 2×4 to the stomach:

    2. We have, as of now, no renewable energy source, nor combination of sources, that can scale up quickly enough, or provide anywhere
    near to the energy equivalent of oil, to avoid a severe, worldwide energy shortage.

    Sorry to break the news.
    Let’s take a moment to re-read and digest that last take home message (and its implications).

    [b]“There is no quickly scalable and energy-equivalent substitute for oil” …in terms of its energy density, EROEI (energy returned on energy invested), transportability, safety, range, infrastructure, and cost.

    The third take home message:

    3. Even if we had renewable energy sources to provide the equivalent energy of oil at the same cost, our entire economic infrastructure is oil, not electron or hydrogen, based. The economy might not be able to run on non-oil based energy. For example, could airplanes, or large mining trucks, be run on batteries?

    There are very grave economic and social risks starting now, and exacerbating over the next several decades.

    For the past century, oil has been an essentially free source of extremely dense and useful energy. Poke a hole in the ground in the right location, and you get an unparalleled source of energy. And, it can also be used to make
    a variety of products such as plastics, tires, asphalt for roads, medicines, etc. That is, when we are not burning it.

    I was a firm believer in solar, wind, and geothermal energy until a few years ago, and I still believe they will help individuals. But no combination of these “renewable” technologies will make a notable difference at the level of 300 million Americans, much less the 6.5 billion people in the world.

    …No alternatives scale, and we’re out of time. We made the important decision about energy policy at two critical junctures in American history:
    (1) shortly after WWII, when we created the interstate highway system and the suburbs to build a way of life that had no future because it relied completely on ready supplies of a finite resource, and (2) in 1980, when we dismissed conservation at irrelevant…”
    — Professor Guy McPherson
    http://www.azcentral.com/news/aztalk/forum/articles/0409forum_livetalk-CR.html

    http://drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm

  • Hopi // June 30, 2008 at 11:24 AM

    John….

    Water is a renewable resource.
    When water and the “sea” becomes finite and non-renewable according to you then human also becomes non-renewable. I have taken temporary steps to prepare myself, in the event that Barbados is “blessed” with a drought. Should “push come to shove” I’d have to gather sea water and desalinise it the tedious way.

  • John // June 30, 2008 at 6:44 PM

    Inkwell // June 30, 2008 at 8:02 am

    For the purposes of this argument, the sea has to be considered infinite since water, whether it is drunk, transpired, evaporated or used to wash cars is not lost, it is not “consumed”, it is simply recycled. If that is not the quality of infinity, I don’t know what is.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Timber is renewable.

    Most trees once cut will grow back. …. but timber is not an infinite resource otherwise the rain forest would not be disappearing … or is it!!?

    Remember, the fish need the sea, as do the many other forms of life living in it.

    Just to understand the scale of Nature, if only 10 % of the rain that falls gets underground and only 44 million gallos per day are available, then Nature delivers upward of 440 million gallons per day of rain from the sea.

    Singapore has one of the largest desal plants and that produces about 30 million gallons per day.

    Overall, Singapore consumes about 350 million gallons per day, most of it coming from Malaysia by pipeline to be treated, the rest from its own catchment areas.

    Man’s efforts are puny. The natural processes while renewable and with an extent at which we can only wonder are finite.

    Water is finite. …. well I heard another theory about ice falling to earth in meteors which I think is possible. That would make it infinite …. but then again ….

    So to my mind water is finite.

    We just tap into a huge cycle and it seems infinite.

    Guess it isn’t much point arguing if we start out with such disparate positions.

  • John // June 30, 2008 at 6:49 PM

    Inkwell // June 30, 2008 at 8:02 am

    I’d be interested in knowing the source of your data that claim only 10% rainfall runoff in Barbados. I seriously doubt that. In any event, we should be making sure that runoff is minimized, by employing dams or other water catchment methods.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Check the Senn Report of 1946. It is in the Public Library.

    I’ll check and excerpt the relevant words when I get a chance a little later. Maybe I am wrong as it is a long time since I read it but if I am wrong, I’ll say so.

  • Chris Halsall // June 30, 2008 at 7:39 PM

    MME: I bow to you, in the humble and respectful manner which only the Buddha form of same can communicate…

    To John and Inkwell… If I May (IMHO) (No rant intended…).

    Potable water is scarce in the world. Wars are fought over it. Correct: sea water is not scarce. It is not infinite, though. Think fisheries and CO2 absorption…

    However, it takes energy to convert brine (or even brackish) water water to potable. Who supplies this energy?

    Mother Nature does this quite regularly because she has a great big solar collector, and a nuclear reactor, called herself. To make pure water, she heats up bodies of contaminated water, which evaporates into the atmosphere.

    From time-to-time, and from region-to-region, she will return this to a liquid state, which is then inclined to try to find its lowest potential energy (read: it rains, and then drains…).

    However, it is important to point out that she does not always do this for everyone, generally does not do it for anyone exactly when they want it (between 0100 and 0500 would be great, thanks…), and often does it in quantities which no-one wants (think Katrina and New Orleans, et al).

    On the other hand, we humans have to produce potable water, we have to provide the input energy required. There are many methodologies, but they all require energy. Where do we get this energy? From the sun, or from electricity?

    My above is simply meant to paint a description of the processes…

    I think a key issue many of us are trying to present and argue here, is that the problems before us are simply that: problems. Non-intractable problems are to simply waiting to be solved.

    However, “tricky” problems sometimes require new thinking. And, often, sacrifice. There is no “reset button” — this is where we find ourselves. Here and now.

    So, what do we *DO*?

  • Bush Tea // June 30, 2008 at 8:51 PM

    Micro Mock Engineer,

    Bush Tea has nuff respect for you… as a young, idealistic engineer (and ex-hermit), your optimism and confidence in our abilities to invent our way out of the dire challenges that face humankind is truly refreshing…. not realistic mind you, but refreshing and even tempting.

    But cuddear MME, don’t insult us by dismissing ‘Peak Oil’ as being just like peak stone(??!?), peak coal, peak whale oil(?) etc.

    You know full well that unlike any of your other peaks, oil sits at the very base of the pyramid that represents our civilization. On it sits our transport systems, our food, our industry, our military, our tourism, … the very water that we drink…

    …even if you are not a civil or structural Ing, you must know what happens to a structure when its base is weakened….

    MME, however you approach this situation, the inevitable result will be chaos….
    BUT YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT ONE KEY POINT…
    You said …”The process will be driven by the development of alternatives – alternative energy source…”

    That is exactly right. The alternatives will be forced upon us by developing circumstances.

    These alternatives will be wholly inadequate in the context of present day habits. The options provided will be more like those that our grandparents experienced..

    The question is, after being spoiled by the plentiful oil cushion over the last generation do we have what it will take to live with the ‘alternative’ of no oil, no imports, no supermarket, no job, no running water, no electricity???

    What have what?!?

    How many will even know where to turn just to eat, far less to invent high tech global energy systems that have eluded us for decades, – as you suggest?

    Trust me MME, far better to place your faith in BBE; investigate the plans for “Project life on earth”; check out the great prospectus, and focus your energies on the REAL deal for the future (phase 2)

    … some wisdom from the ‘nac.

  • Micro Mock Engineer // June 30, 2008 at 9:39 PM

    Green Monkey said:

    “Just because we want desperately to find alternative sources of energy to replace oil and hydrocarbons and allow us to continue our energy extravagant lifestyles is no guarantee that these alternative sources will be found”

    *******

    GM,

    Viable alternative energy sources and energy conversion systems are ALREADY available, and more continue to be developed and improved daily (the rate of development will be particularly rapid at today’s oil prices). And I’m not speaking of those so-called solutions mentioned by the authors in your submissions… conventional PV, wind, ethanol, hydrogen economy… those are strawmen used by these authors to support their illogical conclusions… as for the people who promote these technologies as the ultimate answer to our energy requirements, they need to take a physics course or two. Don’t get me wrong, these all have a small part to play, but the real players in the future (10+ years) will be other technologies like new solar (thin film PV – CIGS, quantum dots etc.) along with oil which will be a major contributor for several years to come, and yes, some “pie in the sky” technologies… my favorite is Metalloradicals. But back to the alternatives we already have that would substantially reduce oil demand in the short term (5– 10 years)… Nuclear Electricity / Electric Car combination (the US already depends very little on oil for electricity generation… <3%) and coal, along with continued use of hydro, gas, and expanding geothermal and Energy-from-Waste where applicable. And there is more than enough oil and gas to comfortably make the transition… at least according to my sources at the EIA, IEA, OPEC, WRTG Economics, BP Statistical Review, Exxon-Mobil Energy Outlook etc… and these don’t even account for areas that environmental extremists have successfully lobbied to exclude from exploration, or unconventional sources that are already competitive at today’s prices. I expect you will criticize my data sources, but I would happily review your sources if you provide them.
    There are several reasons for the present high prices – recent strong global economic growth and commensurate surge in demand in emerging market economies, transitory shortages in experienced personnel (not enough MME’s) and equipment/materials used in the oil industry, NIMBYISM and environmental alarmism, market speculation, political instability in major oil producing states, market manipulation by OPEC etc. But none of these represent genuine shortages in the resource… in other words the problems we are experiencing are not geological they are largely political… a result of poor LEADERSHIP. Let not your heart be troubled… today’s high prices are a necessary ingredient in the successful transition to alternatives, and certainly do not reflect the long-term equilibrium price for oil. If only we could organize a LEADERSHIP bootcamp for the world’s politicians… run by engineers of course :)
    …a little more on OPEC market manipulation… don’t you find it a bit odd that OPEC oil production has basically been flat for the past 30 years? Even in years when they induct new members their total production remains constant, for example… Angola and Ecuador joined them last year, but while the 2.4 million bbl per day these two countries contributed disappeared from non-OPEC production the moment they joined, there was no commensurate increase in OPEC production… 2.4 million bbl per day just vanished overnight… LOL
    The world is paying a price for poor US domestic and foreign policies, but please don’t blame the present situation on diminishing resources… the evidence just doesn’t support this.

    *******

    Namaste Chris.

  • John // June 30, 2008 at 9:52 PM

    Chris

    You have a point.

    Singapore is an island slightly larger than Barbados yet it supports a population of 4 million which it wants to rise to 6 million!!

    Googling Singapore Water is a quick way to appreciate the many ways it uses to solve the problem.

  • Micro Mock Engineer // June 30, 2008 at 9:58 PM

    …and no BT, we don’t need BBE to run that LEADERSHIP bootcamp… not yet at least :)

  • John // June 30, 2008 at 10:05 PM

    Here’s what I am getting from Senn, 1946.

    Minimum rainfall 40 inches
    Maximum Rainfall 90 inches
    Average Rainfall 60 inches.

    I said 40 – 60 inches so I was wrong, it is 40-90 inches, average 60. Faulty (read old) memory.

    We plan for the drought years of 40 inches and don’t abstract more than that.

    Rainfall Dispersal

    Guesstimate of Evapotranspiration 75%
    Surface Runoff negligible in the Coral Rock Area because it is so porous
    Percolation underground 20%

    I said 80%, 10% and 10%. I was wrong, but I do remember these percentages from somewhere.

    The point Senn makes is that the benefits of attempting to trap water in the porous limestone area are minimal.

    When we see the water gushing out to sea from the gullies in the Coral area it is usually in the wet season and after heavy rainfall. It may be only a few days in a year.

    The majority of the time what rainfall is not used by plant life goes into the ground because it is so porous.

    We are yet to tap the water resources in the Scotland District.

  • Micro Mock Engineer // June 30, 2008 at 11:40 PM

    “oil sits at the very base of the pyramid that represents our civilization. On it sits our transport systems, our food, our industry, our military, our tourism, … the very water that we drink…”

    *******

    BT,
    These same arguments were once used to describe coal. Did you read any of Jevon’s 1865 book “The Coal Question”… here is the link again… http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Jevons/jvnCQ.html

    … just substitute “oil” for “coal” and it is virtually indistinguishable from today’s peak oil diatribe.

    We continue to choose oil for the applications you mention simply because, up to now, there has been no reason for meaningful change.

    Next time you see a structure with a weakening base, I would suggest you call in one ah dem top notch MME’s like Gibbs or Phillips… uh beg yuh BT… doan leh um fall an kill de occupants :)

  • Micro Mock Engineer // July 1, 2008 at 12:11 AM

    … the irony of Jevon’s book, is that he completely dismissed petroleum as being a viable solution based on the limitations of their knowledge and technology at the time. This is what he had to say about petroleum:

    “Petroleum has of late years become the matter of a most extensive trade, and has even been proposed by American inventors for use in marine steam-engine boilers. It is undoubtedly superior to coal for many purposes, and is capable of replacing it. But then, What is Petroleum but the Essence of Coal, distilled from it by terrestrial or artificial heat? Its natural supply is far more limited and uncertain than that of coal, its price is about 15l. per ton already, and an artificial supply can only be had by the distillation of some kind of coal at considerable cost. To extend the use of petroleum, then, is only a new way of pushing the consumption of coal. It is more likely to be an aggravation of the drain than a remedy.”

    Maybe Jevon (who quit natural sciences in university to pursue studies in economics) can be forgiven… after all, as brilliant a logician and economist as he undoubtedly was , he couldn’t possibly envisage the developments that would take place in petroleum… Actually, I take that back, maybe he should have paid more attention to those American engineers… serves him right for dropping science.

  • Micro Mock Engineer // July 1, 2008 at 1:07 AM

    just when you thought it was safe to come back in the water… :)

    Was going to give it a rest for the night, but had to comment on the first two “oil dependent” applications you listed BT… our transport systems and our food (the others will take too long)…

    Transport is straight forward… replace oil with electricity.

    Food… it takes a little more time to unravel the misinformation and deception with this one… but simply put “Peakers” usually use a combination or all of the following to “prove” an inextricable link between petroleum and food:
    - fertilizer production is dependent on oil
    - pesticides are made from oil
    - oil is necessary to operate agricultural machinery and support distribution systems

    Lets deal with the last one first… replace oil with electricity.

    Next… fertilizer production is dependent on oil – FALSE. Plants need three primary nutrients Nitrogen, Potassium and Phosphorous. Petroleum contains Hydrogen and Carbon. Oil isn’t used at all in the process of making nitrogen based fertilizer (ammonia) however natural gas (which is not yet peaking) is used for its energy and convenient hydrogen. But the fact is, all you need to make ammonia are Energy (from alternatives which will also provide any Hydrogen required), Air and Water… and there is certainly no shortage of Potassium and Phosphorous. By the way, 60% of China’s nitrogen based fertilizer comes from coal. If you’re interested in learning more about fertilizer you can check out the International Fertilizer Association here – http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/statistics/indicators/ind_reserves.asp
    …one more interesting fact about ammonia, our bodies are probably the most efficient manufacturers of it… ask GP.

    Finally, pesticides are made from oil – TRUE… BUT they can be synthesized from gas and coal. But all this is really immaterial given how little oil is used in the manufacture of pesticides today… less than 0.05% of world oil production based on US EPA data – http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/usage2001.htm#3_1

  • Bush tea // July 1, 2008 at 6:03 AM

    MME,

    … man you could drop all the draft you like… (and yuh sound REAL impressive too…) but I know that you know, that in this world of 2008 -where events take place from minute to minute, that there is NO room, or time, for the kind of change of which you speak.

    Even if new technologies were ready NOW, can you imagine the challenge to dump our stranded assets (Gazillions of dollars) and convert? And yet the price of oil (for whatever reason) is clearly forging ever upwards…

    Give me a real life solution MME – you see BL&P making any changes within 10 years?

    You see this crisis waiting 5 years to peak?

    …do the maths MME – it spells doommmm my friend.

    ..fortunately, BBE have other plans…

  • Micro Mock Engineer // July 1, 2008 at 7:18 AM

    LOL BT…

    in summary…

    the transition won’t cost a gazillion dollars (…you using Guyanese currency in your NPV analysis? Cuh dear… duh in have dat many in Barbados yet.)

    there is adequate oil in the ground to comfortably meet the world’s demands till 2030

    there is sufficient time to make the transition

    yes, politics and policies will have transitory effects on prices… but the resource is not really scarce, and the ‘artifical’ spikes are welcome therapy for a muscle that has atrophied from non-use during ‘good times’ (… our brain)

  • Green Monkey // July 1, 2008 at 10:30 AM

    MME said: there is adequate oil in the ground to comfortably meet the world’s demands till 2030

    That is the crux of the matter. Unfortunately some oil industry veterans. petroleum engineers and scientists (e.g. Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, aka ASPO at http://www.peakoil.net ) believe it is likely that the official reserve figures of the OPEC c0untries have been grossly overestimated. The fact remains that just about all the major non-OPEC oil exporters are now in decline. So any new oil pumped, first of all, has to make up for the declining non-OPEC supply as well as hopefully still be enough to allow for a projected net increase of overall oil production of 2% per year over the coming years. (production has been flat for 2005, 2006 and 2007)

    From Peak Oil Overview – June 2008 :

    Comment: If one analyzes the reserves for OPEC countries, one very quickly comes to the conclusion that the published numbers are unreasonably high.

    This is the story: In the early 1980s, OPEC oil countries were all vying for high quotas. To get those high quotas, they believed that publishing high reserves would be helpful. One by one, OPEC oil countries raised their reserve estimates, in an attempt to make it look like they had more oil, so deserved higher quotas. To further this illusion, they kept the reserve numbers at the new high level, even when oil had been pumped out, and no new oil had been found.

    The practice has continued for years. OPEC leaders found that by overstating their reserves, they gained new respect, both within their own countries and abroad. They also found that the practice was very easy to do, since no one is auditing the reserve numbers they provide. (my emphasis /GM)

    A graph of OPEC oil reserves over time is as follows:

    http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Opec%2011%20Oil%20Reserves%20N.png
    (click link for graph)

    There are many other ways this problem can be seen. For example, OPEC’s oil production is unreasonably low in relationship to its reserves, unless the countries are inept at production or are misstating their reserve amounts. (See The Disconnect Between Oil Reserves and Production.)

    Another insight can be gained by looking at Saudi oil reserves, when Americans were involved in setting reserves. According to Matt Simmons’ “Twilight in the Desert”, Saudi oil reserves were 110 Gigabarrels (Gb or billion barrels in US terminology) in 1979, back when Americans were still partial owners of Aramco. If we subtract the 81 Gb pumped out since then, this suggests remaining reserves of 29 Gb.

    If is likely that the 1979 American estimate was low. If, instead, we use the Saudi published estimate of 168 Gb in 1980, and subtract from it production of 81 Gb to date, we get an estimate of 87 Gb. This is less than a third of the 264.3 Gb that Saudi Arabia is currently reporting as reserves!

    Kuwait is another country where we have an alternate estimate of the proven reserves available. An analysis by the Kuwait Oil Company as of December 31, 2001, showed proven reserves for the country of 24 Gb. Their published reserves were 96.5 as of December 31, 2001, moving up to 101.5 as of December 31, 2006!

    http://energybulletin.net/node/45681

    Reading your prognostications of an upcoming energy nirvana, MME, reminds me of the nuclear scientists in the early post WWII era who naively promised us that, thanks to the technology of nuclear power, electricity would become to cheap to meter and would essentially be free.

    By, the way, it looks like Great Britain is about to have a preview of the Peak Oil experience in the coming years as their North Sea fields are declining and they will have to rely more and more on importing expensive oil and natural gas to meet their energy requirements.

    From riches to rags

    The bar chart up top indicates the cost of importing oil and gas to the UK ballooning to about $200 billion (£100 billion) per annum by 2013 – just 5 years away. This completely dwarfs the riches of North Sea oil and gas production the UK enjoyed up to 2004, which were exported at rock bottom energy prices. The chart is indicative since it is unlikely that this will ever come to pass. It is unlikely that the UK will be able to source or pay for this ever rising energy bill on the international markets.

    Left to market forces, the problem will be solved by spreading energy poverty throughout the UK population. The wealthy who can afford the small amount of expensive energy on offer will be fine whilst the poor will just have to go without – personal transport, heat, light and power.

    http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4188#more

    I will watch with interest to see how well they do at implementing these novel, off the shelf energy generating technologies that you believe can replace hydrocarbons and are all set and ready to go.

  • Micro Mock Engineer // July 1, 2008 at 8:58 PM

    GM, dem ASPO’s under the misguided belief that demand for oil will continue to grow at its historical rate… dah make sense to you, especially wid de prices today?

    But wait… GM, I don’t know how I miss this Reuters news item yesterday:

    “WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) – U.S. oil demand in April was 863,000 barrels per day less than previously estimated and down 811,000 bpd from a year earlier, putting petroleum consumption at the lowest level for any April month in six years, the Energy Information Administration said on Monday.
    The lower oil demand was due to rising fuel prices and a faltering U.S. economy that has cut into petroleum use.”

    Dem numbers caan be true… nah… either Reuters or the EIA must have added one nought too many to dem figures… you mean to tell me, de drop in US demand for April almost cancels the ENTIRE WORLDWIDE growth in demand between 2006 – 2007 (990,000 bpd… http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/oil_table_of_world_oil_consumption_barrels_2008.pdf)... and it doan end there… even though worldwide production so far for 2008 is hovering steady around 2 million bpd MORE than the same period last year http://omrpublic.iea.org, oil prices still rising… what peak oil what!?!

    BT, doan let GM and his peak friends trick you… check de numbers fuh yuhself.

    Peak oil en got a ting to do with rising prices.

  • Micro Mock Engineer // July 1, 2008 at 9:19 PM

    … by de way BT I like how you sneak in de second law of thermodynamics on me… “MME, however you approach this situation, the inevitable result will be chaos”.
    … you very well know I would never dispute that… but that chaos will not be caused by any peak in the recoverable oil available in Phase 1.

  • Green Monkey // July 1, 2008 at 11:52 PM

    MME, looks like the IEA doesn’t agree with your line of reasoning that high oil prices are unjustified by supply/demand issues.

    From the Financial Times:

    IEA warns of tightening oil supplies

    By Carola Hoyos in Madrid and Javier Blas in London

    Published: July 1 2008 13:16 | Last updated: July 1 2008 13:16

    The oil market will remain tight during the next five years as production from non-Opec countries stalls and demand growth remains relatively strong, the western countries’ energy watchdog warned on Tuesday.

    The International Energy Agency’s warning is the starkest sign yet that even record oil prices above $140 a barrel have not yet not done enough to balance demand growth from countries such as China with sluggish supply increases.

    The IEA said that annual non-Opec growth would slow to 0.5 per cent between 2008 and 2013, against demand growth of 1.6 per cent per year. The mismatch means the world economy would be more reliant on Opec, the oil cartel, and oil prices are likely to remain at record levels, analysts said.

    “Structural demand growth in developing countries and ongoing supply constraints continue to paint a tight market picture over the medium-term,” the IEA said in its Medium-Term Oil Market Report, released on Tuesday in Madrid.

    “Poor supply-side performance since 2004, in the face of strong demand pressures from developing countries, has forced oil prices up sharply to curb demand,” the watchdog added.

    Crude oil prices surged on Wednesday more than $2.50 to $142.73 a barrel, but still below Monday’s record high of $143.67 a barrel. The report also said that current oil prices were “justified by fundamentals.” (my emphasis /GM)

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cd683aa0-4764-11dd-93ca-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

    Countdown to $200 oil: International Energy Agency says current prices justified

    by Jerome a Paris
    Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 05:42:59 PM EST

    It is oddly fitting that we touched $100 oil on 31 December and got halfway from $100 to $200 oil on 30 June – so we’re on track to reach $200 oil by 31 December this year (in case you’re wondering: +42% and again +42% from that level = +100% from the initial level).

    It is also fitting that on that same date, the International Energy Agency published one of its gloomiest ever analyses of the oil markets, asserting that oil prices are justified by fundamentals

    It said: “Like alchemists looking for a way to turn basic elements into gold, everyone wants a simplistic explanation for high prices,” bluntly adding: “Often it is a case of political expediency to find a scapegoat for higher prices rather than undertake serious analysis or perhaps confront difficult decisions.”

    I have been told by a reliable source that the IEA has been forbidden by the US administration from updating their absurdly cornucopian oil supply and demand scenarios until the report that comes out late this year (after the election); that report, which will publish the result of a “bottom-up” analysis (ie a summary of all existing oil fields, their production and/or prospects) is expected to show that oil production is unlikely to reach the levels that so many have blithely assumed – notably on the basis of previous optimstic IEA reports. The IEA, which was deemply unhappy about the current lies to was supposed to present and support, has been leaking word of the expected content of that new report for many weeks now, including an increasingly alarmist tone in its official reports, such as today’s Medium Term Market Outlook:

    “Structural demand growth in developing countries and ongoing supply constraints continue to paint a tight market picture over the medium-term,” the IEA said in its Medium-Term Oil Market Report, released on Tuesday in Madrid.

    “Poor supply-side performance since 2004, in the face of strong demand pressures from developing countries, has forced oil prices up sharply to curb demand,” the watchdog added.

    Strong demand, disappointing supply. Hmm, where have I read this already?

    The IEA said that despite billions of dollars of investment, the challenge of pumping ever more oil out of their aging fields is proving so great that non-Opec countries will in the next five years have to rely on biofuels, such as corn-based ethanol, for 50 per cent of their growth in overall fuels.

    The fast decline of fields – especially in the North Sea and Mexico where production is shrinking by more than 20 per cent each year – means that 14.8m of the 16m barrels of new supply from non-Opec countries over the next five years will go to making up for losses from old fields producing less and less each year.

    This is one of the most important trends in current oil markets: the depletion of existing fields, and the decline in their production. It’s long been discussed in specialised sites like The Oil Drum ( http://www.theoildrum.com ) but it’s been ignored in the “serious” media for too long. and yet, discussions of new fields coming into production cannot paint a correct picture of future production trends if these declines are not deducted to get net production increases.

    http://energybulletin.net/node/45695

  • Chris Halsall // July 1, 2008 at 11:53 PM

    Ah, yes… Enthalpy and Entropy. Those sexy, sexy twins! Sigh; the memories…

    BT is quite correct, MME, as you articulate. Chaos is enviable. Of course, when those who know deeply about such things give an estimate for its arrival, the value is usually expressed with an exponent (sometimes two)… (Read: a number with many, many, *MANY* zeros…)

    Happy Canada Day, everyone!

  • Micro Mock Engineer // July 2, 2008 at 6:19 AM

    Good Morning GM…

    “looks like the IEA doesn’t agree with your line of reasoning that high oil prices are unjustified by supply/demand issues”

    True… also looks like Carola Hoyos in Madrid and Javier Blas in London don’t agree with my line of reasoning either… maybe they didn’t receive the EIA press release yesterday on US demand for April before they went to press with their analysis… or maybe they did but couldn’t connect the dots… or maybe they were more focused on getting articles in on time rather than doing any real analysis (I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt)… how do you reconcile their ‘analysis’ with the information and analysis I provided in my last post? Read my last post again, with rested eyes, and give me YOUR opinion of the information I have presented.

    As for the IEA, who knows, maybe with the new demand figures now coming out of the US, their next report will revise downward their demand forecast… frankly, I’m far more interested in their data than I am with their opinion (trying to keep up with their frequent forecast revisions is dizzying). I analyse their opinions and data, along with that of everyone else’s I come across, and draw my own conclusions.

    We are in very turbulent times… you’ll get no denial from me on this… but turbulent times require creative, rational thinkers… and courageous leaders who can separate fact from hype.

  • Straight talk // July 2, 2008 at 7:34 AM

    MME:
    Which data do you cornucopians use to explain the 50% increase in price this year?

  • yambait // July 2, 2008 at 5:11 PM

    good to see Hermits making a contribution to worthwhile debate

  • David // July 2, 2008 at 5:36 PM

    Who would have thought that Citigroup would find itself on the market being sold for ’spit’

  • Straight talk // July 2, 2008 at 5:51 PM

    The way things are moving all banks (and listed companies) will soon be ‘ spit’ rated.

  • Chris Halsall // July 2, 2008 at 6:31 PM

    yambait… Well, at least our energy costs are low, and our carbon footprint is small…

    Heck, if I could just stop farting, I think I might actually be at zero…. 9-)

  • Bush tea // July 2, 2008 at 7:09 PM

    MME,

    Don’t get tied up. You are absolutely right about the fall off in USA energy use. …(if they cut their usage by 300% they would still be disproportionately represented as energy consumers).

    As an ex-TFS Hermit, surely you recognize that the main problem stems from a GLOBAL drive by previously small ’shoed’ peoples (small footprints) to acquire American standard size boots…

    There are two separate issues therefore….

    1 – an unprecedented increase in demand for energy and fossil fuel derivatives, driven by demand from emerging economies..

    2 – a sharp decline in American standard of living….driven by poor leadership and idiotic policies.

    Issue number 2 is a critical matter for the USA and its citizens and other plebes (remember that term?) who have tied their economies to that of the USA.

    Issue number one is a global matter where 4 billion of the world’s 6.6 billion people now aspire to live at the energy level that Americans established when practically all of earth’s resources were used to maintain that glorified level for about 800 million folks.

    Who is man enough to tell all these Chinese, Indians, South Africans, Brazilians, Australians and Bajans that they cannot live at that level because the earth’s resources cannot support it? You MME?

    LOL – you think you is the grub master?

    …so here is Bush tea’s summary of the situation…

    scenario…
    Word is out that kicking Jenny due to kick in 20 minutes…200 bajans in the bus stand trying to head for Mount Hillaby – one bus, max load 60- even loaded ZR style…

    …Bush tea predicts that there will be chaos (survival of the most ‘igrant) …and sprints off on his BMX bike for the hills…

    MME predicts that a brilliant engineer will find a way to get the 200 into the one bus… and all will head for the new beach front at Hillaby… last seen near VOB with a pocket calculator…

  • Micro Mock Engineer // July 2, 2008 at 8:01 PM

    ST… I knew it was just a matter of time before you jumped in :)

    GM been using soft ‘cut-and-paste’ arguments on me… I hope you coming with something better my malthusian friend…

    You asked “Which data do you cornucopians use to explain the 50% increase in price this year?”

    I answered that a few posts up… June 30, 2008 at 9:39 pm… paragraph beginning with “There are several reasons for the present high prices…”

    LOL CH… you taking some extreme measures to reduce your carbon footprint. I suppose we could stop breathing too… or at least try to take less breaths… I know how much ST like data, so here’s some for him:
    “The average person takes 24,000 breaths a day, breathing in approximately 6g of carbon dioxide, but breathing out around 800g during the same time. Over a year, you personally will add a net 290kg of CO2 to the atmosphere, just by exhaling. Multiply that by a global population of 6.5 billion and it adds up to a criminal 1.88 gigatonnes”… LOL. Read the rest here: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/reduce-our-carbon-footprint.html

  • Micro Mock Engineer // July 2, 2008 at 8:49 PM

    LOL BT…

    I agree wid everything you said… up to that scenario.

    But, dis is wha really happen…

    It turn out that Kick’em Jenny really wasn’t due to kick for another 20 years… and it was jus de Nation showing a ‘Photoshop’ big wave washing over Bridgetown to sell newspapers… and Jippy Doyle an his ‘prophet’ friends who sip one too many communion, talking bout how dem got visions… and a couple UWI Seismic Research Unit scientists looking for attention and research funding… and politicians thinking that as long as de people friten bout a big wave, dey ain guh pay no attention to real issues, like all de pilfering and corruption… and a few smart ZR men dat realize how much money dey cud mek in a few hours…

    Meanwhile, some MME’s on de sidelines trying dey best to point out dat Kick’em Jenny has a basal diameter of about 3 miles and rises only 4,300 feet above the sea floor… much too deep to cause any major sea surge, since the dome collapsed in the late 1980’s. It therefore poses no immediate threat… unless of course de plebes act irrationally and trample one annuda.

  • Micro Mock Engineer // July 2, 2008 at 9:00 PM

    Quick… somebody call Dr. GP… BT look a lil wobbly after dat upper cut.
    CH… see if he could tell how much fingers you holding up.

  • Bush tea // July 2, 2008 at 9:11 PM

    What upper cut what?!?
    That was a wild left hook, MME, lucky shot….

    ….but you are a MME after my own heart, so Bush tea will reserve a spot for you in BBE’s team.

    ….I have a feeling we can use you in the public relations department for phase 2….

  • Chris Halsall // July 2, 2008 at 9:26 PM

    MME et al: If I may…

    I believe strongly that (every)one should always feel and be humble.

    I would argue that if one is not, then one has simply not thought about their situation long enough…

    No matter the believe structure, to do otherwise is hubris….

  • Straight talk // July 2, 2008 at 9:27 PM

    MME:
    Why this a long thread !

    I hit your first concrete data post and stopped.
    We are talking apples and oranges here my friend, you quote production figures.

    The market moves on export figures.

    Ever checked out ELM?

    KSA can produce a gazillion barrels of heavy sour and it moves the market not one jot.

    The world is short on light sweet crude for gas and diesel….hence the price rise.

    Fundamentals as the IEA admitted today.

    Seems like everyone is now waking up to reality.

    P.S. I see that the futures market is 3% net short, all contributions gratefully recieved.

  • Micro Mock Engineer // July 2, 2008 at 9:45 PM

    LOL BT… public relations? I was hoping for something easy like HR… but i’ll take any vacancy BBE got for me.

  • Micro Mock Engineer // July 2, 2008 at 10:16 PM

    Chris… I agree 100%… Namaste.

  • John // July 2, 2008 at 10:25 PM

    ..More doom and gloom that may or may not happen

    Beijing’s water crisis
    The new Probe International report, Beijing’s Water Crisis: 1949-2008 Olympics, has captured worldwide attention.

    The report, which reveals that Beijing’s 200 or so rivers and streams are drying up and that many of the city’s reservoirs are nearly empty, warns that intense pressure on scarce resources for China’s ‘green Olympics’ in August is pushing the city towards economic collapse.

    Download your copy of Beijing’s Water Crisis: 1949-2008 Olympics here.

    Story highlights follow.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Within a generation Beijing will cease to exist
    by Antoaneta Bezlova, Inter Press Service News Agency, July 1, 2008

    Few in the Chinese capital are aware of the price their city would pay for staging the world’s first ‘green Olympics’ in August. The fabulous capital of Chinese emperors and the epitome of modern China’s ambitions is being driven to extinction by its chronic lack of water. And the Olympic games are expediting the city’s slow demise, according to experts.

    “Within a generation this city would cease to exist,” says Dai Qing, China’s best-known environmentalist. “We won’t have the ancient capital any longer and the ugly modern Beijing would disappear too. Unfortunately, government officials and Beijing residents are equally unaware of how serious the water crisis is.”

    Read on.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Beijing may be running out of water
    United Press International, June 28, 2008

    Researchers say China’s efforts to supply its booming capital of Beijing with water are falling short, which could force officials to shut down industries there.

    The report by the Canadian firm Probe International says massive efforts underway to divert water from other parts of the country, including Tibet, won’t be enough to keep the city in potable water.

    Read on.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Beijing’s water crisis and economic collapse
    by Richard Welford, CSR Asia, July 2, 2008

    Indeed, the Chinese capital’s water crisis is so critical that the city is facing economic collapse, a leading development policy group has said. Part of its population may need to be resettled in coming decades. Experts predict Beijing could run out of water in five to 10 years, according to the report by Canada-based Probe, called Beijing’s Water Crisis: 1949-2008 Olympics.

    Read on.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Olympic city is running dry and facing collapse
    from correspondents in Beijing, Courier Mail (Australia), June 28, 2008

    The Chinese capital’s water crisis is so critical that the city is facing economic collapse, a leading development policy group said yesterday.
    It said part of its population would need to be resettled in coming decades.

    Experts predict Beijing could run out of water in five to 10 years, according to Grainne Ryder, policy director at Probe International.

    Read on.

  • Micro Mock Engineer // July 2, 2008 at 11:20 PM

    ST… that is a very good point you have made… it has given me pause.

    You may recall me making a comment to you way back in the “Responding To The Challenges Of Expensive Energy” thread about “the decision of the US to increase its strategic petroleum reserve in August 2007 (in particular the doubling of light sweet crude reserves which is in heavy demand globally for its low sulphur environmental benefits)”.

    We never got into this in any depth, but it is probably appropriate now that you have introduced the availability of light sweet crude as the issue.

    But first… I would like to make sure I fully understand where you are coming from, as it would appear that you are departing somewhat from the conventional peak oil theory…

    Are you saying that the production of total crude (sweet, sour and everything in between) has not yet peaked and is not a problem, but the production of light sweet crude has peaked and this (along with the other geopolitical factors of course) and rising global demand for light sweet crude is causing the spiraling prices we are observing today?

  • yambait // July 3, 2008 at 2:30 PM

    All this long talk…Is anyone aligned with companies bidding for offshore drilling contracts off Barbados. Will you engineers and analysts sit by and let the money fly by like land on west coast. there should be a clause to include local expertise as condition for bidding

  • Straight talk // July 3, 2008 at 3:26 PM

    Yambait:

    With the chronic global shortage of drilling rigs and experienced personnel, combined with Bush’s recent decision to open up US coastal waters for exploration, I would be very surprised if Barbados is in position to demand many concessions from any company willing to bid for our blocks.

    There are much better prospects North and South of us which may attract the precious rigs.

  • yambait // July 3, 2008 at 4:12 PM

    Companies still want the rights even if they sit on them for 20 years. This is why less than 30 per cent of areas in US have been drilled so far. It is also probably easier for the big companies to “underpay” a country like Barbados for royalties. My view is that except for companies currently operating in Trinidad, Barbados will have to wait a long time given the depth of water.

  • Straight talk // July 3, 2008 at 4:56 PM

    MME:

    I am not an oil expert, CLB would be better responding to you.

    Speaking purely as a layman, Peak oil is not the most pressing issue we face.

    Although we may have passed the peak, we will not know it for a fact until we are further down the road and check the rear view mirror.

    My concern is the staggering cost of gas, and the horrendous consequences of its continuing rise.

    I am certain in my own mind that this time next year it will be double again, as it has been for the last two years.

    And absent your much heralded technological breakthroughs it will probably double the year after too.

    We have hit the buffers on cheap, easy to get oil.

    There is not enough to go round, especially the light sweet crude oil Saudi and the North Sea had, until recently, in abundance.

    The Saudi Energy Minister is not lying when he says they have spare oil on offer and therefore sees no reason to increase supply.

    He does not say that the oil on offer is mainly sour crude that can only be refined in specialist refineries, which are working at full capacity and cannot handle any more of the stuff.

    China, having just made a deal with Chavez is working towards its own solution by building refineries for the heavy oils which Venezuela produces in order to break this logjam and secure its own energy needs.

    However during the era of $10-20 oil there was no commercial incentive to invest in Western refineries or exploration equipment, the new price marks are making that difference, and new plant is now being planned in spite of environmental concerns.

    Yes, light sweet crude is the grade our road and air transport rely on and it is becoming increasingly hard to source.

    Deniers of this crisis point to any other explanation and possible silver linings.

    Ethanol – but 1 acre of corn will only produce 18 gallons of fuel per year, you get slightly more yield from cellulose (sugar cane )

    Tupi Brazil – Amazing find, but even more amazing technological breakthroughs are necessary to get at the stuff.
    It is six miles down, twice the depth of any current well, through a salt layer 1 mile thick,and at temperatures which will melt bismuth with pressures exceeding 18,000 lbs psi.
    If it ever comes to production oil prices will have to be higher than they are today to make it economical to exploit.
    If it ever sees fruition its 8 billion barrel
    reserve will keep the whole world running for approx 5 weeks.

    Our old supergiant Cantarell and North Sea fields are declining at such a rate that new discoveries cannot compensate.

    We are using 6 barrels of oil to every newly discovered barrel and have for the last few years.

    Oil is finite, and at some point soon demand will exceed supply, when it does we are in very serious trouble.

    We’ve already debated and dismissed the evil speculator theory in a previous thread.

    I’m afraid the time may be past for planning, and we may now be entering the emergency mitigation mode.

    Reactive not Proactive, as usual.

    Have a nice day.

  • Micro Mock Engineer // July 7, 2008 at 11:11 PM

    Ok ST… had to take a break to activate my $145/bbl plan :)

    In any case, I am sure most bloggers are tired of this subject… even you have indicated that you no longer bother to read all of my rants. I can assure you that I carefully read and investigate yours ST. And so, here is my final installment in response to your last post (your statements in quotation marks)…

    *******
    “I am certain in my own mind that this time next year it {oil price} will be double again, as it has been for the last two years.”

    well… I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. I think the outcome of the US elections, condition of the US economy/dollar, US energy policy, and the global geopolitical situation will have a major influence… but my money is on a lower long-term average oil price.

    *******
    “… absent your much heralded technological breakthroughs it will probably double the year after too.”

    Which one of the solutions that I previously put forward do you consider to be technological breakthroughs?

    1) nuclear power
    2) coal power
    3) electric vehicles
    4) short term conservation – you’d be surprised how much energy we could give up without even impacting (and perhaps even improving) our quality of life… but I readily concede that this specific measure is only useful in the VERY short term.

    *******
    “… the oil on offer is mainly sour crude that can only be refined in specialist refineries, which are working at full capacity and cannot handle any more of the stuff.”

    True, but just so readers get the full picture perhaps you could also have shared that 45% of world refinery capacity now processes sour crude.

    Sour crude is sold cheaper than that “easy to get at” light sweet crude. And sour crude is also “easy to get at”. But it is relatively more expensive to refine, and is therefore sold at a discount.

    *******
    “Yes, light sweet crude is the grade our road and air transport rely on and it is becoming increasingly hard to source.”

    This statement is FALSE. Road and air transport depend on BOTH sweet and sour crude. As previously pointed out, 45% of worldwide refinery capacity processes sour crude. In the US, over 75% of their refinery capacity processes sour crude.

    There IS a temporary shortfall in global refinery capacity, but this is the result of inadequate investment by oil producing countries/companies due in part to:

    1) $10/bbl flashbacks of the late 90’s, which resulted from over-capacity, and

    2) Environmental lobbyists successfully blocking refinery development applications (particularly for sour crude on the basis of CO2 ‘pollution’).

    *******
    “Deniers of this crisis point to any other explanation and possible silver linings.”

    None of your silver lining straw-men (Ethanol, Tupi Brazil) have ever featured in any of my submissions. I agree with your assessment of these.

    *******
    “We’ve already debated and dismissed the evil speculator theory in a previous thread.”

    I must have missed that debate. You may have dismissed it, but there is no doubt in my mind that speculation is playing a part in the high prices. CFTC needs to act swiftly to reintroduce regulatory oversight and strict rules governing the trading of oil futures in New York and London. It is time to close that loop-hole orchestrated by Enron and it’s greedy accomplices in 2000 (…the “Enron On-line Trading Program” for unregulated internet trading of oil and other commodity futures). Enron’s notorious business practices were eventually exposed, but its legacy Trading Program remains in use today and has even been expanded – Google it.

    *******
    “I’m afraid the time may be past for planning, and we may now be entering the emergency mitigation mode.”

    Emergency mitigation may be required in the short term due to political mismanagement and ill-informed policies by global leaders (e.g. prohibiting oil exploration in oil abundant areas, blocking construction of new refineries, prohibiting the development of nuclear power, subsidizing ethanol, CO2 hysteria, invading Iraq etc.) but this has nothing to do with the long-term availability of crude oil or existing viable alternatives like coal, nuclear and electric vehicles.

    ‘Peakers’ fall into two groups – those who are inciting a stampede for the emergency exit as they predict the imminent collapse of civilization, and those who long for the end of industrialization and a return to ‘simpler’ times with fewer people in the world living on farms or in tribes. The first position is irrational and the second, while obviously of great appeal to many people, is of no interest to me. My preference would be to implement the solutions already available to us, and to cultivate and utilize the single most important natural resource (the HUMAN MIND) for problem solving and continuous improvement.

Leave a Comment