Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Price Drop Is Big Oil Paying Back Bush & Cheney (40+ / 0-)



This current price drop is temporary.The prices will climb again after November elections.Bush & Cheney have done huge favors for big oil -- they have:given them billions of dollars in subsidies; cut costly environmental regulations; granted access to more public land for drilling; allowed them to pay fees for use of public land that are far below even reasonable market prices; allowed the industry to become an oligopoly without the necessary regulation to avoid price fixing and other market abuses.

Big Oil thought they could repay the favor through campaign contributions.However they saw, and more importantly, the White House saw, that Bush's poll numbers were becoming inversely proportional to the price of gas, i.e., the higher the price of gas, the lower Bush's approval ratings.The President could do nothing to fix his own ratings. His ratings were making it seem apparent that Congress was going to flip over to the Dems.

So Bush and Cheney called in a chit from big oil (including their Saudi friends) to get them to drop the price of gasoline.It worked. As gas prices have dropped, Bush's poll numbers have climbed and he is far less "toxic" to Congressional reelection campaigns now.

If this theory is correct, we will see prices continue to drop -- below $2.00/gal by the elections.Prices will rise dramatically though after the elections so the greedy CEOs and Bush Cronies can make more and more millions of dollars. They like to keep the wealth concentrated in among themselves.So, my prediction is gas will be less than $2.00/gal by the end of October. But it will be back up to $2.50 by Christmas. If the Rethugs keep Congress, it will hit $4.00 by the end of 2007 -- though it will drop again in time for the 2008 elections.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Online Peak Oil Documentary

A free online documentary, fiirst broadcasted on Australian TV.

http://abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20060710/default_full.htm

Oil production limit reached

An international oil industry expert says the limit of global oil production has been reached.
Academic and former National Iranian Oil Company executive Dr Ali Samsam Bakhtiari has told the Financial Services Institute in Sydney the world's oil fields are producing as much oil as they can.
He says giant fields in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are struggling to meet production targets.
Dr Bakhtiari says the massive output declines in the North Sea oil fields and Mexican oil fields will have a major economic impact.
"Crude oil is the master domino," he said. "When you tumble crude oil, all the other dominos tumble."
Dr Bakhtiari says for the first time in 150 years, the world is entering an era in which it cannot have all the oil it wants.
He says there are five years left to plan priorities for the use of crude oil.
"Some countries don't even know what is happening," he said.
"Some huge companies don't even know what is happening and they are going to be ambushed and trapped and they are going to panic.
"The worst thing you can do is to panic when the prices are going to go sky-high."
He says he does not know how high the price of crude oil has to go to reduce demand but so far, it has tripled in four years.
He says OPEC is already producing as much as it can and new discoveries are small.
"The problem will become the day that you cannot optimise by price," he said.
"You will have to optimise by availability, so there won't be oil for everyone."

Peak Oil Quotes

Global oil [production] is 84 million barrels [a day]. I don't believe you can get it any more than 84 million barrels. . . . I think they are on decline in the biggest oil fields in the world today and I know what it's like once you turn the corner and start declining, it's a treadmill that you just can't keep up with."

T. Boone Pickens, legendary petroleum magnate who co-founded Mesa Petroleum and Petroleum Exploration, May, 2005

"We may be at a point of peak oil production. You may see $100 a barrel oil in the next two or three years."

Bill Clinton, former US President, March 28, 2006, London Business School

"The concept of peak oil has not been widely written about. But people are talking about it now. It deserves a careful look—largely because it is almost certainly correct."

New York Times, Editorial (online), March 1, 2006

"Oil production is in decline in 33 of the 48 largest oil producing countries, yet energy demand is increasing around the globe as economies grow and nations develop."

ChevronTexaco, www.willyoujoinus.com

"...for the first time in my lifetime... I'm seeing an inability of the suppliers to keep up with demand."

Sam Bodman, US Energy Secretary, March 8, 2006 on $60/barrel oil.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Is sustainable development a contradiction in terms in protected heritage landscapes?

Sustainable development is all around us everywhere we look. there are products that are being sold as environmentally friendly and sustainable. we are constantly being sold the image and idea of sustainable development, but is it practical, especially with regards to heritage and tourism.

In Spain valuable water resources are being diverted and depleted by the tourism industry in the form of new golf parks. ‘Last year over 50 new courses were developed’ (www.bbc.co.uk), even though there has been a drought in parts of Spain for nearly two years.

Sustainable development, is in itself a good idea, but its the human factor that can make it a contradiction. We know that we are in a period of global warming or climate change, which is being made worse by use of fossil fuels. If people asked that in order to help prevent climate change, that they’d have to give up the car, how many people would be willing. I expect that only a fraction of people would be prepared to make that sacrifice.

Now we transfer that to the heritage and tourist industry, and if people were told that in order to help protect a managed landscape, such as Dartmoor or the Brecon Beacons, there would no longer be access to walkers and visitors. Then there would possibly be large scale protest from a wide variety groups and individuals. In effect, we want our cake and eat it. We want access, we want to visit monuments and protected landscapes, and at the same time we want it preserved and looked after in a sustainable manner. Yet is it possible to sustain our natural heritage in a way that will benefit future generations and allow complete access for all.

We are in a period of great change, within our life times our natural environment will change due to the warming up of the planet. The glaciers around the world are melting at a rapid pace, also the ice at both the Artic and Antarctic is also shrinking. We are also in a period of extreme difficulty with regards to energy use. Experts are now in agreement that we are slowly running out of fossil fuels, such as gas and oil.

With all this and the fact that we, humans, have a large impact on our ecosystems, is it possible for us to maintain, preserve and develop our natural heritage in a sustainable manner for the future, or is it just a contradiction, an idea that is sellable in all manner of forms.

Are we just kidding ourselves that we can have sustainable industries and heritage in the wake of climate change and energy depletion? If the sea levels rise we can’t stop or slow down the flooding. There is now amount of technology that we could possibly develop to help with sustainability around coastal areas. Mother Nature can’t be stopped, slowed down maybe, but in the end our natural coastal heritage will be swallowed by the sea, also as the temperature rises then there will be change within other ecosystems. Our natural heritage is going to change and change in a dramatic way, therefore we should only try to develop areas which can be made sustainable.

We know that nature is having an effect on the ecosystems around the world, but man plays a big part in destroying the natural environments. Farming practices down the centuries has had a great impact on the environment, from deforestation through to the diverting of rivers. Modern farming practice in and around protected landscapes is having a detrimental effect on the local ecosystems.

‘Agriculture may be one, if not the most important cause of pollution, either by the production of sediments or by the generation of chemical wastes.’ (Goudie 2006)

‘Almost daily there seems to newspaper and television reports related to issues such as acid rain, potential global warming, ozone layer depletion, erosions and depletion of top soils, and the destruction of forests and other habitats.’ (www.jewishveg.com).

Modern farming practice is to pump gallons of oil based pesticides into the soil. ‘On average 31 thousand tonnes of pesticides are applied to UK farmland every year.’ (Cook, 2004). Pesticide damages the natural balance of the soil, destroying, and local wildlife, especially those that thrive within the soil. ‘Pesticides also leave residues of the chemicals, found in the pesticides, in about a quarter of our food’ (Cook, 2004) as well as in the soil itself. Each year the topsoil is being eroded due to hot and dry weather patterns, whilst dry the soil particles are blown away every particle will contain chemical residues. These soil particles are then blown into the neighboring landscape, polluting the natural ecosystems. ‘This is only beginning to happen in a serious scale in Western Europe and no doubt will se all kinds of fixes in due course to arrest it‘. (Seymour & Girardet, 1986). The possible fixes will probably come in the form of artificial chemical based fixes, adding more pollution to the growing problem.

‘Chemical Farming can produce more crops in the short term, but this is only due to the massive inputs of pesticides and nitrogen based fertilizers, to maintain this level of crop production long term then greater amounts of chemical products have to be used‘. (Seymour & Girardet, 1986). This form of agriculture is not sustainable in the long term. ‘Chemical farming is lazy man’s farming‘. (Seymour & Girardet, 1986.) Pesticide pollute the water table, rain water seeps down through the soil into the water table along the way it picks up and carries these residues of chemicals within the soil. Once in the water table these chemicals can then be transferred to other local habitats, polluting both plant and animal life. ‘Nitrate trends in most rivers in Europe and North America reveal a marked increase since the 1950’s. This can be attributed to the growth in use of nitrate fertilizers.’ (Goudie, 2006).

Chemicals produce poisons which kill disease organisms and enable crops to grow. Yet at the same time it destroys the organisms that protect the soil. ‘This pushes the soil further on its way to becoming a sterile layer of powdered rock.’ (Seymour & Girardet, 1986) Once this has been achieved then erosion of the soil is inevitable.

We have to move away from a system of farming based on the inputs derived from fossil fuels to one based on organic principles. We need to return to localized systems of food production and consumption. ‘We’ve been polluting the landscape for over 50 years with an accumulation of chemical and mineral fertilizers.’ (Rackham, 2003)

As a result we’ve polluted our natural heritage with chemicals for a period of fifty years. If we are to sustain our natural heritage, then we nee d to change the practices of our agriculture, we need to make our farming industry more sustainable for the future. On a recent film (Corporation), Ray Anderson, Chairman and Ceo of Interface, stated, “If we aren’t making carpets sustainably, then maybe we don’t have a place in the world, but anyone else who doesn't make sustainable products doesn’t belong either”. This can be applied to any industry, farming especially. The practices of any industry, including farming in and around our protected natural heritage or any natural heritage has to be conducted in amore sustainable approach, without the use of pesticides or chemicals. Our current practices are having an adverse effect on the natural environment, making any sustainable development within a contradiction. The unsustainable farming practices are being conducted globally; deforestation is conducted world wide to make way for farmland. The practice of deforestation or the burning of forests contributes to the greenhouse effect and reduces rainfall, with potentially devastating effects in agriculture and the natural environment. ‘Each year around 5 billion tonnes of topsoil is eroded in the US, which is resulting in lower yields,’ (www.jewishveg.com) to compensate this, the farmer adds more chemicals to improve the crop yield, making this practice unsustainable long term.

How can we develop our landscape heritage and industries in a sustainable manner, if we rely on using tonnes of chemical with our soil, food and energy use? Whilst we are doing this we will never be sustainable in any form. All attempts to be sustainable, while we are carrying out these practices will just be a contradiction.

Conclusion

We need to turn our backs on the globalized world. We need to return to localized economies, grow more our own food locally in an organic manner. If we are to make sustainable development work and not just be another contradiction, then we need to make sure that all industries, agriculture included within the area of a protected heritage landscape sustainable and environmentally friendly. We also have to accept that climate change will bring change within our natural landscape, and that possibly some areas of the UK may disappear altogether or change completely.

If we ignore both the impacts that man and global warming will have on our natural heritage then we will make any attempts at sustainability a contradiction. A good management plan will bring together all parties working, living and using a protected area and develop a plan that meets all the needs of those involved. By making all interested parties work closely together in a sustainable approach is the only way forward. Otherwise it will be a contradiction and we will have failed our future generations.


Bibliography


Blunden, John & Curry, Nigel – A future for our countryside, Basil Blackwell 1988

Goudie, Andrew – The Human impact on the Natural Environment, Blackwell publishing 2006

Hall, C.Mitchel & Lew, Alan (ed) - Sustainable Tourism, Longman 1998

Racham, Oliver – The Illustrated History of the Countryside, W&N, 2003.

Thirsk, Joan (Ed) – Rural England (An Illustrated History of the Landscape), oxford University Press, 2000

Ryrie, Charlie – Soil, Soil Association (the Organic Organization) 2001

Seymour, John – The Lore of the Land, Whittet Books 1992

Seymour, John & Girardet, Herbert – far From Paradise (the story of man’s impact on the environment), BBC Books 1986.

Holden, Andrew – Environment & Tourism, Routledge 2000

Mauforth, Martian & Hunt, Ian – Tourism & Sustainability, Routledge 1998

Cheung, SCH (2004) - Keeping the wetlands wet: how to integrate natural and cultural heritage preservation, Museums International, 56, 3, pp. 29-37

Fowler, P (2000) Cultural landscapes of Britain, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 6, 3, pp. 201-212

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Petroleum product yields and their uses, as of March 2006:

Motor gasoline 45.0%
Distillate fuel oil 25.6%
• Home heating oil
• Diesel fuel
• Refinery fuel
• Industrial fuel
Kerosene-type jet fuel 9.8%

Petroleum coke 5.5%
• Carbon electrodes
• Fuel coke
• Electric switches
Still gas refinery fuel 4.4%

Residual fuel oil 4.3%
• Boiler fuel
• Refinery fuel
• Bunker fuel
• Wood preservative

Liquefied refinery gases 3.6%
• Petrochemical feedstocks
• Space heating
• Cooking
• Synthetic rubber

Asphalt and road oil 3.1%
• Paving
• Roofing
• Waterproofing

Petrochemical feedstocks 2.4%
• Alcohols*
• Resins
• Fibers
• Medicines
• Cosmetics
• Plastics
• Detergents

Lubricants 1.1%
• Lubricating oil
• Greases
• Transmission oil
• Household oil
• Textile spindle oil

Kerosene 0.5%
• Illumination
• Space heating
• Cooking
• Tractor fuel

Special naphthas 0.2%
• Solvents
• Paint thinner

Aviation gasoline 0.1%

Waxes 0.1%
• Fruits
• Vegetables
• Candy
• Chewing gum
• Candles
• Matches
• Crayons
• Pencils
• Sealing wax
• Canning wax

Miscellaneous products 0.4%
• Absorber oil
• White machinery oils
• Cutting oils
• Candymaking, baking oils
• Technical oils
• Medicinal salves, ointments
• Petroleum jelly
• Acetic acid
• Sulfuric acid
• Fertilizers
* — for petrochemical use, not consumption

NOTE: Adds to more than 100% because of processing gain (an increase in volume that occurs during refining).

Source: Energy Information Administration

Is sustainable development a contradiction in terms in protected heritage landscapes?

Sustainable development is all around us everywhere we look. there are products that are being sold as environmentally friendly and sustainable. we are constantly being sold the image and idea of sustainable development, but is it practical, especially with regards to heritage and tourism.

In Spain valuable water resources are being diverted and depleted by the tourism industry in the form of new golf parks. ‘Last year over 50 new courses were developed’ (www.bbc.co.uk), even though there has been a drought in parts of Spain for nearly two years.

Sustainable development, is in itself a good idea, but its the human factor that can make it a contradiction. We know that we are in a period of global warming or climate change, which is being made worse by use of fossil fuels. If people asked that in order to help prevent climate change , that they’d have to give up the car, how many people would be willing. I expect that only a fraction of people would be prepared to make that sacrifice.

Now we transfer that to the heritage and tourist industry, and if people were told that in order to help protect a managed landscape, such as Dartmoor or the Brecon Beacons, there would no longer be access to walkers and visitors. Then there would possibly be large scale protest from a wide variety groups and individuals . In effect, we want our cake and eat it. We want access, we want to visit monuments and protected landscapes, and at the same time we want it preserved and looked after in a sustainable manner. Yet is it possible to sustain our natural heritage in a way that will benefit future generations and allow complete access for all.

We are in a period of great change, within our life times our natural environment will change due to the warming up of the planet. The glaciers around the world are melting at a rapid pace, also the ice at both the Artic and Antarctic is also shrinking. we are also in a period of extreme difficulty with regards to energy use. Experts are now in agreement that we are slowly running out of fossil fuels, such as gas and oil.

With all this and the fact that we, humans, have a large impact on our ecosystems, is it possible for us to maintain, preserve and develop our natural heritage in a sustainable manner for the future, or is it just a contradiction, an idea that is sellable in all manner of forms.

Are we just kidding ourselves that we can have sustainable industries and heritage in the wake of climate change and energy depletion. If the sea levels rise we can’t stop or slow down the flooding. There is now amount of technology that we could possibly develop to help with sustainability around coastal areas. Mother Nature can’t be stopped, slowed down maybe, but in the end our natural coastal heritage will be swallowed by the sea, also as the temperature rises then there will be change within other ecosystems. Our natural heritage is going to change and change in a dramatic way, therefore we should only try to develop areas which can be made sustainable.

We know that nature is having an effect on the ecosystems around the world, but man plays a big part in destroying the natural environments. Farming practices down the centuries has had a great impact on the environment, from deforestation through to the diverting of rivers. modern farming practice in and around protected landscapes is having a detrimental effect on the local ecosystems.

‘Agriculture may be one, if not the most important cause of pollution, either by the production of sediments or by the generation of chemical wastes.’ (Goudie 2006)

‘Almost daily there seems to newspaper and television reports related to issues such as acid ain, potential global warming, ozone layer depletion, erosions and depletion of top soils, and the destruction of forests and other habitats.’ (www.jewishveg.com).

Modern farming practice is to pump gallons of oil based pesticides into the soil. ‘On average 31 thousand tonnes of pesticides are applied to UK farmland every year.’ (Cook, 2004). Pesticide damages the natural balance of the soil, destroying ,local wildlife, especially those that thrive within the soil. ‘Pesticides also leave residues of the chemicals, found in the pesticides, in about a quarter of our food’ (Cook, 2004) as well as in the soil itself. Each year the topsoil is being eroded due to hot and dry weather patterns, once dry the soil particles are blown away, every particle will contain chemical residues. These soil particles are then blown into the neighbouring landscape, polluting the natural ecosystems. ‘This is only beginning to happen in a serious scale in Western Europe and no doubt will se all kinds of fixes in due course to arrest it‘. (Seymour & Girardet, 1986). The possible fixes will probably come in the form of artificial chemical based fixes, adding more pollution to the growing problem.

‘Chemical Farming can produce more crops in the short term, but this is only due to the massive inputs of pesticides and nitrogen based fertilizers, to maintain this level of crop production long term then greater amounts of chemical products have to be used‘. (Seymour & Girardet, 1986). This form of agriculture is not sustainable in the long term. ‘Chemical farming is lazy man’s farming‘. (Seymour & Girardet, 1986.) Pesticidse pollute the water table, rain water seeps down through the soil into the water table along the way it picks up and carries these residues of chemicals within the soil. Once in the water table these chemicals can then be transferred to other local habitats, polluting both plant and animal life. ‘Nitrate trends in most rivers in Europe and North America reveal a marked increase since the 1950’s. This can be attributed to the growth in use of nitrate fertilizers.’ (Goudie, 2006).

‘Chemicals produce poisons which kill disease organisms and enable crops to grow. Yet at the same time it destroys the organisms that protect the soil. This pushes the soil further on its way to becoming a sterile layer of powdered rock.’ (Seymour & Girardet, 1986) Once this has been achieved then erosion of the soil is inevitable.

We have to move away from a system of farming based on the inputs derived from fossil fuels to one based on organic principles. We need to return to localised systems of food production and consumption. ‘We’ve been polluting the landscape for over 50 years with an accumulation of chemical and mineral fertilizers.’ (Rackham, 2003)

As a result we’ve polluted our natural heritage with chemicals for a period of fifty years. If we are to sustain our natural heritage, then we nee d to change the practices of our agriculture, we need to make our farming industry more sustainable for the future. On a recent film (Corporation), Ray Anderson, Chairman and Ceo of Interface, stated, “If we aren’t making carpets sustainably, then maybe we don’t have a place in the world, but anyone else who doesn't make sustainable products doesn’t belong either”. This can be applied to any industry, farming especially. The practices of any industry, including farming in and around our protected natural heritage or any natural heritage has to be conducted in amore sustainable approach, without the use of pesticides or chemicals. Our current practices are having an adverse effect on the natural environment, making any sustainable development within a contradiction. The unsustainable farming practices are being conducted globally, deforestation is conducted world wide to make way for farmland. The practice of deforestation or the burning of forests contributes to the greenhouse effect and reduces rainfall, with potentially devastating effects in agriculture and the natural environment. ‘Each year around 5 billion tonnes of topsoil is eroded in the US, which is resulting in lower yields,’ (www.jewishveg.com) to compensate this the farmer adds more chemicals to improve the crop yield, making this practice unsustainable long term.

How can we develop our landscape heritage and industries in a sustainable manner, if we rely on using tonnes of chemical within our soil, food and energy use. Whilst we are doing this we will never be sustainable in any form . All attempts to be sustainable, while we are carrying out these practices will just be a contradiction.

Conclusion

We need to turn our backs on the globalised world. We need to return to a localised economies, grow more our own food locally in an organic manner. If we are to make sustainable development work and not just be another contradiction, then we need to make sure that all industries, agriculture included within the area of a protected heritage landscape are sustainable and environmentally friendly. We also have to accept that climate change will bring great change within our natural landscape, and that possibly some areas of the UK may disappear altogether or change completely.

If we ignore both the impacts that man and global warming will have on our natural heritage then we will make any attempts at sustainability a contradiction. A good management plan will bring together all parties working, living and using a protected area and develop a plan that meets all the needs of those involved. By making all interested parties work closely together in a sustainable approach is the only way forward. Otherwise it will be a contradiction and we will have failed our future generations.

Monday, June 05, 2006

Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear

Has the Bush administration covered up the findings of global warming scientists? Panorama visits the first climate change refugees.

This documentary was shown on UK TV last night, here to watch online.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/default.stm#

Also check this out
www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/images/stories/presentation...

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

What is Peak Oil


Ok, should have written this in the introduction, so here goes.

Colin Campbell: "The term Peak Oil refers the maximum rate of the production of oil in any area under consideration, recognising that it is a finite natural resource, subject to depletion. Understanding depletion is simple. Think of an Irish pub. The glass starts full and ends empty. There are only so many more drinks to closing time. It’s the same with oil. We have to find the bar before we can drink what’s in it."

The problem is that global oil discovery peaked in 1964, since then oil companies haven't found any oil fields of significant size, plus oil consumption has increased a hundred fold.

It was M. King Hubbert who first coined the term Peak Oil in 1949, that the fossil fuel era would be of very short duration. The in 1956, he predicted that US oil would peak around 1970, most people in the oil and energy industry scoffed these predictions, US oil did indeed peak around 1970-1971.

Hubbert, a geophysicist, created a mathematical model of oil extraction which predicted that the cumulative amount of oil extracted over time would follow a logistic curve, which follows a bell-shaped pattern now known as the Hubbert curve. The theory implies that the predicted rate of oil extraction at any given time would be given by the derivative of the logistic curve at that time.

When oil reserves are discovered, production is initially small, because all the required infrastructure has not been installed. As wells are drilled and more efficient facilities are installed, oil production increases. At some point, a peak output is reached that can not be exceeded, even with improved technology or additional drilling. After the peak, oil production slowly but increasingly tapers off. After the peak, but before an oil field is empty, another significant point is reached when it takes more energy to recover, transport, and process a barrel of oil than the amount of energy contained in that barrel. At that point, it is no longer worthwhile to extract petroleum for energy - it becomes a resource sink. According to Hubbert's model, oil reserves in the United States would be exhausted before the end of the 21st century.


Given past oil production data, and barring extraneous factors such as lack of demand, the model predicts the date of peak oil production output for an oil field, multiple oil fields, or an entire region. Hubbert's original formulations applied to a "theoretical, unconstrained province," and that the model must be adjusted if significant artificial impedances, such as political or environmental regulations, are in effect.

Taken from Wikipedia.

In 1971 Hubert predicted that a world peak would between 1995 and 2000, though current experts believe that events since then may have delayed the peak, events such as the 1973 energy crisis, in which a decreased supply of oil resulted in a shortage, and ultimately less consumption. The 1979 energy crisis and 1990 spike in the price of oil due to the Gulf War have had similar, albeit less dramatic effects on supply. Most experts believe this peak will now happen around 2010 and that natural gas will peak around 2010 to 2020.

In 2004, 30 billion barrels of oil were consumed worldwide, while only eight billion barrels of new oil reserves were discovered. the International Energy Agency reported annual global demand at 84.9 million barrels per day (mbd) which means over 31 billion barrels annually. This means consumption is now within 2 mbd of production. At any one time there are about 54 days of stock in the OECD system plus 37 days in emergency stockpiles.

there are now new theories that suggest that world peak did happen between 2004 and 2005,

Colin Campbell of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas (ASPO) has calculated that the global production of conventional oil peaked in the spring of 2004 albeit at a rate of 23-GB/yr, not Hubbert's 13-GB/yr.

Another peak oil proponent Kenneth S. Deffeyes predicted in his book Beyond Oil - The View From Hubbert's Peak that global oil production would hit a peak on Thanksgiving Day 2005 (Deffeyes has since revised his claim, and now argues that world oil production peaked on December 16 2005. (www.wikipedia.com)

No one knows for sure when global oil production/consumption will peak or has peaked, we won't know until we have passed the point of no return. By then it will probably be too late to switch over to other suitable form of energy.


If...The Oil Runs Out (BBC, Tuesday 30th May)

If... The Oil Runs Out
Tue 30 May, 11:20 pm - 12:20 am 60mins

It's 2016 and the world is in crisis. The Oil Age is coming to an end. Global supply can't keep up with soaring demand and the price of petrol is going through the roof. So now the oil companies are in a race, to the ends of the earth in a desperate search for Black Gold. But what happens if the oil isn't out there anymore?

What then?

Blending drama and documentary, this film investigates the scenario which experts fear will come true when the cheap oil on which we depend starts to run out. Suddenly we won't be able to take anything for granted any more.

Monday, May 22, 2006

Has Opec Peaked???

I came across this little article the other day, it seems that OPEC may have peaked last year, which would indicate a world peak.

MEES (Middle East Energy Specialists) says OPEC oil production wasdown by 460 thousand barrels in January. (Crude Only)www.mees.com/Energy_Tables/crude-oil.htm

Those losing production were:
Country...Thousand b/d Down or Up Thousand b/d
Iran.......3,650......... Down 240
Nigeria....2,310......... Down 110
UAE........2,400......... Down 100
Saudi .....9,450......... Down 30
Indonesia... 920......... Down 10
Iraq.......1,580......... Up 30

All others were unchanged.
These figures are very close to those of the EIA for January (CrudeOnly). The EIA had OPEC, crude only, down by 555 thousand barrels per day in January as compared to December.www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/3atab.html

The figures for Nigeria were largely caused by unrest in that country but the figures for Iran and even Saudi Arabia, I believe is simpledepletion. Indonesia has been in steep decline for years. There issome doubt about the UAE as 2005 is, so far, the year of theirhighest production. At any rate I believe OPEC has clearly peaked. They are producing one million barrels per day less than theyproduced in October 2004.

Ron Patterson

Apparently OPEC has dropped a further 300,000 barrels per day during the month of March. It looks like we are truely on the slippery downwards