-----Original Message-----
From: Agent Smiley <smileyundaunted@...>
To: wyyrdo@... <wyyrdo@...>
Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:56 PM
Subject: [environment] Taxpayers Will Lose Millions of Dollars to Big Oil
Under Energy Bill


>http://www.pogo.org/oil/rikenergybill2001.htm
>
>For Immediate Release July 10, 2001
>Contact: Beth Daley 202-347-1122 beth@...
>
>
>Taxpayers Will Lose Millions of Dollars to Big Oil
>Under Energy Bill
>
>Language in the House Resources Committee energy bill
>to be proposed this week will cause millions of
>taxpayer dollars to be lost to major oil and gas
>companies, according to the Project On Government
>Oversight. The provision concerns royalty-in-kind
>programs where drilling fees are paid in barrels of
>oil or units of gas rather than in cash.
>
>ÒAfter decades of shortchanging the taxpayers, new
>rules were implemented in 2000 that prevent oil and
>gas companies from underpaying their fees for drilling
>on federal and Indian lands. Royalty-in-kind programs
>have been promoted by industry as a way to circumvent
>the new rules,Ó according to the organizationÕs
>Executive Director Danielle Brian.
>
>According to a written statement from Ms. Brian: ÒThe
>Department of Interior has completed two pilot
>programs to date in order the test whether
>royalty-in-kind programs will work. The two programs
>have failed, losing significant revenues in comparison
>to dollars received from programs that collect cash.
>According to the Department of InteriorÕs Inspector
>General, the first pilot program to collect gas
>royalties-in-kind lost 6.5%. Earlier this year a
>second pilot program to collect oil royalties-in-kind
>lost $3 million....Section 232 ÔProgram on Oil and Gas
>Royalties in KindÕ of the House Resources Committee
>energy bill proposes giving the Secretary of Interior
>authority to further expand collections of
>royalties-in-kind...Section 232 would institutionalize
>the further loss of millions of taxpayer dollars to
>major oil and gas companies.Ó
>
>In 1998, the General Accounting Office analyzed the
>prospect of royalty-in-kind and determined that there
>were significant barriers to ensuring that the federal
>government receives its fair share: ÒAccording to
>information from studies and the programs themselves,
>royalty-in-kind programs seem to be feasible if
>certain conditions are present. However, these
>conditions do not exist for the federal government or
>for most federal leases," (Federal Oil Valuation:
>Efforts to Revise Regulations and an Analysis of
>Royalties in Kind GAO/RCED-98-242).
>
>To receive a copy of the full written statement,
>contact POGO. Founded in 1981, POGOÕs mission is to
>investigate, expose, and remedy abuses of power,
>mismanagement, and subservience by the federal
>government to powerful special interests.
>
>
>=====
>http://www.iraqwar.org/
>http://www.centrexnews.com
>http://www.earthchangestv.com/warroom/beginning.htm
>http://www.sfbg.com/reality/24.html
>http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~shale/humanities/composition/assignments/experi
ment/paperclip.html
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
>http://personals.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

--- In energyresources@y..., "Ted Swarts" <tedswarts@h...> wrote:
>
> What may even be more interesting to American patriots is that the
> domination of the Canadian oil and gas industry is nothing compared
> to US control over virtually every other industrial segment in the
> True North. Take retail sales where the big players are Sears,
> Walmart, Costco, Safeway, Office Depot, Staples and so on. Or
> vehicle and heavy equipment manufacturing where Ford and GM are the
> big guys and where absolutely zero players are Canadian owned. Or
> restaurants where firms such as McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's and
> Arby's dominate the fat food segment. As to forestry and lumber,
> Weyerhouser leads the pack. The list goes on and on and
> it all spells U-S-A.
>
>

It would be interesting to find out what percentage of the stock of
these "USA" companies is owned by Canadians.  As individuals, or as
investments by Canadian-based investment funds; City, Province, and
national government retirement funds; and Canadian corporate and union
investment and retirement funds. In some cases, it might be more than
10%.

Steven Zoraster

The more I reflect on his piece, the more I become convinced that
some people (Cheney certainly) in this administration know *exactly*
what is going on with oil and perhaps even natural gas (how could
they not?) But they can't tackle the problem face on without crashing
the markets, so go at it obliquely through corporate welfare. The
problem is that the scope of the solution as advocated by Simmons is
just so large that they can't hide this approach. I wonder if
Krugman's editorial will finally get some attention?  The press if
not TV is certainly making the oil connection.

I now have to lend some credence to the 2nd agendas in "the war on
terra" as advocated by the conspiracy people. I'm getting a stronger
feeling that the admin is trying to spin a lot of things to pin stuff
on Iraq regardless of complicity on 911 and since. What an oil prize
compared to the other countries in the region. Now, what will they
dream up to dump the Saudi's and grab that oil lake?

--- In energyresources@y..., Ron Patterson <readyourdarwin@y...>
wrote:
> An article by the Environmental News Service on this
> MIT study can be found at:
> http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-30-06.html
>
> I read the part of the study about oil production.
> They do not even take into consideration the amount of
> oil left in the ground, they just take for granted
> that there is plenty there. Some study. They assume a
> 2.5 percent growth in demand until 2020 and expect
> production in that year to be 5,600 million tons. That
> is over 43 billion barrels. Only one year in the
> history of discovery have we gone over 40 billion
> barrels found and that was 1962 when about 41 billion
> barrels were discovered. Yet they expect to produce 43
> billion barrels every year (and more) after 2020? We
> are now discovering less than 6 billion barrels a
> year. Do these people believe in magic or what?
>
> Why is there such a big blind spot there. This is MIT
> we are talking about. These folks are supposed to be
> the cream of the crop.
>

> Ron Patterson
>

The only good news is that this is only the 1st phase of their study
(snip from above Environ. News Service)...
"Mobility 2001," was conducted by MIT and Charles River Associates
and is the first phase of a three year study commissioned by the
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). The goal
of the overall initiative is to develop a global vision of
sustainable mobility for 2030 and possible pathways to get there.

The six month, million dollar first phase study was a joint effort of
the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, and the Engineering
Systems Division. MIT researchers from 10 departments, laboratories
and centers collaborated to assess the current state of mobility and
its impacts in a holistic way."
(snip)

So, if outcry is large that they've missed the point by following
the "global warming red herring" then maybe they can properly
readdress the flaws in their energy assumptions. Maybe the study was
done by graduate sutdents (in economics?) Perhaps the answer is even
easier: a glance at the last page of the MIT report shows exactly
which corporate players are involved, so I'm not surprised by the
institutional sellout that may have occured. Still, a million bucks
is pretty cheap to get MIT's endorsement. Nike had to pay our
atheletes here at U. of North Carolina a lot more to be billboards.

--- In energyresources@y..., llwnick22@a... wrote:
>    Is it so difficult to understand that present trends can't
continue?  What
> is the matter with us, We can't be so dumb that we can believe
there are no
> environmental problems, or that we are a temporary species if we
can't, or
> won't solve them. Surely we are smarter than that, aren't we?
>                          --- L.W. Nicholson


I frequently see people claiming that humanity is on the brink of
extinction but I never buy it. Don't get me wrong, a lot of really
bad things could happen to our civilization but humans are a "weedy"
species.

The idea if humans dying off is like crabgrass or cockroaches going
extict; it is possible but rather unlikely.

Gregson Vaux

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11815
The British War Against the War
Andrew Rowell, AlterNet
October 29, 2001

"What has struck me since I have started to speak out against the war is
that I've been inundated by phone calls, emails and letters from all around
the country. Voters are saying 'Thank God there are people who will say in
parliament what people like me feel outside,'" says Alan Simpson MP. "I
think the public disquiet is far greater than parliament admits."

Last week he launched Labour Against The War, a group of MPs opposed to the
bombing of Afghanistan. Dissent inside parliament has been muted since the
bombing started, but is now growing. "There are actually far more people
expressing unease than in any of the conflicts of the past," the 53 year-old
Labour MP for Nottingham South says.

snipped

http://www.afghan-web.com/aop/today.html
US planning full invasion if special forces fail

By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent,
and Toby Harnden in Washington

The Telegraph (UK)
October 31, 2001

THE Pentagon is considering mounting a ground invasion of Afghanistan if the
current bombing and special forces campaign fails to achieve its aims,
American defence sources said yesterday.

The allies would carry out sporadic bombing attacks throughout the winter
while the opposition Northern Alliance was built up into a workable ally
before a full-scale ground invasion in the spring.


Al-Qaida is winning war, allies warned

Tania Branigan
Wednesday October 31, 2001
The Guardian (UK)

The eminent military historian Professor Sir Michael Howard launched a
scathing attack yesterday on the continued bombardment of Afghanistan,
comparing it to "trying to eradicate cancer cells with a blow torch". It had
put the al-Qaida network in a "win-win situation", he told the conference,
and could escalate into an ongoing confrontation that would shatter our own
multicultural societies.

The longer it went on, he added, the worse the consequences would be.

"Even more disastrous would be its extension... through other rogue states,
beginning with Iraq, to eradicate terrorism for good and all," he said. "I
can think of no policy more likely, not only to indefinitely prolong the
war, but to ensure that we can never win it."


Silk Road rebels vow to avenge their Afghan kin

By Philip Smucker in Shingliballa
The Telegraph (UK)
October 31, 2001

ANGRY bands of Himalayan rebels fired machine guns and tracers across the
ancient Silk Road last night, vowing to avenge what they called American
murders of their ethnic kin in neighbouring Afghanistan.

The Pakistani rebels, who are leading a 250-mile-long blockade of the
country's Karakoram Highway, said they would end their siege only when
President Pervaiz Musharraf ends his support for the US-led air strikes on
Afghanistan and frees militant Islamic leaders being held under house
arrest.

Dear Garret,

Your questions are clear and valid, but you omit biomass from your list to
which today's message headed "[energyresources] Rentech Press Release on GTL
Patent and CO2 sequestering" is relevant, as is Leonard Kater's message of
7.2.01 pasted below.

Regards,

Thomas J Stubbing

Subject:
             [energyresources] A question about biomass
        Date:
             Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:37:14 +0100
       From:
             "Leonard Kater" <lgwkater@...>

Hi JIm,

I can answer your question about the capacity of biomass to
outphase oil rather easily. Total Carbon from coal and oil which
is burned each year into atmosphere is far below 10 gigaton
Carbon.

Total biomass in living plantlife in biosphere up till a depth of
1 meter in soil is over 2000 gigaton Carbon; this far
outnumbers the need of burning up to 10 gigaton
Carbon from coal and oil in current economics.
(These data I took from http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm,
click "Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. 2000 ")

So full replacement of coal and oil by biomass from plantlife
must be a technological possibility, even as energy content
of biomass is not that concentrated as is the case with coal
and oil.

Anyways such a replacement is a climatic necessity,
but I doubt whether it would be wise to replace coal and oil
by biomass as a rule, as any burning of whatever always
causes lots of pollution and lots of second law losses before
being useful as a source of electricity or transportation.

So it is better to produce electricity directly from renewable
sources. Wind power is now almost competitive, and PV
from non-silicon sources will follow soon, both being able
to provide all electricity we need, even all energy we need
including the transportation sector.

But here we have to redesign a lot, changing all cars
into hybrid ones as soon as possible, switching to the
hydrogen economy and remodelling our Highway system
into an InTranSys system. This is almost frictionless,
driven by electricity from PV or windpower but still in
development phase. It is able to replace four or more
road lanes by one track suspended in the air, which means
that it does not restrict movement on land surface so much
as the highway system does.

See for details: http://personalpages.tds.net/~cimarron/
Other possibilities for renewable energy are not yet well known,
but should be implemented rather soon: Solar Chimneys
for instance (do a websearch on this item) and even Sail
Power can be given a new life if combined with hydro turbines.

So build an Aluminium Melter into a ship powered by
Sail Hydro, have it sail around the earth forever in
Antarctic Regions and lots of Aluminium will be produced for
almost nothing, except for the (energy&maintenance) costs of
ship, sails, turbines and aluminium melter.

Design however can be very simple.
The larger the better it can stand waves and storms in this
regiion and the more energy can be converted into
aluminium or hydrogen. These are basic components of
hydrogen economy.

Kind regards,
Leonard Kater

~~~~~~~~~~~ Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~~~~
I am particularly grateful to Mr. Kater for the case he makes in the above
for a well developed and widely understood understanding of net
energy/eMergy analysis.
~~~~~~~~~ Co-Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~~~~~~


Garret Whitney wrote:

> Hi energyresources folks-
>
> I've been following this list and Jay's dieoff stuff for years now.  I'm
> long-ago convinced of the correctness of the Hubbert/Campbell analysis,
> that we'll soon run out of cheap oil.  But--though I'm far from being a
> technological optimist--I'm still unsure about the claims that alternatives
> to petroleum can't be developed.
>
> Sure, net energy is what counts, and yes, the form the energy comes in does
> make a difference for particular applications.  But I still haven't seen a
> solid, numerate analysis of the overall energy picture that convincingly
> debunks the more-promising alternatives.  I'm hoping someone on this list
> can help shed light on this, one way or the other.
>
> Some specific questions....
>
> 1)  What about wind?  The 30-year lifespan of a typical turbine would seem
> to argue for real and significant net energy output.  One analysis a wind
> engineer told me about, for example, estimated that offshore turbines could
> produce more than double Europe's electricity requirements.
>
> 2)  Same for PV.  What's the net energy analysis for PV and why is it
> discounted in the more pessimistic scenarios?
>
> 3)  I've read that the US nuclear industry hasn't yet produced any net
> energy, taking into account subsidies, energy used in mining and
> construction, etc.  Is this true, and where can I find references?
>
> 4)  What are the world's energy requirements in total, and what would be
> required to meet them?  If energy sufficiency was to become the world's
> major project--as it will necessarily be, eventually--why couldn't we make
> the transition to a solar economy?
>
> 5)  What about fertilizer?  How much petroleum is currently "needed" for
> food production.  And what alternatives exist?
>
> As I mentioned above, I'm not a technological optimist.  There are plenty
> of other ecologically-rooted threats that could bring about the collapse of
> the human "bloom."  And so far we don't have anywhere near the political
> will we'll need to face the fossil fuel situation, though that's another
> question.
>
> But is it true that viable, sufficient alternatives to petro don't (can't)
> exist?  I'd appreciate your help with this...
>
> Thanks,
> Garret whitney
>
> Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
> Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Crude Oil Watch
October 31, 2001 Energy Information Administration
Office of Oil & Gas
! Crude oil stocks rose 2.5 million barrels (MMB) to end the week at
308.3 MMB. As of October
26, crude oil stocks are 10.9 percent higher than last year, and 0.8
percent higher than the five-year
average. Crude oil inputs ended at 15.3 million barrels per day
(MMBD), pushing the moving fourweek
average for crude oil refinery inputs over last year's level for the
first time since June.
! Crude spot and futures prices were mixed last week, as increases in
crude and distillate stocks the
previous week competed with news that OPEC has "virtually" agreed to
cut production by 1.0
MMBD. However, it is unclear how large an effect such a cut would
have, as it has been reported
that several member countries are producing over the current quota.
WTI-Cushing ended up $0.08
at $22.07, while Brent rose $0.40 to end at $20.31. The Total World
contract price went down
$0.24 to end at $19.24, while the U.S. price decreased $0.38 to end
the week at $18.77 per barrel.

Folks:

BruceThomsom, on the RunningOnEmpty group is carrying on a
running dialog with Michael C. Lynch, an economist. A recent
post addressed the "Sufficiency of alternative fuels to replace
oil and gas"

This note explores the essential elements of:
a) energy and society; and
b) the nature of physical energy processes
compared to those as represented by economics.

For example, Bruce recently posted the following your energy
production data. I have added an approximate Energy Returned on
Energy Invested for each of these sources.

U.S. Energy Production By Energy Source, 1990-1994
                 Gross %        Approx EROEI
Coal             22%                  10:1
Natural Gas      24%                  20:1++
Petroleum        39%                  10 : 1++
Nuclear           8%                  2.7 : 1-
Renewable         7%
Total        100%

However, things change when we take the renewables and look at
them in terms of their probable EROEI. What you get is that much
of the old Hydro now has an extremely high EROEI because
construction costs are now sunken and current costs are only for
operation and maintenance.

As for the rest, they have value. However, because of their very
low net yields, such resources must be used very judiciously. The
key point here is that a society dependent on the net EROEI of
renewables will have a very small fraction of the net surplus
energies that are delivered by current conventional energies.

The bottom line: It will be able to do a lot less of everything.

For example, consider the following, taken from generally sorry
sources but these are the best I know of at this time:

                   Gross %          Approx EROEI
    Hydro           3.36%              30 : 1+++
    Geothermal      0.42%               4 : 1
    Biomass         3.15%             1.7 : 1 or much less
    Solar           0.07%             2 : 1 -
    Wind            0.07%             3 : 1
+

If you were to replace the net EROEI production of natural gas
with biomass, using the above EROEI ratios, it would take some
11.7 times as much biomass production to produce the net
equivalent of biomass, assuming the 1.7 EROEI is accurate which
it is not. (Biomass in any industrial process has a generally
negative EROEI.)

In other words, as I once calculated, if you were to replace the
net productivity of liquid fuels used in Florida with equivalent
EROEI/power fuels generated by biomass, it would take the entire
agricultural productivity of almost the entire southeast part of
the United States.

The point is: Our conventional energies are very concentrated and
our alternatives are not. Net energy analysis is a way of
providing measures of that relative concentration so we can know
what will and will not work to power what ever we want to do.

The current state of Energy Returned on Energy Invested analysis
is methodologically terrible, for many reasons, mainly tied to
the fact that those most responsible for doing such analysis mess
it up because they 1) do not like the results, and/or 2) think that
others will not like the results.

As a result:

a) we do not know the actual relative merit of the energy
technologies we will be using to power our society;

b) this unnecessary vulnerability will increase as the
availability of concentrated fossil fuels decline;

c) people can find all kinds of reasons for avoiding dealing with
the realities of both the decline in available concentrated
energies and the actual relative merit of both those concentrated
resources and the resources we will increasingly depend upon as
the concentrated energies are depleted.

d) there can be no greater social enterprise than to clean up
what we know about energy and its real availability to our
society. Anything less brings on unnecessary uncertainty and the
predations of those who see uncertain times as an opportunity for
exploitation.

f) economics is an important perceptual/analytical tool for letting us know
through money and markets, what we humans subjectively think things are worth;

g) energy analysis lets us know the objective nature of things and processes;

h) analysis based on the conbined characteristics of both economics and energy
measures, can provide the most accurate, and thus competitive means of knowing
what will and will not work in the uncertain times ahead. To the extent we
develop and refine such intellectual tools, we chose the nature of our future.

etc.

Tom Robertson

If things get real bad, we may evolve into something else. When high
quality energy becomes scarce again, evolutionary pressure will likely
become intense. Since intercontinental travel on a large scale will
disappear, isolation (an important principle in rapid evolution) will
be the norm again.

Although what comes out of the bottleneck will still be closely
related to us, the differences might be large enough to warrant a
classification as a new species. At that point Homo Sapiens may be
considered extinct.

Jack Dingler

--- In energyresources@y..., gvaux@m... wrote:
> --- In energyresources@y..., llwnick22@a... wrote:
> >    Is it so difficult to understand that present trends can't
> continue?  What
> > is the matter with us, We can't be so dumb that we can believe
> there are no
> > environmental problems, or that we are a temporary species if we
> can't, or
> > won't solve them. Surely we are smarter than that, aren't we?
> >                          --- L.W. Nicholson
>
>
> I frequently see people claiming that humanity is on the brink of
> extinction but I never buy it. Don't get me wrong, a lot of really
> bad things could happen to our civilization but humans are a "weedy"
> species.
>
> The idea if humans dying off is like crabgrass or cockroaches going
> extict; it is possible but rather unlikely.
>
> Gregson Vaux

cecil@... wrote:

<snip>

>I now have to lend some credence to the 2nd agendas in "the war on
>terra" as advocated by the conspiracy people. I'm getting a stronger
>feeling that the admin is trying to spin a lot of things to pin stuff
>on Iraq regardless of complicity on 911 and since. What an oil prize
>compared to the other countries in the region. Now, what will they
>dream up to dump the Saudi's and grab that oil lake?
>
Looks like they may have their bases covered on that one:
<http://www.lefigaro.fr/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=FutureT\
ense/Apps/Xcelerate/View&c=figArticle&cid=FIGJMSRVETC&live=true&Site=true&gCurCh\
a>
Translation at
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=81130&group=webcast

KD

Biomass will likely be far more important as a soil amendment and
fertilizer than a fuel. Burning topsoil to produce energy would be
just one more way to hurry a massive die-off event. As without
topsoil, we cannot grow crops or produce more topsoil in quantity.

Jack Dingler

--- In energyresources@y..., Thomas J Stubbing <heat-win@c...> wrote:
> Dear Garret,
>
> Your questions are clear and valid, but you omit biomass from your
list to
> which today's message headed "[energyresources] Rentech Press
Release on GTL
> Patent and CO2 sequestering" is relevant, as is Leonard Kater's
message of
> 7.2.01 pasted below.
>
> Regards,
>
> Thomas J Stubbing
>
> Subject:
>             [energyresources] A question about biomass
>        Date:
>             Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:37:14 +0100
>       From:
>             "Leonard Kater" <lgwkater@c...>
>
> Hi JIm,
>
> I can answer your question about the capacity of biomass to
> outphase oil rather easily. Total Carbon from coal and oil which
> is burned each year into atmosphere is far below 10 gigaton
> Carbon.
>
> Total biomass in living plantlife in biosphere up till a depth of
> 1 meter in soil is over 2000 gigaton Carbon; this far
> outnumbers the need of burning up to 10 gigaton
> Carbon from coal and oil in current economics.
> (These data I took from http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm,
> click "Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. 2000 ")
>
<snip>

Nice to know you are still stirring things up out there.  Hope you and Betty
are well.

Robert J. King
Good Company Associates, Inc
816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1100
Austin, Texas 78701
512-480-2220 phone
512-480-2227 fax
RKing@...
www.GoodCompanyAssociates.Com

  -----Original Message-----
From:  Htoeco@... [mailto:Htoeco@...]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 5:32 PM
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: [energyresources] Lovins re Net Energy

Comment by H.T. Odum October 30
The energy analysis referred  to adds energies as if they were the same
instead of first multiplying by transformity to put them in units of one
kind
of energy. Those analyses essentially leave out the huge energy embodied in
services.  Thus photocells were overvalued.

At the "ecoefficiency" Conference in Turino Italy this summer, Both Lovins
and I had been invited to present our latest. His new book "natural
capitalism" had just been  published translated to Italian. We were sitting
adjacent at one of the dinners and didn't recognize each other. Time passes.
People will need Lovin's suggestions for  conserving energy.


Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I've been studing the 1999 U.S. energy flow diagram from Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory.

http://www-energy.llnl.gov/U.S.EnFlow-99-EJ.pdf

One of the things that stand out is how much energy is rejected in
electricity generation and in transportation.  This brought up a
number of questions.

For example why is 68% of the energy in electricity generation lost?
Is it the power distribution(i.e. conductivity of wires, step-up &
step-down transformers) ?  Is it the conversion of heat to motion,
and then motion to electrical current?  Does anyone know?  Is anyone
asking these questions?  Supposing that only 50% of the energy
generating electricity was lost,  then the U.S. would require 64%
(23.4 exajoules vs 36.3 exajoules) of the primary energy to generate
the same amount  of electricity (11.7 exajoules) that it requires now.
  Is that a realistic assumption or goal?

Similarly why is 80% of the energy in transportation lost?  Is it the
limitations of reciprocating piston-crankshaft egines? Is it the
mechanical losses in drivetrain transmissions?  Is it  aerodynamic
drag on planes, trains and  automobiles?  Is it the rolling resistance
of tires?  What is the biggest culprit in the energy loss in
transportation?  Again, does anyone know? Again, is anyone asking
these questions?   Again, supposing that only 50% of the energy was
lost in transportation, then the U.S. would require  40% (11 exajoules
vs 27.3 exajoules) of the primary energy to do the same amount of
useful transportation (5.5 exajoules) that it requires now.  Am I
looking at a reasonable assumption?

Supposing for a moment that such improvements are somehow possible,
those improvements would mean a net reduction of 25.8 exajoules in
primary energy inputs.  That would certainly have positive economic,
political (less reliance on foreign sources), and enviromental
consequences without a change in useful energy use.

Unfortunately, if current forecasts of relatively speedy fossil fuel
depletion prove true,  even these changes will not  preclude a lower
level of useful available energy in the US since 86% (88.6 exajoules)
of primary energy is fossil fuels.

I've not aware of  any proposals for increased efficiency of
electricity generation or of transport in the  administration's energy
plans.  The main public discussion seems to be either finding more
sources of convetional fossil fuels, or increasing the supply of
"alternative" energy sources, or using less energy (both input and
output).  Considering how relatively energy inefficient electricity
generation and transportation are, why isn't increasing the energy
efficiency of both a major national goal?

Michael Velik,
Pennsylvania

--- In energyresources@y..., K Davies <kdavies@i...> wrote:




> So how do you figure the oil and gas are going to get from the
> Caspian to Pakistan, India, and points east?  Do you figure it's
> going to go through China or Iran?  Or do you figure it's just
> going to stay where it is?  Given the size of the reserves and the
> size of the markets, I think the size of Unocal is a red herring.
>
> KD


And maybe the Indians will get some of their growing energy needs at
home:

http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?
pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3L5MQXGTC&live=true&tagid=ZZZCWHK1B0C


Cairn's confidence over India grows
Financial Times Online
By Matthew Jones in London


Cairn Energy, the Scottish oil and gas group, on Wednesday said it
was "increasingly confident" that its interests in the Krishna-
Godavari Basin, offshore eastern India, could be developed
commercially.

Test results for its fourth consecutive deepwater discovery in block
KG-DWN-98/2 produced an oil flow of some 6,000 barrels a day and 3.9m
cubic feet of gas a day. They also indicated recoverable oil reserves
of between 40-60m barrels, bringing the total net reserve potential
of the block to "at least 200m barrels of oil equivalent".

Cairn has become the foreign oil company with the largest interests
working in the region. It has about 90 per cent of its activities and
reserves in and around the subcontinent, including offshore gas in
Bangladesh and off the west coast of India.

Bill Gammell, chief executive, said he was "delighted" by the latest
find and would now move the group's drilling rig to a further
prospect within the block, located 15km to the southwest. The group's
shares rose 2.6 per cent on the news in early trading in London to
299p.

Cairn holds 100 per cent of the equity in KG-DWN-98/2 but said
earlier this year it would most likely seek a larger partner because
it lacked the technical expertise to work in water up to 1,000 metres
deep. It has also admitted that marketing the gas would be
a "challenge" because it is far from the most industrialised parts of
India in the west of the country.

The group already produces about 50,000 barrels of oil a day and 1m
cu m of gas from the nearby Raava fields as part of a consortium with
the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India, Videocon Petroleum and
Ravva Oil of Singapore.

Gregson wrote:
>>>I frequently see people claiming that humanity is
on the brink of extinction but I never buy it. Don't
get me wrong, a lot of really bad things could happen
to our civilization but humans are a "weedy"
species.<<<

>>>The idea if humans dying off is like crabgrass or
cockroaches going extinct; it is possible but rather
unlikely.<<<

I agree 100% with Gregson here. Homo sapiens occupy so
many niches on every continent of the world, (except
Antarctica), that it would be near impossible for us
to go extinct. Even is some strange disease hit that
attacked virtually everybody, our numbers are so great
that there would be enough natural immunity that
enough would survive to carry on the species. Some
people are even immune to the AIDS virus. That is the
way it always has been, a few are always immune.

I expect, after the dieoff, that there will be less
than one billion people left on earth, probably less
than half a billion, but that is still an awful lot of
people.

We will survive. The life, after the dieoff, may be
brutish, short and cruel, like it was in prehistoric
times, but still we will survive.

But L.W. Nicholson does have a good point. We do have
serious environmental problems. But we will not solve
them. Trying to convince everyone on earth to change
his or her ways and stop polluting and over working
the land is like spitting into the wind. Only Mother
Nature will solve these problems and she will do it by
culling out about nine of every ten people on earth.

Ron Patterson


=====
- The majority of men...are not capable of thinking, but only of believing,
and...are not accessible to reason, but only to authority.
      Arthur Schopenhauer:
      Supplements to the World as Will and Idea.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com

Evergreen gets it's gas from coal bed methane, an often overlooked
source of natural gas.  What is most interesting to me os that they
are doing well in the third quarter, when many other petroleum
companies are reporting relatively poor results.

By the way, Evergreen made #40 on a recent Forbes Magazine list of
the 200 best run small companies.  And they also have interests in
Great Britain and Alaska.



EVERGREEN REPORTS THIRD QUARTER EARNINGS OF 37 CENTS/SHARE

Denver, Colorado, November 1, 2001 …EVERGREEN RESOURCES, INC.
(NYSE: EVG) today reported third quarter 2001 earnings of $7.1
million, or 37 cents per diluted share, which compared to $2.4
million, or 15 cents per diluted share, in the third quarter of 2000.

With increased production and a higher gas price realization,
Evergreen's natural gas revenues in the third quarter increased
to $25.3 million, an increase of 87% over 2000's third quarter
total of $13.5 million.  Cash flow before changes in operating assets
and liabilities in the third quarter totaled $20.7 million, or $1.06
per diluted share, which compared to $7.5 million, or 47 cents per
diluted share, in the third quarter of 2000.

Third Quarter Operating Results

Net gas sales in the third quarter totaled 7.9 billion cubic feet
(Bcf), or an average of 85.8 million cubic feet (MMcf) per day, which
was up 58% from the 5.0 Bcf total and 54.4-MMcf-per-day average in
the corresponding 2000 period.  Third quarter average net gas sales
were up 8% from this year's second quarter average of 79.8 MMcf
per day and were almost entirely the result of drilling, field
operations and infrastructure enhancements.  Evergreen had 646 net
gas wells connected to pipeline at September 30, 2001 compared to 473
net gas wells at September 30, 2000.  Evergreen drilled 52 coal bed
methane wells in the Raton Basin during the third quarter of 2001,
bringing to 132 the number of wells the company has drilled through
the first nine months.

Evergreen's realized net gas price of $3.21 per thousand cubic
feet (Mcf) in the third quarter represented an 18% improvement over
last year's third quarter average of $2.71 per Mcf.  Evergreen
sells most of its spot market gas production (unhedged volumes) into
Mid-continent and Midwestern markets at prices averaging
approximately 25 to 30 cents off the Henry Hub benchmark price.

On July 19, 2001, Evergreen announced that it acquired additional
working interests in approximately 17,800 acres of producing coal bed
methane properties in the Raton Basin.  The acquired working
interests average 35%, bringing Evergreen's average working
interest in the properties to approximately 80%.   The interests were
purchased for approximately $20 million in cash from Shenandoah
Operating Co., a private exploration and production company based in
Denver.  As of the effective date of the transaction, the acquired
property interests represented an estimated 40 Bcf of proven net gas
reserves (an average cost of 50 cents per Mcf), from 65 producing
wells.

Lease operating expenses for the three months ended September 30,
2001 were $3.4 million or 43 cents per Mcf of gas, compared to $2.1
million or 42 cents per Mcf for the same period in 2000.  The
increase in lease operating expenses in this year's third quarter
as compared to the third quarter of 2000 was due to the increase in
producing wells and compressors.

To All,
I had an interesting two minutes talking to Amory Lovins Saturday.  He
claims to be the "God Father" of net energy studies on PV.  He said that
the current energy pay back mirrors the economic payback - which he says
is about 6 months in well designed situations and the energy cost of
production is going down rapidly.  He was unwilling to give any details
or sources!  He said that the information we have heard on this list is
at  least 20 years behind the times.

In his discussions to a large group he did not recognize the effects of
population on energy usage.  He was very positive about the utility of
his hydrogen based fuel cell hyper cars which initially he expects to be
connected to fueling stations connected with gas fueled fuel cells from
which hydrogen would be derived as part of the larger fuel cell fuel
conditioning process.
Alan Page

David,

I agree that Canada is and has been complicit with the US in destroying
ecosystems. But what is more important to me is what we do in the future.
Canada has signed the Kyoto protocol and even though it was a watered down
version, it is at least a step in the right direction. Our neighbor to the
south, on the other hand, has done the opposite. As well, it has made
explicit denunciations of conservation and alternative energy, implementing
policies that will do anything but improve the ecological mess we are all
now living in.

As a matter of degree, Canada is bad but the US is F&(*OOFp[d[[f[d;lgfl.

As to free trade, I believe in it, deeply, and in the early 80's I fought
for it in my own inimitable and amazingly useless way. So I suppose I too am
in some infinitesimally small way to blame for the mess Canada finds itself
in. But in my defense, and in the defense of many other 'freedom fighters'
:-), the free trade deal we are living with today has absolutely nothing to
do with free trade but, on the American side at least, has everything to do
with protectionism and exploitation. Of course, Canada should of known that
dealing with a dominant player like the US, with a history of protectionism
against Canada (they screwed our oil industry in the seventies, a tragic
story that every Canadian should know but not more that 1 in a thousand have
a clue of), that a free trade agreement was doomed to suffer from
manipulation by the dominant player. And indeed that shameless manipulation
has come to pass.

The fact that the United States of America considers itself as the
foundation for global freedom is of course a laugh when their trade
practices are examined in detail.

The good side of the American attacks against Canadian industries is as
follows. Firstly given the repeatedly illegal sanctions by the US DOC
against Canada's lumber industry, the US has set a strong precedent on
exactly how to violate the essence and integrity of the Free Trade
Agreement. Secondly, given US fossil fuel gluttony, they have placed
themselves in a position where they need us more than we need them. The fact
of the matter is that the United States will collapse economically in no
time flat if Canada decides to shut off access to its resources, especially
its fossil fuels.

To any Americans following this thread, I hope you know that as we speak,
Canadian soldiers are heading to the Middle East to help your men and women
in your fight, just like we've done on virtually every other horrific
incident you've wangled your country into. We are doing it for the many dead
in the World Trade Center atrocity, more of whom were Canadian than of any
other nationality outside of American. We are intimately connected to the
horror of that day and we feel your pain. So as your government screws
Canada and in particular its Westernmost province, don't be surprised if our
friendship starts to sour and your access to at least British Columbia's
resources starts to wane.

Ted Swarts
Kelowna, British Columbia

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Delaney" <ddelaney@...>
To: <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: A Lot of Gas but not in Canada


> At 11:18 AM 10/31/01 -0800, Ted Swarts wrote:
> >But most of all, I don't like seeing the lives of
> >my friends and neighbors being crushed by the
> >destructive policies of a government and corporate
> >elite who feel it is their God given right to
> >destroy our world's fragile ecosystems and any
> >people who stand between that right and the
> >resources that feed it.
>
> But remember Ted, it was Canadian business and
> Canadian elites generally that moved heaven and
> earth to sign Canada up for NAFTA so as to enrich
> themselves by the most rapid possible dispersion
> of Canada's natural resources, and to remove
> decisions about resource exploitation from
> democratic control.  If Americans are destroying
> the ecosystem, they are doing so in Canada only by
> virtue of enthusiastic local cooperation.
>
> David Delaney, Ottawa, Canada
>
>
>
>
> Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
> Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Diepstraten F M J A

To: CanadaEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:09 AM

Subject: RE: [CanadaEnergy] A Lot of Gas but not in Canada

In this context and in the context of the softwood lumber issue you'll appreciate this quote (from one of my Internet buddies, a well-educated individual who works as a professor on a technical university):

 

"The Canadians don't like it, but their economy is, has been for more than century, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, a subsidiary enterprise of ours. Period. That's an inevitability: they have 10% of our population and they have us right on their doorstep, buying what they produce. If they had any sense they'd give the notion of nationhood a shove, join as new states, and help us for the **real** United States of America. Instead we ignore the pretense of separation and leave them to think it means something."

 

In case you misunderstood: "us" and "we" means the US, and "they" and "them" means Canada.

 

Frans

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CanadaEnergy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Michael,

I appreciate that Ontario has a strong industrial base and it is important
that it remain so but you should understand that its US centric ownership
forces Canada into a position of critical disadvantage, especially in times
of economic stress.  This scenario leads to a continual outflow of profits
that removes capital essential for both growth and R&D. It makes Canadian
industries more vulnerable to plant closures than their US counterparts. It
is somewhat of a paradox that international corporations, from which one
would expect rationalizations based on merit rather than patriotism, will
close a Canadian plant even if it is more viable and profitable than its US
ones. But they do, repeatedly, and this can be seen today where the recently
announced closures of ThomasBuilt Buses in Woodstock, Ontatio and Western
Star Trucks in Kelowna, British Columbia, both Freightliner companies,
rocked their respective towns to the core. Another more insidious
disadvantage has to do with political leverage, a situation where an
implicit threat of plant closure is used to harness Canadian political
leaders, severely restricting their actions on a wide variety of decisions
including the settlement of unfavorable trade disputes.

This last disadvantage is now being ruthlessly exercised. Just yesterday,
the US Department of Commerce hit Canada's lumber industry with a 12.6%
antidumping duty on top of a 19.2% trade tariff for alleged subsidization.
You must understand that these sanctions have nothing to do with dumping or
economic subsidization but has everything to do with US protectionism for
their inferior logging industry (see
www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-011es.html ). This sanction has already led
to the layoff of at least 30,000 Canadians with even more than that number
to come before Christmas. Now if Canada's leaders had any spine, which in
recent history they have repeatedly shown they lack, they would take
proactive action to deter this aggressive and ultimately illegal action. But
they won't Michael! And do you know why? The reason is simple and it
involves fear on the part of our leaders. The fact of the matter is that
Canada's cowardly politicians won't fight for Canadians, especially Western
Canadians, because they're afraid that even a threat of retaliation will see
Ontario's auto industry fall apart as US owners move their Canadian based
operations south.

As to American ownership of fast food franchises, I just added that to my
argument to show exactly how pervasive Americanization of our country is.
But even in that flatulent industry, you should not lose site of the ball.
I'm guessing as to the numbers here, but something like five percent of
every dollar earned by Canadian based franchisees flows directly south of
the border. And you can bet that just like profits in Ontario's auto
industry, this money does not go towards investment in Canada. And of
course, you shouldn't forget a tendency of US franchisers to force their
Canadian franchisees to support their preferred suppliers, which invariable
are almost exclusively US based.

As to firms like Ballard, a company that I personally admire for its
tenacity and ambition, it's important to realize that it has never earned a
cent of profit, that its potential for future profits is highly
questionable, and if its fuel cells ever take off, little if any of its
manufacturing will remain in Canada.

I appreciate your positive spin, Michael, but I disagree with it fully. Not
because I'm inherently negative, for in spite of my tone on this forum, I'm
not, but because in the past twenty years I've seen a continual erosion of
Canada's industrial base. This is most apparent in my home province of
British Columbia, an economically marginalized province rich in resources
but under attack by forces that seem to have a perverse need to drive this
beautiful province's secondary industries into the ground. For the past
twenty years, the logging industry has been repeatedly ravaged by American
trade sanctions. This behavior has literally ruined the lives of thousands
of Canadian's, some of whom have seen entire communities destroyed, all to
keep substandard lumber companies in the US in business.

In my home town of Kelowna, the cities major employer, Western Star Trucks,
a class 8 truck manufacturer that JD Power has repeatedly rated at the best
in terms of quality and customer satisfaction, was recently acquired by
Freightliner and within just months of the acquisition was marked for
closure so that the Western Star brand may be built in Freightliner's Oregon
plant, a plant that produces trucks that are repeatedly dead last in JD
Power's ratings. What is especially tragic about this closure, is that it
not only steals the goodwill created by a committed and high quality work
force, leaving severe distress and financial failure in its wake, it totally
destroys one of the only significant secondary industry in the province.
This industrial infrastructure will be exceedingly difficult to replace.

As to Canada holding its own, Michael, you're way off base, especially when
you take into consideration the country's rapidly aging population. Given
our social infrastructure, from medical plans to social assistance to
Canada's ill-fated pension plan to its huge public sector, which is
essentially a glorified welfare program, a strong and vibrant secondary and
tertiary industrial base is essential across the entire nation. That base
does not exist (outside of Ontario's foreign owned auto industry, of course)
nor will it ever come into existence while Canada subscribes dutifully to a
free trade agreement that is free in name only.

Ted Swarts
Kelowna, British Columbia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael DeWolf" <oiledleather@...>
To: <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 1:02 PM
Subject: [energyresources] Re: A Lot of Gas but not in Canada


> --- In energyresources@y..., "Ted Swarts" <tedswarts@h...> wrote:
> Or vehicle and heavy equipment
> > manufacturing where Ford and GM are the big guys and where
> absolutely zero
> > players are Canadian owned.
>
> Ontario has the second largest automotive industry, second only to
> Michigan.
>
>  Or restaurants where firms such as McDonalds,
> > Burger King, Wendy's and Arby's dominate the fat food segment. As to
> > forestry and lumber, Weyerhouser leads the pack. The list goes on
> and on and
> > it all spells U-S-A.
>
> I think large corporations are all the same - at the top - so it
> really doesn't matter *where* they are headquartered.
>
> On the flip side, we have a strong alternative energy industry.  With
> Ballard leading the pack, Stuart Energy, a Toronto company, being the
> lead company in Hydrogen electrolysers, and Solar Hydrogen Energy
> Corporation being the lead company in hydrogen thermolysers.
>
> It's not all black and white.  Considering that we're 1/10th the size
> of the USA, we hold our own.
>
> Michael Dewolf,
> Ontario, Canada
>
>
>
>
>
> Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
> Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

--- In energyresources@y..., "Ted Swarts" <tedswarts@h...> wrote:

> Canada has signed the Kyoto protocol and even though it was a
watered down
> version, it is at least a step in the right direction.

For which we haven't even come close to meeting.

  Our neighbor to the
> south, on the other hand, has done the opposite.

What would that be??

  As well, it has made
> explicit denunciations of conservation and alternative energy,
implementing
> policies that will do anything but improve the ecological mess we
are all
> now living in.

You mean the current administration.  I'd be willing to bet that on a
per capita basis, the US spends more than Canada on Alternative
energy.  I know they have a very strong geothermal program.

>
> As a matter of degree, Canada is bad but the US is F&(*OOFp[d[[f
[d;lgfl.

Canada, on a per capita basis, is *Barely* worse than the US.

> (they screwed our oil industry in the seventies, a tragic
> story that every Canadian should know but not more that 1 in a
thousand have
> a clue of)

I'd like to hear it.

Michael Dewolf

Alan Page wrote:

>To All,
>I had an interesting two minutes talking to Amory Lovins Saturday.  He
>claims to be the "God Father" of net energy studies on PV.  He said that
>the current energy pay back mirrors the economic payback - which he says
>is about 6 months in well designed situations and the energy cost of
>production is going down rapidly.  He was unwilling to give any details
>or sources!  He said that the information we have heard on this list is
>at  least 20 years behind the times.
>
I'm afraid Lovins doesn't like us very much. :-(   Actually we do have
up-to-date information.  Just last May, Dana Visalli forwarded some
correspondence with Karl Knapp, lead author of a frequently referenced,
peer-reviewed article on PV payback.  Here's a quote from that
correspondence at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/7823
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/7823:>
"A grid-tied PV system with all BOS and inverter, including losses and
actual operating conditions (derating from the 'standard conditions'
used to rate modules) is about 4-8 years."

When I queried Knapp and the ER list about the energy cost of the PV
system's share of the grid, I received no reply.  As far as I know, the
4-8 year estimate still doesn't include energy costs of workers or
administration either.  There are very significant energy costs in these
areas.  I don't know what else Knapp's analysis might leave out.

>In his discussions to a large group he did not recognize the effects of
>population on energy usage.  He was very positive about the utility of
>his hydrogen based fuel cell hyper cars which initially he expects to be
>connected to fueling stations connected with gas fueled fuel cells from
>which hydrogen would be derived as part of the larger fuel cell fuel
>conditioning process.
>
No net energy analysis of those systems either, right?  It looks like if
Lovins was the "god father" of net energy studies, his baby was
still-born and is but a distant memory now.  But why worry about such
petty details when the multitudes are willing to pay serious money to
hear unsubstantiated, optimistic claims about PV and H2?

Karl

Ted Swarts wrote:

<snip>

>As a matter of degree, Canada is bad but the US is F&(*OOFp[d[[f[d;lgfl.
>
>As to free trade, I believe in it, deeply, and in the early 80's I fought
>for it in my own inimitable and amazingly useless way. So I suppose I too am
>in some infinitesimally small way to blame for the mess Canada finds itself
>in. But in my defense, and in the defense of many other 'freedom fighters'
>:-), the free trade deal we are living with today has absolutely nothing to
>do with free trade but, on the American side at least, has everything to do
>with protectionism and exploitation.
>
Someone wrote an essay about how free trade between *equal* partners can
be mutually beneficial, but free trade between *unequal* partners is
just exploitation by another name.  Here's one link with an interview
that talks about this:
http://www.essential.org/monitor/hyper/issues/1990/11/mm1190_07.html

KD

http://www.economist.co.uk/science/displaystory.cfm?
story_id=842272&CFID=2053796&CFTOKEN=18615281

SUNSET FOR THE OIL BUSINESS?
Nov 1st 2001
From The Economist print edition


The world is about to run out of oil. Or perhaps not. It depends whom
you believe.

IF YOU think OPEC ministers are a conspiratorial cabal, you ought to
meet the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre (ODAC). This colourful group
is convinced that the world is perilously close to an oil shock
induced by scarcity, not politics. Several dozen of its members got
together recently in an auditorium at Imperial College, London, for a
peculiar planning session.

Leading lights of this movement, including Colin Campbell, a
geologist and author of "The Coming Oil Crisis", presented
technical data that supported their grim prognosis. Various experts
ridiculed rival analyses, done by America's Geological Survey and the
International Energy Agency (IEA), that contradicted their views. Dr
Campbell even decried the "amazing display of ignorance,
deliberate ignorance, denial and obfuscation" by governments,
industry and academics on this topic.

So is the oil really running out? The answer is easy: Yes. Nobody
seriously disputes the notion that oil is, for all practical
purposes, a non-renewable resource that will run out some day, be
that years or decades away. The harder question is determining when
precisely oil will begin to get scarce. And answering that question
involves scaling Hubbert's peak.

M. King Hubbert, a Shell geologist of legendary status among
depletion experts, forecast in 1956 that oil production in the United
States would peak in the early 1970s and then slowly decline, in
something resembling a bell-shaped curve. At the time, his forecast
was controversial, and many rubbished it. After 1970, however,
empirical evidence proved him correct: oil production in America did
indeed peak and has been in decline ever since.

Dr Hubbert's analysis drew on the observation that oil production in
a new area typically rises quickly at first, as the easiest and
cheapest reserves are tapped. Over time, reservoirs age and go into
decline, and so lifting oil becomes more expensive. Oil from that
area then becomes less competitive in relation to other fuels, or to
oil from other areas. As a result, production slows down and usually
tapers off and declines. That, he argued, made for a bell-shaped
curve.

His successful prediction has emboldened a new generation of
geologists to apply his methodology on a global scale. Chief among
them are the experts at ODAC, who worry that the global peak in
production will come in the next decade. Dr Campbell used to argue
that the peak should have come already; he now thinks it is just
round the corner. A heavyweight has now joined this gloomy chorus.
Kenneth Deffeyes of Princeton University argues in a lively new book
("The View from Hubbert's Peak") that global oil production
could peak as soon as 2004.


A slippery slope

That sharply contradicts mainstream thinking. America's Geological
Survey prepared an exhaustive study of oil depletion last year (in
part to rebut Dr Campbell's arguments) that put the peak of
production some decades off. The IEA has just weighed in with its
new "World Energy Outlook", which foresees enough oil to
comfortably meet demand to 2020 from remaining reserves. René
Dahan, one of ExxonMobil's top managers, goes further: with an
assurance characteristic of the world's largest energy company, he
insists that the world will be awash in oil for another 70 years.

Who is right? In making sense of these wildly opposing views, it is
useful to look back at the pitiful history of oil forecasting.
Doomsters have been predicting dry wells since the 1970s, but so far
the oil is still gushing. Nearly all the predictions for 2000 made
after the 1970s oil shocks were far too pessimistic. America's
Department of Energy thought that oil would reach $150 a barrel (at
2000 prices); even Exxon predicted a price of $100.

Michael Lynch of DRI-WEFA, an economic consultancy, is one of the few
oil forecasters who has got things generally right. In a new paper,
Dr Lynch analyses those historical forecasts. He finds evidence of
both bias and recurring errors, which suggests that methodological
mistakes (rather than just poor data) were the problem. In
particular, he faults forecasters who used Hubbert-style analysis for
relying on fixed estimates of how much "ultimately
recoverable" oil there really is below ground, in the industry's
jargon: that figure, he insists, is actually a dynamic one, as
improvements in infrastructure, knowledge and technology raise the
amount of oil which is recoverable.

That points to what will probably determine whether the pessimists or
the optimists are right: technological innovation. The first camp
tends to be dismissive of claims of forthcoming technological
revolutions in such areas as deep-water drilling and enhanced
recovery. Dr Deffeyes captures this end-of-technology mindset well.
He argues that because the industry has already spent billions on
technology development, it makes it difficult to ask today for new
technology, as most of the wheels have already been invented.
Yet techno-optimists argue that the technological revolution in oil
has only just begun. Average recovery rates (how much of the known
oil in a reservoir can actually be brought to the surface) are still
only around 30-35%. Industry optimists believe that new techniques on
the drawing board today could lift that figure to 50-60% within a
decade.

Given the industry's astonishing track record of innovation, it may
be foolish to bet against it. That is the result of adversity: the
nationalisations of the 1970s forced Big Oil to develop reserves in
expensive, inaccessible places such as the North Sea and Alaska,
undermining Dr Hubbert's assumption that cheap reserves are developed
first. The resulting upstream investments have driven down the cost
of finding and developing wells over the last two decades from over
$20 a barrel to around $6 a barrel. The cost of producing oil has
fallen by half, to under $4 a barrel.

Such miracles will not come cheap, however, since much of the world's
oil is now produced in ageing fields that are rapidly declining. The
IEA concludes that global oil production need not peak in the next
two decades if the necessary investments are made. So how much is
necessary? If oil companies are to replace the output lost at those
ageing fields and meet the world's ever-rising demand for oil, the
agency reckons they must invest $1 trillion in non-OPEC countries
over the next decade alone. Ouch.

inertia and entropy

P Arnett in Utah

----- Original Message -----
From: <sawwhet@...>
To: <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 09:07
Subject: [energyresources] Questions and Observations on U.S. Energy Flows


> I've been studing the 1999 U.S. energy flow diagram from Lawrence
> Livermore National Laboratory.
>
> http://www-energy.llnl.gov/U.S.EnFlow-99-EJ.pdf
>
> One of the things that stand out is how much energy is rejected in
> electricity generation and in transportation.  This brought up a
> number of questions.
>
> For example why is 68% of the energy in electricity generation lost?
> Is it the power distribution(i.e. conductivity of wires, step-up &
> step-down transformers) ?  Is it the conversion of heat to motion,
> and then motion to electrical current?  Does anyone know?  Is anyone
> asking these questions?  Supposing that only 50% of the energy
> generating electricity was lost,  then the U.S. would require 64%
> (23.4 exajoules vs 36.3 exajoules) of the primary energy to generate
> the same amount  of electricity (11.7 exajoules) that it requires now.
>  Is that a realistic assumption or goal?
>
> Similarly why is 80% of the energy in transportation lost?  Is it the
> limitations of reciprocating piston-crankshaft egines? Is it the
> mechanical losses in drivetrain transmissions?  Is it  aerodynamic
> drag on planes, trains and  automobiles?  Is it the rolling resistance
> of tires?  What is the biggest culprit in the energy loss in
> transportation?  Again, does anyone know? Again, is anyone asking
> these questions?   Again, supposing that only 50% of the energy was
> lost in transportation, then the U.S. would require  40% (11 exajoules
> vs 27.3 exajoules) of the primary energy to do the same amount of
> useful transportation (5.5 exajoules) that it requires now.  Am I
> looking at a reasonable assumption?
>
> Supposing for a moment that such improvements are somehow possible,
> those improvements would mean a net reduction of 25.8 exajoules in
> primary energy inputs.  That would certainly have positive economic,
> political (less reliance on foreign sources), and enviromental
> consequences without a change in useful energy use.
>
> Unfortunately, if current forecasts of relatively speedy fossil fuel
> depletion prove true,  even these changes will not  preclude a lower
> level of useful available energy in the US since 86% (88.6 exajoules)
> of primary energy is fossil fuels.
>
> I've not aware of  any proposals for increased efficiency of
> electricity generation or of transport in the  administration's energy
> plans.  The main public discussion seems to be either finding more
> sources of convetional fossil fuels, or increasing the supply of
> "alternative" energy sources, or using less energy (both input and
> output).  Considering how relatively energy inefficient electricity
> generation and transportation are, why isn't increasing the energy
> efficiency of both a major national goal?
>
> Michael Velik,
> Pennsylvania

Found on google. "I'd almost forgotten how screwed up Halliburton was
when Cheney took the job because it's in such good shape today" Matt
Simmons Aug 10,2000.
  --I seem to recall that Simmons was (perhaps still is) an advisor to
the administration. R Wilson M.D. volunteer internet liaison for L.F.
Ivanhoe (see: http://hubbert.mines.edu )

Jack Dingler wrote:

>Biomass will likely be far more important as a soil amendment and
>fertilizer than a fuel.

Mike Morin responds:

I concur completely, and reiterate and inculcate that no alternative
production strategies will be of use without fundamental structural demand
side management.

Secondly,  it will never be accomplished by the trickle down, patronizing
micro-enterprise "movement" that has become so foolishly trendy in the
community development corporation and "green"  "movements".

Thirdly, it is better late than never to restructure the economy based on
equity, sustainability, cooperation, community stewardship, conservation,
and equality (did I leave anything out?).


Jack,

Are you related to Chuck or Wendell?


Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: weaseldog2001@... <weaseldog2001@...>
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, November 01, 2001 11:33 AM
Subject: [energyresources] Re: not enough energy?


>Biomass will likely be far more important as a soil amendment and
>fertilizer than a fuel. Burning topsoil to produce energy would be
>just one more way to hurry a massive die-off event. As without
>topsoil, we cannot grow crops or produce more topsoil in quantity.
>
>Jack Dingler
>
>--- In energyresources@y..., Thomas J Stubbing <heat-win@c...> wrote:
>> Dear Garret,
>>
>> Your questions are clear and valid, but you omit biomass from your
>list to
>> which today's message headed "[energyresources] Rentech Press
>Release on GTL
>> Patent and CO2 sequestering" is relevant, as is Leonard Kater's
>message of
>> 7.2.01 pasted below.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Thomas J Stubbing
>>
>> Subject:
>>             [energyresources] A question about biomass
>>        Date:
>>             Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:37:14 +0100
>>       From:
>>             "Leonard Kater" <lgwkater@c...>
>>
>> Hi JIm,
>>
>> I can answer your question about the capacity of biomass to
>> outphase oil rather easily. Total Carbon from coal and oil which
>> is burned each year into atmosphere is far below 10 gigaton
>> Carbon.
>>
>> Total biomass in living plantlife in biosphere up till a depth of
>> 1 meter in soil is over 2000 gigaton Carbon; this far
>> outnumbers the need of burning up to 10 gigaton
>> Carbon from coal and oil in current economics.
>> (These data I took from http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm,
>> click "Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. 2000 ")
>>
><snip>
>
>
>
>Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
>Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

Are you planning to Americanize the Indian economy?

That would be a big mistake for everybuddy!


MM
-----Original Message-----
From: szoraster@... <szoraster@...>
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, November 01, 2001 11:33 AM
Subject: [energyresources] Re: Pipe Dreams: Afghanistan's Coming Gas Boom


>--- In energyresources@y..., K Davies <kdavies@i...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> So how do you figure the oil and gas are going to get from the
>> Caspian to Pakistan, India, and points east?  Do you figure it's
>> going to go through China or Iran?  Or do you figure it's just
>> going to stay where it is?  Given the size of the reserves and the
>> size of the markets, I think the size of Unocal is a red herring.
>>
>> KD
>
>
>And maybe the Indians will get some of their growing energy needs at
>home:
>
>http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?
>pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3L5MQXGTC&live=true&tagid=ZZZCWHK1B0C
>
>
>Cairn's confidence over India grows
>Financial Times Online
>By Matthew Jones in London
>
>
>Cairn Energy, the Scottish oil and gas group, on Wednesday said it
>was "increasingly confident" that its interests in the Krishna-
>Godavari Basin, offshore eastern India, could be developed
>commercially.
>
>Test results for its fourth consecutive deepwater discovery in block
>KG-DWN-98/2 produced an oil flow of some 6,000 barrels a day and 3.9m
>cubic feet of gas a day. They also indicated recoverable oil reserves
>of between 40-60m barrels, bringing the total net reserve potential
>of the block to "at least 200m barrels of oil equivalent".
>
>Cairn has become the foreign oil company with the largest interests
>working in the region. It has about 90 per cent of its activities and
>reserves in and around the subcontinent, including offshore gas in
>Bangladesh and off the west coast of India.
>
>Bill Gammell, chief executive, said he was "delighted" by the latest
>find and would now move the group's drilling rig to a further
>prospect within the block, located 15km to the southwest. The group's
>shares rose 2.6 per cent on the news in early trading in London to
>299p.
>
>Cairn holds 100 per cent of the equity in KG-DWN-98/2 but said
>earlier this year it would most likely seek a larger partner because
>it lacked the technical expertise to work in water up to 1,000 metres
>deep. It has also admitted that marketing the gas would be
>a "challenge" because it is far from the most industrialised parts of
>India in the west of the country.
>
>The group already produces about 50,000 barrels of oil a day and 1m
>cu m of gas from the nearby Raava fields as part of a consortium with
>the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India, Videocon Petroleum and
>Ravva Oil of Singapore.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
>Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

At 09:56 AM 11/1/01 -0800, Ted Swarts wrote:
>Canada has signed the Kyoto protocol and even
>though it was a watered down version, it is at
>least a step in the right direction.

Will we implement it?  I already see the National
Post lining up its PR machine for business against
implementing Kyoto.  Most of the acceptance of
Kyoto was, I believe, by default because a lot of
Canadians wanted it and business executives were
not really paying attention. When (if) it starts
to bite, watch compliance get redefined, watered
down, and postponed again and again.  When this
happens, most Canadians will be shaking their
heads at that dumb Kyoto agreement, as we will
have been taught to do by "balanced" journalism,
"impartially" presenting "opposing" views. The US
doesn't make us Canadians do that. We allow it to
be done to us by Canadians. Anyway, I think this
issue is a sideshow to the headliner that entertains
this group.

>As a matter of degree, Canada is bad but the US is
>F&(*OOFp[d[[f[d;lgfl.

We are every bit as messed up, if not more.  Also,
I find our stance less attractive, because
hypocritical. We whine about US intransigence to
the environment but still kick and fight to get
our noses into the US trough at the cost of
environment, social justice, fundamental
liberties, and freezing our grandchildren
in the dark.  Are you aware that on most measures
of pollution and ecological damage, Canada does at
least as badly as the US? In some areas we are
worse.

>But in my defense, and in the defense of many
>other 'freedom fighters' :-), the free trade deal
>we are living with today has absolutely nothing to
>do with free trade but, on the American side at
>least, has everything to do with protectionism and
>exploitation.

It's true the US is using its power to extort the
benefits of both free trade and protectionism. The
opponents of free trade told you it would be so
when you were fighting for free trade.  Many
Canadian proponents of free trade knew it was
true, even though they denied it. It did not
matter to them because they saw correctly that
they would get richer at the expense of  the
elimination of democratic control over business
and Canadian natural resources.

The defects of NAFTA that allow unfair
unilateral treatment by the US of its partners are
as much a matter of the intrinsic power imbalance
as the terms of the treaty.  The real issue is
that even if all such imbalances were removed by
magic, one of the main purposes of the "ideal"
free trade agreement is to remove democratic
control over the activities of business that
affect local (i.e. Canadian AND American)
democratic interests.

>Of course, Canada should of known that dealing
>with a dominant player like the US, with a history
>of protectionism against Canada (they screwed our
>oil industry in the seventies, a tragic story that
>every Canadian should know but not more that 1 in
>a thousand have a clue of), that a free trade
>agreement was doomed to suffer from manipulation
>by the dominant player. And indeed that shameless
>manipulation has come to pass.

This is the whine of a con man conned. "We" did
know it. "We" just did not care, and by and large,
still don't, when the alternatives are considered.

>The fact that the United States of America
>considers itself as the foundation for global
>freedom is of course a laugh when their trade
>practices are examined in detail.

Oink, oink. Oh, those terrible Americans! Let me
at that trough. I am just as ready as the next
radical to attack US policy on many fronts,
including this one, but the real laugh is any
favorable comparison in most of these areas of
Canada with America.  The valid target is the
interests in both countries that lead to such
policies.  In the nature of things, our only
democratic leverage is on the Canadians who want
to sell us out.

>To any Americans following this thread, I hope you
>know that as we speak, Canadian soldiers are
>heading to the Middle East to help your men and
>women in your fight, ....

Oh puhleeese. Give me a break.

David Delaney, Canadian, Ottawa