The Energy Thread

drank a ton of their crude-aid

that sweet, sweet crude-aid

To be fair, it's rare that anyone's price speculation is correct about anything.

i will proudly point to my own history of price speculation, as exemplified by a comment i made in early 2003 at a bar, when, just before passing out, i drunkenly slurred to my friend "price of oil...it's only going to go up...peak oil dude, it's going up...*BLURRRGHGG!!*"

in other news, the U.S. Energy Information Administration's new International Energy Outlook (IEO) is out, and yet again, it forecasts massive increases in oil consumption over the next 25 years:

http://i51.tinypic.com/19l45z.jpg

big surprise. and how will we produce enough oil to meet the increased demand? by reversing the trends of the last 40 years, that's how! take the U.S. as an example. The IEO forecasts that we'll increase our production from 9.1 million barrels/day in 2009 to 12.8 million b/d in 2035, an increase of 3.7 million b/d. 1.6 million b/d of that increase would come from conventional sources of oil, and the other 2.1 from unconventional (oil shale, etc).

focusing in on the 1.6 million b/d increase of conventional fuels. U.S. conventional oil production peaked in 1970/71. looking at the trend since then, would anyone in their right mind project an increase of oil production 25 years into the future?

http://i54.tinypic.com/xgft08.jpg

more re yergin

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2011/09/more_thoughts_o_4.html

Even in the absence of these facts, there's a real problem with Yergin's line of argument for the question at hand, and it troubles me because I have seen the same argument raised almost every time someone takes the skeptic's position on the question of peak oil. Suppose I was trying to convince you that you are a mortal being, and your counterargument was, "but that's what you said in 2005, and I didn't die then! You said it again in 2007 and 2009, and each time you were wrong. Why should I believe you this time?"

Perhaps acknowledging one's own mortality is a similar proposition to embracing the possibility that global oil production need not continue to rise forever.

and for those that thirst for even more yergin rebuttals:

The Oil Drum - Peak Oil - Now or Later? A Response to Daniel Yergin

feel like TOD could permanently hire someone whose only task would be to rebut Yergin

yergin get beat

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/business/energy-environment/in-north-dakota-wasted-natural-gas-flickers-against-the-sky.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

thank u fracking

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/business/us-says-some-chinese-subsidies-violate-trade-rules.html

God forbid a country spend money on supporting renewable energy.

this whole article is just ugh

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204226204576602524023932438.html

I can't even get through a WSJ article anymore, even when I navigate their expecting to be outraged. it's fucked up.

meanwhile, there's been some crazy news leaking out regarding the Keystone XL pipeline in recent weeks, in particular the way that Dept of State has been handling the hearings and environmental impact statement (EIS).

- it turns out that the company that conducted the EIS for the Dept of State, Cardno Entrix, works very closely with TransCanada, the fuckers that want to build the pipeline. In fact, TransCanada is one of Cardno Entrix's biggest clients. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
- in fact, it turns out that Dept of State let TransCanada manage the entire bidding process for the EIS, and TransCanada recommended Cardno Entrix for the contract! ENORMOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST

McKibben:

In other words: The pipeline company recommended the firm they wanted to review them, a firm that listed the pipeline company as one of their major clients. Perhaps—just perhaps—that explains why the review found that Keystone XL would have “limited adverse environmental impacts,” a finding somewhat at odds with the conclusion of 20 of the nation’s top scientists who wrote the president this summer to say it would be an environmental disaster.

And perhaps it’s why the report notes only briefly in an addendum the disastrous spill of tar sands oil in the Kalamazoo River last year—35 miles of the river remains closed, and so far the taxpayers have shelled out $500 million to help clean up. Is there any way (besides reading the newspapers and talking to local officials) that Cardno Entrix could possibly have known about the Kalamazoo spill? Well yes. Cardno Entrix—get ready for it—was in fact hired by that pipeline company to assess the damage of that spill.

- Finally, Cardno Entrix administered the Dept of State hearings through the Midwest (every state that the pipeline passes through has an official hearing on the issue).

- Added to that is the long-known news that the primary lobbyist for TransCanada, Paul Elliot, was also a primary advisor for Hilary Clinton during her 2008 run for president. Now he's lobbying for her to grant the Keystone XL permit. What does the U.S. govt have to say about this?

this:

Kerri-Ann Jones, assistant secretary at the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, said following public hearings regarding the pipeline in Washington that the State Department was committed to an impartial and transparent review of the pipeline.

"Past relationships are not of importance," she said in response to queries about Elliot.

FUCK

Sorry, "McKibben" above should read "Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein", since I guess they co-wrote the article. Another quote:

This is quite possibly the biggest potential scandal of the Obama years. But there’s a danger that it will go ignored for three reasons

First, it’s so incredibly blatant that it’s hard to believe—neither of us are naifs, but we are still astonished that they’d show their industry bias this clearly. There were plenty of other signs, of course—emails released last week, for instance, showed Department officials cheerleading for the pipeline. But the Entrix connection is truly mind-boggling. It’s the kind of thing Dick Cheney might have done, on a particularly sloppy day.

not to mention that an oil leakage from a similar pipeline, that happened a year ago, is still being cleaned up and costing much more than they thought it would

http://www.freep.com/article/20111008/NEWS05/110080367/EPA-orders-Enbridge-do-more-oil-spill-cleanup-Kalamazoo-River

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/animal-fat-replaces-crude-oil-in-f16s-as-biofuels-head-to-war-commodities.html

The U.S. Air Force is set to certify all of its 40-plus aircraft models to burn fuels derived from waste oils and plants by 2013, three years ahead of target, Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary Kevin Geiss said. The Army wants 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2025. The Navy and Marines aim to shift half their energy use from oil, gas and coal by 2020.
“Reliance on fossil fuels is simply too much of a vulnerability for a military organization to have,” U.S. Navy Secretary Raymond Mabus said in an interview. “We’ve been certifying aircraft on biofuels. We’re doing solar and wind, geothermal, hydrothermal, wave, things like that on our bases.”

What a bunch of hippies!

But yeah, I do think the military's embrace of clean energy is a powerful argument to make with a subset of people who don't gone a shit about the environment or the wellbeing of humanity but might care about the natl security significance

um now what

http://www.smu.edu/News/2011/geothermal-24oct2011.aspx

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/science/earth/inquiry-into-keystone-xl-pipeline-permit-process.html?ref=us

Obama's gonna wait to make this decision until it is most politically expedient

TV news screen in office elevator mentioned oil pipeline protest yesterday morn, I smiled a secret "ilxor in the news" smile.

the actual planned protest (circling the white house, we had about 13K people, awesome) went very well, but i was a little bummed that none of the coverage seemed to mention the spontaneous takeover of the streets that happened directly afterward with hundreds of people carrying a giant mock pipeline around various streets in downtown DC, walking up to the American Petroleum Institute and creating a ruckus. that was pretty much the most amazing and joyous part of the entire day, and it was so great to see various bystanders cheering us on, like the fire department, bus drivers, and so on.

http://i41.tinypic.com/73f3wl.jpg

World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/31/OMFG.jpg

Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline delayed!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/10/us-usa-pipeline-idUSTRE7A64O920111110

would have preferred a denial of the permit rather than a delay, but still, this is fucking awesome

that's good... I guess? like I noted above about O making this decision when it's politically expedient, after he wins election he won't have anything to lose (politically anyway) by approving the pipeline. environmentalists will have zero leverage against him.

so I dunno.

yeah, definitely. with all of the momentum built up now in opposition, the landscape in early 2013 is bound to be more favorable for him, if he wants to please Big Oil. which, let's face it, he will.

but i think it's about the most favorable thing that was likely to happen right now. as much as i believe that he should reject it right now, it was exceedingly unlikely that he ever would.

A pair trade for the cynical:

short: TransCanada (Keystone XL pipeline to U.S.)
long: Enbridge (Northern Gateway pipeline to China)

good, long article by naomi klein at the nation.

This is where the intersection between hard-right ideology and climate denial gets truly dangerous. It’s not simply that these “cool dudes” deny climate science because it threatens to upend their dominance-based worldview. It is that their dominance-based worldview provides them with the intellectual tools to write off huge swaths of humanity in the developing world. Recognizing the threat posed by this empathy-exterminating mindset is a matter of great urgency, because climate change will test our moral character like little before. The US Chamber of Commerce, in its bid to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon emissions, argued in a petition that in the event of global warming, “populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations.” These adaptations are what I worry about most.

How will we adapt to the people made homeless and jobless by increasingly intense and frequent natural disasters? How will we treat the climate refugees who arrive on our shores in leaky boats? Will we open our borders, recognizing that we created the crisis from which they are fleeing? Or will we build ever more high-tech fortresses and adopt ever more draconian antiimmigration laws? How will we deal with resource scarcity?

We know the answers already. The corporate quest for scarce resources will become more rapacious, more violent. Arable land in Africa will continue to be grabbed to provide food and fuel to wealthier nations. Drought and famine will continue to be used as a pretext to push genetically modified seeds, driving farmers further into debt. We will attempt to transcend peak oil and gas by using increasingly risky technologies to extract the last drops, turning ever larger swaths of our globe into sacrifice zones. We will fortress our borders and intervene in foreign conflicts over resources, or start those conflicts ourselves. “Free-market climate solutions,” as they are called, will be a magnet for speculation, fraud and crony capitalism, as we are already seeing with carbon trading and the use of forests as carbon offsets. And as climate change begins to affect not just the poor but the wealthy as well, we will increasingly look for techno-fixes to turn down the temperature, with massive and unknowable risks.

As the world warms, the reigning ideology that tells us it’s everyone for themselves, that victims deserve their fate, that we can master nature, will take us to a very cold place indeed. And it will only get colder, as theories of racial superiority, barely under the surface in parts of the denial movement, make a raging comeback. These theories are not optional: they are necessary to justify the hardening of hearts to the largely blameless victims of climate change in the global South, and in predominately African-American cities like New Orleans.

Heard about an optimistic film Carbon Nation via Jim Puplava's Financial Sense Newshour yesterday. Thought Z S and others here might be interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLs73KJI36w

thanks for sharing that, Sanpaku. i think it's sad that so many people don't understand the scientific method, but there are so many reasons to decarbonize the economy even if we lived in a world where climate change wasn't happening. those can be powerful arguments against people who invest 100% of their research time into reading denier garbage but 0% thinking about thinking about the benefits of moving on to the 21st century. i just hope those people can be directed to films like this.

At a Natural Resources Committee hearing Friday on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) mistakenly addressed the professor as "Dr. Rice" while calling his testimony "garbage."

Brinkley interrupted, saying: "It's Dr. Brinkley, Rice is a university," and "I know you went to Yuba [Community College in California] and couldn't graduate — "

Then it was Young's turn to interrupt. "I'll call you anything I want to call you when you sit in that chair," he told the witness. "You just be quiet."

Brinkley countered: "You don't own me. I pay your salary. I work for the private sector and you work for the taxpayer."

Panel chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) intervened, asking Young to suspend and — after being interrupted several times by the witness — threatening to remove Brinkley from the panel unless he agreed to only speak when asked to reply to questions.

NRDC has been writing pretty solid commentary on Keystone. This piece takes on the economic argument that proponents have been using to gain support.

Cornell also did some interesting research on the likely impact the pipeline would have on job creation.

Brinkley countered: "You don't own me. I pay your salary. I work for the private sector and you work for the taxpayer."

ZINGGGG!

I dunno where to put this so

urine power!

Anyone on ilx work in energy or environment?

nope

Z S just made this thread for shits

and by "Z S" i mean "Ed" but w/e

i work at 3PA, but not nearly as much on env. policy issues as i want to. are you an enviro/energy guy, benjamin?

I work at Rocky Mountain Institute. It's a non profit founded by Amory Lovins.

RMI! Amory is the shit.

there is a picture of my company's founders meeting with Amory in our lunchroom.

I work for an energy consulting firm in San Francisco - we do a lot of energy efficiency program development and management, renewable generation projects, strategic energy planning, etc.

Anyone on ilx work in energy or environment?

Me - currently implementing the first US smartgrid distribution software system.

oh the RMI is great. I took a tour of the building, p dope. also credit "natural capital" for making me able to have conversations with my libertarian dad that at least felt a little productive

Anyone on ilx work in energy or environment?
I do, and I just saw that Obama declined the expansion of Keystone XXL, anyone have thoughts on this?