rigorousintuition.ca

Humanity has more problems than just polluting energy sources. And the problems with their distribution. Hell I think its a great thought.

Many of my neighbours are off the grid, most rely on generators as well as solar wind and hydro set ups.

yet apparantly some of the best solar panels in the world are made in Australia, and exported to germany to the massive market there. Thats socialism in action over there, as govt has promoted the "green" agenda for a while.

They aren't available round here apparantly. Its a common complaint.

Solar panels are also potentially polluting in their own way aren't they, but there are other options for catching solar energy that may be cleaner.

They are not perfect yet. But many people do fine with them and minimal genie use.

But they don't have the average western "standard" of living.

Can't use the playstation while the washing machine and dishwasher are on for example. Computers usually work.

Less tv gets watched. It isn't a bad thing. but it may require a change of attitude among many western people, and then as the standard of living skyrockets in asia, many many more.

That would not be an excuse for depopulation tho. The only excuse for any human depopulation of earth (other than wholesale completely free choice, unimaginable to me) is moving off planet IMO.

In Spain, solar panels on new build and refurbs are mandatory.

http://www.progress.org/2004/energy37.htm

We are looking really closely at energy issues as they relate to housing design in the UK at the level of individual buildings and at estate layout level too. There are a few new house designs that require virtually zero energy for heating.

You made a comment that had me wagging my head in agreement - The benefit of watching less TV - I wouldn't allow one of those things into my house!

You might have heard of a concept known as "Powerdown". A lot of what you said synchs with Powerdown which is essentially way less consumption as a response to shrinking energy supplies. A less intensive lifestyle might lead us back to the concept of community where we all co-operate instead of mindlessly competing with one another and screwing up our lives in the process.

JoseF, i agree demand is the sadly less mentioned side of the equation, and 'an even cheaper and far more abundant energy source than oil' may well be more of a disaster than the present. Population is too something we need to learn to talk about without fainting, i think real provision of sex ed & birth control could make great progress there, accompanied by less violence against women and a resurgence of personal-to-collective responsibility.

stickdog99 wrote:As long as replacement power sources are non-polluting, renewable, and highly localized and decentralized, what's the problem?

The sun still is still shining (just about everywhere) and the wind is still blowing (just about everywhere).

Imagine that cold fusion were true and everybody could heat and power their homes and run their clean transportation for about $1 a year. What would be the problem again? The fact that massive human depopulation would be harder to justify?

Renewable energy techs exist, but all real working ones i know have practical limitations and market obstacles that don't go away by wishing. Sufficient tech exists to avoid population crash from resource depletion & climate change (this is my most-magical belief, not counting biophilia) but only for a majorly powered-down civilisation; '90%' in West according to assessments by George Monbiot & by ACF head Ian Lowe. Do you see that happening? Thats why i get a little testy - we're buying dieoff, every day, and feelgood it'll be okay fluff, or reactionary 'its a hoax' #%*&, are just smokescreens for business as usual (ie. let TPTB sort it out amongst themselves).

History has a 100% track record when it comes to wiping out civilisations.

Our civilisation is probably more precarious than any previous one. The huge population boom since the 18th century has only been possible due to fertilser and pesticide based agriculture. Take those out of the industry (which is what it has become) and the simple question arises - how do we grow enough to feed everyone let alone move it around over long distances and into big urban areas every day?

There are warning signs over food production already. Grain output has fallen significantly over the last couple of years, for example.

The consequences of PO and PG being real are alarming. What is the fallback position? We don't have one but I bet the PTB do.

Here’s something that I learned today about the peak oil theory that I didn’t know that seals my skepticism about its validity. The theory of Peak Oil was invented by Marion King Hubbert in 1956. Who did Marion King Hubbert work for? You guessed it. Shell Oil.

A good analogy me thinks

Peak Oil = Myth / Supplier Controlled Markets = Reality
by joelado
Wed Sep 6th, 2006 at 10:04:34 PM EST

The price of oil in today's market has little to do with supply and demand. There is no disputing the real effects of supply demand when they are real and when there is no real control over the marketplace by suppliers, in other words a real free market. However, there are other sides of economics that are not widely discussed at universities and in economic circles. They are not much discussed because the field of economics focuses on free markets. The other sides of economics are not economics at all but market control and market manipulation. What I am talking about is not free markets or markets controlled by governments, but markets controlled by suppliers.

When I write economic pieces I sometimes cringe at the thought that I have to delve into a subject that is mysterious and sometimes difficult to understand for many people. You can imagine how I feel when I have to talk about a much more complicated subject with a much higher degree of difficulty in understanding. What I need to talk to you about in this piece requires me to talk about the factors that lay outside the core of basic economics. There are two areas that effect basic economic principles so that they may not respond based on typically understood economic assumptions and principles. These are "Effecting Variables" and "Supplier Controlled Markets." Effecting Variables is a branch of economics that when studying economics gets touched upon lightly when we read in our books about "the likes and tastes" of consumers. Basic economics talks about the car market, this branch would then explore things like red cars, sports cars and the like. When talking about the oil market, however, we are talking about Supplier Controlled Markets.




Supplier Controlled Markets are markets in which the suppliers have the ability to manipulate the market price by withholding product in order to increase prices, they may have greater elasticity in pricing because alternatives are at a minimum. The cost of production is low, so when the suppliers desire they may reduce prices to discourage the development of alternatives. The suppliers may own all of or tightly control the entire supply chain. The suppliers are wealthy enough to buy possible game changing alternatives or manipulate government and sources of supply to preclude or control their entry into the market. They may even pay for the scuttling of alternatives.





Supplier Controlled Markets may have suppliers who partake in the practice I call patent shelving. Patent shelving is to do the research and development to find innovative alternatives, patent them, and then not put them into production. The reason for not putting the new innovation into production would be because it would require them to build a new factory and render their previous investment in the older technology obsolete, thereby negating the benefit from their original investment. They may patent shelve to keep competitors from introducing game changing technology that competitors could possibly develop.





Other activities that Supplier Controlled Market suppliers may take part in are manipulation of the news media to fabricate reasons for price increases and decreases. These price increases or decreases would be unrelated to actual supply and demand since the control and elasticity of price gives them a wide area to operate within. Supplier Controlled Markets don't operate under the principles of Monopoly because pricing at monopoly pricing would have a profound effect on the economy and would most likely bring government regulation to the very market that the suppliers currently hold all the controls to. They don't act like Oligopolies because all the suppliers benefit from the market manipulations that keep the market supplier controlled.





It is a complicated concept but think of it this way. Let us say you are in a pond. The pond represents the motive fuel market. It includes all those who are trying to make alternatives, government and other industries. The lake is fed by krill pockets that only Great White sharks have the ability to drill holes for. The alternatives are minnows using resources other than krill to keep alive. The government is represented by whales in the lake, but at this point these are only baleen whales with no teeth. The major oil companies are Great White sharks. They control the krill. The other industries here are the smaller sharks, they are distributors of krill, and industries that rely on krill to make or operate their products. If the alternative minnows get big enough to be noticed then the sharks quickly eat them before anyone can see that there was an alternative to krill. We, the consumer are the fisherman on the lake. We basically have no choice but to choose krill fed fish, there are virtually no alternatives. The Great White sharks have various ways to control the market. They can hold back on krill, they can not drill for new krill and others. What they don't want is for the whales to take away their control of the lake. The whales will and can take over control of the lake if the fisherman and the krill fed fish push them to do so. So the Great White sharks make sure that the whales are fed and that the fisherman sees some growth of alternative minnows just enough to keep the fisherman from pushing the whale to take over the lake. The Great White sharks hold back on the production of krill to get the most money for their supply just long enough for there to be a visable growth of alternative minnows and the fisherman to feel that there is a free market economy. As long as that is in place the Great White sharks are in control. When the alternative minnows become better established and look to threaten the krill market, the Great White sharks suddenly discover large amounts of krill and release it into the marketplace at low prices thereby destroying the more expensive alternative minnow market and leaving investors reeling from the experience of having tried to bolster alternative markets. Once all the alternative minnows are back to only holding the smallest part of the market, the backyard tinkerer and the do-it-your-selfer, krill prices will again begin to rise and the cycle of the Supplier Controlled Market begins once again.





The factors of the Supplier Controlled Market are that consumers don't have ready access to competitively priced alternatives, that government plays a hands-off roll in the marketplace, that the suppliers act in consort for the benefit of the group, but are careful not to show their hand as a Monopoly by consort, which is to say that to the public they look like separate companies but in reality they act as one to control the market place. The only effective way that Supplier Controlled Markets can be made free markets or fair to the consumer and to alternatives is through government intervention. The sinister side of Supplier Controlled Markets is that they know this and in response they will attempt to manipulate government, public opinion, and politics to maintain government officials in power that will continue a hands-off policy towards their markets.





In the United States the motive fuel market is a Supplier Controlled Market. In the last two weeks while I was away on vacation in the mid-west I saw the price of gasoline go from $3.15 a gallon to $2.65. That is roughly a 16% decrees in price in 1/26th of a year. A price collapse of that magnitude in the housing market would be considered a crash of unprecedented proportions. If coal, or corn should see such a drop there would be alarm bells ringing in all commodities markets and all of Wall Street. Why is this kind of price drop not considered a disaster for the major gasoline producers? Why is this kind of price drop not being followed up by firings of executives and announcements of major expenditure cutbacks and layoffs? Because the margins for oil companies on gasoline products are tremendous. The industry knows that this unprecedented drop in prices is not due to a sudden extreme overproduction anomaly or the miss calculations of inventory creating a mammoth over supply situation, which would have surprisingly occurred in only a two week period. Wall Street and the media clearly understand that such price drops are merely price manipulations by the oil companies for the purpose of securing a favorable government that will not regulate this Supplier Controlled Market.





If there was any example about how clearly the vocation and the public trust has been eroded from our media, and how ineffective our government has become in protecting the consumer from nar-do-well industries, it is this one. If we really want to see alternative fuels take hold against oil, if we really want to free ourselves from funding terrorist, if we really want to have an impact on global warming, we are going to have to vote for people in our government that will take the oil companies to task and regulate this industry. We will have to push legislators to stop market manipulation by oil companies and provide room for alternatives to grow. We must also make sure that there is legislation in place that will prevent oil companies from grabbing hold of these alternative fuel companies and controlling them. There is much to do, but first choose your political representatives wisely. Make sure that they are committed to you and not to the Great White sharks providing them with krill.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/9/6/22434/73923

Osculum Infame wrote:Here’s something that I learned today about the peak oil theory that I didn’t know that seals my skepticism about its validity. The theory of Peak Oil was invented by Marion King Hubbert in 1956. Who did Marion King Hubbert work for? You guessed it. Shell Oil.

What a sleuth you are Osculum Infame, you obviously haven't yet read my very first post, or any other primer on peak oil, because they pretty much all mention Hubbert working for Shell.

I'm happy for you if this monumental discovery 'seals [your] skepticism', perhaps you can now share with us how this conspiracy works, as the title and many of my posts to this thread invite. Saying Hubbert 'invented' peak oil is pretty silly too, more like discovered or noticed the peak and decline seen in every oil well and field.

I only skimmed your undiscussed copy'n'paste on supplier-controlled markets, maybe you could explain its significance. I'd believe you wrote it yourself its so full of unsupported claims: "The price of oil in today's market has little to do with supply and demand." - groundbreaking stuff, if only 'joelado', or you, had an ounce of proof.

I thought this seemed relevant to the discussion. Thought the article only uses the standard energy independence argument, which may well be enough justification for this type of research, it is also what I would expect if the US military is preparing for a global reduction in oil production.

I thought it was also interesting that the target craft is the B-52, which is best known for pre-JDAM carpet bombing capability. One idea I've seen floating around lately is that the satellite communications that much of smart bomb tech is dependent upon may prove vulnerable to the weapons and/or countermeasuers if the conflict were to involve more capable adversaries like the Russia and/or China.

December 29, 2006: The United States Air Force has been developing and testing new synthetic fuels. Why would the Air Force be looking into such fuels? The answer is that these new fuels will be much less reliant on less-than-stable sources. This is not a minor detail. If armies marched on their stomachs in Napoleon's time, modern mechanized armies – relying on tanks, planes, helicopters, and trucks – are marching on their fuel supplies.

Germany's fuel situation in the latter stages of World War II is a classic example of how modern armies are vulnerable to disruptions of their fuel supplies. In the 1944 Ardennes offensive, German plans hinged on the capture of American fuel dumps. By the end of the war, the Luftwaffe was not even able to amount a hundred sorties a day, due to a shortage of fuel.

The new fuels being tested on the B-52 come from the Fischer-Tropsch process. This method is often used to get useable liquid fuels from coal or other non-oil-based fuels. First developed in the early 1940s, this technique was used, late in World War II, by Nazi Germany to get fuel for its tanks, planes, and other vehicles. South Africa also used this process to meet its energy needs while it was under economic sanctions in the 1980s.

What does this alternate energy mean for the United States? It has nearly 250 billion tons of coal – almost the total of the next two largest countries, Russia and China (271 billion tons total). That is the basis for a lot of synthetic fuel. Natural gas is another source – and the United States has 204 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves. In addition to this, there are reported estimates of shale deposits containing 1.8 trillion barrels of oil.

That is, in and of itself, significant fuel reserves. In a very real sense, the United States, but pursuing synthetic fuels will have great benefits. If these tests pay off, the United States could find itself better able to train its forces stateside. This will only enhance the advantage the United States will have. – Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)

Sorry, I forgot the link.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlog/ ... 61229.aspx

Yup, the US military is taking PO seriously, and not just recently either. If the guys with guns aren't sure that supplies are sufficient, where does that put us peasants?

Pentagon and Peak Oil: A Military Literature Review
Sohbet Karbuz, Energy Bulletin
Until the recent oil price hikes and world wide discussions on the future of oil, Peak Oil was nearly absent in military publications. Now, things have changed. This article attempts to provide a US military literature review on Peak Oil and related issues.
first published July 13, 2006.
http://www.energybulletin.net/18056.html

America’s strategic imperative: a “Manhattan Project” for energy
Lt. Col. John M. Amidon, Joint Forces Quarterly
The current world energy situation poses a national threat unparalleled in 225 years... Concurrent with rising demand [for oil] are indications that world production may soon peak, followed by permanent de­cline and shortage. Moreover, most of the remaining oil is concentrated in distant, politically hostile locations, inviting interdiction by enemies.
first published March 5, 2006.
http://www.energybulletin.net/13461.html

USAF fuel costs blowout cuts weapons research funding
Amy Butler, Aviation Week and Space Technology
The Pentagon is discovering it's not immune from the high gas prices that have overwhelmed taxpayers' checkbooks and dampened summer travel plans across the U.S. Defense Dept. planners are now estimating fuel costs may add as much as $4 billion to what was already expected to bc a shortfall of nearly $6 billion in Fiscal 2007 and each year following. This nearly doubles the predicted annual deficit of about $10 billion.
first published August 7, 2005.
http://www.energybulletin.net/7701.html

Yeah, alternative energy might be OK for everyone else, but the US military will be absolutely screwed without fuel.

But that thought raises some pretty horrible spectres of various countries all fighting it out for the last of the oil, burning most of whats left in the process.

And yet, despite the fact that he worked for Shell, Hubbert manage to predict the peak of US oil production to within a six months precision (he predicted it for 6 months before it actuall happened, sometimes in 71 or 72, I am not 100% sure) about 15 years before it happened. Consider this: a country's oil production is basically the aggregate of its regional oil fields; the planet's oil production is the aggregate of the all the country's oil productions. We have seen regions peak and countries peak. Why is it so hard to imagine the planet will peak?

Joe, regarding your posts: I am 100% in agreement that distribution of energy is probably almost as important as its production, and decentralization is an absolute must for all kinds of reasons. Still, intensive productions are required in some areas of production and industry, and those will have problems. I myself am about 80% independent from the grid here, through a mix of reduction of demand (mine, through all kinds of setups including more efficient machines, some basic rules about using them etc)) and alternative set ups I have (solar heating for all water, wind and solar for some electricity). I must say though, that I have not managed to "economize" money (indeed, it cost me a lot of it), since at current prices of kwh I am still many, many years away from paying my electricity production bill (but I think that future increases will bring this time frame down, just this month electricty went up 6%); but I am basically independent, and if catastrophe hit, I could certainly manage at a good share of my current standards of energy.

At the same time, my family is a partner in a pottery business which uses very powerful electrical ovens to fire the pieces. Where would this business go to find the high intensity energy production it needs? I don't think it is conceivable at this point that a decentralized, purely local or pindividual set up could cater to it, so there is still a need for a grid and a large scale distribution of energy. Large scale has some cost advantages too, and these frequently translate into ecological benefits. So it's kinda of a difficult scenario to predict.

Stickdog, in the end I agree with you that a source of energy such as you imagine would probably be more good than bad, even though it would create massive problems also. Still, if only in terms of energy generation for the third world countries (who are starting to feel the pinch of high priced oil and for whom the solutions in terms of energy are frequently ecologically catastrophic) or of breaking the vast oligopolies of oil and energy corporations, such a power source would be a godsend.

The major challenge of the 21st (and later!) centuries is how to engineer aa powerdown and a population reduction to a manageable level while at the same time avoiding a massive genocide (which would be one way to engineer this reduction, and I think some of our western elites have flirted with the idea, and if we give some credence to many of the theories espoused by Jeff, then this would probably be a major goal for these elites: genocide of 5 billion people would be a great thing, in their view).

Best

slimmouse has been talking up 'peak oil is a hoax' on the Exxon Funding Fake Science thread http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... 8890#98890
so i thought i'd save moderators the effort of moving his very OT post:

slimmouse wrote:

I'd actually be surprised if you tried to support your 'scam' claim, no other sceptic-parrots have made any real effort. But then you work by repetition not reason, doncha slimmouse.

A few observations on this quote from you wintler. Firstly, there was a long post a while back on this board which clearly illustrated how, for about the last one hundred years, the "scam" which is peak oil has been parroted out over and over, in order to manipulate prices.[ But then again, as someone who then suggests that I work by repetition, you obviously missed that one, otherwise surely you wouldnt yourself be asking the question, and making the implication that oil is peaking - yet again ?

Secondly, we all know that Peak oil IS a scam, simply by nature of the fact that we can generate plenty of adequate replacement , in at least the form of Bio diesel, to put the oil companies out of work, or at least get them pumping nothing like the volumes currently being bled from Mother Earth.

And thirdly, you claim that I work by repetition not reason. I wonder what you make of the findings of Mr Daly I quoted above ? Is that link repetition or reason in your eyes ?

I actually think that you probably dont make a lot of the article, because like myself you probably arent sufficiently in the know about the subject, just like you arent in fact in the know about peak oil. ( or have you been down the wells ?)

So there we have it. My conjecture against yours, and yet regardless of whether oil is actually running out, or is produced abiotically, we do KNOW that this is a scam since there are workable alternatives easily producable
out there.

Hope that wasnt too repetetive for ya

In this post slimmouse shows some signs of making a case 'no problem thanks to biodiesel'. I don't have time right now (back later!) to dig out the links showing the very low production of biodiesel (<1mil.bar/day? compared to US consumption >20mil.b/d), the limits due to available land area, and net-energy problems supplying the oil, fertiliser, alcohol and sodium hydroxide required to farm oil and make biodiesel. The EU's 5% biodiesel mandate has led primarily to 2006 being possibly the biggest-ever landclearing burnoff in Indonesia & Malaysia (okay, worsening poverty 'helped') as palm oil prices leaped and palm oil plantations were suddenly worth much more than gorilla habitat. Wont it be hilarious if our largest primate relative goes extinct making way for pretend-green business as usual.

The EU's 5% biodiesel mandate has led primarily to 2006 being possibly the biggest-ever landclearing burnoff in Indonesia & Malaysia (okay, worsening poverty 'helped') as palm oil prices leaped and palm oil plantations were suddenly worth much more than gorilla habitat. Wont it be hilarious if our largest primate relative goes extinct making way for pretend-green business as usual.

this is such a good point wintler.

being here in oz you have obviously heard the complete bullshit that gets parrotted about Nuclear energy and our natural advantage due to coal reserves and other shit.

And one of the real issues with the whole Stern report - the idea that it is possible to deal with climate change ( and any other challanges) in an "economically friendly" way... one that is unnoticed by middle class western energy vacuum cleaners.

there are still massive denial issues about the real implications of peak oil, not just for oil economies either. Its the voracious undisciplined appetite that is the real problem humanity carries with it. Seriously the amount of wasted energy today is just insane. (I do it too, and try not to but energy availablity is so easy for us).

This just on abc news this minute btw, ot a bit but still in orbit round the concept:

Mining triggered Newcastle quake, says US academic


A United States academic claims the 1989 earthquake which devastated Newcastle was triggered by coal mining in the region.

Dr Christian Klose from the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory says the mines weakened and reactivated a major fault line below Newcastle, which caused the quake.

The tremor killed 13 people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage.

It was Australia's first recorded fatal earthquake and Dr Klose says it was probably set off by two centuries of coal mining.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 823536.htm

Jose you make some good points too.

Of course as the powerdown occurs your family's pottry concern might not be effected to badly. Pottery is and old tech, and although electricity adds to its efficiency ... In the post powerdown scenario i can still such a business managing, perhaps even expanding. Cos distribution networks wilkl have problems and some local production will increase in response IMO. It would require a lot of hard work and retooling tho.

Mind you a pottery business has advantages in this sense, one that many modern businesses haven't got.

We are completely grid dependant in this place, but cos its pretty isolated and subje4ct to intense storm activity, we also get used to functioning without power.

Large scale has some cost advantages too, and these frequently translate into ecological benefits. So it's kinda of a difficult scenario to predict.

Yeah... I think large scale non polluting froms of production of electricity have their place. They will have some ecological effect tho. I grew up in Tasmania, anyone familiar with Aussie history would know the fuss over the Franklin Dam.

One of the benefits of that was hydro power (no CO2) he costs was the destruction of the SW wilderness a World Heritage Area.


Its a bit like wintlers point about the land clearing in SE Asia. the consequences of a search for new sources of energy could be as damaging as the current set up.

Ultimately everything involves some compromise. The tension between perfect environment or enough energy to continue a particular culture is just one example of compromise.

Back in the 20th century, when everyone was suffering from millenial fever, in this part of the world we used to plan for the collapse. We stopped a few years ago as the place became less isolated and more new faces appeared.

We knew that we could manage some distribution using the grid structure and local solar and hydro and bioD genie produced electricity. Nothing remotlely like today, but availability would be there.

We realised that an energy infrastructure would have to be a community venture. 50 people with private solar systems wouldn't achieve the same usefulness on their own as together.

There were other points tho. Like could wev actually use the local powerline network to transfer solar power?

There are a LOT of problems with that idea.

Although none of this came to pass, the fact that many memebrs of the community were aware of the potential problems of a collapse, and dealing with rebuilding and maintaining our place in the world, made it less of a scary proposition, more of just another challange we may have to face.

IF western culture could face PO, GW and other serious long term non political/religious/corporate problems that effect the whole planet, with the same spirit that we did it would be an interesting and hopeful situation.

I guess some small locality in the hills somewhere is a much diufferent proposition to all of Western culture.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/mid ... 132569.ece

Future of Iraq: The spoils of war
How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches
By Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb
Published: 07 January 2007

Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.

The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.

Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled.

Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty.

Proposing the parliamentary motion for war in 2003, Tony Blair denied the "false claim" that "we want to seize" Iraq's oil revenues. He said the money should be put into a trust fund, run by the UN, for the Iraqis, but the idea came to nothing. The same year Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, said: "It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil."

Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs. After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals.

Greg Muttitt, a researcher for Platform, a human rights and environmental group which monitors the oil industry, said Iraq was being asked to pay an enormous price over the next 30 years for its present instability. "They would lose out massively," he said, "because they don't have the capacity at the moment to strike a good deal."

Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Barham Salih, who chairs the country's oil committee, is expected to unveil the legislation as early as today. "It is a redrawing of the whole Iraqi oil industry [to] a modern standard," said Khaled Salih, spokesman for the Kurdish Regional Government, a party to the negotiations. The Iraqi government hopes to have the law on the books by March.

Several major oil companies are said to have sent teams into the country in recent months to lobby for deals ahead of the law, though the big names are considered unlikely to invest until the violence in Iraq abates.

James Paul, executive director at the Global Policy Forum, the international government watchdog, said: "It is not an exaggeration to say that the overwhelming majority of the population would be opposed to this. To do it anyway, with minimal discussion within the [Iraqi] parliament is really just pouring more oil on the fire."

Yep, business as usual sucks, doesn't it stickydog99? A good story to talk about right now to anyone you can, as it shows the Coalition of the Willing with their bloody hands in the till.

What exactly does it prove about PO?

If we're just contributing data points..

commentary outside <<>> by Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, these lifted from their 9 Jan email bulletin

UK – Buzzard oil field comes onstream (Nexen Press Release, Mon 08 Jan)
http://www.nexeninc.com/Newsroom/News_R ... eId=629673

Nexen have just issued a Press Release saying that the UK oil field Buzzard 'commenced production on January 7, 2007'. Three points to note:
a/ It does not say what the initial production level is, or more realistically at this early stage, what the initial target production rate is.

The next two points relate to what Alistair Darling, UK Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is quoted as saying:
"the U.K. should return to being a net exporter over the next couple of years.”

b/ “return to being a net exporter” – This is the first time that I have seen the UK Govt officially admit we are a net oil importer. The usual DTI line thro' out 2006 was 'exporter till 2010'.

c/ “should... over the next couple of years” –This seems to mean the UK 'might' be a net oil exporter for 2007/2008. This is quite a turnaround. Up until last week, the position of the DTI was oil exporter to 2010. Now it is 2008, maybe. DTI to 2008, UKOOA to about 2010 (according to the Independent on Sunday article published on Sunday - Geoffrey Lean: Oil. The fast-vanishing drug the world can't yet live without – which quoted from a UKOOA 2006 Economic report – “The UK has been self-sufficient in oil for the last 25 years and is expected to remain so for the next four or five years”).

According to the IEA’s December issue of Oil Market Report, the UK is forecast to remain a net oil importer for 2007, just, and according to data available will become a serious net oil importer after 2007. Alistair Darling seems to have chosen his words carefully.

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


BP Output Falls for Sixth Quarter, Hurt by Alaska (Bloomberg, Tue 09 Jan)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home

It is left to Bloomberg to discuss the most important point – what do the latest BP results imply for future production ? An article in Petroleum Review last year showed that oil production for most big oil companies appears to be peaking:. Note that ConocoPhillips has also reported poor results:
<<... The provisional fourth-quarter figure puts BP's overall 2006 production at 3.92 million barrels a day, down 2.3 percent from 2005, and missing an original BP goal of between 4.1 million and 4.2 million barrels a day.

BP's global output growth surged 10.8 percent in 2004, aided by new supply from its Russian venture, TNK-BP, then slowed to 0.4 percent the following year, hurt by U.S. hurricanes. The last time production rose from year-ago levels was in the second quarter of 2005.

“BP has been too optimistic” on how much it can extract from maturing assets, Citigroup analyst Jonathan Wright said in a note today. “This has implications for future production levels and we expect BP will need to scale back production growth expectations at its full-year results.”

... Last February, Browne said BP was on target to boost global output by an average 4 percent a year through 2010.

... BP is the second major oil company to report on fourth- quarter volumes and margins. Last week, ConocoPhillips, the third-largest U.S. oil company, said fourth-quarter production was "similar" to the third-quarter, which JPMorgan Chase & Co. analyst Jennifer Rowland said fell short of expectations.>>



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



4/ Norway cuts 2007 oil output targets to 129.4 mln cubic metres vs 152.7 (Forbes, Fri 05 Jan)
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/af ... 01914.html
Sprott Asset Management notes: “This equates to a drop of 15%, or a loss of approximately 400,000 barrels per day.”

<<The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) has cut its 2007 oil production target for Norway to 129.4 mln standard cubic metres (sm3) from last year's forecast of 152.7 mln sm3, on the basis of ongoing uncertainty about the ability of industry to meet its targets.

For 2007, the NPD said production is likely to be somewhat lower than 2006, due to uncertainty about the ability of reservoirs to deliver, the timing of start-up of new projects and the regularity of producing fields.

It said the uncertainty level in its 2007 target is estimated at plus/minus 13 pct...>>