ArthurDeVany.com � Important Things
Not only does each member of Congress control an average of $5 billion of spending per year, more than Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, she/he also has the power to compel us to act in ways that a corporation cannot. They have to sell something we choose to buy.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Vinegar and Honey: A "Green" House
Vinegar and Honey: A "Green" House
George Bushes house at Crawford.
George Bushes house at Crawford.
Bloomberg.com: Energy
Bloomberg.com: Energy
China, India, Russia and the Middle East for the first time will consume more crude oil than the U.S., burning 20.67 million barrels a day this year, an increase of 4.4 percent, according to the International Energy Agency in Paris. U.S. demand will contract 2 percent to 20.38 million barrels daily, the IEA says.
Economic growth of more than 8 percent in China and India, coupled with increasing car ownership among the countries' combined populations of 2.45 billion people, will more than compensate for falling U.S. demand. Oil use worldwide will increase 2 percent this year because of growth in emerging markets, the Paris-based IEA says.
``Does the U.S. matter anymore?'' said Mike Wittner, head of oil research at Societe Generale SA in London. ``Has the U.S. mattered for the last few years? It is debatable. As far as the oil market is concerned, demand growth is going to be continued to be driven by China and the Middle East.''
Monday, April 21, 2008
Amazon.com: The Lives of Others: Martina Gedeck,Ulrich M�he,Sebastian Koch,Ulrich Tukur,Thomas Thieme,Hans-Uwe Bauer,Volkmar Kleinert,Matthias Brenner
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Iran Thumbs Nose At West Over Oil Demands - Forbes.com
Iran Thumbs Nose At West Over Oil Demands - Forbes.com
Iran Thumbs Nose At West Over Oil Demands
James McKeigue, 04.16.08, 4:06 PM ET
LONDON - Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari taunted America and Britain after the two countries appealed for OPEC to increase supply.
"Why should OPEC try to lower prices? ... Let America and Britain continue demanding," the controversial minister said to journalists outside a conference in Tehran on Wednesday.
His comments came on a day when crude oil futures advanced to yet another high, breaking $115 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange before settling at a record $114.93.
America has tried to isolate Iran by imposing tough sanctions that hamper its oil industry. It is now asking the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, in which Iran is the second-biggest producer, to raise output. It is an irony that cannot be lost on Nozari, though he claimed at the conference that other foreign states were willing to invest in Iran. (See: "Iran's Deal Is A Gas For Malaysia's SKS")
His hard-line stance is echoed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly called for OPEC to stop pricing its oil in dollars and list its products in a basket of currencies. (See: " Black Gold Back In Sight")
America does have allies in OPEC, chiefly the Saudis, but the organization's rhetoric has not changed in the face of a doubling in oil prices since early 2007. Even last month's state visit by George Bush to Saudi Arabia could not persuade OPEC to change its tune.
"Oil supply to the market is enough, and high oil prices are not due to a shortage of crude but rather it is because of the decrease in the dollar's value, shortage of refinery capacity and some political tensions in the world," said OPEC's secretary general, Abdullah Al-Badri.
It is certainly true that the weak dollar makes traders seek shelter in commodities.
"The dollar continues to weaken, and that suggests there might be a little more capital going into the commodities market," said Simon Wardell, an energy analyst with Global Insight. He did not believe that the supply-demand balance had fundamentally changed lately, and thinks prices will likely fall back with demand later this year. (See: " Oil Rises On Dollar's Slide")
As for Nozari, he does not restrict his battles to Western oil consumers. On Wednesday, he poured fuel on the flames of a long-running dispute with Crescent Petroleum of the United Arab Emirates, saying that it would have to pay the price he sets for a new gas deal.
Iran Thumbs Nose At West Over Oil Demands
James McKeigue, 04.16.08, 4:06 PM ET
|  | |||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
"Why should OPEC try to lower prices? ... Let America and Britain continue demanding," the controversial minister said to journalists outside a conference in Tehran on Wednesday.
His comments came on a day when crude oil futures advanced to yet another high, breaking $115 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange before settling at a record $114.93.
America has tried to isolate Iran by imposing tough sanctions that hamper its oil industry. It is now asking the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, in which Iran is the second-biggest producer, to raise output. It is an irony that cannot be lost on Nozari, though he claimed at the conference that other foreign states were willing to invest in Iran. (See: "Iran's Deal Is A Gas For Malaysia's SKS")
His hard-line stance is echoed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly called for OPEC to stop pricing its oil in dollars and list its products in a basket of currencies. (See: " Black Gold Back In Sight")
America does have allies in OPEC, chiefly the Saudis, but the organization's rhetoric has not changed in the face of a doubling in oil prices since early 2007. Even last month's state visit by George Bush to Saudi Arabia could not persuade OPEC to change its tune.
"Oil supply to the market is enough, and high oil prices are not due to a shortage of crude but rather it is because of the decrease in the dollar's value, shortage of refinery capacity and some political tensions in the world," said OPEC's secretary general, Abdullah Al-Badri.
It is certainly true that the weak dollar makes traders seek shelter in commodities.
"The dollar continues to weaken, and that suggests there might be a little more capital going into the commodities market," said Simon Wardell, an energy analyst with Global Insight. He did not believe that the supply-demand balance had fundamentally changed lately, and thinks prices will likely fall back with demand later this year. (See: " Oil Rises On Dollar's Slide")
As for Nozari, he does not restrict his battles to Western oil consumers. On Wednesday, he poured fuel on the flames of a long-running dispute with Crescent Petroleum of the United Arab Emirates, saying that it would have to pay the price he sets for a new gas deal.
R-Squared Energy Blog: Where Our Gasoline Imports Come From
R-Squared Energy Blog: Where Our Gasoline Imports Come From
For 2007, our Top 10 importers of finished gasoline into the U.S. in thousand barrels were:
1. United Kingdom (Thousand Barrels) 25147
2. U.S. Virgin Islands (Thousand Barrels) 23590
3. France (Thousand Barrels) 11209
4. Canada (Thousand Barrels) 10605
5. Netherlands (Thousand Barrels) 10518
6. Norway (Thousand Barrels) 8406
7. Germany (Thousand Barrels) 8351
8. Russia (Thousand Barrels) 7387
9. Italy (Thousand Barrels) 7239
10. OPEC Countries (Thousand Barrels) 5516
Europeans demand more diesel. Since you get diesel and gasoline from the refining process, they get rid of their excess gasoline by sending it to the U.S. That helps keep gasoline prices in check. Take a look at diesel prices to see what gasoline prices might look like if not for the imports.
Where Our Gasoline Imports Come From
I started this post almost a year ago, but forgot about it. But someone at The Oil Drum just said they wished they had more information on where our gasoline imports come from. No need to wonder, because the EIA publishes this information.For 2007, our Top 10 importers of finished gasoline into the U.S. in thousand barrels were:
1. United Kingdom (Thousand Barrels) 25147
2. U.S. Virgin Islands (Thousand Barrels) 23590
3. France (Thousand Barrels) 11209
4. Canada (Thousand Barrels) 10605
5. Netherlands (Thousand Barrels) 10518
6. Norway (Thousand Barrels) 8406
7. Germany (Thousand Barrels) 8351
8. Russia (Thousand Barrels) 7387
9. Italy (Thousand Barrels) 7239
10. OPEC Countries (Thousand Barrels) 5516
Europeans demand more diesel. Since you get diesel and gasoline from the refining process, they get rid of their excess gasoline by sending it to the U.S. That helps keep gasoline prices in check. Take a look at diesel prices to see what gasoline prices might look like if not for the imports.
R-Squared Energy Blog: Where Our Oil Imports Come From
R-Squared Energy Blog: Where Our Oil Imports Come From
For 2007, our Top 10 importers of crude oil into the U.S. in million barrels were:
1. Canada 680.533 million barrels
2. Saudi Arabia 530.245
3. Mexico 514.48
4. Venezuela 419.841
5. Nigeria 394.856
6. Angola 181.215
7. Iraq 177.009
8. Algeria 161.755
9. Ecuador 72.138
10. Kuwait 64.306
Source: U.S. Crude Imports by Country of Origin
If you compare to the list for gasoline imports, Canada is the only country common to both lists (although "OPEC Countries" in total came in at #10). Any surprises on that list? I am surprised to see Ecuador in the Top 10. I would have thought Brazil would have come in higher than Ecuador (Brazil was 11th). For me, it was also noteworthy that Mexico and Saudia Arabia swapped places in 2007.
Total OPEC imports in 2007 were 1.97 billion barrels. Total non-OPEC imports were 1.69 billion barrels. Consider how dependent we are on oil, how oil prices have run up, and the resulting massive transfer of wealth out of the U.S. and into other countries.
This is a big reason that I am pessimistic about the U.S. economy recovering any time soon. A lot of discretionary income is disappearing from American pockets and ending up flowing into the hands of oil exporters. An obvious solution is to do more business with these oil producers, and offer them something of value that will pull more of that money back. (I am also basing many of my personal finance decisions based on the premise that this trend will continue).
Where Our Oil Imports Come From
Following the theme of the previous post on where we get our gasoline imports, below is the list of our Top 10 sources of oil imports for 2007.For 2007, our Top 10 importers of crude oil into the U.S. in million barrels were:
1. Canada 680.533 million barrels
2. Saudi Arabia 530.245
3. Mexico 514.48
4. Venezuela 419.841
5. Nigeria 394.856
6. Angola 181.215
7. Iraq 177.009
8. Algeria 161.755
9. Ecuador 72.138
10. Kuwait 64.306
Source: U.S. Crude Imports by Country of Origin
If you compare to the list for gasoline imports, Canada is the only country common to both lists (although "OPEC Countries" in total came in at #10). Any surprises on that list? I am surprised to see Ecuador in the Top 10. I would have thought Brazil would have come in higher than Ecuador (Brazil was 11th). For me, it was also noteworthy that Mexico and Saudia Arabia swapped places in 2007.
Total OPEC imports in 2007 were 1.97 billion barrels. Total non-OPEC imports were 1.69 billion barrels. Consider how dependent we are on oil, how oil prices have run up, and the resulting massive transfer of wealth out of the U.S. and into other countries.
This is a big reason that I am pessimistic about the U.S. economy recovering any time soon. A lot of discretionary income is disappearing from American pockets and ending up flowing into the hands of oil exporters. An obvious solution is to do more business with these oil producers, and offer them something of value that will pull more of that money back. (I am also basing many of my personal finance decisions based on the premise that this trend will continue).
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Villainous Company: A Suspension of Contempt
Villainous Company: A Suspension of Contempt: "A Suspension of Contempt
'Duty is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more; you should never wish to do less.'
-Robert E. Lee
Marvelous
'Duty is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more; you should never wish to do less.'
-Robert E. Lee
Marvelous
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Global warming rage lets global hunger grow - Telegraph
Global warming rage lets global hunger grow - Telegraph: "Global warming rage lets global hunger grow"
The mass diversion of the North American grain harvest into ethanol plants for fuel is reaching its political and moral limits.
We are all part of this drama whether we fill up with petrol or ethanol. The substitution effect across global markets makes the two morally identical.
The mass diversion of the North American grain harvest into ethanol plants for fuel is reaching its political and moral limits.
 | |
"The reality is that people are dying already," said Jacques Diouf, of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). "Naturally people won't be sitting dying of starvation, they will react," he said.
The UN says it takes 232kg of corn to fill a 50-litre car tank with ethanol. That is enough to feed a child for a year. Last week, the UN predicted "massacres" unless the biofuel policy is halted.We are all part of this drama whether we fill up with petrol or ethanol. The substitution effect across global markets makes the two morally identical.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
Vinegar and Honey: You Ain't Gonna Like Losing
Vinegar and Honey: You Ain't Gonna Like Losing
"You Ain't Gonna Like Losing"
Author Unknown
President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq.
Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII.
It is not.
Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression. The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders.
Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not or whether the war was going badly or not.
And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter. The people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty. Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war.
Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in. Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort.
Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining.
You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President. Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted.
And imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops!
Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage. No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies.
A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being 'tortured' by being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air conditioning.
There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crack heads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets.
No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve.
It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorrah and the land of Oz. We did unite for a short while after 9/11, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices.
We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. Europe will be essentially a Muslim theocracy in 50 years with Shira Law governing the people. Included in Shira Law are stoning, beheading, and chopping off the left hand of thieves. It has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists cause...Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits.
So....we either win it, or lose it -- and YOU AIN'T GONNA LIKE LOSING.
"You Ain't Gonna Like Losing"
Author Unknown
President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq.
Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII.
It is not.
Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression. The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders.
Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not or whether the war was going badly or not.
And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter. The people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty. Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war.
Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in. Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort.
Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining.
You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President. Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted.
And imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops!
Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage. No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies.
A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being 'tortured' by being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air conditioning.
There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crack heads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets.
No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve.
It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorrah and the land of Oz. We did unite for a short while after 9/11, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices.
We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. Europe will be essentially a Muslim theocracy in 50 years with Shira Law governing the people. Included in Shira Law are stoning, beheading, and chopping off the left hand of thieves. It has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists cause...Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits.
So....we either win it, or lose it -- and YOU AIN'T GONNA LIKE LOSING.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking' - Health News, Health & Wellbeing - The Independent
Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking' - Health News, Health & Wellbeing - The Independent
Sunday, 30 March 2008
Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take "immediate steps" to reduce exposure to their radiation.
The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks.
It draws on growing evidence – exclusively reported in the IoS in October – that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.
Earlier this year, the French government warned against the use of mobile phones, especially by children. Germany also advises its people to minimise handset use, and the European Environment Agency has called for exposures to be reduced.
Professor Khurana – a top neurosurgeon who has received 14 awards over the past 16 years, has published more than three dozen scientific papers – reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phones. He has put the results on a brain surgery website, and a paper based on the research is currently being peer-reviewed for publication in a scientific journal.
He admits that mobiles can save lives in emergencies, but concludes that "there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours". He believes this will be "definitively proven" in the next decade.
Noting that malignant brain tumours represent "a life-ending diagnosis", he adds: "We are currently experiencing a reactively unchecked and dangerous situation." He fears that "unless the industry and governments take immediate and decisive steps", the incidence of malignant brain tumours and associated death rate will be observed to rise globally within a decade from now, by which time it may be far too late to intervene medically.
"It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking," says Professor Khurana, who told the IoS his assessment is partly based on the fact that three billion people now use the phones worldwide, three times as many as smoke. Smoking kills some five million worldwide each year, and exposure to asbestos is responsible for as many deaths in Britain as road accidents.
Late last week, the Mobile Operators Association dismissed Khurana's study as "a selective discussion of scientific literature by one individual". It believes he "does not present a balanced analysis" of the published science, and "reaches opposite conclusions to the WHO and more than 30 other independent expert scientific reviews".
Sunday, March 23, 2008
ArthurDeVany.com
ArthurDeVany.com
A french fry is a ship of carbs carrying a load of grease. For a young teenager, each french fry represents a blemish of acne on the face. I think the carb and fat load must have been an extremely rare event in the evolution of our species. In ancestral times of 100,000 years ago, fat would have accompanied protein, not a simple carb. I don’t think our metabolism really “knows” how to handle the combination without complications. Our metabolic networks have to be stressed and routed into less than optimal responses to this mixed and previously rare signal. The carbs release insulin which shuts down fat burning. I would guess the high fat load and high blood sugar that results becomes a heavy sludge in the blood stream, bruising the epithelium and stressing the vessel. The high insulin opens the epithelium to the intrusion of fats. The fats are oxidized, driven by the inflammatory response to the high blood glucose; oxidizing fat on a stream of glucose mediated free radicals inflames the vasculature promoting cardiovascular disease. The liver is confused, I think, when it sees the high insulin, blood glucose, and high fat; what should the response be to this odd signal?
A french fry is a ship of carbs carrying a load of grease. For a young teenager, each french fry represents a blemish of acne on the face. I think the carb and fat load must have been an extremely rare event in the evolution of our species. In ancestral times of 100,000 years ago, fat would have accompanied protein, not a simple carb. I don’t think our metabolism really “knows” how to handle the combination without complications. Our metabolic networks have to be stressed and routed into less than optimal responses to this mixed and previously rare signal. The carbs release insulin which shuts down fat burning. I would guess the high fat load and high blood sugar that results becomes a heavy sludge in the blood stream, bruising the epithelium and stressing the vessel. The high insulin opens the epithelium to the intrusion of fats. The fats are oxidized, driven by the inflammatory response to the high blood glucose; oxidizing fat on a stream of glucose mediated free radicals inflames the vasculature promoting cardiovascular disease. The liver is confused, I think, when it sees the high insulin, blood glucose, and high fat; what should the response be to this odd signal?
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The peak oil crisis: stirrings in Ottawa | EnergyBulletin.net | Peak Oil News Clearinghouse
The peak oil crisis: stirrings in Ottawa | EnergyBulletin.net | Peak Oil News Clearinghouse
Others are saying the winter heating oil demand is over and given the world’s precarious economic situation, oil will be down to $80 a barrel by summer. Both sides make plausible cases.
In the meantime, while waiting to see how this plays out, the question of just how much longer Canada will continue pouring so much of their national heritage into U.S. gas tanks has been in the news lately and deserves some consideration.
In recent years, Canada has been sending about 2.3 million barrels of oil each day, more than we get from the Persian Gulf, south of the border. The United States also gets about 3.4 trillion cubic feet a year of its natural gas from Canada. Many in the U.S. are expecting that increasing imports of synthetic oil extracted from Alberta tar sands will keep the U.S. functioning for many decades as other sources of oil decline.
If you are not that familiar with the Canadian energy situation, there are a few things you should know. Canada produces about 3.4 million barrels of real and synthetic (tar sands) oil each day and consumes about 2.36 million. So far, so good.
Canada is energy independent just like the Saudis, Russia, Mexico, and Venezuela. But I just told you something that doesn’t add up. If they are sending 2.3 million barrels per day to the U.S., they must be importing about 1.2 million barrels a day and indeed they are. Most of eastern Canada, including about half of Ontario, imports oil from abroad and is paying world prices. Of course, they are selling at world prices so the problem in the long run is not the balance of payments, but the availability. Add in some Canadian-style taxes and drivers north of the border are currently paying about $4.25 a gallon for gasoline unlike their fellow oil-exporter, Venezuela, where they are paying about 17 cents.
Another major factor in this equation is the NAFTA treaty with the U.S. which requires Canada to keep dividing its oil production with the U.S. in the current proportions, even if production is declining. Neither country may reduce the proportion of its energy exports to the other relative to the "total supply" of the exporting country during the prior 36-month period. Among other things this makes it tough to sell oil to China, should the Canadians be of a mind to do so.
The next big problem is that conventional oil production in Canada has just about peaked. As is well known, there is a huge quantity of hydrocarbon in the form of tar coated on grains of sand in Alberta – some say 180 billion barrels (a 5-year supply for the whole earth), some say more than a trillion. The key point however is that it takes massive amounts of heat, currently provided by cheap natural gas, to melt the tar off the sand grains and the whole operation leaves behind the most gargantuan environmental mess ever conceived by man.
The last thing you need to know is that the Canadian constitution leaves resource exploitation up the provinces (such as Alberta) which can sort of do anything they want, while putting the Federal Government (Ottawa) in charge of the environment. While the current Alberta government is second only to Beijing in its devotion to economic development at all costs, Ottawa although currently in Conservative hands, takes its environmental responsibilities seriously.
For many years now, knowledgeable Canadian observers have been complaining about the situation. Why is “energy independent” Canada importing 55 percent of its oil requirements at world prices while sending 2.3 million barrels a day to the United States? How can Canada meet its Kyoto obligations while increases in tar sands oil production will increase their share of Canada’s greenhouse gas production from the current 18 percent to 25 percent by 2020? Why are we using so much natural gas to melt off the tar when natural gas production is projected to decline? Last fall there was furor in a parliamentary hearing when the speaker told the body that Eastern Canada will soon be “freezing in the dark.”
Last month, Ottawa announced details of tough new environmental regulations that will require new tar sands operations starting in 2012 to implement carbon storage and capture. The plan which applies to industrial and coal-fired power plants all over Canada aims to achieve a 20 percent reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
The political maneuvering and wrangling over these new regulations will likely go on for some time. The most obvious effect will be a major increase in the costs of building new tar sands production capacity which is already so expensive that some companies are starting to pull back.
From the U.S. point of view, the prospects for continuing Canadian synthetic oil production have taken a turn for the worse. Anyone who mutters “oil sands” when confronted by the prospect of depleting oil production needs to do some homework. As conventional oil production in Canada starts to decline in coming decades, it is doubtful that increased production of synthetic crude will be available to make up for the decline much less to increase Canada’s production.
The big question in the next 10 years is what happens to NAFTA and the proportionality clause that sends so much Western Canadian oil down into the U.S. A big issue is that currently there is no pipeline bringing oil from Western to Eastern Canada. Trains are just not up to moving oil in the volumes it is consumed today.
If the calculations about the course of the world’s oil supply are correct, in two or three years prices are likely to increase markedly as demand simply outruns supply no matter the state of the world economy. When Canadian gasoline prices, currently a dollar or so a gallon higher than in the U.S., increase by several more dollars, political pressures on Ottawa will increase rapidly.
The real problems will come when shortages develop in Eastern Canada while oil is still being pumped into the U.S. At that point, a major paradigm shift in the U.S.-Canadian energy relationship is likely to occur.
The peak oil crisis: stirrings in Ottawa
by Tom Whipple
Based on recent experiences, some believe this week’s interest rate cuts soon will send oil to circa $120 a barrel.Others are saying the winter heating oil demand is over and given the world’s precarious economic situation, oil will be down to $80 a barrel by summer. Both sides make plausible cases.
In the meantime, while waiting to see how this plays out, the question of just how much longer Canada will continue pouring so much of their national heritage into U.S. gas tanks has been in the news lately and deserves some consideration.
In recent years, Canada has been sending about 2.3 million barrels of oil each day, more than we get from the Persian Gulf, south of the border. The United States also gets about 3.4 trillion cubic feet a year of its natural gas from Canada. Many in the U.S. are expecting that increasing imports of synthetic oil extracted from Alberta tar sands will keep the U.S. functioning for many decades as other sources of oil decline.
If you are not that familiar with the Canadian energy situation, there are a few things you should know. Canada produces about 3.4 million barrels of real and synthetic (tar sands) oil each day and consumes about 2.36 million. So far, so good.
Canada is energy independent just like the Saudis, Russia, Mexico, and Venezuela. But I just told you something that doesn’t add up. If they are sending 2.3 million barrels per day to the U.S., they must be importing about 1.2 million barrels a day and indeed they are. Most of eastern Canada, including about half of Ontario, imports oil from abroad and is paying world prices. Of course, they are selling at world prices so the problem in the long run is not the balance of payments, but the availability. Add in some Canadian-style taxes and drivers north of the border are currently paying about $4.25 a gallon for gasoline unlike their fellow oil-exporter, Venezuela, where they are paying about 17 cents.
Another major factor in this equation is the NAFTA treaty with the U.S. which requires Canada to keep dividing its oil production with the U.S. in the current proportions, even if production is declining. Neither country may reduce the proportion of its energy exports to the other relative to the "total supply" of the exporting country during the prior 36-month period. Among other things this makes it tough to sell oil to China, should the Canadians be of a mind to do so.
The next big problem is that conventional oil production in Canada has just about peaked. As is well known, there is a huge quantity of hydrocarbon in the form of tar coated on grains of sand in Alberta – some say 180 billion barrels (a 5-year supply for the whole earth), some say more than a trillion. The key point however is that it takes massive amounts of heat, currently provided by cheap natural gas, to melt the tar off the sand grains and the whole operation leaves behind the most gargantuan environmental mess ever conceived by man.
The last thing you need to know is that the Canadian constitution leaves resource exploitation up the provinces (such as Alberta) which can sort of do anything they want, while putting the Federal Government (Ottawa) in charge of the environment. While the current Alberta government is second only to Beijing in its devotion to economic development at all costs, Ottawa although currently in Conservative hands, takes its environmental responsibilities seriously.
For many years now, knowledgeable Canadian observers have been complaining about the situation. Why is “energy independent” Canada importing 55 percent of its oil requirements at world prices while sending 2.3 million barrels a day to the United States? How can Canada meet its Kyoto obligations while increases in tar sands oil production will increase their share of Canada’s greenhouse gas production from the current 18 percent to 25 percent by 2020? Why are we using so much natural gas to melt off the tar when natural gas production is projected to decline? Last fall there was furor in a parliamentary hearing when the speaker told the body that Eastern Canada will soon be “freezing in the dark.”
Last month, Ottawa announced details of tough new environmental regulations that will require new tar sands operations starting in 2012 to implement carbon storage and capture. The plan which applies to industrial and coal-fired power plants all over Canada aims to achieve a 20 percent reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
The political maneuvering and wrangling over these new regulations will likely go on for some time. The most obvious effect will be a major increase in the costs of building new tar sands production capacity which is already so expensive that some companies are starting to pull back.
From the U.S. point of view, the prospects for continuing Canadian synthetic oil production have taken a turn for the worse. Anyone who mutters “oil sands” when confronted by the prospect of depleting oil production needs to do some homework. As conventional oil production in Canada starts to decline in coming decades, it is doubtful that increased production of synthetic crude will be available to make up for the decline much less to increase Canada’s production.
The big question in the next 10 years is what happens to NAFTA and the proportionality clause that sends so much Western Canadian oil down into the U.S. A big issue is that currently there is no pipeline bringing oil from Western to Eastern Canada. Trains are just not up to moving oil in the volumes it is consumed today.
If the calculations about the course of the world’s oil supply are correct, in two or three years prices are likely to increase markedly as demand simply outruns supply no matter the state of the world economy. When Canadian gasoline prices, currently a dollar or so a gallon higher than in the U.S., increase by several more dollars, political pressures on Ottawa will increase rapidly.
The real problems will come when shortages develop in Eastern Canada while oil is still being pumped into the U.S. At that point, a major paradigm shift in the U.S.-Canadian energy relationship is likely to occur.
TED | Theme | Spectacular Performance
TED | Theme | Spectacular Performance: "Themes Spectacular Performance"
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Iraq’s Insurgency Runs on Stolen Oil Profits - New York Times
Iraq’s Insurgency Runs on Stolen Oil Profits - New York Times
But at least one-third, and possibly much more, of the fuel from Iraq’s largest refinery here is diverted to the black market, according to American military officials. Tankers are hijacked, drivers are bribed, papers are forged and meters are manipulated — and some of the earnings go to insurgents who are still killing more than 100 Iraqis a week.
But at least one-third, and possibly much more, of the fuel from Iraq’s largest refinery here is diverted to the black market, according to American military officials. Tankers are hijacked, drivers are bribed, papers are forged and meters are manipulated — and some of the earnings go to insurgents who are still killing more than 100 Iraqis a week.
“It’s the money pit of the insurgency,” said Capt. Joe Da Silva, who commands several platoons stationed at the refinery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
