Elaine Meinel Supkis
Time to visit another official government study! I learn so much from these things. In this case, the document is the official Annual Energy Outlook by the President's Energy Information Administration. This study alternates between total fantasy and admissions of hard facts. But the conclusion is completely insane as are all the studies generated by officials working for Bush. Meanwhile, the US public pays no attention to reality and clings to the 'cheap and easy' energy assumptions of the Clinton era.
The nation's showing signs of growing acceptance for high gasoline prices, according to a recent poll conducted by AP-Ipsos.Forty-six percent of 1,000 randomly chosen adults in a telephone interview said near-record gasoline prices will cause them severe financial problems, the survey released Friday showed. That's up from 43% a year ago.
But those cutting their driving fell to 62% this year from 66% last year, and those changing vacation plans dropped to 42% this year from 49% a year ago, according to the poll, which was conducted between May 15 and May 17.
I sense an aura of unreality. Namely, many people in the US are living in a full-fantasy world that has little to do with reality. Our country is the only nation on earth running a very huge trade deficit with the rest of the world. And one very big element in all this are energy imports. If we were exporting lots of say, automobiles to Japan, China and Germany, we could then have the luxury of using lots and lots of imported energy from the oil and gas producing nations.
But it is the exact reverse. The top three industrial giants all have trade surpluses with the US, in China's case, it is double both Germany and Japan's trade surpluses. So we have been basically selling off our own futures to pay for the energy we are determined to guzzle down no matter what.
China, for example, can't take our howls of rage over the trade imbalance with them if we insist on not paying any attention to our energy consumption. Our biggest energy trade partners are Canada and Mexico. Both of which also export value-added industrial trade! Even with the other oil producers of the world, say, Saudi Arabia, we buy more than we sell to them! And on top of that, they use our entire military machine for their own ends.
Ditto Germany and Japan. This is terrifically expensive.
Here is the Offical Energy projections for the next 50 years!
A large portion of the total U.S. resource base of onshore conventional oil has been produced. New oil reservoir discoveries are likely to be smaller, more remote (e.g., Alaska), and increasingly costly to exploit. However, higher oil prices, increased production with enhanced oil recovery techniques, and recent resource discoveries in the Bakken shale formation in Montana allow lower 48 onshore production to remain relatively constant at about 2.9 million barrels per day over the projection period in the AEO2007 reference case (Figure 79).
I am giving but a few paragraphs of this incredibly stupid report. Starting off here with speculation about future oil production, there is no reference to the Hubbert Oil Peak but it is there in big letters: '...new discoveries are likely to be smaller and more remote....and increasingly costly to exploit.'
This is the definition of the Hubbert Oil Peak: the most oil is pumped but the discovery rate starts to decline, the fields are smaller and harder to extract. Costs of pumping shoot up as volume begins to contract. If one tackles all the various possible contact points at once, one might be able to briefly pump a maximum amount even as the bigger oil fields fail but this is only a brief respite!
Once the secondary fields begin to fail, there is a steep decline which flattens out only because the price of the energy will be increasingly expensive and most users are ELIMINATED. One way or another. I would suggest, quite violently.
Because drilling currently is prohibited in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the reference case does not project any production from ANWR. Alaska’s projected oil production declines from 860,000 barrels per day in 2005 to 270,000 barrels per day in 2030.
This means the last land-based easy to pump, relatively speaking---Alaska is actually very difficult---is going to be nearly drained in just 23 years? It is going to drop by around 600,000 barrels? That is a drop of 2/3rds! I know a number of people in Alaska today who think they will be high off the hog forever thanks to the oil credits they get. They love the high price of oil today. It is making their lives much easier even as it bankrupts the US due to the fact that our energy needs vastly outstrip the ability of Alaska, Texas and the Gulf states to feed our needs.
Considerable oil resources remain offshore, especially in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Deepwater oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is projected to increase from 840,000 barrels per day in 2005 to a peak of 2.0 million barrels per day in 2015 and then fluctuate between 1.8 and 1.9 million barrels per day over the last 15 years of the projection. Production from the shallow waters of the Gulf is projected to continue declining, from 470,000 barrels per day in 2005 to 290,000 barrels per day in 2030. As a result, total domestic offshore oil production increases in the reference case from 1.4 million barrels per day in 2005 to a peak of 2.3 million barrels per day in 2015, then declines to 2.2 million barrels per day in 2030.
The deep sea rigs have a downside we saw clearly in 2005 when a great number of them were destroyed or severely damaged by hurricanes. Due to el Nino, we didn't have any hurricanes in that vast bathtub last year but these storms are picking up again and as the sun goes towards a solar maximum, the storms will probably get worse and worse. Note the stuff about the shallow wells declining. It is only 470,000 and dropping. The industry is only guessing about how swiftly the present wells are depleting, generally speaking, all projections by 'experts' are like Wall Street gurus: they always see happy days and are always taken by surprise when reality bites.
The reality here is, throughout the history of energy extraction projections, nearly always experts grossly understate the rate of decline. For example, the oil pumping nations in the North Sea all thought the decline would be very slow over several generations. In less than three years, it is obvious to everyone the decline is tremendously rapid. I am betting this will be true with the remaining oil fields owned by American corporations here.
More Rapid Technology Advances Could Raise U.S. Oil ProductionThe rapid and slow oil and gas technology cases assume rates of technological progress in the petroleum industry that are 50 percent higher and 50 percent lower, respectively, than the historical rate. The rate of technological progress determines the projected cost of developing and producing the remaining domestic oil resource base. Higher (or lower) rates of technological progress result in lower (or higher) oil development and production costs, which in turn allow more (or less) oil production.
With domestic oil consumption determined largely by oil prices and economic growth rates, oil consumption does not change significantly in the technology cases. Domestic crude oil production in 2030, which is 5.4 million barrels per day in the reference case, increases to 5.7 million barrels per day in the rapid technology case and drops to 4.8 million barrels per day in the slow technology case (Figure 80). The projected changes in domestic oil production result in different projections for petroleum imports. In 2030, projected net crude oil and petroleum product imports range from 16.0 million barrels per day in the rapid technology case to 17.0 million barrels per day in the slow technology case, as compared with 16.4 million barrels per day in the reference case.
Cumulative U.S. crude oil production from 2006 through 2030 is projected to be 2.6 billion barrels (4.9 percent) higher in the rapid technology case and 3.3 billion barrels (6.4 percent) lower in the slow technology case than the reference case projection of 51.8 billion barrels.
And pigs will fly! We already import a lot of oil and natural gas as well as gasoline! For the last six years, we have imported gasoline from other nations who control gas guzzling with high taxes on gasoline. This refined product is rapidly rising in addition to raw oil imports! And this should give everyone a clue as to what will happen next!
After all, the US is menacing a major oil producing nation, Iran, and is destroying Iraq, another big producer. The malarkey in this report is designed to give cover for the oil companies to continue their destruction. Namely, they are pretending there will be oodles of oil pouring in from deep wells so we don't have to change anything, thanks to 'technology', we will be able to claim the US hasn't passed the fearful Hubbert Oil Peak after all!
But this is all counting eggs that not only haven't hatched, the nest they are in is up on top of this cliff that is very steep. We haven't the faintest idea, how many eggs are in these nests!
The future of unconventional oil and liquids production (such as oil shale, CTL, and GTL) will depend on oil prices. For example, CTL production is projected in both the reference and high price cases; GTL and oil shale production are projected only in the high price case; and no unconventional oil production of any kind is projected in the low price case.In the reference case, CTL production is projected to start at about 40,000 barrels per day in 2011 and increase to about 440,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the high price case, CTL, oil shale, and GTL production are projected to be economically feasible, and total domestic production of unconventional oil is projected to reach 2.1 million barrels per day in 2030 (Figure 81). Of that total, CTL is projected to account for 1.6 million barrels per day and oil shale 405,000 barrels per day. Because natural gas prices are relatively high throughout the projections, GTL production reaches only about 100,000 barrels per day in 2030 in the high price case.
The guys cooking up this report are very giddy about the potential for energy, they think it will just pour out of any system that is being exploited and in addition, all present systems will decline very slowly or not at all! When writing reports projecting into the future, a wise person looks at all the bad things that can happen and looks at WORST CASE scenarios. Then, if things are better, one enters into a golden zone where wealth and happiness is the reward. But betting on magical or improbable events means being hammered by reality when things don't pan out. Explaining this to people is nearly impossible.
I make lots of predictions here. I always take the dark view of events only because we must see the worst in order to judge risks. This is why good banks assume people are going to go bankrupt and forces them to prove they are better risks!
U.S. consumption of liquid fuels—including fuels from petroleum-based sources and, increasingly, those derived from such nonpetroleum primary fuels as coal, biomass, and natural gas—is projected to total 26.9 million barrels per day in 2030, an increase of 6.2 million barrels per day over the 2005 total. Most of the increase is in the transportation sector, which is projected to account for 73 percent of total liquid fuels consumption in 2030, up from 67 percent in 2005 (Figure 82).Liquid fuels use for transportation increases by 5.8 million barrels per day from 2005 to 2030 in the AEO2007 reference case, by 7.8 million barrels per day in the high economic growth case, and by 3.8 million barrels per day in the high price case. Gasoline, ULSD, and jet fuel are the main transportation fuels. The reference case includes the effects of technology improvements that are expected to increase the efficiency of motor vehicles and aircraft, but the projected growth in demand for each mode outpaces those improvements as the demand for transportation services grows in proportion to increases in population and GDP.
Consumption of liquid fuels from nonpetroleum sources increases substantially over the projection period. Ethanol, which made up 3 percent of the motor gasoline pool in 2005, increases to approximately 8 percent of the total motor gasoline pool in 2030. Total production of liquid fuels from CTL plants, which are expected to commence operation in 2011, increases in the reference case to 440,000 barrels per day—equivalent to 7 percent of the total pool of distillate fuel—in 2030.
So far, not only have we not made any progress in clipping consumption, things are worse than 30 years ago. Fuel efficiency has not risen at all. In the 1960's, very few families had multiple vehicles. Today, this is the norm. Consumption has tremendously outstripped native production and now relies mostly on foriegn imports. This cannot be stressed enough: this is a disaster. It will destroy the USA. There isn't the slightest alarm in this report. Nor is there any call for changing direction or forcing our car-crazy culture to get out of this dangerous cul-de-sac.
In 2005, net imports of liquid fuels, primarily petroleum, accounted for 60 percent of domestic consumption. The United States is expected to continue its dependence on liquid fuel imports in the AEO2007 reference case. The import share of domestic consumption declines slightly to 55 percent in 2015 before climbing to 61 percent in 2030 (Figure 83). Dependence on imports is tied to total consumption. In the high price case, net imports as a share of domestic consumption of liquid fuels fall to 49 percent in 2030. In the low price case, dependence on petroleum imports increases to 67 percent in 2030 as U.S. demand for lower priced fuels increases more rapidly than domestic production.
Talk about insanity. Recently, an economics writer asked me where I got the 60% importing figures. Well, here they are! From the government itself! And this is from 2 years ago. I assure everyone, it is probably worse today. For this number has been growing as our production can't keep up with wild consumption. The opening article details how Americans are refusing to take this crisis even slightly seriously. They think there will be money for them to overspend forever. On TV tonight, I saw all sorts of ads for gas guzzling vehicles offering great prices to buy or lease them. Back in 1989, I spent $235 leasing a work vehicle and today the price is...$235 for a Ford truck! Gads. As if the dollar of 1989 were still able to buy things today. A sheet of plywood in 1989 was about $3 a sheet for 1/2 single-sided AB! Today, it is four times this! If trucks were the same rise, the lease price would have to be nearly $1,000 and this is the monthly fees for those Alt A loans that pay only interest on $350,000! This economic lunacy is due to all the forces focused like laser beams on the US: everyone wants to burden us with debt and keep us gas guzzling until we die.
This stupid, pie-in-the-blue-sky report concludes with total, complete insanity and this was written just six months ago!
The retail prices of petroleum products largely follow changes in crude oil prices. In the reference case, the world oil price path reaches a low of about $50 per barrel in 2014, then increases slowly to about $59 in 2030 (2005 dollars). The reference case projections for average U.S. average motor gasoline prices follow the same trend, rising from $1.95 per gallon in 2014 to $2.15 in 2030.In the high price case, with the price of imported crude oil projected to rise to more than $100 per barrel in 2030, the average price of U.S. motor gasoline follows the higher price path of world oil prices, increasing from $2.61 per gallon in 2014 to a high of $3.20 per gallon in 2030. In the low price case, gasoline prices decline to a low of $1.64 per gallon in 2017, increase slowly through the early 2020s, and level off at about $1.76 per gallon through 2030 (Figure 84).
Because changes from the reference case assumptions for economic growth rates have less pronounced effects on projected motor gasoline prices than do changes in oil price assumptions, the projected average prices for U.S. motor gasoline in the high and low economic growth cases are close to those in the reference case. In the high growth case, the average gasoline price falls to a low of $2.00 per gallon in 2016, then rises to $2.21 per gallon in 2030. In the low growth case, the average price reaches a low of $1.92 per gallon in 2014, then rises to $2.08 per gallon in 2030.
Just for this alone, the wizards who pretend they can see the future should be thrown into the nearest volcano or perhaps gored by a herd of enraged bull elephants or shot to the moon. The media should have covered this story and Congress should be yellling about it. This is madness.
But then, the media and the ruling elites forced Jimmy Carter to recant his accusation that Bush has got to be the most criminal and insane leader we ever had, period. I will note that old Jimmy won't call for Bush's arrest. But like I keep saying, we should arrest him. We can't have a lunatic and his gang of idiots running the ship of state.
China's top economic planning agency has ordered local authorities to remove preferential policies for energy guzzlers amid the nation's efforts to save energy and cut pollution.The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) also warned local governments not to violate laws, regulations and policies by introducing preferential policies such as tax cuts to attract new high energy-consuming projects in the future.
The NDRC said local governments should set stricter market access standards to help eliminate outdated production facilities and tighten land use and credit supply for new projects.
To slow down the rapid growth of high energy-consuming projects is crucial to meeting China's energy saving and pollution reduction targets, the NDRC said in a statement on its Website.
China, unlike the US, is taking the Hubbert Oil Peak very seriously. And they are very displeased that the US is not appreciative that they are soaking up our inflation and are also taking on huge energy costs which goes into manufacturing stuff for our use. Despite their huge trade surplus with the US, they are not rolling in dough like Germany and Japan both of whom have double China's trade surplus! China is now going to hand off this chore to others as they focus on more value-added exports. This will probably re-configure world trade significantly. Namely, they will run a trade surplus one third smaller than today's but it will be mostly cars, computers and solar panels. Yes, you heard me right!
My dad, when he went back to China during the late 1970's, sold them on solar energy! He wrote the first book about this subject, for example. Well, Jimmy Carter appointed him head of the alternative energy commission that turned out reports like the one I just tore apart.
The Chinese intend to be THE major producers of solar energy systems. This is in their long, long range plans! And they are now beginning to seriously pursue this path. Unlike the US. Alas. Hell. Talk about stupid.
Recent Comments