Lately I've been hearing from normally sane people about the "undeveloped" oil riches of North America in particular the Bakken Oil fields of the northern prairies. While I would like to think my Brother Blue Eyed Arabs of the North have finally stumbled on the mother lode, the reality is likely to be less than optimal as per the "Oil Drum":
"What's next for the Bakken?
Bakken production is trending upward and should continue for some time. The October 2007 production of 75,000 BOPD equates to 27 million barrels per year, a substantial amount by most measures for the US onshore sector. This only amounts to about 0.4% of US consumption (using a base of 20,700 BOBP, based on EIA data), or 0.6% of US imports.
Drilling activity in the Bakken continues at a frenetic pace. It's difficult to predict how long the upward trend in production will continue. Over the long term, economics will play a significant role in determining how much production will be expanded.
Conclusions
1. The Bakken shale has produced about 111 million barrels of oil during the last 50+ years in Montana and North Dakota.
2. Total Bakken production is still rising, and producing at the rate of 75,000 BOPD in October 2007.
3. Because of the highly variable nature of shale reservoirs, the characteristics of the historical Bakken production, and the fact that per-well rates seem to have peaked, it seems unlikely that total Bakken production will exceed 2x to 3x current rate of 75,000 BOPD.
4. The latest boom in Bakken production is driven by the application of horizontal wells and hydraulic fracturing technology, which has added about 70 million barrels of production in 7 years. Ultimate recovery of the already-drilled wells should be at least double this volume.
5. The USGS estimates the mean volume of technically recoverable hydrocarbons to be 3,649 million barrels of oil. This is roughly 7 to 12 times the size of already known resources.
6. Based on current production and areas likely to be drilled, the USGS estimate of technically recovery resources seems optimistic.
7. The Bakken potential resource, while large by US onshore field standards, will have only a minor effect on US production or imports. Using 2006 US imports and consumption for comparison, the Bakken undiscovered resource of 3,649 million barrels of oil, if subsequently discovered and fully developed, would provide us with the equivalent of six months of oil consumption or 10 months of imports, spread over 20 or more years. In reality, the reserves developed are likely to be many times smaller than this value.
8. The October 2007 production rate of 75,000 BOPD amounts only 0.4% of US oil consumption, or 0.6% of imports.
9. Per-well Bakken production peaked in August 2005 at 116 barrels a day, and was down to 79 barrels a day in October 2007. If the Bakken production history in the 1990s can be used as a guide, the peaking of per-well production may portend a peak in total Bakken production."
I think point #7 is especially well taken, for in the long run world demand will overshadow American demand and production by a long shot. We can only wonder when U.S. politicians on the Right and Left will start dealing with reality or in other words Peak Oil.
Last week Gazprom the Russian state Oil and Gas monopoly announced interest in "helping" develop an Alaska to Canada to U.S. pipeline. According to the International Herald Tribune:
"Gazprom has made a proposal to BP PLC and ConocoPhillips, which in April submitted a bid to build a multibillion-dollar pipeline that would carry natural gas from Alaska's North Slope to the lower 48 U.S. states, Gazprom director Alexei Miller said.
"Gazprom has unique experience, knowledge and modern technology and is the most advanced company in the world in the realm of gas transport in trunk pipelines," Miller told an international business forum in St. Petersburg, Russia. "So participation in such a large-scale project as the construction of a pipeline from Alaska is interesting for us."
He did not say whether there had been a response from BP and ConocoPhillips. The BP-ConocoPhillips proposal, dubbed Denali, competes with a similar pipeline plan put forward by TransCanada Corp., which was given the nod by Alaska's state government in January.
State-controlled Gazprom has been aggressively increasing its presence in Europe, drawing concerns of over-reliance on Russia for natural gas."
This is even more interesting given Russia's recent decline in petroleum production as reported by the International Energy Agency, a previously rather conservative group when it came to the subject of Peak Oil, as reported in the Globe and Mail:
"But even as Mr. Miller waxed lyrical on Tuesday about the scramble for resources, equally alarming data about oil supplies was tumbling out of the offices of the International Energy Agency in Paris.
The IEA has been trimming its forecast of non-OPEC oil supply growth and it now reckons that the great might of the world's multinational companies, including Russia and China, will barely produce any extra oil this year - just 770,000 more barrels per day.
This is even less than the IEA's prediction for growth in demand, which has fallen below 1 per cent thanks to shrinking demand for oil in the United States and Europe. The weak supply figures make a mockery of the aggressive output ambitions of the West's leading oil companies - ambitions that are always frustrated by hurricanes, war, despots and technical delays.
But the key to Gazprom's warning is Russia, and its failure to continue raising its oil output. The steady rise in Russian oil output over the last decade has almost single-handedly fed the ravenous growth in demand for crude in China. Without Russia, China's economic boom would probably have stuttered to a halt several years ago. But the output growth rate is now fading fast and voices have been raised within the Russian oil fraternity that 10 million barrels per day may be as far as it can go. Russian oil production has declined for five months in a row to less than 9.5 million b/d. The IEA is still reckoning 10 million b/d for the year, an optimistic forecast given the turmoil at one of the country's biggest producers, TNK-BP, where a power struggle is being waged between BP, several oligarchs and, again, Gazprom.
Western investors are making ever more frantic warnings about Russia. Rex Tillerson, Exxon's chief, said recently that there was little confidence in the rule of law in Russia, and Tony Hayward, BP's chief, gave warning that the world's energy problems are political, not geological.
He is partly right and he speaks from recent experience. The oligarchs with whom BP shares ownership of its Russian affiliate have suborned Russia's regulatory and judicial system to gain the upper hand in a dirty battle for control of TNK-BP. Gazprom is waiting in the wings to see which side emerges triumphant. Either way, the state will take a large slug of the asset and in the meantime TNK-BP's oil output languishes.
Still, BP's plight would not be so great if it had many more irons in the fire. Oil output is not growing anywhere much. Three quarters of OPEC's meagre spare capacity of two million b/d is in the hands of Saudi Arabia. If Russia were found to be pumping at the limit of its potential - whether for geological, technical or political reasons - where should we turn?
That is scary stuff. Back in Deauville Mr. Miller beats his drums, but the bravado about $250 per barrel conceals a great deal of nervousness. It's great to be a player on a winning streak with a big pile of chips. But when the casino manager breaks out in a sweat as he watches the game over your shoulder, you might get a bit scared too."
As noted here earlier the recent concerns regarding the security of nuclear weapons controlled by the U.S. Airforce have attracted a fair amount of attention. As a result Defense Secretary Robert Gates sacked the Airforce Secretary,Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff, General Michael "Buzz" Moseley ostensibly for the failures associated with the "temporarily misplaced" nuclear cruise missiles in 2007,the "accidental" shipment of nuclear nosecone fuses to Taiwan in 2006, and the most recent failure of the nuclear surety inspection of the 5th Bomber Wing at Minot AFB in North Dakota.
The World Socialist Web Site now reports on other aspects of this story which have seemingly not registered. Among other things:
"Given the context of the incident, which transpired amid reports of planning within the Bush administration for an attack on Iran, including possible use of nuclear weapons, the perfunctory statement from the Air Force that the transfer was an “error” and that “the munitions were safe, secure and under military control at all times” hardly allayed concerns.
Taken together, the claims of innocent errors as the explanation for sensitive nuclear devices being sent to one of the tensest areas of the globe and a nuclear armed flight in the midst of mounting war threats strain credulity. Both incidents strongly suggest that much more is taking place behind the scenes in the US military and state apparatus than the American people are being told......
"While no doubt the incidents raised grave questions, the manner in which the two officials were forced to resign evinces a level of urgency that suggests that far more was involved than the release of an investigator’s report.
Both Wynne and Moseley were attending an Air Force leadership summit at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. Moseley was hastily summoned to Washington Thursday for a meeting with Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and asked to resign. Later that same day, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England was sent to Wright-Patterson to find Wynne and demand his resignation as well...."
The article goes on to point out intriguing economic and political aspects of the whole affair which can only make one wonder what was really going on:
"Resignations hit Lockheed Martin
Perhaps not coincidentally, the resigning air force secretary, Wynne, was recruited to the Pentagon by the Bush administration in 2001 after a 30-year career in the aerospace industry, where he had headed the space divisions of both General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin, maker of the F-22 and America’s number one military contractor.
The purge at the top of the Air Force was clearly seen as having substantial financial implications. “This can’t be good for any of us,” a Lockheed Martin official close to the F-22 program told Aviation Weekly. “I was completely surprised and nobody I know knew anything about it beforehand,” the official is quoted as saying.
It is now nearly half a century since the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower urged the American people to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” The ever-closer relations between America’s expanding military and a financially powerful arms industry, he warned had the “potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power.”
The threat indicated by Eisenhower in his farewell speech of 1961 has mushroomed into something far beyond anything the World War II general could ever have imagined.
The Air Force alone now disposes of a budget of close to $130 billion, while military spending as a whole - including the successive “emergency” funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the nuclear weapons appropriations for the Energy Department - is fast approaching one trillion dollars a year.
US generals and admirals who serve as regional commanders now act as American pro-consuls, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in many other parts of the world, where they wield far greater power than any ambassador or other civilian representative of the US government.
Meanwhile, an officer corps that in a previous period generally avoided partisan politics has become highly politicized, influenced not only by the Republican Party, but increasingly by the Christian right.
Finally, in pursuit of its strategy of global militarism, the Bush administration has sought to portray the military as entitled to virtual veto power over the elected government, insisting that it is the commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan-hand-picked supporters of the administration’s policies—who must decide the course of the wars.
Under such a government, a sudden shakeup within the top ranks of the military like this week’s unprecedented simultaneous removal of a service’s civilian secretary and uniformed chief—or for that matter the forced resignation of Central Command head Admiral William Fallon in March—raises a number of disturbing possibilities.
Was there more to the unauthorized flight of a nuclear-armed bomber last August than the government dares reveal to the American people?
Are the Air Force chiefs being sacked in preparation for using America’s airpower in another criminal war of aggression, potentially against Iran, under conditions in which the Pentagon’s uniformed command is already deeply dissatisfied with the over-extension of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Had the near mutiny over military procurements, which apparently enjoyed the backing of powerful financial interests, gone further than has been revealed? Were they forced out to avoid a more open challenge to the civilian control of the military?
The answers to these and other crucial questions remained hidden behind a veil of “national security.” Clearly, however, under conditions of a protracted decay of basic institutions of bourgeois democracy in America, the ever-increasing power of the military poses the most fundamental threat to the basic democratic rights of American working people."
This video via energybulletin.net by wagthedog does such a great job of summarising why the present problems of the U.S. are not just a blip in the hitherto inexorable march of progress or more of the conventional "business cycle".Mandatory viewing for soon-to-be Collapse participants.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union much attention was directed to the security of Russian nuclear weapons and the fear of loose nukes falling into the wrong hands due to deteriorating infrastructure and resources. This past August an incident of loss of control of six nuclear armed cruise missiles from Minot AFB came to light raising further fears that even the U.S. military may be incapable of securing it's own nuclear weapons.
In a report just released and reported in the AirForce Times the same Minot 5th Bomb Wing flunked its defense nuclear surety inspection.
According to the report incredible lapses in security were noted including the following:
"The DRTA report highlighted an incredible number of gaffes:
* An internal security response team didn’t respond to its “pre-designated defensive fighting position” during an attack on the weapon storage area, leaving an entire side of the maintenance facility vulnerable to enemy fire.
* Security forces didn’t clear a building upon entering it, which allowed inspectors to “kill” three of those four airmen.
* Security forces failed to use the correct entry codes, issued that week, to allow certain personnel into restricted areas.
* Security forces airmen failed to properly check an emergency vehicle for unauthorized personnel when it arrived at a weapons storage area, or search it correctly once it left.
* While wing airmen simulated loading an aircraft with nuclear weapons, security forces airmen failed to investigate vulnerabilities on the route from the storage area to the flight line, and didn’t arm three SF airmen posted at traffic control points along that route.
* While on the aircraft, one flight of security forces airmen didn’t understand key nuclear surety terminology, including the “two-person concept” — the security mechanism that requires two people to arm a nuclear weapon in case the codes fall into the hands of an airman gone bad.
“Security forces’ level of knowledge, understanding of assigned duties, and response to unusual situations reflected a lack of adequate supervision,” wrote the DTRA team chief.
Security forces leaders rarely visited their airmen on post, and routine exercises “were neither robust nor taken to their logical conclusion,” according to the report.
After reviewing base records, inspectors found “leaders were unengaged [in] the proper supervision of SF airmen.”
“If the leadership is still unengaged after all that has happened with the warheads, the missing ballistic missile fuses and problems with the first inspection, then they’re not fit to have this mission,” Kristensen said. “It’s really frightening.”
Security forces errors made up the majority of the 14-page DTRA inspection report, but inspectors found fault with other parts of operations, including late status reports and major errors in the wing’s personnel reliability program, which dictates who can handle nukes.
While reviewing records, inspectors found one individual cleared to handle nukes had been “diagnosed for alcohol abuse” but was allowed to keep his certification, according to the report."
This calls into question the whole idea that any country can in the long run manage large numbers of nuclear weapons safely. Additionally this stands as a signal of crumbling American security and the institutions supposedly safe guarding Americans from WMDs, in this case their own.
There are so many potential conflicts for the Earth's energy supplies that the medias inattention to them borders on criminal. A recent example is the multi-national conference in Greenland to try to divy up the Arctic's resources. It is interesting to see that the American rep was John Negroponte, an American diplomatic hit man if ever there was. Canada hopes to assert sovereignity through the "Law of the Sea" which has varying interpretations:
"CBC" interpretation: "Canada is committed to defending and protecting its sovereignty in the waters of the High Arctic as it begins the process of mapping the northern territory with other nations, says the federal minister of natural resources.
Gary Lunn is travelling to Ilulissat, Greenland, on Tuesday to discuss Canada's claim to the northern seabed with officials from Denmark, Norway, the United States and Russia, who are also looking to secure their piece of the Arctic pie.
"There's a lot of co-operation between countries that is happening, but it's important that we have strong presence on the world stage," said Lunn.
The three-day conference is expected to discuss rules, dictated by the UN Law of the Sea Convention, on dividing jurisdiction over the High Arctic waters, one of the most rapidly changing parts of the world due to climate change.
As the ice continues to melt, countries with continental shelves on the Arctic Ocean are increasingly concerned over who controls the territory and its resources.
"It's critically important that it's under our sovereign control so that we set the parameters for the environment and that we make the decisions whether or not even to allow exploration," Lunn said Monday.
Under the UN law, signed by Canada in 2003, the five northern countries may be able to extend their sovereignty beyond the usual 200-nautical-mile limit recognized in international law if the seabed is an extension of the continental shelf.
Canada's claim includes a swath of ocean floor stretching to the North Pole that would be the equivalent in size to the three Prairie provinces combined. Canada has until 2013 to submit its claim on the area, which stretches from the Yukon to the eastern Arctic.
The area in question wouldn't be subject to any sort of overlapping claim with other countries, Lunn said. Canada's territorial disputes in the Arctic, such as the location of the boundary between the Yukon and Alaska and the control of the Northwest Passage, aren't expected to be major topics at the conference. Firms already after oil, gas reserves
The High Arctic seabed is coveted for its potential oil and gas reserves, not just along the coast of Beaufort Sea but at the North Pole. Estimates put about 25 per cent of the world's remaining oil and gas reserves beneath the Arctic's ocean floor.
Energy firms have already begun exploring the waters off Greenland, while large deposits of gas are known to exist off the islands of the Canadian archipelago, as well as the coasts of the Northwest Territories and Alaska.
Inhospitable conditions, including extreme cold and six months of darkness every year, make the Far North a difficult place for exploration.
"There's an interest in those resources, but more immediate in the area is the fact that there will be more international shipping over the top of the world as the ice starts to melt," the CBC's Margo McDiarmid reported Tuesday from Ottawa.
The nautical journey from China to New York, for example, is 7,000 kilometres shorter if travelled across the Arctic waters over the top of the world rather than through the Panama Canal.
As new passages are established by melting ice, Canada will be increasingly open to international traffic across and around its borders.
"The fear is that there will be more international shipping, more cruise ships, and there needs to be some kind of control, especially for Canada for those ships travelling through its waters," McDiarmid said.
Lunn emphasized that boundaries in the High Arctic must be defined by science, but would not speculate on the possible outcomes of the conference, saying only "we want to reaffirm our commitment on the world stage."
The conference is also expected to address co-operation between the five countries on maritime safety, environmental protection and search and rescue."
"Conference could mark start of Arctic power struggle Randy Boswell , Canwest News Service Published: 5 hours ago
ILULISSAT, Greenland - An Arctic Ocean summit aimed at easing territorial tensions among the five nations bordering the northern sea - including Canada - appeared to evolve Wednesday into something more substantial: a kind of Arctic G-5 with ambitious plans for overseeing polar oil and mineral exploration, maritime security, transportation and environmental regulation.
"The Arctic Ocean stands at the threshold of significant changes," the countries' Ilulissat Declaration stated. "Climate change and the melting of ice have a potential impact on vulnerable ecosystems, the livelihoods of local inhabitants and indigenous communities, and the potential exploitation of natural resources.
"By virtue of their sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in large areas of the Arctic Ocean, the five coastal states are in a unique position to address these possibilities and challenges." Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Gahr Stoere, Greenland's Aleqa Hammond, Canada's Minister of Natural Resources Gary Lunn, and American John Negroponte admire the view from their boat Wednesday near Ilulissat in Greenland, ahead of an Arctic Ocean conference. Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Gahr Stoere, Greenland's Aleqa Hammond, Canada's Minister of Natural Resources Gary Lunn, and American John Negroponte admire the view from their boat Wednesday near Ilulissat in Greenland, ahead of an Arctic Ocean conference. Jan-Morten Bjoernbakk/AFP/Getty Images Email to a friendEmail to a friendPrinter friendlyPrinter friendly Font:
* * * * * * * *
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
But the conference, which was organized by Denmark's Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller and also included the U.S., Russia and Norway, could well mark the beginning of an international power struggle over the future governance of the rapidly warming and increasingly accessible polar region.
Chief among the goals laid out in the declaration was to block any "new comprehensive international legal regime to govern the Arctic Ocean" - a clear shot across the bow of some European politicians and other Arctic observers who see the region as a largely unspoiled seascape best governed, like Antarctica, as an international trust.
They have pushed for the adoption of a broader legal framework - perhaps even an "Arctic Treaty" under the auspices of the United Nations - to regulate commercial activity, environmental threats and scientific research in the extreme north.
The summit was initially billed as an attempt to cool the rhetoric between the five polar neighbours following Russia's controversial dive to the North Pole seabed last year, an ongoing Danish-Canadian feud over tiny Hans Island and several other jurisdictional disputes.
And the final declaration did promise "the orderly settlement of any possible overlapping claims."
But in his opening remarks at the conference, Moeller made clear the chief purpose of the gathering by targeting "the assumption by some that there is a need for a new legal regime for the Arctic Ocean. I do not see such a need, as we have international law, we have the Law of the Sea, which already provide us with a comprehensive legal regime."
A proposal is before the European Parliament to adopt an Arctic policy to assert greater influence over environmental protection and other spheres of activity in the polar region.
The Arctic Council - an eight-country coalition of northern nations which includes the five coastal states plus Sweden, Finland, Iceland and various Arctic indigenous peoples - has also been working to develop rules for managing Arctic resources and environmental threats.
While the delegation leaders - including Canada's Minister of Natural Resources, Gary Lunn - expressed a desire to continue working through the Arctic Council and other international bodies on polar issues, they said the new coastal coalition is merited because those nations have unique opportunities and responsibilities.
"We are states that border the Arctic Ocean, and we have a responsibility to ensure that we put in the safeguards to ensure transportation and environmental protection, search and rescue, and so on - that we co-operate," said Lunn, whose ministry is overseeing Arctic seabed research aimed at securing vast extensions to Canada's continental shelf in the polar north.
The five-nation pact also envisions greater co-operation among the coastal nations in search-and-rescue operations, environmental crisis management and the regulation of oil tankers that could soon be routinely cruising through an ice-free Northwest Passage.
"Everybody, of course, wants to avoid a Titanic or an Exxon Valdez in the Arctic Ocean," Moeller said. "New possibilities of transport in and through the region increase the risk of accidents. More cruises than ever before reach even up to Thule (in far northern Greenland). As responsible coastal states we must strive to minimize this risk."
There is one notable hitch in the five-state strategy to rely on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, a treaty designed largely to resolve jurisdictional disputes in coastal regions and govern ocean shipping, as the chief guide to governing Arctic waters.
The most powerful of the five nations at the summit - the United States - hasn't ratified the accord.
John Negroponte, the U.S. deputy secretary of state and head of the American delegation, took pains to express the Bush administration's strong support for signing UNCLOS and predicted U.S. ratification soon.
Adoption of the convention has been blocked by Congress in recent years, largely by conservative legislators concerned about surrendering U.S. power to international legal frameworks.
"We certainly believe it's in the interests of the United States to ratify the Law of the Sea treaty, not the least of which would be for the impact it would have on our Arctic policy, where it's very important," Negroponte told reporters.
Two opposition MPs from northern Canada who attended the conference as observers - the NDP's Western Arctic MP Dennis Bevington and Yukon Liberal MP Larry Bagnell - applauded the agreement reached between the five countries.
Two Canadian experts on polar issues offered contrasting opinions on the outcome of the summit.
University of Calgary political scientist Rob Huebert said the five-country plan to manage the ocean's affairs means "Arctic issues will be dealt with on an ad hoc, piecemeal, bilateral basis. The Arctic is much too complicated to deal with in this manner today."
He said the coming problems require "an Arctic Council with teeth, or each issue will deteriorate on its own."
But University of British Columbia political scientist Michael Byers praised the direction of the grouping he dubbed "the Arctic Ocean 5."
The five-nation summit was "a perfectly appropriate venue to discuss Law of the Sea issues as they relate to the Arctic Ocean seabed. Countries that do not border on the Arctic Ocean simply don't have the same interests or potential disputes with respect to those areas and potential resources."
There seems to be an unwritten rule in the U.S. that military service makes one an expert on the matters of war and peace. Be that as it may I would like to defer on this Memorial Day to General Smedley Butler, a man ahead of his time:
"-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
In the bad old days meetings of Russian dissidents were routinely disrupted by government goon squads. In new Russia things are different. Meetings are now disrupted by remote controlled flying dildos. Mr. Kasparov was relatively non-plussed as per the National Post:
"I think we have to be thankful for the opposition's demonstration of the level of discourse we need to anticipate," said Mr. Kasparov after the attack. "Also, apparently most of their arguments are located beneath the belt." Someone in the audience shouts, "Finally the political power shows its face!" to which he replied, "Well, if that's its face..."
There is a disconnect in the American political contest in regards to world evolution. For instance the increase in petroleum prices, the decline in the U.S. dollar, and impoverishment of America that is starting to resemble Russian collapse. None of these issues are dealt with honestly or straight forwardly in the U.S. A good example is the recent Bush trip to the Mid-East which was by all accounts a huge fiasco, Asia Times Online goes into further detail:
" Bush's Middle East policy in tatters By M K Bhadrakumar
"They [Arab leaders] have stopped taking their instructions from Islam, they have decided that peace with the Zionists is their strategic option, so damn their decision." - Osama bin Laden, audio message, May 18
Last Tuesday, while United States President George W Bush was setting out from Washington on a five-day tour of the Middle East, Iran's semi-official Fars news agency quoted Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad as hinting that Tehran might consider a cut in oil exports. Of course, Iranian Oil Minister Gholamhossein Nozari quickly clarified that Tehran was only reviewing its exports
and here, too, a decision was to be taken on a possible increase or decrease.
Neither Ahmadinejad nor Nozari said anything like Iran was reviewing oil output as such (which exceeds 4.2 million barrels per day, the highest level since the 1979 Islamic revolution). But US oil prices went into a tizzy nonetheless and hit a record high of US$126 per barrel by the time Bush landed in the Persian Gulf region.
"Bush was expected to press the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) for an early meet to raise oil production. (OPEC is scheduled to next meet in September to decide on its oil output policy.) Stephen Hadley, the US national security advisor, was on record that Bush would tell Saudi King Abdullah that the oil-exporting countries should regard it to be in their self-interest to "take into account the economic health of their customers who pay these prices". In the event, when they met on Friday, Bush found that the Saudi king was not to be persuaded.
Meanwhile, Nozari was back on stage. He told Fars news agency, "I believe there is no need for an [emergency] OPEC meeting. Why should there be this meeting when oil prices go up? The OPEC members are currently utilizing their full capacity and are supplying the market ... With oil at US$126, it is not wise for those with oil not to supply it." Nozari then added, "I believe it is not that oil is becoming more expensive, but the dollar is becoming cheaper."
It would have been unthinkable five or six years ago that a visiting US president would receive such an open rebuff in the Middle East. Last weekend's exchanges revealed the extent of decline in the US's dominance of the Middle East through the present Bush administration. No doubt, oil lies at the very center of the decline of the American dominion. The cascading rise in oil prices has led to a massive transfer of resources to the energy exporting countries. Iran is one principal beneficiary.
The huge accumulation of wealth enables Iran to exert influence regionally and ensure there is practically nothing the US can do to stop its rise as a regional power. Goldman Sachs in a report on Friday predicted oil would further jump to a level of $140 by July. "The near-term outlook for oil prices continues to be bullish," Goldman said. Investors are flocking to the oil market as a hedge against the fall in the value of the dollar. The Wall Street Journal has reported that at the moment the Iranians hold about 25 million barrels - about twice the quantum of the US's daily imports - of heavy crude in offshore tankers in the Persian Gulf."
Even more interesting is the beginning of the "end of the car dialogue" and the end of American suburbia, exurbia, culture as noted in the Philidephia Inquirer:
"Call it a change of plan.
Across the nation, the price of gasoline is sending more and more Americans to public transit.
This ridership surge points up three things: (1) These millions of new riders can do it. Most of them always could have. They just didn't. (2): We're not at the end of car culture yet . . . that's a few generations off . . . but (3) it's clear, in not-quite-hindsight, that the U.S. car culture does not work.
Meanwhile, more people are parking the car and hopping on the train or bus. Just ask the people at SEPTA. Director of public affairs Richard Maloney says: "It's been a steady upward curve for the last 18 months, 14 percent growth in that time and 24 percent in the last three years, driven primarily by gasoline prices." Growth is greatest, he says, in regional rail, among suburban communities, and among people with long car commutes.
On the eastern side of the Delaware, New Jersey Transit's Trenton-to-Camden River Line had its best-ever quarter ended in September, averaging a record 7,900 riders a day, and followed that with another record quarter through December. And the Delaware River Port Authority says ridership on the PATCO High-Speed Line is up 7 percent from a year ago.
All of which fits a big national pattern. According to a May 10 New York Times survey, metro Minneapolis, Dallas, Seattle, and San Francisco all are seeing ridership spikes, with big gains both where public transit is long-established (New York, Boston) and where it is comparatively new (Houston, Charlotte, N.C.).
Clarence W. Marsella, chief executive of the Denver Regional Transportation District, told the Times that gasoline prices had brought on a "tipping point" regarding ridership. Maybe so. Or is this just momentary, and once we get used to higher prices, we'll backslide into former habits?I can imagine a reasonable objection: "The car culture doesn't work? The car has made our lives possible! It has made this country great, made contemporary life what it is today. Life without cars - without the unquestioned right to personal mobility at will - is unimaginable. You couldn't have the suburbs without the auto. Didn't Frank Lloyd Wright design his modern suburbs based on the car? And Levittown . . ."
Agreed. All true. Car culture got us where we wanted when we wanted - for five generations. Much has been spectacular, beyond what could have been dreamed 100 years ago.
How, then, can I say that car culture doesn't work? Because the cost to individual and communal life, and to the environment, has been too high. And the bill is just now coming due.
It's not evil, just heedless. People take the opportunities they're given. They have the right. The car symbolizes freedom, rights of passage, career, sexuality. We've created the national road system, bought hundreds of millions of cars, based hundreds of millions of lives on the assumption that Hey, we can just drive. But all that time, we've been burning resources, replacing none. (How much steel have we put back in the ground? How much oil?)
We've basically laid the environment to waste, millions of acres never to return, all because there was no plan B. Roads are good things - but where you build a road, you outrage an environment, and no one ever rectifies it. The sad sprawl of the 1980s and 1990s, when people let towns metastasize into hastily planned and built exurban strips - that worked well, didn't it?
And does anyone think the morning and evening rush is good for us? Individually and as a society? Single drivers (70 percent and more in many metro area traffic jams) in single cars, edging ahead, until sometimes it seems as if the ambient blood pressure is about to blow? (Studies show traffic jams do contribute to stress and high blood pressure. But you knew that.)
And wasteful: The car commute amounts to a willing sacrifice of billions of hours of precious, productive time. U.S. Census figures suggest the average U.S. driver spends 100 hours commuting a year (the standard vacation, 10 work days of eight hours apiece, is only 80 hours). Philadelphia ranks fifth among cities with a long one-way commute (29.4 minutes); New Jersey ranks third among states (28.5 minutes). Traffic jams waste time, and therefore bucks: A 2007 Texas Traffic Institute study said that in 2005, folks wasted an average of 38 hours a year stalled, for grand totals of 4.2 billion hours, 2.9 billion gallons of fuel, and a loss to the economy of $78.2 billion. That's what I call not working. (At least you can work on a train or bus.)
This has wrecked family life for many who live farther and farther from work - and so work farther and farther from home. It has created the commuter suburb, whose residents have little to do with their towns except, just about, the bed where they happen to sleep between commutes. How great is that?
We will all put up with it, as long as we can get where we're going.
I sure did. It's with us for the foreseeable. But no one has to love it. Many are now finding there are other ways. As oil gets scarcer and pricier, people may start to work closer to home, based on resources. They're starting to, it seems. That may benefit cities, with people increasingly opting for "elegant density" and closeness to work and amenities. We should have been doing this all along. We just weren't paying attention.
So, no, we haven't reached the tipping point - we've reached a pocketbook point. When things really tip, we'll discover - gasp - we don't have enough trains and buses for those who need them. (Already, says Maloney, SEPTA "has every available car in service" and is "searching internationally" for more train cars.)
Life will change. The roads will start getting lonely. It's a while off - but worth thinking about. Maybe then we'll make plan "B"."
While a visit to Las Vegas is usually associated with inebriation and compulsive gambling there are other things to pursue which quite frankly border on the surreal in an already surreal place. During my recent visit while at a medical conference (take home message the U.S. medical system demonstrates a complete disconnect between quality and cost) I payed a visit to the Atomic Test Site Museum, a fascinating, if somewhat creepy place. There is a palpable ambivalence about the ethics of nuclear war and I do think the place should dump the 9-11 reference (a girder from the World Trade Center which I believe was brought down with box cutters not nukes) which is nothing more than gratuitous propaganda. Beyond that there is a glimpse into the paranoia and fear which gave us the National Security State that we now live in.
Another example of of Americana that only Vegas can do justice to is the Liberace Museum that encapsulates West Allis, Wisconsin's contribution to popular culture. I highly recommend this to anyone looking for alternate entertainment in Vegas and don't miss the Wes Winter's show that goes with this.
After more than a decade Russia now feels the need to exhibit its military equipment in the name of national pride. The occasion is "Victory Day", commemerating the end of "The Great Patriotic War" in 1945. As reported in the Guardian not all were impressed:
"Western defence specialists pronounce themselves unimpressed by Russia's displays - described by one as "willy-waving". They snidely point out most hardware dates from the Brezhnev era; the conscript army is also mired in scandals over bullying of recruits. "If they wish to get out their old equipment and take it for a spin, they're more than welcome to do so," a Pentagon spokesman said this week when asked whether the Bush administration considered Russia a threat."
Russia is of course not the only country to engage in military exhibitionism but this does seem to be a step backwards.
A very interesting video from Kommersant, the answers which were very revealing about contemporary Russia ranging from" no one" to "me" to, as one furtive respondent, "the Jews."Even more illustrative is the Russians themselves that tends to fly in the face of American ill-informed stereotypes.
In what could be a flashpoint in Anglo-Russki relations, already frayed, upwards of 45,000 to 50,000 English soccer fans will be headed to Moscow this summer for the Champions League Final between Manchester United and Chelsea. As reported in "The Independent":
"Paul Scholes' winning goal for Manchester United against Barcelona on Tuesday night ensured that the nightmare most feared by Uefa, European football's governing body, would come true. Tens of thousands of United fans will now travel 1,500 miles for the privilege of watching their team play against their Premier League rivals Chelsea, who beat Liverpool 4-3 on aggregate at Stamford Bridge last night.Many fear that Moscow is simply not capable of hosting the influx, with a Foreign Office official warning that there are no hotel vacancies in the city around 21 May when the final takes place. A war of words has also broken out between London and Moscow over the system of granting visas for travel into both countries."
Already speculation has broken out about the potentially volatile mix of Russian hooligans, the notorious Russian riot police, the OMON, and England's well known hooligans. As noted in another article in "The Independent":
"They will also have Russian hooligans to deal with, many of whom model their "firms" on 1970s English football hooligans. "We've all read books and seen films about the Chelsea Headhunters, and other English firms," said one Spartak Moscow fan, "and people can't wait to test themselves against the best and most violent supporters in the game." Then there is the fearsome Omon riot police to contend with. Likely to be present in their thousands at the game, they have no qualms about using violence to quell trouble. In Moscow, a Manchester United vs Liverpool final is considered the most dangerous outcome."
This could result in something that would severly test EU unity and civility to put it mildly and might even result in American Football in Russia.
One of my big frustrations with MSM is the nausea factor. For example why does Hannah Montana have anything to do with current events, or whatever trivia in Atlanta be it dogs or weather warrent nationwide coverage? So it is with some hope I am promoting "The Real News", a place where uncovered stories get the coverage so lacking in the everday U.S. and free us from the miasma of corporate ignorance.
Every now and then I must acknowledge some great blogs that give me inspiration and from the the great state to the Northwest I must point to The Mississippifarian and Tildology. The authors of both have been great hosts and also co-visitors at Yearly Kos. Kudos to both.
While most of the world decries the oppression of the Zimbabwean people under what used to be a government of liberation little is known or made of who is actually propping up this odious regieme. As it turns out Israel has done more than most in this area to support Robert Mugabe. Witness the following: Israel is a supplier of riot control vehicles as noted by the South African Documentation and Cooperation Council:
"The Israeli government has endorsed the sale of heavy riot control vehicles to Zimbabwe, the state-run radio station, Kol Yisrael reported yesterday. The report, on the station’s respected international affairs programme, quoted foreign ministry sources as saying that Shimon Peres, the foreign minister, had authorised the transaction between the Beit Alfa Trailer company and the Mugabe regime, but had specified that it be delayed until after Zimbabwe’s March elections. Use of the equipment during the polling would have embarrassed Israel. The report quoted Mr Peres as saying the deal would boost the economy in the north of Israel, where Beit Alfa, a kibbutz turned weapons producer, is located. In Harare, opposition elements are worried that the new weaponry, which has reportedly already arrived, will be used to intensify the regime’s current crackdown. "The equipment is heavy and can crush any demonstration," a Zimbabwe police official was quoted on Sunday as telling the Zimbabwe Gazette. The paper said police were being trained by an Israeli in how to use the equipment.
The equipment has already arrived in Zimbabwe and includes customised anti-riot tankers, gas masks and microscopic 'laser guns', similar to those used by Israeli forces against the Palestinian protesters. The tankers, called Riot Control Vehicle model RCU 4500 I, were supplied by the Beit Alfa Trailer Company and have been undergoing tests at the Police Support Unit Headquarters in the capital. The anti-riot vehicles include the latest in water cannon technology based on an advanced computer controlled jet pulse system. Highly accurate pulse firing can be done in three different modes-short pulse, long pulse and continuous stream. The water is shot up to 500 metres. The command control panel allows the operator to mix additives like scorching tear gas, pepper spray or dye to the water "according to operational needs." They are also equipped with surveillance cameras. "
More relevant at this time is the contract with Nikuv which allowed the Mugabe government access to computer equipment to influence the outcomes of elections, which as anyone living in Florida or Ohio might know, has major implications. As noted at the Cambridge Forecast Group Blog:
"Nikuv International Projects, a company that specializes in identification, electoral and government systems, holds a government contract with Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Home Affairs to computerize all identification documents. The ID database compiled by the company was used in Saturday’s voters’ roll.
In an article last week, The Zimbabwean, a weekly independent newspaper promoting democratic change and published simultaneously in London and Johannesburg, alleged that 20 Israelis had arrived in Zimbabwe as “special government guests” “to beef up Mossad support for… Mugabe’s election-rigging plans.” Met by members of the Mugabe government’s Central Intelligence Office, the paper alleges they were “taken to a hideout in the capital” to meet other Mossad and Zimbabwe Electoral Commission officials. It quoted an anonymous government official saying Mossad agents were the “major force… controlling the election process, especially… the counting and announcement of results.”
So the Middle East's only "Democracy" is squashing it for anyone can fork over the neccesary bucks.
It's a party and Aleksi Mitrofanov deputy of the Russian Duma demonstrates why he's a Liberal Democratic kind of guy, that is in the mold of Vladimir Zhirinovski and his LDPR. BTW Zhirinovski has his own nightclub,"Liberal" also as seen above. I am indebted to Skandali.ru for news such as this and you can thank me for reading this stuff for you. One can only wonder what Mr. Mitrofanov actually does for his constituents.
Vladimir Putin vigorously denied recent reports of his impending marriage to Alina Kabaeva. In addition the the Russian website Skandali reports that the offices of Moskovski Korrespondent have been visited by the special services of the FSB.
Allow me to introduce you to Club Orlov. All you need for admission is citizenship in a collapsing world power. Dmitry Orlov is eminently qualified having lived in one collapsed superpower and now, ironically, is living in a second collapsing "world dominator". What luck. Needless to say this has given him a unique perspective into the process and pathology of collapse. He examines problems that have never crossed the minds of many Americans for example:
"I am also worried about soldiers getting stranded overseas — abandoning its soldiers is among the most shameful things a country can do. Not only is it an indelible stain on the country’s honor, it is an effective way to create a large underclass of desperate armed men who do not answer to any authority, creating a society where the price of a contract killing is only slightly higher than the price of the ammunition. The United States maintains over a thousand overseas military bases, most of which serve no purpose other than maintaining a megalomaniac fiction of American military superiority. They are often resupplied by private contractors, whose procurement operations rely on the domestic civilian economy. As long as the economy is intact, they can bring three flavors of ice cream to an air-conditioned tent in the middle of a desert, but once the economy collapses, they will collapse with it, and the military may turn out to lack even the resources to truck in water. Overseas military bases should be dismantled and the troops repatriated."
He also notes that in addition to competition in nuclear weapons both societies had an unhealthy lead on the rest of the world in percentage of incarcerated citizens leading to the following suggestion based on no doubt painful experience:
"I would like to see the huge prison population whittled away in a controlled manner, ahead of time, instead of in a chaotic general amnesty. Such an amnesty will have to happen as a matter of course, once the resources that sustain the prison system stop flowing. The scenario to avoid is one in which, in the midst of general chaos, the entire population of prisoners is released en masse and, with no other resources available to them, they start plying their various criminal trades. Paroling the non-violent, shortening sentences, decriminalizing drugs, and providing room and board to former inmates, are all reasonable steps to take to prevent a crime wave of staggering proportions once the criminal justice system finally shuts down."
I think it is safe to say that the "Collapse Party" is probably the wave of the American future, and while this election may not reflect this, the next one certainly will. In the meantime Mr. Orlov's new book "Reinventing Collapse" promises to be mandatory reading for would be survivors. You can pre-order here.
Moskovski Korrespondent reports that Vladimir Putin is divorcing (or already has) his wife, Ludimilla, for 24 year-old gymnast and member of the Duma, Alina Kabaeva. The whole story is a little weird and even the owner of Moskovski Korrespondent, Alexander Lebedev, claims to have no knowledge of how the story came about. Radaronline gives perhaps the best lowdown on what appears to be a very interesting story. Putin's known views on marriage are said to be at the very least somewhat authoritarian according to of all places, Center for Defense Information:
"Russian President Vladimir Putin may openly profess his pride in his KGB past, but his wife Lyudmila recently disclosed a less-publicized aspect of his personality. According to the First Lady, her husband is a bona fide male chauvinist.
Regarding a woman's role in life, Putin's views are crystal-clear -- and not exactly progressive -- 45-year-old Lyudmila said in a biography of the Russian leader released Wednesday.
He has two basic rules: "a woman must do everything at home" and "you should not a praise a woman, otherwise, you will spoil her," she confided to journalist Oleg Blotski in "Vladimir Putin: The Road to Power."
And his background as a spook may have slightly contaminated his relations with his spouse, Lyudmila Putin went on.
"He has put me to the test throughout our life together. I constantly feel that he is watching me and checking that I make the right decisions," she complained.
Some domestic tyrants may at least be easy to cook for, but not this one, she revealed.
"He is extremely difficult to cook for and will refuse to eat a dish if he does not like the slightest thing in it," she said.
"He never praises me and that has totally put me off cooking," the First Lady added.
And Putin's work as a KGB spy has meant that secrecy has been a constant of life with him. In fact, it took Lyudmila Putin a full 18 months to learn about her then fiance's professional occupation.
The fact that he was always an hour and a half late when they were dating may have put her on cue.
But while Putin is a tough husband, his wife conceded that he is an ideal father for their two daughters, 17-year-old Masha and 16-year-old Katya.
They have spent "the happiest moments of their lives with their father," who "will allow them anything," in a sharp contrast to the way he handles his wife, Lyudmila Putin said.
The book displays several pictures showing Putin playing with his then baby daughters.
A graduate of foreign languages who spent several years in East Germany when her husband was posted there as a KGB agent, Lyudmila Putin at first stayed behind the scenes after her spouse came to power in December 1999 but has recently gained more prominence.
Once a year, she gives a now traditional interview to the Komsomolskaya Pravda daily, published in December.
Last year, she insisted in one of these interviews that she did not shy away from debating politics with her husband in their home life.
"I am concerned about many problems as a wife and a woman, I discuss these with Vladimir Vladimirovich when he has a minute free," Mrs. Putin said.
"When we discuss a problem, I give my point of view and sometimes this provokes a debate," the president's wife explained, adding that she "greatly respects" her husband's opinion and in general they have "the same points of view."
Further evidence of peak oil phenomena is demonstrated in recent Russian oil production figures. According to Leonid Fedun, head of Lukoil, it will take a 1 trillion dollar investment just to maintain current Russian output. As per the BBC:
"Lukoil's Leonid Fedun said $1 trillion would have to be spent on developing new reserves if current output levels were to be maintained.
Recent figures show Russian output fell 1% in the first quarter of 2008.
The possibility of less oil from one of the world's key suppliers will add more pressure to prices now at record highs.
Russian peak?
The surprise fall in Russian oil output in the first part of the year has raised fears about the ability of global supply to keep pace with demand over the next decade.
Russian production averaged 10 million barrels a day in the first three months of 2008, according to the International Energy Agency, down 1% on the same period last year."
In the meantime Mexican oil output has declined to the point that the third largest supplier of oil to the U.S. is now number four with Venezuala moving to number three. Peak Opportunities gives the details:
"Most folks are surprised to learn that the world’s second largest oil field is not located in Saudi Arabia.Nor even in the Middle East.In fact, it is located offshore Mexico, in the Bay of Campeche, Gulf of Mexico.This “giant” field, with an ultimate recovery which may reach 20 billion barrels, was discovered in 1976 by Rudesindo Cantarell.Sr. Cantarell was not a geologist, nor a geophysicist, but rather ... a fisherman.It seems that the natural oil seeps were playing havoc with his nets!PEMEX, the national oil company of Mexico, finally investigated it and the rest, as they say, is history.
Cantarell Field, as it turns out, is a real freak of geology.The porosity - or holes in the rock where the oil is located - is believed to be the result of a rubble pile from an asteroid strike which took place some 65 million years ago!And not just any asteroid strike:The asteroid which caused what has become known as the Chicxulub Crater, on the YucatanPeninsula, is thought to have been 6 miles in diameter, and many scientists attribute this particular asteroid strike as being the “extinction event” that took out the dinosaurs!The impact energy from that strike is believed to have been some 2 million times that of the largest man-made explosion, that of the Tsar Bomba, a 50 megaton hydrogen device set off by Russia in 1961. Interesting stuff!
Cantarell was put on production in 1979.Production was 1.16 million barrels per day (1.16 MMBO/D) in 1981, and in 1995 production was still 1 MMBO/D.In 2000, PEMEX installed the world’s largest nitrogen injection project on Cantarell.In this process, nitrogen is stripped from air and injected into the upper parts of the reservoir in order to maintain reservoir pressure, and thus to increase or maintain production.Production increased to 1.6 MMBO/D in 2001, then to 1.9 MMBO/D in 2002, and then to 2.1 MMBO/D in 2003.By the end of 2005, however, production had returned to 1.9 MMBO/D.In January, 2006, a PEMEX press release unveiled their conclusion that Cantarell had peaked, and would decline down to a rate between 1.5 MMBO/D and 0.5 MMBO/D by the end of 2008.The attentive folks at the Wall Street Journal must have sensed the significance of this event, as they first ran this story on 2/9/06, and they published an update in August of 2006.Since this time it appears they have been revisiting the story about every February, with stories on 1/27/07, and most recently on 2/15/08.
As of the end of 2007, Cantarell was said to be producing 1.4 MMBO/D, or down some 600,000 BO/D (or 29 %) from its peak rate in 2004!
Why is this important? Well, Mexico is the 3rd largest exporter of oil to the United States.Out of about 20 MMBO/D of total consumption (maybe closer to 21 MMBO/D now), we import some 60 %, or around 12 MMBO/D.Mexico makes up some 1.4 MMBO/D of that 12 MMBO/D, or about 10 % of our total imports.
So, if Mexico can’t supply that oil - just get it somewhere else, right?Well it appears that there is little or no “spare” capacity in oil production RATE, worldwide.So, if we need 1.4 MMBO/D from Mexico but they can’t supply it, we either have to get that oil instead of someone else, or do without.The oil pricing or geopolitical implications of this scenario should speak for themselves.
To put the ultimate loss of 1.5 MMBO/D out of Cantarell into perspective, consider the massive tar sands in Canada.Even though these tar sand RESERVES are huge, their production RATE is limited by the QUALITY of these deposits.Namely, one has to shovel, melt or dissolve this tar out of the ground.Today’s total production RATE from these tar sands, after huge efforts and investments of billions of dollars, only totals about1.1 MMBO/D.And, with billions more invested, by 2015 they believe the rate can be increased by an additional 1.9 MMBO/D.So, if there weren’t any other RATE declines going on around the world, and if demand was not increasing, then the Canadian tar sands might be able to compensate for the loss of Cantarell.
Put another way, if other declines ARE present around the world, and if there are not many provinces where the RATE is significantly increasing (such as with the Canadian tar sands), and if the increases from the tar sands can barely make up for Cantarell declines, then what significant capacity increases are available to make up for the other declines?
So, Cantarell Field is a "poster child" for Peak Oil concerns. Most recently we wondered, “If Cantarell is down significantly, and other Mexican production is up some, but not enough to compensate, what must be making up the balance?”Namely, if production is down and Mexican domestic consumption is flat or up (as is normal in a developing country), then imports must go up, or exports must go down, in order to compensate.In other words, something’s got to give."
More scientific evidence accumulates relating CO2 production to climate change but with minimal effect in the consciousness ofthe American public. Recent examples include further work by James Hansen, an American scientist whose works have been actively supressed in the U.S. As noted at Truthout Dr. Hansen postulates an abrupt "tipping point" that requires decisive action and is largely ignored by the American mainstream:
" Very few people outside of climate scientists and climate activists even know about Hansen's polar ice melt hypothesis and what it means to each of our distant and more immediate futures. There is probably a scientific debate raging in labs and symposia about this new and compelling vision of climate change, but since publics globally remain, surrealistically, almost completely uninformed, how would we know?.
For example, Andrew Revkin, the NY Times expert and dean of American climate science reportage, mentioned the Hansen et el latest paper, "Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?" only through his Dotearth blog with no coverage in the Times newspaper at all. At Dotearth he quotes from the paper's summary:
Humanity today, collectively, must face the uncomfortable fact that industrial civilization itself has become the principal driver of global climate. If we stay our present course, using fossil fuels to feed a growing appetite for energy-intensive lifestyles, we will soon leave the climate of the Holocene, the world of human history. The eventual response to doubling preindustrial atmospheric CO2 likely would be a nearly ice-free planet.
Humanity's task of moderating human-caused global climate change is urgent. Ocean and ice sheet inertias provide a buffer delaying full response by centuries, but there is a danger that human-made forcings could drive the climate system beyond tipping points such that change proceeds out of our control. The time available to reduce the human-made forcing is uncertain, because models of the global system and critical components such as ice sheets are inadequate. However, climate response time is surely less than the atmospheric lifetime of the human-caused perturbation of CO2. Thus, remaining fossil fuel reserves should not be exploited without a plan for retrieval and disposal of resulting atmospheric CO2. Paleoclimate evidence and ongoing global changes imply that today's CO2, about 385 ppm, is already too high to maintain the climate to which humanity, wildlife and the rest of the biosphere are adapted.
But the vast majority of New York Times newspaper readers, Americans in general and people globally have never even heard of this emerging vision of climate change, let alone been informed and educated by critical commentary from those with relevant expertise.
Hansen's emerging climate change vision and climate change A are almost mutually exclusive. Today's nascent climate change mitigation measures, including carbon taxes and cap and trade, remain completely within the gradual, linear, conventional wisdom. This level of mitigation does not address the big ice sheet melt as a crucial tipping point. No governments anywhere - not even those governments that have led in acknowledging climate change as a real and serious problem - are even remotely considering mitigation measures of an immediacy and scale needed to try to return atmospheric CO2 emission levels below 350 ppm. Climate change B is an impossibility within our present political and economic systems.
Which is probably why you haven't heard about Hansen's new climate change information and possible Draconian mitigation strategies in the mainstream media."
The video posted above comes from The Vulcan Project at Purdue done in cooperation with NASA. While it by itself doesn't establish CO2 emissions directly to climate change it does demonstrate the measurable nature of the phenomena which can be seen also in polar ice formation melting and other harbingers of change. Don't say you weren't warned.
