Olsen
Well-known
Jay,jonmanjiro said:Hmmmm sounds like something an economist would say
Here's something to ponder that might (should?) cast the BBC article on Norway's declining oil production in a different light. The title "Norway prepares for dry North Sea" is rather ironic when you consider that the UK's share of the North Sea is also in decline.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3622129.stm
********************************************************************
"Economic students are taught that banks "create" money every time they make a loan, and that the economy is powered by money instead of energy. The juxtaposition of these two data (the first is true, the second is false) leads even Nobel Prize-winning economists to conclude they have discovered a perpetual-motion machine!
No person has had a greater influence on the thinking of experts who have become government regulators of the world's oil and gas industries than economist Morris Adelman: "There are plenty of fossil fuels and no limit to potential electrical capacity. It is all a matter of money."
But Adelman -- and every government regulator he has ever influenced -- is wrong. It is a matter of energy!
Although economists treat energy just like any other resource, it is not like any other resource. Available energy is the prerequisite for all other resources. Moreover, universal energy laws tell us that the economist's perpetual-motion machine is impossible.
To lift 15 kg of oil 5 meters out of the ground requires 735 joules of energy just to overcome gravity -- and the higher the lift, the greater the energy requirements. The most concentrated and most accessible oil is produced first; thereafter, more and more energy is required to find and produce oil. At some point, more energy is spent finding and producing oil than the energy recovered. Thus, Adelman is wrong: it is not all a matter of money.
Neither capital nor labor nor technology can "create" energy (the first law of thermodynamics). Instead, available energy must be spent to transform existing matter (e.g., oil), or to divert an existing energy flow (e.g., wind) into more available energy. The engines that actually do the work in our economy (so-called "heat engines"; e.g., diesel engines) waste more than 50 percent of the energy contained in their fuel (the second law). Thus, Adelman is wrong again: there is a physical limit to potential electrical capacity."
-- Jay Hanson
"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."
-- Kenneth E. Boulding
Indeed our oil production has peaked. did so in 2000. But we have oil left for another 50 years. And gas for another 100 years. Further; the revenue from oil - about 70% of the companies profit (tax) is stowed away in funds. Things could change, but so far these funds has grown in value and compensated the value of oil sold.
As mentioned before; in addition to oil we have 2/3 of the fish resources in Europe, - more people work in the fish industry than in oil. We have hydro electric powerstations producing - about - 121 TWH - that's 1/3 of the consumption of Britain, a nation of 60 million people.
And so on...
So, don't cry for us, Jay.
That said; the living standard of Norway is - about - the same as our closest neighbours; Denmark (a little oil), Sweden (no oil) and Finland (no oil). Much due to that the wast volume of oil revenues is kept out of our economy.
Last edited:
climbing_vine
Well-known
einolu said:jon,
i avoid the topic of natural resources because it is too gloomy for me
i am particuarlly amused by the current fad of "biofuels" which provide less energy than the energy used to grow them, and that's ignorning all the enviromental damage caused by the farming...
I'm not a fan of (for example), corn-based ethanol fuels, but it's for reasons other than this one. My state is the leader in this area (both production and consumption), and coincidentally is a hotbed of front-group anti-everything-but-bigger-cars-and-more-roads lobbying. "Astroturfing", as some call it. So this debate rages continuously here, and I haven't seen a study yet that backs up the "provide less energy than is used to make them" which was free of direct conflicts of interest (the most famous is by a "professor", working out of his field, who takes money from and runs a lobbying front for oil companies
). My beef with it is that it just encourages more of the same destructive factory-farming (as you note), and perpetuates absurd farm subsidies. We could get a much better return on our tax money by investing as much in other renewable energy research and deployment. Sadly, the government has to get its kickbacks from somewhere, so if they're taking a little away from one pimp (the oil and auto lobbies) they have to give it back somewhere else (agribusiness lobby) to keep their mansions and pools being built. Pathetic.
Olsen
Well-known
Anyone who interested in 'the 50.000 NOK a month car mechanic jobs' at Røhne og Selmer in Oslo should take direct contact with them. A link to the Røhne og Selmer contact page here: http://dws.keycast.com/DWS/CF/Default.aspx?lsid=1843&nc=true&infid=119752
Call or write them an e-mail. They can communicate in English, I am sure.
Call or write them an e-mail. They can communicate in English, I am sure.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Warning! sarcasm alert!
Warning! sarcasm alert!
I prefer to drink my corn squeezings. Burning food so someone can drive to the store or work seems to me to be even dumber than burning oil for the same purpose.
Keep in mind that what little ethanol is currently being produced has caused prices of corn tortillas to rise in Mexico and a shortage of prime beef in restaurants. Not to mention that some Mexican farmers burning Agave fields to crow corn instead. Can you say tequila shortage? If we keep this up we're all likely to starve to death even BEFORE the oil runs out....
I think I'll go buy a few case of good tequila, to round out my investment portfolio...
Warning! sarcasm alert!
kevin m said:If you're refering to the current Ethanol-from-corn craze here in the U.S., the figures I read say that there's a 3x energy return from that as compared to 50x-plus from fossil fuels. Americans are loony if they think they're going to drive their SUV's with corn squeezings.
I prefer to drink my corn squeezings. Burning food so someone can drive to the store or work seems to me to be even dumber than burning oil for the same purpose.
Keep in mind that what little ethanol is currently being produced has caused prices of corn tortillas to rise in Mexico and a shortage of prime beef in restaurants. Not to mention that some Mexican farmers burning Agave fields to crow corn instead. Can you say tequila shortage? If we keep this up we're all likely to starve to death even BEFORE the oil runs out....
I think I'll go buy a few case of good tequila, to round out my investment portfolio...
einolu
Well-known
climbing_vine said:I'm not a fan of (for example), corn-based ethanol fuels, but it's for reasons other than this one. My state is the leader in this area (both production and consumption), and coincidentally is a hotbed of front-group anti-everything-but-bigger-cars-and-more-roads lobbying. "Astroturfing", as some call it. So this debate rages continuously here, and I haven't seen a study yet that backs up the "provide less energy than is used to make them" which was free of direct conflicts of interest (the most famous is by a "professor", working out of his field, who takes money from and runs a lobbying front for oil companies
My beef with it is that it just encourages more of the same destructive factory-farming (as you note), and perpetuates absurd farm subsidies. We could get a much better return on our tax money by investing as much in other renewable energy research and deployment. Sadly, the government has to get its kickbacks from somewhere, so if they're taking a little away from one pimp (the oil and auto lobbies) they have to give it back somewhere else (agribusiness lobby) to keep their mansions and pools being built. Pathetic.
I have heard various numbers too. I can't seem to find a real study on it. Pessimists seem to say that it's about .7 unit biofuel for every unit of fossil fuel and optimists say that is about 3 or 4 units of biofuel for every unit of fossil fuel. Even taking the optimistic view, I don't know if there is enough farmland on the planet on which to grow 'fuel' to replace fossil fuels. Also, I think it could easily be the first statistic if you consider how badly the environment is damaged due to the factory farming (I think talking about farm subsidies could be a whole new thread). On a sadder note, the world might be past the point were we could feed everyone on the planet without intensive agriculture... and the population is only getting bigger.
jarski
Veteran
little ot: I read somewhere that red cross, church and other humanitarians are in trouble trying to find cheap food to transport to africa because of this ethanol boom.
now that developped countries have finally figured out what to do all the over production of their agriculture, those who dont have anything are suffering..
now that developped countries have finally figured out what to do all the over production of their agriculture, those who dont have anything are suffering..
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
jarski said:
Never did see the rationale behind using food crops to power gas guzzling vehicles. I can believe that there will be problems in the future finding food sources for humanitarian aid.
Bob
Olsen
Well-known
ErikFive said:I think you have to sell some more stocks today Olsen. 1Ds III is launched tonight as you know. Got some specs today and it seems really impressive. Ill buy your old one for 1000$
I know. My 1Ds II is up for sale, but with delivery sometimes March/April next year. Due to the dollar fall the 1Ds III is cheaper than the 1Ds II was. Arn't we lucky, Erik?
Olsen
Well-known
jarski said:
Prices of crops are just about to turn to the better. Not only because of the 'etanol boom', but because the population of the planet is growing from 6 to 9 billion people. A increase in weath prices will send meat prices in europe sky high. etc.
The US etanol production might not be worthwile energy wise today, but it will be in the near future. Further, the US potential for energy saving, particularly oil, is 'enormous'. It will come about, eventually. Not the least because you will not afford to carry the import cost with an increasingly lower dollar.
einolu
Well-known
Olsen said:
the whole crops to ethanol movement is a scam (except in the tropics were sugarcane can be grown and yields much more 'fuel' than corn or anything else that will grow in america). it creates more inefficient farm subsidies and reduces the amount of investment in real next generation energy technologies like high altitude wind farms, wave farms, better solar energy, and stuff we don't know about. like you said, the population isn't going to level out for a long time and any farmable land needs to be used for crops. as for meat, the meat industry in america is part of the reason the farm subsidies aren't going to change any time soon...
The main critic of ethanol is David Pimentel of Cornell University.einolu said:
He says "If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States."
http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm
Ethanol is never going to be any more than a bandaid on the fuel problem. And at the expense of poor Mexicans who can no longer afford tortillas and poor Africans who will no longer receive food aid because aid organisations can no longer afford to buy any. Unfortunately the world energy market and world grain market have merged, and only those with deeper pockets will get enough of both going forward.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21154041-5005961,00.html
Thousands march over tortilla crisis
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7345310a-32fb-11dc-a9e8-0000779fd2ac.html
UN warns it cannot afford to feed the world
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/Update60.htm
Exploding U.S. Grain Demand for Automotive Fuel Threatens World Food Security and Political Stability
http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/201
World Grain Supplies Will Barely Meet Demand Despite Record Harvests Forecast for 2007
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C01%5C28%5Cstory_28-1-2007_pg5_31
US corn exports may fall as ethanol use rises
Last edited:
Olsen
Well-known
jonmanjiro said:
- You are adressing three different problems here:
- Sure, ethanol is not going to substitute oil totally, but it is going to contribute to a lower crudel oil imports and consumption. It is needed more research in how to make environmentally sustainable energy and how to spend less energy, and then particularly crude oil.
- Mexicans can't make themselves dependent on grain imports from USA. Nor fuel imports for that matter. Like all nations they will have to produce more crops for both fuel and food in the future and spend less crude oil. It is the latter which is the least sustainable to burn.
- The same goes for Africa. African nations just have to produce their own food, - and energy. Many of them have better conditions for this than USA.
That food relief for just any nation in distress will be more expensive in the future, that's for sure.
- No, they are three connected problems.Olsen said:
- Once you realize how much oil is used in modern mechanized agriculture (to make fertilizers, run equipment, in transportation etc.) it is obvious that ethanol production will have little, if any, impact on crude oil imports and consumption.Olsen said:
- Have you ever heard of the Cantarell Field? It’s the 3rd largest oil field in the world. Mexico just closed it down due to Hurricane Dean. The temporary closing of the 407 undersea wells that feed the rigs there will mean a production loss of 2.7 million barrels of oil and 2.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day. Since Mexico exports a lot of that to the US, gas prices will probably go up in the US if hurricane damage is severe.Olsen said:
But hey, if Mexicans can't make themselves dependent on grain imports from USA, how about we say that USA can't make themselves dependent on oil imports from Mexico.
- While we’re stopping oil exports from Mexico, how about we stop crude oil exports to the west (including USA) from Algeria, Angola, and Nigeria etc. so that they can use it for themselves. And while we're at it, let’s kick out the foreign oil companies that are currently eyeing up oil fields in Somalia and the Sudan.Olsen said:
USA uses 25% of the oil produced around the world each day and imports more than half the amount they use. The USA imports more oil each day than the No.2 oil consumer, China, uses in total each day. With most oil provinces now in decline, this is a dynamic that cannot continue for long.
You see, thanks to globalization everything is connected.
Last edited:
alcaraban
Established
Are you kidding? Aren't Shell and ChinaOil (generic name) getting oil from Nigeria and Sudan, European companies (and here I blame my own country) fishing in a rather unfair way in Moroccan, Senegal and Namibian seas (did you know that French companies have ruined most of Senegalese traditional fishing?), extracting phosphates from West Sahara for the Western Farmers (which later will sell them their hugely subsidied products) and a quite long list of similar items?Olsen said:
Do you remember what happened when Algerian FIS began to threaten Europe's availability of African cheap gas?
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Hi,
In fact Europe has for a long time cared less for Algerian gas than it should have. At present the Algerian state hydrocarbon monopolist SONATRACH has been signing far-reaching trade deals with Russia's Gasprom; the Russians obviously don't want Europe to go to deep into exploring gas supply alternatives to Russia. Personally I'd rather have Europe buy Algerian gas than to further get into an increasingly unhealthy energy dependency on Russia. Shoot me down as a neoliberal for this last sentence, but I think it's better for the Algerians as well.
Philipp
just because I've done some work on Algerian foreign policy: not a lot happened. They were not the first Algerians to think of that and will not be the last, and the country was in the middle of a civil war anyway which was not about gas. Long before the FIS was around, President Chadli Bendjedid had a whole foreign policy campaign centered on maximizing revenues from natural gas sales, under the title "Bataille de gaz".alcaraban said:
In fact Europe has for a long time cared less for Algerian gas than it should have. At present the Algerian state hydrocarbon monopolist SONATRACH has been signing far-reaching trade deals with Russia's Gasprom; the Russians obviously don't want Europe to go to deep into exploring gas supply alternatives to Russia. Personally I'd rather have Europe buy Algerian gas than to further get into an increasingly unhealthy energy dependency on Russia. Shoot me down as a neoliberal for this last sentence, but I think it's better for the Algerians as well.
Philipp
Last edited:
Olsen
Well-known
jonmanjiro said:
You have some very good points here.
One comment: it is Hunt Oil of Texas USA that has a exploraton 'contract' with the old and long dead dictator of Somalia,- and I believe, it is Hunt Oil that pushes the US government to 'intervene', somewhat unsuccessful. So far....
All the world's very high consumption of crude oil (and coal) is not sustainable. not only does USA need to reduce consuption of these drastically. So does most of the world. This means also that trade over long distances, - costing enormous CO²emissions, as we see today, isn't sustainable either. So much for globalisation.
Olsen said:
Ahhhhhh, but the Islamic Court that finally brought peace to Somalia has been crushed by an Ethiopian army equipped with new American weaponry and backed by American air support (in the name of the War on Terror of course - was obviously the "wrong" kind of peace for some), a new western looking puppet regime has been installed, and things are happening even as I type out this message on my keyboard. Take a look at this Reuters news article from Monday 13th August 2007 (just last week!!!).
http://africa.reuters.com/business/news/usnBAN350587.html
Somali oil bill targets former concession-holders
Mon 13 Aug 2007, 13:35 GMT
By Katie Nguyen
NAIROBI (Reuters) - Oil majors who declared force majeure and quit Somalia 16 years ago will be given the chance to resume their activities under the anarchic country's proposed hydrocarbon law.
According to a parliamentary bill obtained by Reuters, firms that held concessions before December 30, 1990, will be given the right to return to those areas under new production-sharing agreements.
The new production deals will set out different financial terms, exploration periods and obligations as well as new block sizes.
"A Prior Grant in the form of a concession entitling the Prior Contractor to conduct exclusive Petroleum Operations shall be convertible into a Production Sharing Agreement," the draft law says.
Several Western oil majors -- Royal Dutch Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, ENI -- held Somali exploration concessions in the 1980s before leaving in 1991 when warlords toppled dictator Mohamed Siad Barre and the country descended into lawlessness.
etc.
Last edited:
Olsen
Well-known
jonmanjiro said:
- Yes, but, the far greatest consesson holder that had Mohamad Siad Barre in their pocket was - Hunt Oil...
Olsen said:
No doubt the Hunt Oil execs are working out a way to get their finger in the pie even as we "speak"
Olsen
Well-known
Oslo Stock Exchange fell again today with 1,3%. One share fell 25% while Statoil went down more than 2%. And rumours go: that inflation in the US is much higher than what official statistics say. That 1/3 of home morgage market in USA is 'soft' and that 1/2 of the morgages could be 'stretched' (not fully covered with a 30% safety margin under market prices). That liquidity of ordinary US citizens are 'very low'. And so on.
The international finance market functions as a large bridge party where each and every bank (bridge player) suspects the other for sitting deep in Slime Loans and are caucious about borrowing each other money.
And news presenters 'talk' the market up, be it norwegian state run TV or CNN. The more they talk the more the market, - and the dollar, seem to fall.
The communist newspaper 'Klassekampen' ('The Class struggle') suspects that both DNB, Norway's largest bank is deep in Slime Loans and have lost big on the stock market. The bank issued a statement today (stock brokers also read The Class Struggle, you see) that they have only lost 60 million NOK on falling shares. Which experts say is 'very optimistic'.
Further: Klassekampen asks, out in the air, 'how about our public pension funds?'. Mainstream media here in Norway haven't dared ask that question yet...
To be governmentally owned is no garantee for not being deep in Slime Loans. The german SaxonLB had to be bailed out with 17 billion Euros by other german banks, being sunk deep in US Slime Loans.
More will come.
The international finance market functions as a large bridge party where each and every bank (bridge player) suspects the other for sitting deep in Slime Loans and are caucious about borrowing each other money.
And news presenters 'talk' the market up, be it norwegian state run TV or CNN. The more they talk the more the market, - and the dollar, seem to fall.
The communist newspaper 'Klassekampen' ('The Class struggle') suspects that both DNB, Norway's largest bank is deep in Slime Loans and have lost big on the stock market. The bank issued a statement today (stock brokers also read The Class Struggle, you see) that they have only lost 60 million NOK on falling shares. Which experts say is 'very optimistic'.
Further: Klassekampen asks, out in the air, 'how about our public pension funds?'. Mainstream media here in Norway haven't dared ask that question yet...
To be governmentally owned is no garantee for not being deep in Slime Loans. The german SaxonLB had to be bailed out with 17 billion Euros by other german banks, being sunk deep in US Slime Loans.
More will come.
Last edited: