Crisis Petrolera

Nuclear is back on agenda - Blair

2006-05-16T14:10:00.000-07:00

In BBC News
16.05.2006

Prime Minister Tony Blair is giving his strongest signal yet that he backs the building of a new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK.

The prime minister is telling the CBI annual dinner that the issue is "back on the agenda with a vengeance".

He says Britain faces the prospect of being largely reliant on foreign gas imports for its future energy needs.

Critics claim Mr Blair had decided to opt for nuclear power even before the government energy review launched.

Earlier No 10 said Mr Blair would say he had seen a "first cut" of the government-commissioned energy review, due by the end of July.

Chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission Lord Porrit said: "It would be damaging to this government's credibility if it were to pre-empt the conclusions of its own energy review, by making premature and insufficiently considered announcements on nuclear power."

The commission, which is the government's independent watchdog on sustainable development, recently produced a report that said nuclear power was not the answer to tackling climate change or security of supply.

Ahead of the speech, Mr Blair's official spokesman predicted there would be "despairing shrieks of outrage" in response to the prime minister's comments.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said ministers appeared to be considering changes to the planning process to overcome local resistance to new power stations.
Done deal?

A Department of Trade and Industry spokesman said there was as yet no first draft of the energy review, and that the prime minister would be responding to information about its progress passed on to him by Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks.

The prime minister is saying that if current policy remains unchanged there will be a "dramatic gap" on targets to reduce CO2 emissions by 2025 forcing Britain to become heavily dependent on gas.

"We will move from 80 or 90% self-reliance on gas to 80 or 90% dependency on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East, Africa and Russia," he is telling business leaders.

These "stark" facts "put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance", he is telling business leaders.

Economic sense?

For the Conservatives, shadow industry secretary Alan Duncan accused Mr Blair of "trampling" over the review in his desire to reassert his authority in government.

Stephen Tindale, spokesman for environmental group Greenpeace, said: "The prime minister obviously made up his mind about nuclear power some time ago, and certainly well before the government launched its energy review.

"The review is a smokescreen for a decision that has already been taken."

CND chairwoman Kate Hudson argued: "Nuclear power does not make economic or environmental sense. The amount of money invested in producing nuclear power could produce far more sustainable energy, much more rapidly."

Friends of the Earth's Tony Juniper meanwhile said: "It's probably no coincidence that a number of nuclear sceptics were removed from key Cabinet posts earlier this month."

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said Mr Blair had made his mind up to support new nuclear power stations.

"The economic case for nuclear is extremely weak. There are many other options for a secure low carbon energy supply."

He said Mr Blair would present a large nuclear tax bill to future generations and described the move as another "desperate attempt" to establish a legacy.

Brazil joins world's nuclear club

2006-05-07T00:28:00.000-07:00

Brazil has made its choice. They don't import any oil and 60% of the country's energy is produced from a biofuel made out of sugar cane. Sri Lanka is focusing on biogas, Iceland on geothermal energy and 80% of France's electricity come form Nuclear energy, even Britain is studying the posibility of nuclear energy and they are working on plans to develop new nuclear power stations.

I can imagine how Brazilian's will negotiate with Venezuela and Bolivia in the future when they don't need oil anymore. Conutries with the most important reserves of crude oil in the worls will plunge into poverty if simply we stop using oil and switch to alternative sources of energy.

Ocramcan

Brazil has joined the select group of countries with the capability of enriching uranium as a means of generating energy.
By Steve Kingstone
BBC News, Sao Paulo

A new centrifuge facility was formally opened on Friday at the Resende nuclear plant in the state of Rio de Janeiro.

The Brazilian government says its technology is some of the most advanced in the world.

The official opening follows lengthy negotiations with the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the IAEA.

Brazil has some of the largest reserves of uranium in the world but until now the ore has had to be shipped abroad for enrichment - the process which produces nuclear fuel.

In future some of that enrichment will take place in Brazil.

The government says that within a decade the country will be able to meet all its nuclear energy needs.

Brazilian scientists insist their technology is superior to that of existing nuclear powers. They claim the type of centrifuge in use at Resende will be 25 times more efficient than facilities in France or the United States.

Safeguards

Sensitivity over that technology led to a standoff two years ago with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN watchdog.

Keen to protect its commercial secrets, Brazil was reluctant to give inspectors full access to its facilities and politically the negotiations were complicated by simultaneous concerns about Iran's nuclear plans.

But in the end Brazil and the IAEA agreed a system of safeguards to ensure that the new facilities would not be channelled into weapons production.

Friday's opening at Resende is being hailed as a major step forward in Brazil's development and it comes amid renewed concerns about energy supplies in South America.

Last week Bolivia announced plans to nationalise its gas reserves, prompting fears of price rises. As a big importer of Bolivian gas, Brazil sees nuclear energy as one of several strategic alternatives.

Bush plans to tackle petrol price

2006-04-25T11:26:00.004-07:00

US President George W Bush has unveiled plans, including an inquiry into price fixing, to lower the cost of oil and cut climbing petrol prices.

Mr Bush told the Renewable Fuels Association that the US needs to "get off its dependency on oil" as crude costs have moved towards record levels.

The US will also stop topping up the strategic oil reserve, boost domestic output and promote alternative fuels.

Mr Bush said that oil and petrol prices were a matter of national security

'Fairly treated'

He said that the main problem facing the US is that it now gets 60% of its crude from foreign suppliers, many of whom have unstable governments and anti-American policies.

As a result, the US had to step up its efforts to become energy independent, especially when consumers were bearing the brunt of oil market problems by having to pay more for their petrol, he explained.

Calling high petrol prices a hidden tax that hurts consumers and companies, Mr Bush said a main worry was that corporate and retail spending will decline as gasoline prices top $3 a gallon.

Mr Bush said that he is asking the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice to look into whether the higher price of petrol was being caused by market manipulation.

Consumers need to be "treated fairly at the gas pumps", he added.

In an effort to get more crude oil and petrol onto the market, Mr Bush said the US would not top up the strategic petroleum reserve over the summer.

"By deferring deposits until the fall, we'll leave a little more oil on the market. Every little bit helps," he said.

Different views

However, Mr Bush warned that any steps he introduced would simply be short-term measures that needed to be backed up by a shift in mentality among US consumers and companies.

"Long-term we need to power our automobiles with something other than oil," Mr Bush said in Washington.

What the US now needs to do is step up its efforts to conserve energy, and invest in new, environmentally friendlier sources of fuel such as ethanol, he explained.

Voters expected oil companies to spend more on developing alternative energy sources, especially as they were making massive profits, Mr Bush said.

To help promote the use of more fuel efficient cars, Mr Bush called on lawmakers to give greater tax breaks for hybrid vehicles that use electricity as well as petrol.

His comments took some of the steam out of the oil market, and crude dipped in both London and New York.

Prices are still near record levels, however, and are unlikely to tumble while concerns exist about Iran's nuclear programme and demand remains strong in developing nations including China and India, analysts said.

G7 warning over rising oil prices

2006-04-23T06:01:00.000-07:00

In BBC News
Saturday, 22 April 2006

Finance ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) leading industrial countries have warned of the dangers to the world's economy from higher oil prices.

The G7 was responding to news that the price of oil had closed above $75 a barrel in New York for the first time.

US-Iran tensions and rising demand are being blamed for the increase.

In a statement after their Washington meeting, the G7 said that although the world economy was in good shape, oil prices could throw things off course.

The Japanese Finance Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki said that while there had not been a risk of inflation so far, the current high oil price meant they would have to monitor the situation closely.

UK Finance Minister Gordon Brown said rising demand was just as much to blame as instability in some major oil producers, such as Iran.

"Asia now takes a third of the world's oil. Where, at one point a few decades ago, it only took around 10%.

"Therefore the demand pressures on oil are such that we need a long-term solution to this, better transparency, more production, more drilling, more investment, more petrochemical investment in particular," he said.

The G7 countries - the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Canada and Italy - said China needed to allow its currency to move more freely, in order to help reduce its huge trade surplus with the rest of the world, BBC Correspondent Mike Fox reports.

But the ministers also pointed to imbalances in the US economy, and said tackling global imbalances was a shared responsibility requiring action by every region of the world.

Oil holds at $71 on Iran worry

2006-04-19T10:45:00.000-07:00

Wednesday, April 19, 2006
In CNN

U.S. May crude oil futures fell 36 cents to $70.99 a barrel by 0341 GMT, after hitting a record-high of $71.60 the previous day, breaking through last August's $70.85 peak.

London's Brent crude eased a cent to $72.50 a barrel, having hit a fresh peak in each of the preceding six sessions on concerns that the ongoing loss of a quarter of Nigeria's supply will tighten European markets more than U.S.

A price rally ignited two years ago by strong demand in fast-growing Asian economies and extended last year by fears of limited global refining capacity has been given new legs by geopolitical tension in OPEC producers Iran, Iraq and Nigeria.

Oil has trebled since the start of 2002 and may be set to test the inflation-adjusted peaks above $80 a barrel reached in the early 1980s, just after the Iranian Revolution.

While a sharp rally in gasoline prices has also helped lift oil by more than $10 over the past four weeks, investors have focused on the worsening conflict over Iran's atomic program -- and more recently the prospect of U.S. military action.

"It's like the Cuban missile crisis; we are just waiting for someone to blink," said Michael Coleman, managing director of Singapore-based hedge fund Aisling Analytics.

On Tuesday, the United States failed to secure international support for targeted sanctions against Iran and President George W. Bush refused to rule out nuclear strikes if diplomacy failed to curb the Islamic republic's atomic program.

"All options are on the table. We want to solve this issue diplomatically and we're working hard to do so," Bush said.

The United States, which already enforces its own sweeping sanctions on Iran, wants the Security Council to be ready for strong diplomatic action, including measures such as a freeze on assets and visa curbs on Iranian officials.

Tehran has vowed to continue its pursuit of nuclear technology and, on Tuesday, warned that the Iranian army would powerfully defend any attack on the country.

Changing regulations
Gasoline prices have soared faster than crude since the start of April as inventories dwindle because refiners are adjusting to regulations to change supply from water-polluting MTBE-laden stock to product that contains ethanol, deemed a more environmentally friendly additive.

Fears of a supply squeeze at the start of the northern summer -- when U.S. gasoline consumption peaks, accounting for more than a tenth of global oil demand -- have caused its premium to crude to double to $22 a barrel, a level seen only twice before, when hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the Gulf Coast last year.

"The way the cracks are pricing now, it looks like there is going to be a gasoline supply problem down the road," Coleman said.

Gasoline futures fell 0.52 percent to $2.2123 a gallon on Wednesday, having hit a post-hurricane peak on Tuesday.

Analysts are expecting U.S. weekly government data to show another draw in U.S. gasoline inventories for the week ended April 14, down by an average of 2.5 million barrels.

Tight motor fuel stocks may be worsened by the two-month-long loss of more than 500,000 barrels per day (bpd) of OPEC producer Nigeria's high-quality crude output, coveted by refiners in the summer months for its rich gasoline content.

Nuclear row sends oil above $71

2006-04-18T12:07:00.000-07:00

Oil prices have hit a record high of $71.15 a barrel, fuelled by growing fears over Iran's nuclear standoff with the international community.

US light, sweet crude rose 75 cents in US trading, passing last year's previous high of $70.85 reached after Hurricane Katrina.

Prices have risen 16% in the past month as Iran's nuclear row has worsened and Nigerian supplies have been disrupted.

Brent crude hit also hit a new record of $72.20 a barrel in London trade.

Iran issue

Analysts said that prices would continue to head upwards as long as Iran's dispute with the international community over its nuclear intentions remained unresolved.

"We have broken new ground today," said Victor Shum, an energy analyst with Singapore-based Purvin & Getz.

"The market sentiment is bullish, with yesterday's record closing, momentum has been built up to cause a wave of buying."

Militia violence in Nigeria, which has led to the suspension of 25% of its output, has also forced prices upwards in recent weeks.

Over the past month, prices have gained more than $10, or 16%.

Global demand for oil remains intense, particularly in the run-up to the US driving season, while available supplies remain tight.

"The basic thing underlying the industry is that global demand remains very strong," said Tobin Gorey, commodities strategist with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

Countries in the Opec oil producers' cartel have admitted there is little they can do to quell the rise in prices.

Oil politics fuels Chad violence

2006-04-15T04:06:00.000-07:00

By Mark Gregory
BBC World Service business correspondent
Thursday, 13 April 2006

The vast majority of Chad's 10 million people depend on subsistence agriculture for their livelihoods.

Living standards are some of the lowest in the world.

Chad is currently ranked in the bottom five out of nearly 180 nations rated by the United Nations in its annual human development index assessment.

Yet the country has one major source of wealth - oil - and it has only started to be tapped in the last few years.

The fighting in Chad is not directly about oil, but oil has made control of the government there a political prize much more worth fighting for.

As so often in Africa, political tensions are in part a scramble for who gets the income from mineral wealth.

Chad has been exporting oil on a significant scale since 2003.

Inevitably, some of the money has been spent on arms

Chad fights rebels in capital

It is reckoned to have reserves of up to one billion barrels.

That's not large in comparison to major oil producers in Opec, but by local standards, the potential spoils are vast.

Controversial pipeline

The key to unlocking Chad's oil wealth has been the construction of a 1,000 mile pipeline from Chad through Cameroon to the coast.

That project was given crucial backing by the World Bank, which lent money and support on the basis that much of the income would go to poverty alleviation.

This was written into Chad's laws.

But a few months ago the Chadian government changed the law, giving itself greater discretion to spend oil revenue as it saw fit.

Inevitably, some of the money has been spent on arms.

The World Bank subsequently froze large sums of development aid to Chad as a mark of its displeasure.

It has been one of the most controversial episodes in the organisation's history.

'Curse of oil'

Campaigners say Chad has become yet another African country where mineral wealth is contributing to instability and making life worse for most people, rather than bringing them higher living standards.

The problem is, how do you do stop small elites from pocketing the proceeds or fighting among themselves as to who gets the spoils in places where there are no strong national institutions and enforceable rules?

Rows over who gets the benefit from oil and mineral exports are major factors behind conflicts in Nigeria's Delta region, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo and numerous other African nations.

No wonder commentators have begun referring to the "curse of oil".

Venezuela takes back oil fields

2006-04-04T09:00:00.000-07:00

BBC News
Monday, 3 April 2006

Venezuela has taken control of two oil fields operated by French firm Total and Italy's Eni.

The government said it had taken the step after failing to agree a deal with the two firms which would give it a majority stake in new ventures.

President Hugo Chavez has been working to strengthen state control over oil production in the country.

So far, 16 oil firms have agreed to change their operations into joint ventures with state oil firm PDVSA.

US based Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and Spain's Repsol are among the companies that signed the agreement on Friday.

In an interview on state television, Minister Rafael Ramirez said the government took over the fields operated by Total and Eni on Saturday.

"We are waiting for a resolution with these operators after they exhausted the possibility of entering into the mixed companies," Mr Ramirez added.

Legal action?

Total's Jusepin field produces about 30,000 barrels of oil a day, while Eni's Dacion field produces almost 60,000 barrels per day (bpd).

Eni has vowed to fight the takeover which it declared illegal.

"Eni believes that this action by PDVSA is a violation of Eni's contractual rights," it said in a statement.

The company added it was considering possible legal action and would be seeking compensation.

Total confirmed its oil field had been taken over, but declined further comment.

Tighter controls

Last year, Mr Chavez declared 32 oil exploration deals in the country illegal - prompting the change to the contracts.

PDVSA officials had voiced fears that the previous agreements were disguised attempts to privatise the country's oil industry.

However, some oil firms have refused to sign new deals, arguing that they have pumped millions into operations in Venezuela, and now may not see any return on their investment.

Venezuela is currently the world's number five crude oil exporter.

The government has been tightening its grip on the oil sector to raise additional funds to fight poverty in the country.

As well as demanding firms give up majority control of their Venezuelan oil ventures, the government is also demanding firms pay more taxes.

Last month, BP was slapped with a back tax bill of $61.4m (£35m) covering 2001 to 2004.

Chavez rules out return to cheap oil

2006-04-03T09:52:00.000-07:00

By Meirion Jones
Producer, BBC Newsnight
03 de Abril de 2006

If you thought high oil prices were just a blip think again - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has ruled out any return to the era of cheap oil.

In an interview with BBC Newsnight's Greg Palast, Mr Chavez - who is due to host the Opec meeting on 1 June in Caracas - said he would ask the oil cartel to set $50 a barrel as the long term level.

During the 1990s the price of oil had hovered around the $20 mark falling as low as $10 a barrel in early 1999.

"We're trying to find an equilibrium. The price of oil could remain at the low level of $50. That's a fair price it's not a high price," Mr Chavez said.

He will have added clout at this Opec meeting.

Analysis by the US Department of Energy (DoE) - seen by Newsnight - shows that at $50 a barrel Venezuela - not Saudi Arabia - will have the biggest oil reserves in Opec.

Venezuela has vast deposits of extra-heavy oil in the Orinoco. Traditionally these have not been counted because at $20 a barrel they were too expensive to exploit - but at $50 a barrel melting them into liquid petroleum becomes extremely profitable.

The DoE report shows that at today's prices Venezuela's oil reserves are bigger than those of the entire Middle East - including Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Iran and Iraq.

The US agency also identifies Canada as another future oil superpower.

Venezuela's deposits alone could extend the oil age for another 100 years.

The DoE estimates that the Venezuelan government controls 1.3 trillion barrels of oil - more than the entire declared oil reserves of the rest of the planet.

Mr Chavez told Newsnight that "Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world. In the future Venezuela won't have any more oil - but that's in the 22nd Century."

He will ask the Opec meeting in June to formally accept that Venezuela's reserves are now bigger than Saudi Arabia's.

Social projects

Mr Chavez's increased muscle will not go down well in Washington, which is deeply opposed to his government.

Ironically, by invading Iraq, George W Bush has boosted oil prices and effectively transferred billions of dollars from American consumers to the Venezuelan government.

Up to $200m a day - half of it from the US - is flooding into Caracas.

Mr Chavez is spending this on building infrastructure and increasing the minimum wage and improving health and education in the poor ranchos which surround the cities.

As a result even his opponents accept that Mr Chavez is extremely popular and will easily win the next presidential election in December.

Mr Chavez is also spending billions in the rest of Latin America - exchanging contracts for oil tankers and infrastructure projects and buying up debt in Argentina and Brazil.

He has made cheap oil deals with Ecuador and the Caribbean.

He has also spent some of the dollars which have come in from the US to support Fidel Castro in Cuba. In return Cuba has supplied the thousands of doctors and teachers who are transforming conditions in the barrios of Caracas.

Concern

Washington accuses Mr Chavez of buying influence in Latin America.

The Venezuelan president has repeatedly won democratic elections and the opposition operates freely although some members have been charged with accepting illegal foreign donations.

Nonetheless Bush's administration repeatedly targets Mr Chavez on human rights and finances his opponents.

Earlier this year, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld compared Mr Chavez to Hitler - because he was elected democratically.

Mr Chavez told Newsnight he was still concerned that Mr Bush had not learned the lessons of Iraq and would order an invasion to try to secure Venezuela's oil.

"I pray this will not happen because US soldiers will bite the dust and so will we, Venezuelans," he said.

He warned that any such attempt would lead to a prolonged guerrilla war and an end to oil production.

"The US people should know there will be no oil for anyone."

Mr Chavez does not accept UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's criticism of him for lining up with Mr Castro.

He told Newsnight: "If someone is sleeping together it is Bush and Blair. They share the same bed."

Greg Palast's interview with Hugo Chavez kicks off Newsnight's Latin American Season on Monday night at 2230 (BBC Two).

There's no more 'easy oil'

2006-04-01T04:47:00.000-08:00

Friday, September 9, 2005

B. ROBERT FRANZA, M.D.
GUEST COLUMNIST

Listening to the Seafair sound of high-performance military aircraft flying barely off the deck over a major urban area, burning very expensive fuel for what someone considers "entertainment," I couldn't help but reflect on at least one beneficial outcome of a "post-petroleum economy" -- much less noise.

So many have tried to obfuscate both the reality that "easy oil" is about done and the connection between the rapid expansion of its use and the already obvious and major effects on those aspects of our atmosphere that enable life to exist, as best we know, only on this planet.

Now, instead of obscure publications, we can read "the era of easy oil is over" in the Financial Times, and, realize that the words are quoted from media messages being generated by such major oil companies as Chevron. Here's one example:

Financial Times, Aug. 4: "Big Oil warns of coming energy crunch."

But, for those who have understood the reality and implications, it's not news. As Tom Engelhardt notes in "Michael Klare on Entering the Age of Resource Wars," our responsibility is clear:

"Eventually, of course, global oil production will not merely be stagnant, as during the Twilight Era, but will begin a gradual, irreversible decline, leading to the end of the Petroleum Age altogether. Just how difficult and dangerous the Twilight Era proves to be, and just how quickly it will come to an end, will depend on one key factor: how quickly we move to reduce our reliance on petroleum as a major source of our energy and begin the transition to alternative fuels. This transition cannot be avoided. It will come whether we are prepared for it or not. The only way we can avert its most painful features is by moving swiftly to lay the foundations for a post-petroleum economy."

If we intend to lead the Puget Sound region, Washington state and the Pacific Northwest to a sustainable, vibrant economic future, we need to begin to explain to our fellow residents that spending money on more roads, bridges and tunnels means we are wasting precious capital and creating burdensome debt for structures that will see rapidly declining use in the next decade and beyond.

We need to have the courage to recognize that what we have experienced during our lifetime -- the era of easy oil is over. And, fortunately, this is not a partisan issue; no matter what your political affiliation, the reality of what energy resources are available on the planet is grounded in what remains and what we are capable of creating.

We need to have the courage to construct and deliver to our fellow residents an "energy use literacy program," through which we explain to every resident of the state why we are going to need to do several things very differently from in the past and why each of us must do these tasks together.

If we are going to pursue a "big transportation project," it should be focused on improved rail for freight transportation, not trucks, as to ensure our role as a major port and we should evaluate what technology(ies) we should use to establish a very fast passenger train system connecting Seattle to Spokane, the Tri-Cities, Pullman, Vancouver, B.C., and Portland.

We should close the monorail bank account, immediately.

We should forget replacing the viaduct, and we should get the existing one closed and demolished -- before nature does it for us and at costs far greater than money.

We should forget a tunnel along the waterfront (especially given the likely change in sea level because of global warming).

We should spend a fraction of what the monorail would have cost to expand, quickly, streetcar access throughout the urban core of Seattle and expand bus service throughout the Puget Sound region.

And, most important, we should make "personal broadband access" a reality for every resident of the state before the end of this decade.
B. Robert Franza, M.D., is a research professor at the University of Washington department of bioengineering and chief scientist, Pacific Northwest Bioscience.

United Kingdom: Gas prices hit all-time high as fears of energy crisis grow

2006-03-29T11:46:00.000-08:00

The oil crisis is turning into a general energy crisis, this also happened to Ukraine when Russia stop sending oil thruogh there pipelines due to political reasons, but this affected Europe as a hole. The wars of the future will be to control resources, in particular energy.
Ocramcan

Source: Copyright 2006, Independent
Date: March 14, 2006
Byline: Philip Thornton

Gas prices in the UK surged to a record high yesterday as chilly weather sent demand soaring, reviving fears that Britain could face an energy crisis.

The market was hit by the closure of the UK's largest gas storage site and a strike by French gas workers that cut supplies from the mainland.

Wholesale gas prices jumped fourfold to 225p a therm, according to Spectron Group, a marketplace for energy users, before ending at a record 195p.

The surge in the gas market also drove electricity prices higher, as the UK relies on gas for 40 per cent of its power generation.

National Grid, which runs the gas pipeline network, issued an alert warning industrial users of a shortage of supply for the first time in its history. The jump in prices, if prolonged, will lead to more price rises for residential consumers who have already seen bills rise by more than 40 per cent in the past two years.

Centrica, the owner of British Gas, which unveiled a 24 per cent price rise last month, blamed the European gas market for failing to operate correctly. It said wholesale prices in the Netherlands were about half the level of the UK but despite that, the undersea pipe between the UK and the Continent was running at half its full capacity.
A spokesman said: "In a properly functioning market, anyone who could buy at 116p a therm and sell at more than double that would be going for it gangbusters - but it still doesn't happen. It demonstrates the efficiency of the market and underlines the difficulties the UK has in sourcing what it needs from Europe."

John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP who chairs the Independent Energy Scrutiny Panel, said: "This is symptomatic of the nature of the gas market where most demand is not sensitive to the spot price."

In November, when the price last peaked, the Government laid the blame at Europe's door, saying lack of reform was keeping prices artificially high.

The news took the shine off figures showing manufacturers' raw materials costs did not rise last month for the first time in almost six months. The reading left the annual pace of input price inflation at 15 per cent and was due mainly to a fall in crude oil and gas prices.

However, factories passed on a price increase to the customers. The Office for National Statistics said output prices rose 0.3 per cent last month, keeping the annual rate at 2.9 per cent.

Meanwhile, government figures revealed a 1.3 per cent jump in house prices in January.

Alaska hit by 'massive' oil spill

2006-03-24T11:28:00.000-08:00

We can see here in this article that the Americans are desperate for oil, so as to allow future drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Now we can see the consequences of this desperation.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/4795866.stm
Published: 2006/03/11 10:00:01 GMT

An oil spill discovered at Prudhoe Bay field is the largest ever on Alaska's North Slope region, US officials say.

They estimate that up to 267,000 gallons (one million litres) of crude leaked from a corroded transit pipeline at the state's northern tip.

The spill was detected on 2 March and plugged. Local environmentalists have described it as "a catastrophe".

In 1989, the Exxon Valdez shipping disaster spilled 11m gallons (42m litres) of oil onto the Alaskan coast.

'Painful reminder'

"I can confirm it's the largest spill of crude oil on the North Slope that we have record of," Linda Giguere, from Alaska's state department of environmental conservation, was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency.

The estimate is based on a survey conducted several days ago at the site where the leak was discovered, officials say.

The spill covers about two acres (one hectare) of the snow-covered tundra in the sparsely populated region on Alaska's north coast, some 1,040km (650 miles) north of the state's biggest city, Anchorage.

The source of the spill was a hole caused by internal corrosion in the pipeline, officials say. It remains unclear when the leak started.

Environmentalists from Alaska Wilderness League said the spill was "a catastrophe for the environment".

They said it was "a painful reminder of the reality of unchecked oil and gas development across Alaska's North Slope".

They also urged lawmakers to shelve a Republican-led project to allow drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Supporters of drilling in Alaska say it offers an alternative source of energy to the Middle East and so would improve national security.

Opponents warn oil exploration would harm a pristine wilderness and endanger a key habitat for migratory birds, polar bears, caribou and other animals.

1989 disaster

Alaska's worst-ever oil spill happened on 24 March 1989.

The Exxon Valdez tanker ran aground in Prince William Sound, near Anchorage, contaminating around 1,300 miles (2,080km) of coastline.

Its captain, Joseph Hazelwood, admitted drinking vodka before boarding the vessel, but was subsequently acquitted of operating a ship while intoxicated.

The spill killed an estimated 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 seals, 250 bald eagles, up to 22 Orca or killer whales, and an unknown number of salmon and herring.

In 2004, a federal judge in Alaska ordered Exxon to pay $6.75bn (£3.9bn) in damages and interest in relation to the spill.

Analyst fears global oil crisis in three years

2006-03-24T11:05:00.000-08:00

Hello all, it's been a long week, but we have to go on, and here we have another interesting article, this one from The Guradian published less than a year ago.

Analyst fears global oil crisis in three years
John Vidal, environment editor
Tuesday April 26, 2005
The Guardian

One of the world's leading energy analysts yesterday called for an independent assessment of global oil reserves because he believed that Middle Eastern countries may have far less than officially stated and that oil prices could double to more than $100 a barrel within three years, triggering economic collapse.

Matthew Simmons, an adviser to President George Bush and chairman of the Wall Street energy investment company Simmons, said that "peak oil" - when global oil production rises to its highest point before declining irreversibly - was rapidly approaching even as demand was increasing.

"This is a new era," Mr Simmons told a conference of oil industry analysts, government officials and academics in Edinburgh. "There is a big chance that Saudi Arabia actually peaked production in 1981. We have no reliable data. Our data collection system for oil is rubbish. I suspect that if we had, we would find that we are over-producing in most of our major fields and that we should be throttling back. We may have passed that point."

Mr Simmons told the meeting that it was inevitable that the price of oil would soar above $100 as supplies failed to meet demand. "Demand is pulling away from supply...and we have to ask whether we have the resources that we think we do. It could be catastrophic if we do not anticipate when peak oil comes."

The precise arrival of peak oil is hotly debated by academics and geologists, but analysts increasingly say that official US Geological Survey estimates that it will not happen for 35 years are over-optimistic.

According to the International Energy Agency, which collates data from all oil producing countries, peak oil will arrive "sometime between 2013 and 2037", with production thereafter expected to decline by about 3% a year.

While oil from conventional sources is expected to decline, more and more is expected to come from "unconventional" supplies found in oil-rich rocks, especially in the US and in deposits of tar found in Venezuela.

The former UK energy minister Brian Wilson, a supporter of both nuclear power and renewables, said that Britain would be unwise to rely completely on importing gas from politically sensitive countries as North Sea reserves declined.

"Seventy percent of our electricity by 2020 will come from gas and 90% of that gas will be imported...We should be planning for an indigenous energy future," he said.

But he added that global reserves were not overestimated. "The concept of peak oil needs to be taken very seriously indeed, [but] my working assumption is that both global oil and gas reserves continue to be significantly underestimated."

But other oil analysts argued strongly that a major financial crisis could occur as soon as 2008. Chris Skrebowski, of the Energy Institute in London, which monitors all major oil discoveries and developments, said depletion of global conventional oil reserves was running at about 5% a year, according to Exxon figures.

"Norway, Venezuela, the UK and Indonesia and many others are all declining production. I expect Denmark, Malaysia, China, Mexico and Brunei to peak within three years...I estimate that we have, at best, 32 months before [the crisis] hits.

Mr Skrebowski predicted, using UK government figures, that production from the British sector of the North Sea would halve within 10 years. "We have a congenital bias to optimism...12 fields in the North Sea basin are seeing rising production, but they are mostly small. Overall, production peaked in 1999. It fell 10% last year and 8.5% the year before," he said.

"Oil will not run out for many years," said Colin Campbell, former vice-president of Fina and chief geologist of the oil giant Amoco. "The information governments give is grossly unreliable. Oil companies report less than they discover for pragmatic reasons, but Opec countries have overestimated what they think their reserves are."

He said many Middle Eastern Opec countries, including Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, had all significantly lifted their estimated reserves in the late 1980s to benefit from larger quotas, but they had not discovered new fields or changed their estimates since then.
"The real issue is not the actual date of peak production - which I believe is next year - but what happens during the decline of production.

"I think we are in for an extended period of restricted economic activity. I do not think that we will adjust very smoothly," he said.

After the Oil Runs Out

2006-03-19T03:11:00.000-08:00

By James Jordan and James R. PowellSunday, June 6, 2004; Page B07

If you're wondering about the direction of gasoline prices over the long term, forget for a moment about OPEC quotas and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and consider instead the matter of Hubbert's Peak. That's not a place, it's a concept developed a half-century ago by a geologist named M. King Hubbert, and it explains a lot about what's going on today at the gas pump. Hubbert argued that at a certain point oil production peaks, and thereafter it steadily declines regardless of demand. In 1956 he predicted that U.S. oil production would peak about 1970 and decline thereafter. Skeptics scoffed, but he was right.

It now appears that world oil production, about 80 million barrels a day, will soon peak. In fact, conventional oil production has already peaked and is declining. For every 10 barrels of conventional oil consumed, only four new barrels are discovered. Without the unconventional oil from tar sands, liquefied natural gas and other deposits, world production would have peaked several years ago.

Oil experts agree that hitting Hubbert's Peak is inevitable. The oil laid down by nature is finite, and almost half of it has already been extracted. The only uncertainty is when we hit the peak. Pessimists predict by 2010. Optimists say not for 30 to 40 years. Most experts expect it in 10 to 20 years. Lost in the debate are three much bigger issues: the impact of declining oil production on society, the ways to minimize its effects and when we should act. Unfortunately, politicians and policymakers have ignored Hubbert's Peak and have no plans to deal with it: If it's beyond the next election, forget it.

To appreciate how vital oil is, imagine it suddenly vanished. Virtually all transport -- autos, trucks, airplanes, ships and trains -- would stop. Without the fertilizers and insecticide made from oil, food output would plunge. Manufacturing output would also drop. Millions in colder regions would freeze.

Fortunately, oil production does not suddenly stop at Hubbert's Peak; rather, it declines steadily over time. But because production cannot meet demand, the price of oil will rapidly and continuously escalate, degrading economies and living standards. People complain now about gasoline at $3 per gallon. After Hubbert's Peak, $7 per gallon will seem cheap. Spending $150 to fill up the SUV? Ouch!

How to minimize the impact of declining oil production? Conservation and new finds can help. Higher mileage standards for autos and trucks could cut U.S. oil use by 20 percent or more. New oil fields continue to be discovered, but they are small. No giant Saudi Arabia-type fields have been found in 30 years. The small fields contribute ever diminishing amounts of oil. But while conservation and new oil can delay Hubbert's Peak and ease its impact, they cannot prevent it. Moreover, even if the United States conserves oil, other countries might not. A practical long-term, non-oil solution to the problem of Hubbert's Peak is needed.

We need new technologies, especially for transportation, which accounts for two-thirds of U.S. oil consumption. Possible options are synthetic fuels from coal, hydrogen fuel from nuclear and renewable power sources, and electrified transport: light rail, rail and maglev. Processes for synthetic gasoline, diesel and jet fuel are well developed but expensive. The environmental problems from coal -- mining, carbon dioxide emissions and other pollutants -- are serious and require more attention. Hydrogen fuel produced by electrolysis from renewable power sources is environmentally clean, but it has serious technical problems. Producing the hydrogen equivalent in energy to the oil now used in

A more practical approach would be the electrification of transport. Switching half the truck and personal auto miles to electrified transport would require an increase in electric generation capacity of only 10 percent. Electrified transport is clean, non-polluting and energy-efficient. Light rail and rail systems are already in wide use. First- generation maglev systems are operating, and lower-cost second-generation systems are being developed.

As oil production declines, the combination of electrified transport and synthetic fuels from coal can meet the challenge. Hydrogen fuel is probably not practical, but research and development on it should continue in the hope of a breakthrough.

Whatever non-oil transport technologies prove best, making the transition from our present systems will take many years. It took decades for the first automobiles and airplanes to evolve into effective systems, and decades to build the interstate highway network. We can't afford to wait until Hubbert's Peak occurs. We should begin now to plan and implement the new, non-oil technologies. If we don't, our economy and living standard will be in serious trouble.

James C. Jordan is an energy and environment policy consultant and a former energy program director for the Navy. James R. Powell, a former senior scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory, was a co-recipient, with Gordon Danby, of the 2000 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Engineering, for their invention of superconducting maglev technology. He is a director of Maglev 2000 of Florida Corp.

When the last oil well runs dry

2006-03-19T02:59:00.000-08:00

I found this article while surfing in the BBC News web page http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3623549.stm
By Alex Kirby BBC News Online environment correspondent.

Just as certain as death and taxes is the knowledge that we shall one day be forced to learn to live without oil.

Exactly when that day will dawn nobody knows, but people in middle age today can probably expect to be here for it.

Long before it arrives we shall have had to commit ourselves to one or more of several possible energy futures.

And the momentous decisions we take in the next few years will determine whether our heirs thank or curse us for the energy choices we bequeath to them.

Industry's lifeblood
There will always be some oil somewhere, but it may soon cost too much to extract and burn it. It may be too technically difficult, too expensive compared with other fuels, or too polluting.

An article in Scientific American in March 1998 by Dr Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere concluded: "The world is not running out of oil - at least not yet.

"What our society does face, and soon, is the end of the abundant and cheap oil on which all industrial nations depend."

They suggested there were perhaps 1,000 billion barrels of conventional oil still to be produced, though the US Geological Survey's World Petroleum Assessment 2000 put the figure at about 3,000 billion barrels.

Too good to burn
The world is now producing about 75 million barrels per day (bpd). Conservative (for which read pessimistic) analysts say global oil production from all possible sources, including shale, bitumen and deep-water wells, will peak at around 2015 at about 90 million bpd, allowing a fairly modest increase in consumption.

On Campbell and Laherrere's downbeat estimate, that should last about 30 years at 90 million bpd, so drastic change could be necessary soon after 2030.

And it would be drastic: 90% of the world's transport depends on oil, for a start.
Most of the chemical and plastic trappings of life which we scarcely notice - furniture, pharmaceuticals, communications - need oil as a feedstock.

The real pessimists want us to stop using oil for transport immediately and keep it for irreplaceable purposes like these.

In May 2003 the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (Aspo), founded by Colin Campbell, held a workshop on oil depletion in Paris.

Changed priorities
One of the speakers was an investment banker, Matthew Simmons, a former adviser to President Bush's administration.

From The Wilderness Publications reported him as saying: "Any serious analysis now shows solid evidence that the non-FSU [former Soviet Union], non-Opec [Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries] oil has certainly petered out and has probably peaked...

"I think basically that peaking of oil will never be accurately predicted until after the fact. But the event will occur, and my analysis is... that peaking is at hand, not years away.
"If I'm right, the unforeseen consequences are devastating... If the world's oil supply does peak, the world's issues start to look very different.

"There really aren't any good energy solutions for bridges, to buy some time, from oil and gas to the alternatives. The only alternative right now is to shrink our economies."

Planning pays off
Aspo suggests the key date is not when the oil runs out, but when production peaks, meaning supplies decline. It believes the peak may come by about 2010.
Fundamental change may be closing on us fast. And even if the oil is there, we may do better to leave it untouched.

Many scientists are arguing for cuts in emissions of the main greenhouse gas we produce, carbon dioxide, by at least 60% by mid-century, to try to avoid runaway climate change.
That would mean burning far less oil than today, not looking for more. There are other forms of energy, and many are falling fast in price and will soon compete with oil on cost, if not for convenience.

So there is every reason to plan for the post-oil age. Does it have to be devastating? Different, yes - but our forebears lived without oil and thought themselves none the worse.
We shall have to do the same, so we might as well make the best of it. And the best might even be an improvement on today.

Life after the oil crash

2006-03-19T02:39:00.000-08:00

This is part of another interest article I found in http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ and was written by Matt Savinar a Californian licensed attorney.

Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This is not the wacky proclamation of a doomsday cult, apocalypse bible prophecy sect, or conspiracy theory society. Rather, it is the scientific conclusion of the best paid, most widely-respected geologists, physicists, and investment bankers in the world. These are rational, professional, conservative individuals who are absolutely terrified by a phenomenon known as global "Peak Oil."

Oil will not just "run out" because all oil production follows a bell curve. This is true whether we're talking about an individual field, a country, or on the planet as a whole.

Oil is increasingly plentiful on the upslope of the bell curve, increasingly scarce and expensive on the down slope. The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the endowment of oil has been 50 percent depleted. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up.

In practical and considerably oversimplified terms, this means that if 2000 was the year of global Peak Oil, worldwide oil production in the year 2020 will be the same as it was in 1980. However, the world’s population in 2020 will be both much larger (approximately twice) and much more industrialized (oil-dependent) than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace worldwide production of oil by a significant margin. As a result, the price will skyrocket, oil-dependant economies will crumble, and resource wars will explode.

The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him.

In a similar sense, an oil-based economy such as ours doesn't need to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10-15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty.

The effects of even a small drop in production can be devastating. For instance, during the 1970s oil shocks, shortfalls in production as small as 5% caused the price of oil to nearly quadruple. The same thing happened in California a few years ago with natural gas: a production drop of less than 5% caused prices to skyrocket by 400%.

Fortunately, those price shocks were only temporary.

The coming oil shocks won't be so short-lived. They represent the onset of a new, permanent condition. Once the decline gets under way, production will drop (conservatively) by 3% per year, every year.

That estimate comes from numerous sources, not the least of which is Vice President Dick Cheney himself. In a 1999 speech he gave while still CEO of Halliburton, Cheney stated:

By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent
annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead,
along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline
in production from existing reserves.That means by 2010 we
will need on the order of anadditional 50 million barrels a
day.

Cheney's assesement is supported by the estimates of numerous non-political, retired, and now disinterested scientists, many of whom believe global oil production will peak and go into terminal decline within the next five years. Unfortunately, many of these experts are no where near as optimistic as Dick Cheney was in 1999. Andrew Gould, CEO of the giant oil services firm Schlumberger, for instance, recently explained the global decline rate may be far higher than what Cheney predicted seven years ago:

An accurate average decline rate is hard to estimate, but an
overall figure of 8% is not an unreasonable assumption.

An 8% yearly decline would cut global oil production by a whopping 50% in under nine years. If a 5% cut in production caused prices to triple in the 1970s, what do you think a 50% cut is going to do?

Other experts are predicting decline rates as high as 10%-to-13%. Some geologists expect 2005 to be the last year of the cheap-oil bonanza, while many estimates coming out of the oil industry indicate "a seemingly unbridgeable supply-demand gap opening up after 2007," which will lead to major fuel shortages and increasingly severe blackouts beginning around 2008-2012. As we slide down the downslope slope of the global oil production curve, we may find ourselves slipping into what some scientists are calling the "post-industrial stone age."

Ultimately, the energy-intensive industrial age may be little more than a blip in the course of human history:

Peak Oil is also called "Hubbert's Peak," named for the Shell geologist Dr. Marion King Hubbert. In 1956, Hubbert accurately predicted that US domestic oil production would peak in 1970. He also predicted global production would peak in 1995, which it would have had the politically created oil shocks of the 1970s not delayed the peak for about 10-15 years.

"Big deal. If gas prices get high, I’ll just drive less. Why should I give a damn?"

Because petrochemicals are key components to much more than just the gas in your car. As geologist Dale Allen Pfeiffer points out in his article entitled, "Eating Fossil Fuels," approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US.

The size of this ratio stems from the fact that every step of modern food production is fossil fuel and petrochemical powered:

1. Pesticides are made from oil;
2. Commercial fertilizers are made from ammonia, which is
made from natural gas, which will peak about 10 years
after oil peaks;
3. With the exception of a few experimental prototypes, all
farming implements such as tractors and trailers are
constructed and powered using oil;
4. Food storage systems such as refrigerators are
manufactured in oil-powered plants, distributed across
oil-powered transportation networks and usually run on
electricity, which most often comes from natural gas or
coal;
5. In the US, the average piece of food is transported
almost 1,500 miles before it gets to your plate. In
Canada, the average piece of food is transported 5,000
miles from where it is produced to where it is consumed.

In short, people gobble oil like two-legged SUVs.

It's not just transportation and agriculture that are entirely dependent on abundant, cheap oil. Modern medicine, water distribution, and national defense are each entirely powered by oil and petroleum derived chemicals.

In addition to transportation, food, water, and modern medicine, mass quantities of oil are required for all plastics, all computers and all high-tech devices.

Some specific examples may help illustrate the degree to which our technological base is dependent on fossil fuels:

1. The construction of an average car consumes the energy
equivalent of approximately 20 barrels of oil , which
equates to 840 gallons, of oil. Ultimately, the
construction of a car will consume an amount of fossil
fuels equivalent to twice t he car’s fina l weight.
2. The production of one gram of microchips consumes 630
grams of fossil fuels. According to the American Chemical
Society, the construction of single 32 megabyte DRAM
chip requires 3.5 pounds of fossil fuels in addition to 70.5
pounds of water.
3. The construction of the average desktop computer
consumes ten times its weight in fossil fuels.
4. The Environmental Literacy Council tells us that due to
the "purity and sophistication of materials (needed for) a
microchip, . . . the energy used in producing nine or ten
computers is enough to produce an automobile."

When considering the role of oil in the production of modern technology, remember that most alternative systems of energy — including solar panels/solar-nanotechnology, windmills, hydrogen fuel cells, biodiesel production facilities, nuclear power plants, etc. — rely on sophisticated technology.

In fact, all electrical devices make use of silver, copper, and/or platinum, each of which is discovered, extracted, transported, and fashioned using oil-powered machinery. For instance, in his book, The Lean Years: Politics of Scarcity, author Richard J. Barnet writes:

To produce a ton of copper requires 112 million BTU's or the
equivalent of 17.8 barrels of oil. The energy cost component
of aluminum is twenty times higher.

Nuclear energy requires uranium, which is also discovered, extracted, and transported using oil-powered machinery.

Most of the feedstock (soybeans, corn) for biofuels such as biodiesel and ethanol are grown using the high-tech, oil-powered industrial methods of agriculture described above.

In short, the so called "alternatives" to oil are actually "derivatives" of oil. Without an abundant and reliable supply of oil, we have no way of scaling these alternatives to the degree necessary to power the modern world.

World oil crisis

2006-03-19T01:33:00.000-08:00

When most of us think about oil, we tend to think about heating oil for the furnace and about the gasoline and diesel fuel that keeps our cars and trucks on the road. What most of us don't realize, however, is that oil does more than just fuel our vehicles and keep us warm in winter. It has become the foundation upon which our entire modern civilization has been built. Recently, that foundation has begun to develop some cracks and has become a little shakier than it used to be, as cheap oil and natural gas become harder to find and acquire. Even if we were to develop a new source of energy and a more fuel-efficient car today, without oil, modern civilization as we have come to know it is still in deep trouble.

To start with the basics, armies aren't the only organizations that run on their stomachs. So do civilizations. Agribusiness is totally dependent upon large machines and artificial fertilizers and pesticides in order to raise, harvest, and transport the vast quantities of grain, fruit, and vegetables we enjoy today. Fertilizers and pesticides require oil and natural gas, not only in their distribution, but in their manufacture as well. Also, feed for beef cattle, chickens, and turkeys depends very heavily on these same fertilizers and pesticides. When cheap sources of oil and gas are not readily available, the chemical industry passes the increased costs on to agriculture. The increasing prices for fertilizers and pesticides then results in increased food prices for the rest of us.

We may find ourselves eating farther down the food chain in the near future. In other words, we eat the grain instead of feeding it to something else first, since each link added in the food chain results in energy loss. In the future, the turkey and chicken "factories" we have now may not exist. The vast feedlots where cattle are fattened on grain before being slaughtered and made into hamburger patties for the nation's fast food restaurants may no longer be economical. Thus, wastes from such industries may no longer be available to those who believe it could serve as a viable large-scale energy source for the future.

The world is now consuming roughly 77 million barrels of oil a day. And the demand grows every year as other countries aspire to our style of living and level of consumption. What's really interesting is that out of that 77 million barrels, the U.S. consumes most of it. In 2002, the U.S. consumed 19.66 million barrels a day on the average--more than one-quarter of the entire world's oil consumption--and the demand in this country continues to grow every year. You can check this out for yourself on this US Department of Energy web site: eia.doe.gov
Today, much of our food travels an average of 1200 to 1500 miles before it gets to our tables. Most of the vegetables consumed in the East were transported overland by truck from California. The roads the trucks roll on are made of asphalt. Where does asphalt come from? You guessed it--from petroleum. When the supplies of asphalt become more restricted, our entire transportation system may very well begin to deteriorate. There are some substitutes, but certainly not in the quantities required to maintain a national road system. And the substitutes also require energy to manufacture and transport. Which roads will be sacrificed first? Will it be the interstate system on the edge of town, or the street in front of your home?
And, oh, by the way, those tires on the trucks and on your family car? They also required petroleum in their manufacture and distribution. Along with the machinery that mined the iron ore, converted it into steel, and formed it into the frame for your car.

So, okay, what else is oil used for? Well, plastics for one thing! Look around you. How much of your world is made up of plastic? The keyboard you type on is most likely plastic, as are the casings for your monitor and your printer. Much of our food comes in plastic containers, even our eggs these days, and the spouts on our plastic-coated juice and milk cartons are themselves plastic as well. The hospitals depend on disposable plastic supplies, such as syringes and oxygen tubing. Bottom line: it would take a book to document all the uses of plastic, and plastic depends on the rich chemical soup called petroleum. Oh, and have you looked at what ink is made of? Or that pen in your hands?

But it doesn't stop there. The roofing tiles and tar paper used in home construction require petroleum for their manufacture and distribution; the lubricants in our engines and machinery--even "synthetic" oils--are currently oil-derived. Many medications require petroleum for their manufacture. Our synthetic textiles, such as nylon and rayon, depend on the chemicals derived from petroleum. Petroleum, in other words, touches every industry…every technology…every business…every home…and each and every one of us in one vital way or another, every single day of every single week.

Many people have suggested all we have to do is begin manufacturing oil and plastics from organic sources such as corn or soybeans or other such crops. Unfortunately, there is only so much land available, and most of the arable land is currently being used to grow food--or is being developed into more homes and shopping centers. The nice thing about oil is that it is underground and takes up relatively little space to extract. So, do we give up food production for energy substitutes and plastics instead? And who is it that will go hungry while perfectly good farmland is used to grow plastic for all those McDonald's Happy Meal toys?

It may be that in the not too distant future, we end up with several different schemes for energy production that will indeed keep us warm and allow us to keep driving our cars while the tires hold out. But one thing's for sure: no single method will be able to replace petroleum and everything we use it for.

Also, ask yourselves this: Do we really want to find something that will totally replace oil so our civilization can continue as it is right now? Even if we were to find a substitute, and energy doesn't become a limiting factor, then food and water are sure to be. While the corporate fishing fleets are busily mining the oceans and destroying the world's fisheries, similar corporate agricultural interests are busily mining our topsoil and groundwater. Personally, I'm beginning to think it might actually be better if our civilization were brought up short--so our planet doesn't end up becoming a giant, uninhabitable dust ball.

This is the original article that was sent to me by a friend, I am not sure who wrote it but it makes a lot of sense. Regards.

De la Crisis Petrolera y nuestro futuro

2006-03-12T00:46:00.000-08:00

Esta es la traducción de un artículo que un amigo me envió. No se quien es el autor pero personalmente creo que vale la pena leerlo.

"En general cuando pensamos en petróleo o gas siempre pensamos en el combustible que hace que nuestros vehículos y unidades de transporte se mantengan rodando en las pistas o lo que nos permite cocinar o mantenernos calientes cada día. Pero lo que muchos de nosotros no entendemos aun es el hecho de que los combustibles fósiles hacen mucho más que solo eso. Se podría incluso decir que el petróleo se ha convertido en la piedra angular de nuestra civilización y recientemente estamos viendo como estos cimientos están empezando a resquebrajarse en la medida en que petróleo barato se hace cada vez más difícil de encontrar. La situación aparentemente es tan crítica que incluso si encontráramos una energía alternativa para mover nuestros vehículos en una forma más eficiente nuestra civilización seguiría en grandes apuros.

Hay una serie de argumentos del porque incluso difundiendo energías alternativas nuestro problema no acabaría. Uno de ellos es la agroindustria. La agroindustria, (y me refiero por esto al cultivo de la tierra en gran escala), depende de maquinaria, pesticidas y fertilizantes para su proceso productivo incluyendo la distribución desde los centros de producción hacia los centros de consumo. Los fertilizantes y pesticidas no solo requieren grandes cantidades de petróleo para distribución, si no también para su manufactura. Al mismo tiempo el los establos en donde se produce leche y carne y las granjas que nos proporcionan pollos y pavos a su vez dependen de la agroindustria para alimentar a sus animales. Lo que sucede entonces es que si el precio del petróleo se incrementa, este costo es transferido por la industria petroquímica a la agroindustria y este costo a su vez resulta en un incremento en el costo de nuestros alimentos.

El mundo consume alrededor de 80 millones de barriles de petróleo al día. La demanda de China y la India, países que están creciendo económicamente a ratios por encima del 8% anual, están impulsando la demanda y con ella el precio del crudo. En la medida en que estos países tratan de asegurarse el suministro futuro de un petróleo que ya es escaso, lo único que logran es encarecer este vital recurso para el resto del mundo. (Y esto incluye a los Estado Unidenses que consumen más del 25% del petróleo que se produce, o sea que de los 80 millones de barriles diarios, ellos se llevan alrededor de 20 millones). Estos datos son obtenidos de la página del Departamento de Energía de los Estados Unidos: eia.doe.gov

En estos días los alimentos que compramos en supermercados recorren cientos de kilómetros sólo para poder llegar a nuestras mesas. Más aun si son alimentos importados. Del productor al los centros de distribución cerca de las grandes ciudades y de allí hacía los supermercados. Incluso nosotros al ir a comprar consumimos energía en nuestros vehículos añadiendo unos kilómetros extra a esta cuenta. Pero no es sólo eso, la mayoría de las pistas por la que los camiones y vehículos circulan están hechas de asfalto. ¿De donde viene el asfalto? Bueno pues de donde más que del petróleo. Esto quiere decir que cuando el petróleo empiece a escasear, el sistema de transportes empezará a deteriorarse. Aunque aun podemos usar cemento para las pistas aunque se requiere de petróleo para producir y mover esta producción en donde se requiera. Aunque debemos tener en cuenta que para procesar el caucho y obtener los neumáticos de nuestras unidades de transporte y distribuirlos hay que usar petróleo, incluso la maquinaria utilizada en minería para extraer los recursos de los que nuestros vehículos están hechos necesita de petróleo.

Pero proyectándose un poco más, todo lo que nos rodea está hecho de plástico. Teclados de computadora, los lapiceros que usamos, los envases en los que la comida es empacada, y el interior de nuestros vehículos por mencionar algunos ejemplos. Incluso los hospitales dependen de una serie de herramientas descartables como jeringas, envases y mangueras. Y bueno, para cariar el plástico es un subproducto del petróleo.

En países y regiones muy frías como Canadá, el norte de Estados Unidos, y muchas zonas del norte de Europa, la gente depende la calefacción para pasar el invierno. Además en estas regiones las casas están fabricadas con materiales especiales que las aíslan del frió. Techos especiales y materiales aislantes usados en construcción dependen en gran medida del petróleo para su fabricación. Incluso los lubricantes usados en nuestros vehículos son subproductos del petróleo. Muchas medicinas dependen del petróleo en sus procesos productivos. Fibras textiles sintéticas como el Rayón y el Nylon dependen de químicos derivados del petróleo. Se podría decir que el petróleo toca cada industria, cada tecnología, cada negocia, cada hogar y a cada uno de nosotros de una u otra forma.

Se ha sugerido en algunos medios la posibilidad de fabricar plásticos y aceites de fuentes orgánicas como la maíz la soya y cultivos similares, pero no disponemos de tantas tierras de cultivo, las que están disponibles se usan para cultivar alimentos o para ampliar las zonas urbanas y construir mas casas y edificios. Además, ¿Cómo fumigaríamos esas cosechas?

Lo que si se puede asegurar, es que en el futuro cercano vamos a disfrutar de una serie de energías alternativas que nos darán luz, calefacción y suficiente energía para mover nuestros vehículos. La energía nuclear, y el viento entre otras, pero nada de lo que hagamos reemplazará al petróleo cuando se acabe. Estaremos entonces enfrentando un cambio estructural en nuestra sociedad, la población se reducirá y ya no viajaremos tanto, al menos en aerolíneas de bajo costo, la producción masiva centralizada revertirá en miles de pequeños productores locales y cada zona se beneficiará de los recursos que localmente se puedan encontrar."

Pronto haré un update con más atículos sobre este tema tan interesante. Muchos saludos a todos.

Marco