Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

We Must Imagine a Future Without Cars

By James Howard Kunstler, AlterNet. Posted April 4, 2007.


Kunstler argues that the coming age of energy scarcity will change everything about how we live in this country -- most of all our dependency on automobiles.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by James Howard Kunstler

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The following is James Howard Kunstler' recent speech to the Commonwealth Club of California. An audio stream of the speech is available.

Two years ago in my book The Long Emergency I wrote that our nation was sleepwalking into an era of unprecedented hardship and disorder -- largely due to the end of reliably cheap and abundant oil. We're still blindly following that path into a dangerous future, lost in dark raptures of infotainment, diverted by inane preoccupations with sex and celebrity, made frantic by incessant motoring.

The coming age of energy scarcity will change everything about how we live in this country. It will ignite more desperate contests between nations for the remaining oil and natural gas around the world. It will alter the fundamental terms of industrial economies. It will ramify and amplify many of the problems presented by climate change. It will require us to behave differently. But we are not paying attention.

As the American public continues sleepwalking into a future of energy scarcity, climate change, and geopolitical turmoil, we have also continued dreaming. Our collective dream is one of those super-vivid ones people have just before awakening, as the fantastic transports of the unconscious begin to merge with the demands of waking reality. The dream is a particularly American dream on an American theme: how to keep all the cars running by some other means than gasoline. We'll run them on ethanol! We'll run them on biodiesel, on synthesized coal liquids, on hydrogen, on methane gas, on electricity, on used French-fry oil... !

The dream goes around in fevered circles as each gasoline-replacement is examined and found to be inadequate. But the wish to keep the cars going is so powerful that round and round the dream goes. Ethanol! Biodiesel! Coal Liquids. ...

And a harsh reality indeed awaits us as the full scope of the permanent energy crisis unfolds. The global oil production peak is not a cult theory, it's a fact. The earth does not have a creamy nougat center of petroleum. The supply in finite, and we have ample evidence that all-time global production has peaked.

Of course, the issue is not about running out of oil, and never has been. There will always be some oil left underground -- it just might take more than a barrel-of-oil's worth of energy to pump each barrel out, so it won't be worth doing.

The issue is not about running out -- it's about what happens when you head over the all-time production peak down the slippery slope of depletion. And what happens is that the complex systems we depend on for everyday life in advanced societies begin to falter, wobble, and fail -- and the failures in each system will in turn weaken the others. By complex systems I mean the way we produce our food, the way we conduct manufacture and trade, the way we operate banking and finance, the way we move people and things from one place to another, and the way we inhabit the landscape.

I'll try not to dwell excessively on the statistics since I am more concerned here with the implications for everyday life in our nation. But it is probably helpful to understand a few of the numbers.

Oil production in the US peaked in 1970. We're now producing about half of what we did then, and our own production continues to run down steadily at the rate of a few percentage points of recoverable reserves each year. It adds up. In 1970, we were producing about 10 million barrels a day. Now we're down to less than five -- and we consume over 20 million barrels a day. We have compensated for that since 1970 by importing oil from other nations. Today we import about two-thirds of all the oil we use. Today, the world is consuming all the oil it can produce. As global production passes its own peak, the world will not be able to compensate for its shortfall by importing oil from other planets.

Nor is there any real likelihood that new discoveries will be adequate to compensate. Discovery precedes production, of course, because you can't pump oil that you haven't discovered. Discovery of oil in the US peaked in the 1930s -- and production started declining roughly 30 years later. Discovery of oil peaked worldwide in the 1960s, and now the signs suggest the world has peaked. Discovery of new oil worldwide in recent years has amounted to a tiny fraction of replacement levels. In fact, we may be burning more oil just in our exploration efforts than we will get from the oil we're discovering.

The oil industry has been dominated by what are called supergiant fields. The four reigning supergiant fields of oil our time were discovered decades ago and are now in decline. The Burgan field of Kuwait, the Daqing of China, Cantarell of Mexico, and Ghawar of Saudi Arabia. Together in recent decades they were responsible for 14 percent of the world's oil production, and they are now in decline. All except Ghawar of Saudi Arabia have been declared officially past peak by their own governments and Ghawar is showing clear signs of trouble -- though Aramco itself won't say so. Ghawar has provided 60 percent of Saudi Arabia's production. Saudi Arabia's total production is down 8 percent in the year past, despite a massive increase in drilling rigs, and the incentive of high prices.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: peak oil, auto dependency

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
it's all over now?
Posted by: edith on Apr 4, 2007 1:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
kunstler may be right. autos and national production are finished. Local is in. So whose going to explain to the millions of undereducated, semiliterate and politically apathetic/ignorant kids in urban schools that they can't have their twinkies and blowpop diet any more, and will have to labor in the fields? Hey, that is what they ran away from El Salvador and Mexico for! Thanks for resolving the immigration question, Kunstler.

BTW, the super spread of local govt Kunstler predicts as national economies fall and urban/suburban govts collapse means that some areas at least will be taken over by those who have guns. (vacuum of power and all)

Gee, isn't the left sorry it backed gun confiscation now?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wrong wording... Posted by: Wassermann
» Be careful ... Posted by: greenman
» Good Governments? Are you kidding? Posted by: albrechtkrausse
More apocalyptic doom and gloom from the Left
Posted by: ISlamIslam on Apr 4, 2007 3:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have more faith in humankind to solve problems such as coming up with alternate sources of energy than does this author. The Left predicts catastrophe for humankind, resulting from our "hubris" and/or the earth's retaliating on us, more so than any fundamentalist Christian I know. What a miserable, depressing existence, to be constantly reeling from the threat of one catastrophe to another!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Electric cars Posted by: suprmark
» RE: lectric cars Posted by: bttl
» RE: lectric cars Posted by: suprmark
Wishful thinking...?
Posted by: mjabele on Apr 4, 2007 3:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why would we necessarily be able to run a nationwide electric rail system, but not a few dozen centralized universities?

Though I agree with the desirability of some of the things the author advocates for, I get the impression a number of things he envisions reflect his inward desires more than an actual compelling need for change. For me, this undermines his arguments to some degree, since I can't distinguish between what things we really HAVE to change, versus those things the author simply WANTS to change, presumably for personal ideologic reasons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wishful thinking...? Posted by: richholland
Retreatment......
Posted by: Scott on Apr 4, 2007 5:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THIS is what he is talking about and as we do or are forced to do it, we will become a nation of tightly packed citizens much as the cities in Europe and Asia are! We will also have the added costs of tearing down and digging up all the buildings, parking lots, etc. of all the surburbia that has taken over local FLAT land as that land will be required once again for crops and animals at a much closer local level. As a society and a nation we (america) will not survive this retreatment and we will become once again a much smaller nation and/or a loosely bound state's centered entity!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: etreatment...... Posted by: suprmark
peace out, "american dream"
Posted by: OneAcre2012 on Apr 4, 2007 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never mistake the end of suburbia for "doom and gloom." It's about damn time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

jitterbugmom4
Posted by: hermionie on Apr 4, 2007 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think about how is America ging to adjust to a world without cheap gas. We have planned and/or built so many of our cities around the automobile...for all of you who live east of the misissippi you should realize that most cities built west of the river were built on railroad T's-thus the T-town and the term the wrong side of the tracks... railroads decided the shape of the future west, then later cars. How can these towns be restructured? I think about this every day as I drive my kids from place to place. Is there a school or a collection of people who actively think about these things? Not just the smart growth people but I mean an actual place/school of thought that consider the future city without cars- now. ??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: jitterbugmom4 Posted by: richholland
» RE: jitterbugmom4 Posted by: cinattra
After the Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth - Good
Posted by: Windwhistler on Apr 4, 2007 6:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I feel that it is highly likely that Kunstler's senario is coming to a neighborhood near us all. The possibility of a Deus ex Machina saving us is highly unlikely. Technology is highly over rated as a savior as I see.

And it is also clear to me that it would be near criminal for a government to NOT make plans to ease the coming adjustment but based on recent performance we can hardly expect any such action whatever by the US.

Nevertheless, for me, Kunstler's world (after the weeping and gnashing of teeth) sounds like a step up compared to the one we have now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Economic Disparity?
Posted by: pdxstudent on Apr 4, 2007 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing I want to know about is what this guy's, the whole peak-oil crowd really, take on economic disparity is (going to be). He mentions at least a few times that the "economic elite," a cumbersome phrase meaning "the rich," will come to be the only ones able to drive cars or consume the way we've been used to doing as a nation.

What upper-class is this guy talking about? Except for the last outposts of Old Wealth that remain in this country, the upper-class exists primarily because of the economy that just the same created the burgeoning middle-class. If the economy as we know it goes out the door, then the means by which people are said to be wealthy will generally go with it. Does that mean a collapse into a nostaligic, somewhat romantically primative, if not communistic utopia-- a stock delusion of the later 20th Century? I doubt it. Not that I wouldn't like it to be, but I even resist the temptation to speculate that it would.

There will be serious practical problems to tbe business of just getting by later in this century, but what this author doesn't give any attention to is how the means of production really will/could look like. We aren't going to go back for many of our answers to energy scarcity. It might have that appearance, but the world is several billion people larger now, and it got their because of the development of capitalism for the last 200 years. Where we go once capitalism spends its cash, so to speak, as an economic program, as a way of organizing and running society, will be deeply conditioned by the way things are right now.

For one thing, simply going back 75, 100-200 years when it comes to how we get our food, get around, get our jollies is not going to work. Thinking like that is not really going to help us either; such thinking is endemic to problem we're in now. We have come to where we are today, which is to say, over 6 billion people, around 300million alone in the United States, because we have outstripped the productive potentials of those former ways of making things and getting around.

Where we go next is going to be influenced by the greatest problem that will always be with humans and all living beings so long as they live: how am I going to get enough to eat? I am less confident that simply returning to an antiquated mode of food production, which is to say as a nation relying on local food production the way we used to do it, will solve the problem of feeding 300million people. Not because I think we couldn't do it, but because I don't think it would be enough, especially when there are a whole host of other local burdens most people would have to start to take on themselves. I think the change in how we get our grits will be much more complicated and influenced by the conditions we actually live in right now than this author deals with.

I repeat: talk of "return to this, return to that..." is symptomatic of the same thinking that brings us to the point where we have to change or die.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: conomic Disparity? Posted by: Draconis
» RE: conomic Disparity? Posted by: pdxstudent
» What I am saying is this... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» I'll give you that. Posted by: antiapathy
» RE: economic Disparity? Posted by: bttl
» some ideas Posted by: jan-karl
Forward Thinkers...
Posted by: daytripper on Apr 4, 2007 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forward thinkers are alway ridiculed. As Gandhi said: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Some people just can't get their brain to work in such a way that allows them to consider that their own narrow world view may, in fact, be wrong.

anarkissed.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Currently...
Posted by: Farmertim on Apr 4, 2007 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as a organic/biologically based farmer my inputs of trace minerals still travel about 700 miles to get to my field and into my crops.
My feed source for grain is 30 miles away, and most of my customers for my dairy production is 25 miles away.
As I look to the ability to produce anything without this current footprint I am faced with two choices.
Grow crops at a lower rate of production and nutrient density which in time I will have no viable animals, milk or crops, or spend like crazy now to remineralize the soil so when the cost is too prohibitive I can keep the soil active and whole with the rotations that keep it so.
But as I look around the nearly 3 square miles of crops that surround me, it will be all corn next year to feed the ethenol plant 10 miles to the north.
Cornell and UC Berkley just found out what Sweden knew 25 years ago that grain to ethenol is a net loss energy conversion, at a rate of around 29%.
It is my plan to be self suffecient and sustainable with sound practices but I can only feed about 300 families on the acreage I have....that leaves about 750,000 people out of luck within 20 miles of me.
Kunsler is correct and is only getting better in speaking his message backed by more studies and realities that are coming apparent to more than just him and his colleages.
To think otherwise is to fall into the fact that it is hard to admit your whole life is based on a false pretense.
Every time you turn the key to your car, tractor, or buy a plane ticket, your one day closer to when you cannot, or wish you could, but cannot afford to.
The average miles on hamburger in the store, and veggies for that matter is now over 1500, cut that cord and see how much will be in the store on any given day.
There will come a day when you wished you had those canning jars you gave way found in the basment of your grandparents house when you cleaned it out.
We must begin to examine the way we grow crops, treat our land, and use what resources we have left to assure our grandchildren can live in the future, not hold up the 7% growth rate..simply live a life and enjoy each other without fighting for the scrapes our current model will leave us.
Farmer Tim

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Currently... Posted by: richholland
» RE: Currently... Posted by: bttl
» RE: Currently... Posted by: georgiadrake
» RE: Mineralizing the Soil Posted by: krishna
Amen
Posted by: nopuppy on Apr 4, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The obsession on the automobile, the notion that life can't exist without it, is something I've never really grasped, though I do understand that several generations haven't known any transport system but the automobile and the airplane. However, I lived in New York City for 25 years and one of the things that kept me there was the fact that I didn't need an automobile to go to work or buy my groceries. Now I'm out of the city and, while I only drive to work and the grocery store, and once in a while to pick up friends at the bus stop, I am of course dependent on a car. I may love walking, but a 12-mile hike to work through a blizzard, a raging rain storm, or in subfreezing temperatures, as I enter my golden years, is not appealing. The "mass transit" system in my county is laughable and used only by the very poor and the handicapped. Its schedules do not even accommodate the standard workday hours. (It is, however, cheap.) I live in an area that used to be a major part of the NE canal system, and I'm hoping that as we transition into a carless future that system can be rebuilt, mass transit will evolve into something one can actually use, and the railroads will be brought back into efficient service. But car-obsession is not going to go gently into that good night. Like most irrational fixations, there is more emotion invested in it than reality warrants.

We've barely scratched the surface of biofuels and we're already seeing the havoc diverting foods to fuels will create. Nope, cars will have to go.

I don't have much faith in humankind, because most folks can't seem to see past the way things have "always been," i.e., the few years they've lived since their late childhood. If we'd started working towards a petroleum-free future we'd be halfway home by now. If the oil companies had invested in future profits from renewable energy rather than crouched over the quick, immediate profits of oil, they'd already be positioned for success. As it is, prehistoric thinking seems inextricably tied to prehistoric fuels, and we're all due for a bumpy ride.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Amen-Not! Posted by: SamFox
» RE: Amen-Not! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» nopuppy Posted by: SamFox
» RE: nopuppy Posted by: greenman
Energy needed, any way you slice it
Posted by: Jeffski on Apr 4, 2007 7:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The question at "Wishful thinking" made me think of another, that I hadn't before -- where is he going to get all the energy needed for all these trains and boats, etc.? And not just *running* the trains and boats, but the energy to build or re-build the infrastructure? He says we have to do all this because we're running out of energy, but what he's describing needs massive amounts of energy to put into place, let alone to operate thereafter.

Trains may be more efficient than individual trucking -- but not by much, and he's talking about shifting virtually all existing freight *and* passenger traffic to rails. Most rails are already at capacity, with backlogs threatened at all major U.S. ports. The shift he's describing would require a massive expenditure of energy (mining iron ore for rails, shipping rails (likely from China or Indonesia), making sleepers and beds from wood or concrete, making rail cars (steel, aluminum, glass, plastics, fabrics), re-building passenger depots, etc.

I'm not saying it can't be done -- but if we're going to spend all that money and energy, is this the best way to do it? There will *always* be a need for individualized freight and passenger transportation. Even in the late 19th century, not every town was served by rail, and even in those that were freight haulers were needed to move goods from depots to individual stores, while residents kept individual wagons and buggys for personal transport. Ditto even the largest seaport communities in the 18th century -- how did people get from dock to store or home, except by individualized (and usually individually-owned) means of transport?

In other words, if we're always going to need some level of individualized transport, *and* we're going to make a massive investment of money and energy, is the most efficient answer a complete re-orienting of our nation's existing infrastructure -- or instead focusing that expenditure on evolutionary progress of that existing infrastructure?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The End Times of America.
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 4, 2007 7:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cue the fiddler. Like ancient Rome, the United States is about to go up in flames. Lucky for me, having been born in 1935, I experienced the best times in American history -- never to be seen again.

Gone are the glory days of shared sacrifice and common goals. The label “USA” now means Universally Selfish Americans who eagerly follow examples set by greedy national leaders, both Republicans and Democrats.

Sadly for me because I witnessed the best days, America has become a two-class society of Haves and Have-Nots. Last year for the first time ever, the top 400 richest citizens had a net worth of one billion dollars or more. Conversely they were the biggest cheapskates in U.S. history who gave only 1 percent of their income to charity. Why? Because money is now a symbol of power.

More money also means bigger mansions, private jets, million-dollar condos in Dubai – coveted cash stuffed in offshore bank accounts, invested in global stock funds, never to be shared with Americans unfortunate enough to be born poor, the 37 million Americans who live below the poverty line, barely about to feed themselves and their families.

We should be ashamed of ourselves, but that virtue -- shame -- has disappeared from American society as well. For the first time since 1776, we are fighting a war that requires no shared sacrifice, except by our military and their families. For that same reason -- selfishness, which squanders precious national resources for instant gratification -- Americans 50 years from now will be lucky to own bicycles, much less cars.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with irrefutable, hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is amazing
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 4, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is amazing how dedicated some people are to industrialism. They are willing to fight wars and suffer just to continue to have that industrialism which they know very well will not lead to anything approaching their current standard of living and level of consumption.

The author talks about running out of oil changing the way in which industrial economies function. I would argue that what we face will make industrial economies nearly impossible to begin with. I would further argue that we should embrace this fact and learn to live again without industrialism... partly because we simply have no real choice in the matter.

I hear again and again that people just don't like all this doom and gloom and all these inconvenient things. Thats too bad, because you are each and every one of you going to have to grow up and act like adults because whether you like it or not, whether you would rather be doing something else.. watching TV or shopping.. this is not something you or any of us can simply opt out of because it is boring and not fun. This goes to show just how lazy and childish our society has become that we refuse to even begin to deal with these problems because they are depressing and we would rather just wrap ourselves in the consumerist haze that got us here in the first place.

www.greenanarchy.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It is amazing..... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: It is amazing..... Posted by: HeroesAll
» two points Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Extremists
Posted by: ng1944 on Apr 4, 2007 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is what we'e got,
extremists on the right or extremists on the left

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Population adjustment
Posted by: SteveO on Apr 4, 2007 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Mr Kuntsler doesn't say is that the population will have become much smaller by the time things settle out into the more localized economy. Many people will react to the total upheaval of their lives very violently. Others will simply give up, sit down and die rather than lose the Walmat/Mall/Happy Motoring life style.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Population adjustment Posted by: toolband
New techniques revitalize old oil wells
Posted by: rwa on Apr 4, 2007 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BAKERSFIELD, Calif., March 5 Old oil fields in California and elsewhere are the petroleum industry's version of the fountain of youth thanks to new extraction technology.

The Kern River field at Bakersfield, Calif., has produced oil for 108 years and now kicks out 8 1/2 times the oil it did in the 1960s thanks to high-pressure steam injection systems. In Texas, carbon dioxide will be used to force more oil out of the 1930s-era Means field.

Yes, there are finite resources in the ground, but you never get to that point, Chevron engineer Jeff Hatlen said. That's why peak oil is a moving target. Oil is always a function of price and technology.But some petroleum geologists believe the peak is just about here, The New York Times said Monday. I am very, very seriously worried about the future we are facing, said Kjell Aleklett of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas. It is clear that oil is in limited supplies.Still, the Cambridge Energy Research Associates recently placed recoverable oil resources at 4.8 trillion barrels, up from the 3.3 trillion barrels estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2000.

Copyright 2007 by UPI

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/36971.html

In 2006, Canadian producers put out 1.1 million barrels per day of oil from their oil sands reserves.

Greg Stringham, vice president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said they have two possible outlooks for the future of Canadian oil sands; both involve increased production, it's just a matter of how much.

"Conventional oil production is slowing but oil sands will grow," Stringham said at the Energy Information Administration 2007 Annual Energy Outlook in Washington Wednesday. Under ideal conditions, by 2015 production is predicted to be between 2.9 million and 3.5 million barrels a day and between 3.3 million and 4 million barrels per day by 2020. In a constrained scenario, the number is slightly less.

Some of the inhibitors Stringham suggested were in the number of refineries able to handle the heavy oil, the amount of available pipeline to transport it, the transportation infrastructure for moving construction equipment and the availability of construction work forces to build the oil sands recovery plants.

Costs of labor, tires and steel, among other things have driven up the cost of constructing a plant from $3.3 billion in 2001 to $10 billion in 2007.

One suggested solution was manufacturing components of the plants where the work force is more plentiful and then putting the pieces together on-site with a much smaller staff.


Copyright 2007 by UPI

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peak Oil
Posted by: astralman on Apr 4, 2007 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can jump off the ship, but how long can you survive in the water? Read The Long Emergency, check out the issues related to peak oil on the internet. Doom doesn't always hold the hand of gloom, change is inevitable therefore, work on your attitude towards life, rethink your priorities, then move on and accept that a life without petroleum products and the associate lifestyles isn't a problem, but getting there will be because of our current actions and wrong attitudes towards life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a more optimistic view
Posted by: pennyscan on Apr 4, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
UK population 60 million
distance per person per year 7000 miles
or 20 miles per day

cost of electricity 5 pence / KWh
high performance electric car 0.5 pence per mile
(e.g. tesla etc.)
or 10 miles per KWh
or 2KWh per day
or 10 pence per day

or 730KWh per year
or £36 per year !

Nuclear power station = 5GW
or 43,800,000,000 KWh per year
or transportation energy
for 60 million people !
Extra power stations to reduce oil dependency by 60% - one
(unless my math is wrong)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» True Posted by: suprmark
» RE: a more optimistic view Posted by: keep_it_real
» RE: a more optimistic view Posted by: pennyscan
So...let me get this straight?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Apr 4, 2007 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When energy becomes scarce, the value will increase, and people will either pay more for it or use less of it?

And that might affect automobile usage, you say?

Great Scott! Someone ring the economists! There is a new paradiggum in town, and we shall call it "supply and duh, man".

And yes, I did read it. The proof is in the typo: The four reigning supergiant fields of oil our time were discovered decades ago and are now in decline.

What will happen: as energy gradually gets more expensive, lower income urban folks folks who ride the bus will have to make room for the rest of the lower income folks who've grudgingly held onto their expensive-to-maintain hoopties. So, they win in "losing" their gasoline bill, "losing" their insurance (well...) payments, and "losing" the pressure to buy $700 wheels because they--now get this--spin!

Yay! No more trips to Al Sharpton's favorite pay-day loan company to make the car note on a 12-year old jalopy! More money for food, books, less time spent under the hood (no pun intended), and the cities will enjoy cleaner air once the 6 mi/gal Lincoln Land Whales with the "optional" EGRs and catalytic converters are perma-beached.

Smart middle-class urbanites will also give up the car, in favor of saving for retirement, a house, education, etc. as the price of owning and operating YourFavoriteHybridMotorCar increases beyond the level of "expensively foolish". As they begin to hop on the bus and elevated (yippee!) rail, the demand for these services will expand...and the yuppies will demand constant improvement. Which means that everyone wins again, eventually.

As for the author's little religious crusade against suburbia, suburbia will get commuter rail. Why? Initially, for the same reason they typically get better schools--they have the tax dollars to support it. And, eventually, rail penetration will be necessary to bring engineers, docs, and lawyers into town once the price of oil makes driving for even those folks prohibitive.

The situation won't change an awful lot for very rurual folks. The price of food will go up; we'll still need trucks for the foreseeable future to bring food to market, and they'll be able to put gas (diesel) in their necessary vehicles and pass the cost onto people who like to eat.

So. We're back were we started: The New Economic Law of Duh, Man and the Revelation that a Restricted Supply Might Affect Consumption.

Knustler should write another book. Royalties for the ideas above may be mailed c/o ABetterFuture.

One little issue with the author's manifesto. He claims that the U.S. has misallocated the largest amount of wealth...blah,..blah...blah. I submit to you that our resistance to let some petty tyrant with a narrow set of pet issues decide where a free peoples can and can't allocate wealth is what brought the wealth in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HORSE PUCKY!!
Posted by: SamFox on Apr 4, 2007 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Al Gore & his ilk start riding bikes I may start to believe. Until then I say Bull dumplings!!!

Small walk about communities: More like gov controlled minimum security prisons. Will the fat cats live there? Will they quit flying private jets? Will Rosie & Al lose weight? They both look like they do plenty of the consuming they want the rest of to control.

Oil peaked? Sure it has...There is plenty of oil but the oil company sponsored environmental bile movement has the oil fields locked up as they pretend to care for the environment. Sure, individuals in the movement care, but over all they are oil co shills.

Oil is not a fossil fuel & is constantly renewed.

http://www.the7thfire.
com/peak_oil/peak_oil_is_a_known_fraud.htm
(One link. Delete space between "fire." & "com")

http://www.newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanleyA.htm

Global warming?
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive113.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon168.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanleyA.htm
Here is a video by some in the scientific community:
http://www.bottomlineradio.net/ (Look for An Inconvenient Scientific Discovery.)

People, you can believe what you want. If you think the gov & the UN are our hope we are all doomed to their control. We already have the NY food police & are told that cows are ruining the atmosphere. If you believe that do you also believe what the war on drugs crowd tells us about the dangers cannabis & hemp as they continue the futile lost drug war?? Peak oil, global warming & the Reefer Madness war on drugs are brought to us by the same cabal. Man, the propaganda machine just never quits. When are we going to quit believing them? They are playing us for suckers. Don't play into their game or we will all be prisoners in gov controlled sanctuaries.

It's all about control. The control of us!!

SamFox

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You're an idiot... though... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» consider the source. nm Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Peak oil Posted by: Klaxton
Many more articles are accessable from this link:
Posted by: rwa on Apr 4, 2007 10:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remove space:

http://www.peacebytruth.com/archive.php?area=5&P HPSESSID=482703f97bda82fd8bf70a7bcef84ab1

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

atimes.com Julian Delasantellis :
Posted by: rwa on Apr 4, 2007 11:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...There's no real shortage of crude oil; actually, the world is awash in it. Spare refining capacity, that's another story...

There has not been a new refinery opened in the US in 31 years; during that time, the actual number of refineries operating in the US has dropped from 301 in 1981 to 149 in 2003. (This is less dramatic than it seems; US refiners have consolidated many of their, older, smaller capacity refineries into fewer large-capacity refineries.) If more refinery construction had been allowed, it is argued, the refinery capacity crunch implied by rising crack spreads and rising pump prices would never have occurred...

According to the Oil and Gas Journal, 96 of the world's countries have operating oil refineries within their borders; of the world's 10 largest-capacity oil refineries, only two, ExxonMobil's refineries in Baytown, Texas, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, are in the US. (The world's largest-capacity oil refinery, the Paraguana Refining Complex in Venezuela, ships almost the entirety of its product of 940,000 barrels a day to the US east coast.)


According to the Energy Information Administration of the US Department of Energy, total world refinery capacity has only increased 1.5% from 2000 to 2005, from 81.53 to 82.8 million barrels a day (mb/d)...

During the summer of 2000, California electricity supply crisis, when large parts of the state were being subjected to daily electricity blackouts, the late Ken Lay, at that time chief executive officer of the Enron Corporation, a major player in the California wholesale electricity market, mocked David Freeman, chairman of the California Power Authority, by, according to Freeman, stating: "It doesn't matter what you crazy people in California do, because I got smart guys who can always figure out how to make money."

The main thing that Lay's smart guys, as well as the people in the oil industry who are not building new refinery capacity, have figured out is that the market for energy is very unique. When demand is high and supplies are tight, you make less money selling your product than by not selling it. This is what Enron did through taking offline much of California-dedicated electricity-generating capacity for strategically timed (in the California summer, when air-conditioning puts intense demand on power supplies) "maintenance". This drove prices up and created scarcity, not just in California, but all across the western US's interlinked electricity power transmission grid.

"Maintenance" is the same reason that the oil companies annually, including this year, give for taking refinery capacity offline in spring, driving prices up, and setting the world's drivers up for the fuel price increase season that now lasts into early autumn.

This yearly problem, and the tightness in the world's petroleum products markets in general, could be alleviated with new refinery construction, but, as demonstrated above, this is not happening. Oil refinery construction can be a difficult and expensive process, one which probably requires the company to go into debt by either issuing corporate bonds or taking out lines of credit with large commercial banks.

Much better to take the money that would have been spent on refinery construction and use it more judiciously, on things like risk-free short-term dollar or euro treasury securities (currently earning about 5.25% annually) and increased and enhanced corporate salaries, perks and dividends. This strategy is certainly working; oil company profits are skyrocketing. Early this year, ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company, reported the largest-ever quarterly and yearly profits, $10.71 billion and $36.13 billion respectively, ever reported by an American corporation...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I see... Posted by: ateo
Why I think this is (mostly) bunk
Posted by: swick on Apr 4, 2007 11:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kunstler seems to be thinking that the way forward is back, and his needle is stuck in that groove.
I agree that the automobiles and trucks will become something we use much more rarely. And that's about it.
There are many innovations that are conveniently being ignored. I can do my job now from home, on my PC. I commute to work largely due to tradition. These sorts of wasteful behaviors will end.
There is a man in New Jersey who invented a personal solar collector that fulfills his entire household needs and then some. Why wouldn't we mass-produce these things and have one for every household?
Railroads need to replace highways for long distance shipping. But why in the world would we use boats again? I can't imagine pushing merchandise again water resisntance and currents is more efficient than steel wheels on steel rails. Or better yet, maglev trains.
I think Kunstler is just a Luddite pushing the panic button.

[« Reply to this co