Oil Gas & Energy Information




For cleanrooms, you can count on Fluke
Even the very minutest piece of contamination ignored during the manufacture of payloads destined for space can result in eventual degradation of performance or even circuit failures and the possible loss of a mission. So EADS Astrium, part of the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, chose the accurate monitoring and reporting capabilities of the latest handheld Fluke 983 Particle Counter for use in its revamped cleanroom at Portsmouth, where it designs, manufactures, assembles and tests the essential electronic payloads which make up the heart of satellites and space probes. The Fluke 983 stores up to 5000 sampling results, which can be downloaded later to a PC for analysis and reporting.

Chris Jeffery, Process Control Manager at EADS Astrium, explained, 'The size and portability of the Fluke 983 means we can sample air quality at any location, for example, up high near air conditioning vents to check the filtration of the incoming air, at locations hidden behind equipment and benches, and within laminar flow cabinets.

It is intuitive to use: readings are displayed on the LCD screen.

The software provided enables the data to be downloaded to a PC back in my office, so I can easily import it into a spreadsheet for analysis and regular reporting to meet European Space Agency requirements.

And by storing the information on a database, it is easy to interrogate later for purposes of traceability and statistical process control'.

Jonathan Roe, Manufacturing Engineer at EADS Astrium, explained the decision to purchase Fluke 983 Particle Counters for the cleanrooms on the site.

'Originally we used a single trolley-based particle counting system but it had many drawbacks,' he said: 'Its lack of mobility meant it was difficult to monitor exact locations and its output of data was all in printed form.

We had to read the data, then manually enter it into a PC for reporting purposes.

We realised the new handheld Fluke 983 could be the ideal solution.

In trials it proved just that'.

The Fluke 983 stores sampling results, based on time, a set number of counts, or with a programmable delay.

Each time, it records date, time, counts, relative humidity, temperature, sample volumes, any alarm signals, and a location label.
Gow-Mac Instrument sells Irish operation
Gow-Mac Instrument Co, a leading manufacturer of high performance analytical instruments, has announced that it has completed the sale of the assets of Gow-Mac Instrument Co (Ireland) to a non-disclosed Irish interest. The board of directors of each company has approved the transaction. Mr Jeffrey Lawson, President and CEO of Gow-Mac Instrument Co states this change will enable Gow-Mac to fulfill and be more responsive to the rapidly changing analytical technology demands of their customers.

Gow-Mac now becomes a more fully integrated company by conducting all its product development, manufacturing, distribution, and marketing from the corporate headquarters in the USA.

Gow-Mac has expanded its global support in the form of additional sales facilities, most notably the Gow-Mac Instrument Co Taiwan office.

Gow-Mac Instrument Co is a leading manufacturer of gas chromatographs, on-line gas analysers and fully integrated 'Packaged Laboratories' for PAT and process monitoring, research, and trace gas analysis fulfilling the requirements of standard test methodologies - ASTM, GPA etc.
FT-IR Spectrometer specification tool on-line
Thermo Electron Corporation, world leader in analytical instrumentation, announces the availability of a new state-of-the-art interactive web tool that allows current and prospective customers to build an FT-IR spectrometer to their specific application requirements prior to purchasing. This web tool is the first of its kind in the industry. Designed for scientists working in pharmaceutical, chemical, QA/QC, forensics, research and academic laboratories, this build-your-own web tool will be unveiled at the Thermo Booth at the 232nd National Meeting and Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS), at the Moscone Center, San Francisco, on 10-14 September 2006 and is accessible via the website.

Responding to the increasing workloads of scientists, the Thermo versatile web tool saves time by allowing users to interchange a variety of parts quickly and easily, including internal spectrometer components and software options as well as accessories such as ATR, Raman and infrared microscopes.

Users are able to complete around 80% of the Nicolet 6700 FT-IR instrument specification on-line, with the option of e-mailing their selections to their local salesperson for further clarification and/or to request a quote.
4-part hydrocarbon gas analyses at ppb levels
Aspectrics, the innovator of Encoded Photometric Infrared spectroscopy (EP-IR) analysers and winner of the 2006 R+D 100 award, introduces a new application for the analysis of various hydrocarbon gases using its MultiComponent analyser. This application note demonstrates how the EP-IR MultiComponent Analyser is able to conduct simultaneous quantitative analysis of several hydrocarbon gases (C1-C4) in a mixture at parts-per-billion (ppb) level concentrations. Designed to respond to scientists' needs in petrochemical, chemical, environmental and process laboratories, this application note can be downloaded free-of-charge from the newly designed website.

One of the most striking features of the innovative Aspectrics analyser is the speed of data collection: a full spectrum every 10 milli-seconds.

Such scanning speed can translate into applications such as ultra-fast kinetics, parts-per-million (ppm) level quantitative analysis in less than 5 seconds, or, as demonstrated in this application note, measurement of parts-per-billion (ppb) levels of hydrocarbon compounds (methane [CH3], ethane [C2H6], propane [C3H8] and butane [C4H10]) and carbon monoxide [CO], with integration times of only 1-5 minutes.

Traditionally, infrared wavelength generation devices, such as the Non Dispersive Infrared (NDIR) and Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectrometers, are limited either in the simultaneous characterisation of more than one chemical compound, or by a lack of ruggedness, respectively.

In contrast, the Aspectrics MultiComponent EP-IR spectrometer is not only capable of resolving several chemical compounds even if they share a similar chemical composition (and subsequent spectroscopic features), but also is more cost-effective both in field implementation and ownership due to its NDIR-like ruggedness).

The EP-IR MultiComponent Analyser contains patented encoder disc technology that enables the encoding of full spectral information 100 times per second, resulting in 10 milli-second true refresh rate of the chemical information.

Moreover, dedicated on-board processors allow users to monitor processes in real time, even as often as 100 times per second.

Aspectrics quantitative analysis software enables real-time characterisation of multiple chemicals in process streams.
Dysprosium Gallium Garnet Crystals to be Developed for Space X-Ray Detectors
The Crystal Consortium Ltd (TCC) has signed an agreement to develop crystals that will form part of a unique solid-state cooling system, the ADR, being built by the Mullard Space Science Laboratory (MSSL) at the University College London.

The dysprosium gallium garnet crystals used in the ADR (advanced demagnetisation refrigerator) are currently available in small random sizes – TCC’s task is to develop an increased size of crystal to specification, and supply a small number of these improved crystals to MSSL. ‘We look forward to working with MSSL and others in the space industry, to improve the quality and reproducibility of crystal-based components, and make the design a reality,’ said Dr Tony Vere, CEO of TCC.

The ADR fulfils the need for a fully automated, reliable, long-lasting cryogenic cooler for space X-ray detectors. ‘These crystals will be used for the ESA XEUS space telescope,’ said Stephen-Mark Williams, Sales and Marketing Director at WC.

XEUS is an ESA project to place a permanent X-ray observatory in space.
Deposition Rate Monitor and Advanced Process Control for Semiconductors using the kSA RateRat
Background

The kSA RateRat Pro is a deposition rate monitor and advanced process control system. This non-invasive, in situ, optically based product makes thin-film deposition monitoring simple. By combining powerful advanced process control software with real-time calculations of deposition rate, layer thickness and optical constants, RateRat Pro makes monitoring even the most complex multi-layered materials easy and precise.

The kSA RateRat Pro detects and analyzes surface reflectance in real-time. Using sophisticated Virtual Interface algorithms originally developed at Sandia National Laboratories, RateRat Pro determines deposition rate, layer thickness, and optical constants with as little as 350 Å of material. RateRat Pro provides real-time data analysis and output for feedback into process control software, and is ideal for input into MOCVD, MBE, sputtering, and evaporation control systems.

The RateRat Pro system uses a diode laser (multiple lasers and wavelengths available depending on application), high-speed photo detector, 16-bit data acquisition board, and laser modulator to acquire reflectivity data during thin-film deposition. The laser is modulated by inputting a user-selectable modulation frequency to the laser control module. Input data is acquired via analog input blocks at high speed and is Fast-Fourier Transformed (FFT) to find the peak frequency amplitude. This improves signal-to-noise ratio because only light signal at the laser’s modulation frequency is analyzed. Then, the calculated peak frequency amplitude is converted to an absolute reflectivity via a scaling factor, and the resultant reflectivity is plotted, stored, and fitted as a function of acquisition time. All data acquired during a deposition run may be stored and loaded at another time for post-acquisition analysis.

AZoM - Metals, Ceramics, Polymer and Composites - The kSA RateRat Pro
Benefits of the kSA RateRat Pro

Benefits of the kSA RateRat Pro include:

· Real-time analysis of growth rate, thickness, and optical constants (n,k)

· 12-bit signal-to-noise ratio

· No need for initial calibrations

· Spatially resolved growth rate during substrate rotation
kSA RateRat Pro Features

kSA RateRat Pro Features include:

· Two port or 1.33” CF single port, normal incidence mounting

· Integrated real-time feedback for process control
Simple Installation

AZoM - Metals, Ceramics, Polymer and Composites - Diagram showing the easy installation of the kSA RateRat Pro
Patented Virtual Interface Technology

· Real-time update of current n, k, and deposition rate values and standard deviation of these values

· Ability to generate a thin-film deposition recipe, so multiple layers can be fit properly in real time

· Each layer in the recipe has a user-estimated n, k, and growth rate value and can be triggered via an external trigger signal or be time-based

· Optional ability to output deposition rate, thickness, n, and k to analog output channels for input into process control system

· If needed, external triggering may be used to time data acquisition with external events or multi-wafer substrate rotation

· User-friendly Windows 2000 or Windows XP standard environment with file handling and extensive error checking.

· Data storage in ASCII and binary file formats facilitate alternative data analysis.

· Cut-and-paste functionality as well as export publication-quality graphics
Curvature Mapping and Stress Measurement Using The Flexible, High-Resolution kSA MOS Ultra-Scan System From k-Space Associates
Background

The kSA MOS Ultra-Scan is a flexible, high-resolution scanning curvature and stress measurement system. Based on proven kSA MOS technology, this fully integrated ex-situ tool maps the curvature of semiconductor wafers, optical mirrors, lenses, or practically any polished surface. The kSA MOS Ultra-Scan measures stress by monitoring wafer curvature with an array of parallel laser beams and a CCD area detector. Optimized optics and detection system combined with proven fitting algorithms result in typical radius of curvature resolution greater than 50 kilometers. Scans are fully programmable for selected area, line scan, or full area map. The kSA MOS Ultra-Scan also provides quantitative film stress with full area map for 50-200mm wafers by first scanning the bare substrate and then re-scanning the sample post-process.

The kSA MOS Ultra-Scan offers 10x higher stress resolution, lower noise, and more powerful mapping capabilities than any other system available. Applications include non-lattice matched compound semiconductor deposition, Silicon on Insulator (SOI) and strained silicon substrates, or any polished surface where 2D curvature and stress are desired. Samples are manually loaded onto the xy stage for scanning.

AZoNano - The A to Z of Nanotechnology - kSA MOS Ultra-Scan

Figure 1. kSA MOS Ultra-Scan
kSA Multi-beam Optical Sensor

The only commercial in situ stress monitoring system proven for thin-film deposition The kSA Multi-beam Optical Sensor (MOS) is a thin-film stress, wafer curvature, and thickness measurement tool with integrated real-time feedback for process control. This laser based system is highly sensitive and is proven to be extremely robust. With optimized optics and detection system capturing an array of reflecting parallel laser beams, MOS uses proven fitting algorithms to measure a radius of- curvature between 4 and 10 kilometers (depending on system geometry). Because the technique is optically based, it is compatible with harsh environments. MOS is ideally suited for real-time feedback to process control systems in the production or research environment.

AZoNano - The A to Z of Nanotechnology - Total stress induced during mismatched metal oxide growth on Silicon during CVD deposition
Arsenic – Discovery, Occurrence, Production, Properties and Applications of Arsenic
Background

Arsenic is a semi-metallic element. Arsenic and its compounds are known to be toxic.

Arsenic has two forms. The grey metallic version has a density of 5.73g/cm3 and the yellow form that has a density of 1.97g/cm3.
Discovery

While arsenic has been in use since ancient times, in applications such as the hardening of bronze, its discovery has been attributed to Albertus Magnus in 1250AD. He isolated arsenic when he heated soap and orpiment (arsenic trisulphide, As2S3).
Occurrence

Although arsenic can be found in elemental form, it is most commonly found in minerals such as Mispickel (arsenopyrite, FeSAs) which is found in France, Germany, Italy, Romania, Siberia and North America.

Arsenic is also found in other minerals such as:

· Realgar As4S4

· Orpiment As2S3

· Arsenolite As2O3

· Loellingite FeAs2
Production

Arsenic is produce by heating arsenic-bearing minerals in the absence of air. E.g.

Key Properties

· Arsenic and its compounds are known to be toxic

· Arsenic does not melt, it sublimes, going directly from a solid to a gas



Property





Value

Symbol





As

Atomic Number





33

Atomic Weight





74.92

CAS Number





7440-38-2

Density





5.73g/cm3

Melting point





817˚C

Boiling Point





617˚C

Specific Heat





330J/kg.K

Electronegativity





2.18

Applications
Metallurgy

Arsenic is used as an additive for metallurgical purposes due to its semi-metallic properties. Examples include: adding 2% to lead to produce lead shot where the addition increases sphericity; a 3% addition to lead alloys increases mechanical properties and high temperature properties; and 0.15-0.50% addition to copper for high temperature applications.
Semiconductors

Arsenic compounds are used as semiconductors. In particular gallium arsenide (GaAs) is used in diodes, transistors and lasers. Indium arsenide (InAs) is used in infrared detectors and Hall effect applications.
Pesticides and Herbicides

Lead hydrogen arsenate is used as a herbicide and pesticide. Similarly chromated copper arsenate or Tanalith is used to treat timber and wood products.
MOVING PAST PEAK OIL
As we approached the 300th article here at Peak Oil Debunked, I was wondering what to write to mark the occasion. So I took a few days off and mulled it over.

I came to the conclusion that peak oil is a non-event, which has no significant impact on my daily life.

Oil is up by about 600% since the late 90s, So where's all those scary peak oil effects?? You know, the knock-on effects caused by the end of cheap oil.

Call me crazy, but when I step out my front door, things look EXACTLY like they did when oil was cheap. I mean EXACTLY. The roads are choked and overflowing with cars. The freeways are clogged with traffic jams so long you can't even see the end of them. The shelves in the supermarket still look the same. Same products. Same prices. Tidal waves of plastic junk, curios and fresh vegetables continue to fly in from all corners of the earth. Plastic bags continue to be as plentiful as they've ever been. There's been no perceptible slack-off in junk mail volume.

Seriously, if you blindfolded me, put me in a time machine, took the blindfold off, and then asked me: Where are we? Are we in 1998 with an oil glut, or in 2006 after the end of cheap oil, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

The reality just isn't matching up with the rhetoric. Where's the die-off? And the marauders? And the sky-rocketing prices at the supermarket? And the implosion of Walmart? And the death of Phoenix? And the shootings at Gas-n-Go? And the national temper tantrum? And the failure of oil-intensive agriculture? And the mass migrations from the suburbs? And the endless depression? And the collapse of the dollar? And the collapse of fiat money? And hyper-inflation? And deflation? And the nuking of Iran? And the popping of the housing bubble? And the reinstitution of the draft? And China and the U.S. nuking each over Campbell's soup cans?

Kunstler's got it right calling peak oil the Long Emergency. It's going to take so long that it's not even worth paying attention to. Now I know what the doomers say: "You wait, man.. You just wait..."

My response: No, sorry, I'm tired of waiting. I'll be doing something more constructive with my time than playing we're-going-to-collapse/no-we-won't/yes-we-will with peak oil burnouts and neurotics. I'll start worrying when something worth worrying about actually happens.

I will be checking in from time-to-time, but with a frequency more attuned to the actual danger level of the peak oil phenomenon -- i.e. about once a year. ;-)

I will be maintaining the site as a resource for those just coming to peak oil, and will post important stats or information when appropriate. But this blog will not be the place to get a daily peak oil fix.

I have basically achieved all I set out to accomplish with this site. Thanks to all of you for your support, and keep debunking!!
SOARING NATURAL GAS INVENTORIES
Gas Prices Tumble to Near One-Year Low
Natural Gas Prices Decline to Their Lowest Level in Almost a Year Amid Soaring Inventories

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Natural gas futures declined to their lowest level in almost a year on Friday amid soaring inventories of the mostly domestic fuel used to heat homes and produce electricity.

Analysts said the price of natural gas could fall even further in the months ahead, given relatively weak demand and expectations of rising supplies, though they cautioned that production in the Gulf of Mexico remains hindered by damage from last year's powerful hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

"Unless we have a repeat of last summer's hurricane season, we're going to have so much (natural) gas in storage by September that we won't have anywhere to put it," said Daniel Lippe of Petral Worldwide Consulting in Houston.
CONFESSIONS OF AN EX-DOOMER
If you're reading this, you are aware of and probably concerned about the depletion of earth's finite fossil fuel resources, on which modern technological civilization is almost completely dependent, popularly called "Peak Oil" or PO for short. Good for you! By becoming aware of the issue and seeking to learn about it, you are already ahead of the vast majority of people. By trying to find out what, if anything, you can do about it, you're even further ahead. I'm betting you are more likely than average to be open-minded and someone who thinks for him/herself. My advice: don't stop thinking for yourself by adopting without question the dogma of PO doomerism.

I consider myself to be a person of above-average intelligence and a critical thinker, and yet I was sucked in by the 21rst century's equivalent of a doomsday cult. I was ripe for the picking.

I first became aware of the unsustainability of modern civilization in the 1970s, during the so-called oil shocks. I was a kid, but reasonably bright and with a scientific bent, so I read almost everything I could find on energy in general and oil in particular. What I discovered wasn't comforting. We had just 30 years of oil left! We needed it for all the chemicals and plastic things I had previously taken for granted. And here I was, burning this valuable stuff up in Dad's lawnmower! There had to be a better way.

I looked at renewables, but at the time, they all looked like losers. I wouldn't hear the term EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Input) for another 30 years, but even a teenager could see that if you put more energy into something than you could expect to get out of it, it wasn't going to solve the problem. That was true for alcohol fuels, and it was true for solar (photovoltaic) panels. Fusion power sounded good but again even a teenager could see that if you don't yet know how to make something work, it would be foolish to gamble the future on figuring it out in time.

Then I found coal and nuclear power. There was lots of coal, at the time, 500 years worth. And nuclear power, we couldn't ever run out of that (not necessarily true, but I believed it at the time). I had the answer - we were saved! You see, I liked modern technology, and I still do - to me, it was (and is) worth saving. I set the snooze alarm for 1990 (a few years before the oil was due to run out) and more-or-less forgot the whole thing.

In 1987, I first heard about global warming. This was surprising since during the 70s I remember people saying we were heading into a new ice age. Still, I looked at the CO2 and temperature data, and it did seem as if the cooling trend had ended and the earth was gradually warming up, and of course the rise in CO2 levels was clear as a bell. Although the causal relationship was yet unproven, it seemed to me that we'd be better safe than sorry, and so this just looked like another good reason to cut down on using fossil fuels. Unfortunately, mainstream thought seemed to have gone strongly against nuclear power, apparently (to me, having read a lot about it) without much more reason than that Hollywood had made it the spawn of the devil. Since I had already concluded renewables weren't going to do the job, I was resigned to the idea that we would burn through the remaining fossil resources until there weren't two carbon atoms left clinging together, and only then switch to nuclear power.

By the mid-90s it was time for my wake-up call. I discovered and started reading BP's world energy report. The forecast oil doomsday hadn't occurred, in fact there was a comfortable increase in the reserve numbers and the R/P (Reserve-to-Production) ratio had expanded to 40 years. It was beginning to look like this wasn't going to be a problem in my lifetime. The price of oil had crashed and headlines talked about an oil glut. All this extra oil was good news, but it looked as if, instead of counting our blessings at having another century or so of petro-chemical production, the US was hell-bent on burning it up in monstrous, wasteful trucks. What happened to the conservation programs? And when exactly were we going to start building nuclear plants? What about global warming?

About ten years later, I was debating energy issues with one of my greenie friends at dinner. While we both agreed on the need to kick the fossil fuel habit, her contention was that we could get all the energy we needed from renewable sources, whereas I was convinced that we needed nukes because renewables were a Hollywood eco-fantasy and that if you "did the math", you'd probably need a solar cell the size of the entire desert southwest to meet the energy needs of the US. She challenged me to prove that, so off I went to the web to do some research. In doing so, I found...

LifeAfterTheOilCrash (LATOC), Matt Savinar's oil doomsday site. It knocked me out of my chair. Everything I had believed for over 30 years was true, only it was worse than I thought! I had thought that even though we appeared to be stupidly squandering our fossil resources instead of switching to new energy sources, we still had, well, 40 more years to get our act together. But I had foolishly assumed that we could keep producing oil at today's rate until we got close to the end, at which point there would be a steep drop to zero. In fact, though, it was much more likely that a gradual decline in production would set in well before the end, and that while the oil would never completely "run out", production levels far below the ones needed to keep our present technology running would be devastating. Doh!

That's like finding out that the exam you haven't studied for is being given tomorrow morning. But that wasn't the worst of it. LATOC makes the case that it's too late to switch to new energy sources because the effort of switching will itself take energy, energy we won't have as oil production declines. LATOC also argues that we can't get enough energy from the alternatives to power our civilization at current levels. It knocks them down one by one. In short, too little, too late, to save technological civilization. But that still wasn't the worst of it. LATOC makes the point that the so-called green revolution that has enabled us to feed the world's booming population is entirely based on fossil fuels. As bad as it would be to see technology collapse, the doomsday scenario had expanded in the blink of an eye to include a dieoff of billions of people due to either starvation, or wars over the world's dwindling resources.

I went into a black despair. I became a doomer (hence the pseudonym). Well, I was sort-of a doomer - sort-of, because I'm not one to just surrender to fate. I soon learned that there were at least two different types of doomers, the fatalists and the powerdowners. The fatalists figure you might as well bend over, put your head between your legs, and kiss your ass goodbye. The powerdowners seemed to view the end of industrial civilization as a good thing and are looking forward to some sort of new agrarian age, albeit one where lots of people have to die to make room for the survivors. It's a little hard to tell them apart, frankly. Powerdowners claim to have a plan to wind down civilization to sustainable levels. But the plan seems to involve lots of people dying, and most of the survivors becoming a new peasantry. If you like modern technology and don't like death, that plan is hard to distinguish from the doomsday itself. Plus, powerdowners are convinved a powerdown is inevitable after wars and such have played themselves out - thus, fatalists are powerdowners who are foolishly not getting ready. One thing they have in common is the inevitability of the end of modern life.

As I said, I'm not one to surrender to fate. I had to do something. At the very least I could warn people! I told friends and family. I joined an on-line discussion group. I started looking at my own lifestyle to see what I could do to reduce my energy consumption. There wasn't much - after all, I'd been aware of the depletion issue for 30 years. I don't drive much, and I don't use much electricity. I avoid disposable plastic stuff. I recycle everything. I got a motorcycle license and a small motorbike to cut my driving even more. I put compact fluoresent bulbs in the lights I use. I started looking for inefficient appliances to cut my power needs even more.

I also continued my research into energy alternatives. After all, I still hadn't answered my friend's question about how big a solar cell it would take to run the US (answer: for electricity alone, it would be about 1/7 the size of Nevada, according to one solar power site). What I found was encouraging. Renewable technologies had advanced considerably since the 1970s when I'd last looked. Wind turbines had emerged as the most cost-competitive technology, and were being built in Europe. Even solar cells were no longer energy-losers; you could get back the energy needed to make them in a few years and then get decades of free power from them afterwards. Fuels made from waste products, or crops grown specifically for fuel, were energy winners now, given the right feedstock. In particular, vegetable oils could be used in diesel engines, and produced with an energy payback of 3 for 1. Brazil was making a go of ethanol from sugar. Nuclear power still looked attractive, despite decades of Hollywood's best efforts to brainwash me. And there was still lots of coal (250 years worth at today's production levels in the US, because we're burning it up faster than we were before). I started wondering just how impossible it really was to switch from fossil energy sources to a combination of these alternatives using coal to bridge the gap, and I started finding flaws in the logic behind LATOC. In due course, I found four whoppers.

First, doomers tacitly assume that anything short of our current energy consumption level would be catastrophic. They also count as a shortage the expected growth in energy demand from industrializing countries like China and India, perversely using an expansion of modern civilization (that they don't believe can occur!) as further proof that it will collapse. Truth is, there is tremendous waste in our current use of energy. A trip to the grocery store is like going to a monster truck rally these days. Is it really necessary to drive a 5000 pound vehicle to buy groceries? To go anywhere? Huge amounts of food are wasted. In fact, a lot of food is grown to feed animals for meat, a very inefficient way to produce food. (I like meat - I just don't eat that much of it.) We could cut back a lot and not miss it. In an emergency, we could cut back even more, just like we did to win World War Two. It wouldn't be much fun, but it would be possible, and no one would have to starve.

Doomers usually respond to this by making the silly argument that conservation won't work because of something called Jevon's paradox. In 1865, Jevon, writing about coal resources in England, argued that improving the efficiency of use of a resource would only cause demand to increase for the resource as the price dropped. Ergo, conservation causes demand to go up and you run out anyway. Doomers are dead wrong about conservation, though. In fact, surprise, they're dead wrong about what Jevon actually said, too. In the 1970s, conservation efforts and efficiency improvements in cars alone made a big dent in oil usage, enough that you can see it in the world's oil production statistics. Europe made the changes permanent by using taxes to keep demand down. The US didn't, so when the bottom dropped out of oil prices in later decades, we went back to our wasteful ways. Europeans use roughly half the oil per person than the US does. This all proves two things: conservation can enable us to get along with less oil if we have to, and people respond in predictable ways to price changes. Doomers forget that Jevon's so-called paradox assumed that the resource in question was still abundant. But once it runs short, all bets are off. If oil production started falling, the price is not going to go down unless demand goes down even faster. Even Jevon predicted that the price of coal would soar eventually, as the resource became scare in the 1930s - doomers don't know or don't mention that. Incidentally, Jevon was wrong about the end of coal spelling doom for industrial England - he couldn't forsee the switch to oil.

The second flaw is in assuming that because we use oil to do something now, we have no other way to do it. In particular, doomers argue that none of the alternatives will work because they all require oil to implement. Wind farms and nuclear plants require oil to produce the materials they're made from, to transport the materials to the site, and to run construction equipment. Electric cars take oil to manufacture. Even coal mines need oil to run mining machinery. Once we run out of oil, we won't be able to do any of those things anymore, goes the argument. The most obvious problem with the argument is that while these activities require energy, the energy doesn't have to come from oil. We use oil for many of them now because it's cheap and convenient, but that doesn't mean we can't use another energy source when oil's no longer cheap or available. Another problem with this argument is that many of these activities don't even use oil now! They use electricity or natural gas (natural gas will also eventually start to run short, but most likely a decade after oil does). The final problem with the argument is that if things really do start to get as bad as LATOC would have you believe, building energy infrastructure will have much higher priority that most of our present transportation uses. In an all-out emergency, rationing could be implemented giving first priority to food production, energy infrastructure, and long-distance transportation of goods, especially food. The annual road trip to see Aunt Tilly and the annual vacation getaway to the Caribbean would be below the line.

The third flaw in the argument is a bit more subtle. It is the assumption that the energy required to switch to alternatives must come on top of what we are using energy for now, rather than instead of some of it. For example, Savinar argues that we won't have the energy to power a crash program of building efficient cars. This ignores the fact that we are already building cars, millions of them every year. The energy used to build them is already counted; the energy needed to build efficient cars doesn't just add to the total. It takes roughly the same energy to build an efficient car as an inefficient one. It would take 10-15 years to turn over the automobile fleet - it doesn't have to happen all at once. Another example: we are today using energy to expand the infrastructure associated with oil consumption, things like roads, airports, and shopping malls. If things get as bad as LATOC says, we won't need those things anymore. That energy and construction equipment could be used to build power plants instead.

The fourth flaw in the argument is even more subtle. Perhaps you've guessed it by now. Doomers argue that there is no energy source we can switch to that can take oil's place in modern civilization. That might or might not be true, but it's beside the point. No single energy source has to, provided we can put enough of the others together. LATOC and others knock down alternatives one by one. But if (for example) we can produce biodiesel from fuel crops, why can't that be used to run construction machinery to build power stations? I've come to believe that no single energy source will take oil's place, but rather that by combining all the ones we know about, we can put together a workable solution that will be good enough to last 200 years or more - enough time for our descendants to come up with something else, or, if they can't, to gradually reduce their numbers without letting anyone starve.

By now, I had become what the doomers call an optimist, defined as anyone who doesn't think a collapse and dieoff are inevitable. I prefer to think of myself as a realist. The real optimists think the peak in oil production won't happen for another 10-20 years. They could be right, but it almost doesn't matter because we need to act now either way. A later peak just means we have more breathing room to get our act together. It's like finding out that exam you haven't studied for was postponed a week - you still need to study for it, only now you don't have to pull an all-nighter cramming! I personally think we're at or very near peak production now, on a plateau that will probably not be enough to satisfy the newly industrializing countries while supporting our wasteful usage.

I began to see the doomer viewpoint for what it is: dogma. A dogma is something you have to believe, without questioning it. And I began to see the hidden agenda of the powerdowners, namely, to bring about their utopian vision of the neo-agrarian society, no doubt with themselves its leaders. They know that most people won't willingly accept a return to centuries past, because most people are like me. We like our modern first-world lives! Some of us wish more people in the world could have the same lifestyle, even if it means sharing what's available a bit better. But if people can be convinced that a powerdown is as unavoidable as gravity, they may bring it about simply by surrendering to it and not looking for alternatives. Scratch the surface of the powerdowner philosophy, and you'll find Marxism dressed up in radical environmentalism.

The doomers may or may not be correct about our inability to switch the energy basis of our civilization, but their case is far from proven. The mere fact that people are debating what to do shows that a lot of people (even the doomers) don't believe the future is totally out of our hands. The track record of doomsday forecasts is poor - no one can really know the future. The smug certaintly of the doomers that they've got all the answers is what finally shook me out from their midst. The doomers are right about one thing - fossil energy sources aren't going to see us through the 21rst century. But if we don't change course soon, the way forward isn't going to be an agrarian utopia. It will be powered, at least in the US and for the remainder of my life, by coal. The environmental effects of that (primarily sea level rise from global warming) aren't the legacy I want to leave to future generations.

If going back to the land is appealing to you, that's terrific! No one's stopping you, or any of the doomers either. In fact, it's a good thing to have people make some worst-case preperations, just in case the doomers are right. But if, like me, you think technological and industrial civilization is something worth preserving, then let's get to work. Don't be fooled by doomer technobabble. This stuff isn't really too hard for the average person to understand. Look for yourself. And not just at the self-serving prophets of doom, many of whom simply cite each other in a kind of circular support system. Check your prejudices at the door and actually look at sites from the nuclear power industry, renewable power advocates, and environmentalists. Sift them for biases to get to the facts. And keep thinking for yourself.
REVIEW OF "POWERDOWN" BY RICHARD HEINBERG
So, would anyone care to describe the so-called "powerdown" option in enough detail that one could get a sense for what's proposed? I've asked the 'downers on the PO site, but they all just point me to the bible of the 'downer movement, Richard Heinberg's book Powerdown. I've now read it, and I still don't get it. Not only did I not learn anything new about the PO problem, I still couldn't tell you what the powerdown option actually means.

In the introduction, Heinberg sets up the problem, trotting out the familiar four horsemen of PO apocalypse: overpopulation, resource depletion, environmental destruction, and the current political and economic system. His description of industrial society as a rickety raft in imminent danger of sinking is amusing. "Miraculously, seconds go by and it is still afloat,", he says, followed by "A minute goes by and still the damned thing is afloat.", and finally "...every one of your predictions about the fate of the raft has been disconfirmed...there must be some mystical power keeping the raft afloat..." One gets the impression of a man who hates the technological society that spawned and sustains him, and is frustrated by the fact that reality refuses to confirm his belief that it should end in calamity.

Chapter one does a decent job of laying out the magnitude of the energy problem we now face in keeping the raft of civilization from sinking, but rushes over important energy alternatives inconvenient to his thesis. Perhaps these are discussed at greater length in his prior book. Of coal, he says "If we rely on coal to make up shortfalls from other fossil fuels, extraction rates will peak within decades." Decades of coal-derived energy sound to me like decades in which to develop non-fossil energy alternatives, hardly an imminent collapse of society. "Nuclear power is dogged by the unsolved problem of radioactive waste disposal, as well as fears..." So, what, we're going to throw in the towel on civilization because we can't overcome interminable legal hurdles to proper waste disposal and fear-mongering from anti-nuclear advocacy groups? "...the necessary uranium would run out within just a few decades." Ignoring breeder reactors, a technology we've already developed, as well as resources that would become economic at higher uranium prices. France gets 75% of her electricty from nuclear reactors, a pretty good existence proof that the problems dogging nukes aren't technical in nature.

Chapter two, "Last One Standing", is largely a 30-page paranoic rant about the administration of George W. Bush, complete with unsupported allusions to 9/11 conspiracy theories. The point of this bilious assessment of recent events is that US leaders are plotting to fight wars over the remaining oil resources. But wars are incredibly wasteful of resources, especially energy, and certainly won't make more oil resources available. And an all-out war over oil resources with China would like lead to a nuclear exchange that would spell the end of both countries, a fact that surely wouldn't escape even the most dimwitted of current world leaders. In the last chapter Heinberg writes "Even the nation that wins the game will be utterly devastated...and not even the wealthy will be able to maintain their current way of life...Why would anyone choose this path?". Couldn't have said it better myself. A far more likely explanation of events in the middle east is that the US is seeking to ensure an orderly market in the world's dwindling oil resources by instilling fear of US military action in the hearts of the despots that now control those resources, and might be inclined to use the "oil weapon" at this critical time in history. Or there is Paul Robert's contention, in his book The End of Oil, that the US is trying to open up Iraq to exploration and production by western oil companies, all of whom have run out of ways to replace their reserves. Like most people in the US, I'm looking forward to the end of GWB's presidency in 2008, but to suggest that we're looking at the opening salvo in a shooting war for oil is a stretch.

Chapter three was as noted the biggest disappointment to me. It was here that I expected to see the cooperative, powerdown option laid out before me. Yet the reader gets no more than disjointed glimpses. Heinberg describes the Kyoto protocol on climate-change and reprints the Uppsla protocol for managing down oil consumption advocated by the ASPO. He lists the 7 recommendations from the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth (LTG), most of which are completely reasonable and none of which require that industrial civilization end. He briefly rails against the evils of the debt-based fiat money system without explaining the terms, and asserts as self-evident that the system has lead to the problems of population growth and oil depletion. He appears to gravely misunderstand the fundamentals of economics and money when he suggests that all the ills of the system could be cured by having countries issue their own debt-free money. While he argues that economic growth is inconsistent with limitations on resource usage, the data he provided in chapter one refutes this because since the 1970s the world experienced smaller but positive economic grown even in the face of declining per-capita energy use. He takes some shots at globalization without defining what he really means by "re-localization". Finally, he give both Cuba and the Indian province of Kerala as instructive with regard to the likely shape of a powerdown, but admits that neither of these will match what will be faced by modern industrial nations. Readers are left to imagine a powered-down version of their country as either utopian or apocalyptic. Are major metropolitan areas of the US decaying ruins long abandoned by people who've gone back to an agrarian lifestyle? Or dense hives of humanity packed with former suburbanites who've moved closer to work and/or have fled from reclaimation of their land for agriculture? Heinberg doesn't say. Does the powered-down civilization still have high-tech healthcare? Electricity and running water? Modern sanitation? Or has it reverted to a pre-industrial level of technology that will never advance further? Re-localization doubtless means US citizens can no longer obtain mass-produced shoes from China, but are they then buying mass-produced American shoes, or hand-made shoes from the village cobbler? (The assertion that re-localization will be required isn't supported with any numbers. Long-distance transport of goods by ship is incredibly efficient. As oil resources dwindle, one might expect lower-value goods to become too costly to ship, but high-value goods might nevertheless still be more efficiently manufactured in centralized locations and transported around the world. Oil itself is of quite low value in relation to its mass, worth about 25 cents a pound - as long as any world market exists for oil, I would expect a market for higher-value goods to continue to exist as well.) Worst of all is that Heinberg doesn't tackle the population problem that he believes is at the heart of the sustainability problem. In the last chapter he says "By any reasonable assessment, the Earth has already exceeded its carrying capacity for humans...the drawdown of fossil fuels temporarily enabled us to...create phantom carrying capacity." Exactly how far does the population have to drop to provide the liebensraum needed by the survivors? Although Heinberg criticizes environmental organizations for timidity on this subject, he, too, avoids giving a number or timetable. (PO 'downers cite other sources that put the figure at 2 billion souls - reaching that target from the current 6.5 billion within this century is the stuff of sci-fi nightmares.)

Chapter four, "Waiting for the Magic Elixr", invites the reader to skip it, as it's clear what the author thinks of alternatives to oil just from the subtitle, "False Hopes, Wishful Thinking, and Denial". Indeed, a common 'downer response to initiating any discussion of energy alternatives is the assertion that the proposer is "in denial". Apparently they haven't read past the title, for the chapter is interesting both for what it discusses and what it does not. What it does not discuss at any length are two obvious near-term sources of energy to replace oil, coal and nuclear power. Instead, these are both buried in a short discussion of hydrogen, well-known by most PO-aware people as an energy carrier but not a resource. Of these important energy sources, Heinberg simply asserts that by using them to produce hydrogen they cannot meet America's transportation needs, and that both sources produce wastes (which, I suppose, Heinberg thinks are worse than the consequences of powerdown). He gives plenty of space to methane hydrates, a highly speculative possible source of vast amounts of fossil energy. He even mentions unnamed (and thermodynamically impossible) sources of "free energy". The overall effect is to give the reader the feeling that all of the alternatives must be equally untenable. Heinberg barely discusses renewable energy sources, since the chapter on powerdown appears to count them as part of the solution. That's good, because wind turbines are, like coal and nuclear power, an obvious next step after oil. He mentions efficiency improvements as a strategy likely to be at least partially effective, again, apparently included in the powerdown option. Heinberg has in effect classified energy sources and efficiency measures he likes as part of the powerdown solution, while ones he does not like as magic elixrs. Finally, several pages of this chapter are devoted to the strawman that even with an unlimited energy source, humans would ultimately have to curb growth because of Leibig's Law of the Minimum, the idea that the resource in shortest supply will limit growth in a species' population. Heinberg invites people to confuse economic growth with population growth and increasing resource consumption, yet as Heinberg himself notes elsewhere most of the population pressure is coming from under-developed nations. Most industrialized nations, including the US, would have below-replacement population growth were it not for immigration. If an unlimited energy source were to become available and were used to lift under-developed nations to US levels, experience to date suggests that the population would rapidly level off. Still Heinberg persists, asserting that once the hypothetical new energy source was saturated, a turn towards resource wars would be inevitable anyway, and thus even a successful switch to alternative energy ends up following the resource-war trajectory. How fortunate for those of us reading this today that this same line of reasoning wasn't used when wood, whale oil, and coal appeared to proscribe the limits of human achievement. There is no question in my mind that there is an urgent need to curb human population growth, so as to keep the demands on energy alternatives as low as possible. But Heinberg simply hasn't proven that the current population level cannot be sustained over centuries with sufficient sources of energy, in other words, a combination of both powerdown ideas and ideas that Heinberg would doubtless consider "magic elixirs".

Chapter five, "Building Lifeboats", is a green light for people looking for an excuse to become the new survivalists. I won't rehash it here, since it's not terribly detailed. (The sidebar on people attempting to relearn stone-age technologies provides dark amusement.) About the only thing I found illuminating in this chapter was the description of the Amish, which perhaps hints at the lifestyle Heinberg would have us adopt. And yet, Heinberg notes that Amish families typically have large numbers of children, something that has historically been common to agrarian societies. He does his best to square this with the urgency of population reduction, but I found it unconvincing. I found encouraging the statistic that the yields of sustainable Amish farming practices are 50-75% of mechanized agriculture, which gives me hope that a turn away from current practices (one of the LTG recommendations I agree with) won't necessarily spell starvation for us (because, at least in the US, we produce far more food calories than we actually need to have excellent nutrition). Heinberg doesn't explain how the lifeboat communities are going to avoid destruction by rampaging hordes of well-armed, starving, ex-urban thugs in a "Mad-Max" world. If anything, human history suggests that eventually feudalism would return.

The last chapter casts the current situation as a struggle between the Elites, who've opted for resource wars, and the Movement, an alliance of environmental, anti-war, anti-globalization, and human rights organizations. The chapter is a call to action, to push the elites towards the powerdown option while building lifeboats as "plan B". Although generally sympathetic to their aims, his biggest criticism of members of the movement is their lack of frankness on population issues. (I'm also generally sympathetic to environmental causes - my biggest criticism is that they've successfully and unthinkingly blocked nuclear power in the US, leaving us dependent on fossil resources decades past the point where we should have weaned ourselves from them.) It is here that he attempts to explain the apparently irrational behavior of the elites as having been selected for by the capitalist political system. Indeed, it's hard to argue that our present system has not yielded a great number of political leaders unable to look beyond the next election cycle, and business leaders unwilling to look past the next quarter's results. Still, it's a huge leap to assert that they've lost the capacity for long-term planning, at least in their personal lives. Most of these leaders are healthy people in their 40s, 50s, and early 60s, who will live to see the consequences of their strategies played out during the early part of this century. Almost all have children and grandchildren whose futures they would certainly care about. The obvious infeasibility of resource wars will rule them out as a deliberate choice even of the elites. It is more likely that they honestly think the raft not as shaky as Heinberg believes, and that real solutions to our problems that preserve industrial civilization await only the will to execute them. I hope they're right, because it won't be much fun to break the raft up into a few strong logs, and allow everyone that can't fit onto them to drown.
309. ACCELERATING PROGRESS
Many in the peak oil community feel disheartened with technology and consider progress to be slowing. No doubt there are various reasons for this perception, the most rational of which may be a general loss of confidence with science.

Progress may indeed appear to be slowing when one considers the amount of new innovations and advances made during the first half of the 20th century, only to see the second half of the 20th century 'merely' improving upon earlier advances instead of continuing to come up with all new innovations and breakthroughs. Greenneck summarises this position nicely in recent comments:

I recall when Armstrong and Aldrin set foot on the Moon and back then, the future looked bright indeed.
[.]
Well, 35 years later we haven't got back to the Moon.
[.]
What went wrong?

This is why some people believe PO will lead to some kind of doom: they have lost confidence that science will solve it.

I suspect that if one were to travel back in time and grab someone from 1900 to take them on a quick trip of the 20th century, they would likely adopt a similar position on civilisation's progress as many of the PO pessimists do. The jump from 1900 to 1950 would be a remarkable leap for them. They might feel amazed at how much we have progressed, seeing inventions that were in their infancy in 1900 become highly advanced and wide spread. They would see the remarkable leaps forward made in almost every aspect of scientific endeavour, and they would see some of the greatest achievements in human history. And while they may at first feel disorientated with the level of progress made, they would soon fit in with society - after all, social structure and culture in 1950 really wasn't that different from 1900.

But then the jump from 1950 to 2000 would be a different story. Our friend from 1900 might think that civilisation had slacked off. The technology, while improved upon, is still basically the same. There have not been the giant leaps forward in theoretical science that the first half of the century enjoyed. A few industries have made impressive advances, most notably electronics and computing, but over all it would appear to our time travelling friend that progress has slowed considerably.

After a while though our friend would begin to perceive the true advances civilisation has made, however he would not easily understand them. Unlike the jump to 1950, the jump to 2000 would see a change in society he would be virtually incapable of comprehending. People of different races working together and treating each others as equals, women in leading roles in large corporations, he would see scantly clad men and women with strange high-tech sports gear zipping through the streets, people communicating with other people on opposite sides of the world using difficult to see technologies. He would see people assimilating astonishing amounts of information quickly and easily, people conducting business from all parts of the globe and at any time of the day or night. He would see communities of like-minded individuals finding each other from remote and widespread locations and clustering into virtual communities. He would see organisations and corporations employing individuals from all corners of the Earth and working together without ever leaving their homes. He would see people playing when he thinks they should be working, and yet they are never truly away from work as they often work when he thinks they should be resting.

The changes to society and culture are long and varied, but in short, our time traveller friend from 1900 would be overwhelmed by the pace and the capabilities of society circa 2000. In the year 2000 he may not perceive the same obvious degree of technological advancement made from 1900 to 1950, but he would be incapable of comprehending the progress made in the way people live their lives from 1950 to 2000. He would fail to understand the considerable advantages of the new globalized and digitised world community, and perhaps would think that the world has gone crazy.

Not unlike our PO doomer who craves the more quiet, simpler times.

The point of this little time travel exercise is to elaborate on human progress. To understand how civilisation is progressing, we must look at all of the aspects of civilisation, not merely a single part of the equation. For example, some people merely look to the continued use of a single resource as proof that civilisation is not progressing, as a doomer recently put it so elegantly in the comments:
Peak Oil and Permaculture
The latest "Arlington Note" (Volume 9, Number 10) has an article that touches an all sorts of topics I've been including here lately - peak oil, global warming and "2012: The return of Quetzalcoatl" to name but a few. The RU Sirius interview with Daniel Pinchbeck that I linked to recently talked about 2008 as being a turning point of sorts (based on some sort of Mayan numerology embedded in their pyramid design) with various bad things happening. John thinks this involves financial collapse (but doesn't link to any reasoning behind this, other than referring to a podcast I can't find).

From where I sit, here at this nexus of incoming streams of information from many sources about early indicators of potential future events, things are definitely heating up.

There seems to be an acceleration of the number of significant events that point toward big change in the near future. At TAI we watch many different trends, but the most significant ones are climate change and the possibility of a rapid shift in the world’s weather, the peaking of the global supply of oil and the attendant emergence of a new energy era, a major disruption in the world’s financial system, a global pandemic and, of course, the possibility that terrorism will escalate to a much higher level. There are other areas that interest us, like the dwindling supply of drinking water and technology trends, but the big ones get most of our attention.

The possibility of a major disruption in the world’s financial system sometime after January 2008 is a subject that doesn’t get nearly as much ink as oil and climate, but the effects – particularly if it is as widespread as some observers believe – could really be profound.

We recently had a world expert on the converging fundamentals that are driving toward large-scale financial failure give a seminal presentation on the subject at The Arlington Institute. Dr. David Martin, president of M-CAM, the global leader in intellectual property valuation, certainly got the attention of the international audience assembled here with his step-by-step assessment of what was in the works and what likely scenarios would fall out of the inevitable collision. We’ve made it a podcast that you can download from our website. I would strongly encourage you to listen to this most interesting talk. We’re planning to have more of these talks at The Arlington Institute. We’ll keep you informed of them in the future.

All of the trends that we are following seem to me to be symptoms of some larger, historic shift that is taking place on the planet. I’ve talked about it in speeches as an approaching punctuation in the “equilibrium” of the present era – a major, fundamental reordering of the essence of who we are and how we live. These big shifts have happened many times in the past evolution of life on earth and if one tracks the historical pattern of these epochal events, it is rather easy to suggest, as philosopher Peter Russell and others do, that another one is fast approaching.

Many people attempt to explain the essential nature of this revolution in esoteric, new-age terms, almost all of which leave me unsatisfied. In the face of recommendations to “meditate more”, as the essential preparation one should make in anticipation of large-scale systems failure, I keep believing that there are additional things that we should be doing to support ourselves in the coming years. Others appear to be thinking the same way as evinced by the number of interesting new initiatives popping up that represent very basic social shifts. The Post Carbon Institute (www.postcarbon.org) has an interesting “relocalization” initiative designed to help deal with the systemic failures that they believe will inevitably result from reaching the peak in oil production. You can learn more at www.relocalize.net.

In terms of attempting to understand the really essential nature of what’s going on, the best book that I’ve found is Daniel Pinchbeck’s 2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl. Be warned: this is a rich, deep, drug-enabled, intellectual exploration that quickly wanders out of the box of conventionality and smack into huge ideas that, if you buy them, will certainly change the way you live the rest of your life.


I went along to the "Peak Oil and Permaculture" show last night - both Richard Heinberg and David Holmgren spoke well, and the attendence was much bigger than I'd imagined - over 700 people - but there wasn't much new information for jaded old bloggers like me. David Holmgren did come up with one interesting stat - wood pellet stoves are the fastest growing energy source in Europe apparently (something he heartily approved of). Richard Heinberg spent quite a bit of time on the "Oil Depletion Protocol" which I tend to think is a dead horse that needn't be flogged too much - it won't ever happen in the world that currently exists, regardless of its merits.

Michael Pascoe (who I like and generally agree with) is possibly a little too sanguine about peak oil and global warming (and also makes a ridiculous comparison to whale oil, which he should know better than to do). His business partner Alan Kohler has generally avoided talk of peak oil but does track the oil price closely, noting tonight (Windows / RealPlayer) that local oil consumption has dropped 5% this year (with the economy still doing pretty well) due to high prices - "proof the market does work".

Competing doomsday scenarios are making life awfully difficult – I can’t decide whether I should be suicidal about burning too many fossil fuels or not enough. Maybe if Tim Flannery, Richard Heinberg and Andrew McNamara can coordinate their apocalyptic visions we’ll happily drown because we have no means of escaping them rising sea levels.

The “peak oil” worrywarts are having a nice run at present, most recently Queensland National Party state MP McNamara on 60 Minutes and about-to-visit professor and book flogger Heinberg in The SMH, never mind Four Corners last month. At Heinberg's extreme, the peak oil folks are forecasting a return to the 19th century with little and expensive travel and we all have to grow our own food in the backyard as civilisation as we know grinds to a halt.

It is the nature of journalism that catastrophic bad news is goods news. But it is also astounding that that there is such a uniform ignorance or calculated ignoring of the great twin realities of our society: the ability of the market mechanism to efficiently allocate resources and our incredible capacity for inventiveness and problem solving.

We’ve gone through “peak oil” before – only then it was whale oil. The truth is that we’re not running out of oil and never will. At a price, we can make all the oil we need. The oil lubricating my car’s delightful engine already is artificial. As crude oil becomes more expensive, we start to use it more efficiently while the economic stimulus leads to product substitution. Oil remains wonderfully cheap, especially in a handful of low-tax countries like Australia, but in time it will become more expensive and we’ll use less per head of population.


The Pascoe article prompted the APPEA CEO to complain about 60 Minutes' "alarmism".

Belinda Robinson, Chief Executive of the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association, writes:

Michael Pascoe’s cynicism over the recent media coverage on peak oil is warranted (yesterday, item 9). Working hard on a story and getting it wrong is forgivable. Working hard on a story that pompously dresses up sensationalist, alarmist nonsense as "investigative journalism" is not. The recent 60 Minutes diatribe on the looming oil "catastrophe" seems deliberately to set out to create anxiety, fear, anger and hostility using illogical images, smug quips from presenters with no knowledge. The "report" was striking in its absence of fact, statistics or evidence. This is at best irresponsible and at worst a gross and dangerous breach of the right to speak freely. Surely with freedom of speech comes some ethically induced sense of obligation to treat the subject matter, those who participated in the program in good faith (and at considerable inconvenience to themselves), and the general public with respect.

Neil Robertson writes:

Michael Pascoe does not seem to understand the concept of "non-renewable". He says, "The truth is that we’re not running out of oil and never will". This kind of ignorance is not what I want to be reading in Crikey! I suggest Mr Pascoe stick with finance and refrain from commenting on environmental issues until he educates himself appropriately.


As a blast fromthe past, here's a quote from last year's APPEA conference in Perth.

Eric Streitberg, Executive Director of ARC Energy a successful small onshore producer, showed a slide of Swenson's post-peak scenarios (www.hubbertpeak.com/scenario.htm). Streitberg's graph showed us just past the peak.

Interestingly, he conducted a straw poll, of the 1,000 or so petroleum professionals present.

"Please put your hand up if you think that we have crossed the Hubbert Peak and we are entering a demand driven pricing era, and hands up those who don't? " Streitberg scored it 50:50 at the time and said "The rest of you who didn't put your hands up had better talk to your management consultants about a course in decision making.


Alan Kohler also has a good interview with Woodside CEO Don Voelte up.

ALAN KOHLER: Just on costs, there's no doubt costs have gone up a lot. Overall production costs are up 65 per cent. So what is going on there?

DON VOELTE: I think costs everybody in the extraction business - that's mining and exploration, producing of oil and gas - has been talking about this for quite a while. We've been subject to very high commodity rates, starting from steel prices through drilling rigs through facility cost and all the way down to skilled labour. So it's basically a situation where we have a lot of pressures and also governments are trying to get back more of this money because of the high prices. So you're right - we're under a lot of pressure, we focus on costs everyday. Are you saying that none of it is your fault? No, it's not that easy. Of course we have to watch our business every day. What we're really saying is that we have to really be careful for every dollar we spend and make sure we spend it on the right things, things that make a material difference to our shareholders.

ALAN KOHLER: On other opportunities it seems to me Woodside's been operating for more than 50 years now and you've only really found one thing - the North West Shelf of Australia. Is that right?

DON VOELTE: Well, we don't think so. I think if you take a strong look at what we've done, we're going to be adding a project here in the next couple of years, Pluto, which will be a very significant -

ALAN KOHLER: That's in the same area.

DON VOELTE: It's in the same area but what I mean to say is that more of some things are a good thing and Pluto and Browse are extremely strong projects, along with Sunrise, that will add to the portfolio. We have found a lot of oil in Mauritania. The trick's going to be, Alan, to get it out of the ground and we've had a difficult time with Chinguetti, our startup, earlier this year and we're trying to crack that code to get more oil out of the ground for that project. We have other discoveries there too.

ALAN KOHLER: Would you like, in fact, to get out of Mauritania?

DON VOELTE: We're not at that point at this point. We've - in the first half, you have to remember, we made just right under $100 million on Chinguetti project in earnings before tax - I believe the number is $98.6 or $98.7 million. So it's a very profitable business in that respect, if we learn how to get that oil out of the ground. That's why we're trying to crack that code.

ALAN KOHLER: How much has that cost you so far?

DON VOELTE: So far that project has run somewhere over $700 million in the Chinguetti project, total, and we're working hard at improving the productivity of that project at this time.

ALAN KOHLER: You were quoted when you took over as CEO a couple of years as saying you did not want Woodside to be a cash machine like Arco that wastes money in unsuccessful international ventures. Are you satisfied that that's what you've done?

DON VOELTE: I stand by that statement and I'll say it again today. It's very important that we're successful. I think the first half of this year we've drilled 15 wells. I believe seven of them have been successful. We are continuing to have a good exploration track record. We think we have very good opportunities in Libya. The first two wells we've drilled there have been successful. In the Gulf of Mexico we've drilled seven wells. Three were successful this first half of this year. So our hit rate is good. We've found a couple of really good finds in the Gulf of Mexico for the shelf. The big bonanza in the Gulf of Mexico, we hope, is coming when we start a deep-water drilling program either later this year or very early next year.

ALAN KOHLER: You mentioned Pluto before. Can we talk a bit about that? It's 100 per cent owned - Pluto - unlike the rest of the shelf. How will Pluto in particular transform your company? I mean, what sort of expected production, cash flow, do you think you'll achieve with Pluto?

DON VOELTE: The North West Shelf shelf, which up to this point we've operated on behalf of five other partners or six partners, they are equal. It's been a very good project for us and provides a deep cash flow for us for many years and for many years to come. Pluto, albeit a smaller reservoir, our present projections is that the cash flow that spins off of it because of our higher equity will be equal to or nearly equal to the money we make off our North West Shelf or even greater than in the future years our North West Shelf. So impact-wise to our company, we'll be more than doubling our company in LNG resources.

ALAN KOHLER: Then there's the Browse after that, which is bigger than Pluto but you've only got half of it.

DON VOELTE: It's a very big reservoir. We think it's nearing the size - not quite the size of the North West Shelf when it was originally found, so it's another North West Shelf lookalike, albeit a bit smaller. But instead of just owning a sixth of it, Woodside owns almost 50 per cent of that project. So again, another doubling, another tripling of our LNG capability.

ALAN KOHLER: It must be tempting to focus on the North West Shelf. If you did nothing but the North West Shelf, Browse and Pluto, kept your costs down, you would be generating so much cash your share price would be who knows what. Shareholders would be all deliriously happy.

DON VOELTE: Well, we've been there before. Remember in the mid-'90s and the end of the 1990s and in early 2000, LNG was in a trough and it was hard to almost give away LNG. So we have to remember diversity in your portfolio is an important thing. So, yes, we've got a window now where the LNG market and the market is strong. We are trying to capture Pluto and Browse inside that window but we also have to be prepared for our shareholders that LNG could go into another down cycle if there's an oversupply situation that comes about. We think that there's a window for a strong market, remains open to 2012 or 2013, but it could get back into the situation -

ALAN KOHLER: It's actually hard to imagine with oil where it is, and the oil market and the situation it is with China - it's hard to imagine another downturn. Are you actually predicting one or you just think it might happen?

DON VOELTE: I think people thought that back in 1995, and by 1998, remember, we were selling oil for $12.50 - so it's a cyclic business. I don't predict $12.50 oil again but I do predict oil to come back down I think in a reasonable level. I think the area we have to prepare for is about $40 a barrel, somewhere in that range.

ALAN KOHLER: By when?

DON VOELTE: Not any time soon. I would also say that with the prices you see now, I think the supply/demand, the tensions in the world, the supply disruptions, I'd say, at least for the rest of this year, probably well into next kind of what you see is about what you're going to get.
GoogleMobile - The Search For The Flex-Fuel Plugin Hybrid
Google's philanthropic (if that is the right word for a for-profit organisation) arm Google.org has announced that one of its ventures will involve the production of a plug-in hybrid car with the goal of "reduce dependence on oil while alleviating the effects of global warming".

So well done to Larry and Sergey (and whoever else was involved in this decision) - while it will no doubt be a good business to be in over time its still encouraging to see the tech industry plunging in and trying to solve the most important problems of our time. Further comment can be found at Grist and TreeHugger.

The ambitious founders of Google, the popular search engine company, have set up a philanthropy, giving it seed money of about $1 billion and a mandate to tackle poverty, disease and global warming.

But unlike most charities, this one will be for-profit, allowing it to fund start-up companies, form partnerships with venture capitalists and even lobby Congress. It will also pay taxes.

One of its maiden projects reflects the philanthropy’s nontraditional approach. According to people briefed on the program, the organization, called Google.org, plans to develop an ultra-fuel-efficient plug-in hybrid car engine that runs on ethanol, electricity and gasoline.

The philanthropy is consulting with hybrid-engine scientists and automakers, and has arranged for the purchase of a small fleet of cars with plans to convert the engines so that their gas mileage exceeds 100 miles per gallon. The goal of the project is to reduce dependence on oil while alleviating the effects of global warming.


WorldChanging has a post called "Viridian Redux" that reprints Bruce's original Viridan Manifesto.

The environmental movement can be boring, strident, depressing; this is why I never quite became an environmental activist despite my initial interest and commitment in the sixties. It struck me as too burlap and granola. It felt reactionary (despite the great calendars). I think Bruce Sterling found himself in a similar quandary when, after researching Heavy Weather, he realized there was a significant climate problem. Who was going to take it on? Certainly not the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, the Wilderness Conservancy, organizations cycling cash and promoting the great outdoors but not equipped to generate real soltuions to a problem like global warming. And certainly not the U.S. and other governments, whose attitudes are reflected by the Murray Hamilton character in the movie "Jaws." Lifesaving solutions are fine, but they have to wait til the tourist season is past.

Sterling figured design movements like futurism and dadaism had been effective in disrupting the lazier aspects of our consciousness and perception and driving new ways of thinking about the world and its problems, so he started the Viridian Design movement, beginning with the Manifesto of January 3, 2000

We have a worldwide environmental problem. This is a truism. But the unprecedentedly severe and peculiar weather of the late 1990s makes it clear that this problem is growing acute. Global warming has been a lively part of scientific discussion since at least the 1960s, but global warming is a quotidian reality now. Climate change is shrouding the globe in clouds of burning rain forest and knocking points off the GNP of China. Everyone can offer a weird weather anecdote now; for instance, I spent a week this summer watching the sky turn gray with fumes from the blazing forests of Chiapas. The situation has been visibly worsening, and will get worse yet, possibly very much worse.

Society has simply been unable to summon the political or economic will to deal successfully with this problem by using 20th century methods. That is because CO2 emission is not centrally a political or economic problem. It is a design and engineering problem. It is a cultural problem and a problem of artistic sensibility.

New and radical approaches are in order. These approaches should be originated, gathered, martialled into an across-the-board cultural program, and publicly declared -- on January 3rd


WorldChanging is one spinoff from the Viridian work, which continues apace at http://www.viridiandesign.org/.

It's worthwhile to reread the Viridian agenda at the end of the manifesto... which I duplicate here, encouraging comments and suggestion from today's perspective – six years later, post 9/11, post Katrina.

The Media

Today. Publishing and broadcasting cartels surrounded by a haze of poorly financed subcultural microchannels.

What We Want. More bandwidth for civil society, multicultural variety, and better-designed systems of popular many-to-many communication, in multiple languages through multiple channels.

The Trend. A spy-heavy, commercial Internet. A Yankee entertainment complex that entirely obliterates many non-Anglophone cultures.

The Military

Today. G-7 Hegemony backed by the American military.

What We Want. A wider and deeper majority hegemony with a military that can deter adventurism, but specializes in meeting the immediate crises through civil engineering, public health and disaster relief.

The Trend. Nuclear and biological proliferation among minor powers.

Business

Today. Currency traders rule banking system by fiat; extreme instability in markets; capital flight but no labor mobility; unsustainable energy base

What We Want. Nonmaterial industries; vastly increased leisure; vastly increased labor mobility; sustainable energy and resources

The Trend. commodity totalitarianism, crony capitalism, criminalized banking systems, sweatshops...
OPEC Axes Need for its Oil 0.32 Million b/d to 28.86 Million b/d
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries Friday sharply revised down the need for its members' crude on slowing economic growth, amplifying concerns the group may cut back production in coming months.

In its monthly oil market report, OPEC, which opted to keep its pump-at-will
output policy unchanged Monday despite recent rapid falls in the price of crude, made hefty cuts to the need for its oil in the final three months of this year, cutting 320,000 barrels a day from its month-ago estimate, to 28.86 million b/d.

The 11-nation producer group revised down its call-on-OPEC forecast for 2007 by 200,000 b/d from its August report. The group kept its 2007 call-on-OPEC outlook unchanged from August, when it forecast an 800,000 b/d drop at 28.1 million b/d from 2006.

"I think OPEC is reflecting that demand is slowing up and the call-on-OPEC is weaker than it was," said Leo Drollas, deputy director of the Centre for Global Energy Studies in London.

U.S. light, sweet crude prices Friday hit a new five-and-a-half month low of $63 a barrel and have tumbled by a fifth from their record of $78.40/bbl in mid-July.

The group also lowered the expected need for its crude this year by 170,000 b/d to marginally below 30 million b/d and eased its world oil demand growth forecast by 100,000 b/d to 1.2 million b/d.

It now sees world oil demand at 84.38 million b/d this year and some 1.3 million b/d more in 2007 at 85.68 million b/d, little changed from last month's estimates.

In its report, OPEC said weaker-than-expected demand in the first half of this year had led it to reappraise its forecasts, citing U.S. gasoline demand growth of just 0.7% this summer compared with an average 1.6%.

OPEC trimmed its oil demand forecasts for North America in the second and third quarters by 200,000 b/d to 25.11 million b/d and 100,000 b/d to 25.75 million b/d, respectively.

Chinese demand was left almost untouched for this year at almost 7.1 million b/d, up 8.3% or 540,000 b/d against last year. Growth is seen slowing to just under 6%, or 420,000 b/d next year, to 7.5 million b/d.

It made no significant revisions to its expectations of supplies from non-OPEC producers this year and next.
Five Dead in Failed Attacks on Yemen Oil Facilities
Four attackers and one security guard died Friday in two attempted suicide attacks at two oil facilities in Yemen, security officials said.

Four suicide bombers drove four cars into the two facilities in the south-eastern province of Hadhramout and the north-eastern province of Marib, the officials told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.

In the Hadhramout attack, a security guard was killed when two
cars laden with explosives stormed into the al-Dhaba oil exporting station on the Arabian Sea.

An interior ministry statement quoted by the official Yemen News Agency said the attack occurred at 05.15 am (0215 GMT) and involved two pickup trucks, one driven by a man wearing a uniform similar to that used by facility workers and the second driven by a man in military garb.

Security guards fired on both vehicles, detonating their explosives before they could reach the station's oil storage tanks.

An official at al-Dhaba station told dpa that a "small fire" broke out in an oil tank after one of the two cars exploded. He said the fire was quickly extinguished.

A short time later at 05.50 am (02.50 GMT), two cars tried to enter the main gate to the Safir oil refinery in Marib, some 190 kilometres north-east of the capital Sanaa, but security guards again opened fire on them, detonating their explosives. No casualties resulted from the second attack and no damage was caused to the refinery.

The interior ministry said an investigation was underway to determine the identities of the attackers and the group to which they were affiliated.

The ministry condemned the attempted bombings describing them as "terrorist attacks targeting the security and economy" of Yemen. Such attacks "would not deter the country from efforts to fight terrorism and the terrorist element," the statement said.

The al-Dhaba exporting station was in October 2002 the scene of suicide attack on the French supertanker Limburg.
Chevron Could Partner with China Oil Producers
Chevron, the second-largest U.S. oil company after ExxonMobil, is in talks to join with Chinese petroleum producers on exploration and production projects one year after beating out Cnooc, a Chinese oil company, to acquire Unocal.

The company is in discussions with Cnooc, PetroChina and China Petroleum & Chemical, known as Sinopec, "to explore partnership opportunities both inside and outside of China," said Steve Del
Regno, managing director of Chevron's liquefied natural gas trading business in Asia. The talks could lead to joint development of oil and gas deposits, he said.

Chevron, which opened an office in Beijing earlier this year, seeks to capitalize on growing petroleum demand in the world's most populous nation. Cnooc is already a partner with Chevron and Woodside Petroleum in a gas export project off the coast of Western Australia that made its first shipment of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, to China in June.

"Cnooc and Sinopec are looking for U.S. partners so they can gain access to oil for China," said Mark Kajita, a fund manager at Baker Boyer Bancorp.

The chief executive officer of Chevron, David O'Reilly, has expanded in Asia to tap oil and gas reserves close to booming markets in China and India. The San Ramon, California-based company bought a $300 million stake in Reliance Petroleum of India in April that is expected to help finance a new refinery in Gujarat and open the door to exploration deals with Reliance's parent.

"Chevron views China as an important market for LNG in the future, and we want to remain engaged with potential customers and trading partners here," Del Regno said Tuesday at the U.S.-China Oil & Gas Industry Forum in Hangzhou, China. "We value this relationship and hope it continues to grow."

Sinopec, the largest Asian maker of gasoline, diesel and other fuels refined from crude oil, could also be interested in gaining access to Chevron's network of filling stations to increase Sinopec's share of the global retail fuels market, Kajita, of Baker Boyer, said.

Cnooc abandoned an $18.5 billion cash bid for Unocal in August 2005, after concluding that U.S. lawmakers would scuttle any deal on the grounds of national security.
Exxon, Shell Pressed to Revisit Russian Oil Pacts
A pair of multibillion-dollar energy projects in Russia led by Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC have encountered unprecedented regulatory pressure in recent weeks, amid rising complaints by officials here that the deals are unfavorable to Russia.

The projects, off Sakhalin Island in Russia's far east, are the biggest foreign investments in this country's
energy sector and some of the largest new oil-and-gas developments in the world. They are expected to provide important additional supplies to the global energy market starting in the next few years.

The basic terms of the deals were set in the 1990s, when oil prices were low and Russia was eager for foreign capital to develop its vast energy reserves. As prices have surged in recent years, Russia, like many other oil-producing countries, has shifted its approach to give precedence to local companies -- primarily state-controlled giants OAO Gazprom and OAO Rosneft -- relegating foreign companies to junior-partner roles.

So far, Russian officials insist they won't change the terms of the contracts governing the Sakhalin projects. These special deals approved by Parliament are called production-sharing agreements under which, in lieu of taxes, Russia takes part of the oil and gas produced once the investors' costs are covered.

But one ministry earlier this year called for giving Russian state companies control of the projects, while a top Kremlin official last week said he thinks the foreign companies should voluntarily give up the projects' special status and subject themselves to regular tax laws.

That is a nonstarter with Shell and Exxon, however. Exxon last week said that failing to honor the deal would "have a significant negative impact on the Russian investment climate." A Western diplomat in Moscow was more blunt: Reopening the deals, which took years to negotiate, "would be a nuclear explosion."

The companies hope to resolve the issues, but the pressure is rising.

The Shell-led project, known as Sakhalin-2, is facing a lawsuit filed by Russian environmental regulators that could shut it down. Shell officials have rejected the regulators' allegations of environmental violations, insisting that the project meets all relevant standards and that the issues raised in the suit are minor.

This week a top Russian official said the scrutiny is part of Russia's efforts "to defend its interests" after Shell announced the cost of the project would nearly double to $20 billion, meaning Russia would have to wait almost twice as long before seeing its share of the profit. Under terms of the agreement, the government must sign off on any changes in cost estimates.

The cost overrun also has complicated Shell's negotiations to swap a 25% stake in Sakhalin-2 with Gazprom in return for a share in a huge natural-gas field in the Russian Arctic. Analysts say Shell's regulatory troubles are likely to strengthen Gazprom's hand in those talks, although officials deny any connection between the two.

Sakhalin-2 is now the only major international oil project in Russia in which a local company doesn't have a stake, and Shell and its partners have welcomed Gazprom's interest.

Exxon, meanwhile, has run into an unexpected refusal by Russian authorities to expand the scope of its production license after Exxon found the field it is exploring extends beyond the permit boundaries. Exxon says the extension should be automatic, but Russian regulators want to auction off the additional zone.

The conflict at the project, called Sakhalin-1, comes as Exxon has discussed the possibility of building a pipeline to carry gas from Sakhalin to China, where sales would be much more lucrative than the current sales inside Russia at low regulated rates.

But that pipeline proposal puts Exxon in potential conflict with Gazprom, which jealously guards its monopoly on Russian gas exports. People close to the Sakhalin-1 project say the licensing problem could be linked to Gazprom's opposition to the pipeline, although Gazprom and the Russian government deny that.

"This may be the ugly way that Gazprom is getting itself into that deal," the Western diplomat said.

Gazprom's chief executive, who signed a cooperation agreement with Sakhalin's governor yesterday, said all of Sakhalin's gas projects should be linked through a single pipeline network. The government already has designated Gazprom to control that effort.

"In the past, you could talk about a role for foreign investors," one Western energy-industry executive said. "Now it seems the national champions are ascendant, and foreign investors are welcome only to the extent that they can help them realize their ambitions."
Bolivia Backpedals in Dispute with Brazilian Oil Giant
The government temporarily suspended a decree giving state-owned YPFB a monopoly on fuel distribution in Bolivia after protests from Brazilian petroleum giant Petrobras - also a state enterprise - and officials in Brasilia.

The suspension was announced Thursday night at a press conference called by Bolivia's vice president, Alvaro Garcia Linera, in the wake of strong words from Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva about the decree's likely effects on Petrobras, which operates the two biggest refineries in this Andean nation.


"We are temporarily suspending a ministerial resolution as a signal to move forward in the dialogue" with Petrobras, Garcia Linera said.

Bolivia's energy ministry issued a decree Tuesday authorizing YPFB to take complete control of domestic sales of crude oil and derivatives, threatening what has been a profitable business for Petrobras, whose executives reacted angrily to the measure.

The Brazilian energy minister, Silas Rondeau, also canceled a scheduled visit to La Paz and complained Thursday that Bolivia gave Brasilia no advance warning about the controversial decree.

"If relations don't improve, it will not be the fault of Brazil, which has its limits and is going to defend them," he said, making no effort to hide his government's irritation with its neighbor, on the rise since President Evo Morales' May 1 nationalization of his country's oil and natural gas.

Under the initiative, the foreign energy companies doing business in Bolivia will be required to accept minority shares in partnerships with YPFB. Firms unable or unwilling to accept that condition face having to abandon their operations here and then bargain with La Paz over compensation.

Lula, who has faced criticism in Brazil for not being tough enough in dealings with Morales, said that if Bolivia "takes unilateral measures, we will think about taking harsher measures" to defend the interests of Petrobras.

The Brazilian state-owned giant now controls the largest chunk of Bolivia's estimated 48 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, with smaller shares in the hands of Spain's Repsol YPF and French oil major Total.

Garcia Linera said the Morales government decided to "freeze" the sales-monopoly decree to facilitate negotiations with Petrobras, and he left the door open to some modification of the measure as a result of those talks.

He stressed that the suspension did not signify any retreat on nationalization.

"The nationalization proceeds, it doesn't stop. What we are seeing are the times for application in consensus and accord with the companies," the vice president said, reiterating that La Paz wants the firms to conclude revised agreements with Bolivia by Oct. 31.

He said he hoped negotiations with Petrobras would resume "as quickly as possible."

Asked about threats from Petrobras to haul Bolivia before an international arbitration court, Garcia Linera said the government understands that risk and is prepared to assume it if necessary.

"Rather than give way on the principles, we prefer to go to arbitration," he said.
Nymex Crude Extends Selloff, Drops Below $63
Crude oil futures continued dropping Friday as speculators bailed out of the market amid easing supply worries.

The drop below $63.00 a barrel, the first decline below that level since late March, was part of a selloff that started more than a month ago when prices peaked around $77.00 a barrel.


The end of the summer driving season, a relatively calm tropical storm season, and reduced tensions over Iran's nuclear program have all prompted well-financed speculators to liquidate bets on rising prices.

With the market in bearish mode and showing no signs of bottoming, traders shrugged off news that suicide bombers tried to strike two oil facilities in Yemen, an incident that would have gotten more traction in a bull market.

"The momentum is certainly down," said Phil Flynn, an analyst at brokerage Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago. "You just can't get any bounce."

The October crude contract on the New York Mercantile Exchange dropped 94 cents to a low of $62.30 a barrel, the lowest level for a front-month contract since March 23.

The October Brent contract on London's ICE Futures was 72 cents lower at $62.82 a barrel.

October heating oil was down 1.65 cents at $1.6937 a gallon. October gasoline was down 12 points at $1.5510 a gallon.

Oil prices have fallen nearly $4 a barrel this week, a decline triggered in part after the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries agreed Monday to hold output steady.

The price drop since has spurred talk that the group, which is responsible for nearly 40% of the world's oil output, may lower production in a bid to prevent prices from falling below $60.00 a barrel.

Raising concerns that it may cut back production in coming months, the 11-member producer group on Friday sharply revised down the need for OPEC oil amid slowing economic growth.

In its monthly oil market report, OPEC made hefty cuts to the need for its oil in the final three months of this year, cutting 320,000 barrels a day from its month-ago estimate, to 28.86 million barrels a day.