Opec issues warning on Bush oil pledge

[RamboLiberal]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/8d5c9580-9368-11da-a978-0000779e2340.html

The Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries on Wednesday warned that President George W. Bush’s proposal to reduce US dependence on Middle Eastern oil could badly jeopardise needed investment in Gulf oil production and refining capacity.

Opec delegates and officials said the group planned to make this point in its as yet unpublished commentary in the cartel’s January bulletin next week.

Speaking after Mr Bush’s Tuesday night State of the Union address, Edmund Daukoru, Nigeria’s energy minister and president of Opec, said: “We do believe that energy issues cannot be handled in a unilateral way; we all have to work together towards global energy security.”

Privately, Opec officials were more direct in warnings about Mr Bush’s declared intention to reduce America’s dependence on Middle East oil by 75 per cent by 2025. But they emphasised Opec would avoid a confrontational tone in its commentary.

An Opec delegate said: “Comments like that are unrealistic. Everyone knows the world will continue to depend on Middle East imports.” The organisation would raise concerns about such statements damping investment at meetings with the European Union and other organisations “more aligned with Opec’s view”.

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. So the pusher doesn't like it

when his addicts get a little uppity?

[Deja Q]

2. Whatever, OPEC - do something important. Like update your logo.

1976 is long gone and so are the gaudy fashions.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

3. Hey.... Someone had to do a lot of reefer before they came up

with that!

[and-justice-for-all]

26. Watch this!!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=9%2F11

[mikeytherat]

41. Naw, man. Someone toked up heavy before APPROVING that logo!

Hey, even totally straight it makes me giggle.

mikey_the_rat

[Zenlitened]

4. Pfffft. All for show, I'd bet. Bush had permission from his Saudi owners..

... to make some pretty talk about "oil independence."

They know full well he never follws through on any of the gee-whiz--wouldn't-it-be-nifty stuff he tosses into his SOTU speeches.

[radfringe]

39. haven't found the quote/link

but --- I think it was in his 2004 SOTU - bush* threw in something about hydrocell powered vehicles in address gas/oil situation

so his latest "proposal" was nothing new, just some opiate for the masses

[SlipperySlope]

5. Big deal over 20%

The United States only gets about 20% of its oil from the middle east, so what's the big deal?

[Mirwib]

12. A drop in demand means a drop in prices and profits.

[Nordmadr]

6. Hell, he could have just as well come out and said

I promise to reduce our TOTAL oil consumption by 75% by 2025.

The world won't be pumping enough either way in 20 years. The key is how we get there, and how our lives are once were there. He can promise to get us there, but our condition upon arrival is anybody's guess.

Olafr

[Vogon_Glory]

7. OPEC Has Nothing To Worry About. Shrub Is Gramm-Standing Anyway

OPEC has nothing to worry about Buckaroo Bush's pledge to reduce oil dependency anyway. Buckaroo is Gramm-standing again, making big pronouncements without putting in either the dollars or the programs to implement a genuine shift away from the petroleum economy.

Former US Senator from Texas Phil Gramm was a great one for Gramm-standing. Buckaroo Bush learned how to do it from his teachers.

If anyone helps shift the US away from oil and fossil fuels, it'll have to be a Democrat or someone from a new political movement. The Republicans are too intertwined with the financial and economic interests of the energy companies to be able to implement such an initiative themselves.

[WestMichRad]

13. I partly agree.

Making an issue of it in the SOTU is only for show.

But the only thing that will really wean the public off massive consumption of foreign (or domestic) oil is the marketplace - when the cost is punitively high, the public will opt for other alternatives.

Until then, they'll continue to drive their SUVs!

[cliss]

24. Yup. Just ask my brother.

I was complaining to him the other day about how much gas the U.S. guzzles every day. I told him, "just think: the US burns through 20 million barrels of oil per day. That's BARRELS, not gallons".

"Yeah, we'll I'm doing my part."

This is the same guy who has a huge gas-guzzling truck, and he has a 5th wheel trailer that's 100 feet long which he dragged down to Southern California. 2,000 miles he dragged that thing. Just imagine, this trailer has a Living Room, and a huge 50-inch screen TV set!

(I hope gas goes to $100.00/barrel, just to teach him a lesson)

[Laelth]

22. Out of deep respect for Molly Ivins ...

I believe the term "Gramm-standing" is hers, and it means "to take credit for legislation that was enacted when, in fact, you fought against the same legislation throughout the legislative process."

This oil dependency comment is not Gramm-standing. It's just a plain, old-fashioned lie. ;)

-Laelth

[Strelnikov_]

8. Way Too Little, Way Way Way Too Late

Persian Gulf imports ~ 2.3 Mbbl/dy 11% of current oil consumption of 20.5 Mbbl/dy

A 75% reduction in gulf imports in 20 years therefore reflects just over an 8% reduction in consumption.

At an optimistic depletion rate of 2%, in 20 years the world will be producing 67% of the 2005 peak production of 85 Mbbl/dy.

At a more realistic depletion rate of 4%, in 20 years the world will be producing 46% of the 2005 peak production.

Need I say more.

And, yes, I believe we are at peak.

[megatherium]

9. One would expect the curve to be roughly symmetrical about its peak.

So if we are at peak right now (likely), then the rate of production in 20 years will be similar to the rate of production 20 years ago. Can't remember what production was like in the mid 1980s. 85% of current production? So in 20 years, production will drop 15%. But the government thinks peak oil is not for 25 years.

[bemildred]

10. Why would it be symmetrical?

That seems a rather unlikely assumption to me.

[megatherium]

16. The symmetry might just be an artifact of the mathematical

assumptions behind the Hubbert's Peak curve (that the rate of production divided by the cumulative production declines in a linear fashion). But the depletion of nonrenewable resources does tend to follow this pattern. Also it it is my understanding that we shouldn't expect the production to start rapidly dropping from its current peak; more likely we will remain in a plateau for 10 years or more, and only from a vantage point 10 or 15 years from now will it have become clear the peak was 2006. (I probably picked this notion up from reading Kenneth Deffeyes's books.)

[Strelnikov_]

11. Good For The Government. Fare Thee Well

Meanwhile, I think I will continue to ruminate on the implications of the following:

Shaping The Peak Of World Oil Production

http://www.worldoil.com/Magazine/MAGAZINE_DETAIL.asp?ART_ID=2696

The bell curve has a sharp crest, and you can't see it coming.

. . .

To understand the possible character of the peaking of world conventional oil production, oil peaking in a number of relatively unencumbered regions and countries was considered. All had significant production, and all were certainly or almost certainly past their peak. The data shows that the onset of peaking can occur quite suddenly, peaks can be very sharp, and post-peak production declines can be comparatively steep (3 - 13%). Thus, if historical patterns are appropriate indicators, the task of planning for and managing world conventional oil peaking will indeed be very challenging.

Or this:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic16671-0-asc-30.html

No, I am saying that no one knows what the rate of depletion will be...but, the fields that have used the technology advances have shown a high rate of depletion post -peak. Cantarell and the North Sea for starters. 15-17%. Exxon is stating 8% decline rates.

What wiil be the average? No one knows.

Or this:

http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/1/26/92729/4616

Only around 50 super-giant oilfields have ever been found, and the most recent, in 2000, was the first in 25 years: the problematically acidic 9-12 billion barrel Kashagan field in Kazakhstan.

(...)

In 2000 there were 16 discoveries of 500 million barrels of oil equivalent or bigger. In 2001 there were nine. In 2002 there were just two. In 2003 there were none.

So we're stuck with the existing supergiant fields we already know. But we're able to squeeze increasing proportions of their oil out, right? Well, up to a point.

The 4 biggest fields on the planet are now in decline, 3 officially.

[megatherium]

17. When the decline in production gets going, it will be 3 or 4 percent a

year. But it might not leave the current plateau for a decade or more. So I have read, but of course goodness knows that would be a dangerous assumption to operate under. I expect that our government's refusal to prepare for the coming oil crises (to develop alternatives and mandate serious conservation measures) will be regarded as one of the greatest mistakes and disasters in US history.

[Strelnikov_]

18. I Agree About The Plateau. Higher Prices->More Development

and exploitation of marginal and previously abandoned resources. These could make up for the decline of the super-giants, for a while.

Guess the point I was trying to make is that we are going to see a significant decline in oil consumption by 2025 no matter what we do. You can't consume oil you don't have.

And yes, as far as I'm concerned, the looming energy crises is the only issue, and the governments mismanagement has been criminal.

Population overshoot and societal collapse has happened before, and it will happen again.

[cliss]

25. Stan Goff wrote that

there is no decent substitute for oil in the near=term. It was laughable how Bush talked about using vegetable by-products and wood chips to replace our dependency on oil.

I've read that we can start using vegetable oil in our gas tanks soon. The problem is, and it always will be: there is not enough of anything that can replace oil in the short run. We're stuck with our dependency on it.

Also, the world population right now is at 6 1/2 billion people. Agriculture is highly dependent on oil: petroleum fertilizers, tractors use gas, gas for harvesting, shipping the produce to the market, etc.

By itself, the world can only sustain about 2 billion people. That means that 4 1/2 billion people are at risk.

[amandabeech]

48. FYI, the nitrogen portion of the typical fertilizer is made using

natural gas. The hydrogen in the methane moves to the ammonia-type molecule and the process is powered by gas as well.

It is possible to make the nitrogen fertilizer from any source of hydrogen, including water molecules, together with any source of energy.

Back in the '30s and '40s, a considerable amount of nitrogen fertilizer was made using electricity from the TVA.

The nitrogen is plucked out of the air in any case.

The phosphorus and potassium are mined: the phosphorus in the SE U.S. and the potassium in Canada. The U.S. has a 70 year supply of phosphorus at current rates of usage, then we will have to import it from Morocco, the Middle East or China. That is if we have something to power the huge ships that would carry the stuff to us.

I advocate recycling phosphorus and potassium now!

[Strelnikov_]

19. The 75% Solution

http://www.energybulletin.net/12556.html

Whether or not the Bush statement is a "goal," in 2025 the US will not be importing much in the way of petroleum from the Mideast, nor from anyplace else. The oil just will not be there for one side to export, nor for the other side to import. Welcome to the future.

As for what is happening in the Mideast, Kuwait has announced that its main oil field, the super giant Burgan, has entered the phase of irreversible decline. At current depletion & decline rates, by 2025 Kuwait will be exporting negligible amounts of oil, and at prices that most nations of the world will be unable to afford.

Saudi's Ghawar field is close to being in irreversible decline. The Saudis are only managing to maintain current oil production volumes by virtue of a massive seawater injection program that pumps more than seven million barrels of salt water per day into its oil fields. This pumping helps to maintain production pressures in the oil reservoirs, but is also the source of formation damage due to the presence of oxygen and bacteria in the seawater. By 2025, Saudi will still export oil, but far less oil than now and each tanker will be of such value as to require its own armed escort.

Iran is not quite at its production peak, but within 20 years even the most optimistic estimates forecast that Iran will cease to be a net oil exporter. (This may also have something to do with Iran's desire to develop a nuclear program.)

[megatherium]

40. Interesting and ominous article; I hadn't heard about the Burgan field.

But now we hear much talk about unconventional (non-liquid) petroleum supplies: oil shales, and the Albertan tar sands already in production (more than 1 mbpd of production if memory serves, 5% of our demand). Of course we have a lot of coal -- will coal gassification prevent the collapse of our economy? (Never mind global climate!)

[Strelnikov_]

42. Probably Not. The Current Economic Dynamic Is In Its Last Days

A good overview on the capability of GTL and coal liquids to mitigate the coming liquid fuels crises is in the following report.

Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management.
Hirsch, Bezdek, Wendling, February 2005

http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/The_Hirsch_Report_Proj_Cens.pdf

The study included liquid fuels development from coal liquids, GTL, heavy oil and enhanced recovery, along with vehicle efficiency measures. Speed of implementation of the modeled actions were as stated:

As a limiting case, we choose overnight go-ahead decision-making for all actions, i.e., crash programs. Our rationale is that in a sudden disaster situation, crash programs are most likely to be quickly implemented. Overnight go-ahead decision-making is most probable in our Scenario I, which assumes no action prior to the onset of peaking.

The depressing conclusions of this report are as follows.

Because conventional oil production decline will start at the time of peaking, crash program mitigation inherently cannot avert massive shortages unless it is initiated well in advance of peaking.

Specifically,
* Waiting until world conventional oil production peaks before initiating crash program mitigation leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for two decades or longer.
* Initiating a crash program 10 years before world oil peaking would help considerably but would still result in a worldwide liquid fuels shortfall, starting roughly a decade after the time that oil would have otherwise peaked.
* Initiating crash program mitigation 20 years before peaking offers the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.

Without timely mitigation, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), accompanied by huge oil price increases, both of which would create a long period of significant economic hardship worldwide.

My view is that this dependence on coal liquids for mitigation is why the coming crises is beyond just a liquid fuels crises. You can't burn coal for electricity if your using it to fuel your SUV for the trip to the local fried food shack and big box store.

In the SOTU, Man or Monkey did say some truths (even a stopped clock . ., infinite # of monkeys and typewriters . . .). Cellulosic ethanol using primarily switchgrass as a feedstock looks very promising. But, it is still developmental, and was not included in the above report since it only considered proven and scalable technologies.

But, for me, the bottom line is that massive conservation/efficiency is the only way forward. There are no renewables that will supply the energy we currently obtain from fossil fuels. Consider the following:

In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter "containing 44 x 10¹⁸ grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet's current biota". In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries' worth of plants and animals.

The idea that we can simply replace this fossil legacy - and the extraordinary power densities it gives us - with ambient energy is the stuff of science fiction. There is simply no substitute for cutting back.

[megatherium]

43. We could think "electricity" and make use of the fact that

most vehicle miles are on relatively short commutes. This would require us to come up with battery technology that is scalable, clean and has good power/range characteristics. Progress on this front is being made. (If all you need is a car that can go 20 miles to work and back on a charge, you can do this yourself for about $6,000. Just find a suitable subcompact and put lead-acid batteries in it.) In the short term: diesels, plug-in hybrids, diesel plug-in hybrids.

Longer term: battery-electric vehicles, trains. These would rely on an expansion of nuclear power (to replace and augment coal; the primary concern not being the short supply of coal, but instead global warming). Instead of flying from NYC to DC, you take a sleek 200 mph train. Roomy and comfortable inside, go from city center to city center. Trains used to be glamorous. Now they're grubby. That will change; air travel will no longer be economic and the huge investments (airports) that have been made in it will be stranded.

Just a few thoughts to reassure myself that our civilization isn't about to collapse in energy crisis, climate change and war.

[Strelnikov_]

45. Why I Am A Kunstlerian Doomer. I Read 'Collapse' By Jared Diamond

Nearly everything you brought up are things I have talked about to everyone who would listen. There are many options.

My view on how to make the existing sprawl work during the 60 yr.+ it will take reconfigure following the shock is use Twikes (in concept) for personal transport, along with mass transit, and rental cars for longer trips. We are not going to be able to construct mass transit within a reasonable walking distance of most people, and therefore need efficient personal mobility. I am a Civil Engineer that understands the resources required to build infrastructure, and most of the available resources will be committed to building Nuclear, Wind, Solar etc. energy generation when the special period comes.

http://www.twike.com/

Why did Diamonds book turn me into a Doomer. Because nearly all the societies could have made adjustments, and the collapse was not a function of the intelligence and innovativeness of the people. It was due to the entrenched leadership being wed to the status quo. So the societies, instead of making adjustments while there was still time, went flying off the edge of the overshoot cliff.

So, I will continue promoting what I see as reasonable Powerdown solutions, while preparing for the worst.

[megatherium]

46. I read Collapse.

It's a sobering read. But Diamond mentions societies that prevented environmental collapse, such as the Japanese, who stopped uncontrolled logging of their forests and who to this day have one of the most heavily forested countries in the world.

Interesting web site. Twikes sound like a good idea. A bit expensive (11 thousand euros).

[wordpix2]

14. so NOW I see why * is backtracking,saying ME statements are just

"examples."

The partners in the * oil cartel are getting nervous. Too bad the blind Americans selected *, with his OPEC oil partner baggage. We can see the heavy influence they have on him.

Just another reason to IMPEACH

[wordpix2]

15. see this thread : Bush Says Don't Expect Oil Price Breaks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2080084&mesg_id=2080084

[Laelth]

20. I'm astounded that OPEC took him seriously.

Personally, I didn't even bat an eye when he said he wanted to reduce dependence on Middle-Eastern oil. I knew it was a lie. I guess the folks at OPEC don't know him as well as we do.

-Laelth

[lovuian]

21. Oh let us all beg for oil from Opec ... I don't thing so...

American ingenuity is going to kick Opec's butt!!!

[MADem]

23. Hell, the Chinese will buy the shit--they have a role in price spikes

They've got a load of Iranian contracts, as well.

But we'll have to see if Monkeyboy meant what he said--and if he starts planting that panic weed out at his ranch....

[Pirate Smile]

27. NYT: Bush's Goals on Energy Quickly Find Obstacles(pissed the Saudis off)

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 — The energy proposals set out on Tuesday by President Bush quickly ran into obstacles on Wednesday, showing how difficult it will be to take even the limited steps he supports to reduce the nation's reliance on foreign oil.

-snip-
Diplomatically, Mr. Bush's ambitious call for the replacement of 75 percent of the United States' Mideast oil imports with ethanol and other energy sources by 2025 upset Saudi Arabia, the main American oil supplier in the Persian Gulf. In an interview on Wednesday, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said he would have to "seek an explanation" from Mr. Bush.

-snip-
The administration's more immediate international brushfire after the president's address was Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil supplier and the United States' main supplier in the Persian Gulf. Analysts said they were startled that Mr. Bush singled out the Middle East with implicit criticism, and on the very day that the Saudis provided important support for American interests at a meeting in Vienna of ministers from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

At the meeting, Saudi Arabia blocked an effort by Venezuela and Iran to reduce the group's oil production.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/politics/02energy.html?hp&ex=1138856400&en=23ab929fe851f0ad&ei=5094&partner=homepage

I believe we have found the answer for this:

Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports

By Kevin G. Hall
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.
But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are.

The president's State of the Union reference to Mideast oil made headlines nationwide Wednesday because of his assertion that "America is addicted to oil" and his call to "break this addiction." Bush vowed to fund research into better batteries for hybrid vehicles and more production of the alternative fuel ethanol, setting a lofty goal of replacing "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."

He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."
Not exactly, though, it turns out.

-snip-
Asked why the president used the words "the Middle East" when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that "every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands." The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he feared that his remarks might get him in trouble.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/13767738.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2080084&mesg_id=2080084

[Wilms]

28. Uh-oh. Prince Turki al-Faisal wasn't supposed to hear the SOTU address n/t

[Pirate Smile]

33. Guess not. Here is more with some more Saudi details.

"In Washington, Prince Turki, the Saudi ambassador, said he was puzzled by Mr. Bush's words in the speech. "We still have to inquire from the president's office what he exactly meant by that," Prince Turki said, adding that he wanted to know if reducing American dependence on foreign oil also applied to other suppliers to the United States, like Venezuela, Mexico and Canada.

"I see no threat from America from receiving its oil from the Middle East," Prince Turki said."

[KittyWampus]

29. LOL! "The President didn't mean it literally"

:rofl: My God! this is just for comic relief, right?

[silverweb]

30. What a surprise!

:eyes:
:sarcasm:

[uppityperson]

31. What about his vow to increase "cheap safe nuclear energy"?

[gulliver]

32. We would already be five years into it by now if not for Bush.

This Johnny-come-lately flip-flopping on Bush's part notwithstanding, Bush has been a catastrophe for American conservation. Gore would have started conserving on day one in 2000. After five years, Bush has finally decided to pay it lip service. That's five lost years of war, rising gas prices, and loss of American vehicle manufacturer market share, all owing to rapacious crony capitalism and oil-head stupidity.

[Journeyman]

37. Whenever I've needed to silence Bushbots the past five years. . .

I've told them George W's greatest failing was his inability to move us away from oil in the wake of the September 11 attacks. He had an opportunity given to few Presidents, a chance to accomplish something beyond himself and ensure his legacy -- he could have called us to be something greater than we are, he could have set us on the path of energy independence. And in the rarified atmosphere after the September 11 attacks, he could have succeeded -- if he wanted to and was willing to work for such a useful prize. But he wasted the opportunity in a misguided and ultimately fruitless pursuit of revenge and retribution. And now the moment's passed and it can never be reclaimed.

Prior to yesterday's SOTU, no Bushbot ever had a rejoinder. And I don't expect any of them to gain any in the wake of what will -- unfortunately -- prove to be another in a disappointing series of misguided and unsupported, ephemeral promises. This will go the way of Pickle's anti-gang initiative and the call to stop child prostitution -- both admirable soundbites from previous State of the Unions and both ultimately fruitless blather.

To our great and lasting misfortune, George W's Google sobriquet "miserable failure" is not just a joke, it's both personally descriptive and an open-ended prophesy.

[rodeodance]

34. "What the president meant"--and tell me how many drafts this went

though. Give me a break. this is just toooooo much

....What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.

[rodeodance]

35. recommend

[Tin Man]

36. Hell hath no fury like a Saudi Prince scorned...

voice of Bush echoing within empty headbone: Prince Abdullah can be a real bitch sometimes - I wonder... is the sex really worth all this drama?

[daleo]

38. He didn't mean it literally

I.e - He was just making stuff up.

[amandabeech]

49. You really have to wonder who vetted this speech.

Obviously, no one who knows anything about oil production and supply and might have a clue about how not to insult our friends in the Gulf.

* must have been riding his bike in reverse today considering how much backpedaling his spokespersons have been doing.

[Javaman]

44. Recent meeting with opec and moron*...

Sheik:So mr. prez*, I understand you want to decrease your need of oil and want to use "alternative" energy sources...

prez*: yes that is right I...er...

the sheik does a little magic like maneuver pointed at moron* then wiggles his fingers...

prez: er...cough...ugh...

the prez's* collar gets tighter...

sheik: there are no alternative fuels you are needing...

prez*: we don't need these alternative fuels...

sheik: you were only theorizing yesterday...

prez*: I was only speaking out of my ass yesterday...

sheik: close enough, you will ignore your critics...

prez*: I will ignore them...

sheik: you will run around the room with your pants around your ankles and cluck like a chicken...

prez*: I will run around...

sheik #2: why are you doing that...

Sheik shrugs

sheik: it makes me laugh...

prez* runs around the room stumbling over his pants

prez*: cluck cluck cluck...

[Earth_First]

47. Relax, it's all window dressing anyhow...

As IF there would be any jeopardizing any Saudi investments. Poppy and his friends at the Carlyle Group would take * to the woodshed over it.