[TheDude]

Found a story on that pipeline: link. For the curious. It was restarted eventually too of course.

Would love to see a detailed analysis of the fuel infrastructure of North America. Still think going below MOL qualifies as an event more than anything else short of a terrorist attack or embargo. A handful of these pipelines down and we'd be in serious trouble.

It's not just pipes either:

Let's not forget the barges. 70 billion gallons of gasoline per year ride on barges. That's about 4.5 mbbls/day not in the pipelines.

From Weekly US Petroleum and NG Supply Reports (New Thread)

Then there's this one, from earlier this year:

Gasoline inventories have recently been drawn down at a dramatic rate to bridge the gap between supply and demand (see Figure 4, in the Weekly Petroleum Status Report (WPSR)). Over 12 consecutive weeks during February, March, and April, total gasoline inventories declined by a cumulative total of more than 34 million barrels (15 percent). This is the sharpest decline in gasoline inventories over a consecutive 12-week period in EIA’s recorded historical data.

Meanwhile US production continues to decline, and imports can only keep up to a degree:





From US Petroleum Supply: Some Overview Graphs

You can place your hopes on worldwide production going gangbusters to make up for that deficit, of course.

[wisconsin_cur]

Lonesnark

I defined that problem away because it defies logic. It is just a steel pipe, you cannot take something out without putting something else in. To have that something be 'air' requires a concious decision which I find difficult to believe they would make, as it would be the equivalent of them deciding to shoot themselves in the foot. It hurts them far more than it hurts anyone else. But more to your point, as long as the pipeline remains above MOL, it can move one barrel a day or a million barrels, you just get out what you put in. So, as I said, they will not shut down the pipeline, just move less product,

Of course, then, there are, by your own definition, never any problems. There is no refinery problem or even oil supply problem. Famine, drought and the depletion of topsoil are not a problem because price goes up, some people do without, those people who go without move on to something else (harvesting south dakota by hand) or just die.

To those people who do without it is a problem and some things have no substitute and that creates a PROBLEM. And when it is something akin to the fact that we cannot get to our minimum wage job that is a serious problem. When we cannot get to our middle income job it is a crisis. a clarion call. Much too late in my estimation but a call none the less.

Someday the gal who makes your latte's will not be able to make it to her job, she'll be turning to some other occupation perhaps to feed her kids. Is that a problem? Is that a call?

Someday the guy who changes your oil will be running a side job in stolen automobile parts? Is that a problem? Is that a call?

Someday a desperate guy with nothing to loose with rob you at gun point because Walmart just closed. Once he worked in a factory but that job went to China (not a problem for you) then he went to work for 1/3 the amount at Walmart (not a problem for you) but since the car broke down and he could not afford to get it fixed (spending so much on petrol ya know) he is reduced to this. Now and only now do you consider it a problem.

Of course it was Peak Oil that caused the spiral, but don't worry that isn't a problem, logic dictates that the problem was...


... that we didn't let the free market seize him to take his organs for someone who is capable of paying? or what?

educate me.

From my point of view only someone who believes that the he or she will be exempt would not see a reduction in the pipeline (and a steep increase in prices) as a problem.

MOL, in your own interpretation, would decrease deliveries to a large swath of the nation.

Peak Oil decreases the amount of oil that can be delivered to market.

Both increase price and strangle growth.

How are these not a problem? How would the sudden increase in price due to decreased delivery not wake up a lot of people to the problem?

How many times must I repeat the question before you act like people do not matter? or that they will not react in a way that impacts you, even if you are able to pay higher prices?

Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

[TheDude]

In snark's defense I will say he's pretty sharp on economics. But like a lot of people he's convinced money will save the day no matter the scope of the problem - that $80/barrel oil will make tar and shale and wells like Jack 2 profitable, for instance. The countering argument from the "Peak Oil theorists" as we're dubbed by CERA and the like is that no amount of money will ever make the above sources profitable, ever; and that declining supplies of NG and fresh water will preclude the first two from ever delivering much oil. (It's ironic that tar sands are propping up the use of the ICE which is generating excess CO2 which is heating up the planet which is impacting the amount of meltwater to supply flows to the Athabasca River which is the source for the tar sands project's H20 in the first place...)

Certainly at the moment we're capable of getting a single line back into service, given time and fuel in the pipe/electricity to run the pumps - these lines shut down for maintenance all the time. But when imports decline far enough will that be possible?

Perhaps my title was wrong, maybe more along the lines of What Will Spark A PO Groundswell?

Sorry to derail things with all this pipeline yack. It's just the closest thing I've come to your Pearl Harbor event, barring something catastrophic (terrorism) happening to a refinery or refineries in the ME - or NA for that matter. It's been often said that people won't wake up until you hit 'em where it hurts - and even then the return of normalcy lulls them back to sleep. Those rolling blackouts haven't lead people to demanding an upgrade of the electrical grid, after all.

[MC2]

Pops, they say a good question is worth a million bad answers. I wasn't certain what you were asking (I actually thought you might have meant "when will we have a brutal attack that an FDR-clone encourages and allows to happen to push us into a world war for the remaining oil), but now that you've clarified your question a bit, I'll try to provide an answer.

We are just beginning to have a dawning public consciousness of the severity of the PO problem, but it's still very early. When the suburban dweller finds it's costing him 20 per cent of his monthly income to get back and forth to work, and that his food costs have ramped by 300 per cent or more, we'll see some stirrings in the lumpetariat. But this PO problem is just going to be a parallel crisis with the (larger and more immediate) crisis in the world money system. Odds are, we will enter a deflationary spiral in the next two years that will effectively shut down the global economy and force everyone to a new system of exchange. It's hard to feel optimistic about where this is all going, as all indicators are it's going to procede along the same path as the preceding age of human conflict and strife (it's hard to jump over one's own knees, so a major paradigm shift will take time and be painful).

Longer term (post the multi-apocalypse that is coming), we will need to evolve to an entirely new model based on something like "solar credits." There will need to be a design revolution with the intent of creating sustainable architectures for those that survive the coming turmoil. Concomitant with the needed change in the external relationship of people to the world of matter will be a required change in the internal relationships among and between people, as well as within themselves. Without cooperation, survival will be impossible. Much of what makes up the old (dying) world is hangovers from the centuries-old models of competition based on scarcity and crime. There's plenty - we just have to stop fighting the universe.

Just my .02.

[Ardalla]

The acknowlegement that PO has occurred and must be dealt with on a more or less emergency basis, imho would have to come from the US President in an official address to the American people during prime time. He would have to have definite proof or people would think he had lost his mind. The question is, what would convince the President that we were now in a state of emergency?

Just a guess here. After many months of high gas prices and no response from OPEC, the President sends an official delegation to the Middle East to confer with Arab leaders. In private conversations, they reveal the truth: they can no longer increase production to meet demand. They are sorry but they just don't have the ability to respond anymore.

The cat would be out of the bag. Right now we just don't have the data to prove PO is a reality or not. That data is being held by the producing countries themselves. Sooner or later the truth will come out. One way or another.

[LoneSnark]

they can no longer increase production to meet demand

Ah, if Adam Smith could hear you now. Does production grow to meet demand, or does demand grow to meet production? After centuries of studying, economists (their modern title) do not have an answer to this question. So far, the best we can theorize is that it depends on the circumstances which it would be. But it is a chicken or the egg type question, and since markets tend to clear we have no way of knowing who is following who, even after the fact.

Of course, then, there are, by your own definition, never any problems.

Please do not do that. It is demeaning for you and everyone here. I said nothing of the sort, so please do not proclaim that I have. I have merely stated that this scenario as described in this thread is an unlikely point of failure for the stated reasons. I said nothing about another scenario taking place somewhere else. To be blunt, all I said was that your princess was not in this castle; it does not preclude her from being in another castle.

MOL, in your own interpretation, would decrease deliveries to a large swath of the nation...How would the sudden increase in price due to decreased delivery not wake up a lot of people to the problem?

But, like I said, it would be Peak Oil that was making oil scarce, not MOL. Similarly, we have other threads to talk about Peak Oil itself; so far this thread shifted to the tangent of MOL as a sudden point of failure, I tried to demonstrate why I believed such an eventuality was unlikely.

You obviously did not find my argument persuasive; as you are still acting MOL would result in reducing the amount of oil that can be delivered. But you did not explain why my arguments to the contrary were unpersuasive. I demonstrated the owners and thus operators had every incentive to keep them above MOL and operating; I demonstrated why it is likely that even if they failed to do so the resultant technical problem is easily remedied. All in all, I have given all the ideas here. Your only response was that the idea of it shutting down for a short while would cause a panic. I referred you to examples where they shut down all the time to little fanfare. And yet you continue to act as if no such arguments have been made, choosing to ignore them in favor of emotional pleas for cups of coffee. Perhaps I am simply not clever enough to discern your most recent logical argument?

How many times must I repeat the question before you act like people do not matter?

I think you left out a stop in there. People matter, but in this rare instance the question was not about people, but the technical operation of a piece of machinery (a pipeline) in the hands of experts, not social networks in the hands of teenagers. So, please, pretty please, stop putting words into my posts that do not exist.

[JohnDenver]

Dunno....but its been awhile,

Since September?

Pops, I believe KTH is referring to the fact that oil production peaked almost 3 years ago, in May 2005:

PO has not measured up to the hype. It hasn't even caused a recession, let alone a disaster. Clearly there is something wrong with peak oil theory.

Nobody prepared for the peak in May 2005, and there were no dire consequences. So isn't it a bit late to start wondering "when are we going to prepare?"

[TonyPrep]

Nobody prepared for the peak in May 2005, and there were no dire consequences. So isn't it a bit late to start wondering "when are we going to prepare?"

Significant though that peak was, you probably well know that all liquids production continued to grow and, according to the IEA, may have reached a new high in October 2007 (this year). However, the lack of growth in production has caused economic growth to drop. Fatih Birol estimates that the high prices have knocked 3% from African economic growth, in the last few years.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3336

And economic growth forecasts in Europe have just been reduced.

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/forecasts_en.htm

[JohnDenver]

Significant though that peak was, you probably well know that all liquids production continued to grow and, according to the IEA, may have reached a new high in October 2007 (this year).

Yes, I am aware of that. However, that just goes to show that alternatives like tar sands and NGL can scale up and compensate for peak oil -- something which was said to be impossible by the peak oilers. Remember, the peak oiler claim has always been that *oil* is special and cannot be substituted with alternatives. That's why peak oil is so scary. The idea that liquids would smoothly substitute for oil has always been the cornucopian position.

So the POers can switch to liquids to salvage the peak oil theory, but we'll have to label that for what it is: a big fat backpedal, and an admission that the cornucopians were right. Oil isn't so special.

And it's very likely to happen again. Liquids will peak, and the economy will keep ticking along because people are shifting transportation to the power grid or other alternatives.

I have been told ad nauseum that we need 20 years to prepare for peak *oil* because the Hirsch report says so. Well, guess what. We didn't prepare for even one year, and peak oil came and went without causing a disaster, or even a recession. Peak oil mitigated itself with "liquids". So why do we need to prepare? Pops honestly seems to think that people need to go back to the farm or can tomatoes or something to prepare for peak oil, but we now know, in retrospect, that that was unnecessary. So why should we prepare for peak liquids? The POers were demonstrably wrong about peak oil. Why should anyone believe you about peak liquids? Because liquids are *special*??? That's what you said about oil, and you were wrong!

However, the lack of growth in production has caused economic growth to drop. Fatih Birol estimates that the high prices have knocked 3% from African economic growth, in the last few years...

And economic growth forecasts in Europe have just been reduced.

Tony, those effects are basically a joke considering all the dire peak oil scenarios I have been entertained with since joining this forum in 2004. If PEAK OIL (remember, the event we're all supposed to be terrified of?) can't even cause a recession, then peak oil was a joke, like Y2K.

[wisconsin_cur]

But, like I said, it would be Peak Oil that was making oil scarce, not MOL.

but it is MOL that is making it scarce for my gas tank at a particular time because the rational owners of the pipeline say, "no more draw down." This would effect the price of waht goes into my tank and, frankly, that is what matters to the majority of people, hence a WAKE UP CAAALLLLL! which is of course the topic of the thread and the source of individuals concern about MOL.

I have. I have merely stated that this scenario as described in this thread is an unlikely point of failure for the stated reasons. I said nothing about another scenario taking place somewhere else.

Then what will? Perhaps you have made a positive argument in 113 posts. I just happened to miss it. I'm all for being educated. To repeat Pops, "What will be the Pearl Harbor of Oil?" When between the present and their taking up manual labor on farms with the general population freak out and try to do something?

I want to respond to so much of what you said but will let it lay fallow for a time to see if you can respond to those questions.

[kpeavey]

Latestarter Wrote:

Maybe I'm showing my ignorance of pre-1941 history, but was anyone expecting an attack on Pearl Harbor despite all the other serious events taking place at that time?

I understand Churchill knew the attack was immanent but did not warn the US because he desperately needed their involvement in the war.

[LoneSnark]

Then what will? Perhaps you have made a positive argument in 113 posts.

Now I understand your question. I am sorry if I have misled you, but I am not a believe of doomsday scenarios. I have not heard all the collapse scenarios, as such I cannot give you one that will work. It may be out there, but MOL is not it. I have no positive, just this negative. You and others have not convinced me that manual labor is in the future, as such how can I tell you when before that people will freak out? Is that why we are here, for me to make your arguments for you?

As for Pops question, let me repeat myself:
"I do not believe Peak Oil will personify itself in a means similar to Pearl Harbor. It will be a gradual realization with a gradual response over many years."

[wisconsin_cur]

I am beginning to think you are little opportunistic. A few days ago you said

Again, that is not fair. I guess my problem is that I do not see a difference between what you call marginal people and people in general. I can only assume you mean the working poor, but I don't understand how you think the transition will be harder on this group than any other group. At a basic level, Peak Oil can be considered a loss of productivity, which harms everyone in society equally. But Peak Oil also changes the production mix, making mechanical machines (capital) less competitive relative to labor which will decrease the demand for the former and increase the demand for the latter. This will cause an economic shift, pushing up the share of GDP going towards labor and away from capital. Since the poor have nothing but labor and the rich often nothing but capital, this means the poor will gain buying power at the expense of your aristocrats. This is what I believe, draw your conclusions.

bold mine link

yet now:

You and others have not convinced me that manual labor is in the future,

which is it snarky?

You seem so intent on denying what ever you find that not only do you not have a positive argument, you seem to lack a consistent position.

and I'm still waiting for my list of jobs that will become available as oil declines and which one you are willing to sign up for and how you would feel in one of those jobs.

[pedalling_faster]

So when is the PO Pearl Harbor?

no offense, but there was this little thing called 9-11.

we get attacked by 15 Saudi's managed by some guy in Afghanistan - allegedly - and we attack Iraq ?

it's like an old 3 stooges routine, where Curly plays a trick on Moe and Moe hits the other guy.

Iraq having 110 billion barrels of easily recoverable oil.

leaving alone questions like foreknowledge of the attacks, we did have quite a Pearl Harbor event. one is enough, it served its purpose. most of the American and Canadian citizenry are so Shocked & Awed that they dare not publicly discuss any aspect of the day, besides the official Bubble Chimp (Bush) version of events.

So when is the PO Pearl Harbor?

when the US citizenry runs out of money to buy mind-altering drugs, including SSRI anti-depressants ?

[Pixie]

Come on you goofs.

The question (in case I need to rephrase) is:

When will PO become a clarion cal to do more than tap on some message board?

Dunno....but its been awhile, and I was sure under the impression something bad was supposed to happen by now.....maybe we have to wait till we have both PO and peak natural gas and coal first?

Peak natural gas came before peak oil in North America. That's why they keep trying to build LNG terminals in all the port towns on the west coast.

No, remember, being at the peak means you are producing the MOST you are ever going to produce. We aren't so much concerned about the peak. We're concerned with that downslope on the other side. It will take a while before oil supply falls so far that we can't sustain the economy and population. In the last couple of days, it has occurred to me that automobile fuel probably won't be the thing that really wakes people up. It'll be heating oil that really hits the news. The first time a bunch of people in the USA freeze to death because they couldn't get enough heating oil to make it through the winter--that'll be national news! And then it'll happen the next year, and the next, and the next...

[Pixie]

We are talking about a future event,

Similarly, it is pure opinion as to whether Peak Oil will occur soon or a hundred years from now.

HAHAHAHA!!!! A hundred years from now? Not even the USGS is that wildly optimistic. And in case you haven't noticed, there are a lot of people on this site whose OPINION is that peak oil is not a future event at all, but one that passed last year or the year before, or one that is currently ongoing in the form of an extended plateau.

[Pops]

Remember, the peak oiler claim has always been that *oil* is special and cannot be substituted with alternatives.

JD, I’m thinking that at its core PO theory merely suggests that at some point all primary energy sources will become harder to exploit and thus more expensive.

Not that we won’t try every alternate means imaginable to make money as those alternatives become profitable – as energy costs rise.

I take your point to mean there will be no Pearl Harbor nor any groundswell because energy costs will just continue to rise and at each step some less dense energy source will become profitable, ad infinitum until I can get $100 for a dried meadow wafer…

no offense, but there was this little thing called 9-11.

+10 for PF!

I do believe PH was like 9/11 simply because Japan attacked after we cut off their oil – the US was the SA of the day remember. Bin Ladin and his followers are hacked off because we have been supporting the house of Saud since way back because of their oil.

In both cases the American people were led and easily believed the act meant They Hate Us For Our Freedom, when in reality they hate us because of our thirst for oil and how that affects them.


I guess that is why I keep bringing up an awakening of the citizenry influencing the leaders as opposed to a declaration by the leadership influencing the citizens.

[Ferretlover]

I don't foresee most people waking up to any clarion call, Pops. I think most people will just limp along, struggling to make ends meet while desperately clinging to their old way life until it becomes obvious that their old way of life is no more. And at that point it will be too late to do anything other than cope.

I would have to agree.
Looking at everything that is so out of control with our financial sector, our government, etc-there is no ground swell by the citizenry to change those things.
I don't have a link, but was listening to a commentator on CNN wh said that it wouldn't be too long before there will be only one or two airlines in the US (due to rising fuel costs, and, that more airlines were cutting out domestic travel to opt for international flights which were more profitable). Once people have their ability to travel stifled, a few more will become aware of the situation, but most will just whine and complain.... still refusing to make any major changes in their lifestyles.
So... the flights have taken off and are headed to Pearl Harbor. And, like before, almost no-one is paying attention to the radar........

[TheDude]

I have been told ad nauseum that we need 20 years to prepare for peak *oil* because the Hirsch report says so. Well, guess what. We didn't prepare for even one year, and peak oil came and went without causing a disaster, or even a recession. Peak oil mitigated itself with "liquids". So why do we need to prepare?

If you mean NGL, those will likely peak worldwide soon as well - and conventional NA production has peaked, as Pixie points out - bringing an end to tar sands production in the process, if the water supply for them hasn't dried up first. Try again. You could build some of your in situ nukes of course - or drop atomic bombs on the bitumen as you've also suggested. Anything for a drop of oil!

Hirsch speaks of decade long mitigation efforts, not 20 years.

Mitigation will require a minimum of a decade of intense, expensive effort, because the scale of liquid fuels mitigation is inherently extremely large.

We all know what a fool Robert Hirsch is, though.

Things were hunky dory in the US in 1972, too. Are you fixated with being obtuse?

[Pops]

I’m also thinking even though many here are obsessed with what goes on Out There, they still discount the effect of every event on the general consciousness.

Interminable quotes of Pipelines, Presidents, Production, Publishers, Press Releases, etc.

Still, no one aside from the enlightened few here are capable of sensing the sea change and seeing through the forest…


Rings to me like that now famous PO word…

Hubris.