The Biggest Aviation Question: Fuel Supply
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In Limbo
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Biggest Aviation Question: Fuel Supply
It is interesting reading the constant topics here on D&G: QF Corporate Greed, Industrial Issues, Bilateral Air Access rights, Aviation security.
Nobody seems to be talking about the biggest challenge to the continued existence of aviation, and in many respects the industrialised world and it's fundamental basis for economic growth : Oil Supply.
Perhaps it is because the paradigm shift that will be forced upon the 'developed' world over the next 10-20 years is too hard to acknowledge? Or that we all realise a political solution is by definition unachieveable by nature of the likelihood of governments willingly committing political suicide!
Initially of course the decrease in production of oil will be managed by our current supply/demand economics, until later down the track the integrity or relevance of it's value is dispatched all together. So, in the short to medium term the demand in air travel / air support will dramatically fall.
Lets face it - 90% or more of current air travel is arbitrary. For example if the cost of flying from Sydney to London went from about $1800-2000 to $6000-10000 in the next 3 years or so what will the demand be?
In an uncertain oil supply environment in geopolitical terms, many governments who rely on imports of oil (fortunately Australia is not one of them - yet) may well be stockpiliing highly refined oils like kerosense for military reasons - defending their own oil supply fields.
Another thing. Private vehicles can be converted to LPG in Australia readily now, and this would be driven by economics to start with (LPG reserves in AUS are plentiful, even though currently 80% is made as a by-product of oil refining). But what of alternative fuels for aviation? BIO-Diesel is one possibilty - but productions costs are high.
It is more likely that the arbitrary nature of most travel will reduce demand as costs rise first.
Cheap oil has effectively driven the growth in Air travel, and most of the economy. This is about to change, and the future for aviation is going to be very different.
Most of what we discuss here as important issues now, seem to me to be going to totally irrelevant in a relatively short time.
I am happy to debate the issues - but if you respond to me as being a scaremongerer, then you are part of the problem. My only response to that will be now: Do your research.
Nobody seems to be talking about the biggest challenge to the continued existence of aviation, and in many respects the industrialised world and it's fundamental basis for economic growth : Oil Supply.
Perhaps it is because the paradigm shift that will be forced upon the 'developed' world over the next 10-20 years is too hard to acknowledge? Or that we all realise a political solution is by definition unachieveable by nature of the likelihood of governments willingly committing political suicide!
Initially of course the decrease in production of oil will be managed by our current supply/demand economics, until later down the track the integrity or relevance of it's value is dispatched all together. So, in the short to medium term the demand in air travel / air support will dramatically fall.
Lets face it - 90% or more of current air travel is arbitrary. For example if the cost of flying from Sydney to London went from about $1800-2000 to $6000-10000 in the next 3 years or so what will the demand be?
In an uncertain oil supply environment in geopolitical terms, many governments who rely on imports of oil (fortunately Australia is not one of them - yet) may well be stockpiliing highly refined oils like kerosense for military reasons - defending their own oil supply fields.
Another thing. Private vehicles can be converted to LPG in Australia readily now, and this would be driven by economics to start with (LPG reserves in AUS are plentiful, even though currently 80% is made as a by-product of oil refining). But what of alternative fuels for aviation? BIO-Diesel is one possibilty - but productions costs are high.
It is more likely that the arbitrary nature of most travel will reduce demand as costs rise first.
Cheap oil has effectively driven the growth in Air travel, and most of the economy. This is about to change, and the future for aviation is going to be very different.
Most of what we discuss here as important issues now, seem to me to be going to totally irrelevant in a relatively short time.
I am happy to debate the issues - but if you respond to me as being a scaremongerer, then you are part of the problem. My only response to that will be now: Do your research.
Last edited by Nomorecrap; 28th Mar 2005 at 01:26.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In Limbo
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes,
there has been debate - but the point missed.
Aviation is in fact THE most vulnerable form of oil useage to the post-peak economics/supply problem.
There is no other viable propulsion system - and certainly not within the next few years when the reality of Production/Consumption ratios will kick in.
My own prediction is that we are now at, or have just passed the pinnacle of commercial Aviation activity in the world. Why? Well, I don't think too many would argue that much of the recent growth has been on the back of LCC's 'stimulating' unneeded discretionary travel. LCC rely on fuel hedging to predict costs and stay (close to) profitable. Assuming fuel costs currently stand at 40-50% of costs for an LCC, if your $50US barrell of crude is costing you $100 by the end of this year, and if the oil traders get nervous, $200 by the end of next year, just how sustainable is a business that relies on discretionary travel?
Ironically, the mediium term survival/extension of commerical aviation may just depend on this very realisation/acceptance that oil is TOO cheap and has been for too long. It is not being given the real value it's scarcity might suggest by our economy. Take a look at the cars being driven around - 4WD to pick up kids from school!? Madness.
The mindset of the consumer-capitalist society can not save itself, not even its "intellectual" classes or green leadership give any sign that this society has the wit or the will to even think about the basic situation we are in.
there has been debate - but the point missed.
Aviation is in fact THE most vulnerable form of oil useage to the post-peak economics/supply problem.
There is no other viable propulsion system - and certainly not within the next few years when the reality of Production/Consumption ratios will kick in.
My own prediction is that we are now at, or have just passed the pinnacle of commercial Aviation activity in the world. Why? Well, I don't think too many would argue that much of the recent growth has been on the back of LCC's 'stimulating' unneeded discretionary travel. LCC rely on fuel hedging to predict costs and stay (close to) profitable. Assuming fuel costs currently stand at 40-50% of costs for an LCC, if your $50US barrell of crude is costing you $100 by the end of this year, and if the oil traders get nervous, $200 by the end of next year, just how sustainable is a business that relies on discretionary travel?
Ironically, the mediium term survival/extension of commerical aviation may just depend on this very realisation/acceptance that oil is TOO cheap and has been for too long. It is not being given the real value it's scarcity might suggest by our economy. Take a look at the cars being driven around - 4WD to pick up kids from school!? Madness.
The mindset of the consumer-capitalist society can not save itself, not even its "intellectual" classes or green leadership give any sign that this society has the wit or the will to even think about the basic situation we are in.
Last edited by Nomorecrap; 26th Mar 2005 at 06:46.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting topic. As I understand it, the present rise in fuel costs (across all forms) is due to the fact that OPEC cannot control price through production rates as they are presently opperating at maximum output.
Interesting times.
Interesting times.
Grandpa Aerotart
You light find this website interesting. Perhaps the Saudis don't have as much of the world supply as we are being lead to believe.
potential world oil resources
If we really were getting that close to peak oil production I tend to think the price of a barrel would be higher now than it was in the 70s, in inflation corrected dollars...it isn't by about $20/barrel..40 odd %.
I find it easier to accept that current high prices are driven by futures traders and market manipulation.
Chuck.
potential world oil resources
If we really were getting that close to peak oil production I tend to think the price of a barrel would be higher now than it was in the 70s, in inflation corrected dollars...it isn't by about $20/barrel..40 odd %.
I find it easier to accept that current high prices are driven by futures traders and market manipulation.
Chuck.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its simple economics, as the supply dwindles, the cost will skyrocket, and there will be no shortage of new technology emerging to replace it. but only when the price becomes a lot more expensive....
i not worried.
i not worried.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Ultralight has got the supply side economics nailed. The theory goes that as price goes up new technology is driven to bring on sources that have now become cost effective - Canadian oil shales, bio fuels, warp drives - that sort of thing.
However, this ignores one consistent theme on this forum - no suit will ever make a career increasing costs or spending today what can be deferred until they are up another rung on the greasy pole. Thus immense hysterisis - lag if you like - in the theory which will blight us as aviators for half a career.
Chimbu points out the speculative 'spiking' of futures markets. Spot on but the underlying price is only going one way. The comparison elsewhere to the 70's price is unfortunately a red herring with demand from China and India soaring. 2004 marked the year that China officially became unable to feed itself - the swing to industrial/service economy achieved, again, in half a pilot's career.
National and strategic reserves have been proven as a mockery for short term political gain. A suit is a suit is a suit - check out the last two years in the US where they've been used up as a price buffer for Joe Sixpack even when the military are rather busy around the World. Something supporting nomorecrap's thesis to the letter.
The next piece of the jigsaw is again taken directly from threads on this forum. Whether phrased as discretionary travel or thong wearers, oil is very cheap if those folks are flying and it's very obvious it is viewed in an entirely different way from the 'elitist' past.
So where's the problem? Well, in addition to market price rises, fuel's now a very soft and attractive target for taxes suitably wrapped in green promises. We've had generations of goverment support in form of little or no tax on airline fuel in the guise of national or nationalistic economic development. That argument lies shattered in the world of lo cost - flying is just a commodity now. Airport and passenger taxes appear for what they are and draw ever more protest - fuel is the perfect target to up revenues with a wonderful save the planet message especially in parts of the world with extreme congestion and perceived poor quality of life as a result.
So?
Rocky road due to supply not enough.
Economies growing so even more not enough.
Developing world has the same thirst as us for 4 wheels and they're getting it. One major, and I mean major, European car maker is now building more cars in China than Europe. The Chinese built cars are not for Western markets.
Lag in R+D and new supplies due to modern bottom line management and pollie's short term survivalism. Add to that oil companies, producing nations and cartels finding it very difficult to act against their own short and medium interests and income.
Tempting source of totally unexploited tax revenue with a wonderful excuse over much of the developed world.
Short/ medium term - i.e a good chunk of a career, problems for us initially masked by a major shortage of experienced pilots worldwide. I've wiped the flight sim of my lad's computer and hidden the aviation mags with the dirty ones. He'll still find them but I want professional aviation consigned to the dark recesses of his mind.
Would you guys shoot me down in flames? Please?
Regards
Rob
Personal note: My head says we should follow the American lead and use the stuff like there's no tomorrow forcing the next generation of fuel and energy technology. Brutal economic change through the free market. Sadly I think I may have chosen a career path with a bit of a Darwinian shallow end to it. Still can always retrain as a lamplighter, maybe a sedan chair skipper, ostler, ummm, wheeltapper and shunter, whiffletree balancer, candle snuffer. Oh bugger it.......
However, this ignores one consistent theme on this forum - no suit will ever make a career increasing costs or spending today what can be deferred until they are up another rung on the greasy pole. Thus immense hysterisis - lag if you like - in the theory which will blight us as aviators for half a career.
Chimbu points out the speculative 'spiking' of futures markets. Spot on but the underlying price is only going one way. The comparison elsewhere to the 70's price is unfortunately a red herring with demand from China and India soaring. 2004 marked the year that China officially became unable to feed itself - the swing to industrial/service economy achieved, again, in half a pilot's career.
National and strategic reserves have been proven as a mockery for short term political gain. A suit is a suit is a suit - check out the last two years in the US where they've been used up as a price buffer for Joe Sixpack even when the military are rather busy around the World. Something supporting nomorecrap's thesis to the letter.
The next piece of the jigsaw is again taken directly from threads on this forum. Whether phrased as discretionary travel or thong wearers, oil is very cheap if those folks are flying and it's very obvious it is viewed in an entirely different way from the 'elitist' past.
So where's the problem? Well, in addition to market price rises, fuel's now a very soft and attractive target for taxes suitably wrapped in green promises. We've had generations of goverment support in form of little or no tax on airline fuel in the guise of national or nationalistic economic development. That argument lies shattered in the world of lo cost - flying is just a commodity now. Airport and passenger taxes appear for what they are and draw ever more protest - fuel is the perfect target to up revenues with a wonderful save the planet message especially in parts of the world with extreme congestion and perceived poor quality of life as a result.
So?
Rocky road due to supply not enough.
Economies growing so even more not enough.
Developing world has the same thirst as us for 4 wheels and they're getting it. One major, and I mean major, European car maker is now building more cars in China than Europe. The Chinese built cars are not for Western markets.
Lag in R+D and new supplies due to modern bottom line management and pollie's short term survivalism. Add to that oil companies, producing nations and cartels finding it very difficult to act against their own short and medium interests and income.
Tempting source of totally unexploited tax revenue with a wonderful excuse over much of the developed world.
Short/ medium term - i.e a good chunk of a career, problems for us initially masked by a major shortage of experienced pilots worldwide. I've wiped the flight sim of my lad's computer and hidden the aviation mags with the dirty ones. He'll still find them but I want professional aviation consigned to the dark recesses of his mind.
Would you guys shoot me down in flames? Please?
Regards
Rob
Personal note: My head says we should follow the American lead and use the stuff like there's no tomorrow forcing the next generation of fuel and energy technology. Brutal economic change through the free market. Sadly I think I may have chosen a career path with a bit of a Darwinian shallow end to it. Still can always retrain as a lamplighter, maybe a sedan chair skipper, ostler, ummm, wheeltapper and shunter, whiffletree balancer, candle snuffer. Oh bugger it.......
Australia alone has another 40 basins to explore, I think the mark is 26 that are very interesting(read world standard).The problem is they are under a lot of water. Chimbu (as always
) is very correct. Majority if this I suspect is market manipulation by the speculators.
As fuels become more expensive, more alternatives become viable. Note what is currently the case with wind energy,these fools are trying to bring technology on line before it is economically viable. Their survival is dependant on the Feds enforcing a mandated 40% generation supply by renewable resources...shame hydro is taking all the glory AND the dollars
Back to the oil debate. Just because the last drop hasn't been discovered doesn't mean we shouldn't be searching for more economically viable alternatives. NOMORECRAP Oz gas reserves are in the order of 200YEARS of supply. It is currently not viable to convert gas to condensate. My Dad makes his own diesel for just on 25cpl using used cooking oil. At the moment it is a waste product but imagine the escalation in price if there is more demand for it. JETA1 will by more viable than AVGAS. The Feds will have to bite the bullet and allow MOGAS to be used. This will force serious engine modification, indeed it may well finally allow modern ECU fitment to current machinery.
My bet is on Diesel/JetA1 recip engines. Ethanol blends and Mogas in current technology engines. (water cooled ECU and electronic ignition) Eventually, in another 100 years as hydrocarbon based fuels become too expensive we will be using water powered fuel cells and maybe high tech solar panel powered electric aircraft. International travel will be by hypersonic scram jets.
By the way, hydrocarbons and I do mean heavy crude hydrocarbons are a geological process not a biological process. How do you explain the atmosphere of Titan otherwise? When I was at school crude was supposed to be gone by the late eighties and the world was going to freeze. We do not know enough, even yet.
You are correct though, this debate is needed now and not in another thirty years. With regard to cheap jet travel? Current LCC method seems to finally use that economic advantage that jet travel had all along. Fuel useage per seat mile. Jets have been more economical than road transport since the invention of the 747 in the sixties. Who knows what may happen to JETA1 production over the next thirty years or so. Aviation will still be THE most economical way of using that resource for travel.
) is very correct. Majority if this I suspect is market manipulation by the speculators.As fuels become more expensive, more alternatives become viable. Note what is currently the case with wind energy,these fools are trying to bring technology on line before it is economically viable. Their survival is dependant on the Feds enforcing a mandated 40% generation supply by renewable resources...shame hydro is taking all the glory AND the dollars
Back to the oil debate. Just because the last drop hasn't been discovered doesn't mean we shouldn't be searching for more economically viable alternatives. NOMORECRAP Oz gas reserves are in the order of 200YEARS of supply. It is currently not viable to convert gas to condensate. My Dad makes his own diesel for just on 25cpl using used cooking oil. At the moment it is a waste product but imagine the escalation in price if there is more demand for it. JETA1 will by more viable than AVGAS. The Feds will have to bite the bullet and allow MOGAS to be used. This will force serious engine modification, indeed it may well finally allow modern ECU fitment to current machinery.
My bet is on Diesel/JetA1 recip engines. Ethanol blends and Mogas in current technology engines. (water cooled ECU and electronic ignition) Eventually, in another 100 years as hydrocarbon based fuels become too expensive we will be using water powered fuel cells and maybe high tech solar panel powered electric aircraft. International travel will be by hypersonic scram jets.
By the way, hydrocarbons and I do mean heavy crude hydrocarbons are a geological process not a biological process. How do you explain the atmosphere of Titan otherwise? When I was at school crude was supposed to be gone by the late eighties and the world was going to freeze. We do not know enough, even yet.
You are correct though, this debate is needed now and not in another thirty years. With regard to cheap jet travel? Current LCC method seems to finally use that economic advantage that jet travel had all along. Fuel useage per seat mile. Jets have been more economical than road transport since the invention of the 747 in the sixties. Who knows what may happen to JETA1 production over the next thirty years or so. Aviation will still be THE most economical way of using that resource for travel.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 27th Mar 2005 at 12:36.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: AU
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all moot.
The most pressing issue facing aviation is where to land once sea levels rise. More than a few major paddocks will be under water before we run low on oil.
ABC Four Corners last week brought to our screens the story of global dimming, an effect highlighted by the absence of contrails over continental USA in the three days post September 11 2001. Global dimming has been artificially keeping a lid on global warming, and as the program transcript states, "by about twenty thirty we could have a global warming of exceeding two degrees, and at that point it's believed the Greenland ice sheet would start to melt in a way that you wouldn't be able to stop it once it started it, it would melt. Take a long time to melt but ultimately it would lead to a sea level rise of seven or eight metres."
2030 ... not so far away folks.
The most pressing issue facing aviation is where to land once sea levels rise. More than a few major paddocks will be under water before we run low on oil.
ABC Four Corners last week brought to our screens the story of global dimming, an effect highlighted by the absence of contrails over continental USA in the three days post September 11 2001. Global dimming has been artificially keeping a lid on global warming, and as the program transcript states, "by about twenty thirty we could have a global warming of exceeding two degrees, and at that point it's believed the Greenland ice sheet would start to melt in a way that you wouldn't be able to stop it once it started it, it would melt. Take a long time to melt but ultimately it would lead to a sea level rise of seven or eight metres."
2030 ... not so far away folks.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In Limbo
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some excellent points all round (I am pleasantly surprised).
Jelli Been - I saw the 4C/Panorama report too. V Interesting data for 12/13/14Sep01 when the jets were grounded. 2030 is indeed close, but not close enough in the political sense unfortunately. Political cycles and business cycles do not look that far ahead - that is probably humanity's biggest achilles heel - especially if you have kids and want a future for them. (I often wonder if any politicians 'ever' think about their own family legacy!).
I fear that Global Dimming will be embraced as quickly/slowly as Global Warming, and the response will be just as effective/useless. The Kyoto protocol, despite it's small targets, was more important for it's symbolic agreement - however with the US and China ignoring it, both the true effectiveness and the symbolic usefullness are both lost - again: Political Cycles.
Excise (tax) on motor fuel is around 45-50% in Australia - except LPG. However our current government has a policy of introducing this in 2011 starting at 2.5c/l and escalating to 12.5c/l in 2015 - how farsighted of them! I can see arguments either way about oil excsie being a good or bad tax - but I think Government by their nature will reach a pragmatic point where excise will be reduced/abolished in the interest of prolonging economic growth stimulus when the crudel price gets high enough.
Australia is a net importer of Crude in Australia, but only by around 6-7% - with higher use of LPG for private motor vehicle use we could be self sufficent, with reserves at current useage rates for 15-25 years , if we still have an Air Force (and fuel) to defend it! Current consumption in Australia is 860,000 barrels per day (around 1% of world useage).Proved reserves are 4.5 billion Barrels - so around 14 years supply on current useage.
The point about LPG reserves in Australia - they are large, but make up only 18% of Australias current energy useage compared to 24% of the world. Gas is also subject to the peak (Bell curve), but probably about 15-20 years after oil, based on current useage, which obviously will escalate after Oil peaks. Gas is usually only discovered as a result of Oil exploration - 20% of production is from under pressure reseves - 80% is as a result of Oil refining (by product - thats the P in LPG).
The new technolgies argument is often made to counter the peak oil argument as some sort of white knight solution. Will they be online in 5-10 years when the short term speculative nature of spot oil trading makes oil too expensive? For some transport technoligies like private motor vehicles, possibly. But there is nothing for aviation that is viable - hydrogen fuel cells are pipe dreams - the energy required to produce them is massive. It is a similar argument to the shale oil / oil sands argument - whilst to some extent it is true that as the oil price increases these oil reserves become 'viable', one has to look at the true energy cost of extracting the oil. Oil sands, such as found in the Alberta prairie, are 'steamed out. The extraction cost using todays energy cost is around $13CAD per barrell, compared to $1.50CAD for extraction from the largest oil field in Saudi - Ghawar. But as the oil price increases the extraction costs also increases - and then distribution increases, until you get back to being uneconomic again.
Behavioural change will be the hardest - especially when you have a country like the US using 26% of the worlds oil production/extraction for only 3% of the worlds population - and growing.
Jelli Been - I saw the 4C/Panorama report too. V Interesting data for 12/13/14Sep01 when the jets were grounded. 2030 is indeed close, but not close enough in the political sense unfortunately. Political cycles and business cycles do not look that far ahead - that is probably humanity's biggest achilles heel - especially if you have kids and want a future for them. (I often wonder if any politicians 'ever' think about their own family legacy!).
I fear that Global Dimming will be embraced as quickly/slowly as Global Warming, and the response will be just as effective/useless. The Kyoto protocol, despite it's small targets, was more important for it's symbolic agreement - however with the US and China ignoring it, both the true effectiveness and the symbolic usefullness are both lost - again: Political Cycles.
Excise (tax) on motor fuel is around 45-50% in Australia - except LPG. However our current government has a policy of introducing this in 2011 starting at 2.5c/l and escalating to 12.5c/l in 2015 - how farsighted of them! I can see arguments either way about oil excsie being a good or bad tax - but I think Government by their nature will reach a pragmatic point where excise will be reduced/abolished in the interest of prolonging economic growth stimulus when the crudel price gets high enough.
Australia is a net importer of Crude in Australia, but only by around 6-7% - with higher use of LPG for private motor vehicle use we could be self sufficent, with reserves at current useage rates for 15-25 years , if we still have an Air Force (and fuel) to defend it! Current consumption in Australia is 860,000 barrels per day (around 1% of world useage).Proved reserves are 4.5 billion Barrels - so around 14 years supply on current useage.
The point about LPG reserves in Australia - they are large, but make up only 18% of Australias current energy useage compared to 24% of the world. Gas is also subject to the peak (Bell curve), but probably about 15-20 years after oil, based on current useage, which obviously will escalate after Oil peaks. Gas is usually only discovered as a result of Oil exploration - 20% of production is from under pressure reseves - 80% is as a result of Oil refining (by product - thats the P in LPG).
The new technolgies argument is often made to counter the peak oil argument as some sort of white knight solution. Will they be online in 5-10 years when the short term speculative nature of spot oil trading makes oil too expensive? For some transport technoligies like private motor vehicles, possibly. But there is nothing for aviation that is viable - hydrogen fuel cells are pipe dreams - the energy required to produce them is massive. It is a similar argument to the shale oil / oil sands argument - whilst to some extent it is true that as the oil price increases these oil reserves become 'viable', one has to look at the true energy cost of extracting the oil. Oil sands, such as found in the Alberta prairie, are 'steamed out. The extraction cost using todays energy cost is around $13CAD per barrell, compared to $1.50CAD for extraction from the largest oil field in Saudi - Ghawar. But as the oil price increases the extraction costs also increases - and then distribution increases, until you get back to being uneconomic again.
Behavioural change will be the hardest - especially when you have a country like the US using 26% of the worlds oil production/extraction for only 3% of the worlds population - and growing.
Last edited by Nomorecrap; 28th Mar 2005 at 00:40.
Registered User **
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE:
"Behavioural change will be the hardest - especially when you have a country like the US using 26% of the worlds oil production/extraction for only 3% of the worlds population - and growing."
Indeed it is, you may have noticed a charm offensive by the Bush Administration in the last few months, a whistle stop, Cheerful, Gift and flowers bearing tour of the major European nations.
[in as much as Rice can "crack a smile" ]
Why was this ? after all the Bush Administration since 2001 was agressively undermining the UN, the EU and most other international organisations that had the arrogance to question US Policy ?
Kyoto was not ratified by the US nor Australia, so the other member states went ahead and ratified it anyway.
Thats what happens in diplomatic arenas when you take your ball and say you don't want to play anymore, the other kids get another ball and the game continues WITHOUT you and you can no longer influence the result.
There are huge ramifications for this country and others who have not agreed to Kyoto, Little Jonnie's response is that we will meet the emission targets by our own methods, presumeably this means cutting down on emissions ? For an economy based on non stustainable "we dig stuff up and ship it out" (a senior european economists words, not mine), it hardly seems achievable ?
Little Jonnie has also missed the key point, R&D, Member states that have ratified Kyoto will share the technology and create synergies across the technological advances they will make in discovering methods and techniques to reduce emissions and ensure sustainable energy, fuel, and consumption streams.
where will we be ? We'll pay through the nose for this, not only in the loss of unsustainable industries, but also because Australia is an incredibly fragile and vulnerable environment.
I took a light single out of parafield a few years ago and flew a short bit up the coast towards the salt pans NNW of ADL.
I did not like what I saw.
Willindilly is also concerning, I don't think that new extension on warragamba has ever seen water ?
Nomorecrap,
I agree , without China and the US working towards Kyoto, in particular the SE asian belt (re the global Dimming programme), I think we're stuffed.
Thing is, in the "west" it will certainly impact AUS first, no doubt about that, sadly not before most of the sub-saharan belt of countries have gone through another three or four cycles of famine and are wiped out.
A pleasant and honorable mantle to hand to our children.
"Behavioural change will be the hardest - especially when you have a country like the US using 26% of the worlds oil production/extraction for only 3% of the worlds population - and growing."
Indeed it is, you may have noticed a charm offensive by the Bush Administration in the last few months, a whistle stop, Cheerful, Gift and flowers bearing tour of the major European nations.
[in as much as Rice can "crack a smile" ]
Why was this ? after all the Bush Administration since 2001 was agressively undermining the UN, the EU and most other international organisations that had the arrogance to question US Policy ?
Kyoto was not ratified by the US nor Australia, so the other member states went ahead and ratified it anyway.
Thats what happens in diplomatic arenas when you take your ball and say you don't want to play anymore, the other kids get another ball and the game continues WITHOUT you and you can no longer influence the result.
There are huge ramifications for this country and others who have not agreed to Kyoto, Little Jonnie's response is that we will meet the emission targets by our own methods, presumeably this means cutting down on emissions ? For an economy based on non stustainable "we dig stuff up and ship it out" (a senior european economists words, not mine), it hardly seems achievable ?
Little Jonnie has also missed the key point, R&D, Member states that have ratified Kyoto will share the technology and create synergies across the technological advances they will make in discovering methods and techniques to reduce emissions and ensure sustainable energy, fuel, and consumption streams.
where will we be ? We'll pay through the nose for this, not only in the loss of unsustainable industries, but also because Australia is an incredibly fragile and vulnerable environment.
I took a light single out of parafield a few years ago and flew a short bit up the coast towards the salt pans NNW of ADL.
I did not like what I saw.
Willindilly is also concerning, I don't think that new extension on warragamba has ever seen water ?
Nomorecrap,
I agree , without China and the US working towards Kyoto, in particular the SE asian belt (re the global Dimming programme), I think we're stuffed.
Thing is, in the "west" it will certainly impact AUS first, no doubt about that, sadly not before most of the sub-saharan belt of countries have gone through another three or four cycles of famine and are wiped out.
A pleasant and honorable mantle to hand to our children.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In Limbo
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 1970's oil crisis - a reading of history suggests there were 2 main causes.
1. As predicted using the same theory as applies to the current Peak Oil theory, 'production' in the US peaked around 1970-73, and demand exceeded supply. The US was forced to import from it's overseas suppliers - at the time mainly Arab countries.....
2. The Arab/Israeli war was in full swing and the Arab countries boycotted supply to the Us because of it's support for Israel in attacking Egypt.
So, in some ways eerly similar to today - except: there is no alternative supply now.
The geo-political environment is just as bad however - mainly the doing of the US with it's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan (irrespective of whether you consider it right or wrong) and it's sabre rattling over Iran. Political pressure against the house of Faud in SA is growing as SA continues to export to the US in the face of this highly agressive doctrine in the ME by Bush - perhaps the US strategy is a foothold in the remaining fields at any cost? To keep the American dream ticking over for another 20 years? If so, it would be very shortsighted and just a postponement to the end of the party if no alternative strategies/technologies are developed.
A close look at the composition of the US executive however, and their almost complete nexus to the oil industry does make it easy to wonder.
BTW: The peak oil debate has actually made it in to the 'mainstream' political arena very recently, both here in Australia and in the US Congress. Just this weekend the debate over methanol production was reignited along these lines.
http://www.energybulletin.net/4733.html
http://www.energybulletin.net/4654.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...3/s1331848.htm
1. As predicted using the same theory as applies to the current Peak Oil theory, 'production' in the US peaked around 1970-73, and demand exceeded supply. The US was forced to import from it's overseas suppliers - at the time mainly Arab countries.....
2. The Arab/Israeli war was in full swing and the Arab countries boycotted supply to the Us because of it's support for Israel in attacking Egypt.
So, in some ways eerly similar to today - except: there is no alternative supply now.
The geo-political environment is just as bad however - mainly the doing of the US with it's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan (irrespective of whether you consider it right or wrong) and it's sabre rattling over Iran. Political pressure against the house of Faud in SA is growing as SA continues to export to the US in the face of this highly agressive doctrine in the ME by Bush - perhaps the US strategy is a foothold in the remaining fields at any cost? To keep the American dream ticking over for another 20 years? If so, it would be very shortsighted and just a postponement to the end of the party if no alternative strategies/technologies are developed.
A close look at the composition of the US executive however, and their almost complete nexus to the oil industry does make it easy to wonder.
BTW: The peak oil debate has actually made it in to the 'mainstream' political arena very recently, both here in Australia and in the US Congress. Just this weekend the debate over methanol production was reignited along these lines.
http://www.energybulletin.net/4733.html
http://www.energybulletin.net/4654.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...3/s1331848.htm
Last edited by Nomorecrap; 28th Mar 2005 at 01:18.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
> perhaps the US strategy is a foothold in the remaining fields at any cost
Well, yes. As unpalatable as the Iraq invasion was, at least the US recognises the medium term responsibility of a sole-superpower-democracy is to provide security to the remaining reserves. The human cost of middle east control is (considered) negligable compared with the consequences of an unstabilised oil supply on the far side of peak supply. East Timor is a local version of the same story.
Now pass me a bucket
and let me get off this world.
But the lag in R&D you mention, how far off do you reckon non-oil aircraft propulsion systems are? I think all engine manufacturers see the writing on the wall... their websites boast of R&D in this area... but the crucial question is will the technology arrive in time before a radical reshaping of aviation caused by an oil squeeze? (Roll on Lathamesque cliches...)
Well, yes. As unpalatable as the Iraq invasion was, at least the US recognises the medium term responsibility of a sole-superpower-democracy is to provide security to the remaining reserves. The human cost of middle east control is (considered) negligable compared with the consequences of an unstabilised oil supply on the far side of peak supply. East Timor is a local version of the same story.
Now pass me a bucket
and let me get off this world.But the lag in R&D you mention, how far off do you reckon non-oil aircraft propulsion systems are? I think all engine manufacturers see the writing on the wall... their websites boast of R&D in this area... but the crucial question is will the technology arrive in time before a radical reshaping of aviation caused by an oil squeeze? (Roll on Lathamesque cliches...)
Registered User **
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst stabilising the region is up for debate, the economic cost to the US us just staggering, The nexus nomorecrap speaks of is quite hard to ignore, and whilst the human cost as you say may be negligible, the show ain't over till the fat lady sings. It only takes one martyr with a portable nuke, then its game over.
As a conservative estimate , it will be approximately 4-5 decades before it is safe for Americans to travel to these middle eastern countries., not withstanding the social and political impacts, is the US still going to be a power then ? If the Bell Curve principle is to be applied, then she's already in decline, her policy is plainly flawed and one-way, an acceptable machivellian foreign policy solution if one remains Top Dog, but what is China going to have to say about it ?
besides, its large industrials and domestic requirements (both developing and developed countries) that are the key culprits in global warming,(what the hell do we need a 4.6 ltr gas guzzling 4X4 around town for ?) the lack of safe secure reliable nuclear power for developing countries forces them to use fossil fuels, and we in the west or rather those boys on pensylvania avenue have made us all nervous about allowing the developing world a clean and safe nuclear programme.[itself a finite resource, albeit a longer term one]
India and China are supreme culprits in pollution of the SE Asian hemisphere.
I personally see no reason why the Iranians should not have a domestic nuclear programme. Pressuring them as US policy is doing is just forcing them away from the normal diplomatic discourse.
Why are the Iraqi opposition called Insurgents and not Terrorists ?
Because at some point in the future, there will be dialogue, and you can't have dialogue with terrorists.
a flawed policy.
As a conservative estimate , it will be approximately 4-5 decades before it is safe for Americans to travel to these middle eastern countries., not withstanding the social and political impacts, is the US still going to be a power then ? If the Bell Curve principle is to be applied, then she's already in decline, her policy is plainly flawed and one-way, an acceptable machivellian foreign policy solution if one remains Top Dog, but what is China going to have to say about it ?
besides, its large industrials and domestic requirements (both developing and developed countries) that are the key culprits in global warming,(what the hell do we need a 4.6 ltr gas guzzling 4X4 around town for ?) the lack of safe secure reliable nuclear power for developing countries forces them to use fossil fuels, and we in the west or rather those boys on pensylvania avenue have made us all nervous about allowing the developing world a clean and safe nuclear programme.[itself a finite resource, albeit a longer term one]
India and China are supreme culprits in pollution of the SE Asian hemisphere.
I personally see no reason why the Iranians should not have a domestic nuclear programme. Pressuring them as US policy is doing is just forcing them away from the normal diplomatic discourse.
Why are the Iraqi opposition called Insurgents and not Terrorists ?
Because at some point in the future, there will be dialogue, and you can't have dialogue with terrorists.
a flawed policy.
Last edited by 7gcbc; 28th Mar 2005 at 10:27.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few weeks ago, the price of oil ratcheted above fifty-five dollars a barrel, which is about twenty dollars a barrel more than a year ago. The next day, the oil story was buried on page six of the New York Times business section. Apparently, the price of oil is not considered significant news, even when it goes up five bucks a barrel in the span of ten days. That same day, the stock market shot up more than a hundred points because, CNN said, government data showed no signs of inflation. Note to clueless nation: Call planet Earth.
Carl Jung, one of the fathers of psychology, famously remarked that "people cannot stand too much reality." What you're about to read may challenge your assumptions about the kind of world we live in, and especially the kind of world into which events are propelling us. We are in for a rough ride through uncharted territory.
It has been very hard for Americans -- lost in dark raptures of nonstop infotainment, recreational shopping and compulsive motoring -- to make sense of the gathering forces that will fundamentally alter the terms of everyday life in our technological society. Even after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, America is still sleepwalking into the future. I call this coming time the Long Emergency. Read More...
Carl Jung, one of the fathers of psychology, famously remarked that "people cannot stand too much reality." What you're about to read may challenge your assumptions about the kind of world we live in, and especially the kind of world into which events are propelling us. We are in for a rough ride through uncharted territory.
It has been very hard for Americans -- lost in dark raptures of nonstop infotainment, recreational shopping and compulsive motoring -- to make sense of the gathering forces that will fundamentally alter the terms of everyday life in our technological society. Even after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, America is still sleepwalking into the future. I call this coming time the Long Emergency. Read More...
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just read the full essay introduced by Uncommon Sense I must say that, should his prophesy come to fruition (and what a bad choice of word "fruition" is in this context), it isn't a matter of what we can do to avoid disaster to aviation, rather a a matter of what we can do to save our collective arses.
The writing is, quite simply, on the wall. Kids: learn to garden. Adults: don't have kids.
there may be no long-range travel or transport of goods at all a few decades from now. The commercial aviation industry, already on its knees financially, is likely to vanish. The sheer cost of maintaining gigantic airports may not justify the operation of a much-reduced air-travel fleet. Railroads are far more energy efficient than cars, trucks or airplanes, and they can be run on anything from wood to electricity. The rail-bed infrastructure is also far more economical to maintain than our highway network.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Here
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The idea of denial suggests an underlying truth to assertions made, which appear to be that civilization is coming to a close.
Aircraft will not fly; too expensive.
Trading between nations will grind to a halt; no transportation.
Our interlinked world will revert to isolated communities that will only survive by bonding together in mutual understanding that "this is it, so let's all pull together now and raise those crops."
I'm sorry, but the premise is false. Yet because I'm not about to spend hours explaining why I think that, I'm in denial.
Ok......but think about this. There have been too many wasted lives worrying about a future of doom that doesn't eventually transpire and then guess what?
It's too late to start building your life. You're forty, or older, and chicks don't dig you anymore, you have no money in the bank, no career and no hope for financial independence. You become sour, and because you're shut out, perhaps drag others down into the murk you wallow in.
Pardon me, but I'd encourage the younger ones reading this post not to pursue the more rabid links, and to go nowhere near www.elliottwave.com or other such merchants of ruination.
Enjoy your life. It's really that simple.
Aircraft will not fly; too expensive.
Trading between nations will grind to a halt; no transportation.
Our interlinked world will revert to isolated communities that will only survive by bonding together in mutual understanding that "this is it, so let's all pull together now and raise those crops."
I'm sorry, but the premise is false. Yet because I'm not about to spend hours explaining why I think that, I'm in denial.
Ok......but think about this. There have been too many wasted lives worrying about a future of doom that doesn't eventually transpire and then guess what?
It's too late to start building your life. You're forty, or older, and chicks don't dig you anymore, you have no money in the bank, no career and no hope for financial independence. You become sour, and because you're shut out, perhaps drag others down into the murk you wallow in.
Pardon me, but I'd encourage the younger ones reading this post not to pursue the more rabid links, and to go nowhere near www.elliottwave.com or other such merchants of ruination.
Enjoy your life. It's really that simple.