Less for the oil companies, more for you

I promised a piece on saving energy, oil in particular, at the end of my piece on the decline of the Cantarell oil field. There is a lot of information out there on how to save energy, and a lot of it is obvious. What is less obvious is what you can do that gives the biggest bang for the buck, or for the effort.

In 2005, the U.S. used about 20.6 million barrels per day of crude oil. Of that,

9.1 million went to gasoline (44%)
4.1 went to fuel oil (20%)
3.2 went to propane/LPG (15%)
1.6 went to jet fuel (8%)

That is 87% of our use. The rest goes to petrochemicals, asphalt, lubricants, kerosene, and the like. I’ll concentrate on the top four. Consider: Completely eliminating our use of petrochemicals (0.68 million bpd), which is impossible without decades of intense R&D and conversion, would be the equivalent of reducing our gasoline consumption by 7.5%, an attainable short term goal.

Motor fuel is the biggest use, and mercifully the easiest to deal with. There are a number of absurdly simple things you can do to cut your gasoline use, without shelling out for a new Prius hybrid.

Drive slowly. I'm serious. The energy required to push your car through the air goes up by the square of the speed. This doesn't mean driving around at 15 mph. Just obey the speed limit, ok? How about 60 on the highway instead of "Oh, they give you five mph anyway"? To quote the government fuel economy site, “As a rule of thumb, you can assume that each 5 mph you drive over 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.20 per gallon for gas.” Regular gas is around $2.93 at my local pump. Do you like paying $3.33 for regular at 70 mph? No? Added benefit: you stop getting that sudden pang of fear when you see a cop car.

Check your tire pressure. Studies have found that most people's tires are under inflated. This can cost you 3-4% in gas mileage. Multiply it by $2.93 and save ~$0.10 a gallon.

Next time you buy tires, check out Consumer Reports for the ones that have the lowest rolling resistance - another couple of percentage points for no more money than you were going to spend anyway.

Go easy on your accelerator. You are blowing somewhere between 5% and 33% of your gas mileage when you tromp on it.

Don’t let the car sit there idling. You are getting zero miles per gallon, fouling the sparkplugs, and contaminating the oil. As a rule of thumb, starting the car takes the same amount of gasoline as ten seconds of idling.

So far you have done the equivalent of saving at least $0.60 a gallon with the expenditure of a little restraint, a few minutes every two weeks to check your tires, and $2.99 for a tire gauge. Your wallet is benefiting immediately, and you are doing your part to reduce our oil dependence.

Check out: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/drive.shtml

Carpool, even if it is just one day a week. One day a week in your car with one other person cuts gas consumption for the two of you by 10%. Two days, 20%,and so on.

If you live in a northern state, get an electric block heater and a timer. In the winter, set the timer to start heating your engine block early in the morning. Watch your winter gas mileage jump by 10-20%. Most of your winter mileage loss comes from the first ten cold minutes of driving, when your oil is like jello and your engine is dumping in the gas. The electric energy you use will be far less than the gas you were wasting. Your engine will always start.

The next time you are in the market for a vehicle, buy one that gets at least 5 mpg better than your last one. Think hard about how much vehicle you really need. Think about getting a Toyota Prius, a Honda Civic Hybrid, or if you really want to ignore the gas pumps, a Honda Insight. Go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ and look for the highest mileage vehicle that will do what you need to do.

What if this kind of behavior, short of buying all new cars, became widespread in the U.S. driving population? Let’s say we get 20% compliance. That means one out of five people does all of these things, or everybody does one-fifth of them, or something proportional. That would drop our national oil consumption by around 5.6%, and world oil consumption by 1.4%. That’s half of the oil now produced by Nigeria. The price of oil would drop, our trade deficit would drop, and we would be on our way to compliance with the Kyoto accords. And that’s without even reducing the number of miles we drive.

Next time, some tips on quick and cheap ways to save fuel (and your share of the planet) at home.

Back to school - on foot?

I had intended to follow my piece on the decline of the Cantarell oilfield with a piece on how to reduce energy consumption, but history, as is its wont, has marched on.

In the Cantarell piece I referred to a study by an organization called Securing America’s Future Energy. That study estimated that a 4% reduction in world oil supply would lead to an oil price spike into the range of $160 a barrel. This would result in ~$6 a gallon gasoline and heating oil and, according to their unsurprising projections, a worldwide recession. To quote one of the participants, former Director of Central Intelligence Robert M. Gates, “The real lesson here [is that] it only requires a relatively small amount of oil to be taken out of the system to have huge economic and security implications.”

British Petroleum has just shut down their Prudhoe Bay operation in Alaska due to corroded pipes. They will be replacing most of the piping and can’t give an estimate of when it will come back on line. That means that 400,000 barrels per day (b/d), about half a percent of world production, is shut in for an indefinite period.

Meanwhile, the U.N. Security Council has issued an ultimatum to Iran – stop enriching uranium by August 31st or else suffer sanctions. Iran has responded with defiance, including a reference to the “oil weapon.” Iran exported 2.7 million b/d in 2005, or about 3.2% of world production.

Iraq is either in the midst of a civil war (according to Iraqis and most world observers), or on the edge of one, if you work for the Bush Administration. Iran has great influence over the Shiite sections of Iraq, and could make the situation much worse if it was in their interest. Iraq ekes out roughly 2 million b/d, or roughly 2.4% of world production.

The rebels in the oil rich sections of Nigeria are kidnapping oil workers on a regular basis and disrupting production there. Rebel attacks temporarily shut in about 675,000 b/d earlier this year. Nigeria exports 2.25 million b/d, about 2.7% of world output.

Let us not forget the 4-6 major hurricanes that the NOAA is predicting for the Gulf of Mexico this season. The U.S. portion of the Gulf produces 1.5 million b/d, about 1.7% of world production. 100% of it was shut in after Katrina, with 50% of capacity still down weeks later. The production shut in was temporary, but major.

Anything could happen, and nothing might happen. BP might be magicians and get that 400,000 b/d back in a few weeks, but I doubt it. I will leave my crystal ball in its velvet-lined box, but I will do some simple arithmetic.

Half a percent of world production is indefinitely shut in, and 10% is at risk in the next few months. The mullahs that rule Iran will be making a decision before Labor Day weekend about the cost/benefit ratio of crippling the world economy. Do they continue to delay and play the diplomatic game, or do they screw the valves shut and say the Persian equivalent of “How do you like me now, infidel?” (0.5% + 3.2%= 3.7%)Would they also give the signal to their allies within Iraq to step up attacks on oil infrastructure there? ( 3.7% + 2.4% = 6.1%) Nigeria is an unknown, as is Mother Nature.

The cosmic dice may roll and give us sevens, or they may give us snake eyes, or something in between. Even a slightly bad scenario would push oil prices over $100 a barrel. My main point is that we are living very, very close to the edge of a bad situation. My second point is that we have very little control over the supply side of the equation. If we begged the Saudis they might be able to squeeze out another 2 million b/d, but that is not guaranteed, either.

Which brings me back to the people at SAFE. They point out that we can’t wait around for the oil dice to roll if we want to avoid a long bout of economic, social, and political pain. We need an accelerated program of demand reduction. We, the people, can’t expect any such rational action from the federal government right now, so it is up to us on a personal, local, and state level.

Now is the time to do the home weatherization you have been meaning to do. Get that carpool going, even one day a week. Telecommute. Retire the beater SUV and get the hybrid you’ve always wanted, or at least something with an extra 10 mpg. Eat more locally grown food. Just drive less. Forward this post to your friends and ask them to do the same. Even if you can’t save the country, you can put yourself and your community in a better position for when the probabilities play out.

Ok, next time, the energy reduction piece.

What Cantarell means to you

A friend in the oil infrastructure business sent me an article the other day concerning the Cantarell oil field in Mexico. The gist of it wasn’t really a surprise: The Cantarell field has been in decline for a few years, producing 1.9 million barrels per day (mbpd) in 2006, compared to 2.1 mbpd in 2004. Pemex, the Mexican state-owned oil company, predicts that Cantarell will be down to 1.4 mbpd in 2008, with leaked insider memos positing a worst case scenario of 520,000 bpd in 2008. Why should you care?

The Cantarell field happens to be the second highest producing oil field in the world, after the Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia. They are two of the four oilfields in the world that produce over a million barrels a day. The Ghawar field itself is not looking particularly healthy. The Saudis have been pumping in seawater to get the oil out faster, and now the field is producing 55% seawater. Ghawar peaked in 1990 at 6.5 mbpd, and has declined by a third since then. The other two, Burgan in Kuwait and Daquing in China, are also in decline.

The oil industry is searching hard, especially at $70+ a barrel, but they haven’t found a million-barrel-a-day field since Cantarell in 1976. In the article mentioned above, an analyst with a worldwide oil investment bank put the chances of finding a replacement field for Cantarell at “slim to none.” Fourteen giant oilfields produce 20% of the world’s oil, and their average age is 43 years.

Last year, ExxonMobil issued a report on the world oil situation. They are predicting a worldwide decline in non-OPEC oil production within five years. Other observers of the oil situation, such as Michael Simmons, an international oil financier, say that Saudi Arabia, the heart of OPEC production, can’t sustain its present output for much longer. Of course, there are problems with all oil analyses in that oil-producing countries have been exaggerating their oil reserves in order to increase their OPEC production quotas and/or improve their credit ratings.

What I am writing about here is what is popularly known as “Peak Oil,” the point at which world oil production stops increasing and starts going down forever. It’s not the end of oil, just the end of cheap oil, and the end of having as much oil as we want. The Cantarell decline, the last of the big four, is ominous.

Many people denigrate the concept of peak oil, and point out that “the end of the world” has been predicted many times. To them I say two things:

1) What is it about the Late Miocene Period (~12 million years ago) that you don’t understand? The Late Miocene was the last time the earth was in the business of actually making oil. It hasn’t since then, and it isn’t likely to again till some continents get crunched up a few million years from now. The quantity in the ground was fixed long before we came on the scene. We are using it up. Ergo, at some point production will peak.

2) I can mistakenly predict the time of sunset a number of times.

Some oil industry analysts point to Canadian tar sands and Venezuelan Orinoco heavy oil as the sources that will keep going for a hundred years. The first problem with both these options is that they require heavy energy inputs to extract them. The tar sand is exactly what it sounds like - tar mixed with sand. It takes huge quantities of natural gas and water to produce steam to liquefy the stuff so it can be separated and purified. Canadians will want their declining natural gas production to heat their homes and make the oh-so-necessary nitrate fertilizer for large-scale agriculture. The Orinoco heavy oil has the same problem.

The second problem with a hundred years worth of tar and heavy oil is that global warming would continue and accelerate if we burned it all. I live on a mountain at 1200 feet, and I joke that I am going to put a dock at the bottom of my driveway so I can export my banana crop by boat to the other islands in the Vermont chain. Ok, an exaggeration, but someday southern Florida will remind you of Waterworld without the bad acting. Gulf Coast real estate is a bad investment even now.

Some analysts say that oil production is peaking right now. Others place it five to fifteen years from now. The optimists at the U.S. Energy Information Agency predict a peak in conventional oil around 2037. The production curve has a lot of variations in it from year to year, so we will only be able to determine the real statistical peak in hindsight. The exact timing is less important than the inescapable fact of it.

I have used the skydiver analogy before, but the concept of inevitability is apt in this case as well. We are in the position of skydivers free falling through a bank of clouds. We know the ground is down there, and we are heading towards it at deadly speed. We don’t know how far away it is. We don’t know how far from the ground the clouds end, so it’s a gamble to wait until we can see the situation clearly. If the clouds end at a hundred feet we’re going to feel really stupid for a second. Sweden has pulled the ripcord, and it is long past time for us to do the same.

It wouldn’t take much of a shortage to push oil prices to $160 a barrel (Think $6.50/gal gasoline and heating oil). How would you want your state of oil dependency to be when this happens? Think about how you earn your living, where your food comes from (especially in February), and how you heat your house.

In another essay I’ll write about the efforts of various groups, working mostly on a local basis, to reduce their dependency on fossil fuels.

Don Quixote, George Bush, and the Triumph of Doctrine

I recommend that you read Edith Grossman’s recent translation of Don Quixote, by Miguel de Cervantes. The book has just hit its 400th anniversary, and it still has many things to tell us. One of the more politically relevant themes in the adventures of the elderly madman is the concept of triumph of doctrine.

Don Quixote believes that he is a noble and mighty knight in a world of princesses, giants, evil sorcerers, and epic quests, but he keeps running into hard reality. Sometimes literally, in the case of the famous windmills. When the appearance and behavior of those around him fail to follow the rules laid out in books of chivalry, or the consequences of his actions don’t correspond to his noble intent, the coherence of his fantasy world is threatened. Whenever this happens, he obsesses on the sorcerers who place enchantments on the people and things around him. These enchanters make the giants look like windmills, the princesses look like peasant girls, and two contending armies look like flocks of sheep. His belief system is right – it is the world that is wrong.

This is an old theme in politics and religion. Shaking the rattle brings the rain. If the rain doesn’t arrive, then you didn’t shake the rattle hard enough. You didn’t shake it with sincerity. You violated another law and must do penance. You yourself are unworthy of rain. Pick your excuse. Shaking the rattle brings rain, dammit! Doctrine always triumphs.

This brings us to the Bush administration, the Republican dominated congress, and the various economists and political theoreticians who feed them ideas.

Supply side economics, also known as trickle-down economics, has failed, and failed repeatedly. Giving tax breaks to wealthy people and corporations is supposed to promote investment, stimulate the economy, increase the income of working people, and eventually increase tax revenue because of the increased economic activity. In reality, when Reagan and Bush I tried it, the deficit tripled, the economy went down, and ordinary folks watched their total tax bite go up and their paychecks lag behind their productivity. Now Bush II is trying it, with the same results. But the economy is great. The country produced 75,000 jobs last month, half the number needed to even keep up with new people coming into the job market, but it’s great. The deficit is rocketing up, but this will turn around if we make the tax cuts for millionaires permanent. Wages are stagnant, but the economy is great.

(Topical Note: The yearly deficit dropped slightly, as of the most recent calculation, and the Bush Administration is passing out the cigars. At the present, temporarily diminished rate of $300 billion, you and I and every infant and grandmother in this country are going deeper into debt by roughly $1,000 a year. That’s on top of the existing $27,000 per capita.)

Likewise, Iraq. Every justification for invading has been shown to be false. The expression “turning point” has become a grim joke. The bodies are piling up – ours killed by them, theirs killed by us, theirs killed by them. The vast majority of Iraqis want our army to leave. But we’re doing great. If only the enchanters, er, press would stop focusing on the negative.

Likewise, global warming. The Arctic is melting. The Antarctic is melting. Glaciers that have been around for 10,000 years are melting. 99.99% of the climatologists in the world agree that global warming is happening, we are causing it, it is dangerous, and that we only have a decade or so before it is too late to prevent disaster. But it’s just a theory that needs more study. We’re doing great, really.

There is such a thing as ideologically induced stupidity. The more narrow and fixed a person’s belief set, the less able they are to respond intelligently to reality. The neocons who run our country right now are prime examples of this. To them, all dissenting voices have become Quixote’s evil enchanters, trying to make success look like failure. Having a high office, a Ph.D. or a book deal doesn’t make any of these people smarter in a pragmatic sense. It just gives them better tools with which to justify the products of their imaginations.

The unflinching dedication of the character Don Quixote to his fantasy world harmed no one but himself, his horse Rocinante, his faithful squire Sancho Panza, and a few bewildered passers by. It is part of the charm and humor of the book. The refusal of Bush and his ilk to recognize the failure of their doctrine threatens us all.

The misadventures of both Don Quixote and George Bush should motivate each one of us to examine some personally cherished theory. Sacred doctrine comes in more flavors than Ben and Jerry’s. Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living. I would paraphrase that great heretic and say that the unexamined belief is not worth having. Or, to quote the 19th century scientist Thomas H. Huxley, “Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every conceived notion, follow humbly wherever and whatever abysses nature leads, or you will learn nothing.”

Sex and guns and acting on impulse

The New York Times science section has been yielding some interesting articles, especially when they are considered together.

In the May 23rd issue, Nicholas Bakalar’s Vital Signs notes a study led by James R. Roney, a professor at U. Cal. Santa Barbara. In it, 39 heterosexual men were tested for their testosterone levels and their interest in children, and then photographed with neutral expressions. These photos were shown to 29 women who were asked to rate the men on several factors:

Likes children
Masculine
Physically attractive
Kind

Then they were asked whether they considered the men attractive as short or long term partners in a relationship.

Apparently women can see us a mile off. They were very good at picking the men who like children and rated the high testosterone men as attractive. What’s more, they picked the high testosterone men for short term relationships and the guys who liked children for long term relationships. All this from looking at a face in a photograph. If I was still single I’d be going to get my testosterone level tested.

For those of you heterosexual bachelors out there looking for a good time but worried about your hormonal manliness, fear not. There is a solution short of steroid injections. In the May 9th NYT, Benedict Carey writes about a study at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois. 30 male students were tested for testosterone levels and then given an assignment. They had to disassemble something and then write how-to instructions on the process. Half got a board game called “Mousetrap,” and half got a handgun. The researchers measured testosterone levels a few minutes later and found that the while the board game group stayed the same, the gun handlers experienced a spike in testosterone. The second half of the experiment had the men taste a glass of water with a drop of hot sauce in it and then prepare a glass of water with however much hot sauce they wanted to add, ostensibly for the next test subject. The gun group with the high testosterone added, on average, three times as much hot sauce as the girlymen who disassembled the board game. The higher the testosterone, the more hot sauce. To paraphrase a common bumpersticker, “Guns don’t kill people, guys experiencing testosterone spikes from handling guns kill people.”

Ok, two interesting studies, but put them together and the mind staggers a bit. Does consistent gun handling over time bolster testosterone levels, giving NRA members some kind of edge in the dating game? Can your average guy improve his chances before a night on the town by fondling a “roscoe,” or will he just end up getting in a fight? Did medieval mashers get a leg up (and over) with the local wenches by handling a crossbow? Does the effect extend back to Cro-Magnon teenagers with spears? Or does this high testosterone level have to be present during fetal and early childhood development? This brings up another question: What about the testosterone levels of boys raised in gun-filled households? It would make a certain amount of sense that boys brought up in an environment filled with culturally defined symbols of power and violence and an adult male “under the influence” would experience elevated testosterone levels.

This brings me to another area of study: Lead poisoning. Various studies have found that
1) Children exposed to lead, with high levels in their tissue, suffer brain damage. This can result in lowered IQ scores and, significant for my line of thought, increased aggression and loss of impulse control.
2) Children who live in households where one or more adults engage in shooting sports, sometimes including the reloading of spent cartridges, are exposed to high levels of environmental lead, which shows up in their tissues. Shooters bring home ultra-fine lead dust on their clothes, on their skin, and in their hair, which builds up in the home environment. Handling and casting lead bullets at home increases the exposure.

Guns, testosterone, lead, poor impulse control, aggression, sexual attractiveness, short term vs. long term – you write the novel. Or perhaps the news item. The more I learn about how much unnoticed hormonal and neurological factors influence our lives, the less I am sure that we are really in control. Add the “smelly t-shirt experiment” and I wonder how many invisible hands are on my steering wheel. As we learn more about the subliminal cues that guide our actions, I think that we will evolve a more deterministic view of human behavior. Gotta go - I have this strange, overpowering impulse to disassemble a handgun.