The End Of Cheap Oil  

Past Peak points to an AP article predicting $100 Oil by End of '08.

The chief economist at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce says we should expect $100 a barrel oil by the end of next year, and it's likely to be three-digit prices from then on out. AP (via John Robb):

Oil prices could top $100 a barrel by the end of next year and remain above that point for years to come, the chief economist of Canadian investment bank CIBC World Markets said Tuesday.

Jeffrey Rubin said rising demand within oil-rich nations such as Mexico, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia will put pressure on global oil prices in the coming years. That, combined with the increased cost of pulling petroleum from reserves deep under the sea or wringing it out of oil sands in Canada, will keep oil prices high even if demand in the Western world remains constant. "We're in a world of triple digit oil prices for the foreseeable future," Rubin said during a speech to investors here.

Rubin said oil exports from OPEC countries, Russia and Mexico will likely decline by about 3 million barrels per day over the next five years. The biggest drop, he expects, will come from Mexico, a key U.S. supplier. "Of the 3 million barrels, we're probably talking about 2 million barrels are going to come directly out of U.S. supplies," he said.

Rubin expects Mexican oil imports to the U.S. will dry up by about 2012. Some of that decline will be made up by imports from other parts of the world, but the lions' share — nearly a third of all U.S. oil imports — will come from Canadian oil sands, he predicted. But replacing relatively easy-to-refine liquid crude with petroleum from oil sands is certain to increase costs, he said. By the end of the decade, Canadian oil sands are likely to represent the world's largest source of new oil supplies, he said. "We're basically replacing low-cost oil with high-cost oil," he said.

Looking ahead, Rubin expects crude oil prices to average as much as $90 a barrel next year, rising to around $100 by the end of 2008. That would represent an increase of nearly 25 percent over Tuesday's settlement price of $80.05 a barrel for light, sweet crude on the New York Mercantile Exchange. "Triple digit prices is not a spike," he said. "Triple digit oil prices is what is going to be required to maintain, let alone grow, world oil supplies."

What does this mean? John Robb summarizes nicely:

Over the past one hundred years, we have been able to plow through obstacles and limits to growth by throwing cheap energy at them (which makes even inefficient increases in social/economic complexity viable). What happens when energy isn't cheap anymore, but rather moderately expensive? Do those past increases in complexity come back to haunt us? Yes.

It would be hard to overstate the extent to which life in the developed world is organized around the availability of cheap energy. Mega-cities, sprawling suburbs, globalization itself. Most of what we consume comes to us from hundreds or thousands of miles away. And it's not just a question of energy. Oil is the raw material from which plastics, fertilizers, and pharmaceuticals are manufactured.

We're like the dinosaurs, just before the asteroid hit. Not that we're doomed, but we're about to experience rapid, nonlinear changes in an environment we depend on for our very survival. Our adaptation to that environment has been cultural and technological rather than biological, a crucial advantage over the dinosaurs. But the challenge will be substantial, and we don't have a lot of time. Given the rate at which oil is consumed, most of us are going to be surprised by how quickly we burn through what's left.

Jeff Vail has returned after an extended blogging absence with some thoughts about the post peak economic future in terms of hedging against a range of scenarios - "Future Planning: Hedging the Solution Space" - looks like a bit of maybe logic is creeping in now...

I tend to think that we are on the verge of a global economic and societal collapse driven by diminishing marginal returns on civilization’s investment in complexity—especially by the declining availability of surplus energy. I don’t think that this will result in a single, catastrophic collapse event, but rather in a slow, grinding decline that is masked by epiphenomena and the confusion of symptoms and causes, effectively negating our ability, as a society, to muster the will to take effective mitigation measures. I also think that there is a reasonably high probability that I am dead wrong. I don’t have a crystal ball—all I can do is attempt to project trends into the future, and guess at the outcomes of our massively non-linear planetary-societal system. Humans tend to have a very poor track record at predicting the long-term future—why should I not be subject to the same limitations? After all, conventional wisdom says that things will keep on much as they always have, that we will find a way to overcome. Here’s the grand challenge: if individual or societal plans for the future focus only on collapse, or only on continuation of the status quo, then the high probability that the alternative occurs will be catastrophic. Further complicating matters, there are certainly more than two possible future scenarios. How does one hedge against the multi-dimensional future solution space?

I am beginning this discussion with the assumption that none of us know what the future holds. We can, however, identify possible future scenarios. Not all of them, of course. Rather, I am proposing a “future solution space” methodology that uses current trends or indicators as dimensions. Then, based on my belief that risk is mispriced (based largely on continued reliance on variations of the Gaussian-derived Sharpe Ratio for portfolio risk management and Black-Scholes method of option pricing) and that returns for options on extreme price movements are highly scalable, it should be possible to hedge against movement in any vector in the future solution space simultaneously. Let me offer a simplified illustration:

Oil/Dollar/Dow solution space:

Here is a solution space with three dimensions: dimension 1: NYMEX Crude Oil rise/fall, dimension 2: US Dollar rise/fall, dimension 3: Dow Jones Industrial Average rise/fall.

These three dimensions are an extreme simplification of the possible sets of future scenarios, but are useful as an example and because it is relatively simple to hedge against extreme movements in any direction from the status quo through out of the money options on established futures exchanges. In fact, I think that a multi-dimensional hedge can effectively address this solution space with only 3 options: crude oil call option (betting on extreme rise in price), dollar put option (betting on extreme loss of value), and DJIA put option (betting on extreme loss of value). As a hedge, this set seems to address most of the risk scenarios where a “conventional” investment in a career and home won’t pay off. Can you describe a scenario where one of these three options doesn’t pay, but the economic status quo doesn’t continue? This simplification isn’t meant to address sudden collapse scenarios where the markets simply cease functioning (an identified weakness, which we can also hedge against). But I have a difficult time explaining in advance how the economy could collapse while none of the following—spike in crude oil, drop in the dollar, OR drop in the Dow—occurs. Under most scenarios, at least one, probably two of the options pays off (e.g. Dollar drops causing a spike in the price of dollar-denominated oil but a rise in the numerical value of the Dow). ...

My intent here is not to slide into self-help or prophecy. Rather it is to suggest that, if you think you know exactly what the future holds, you are probably deluding yourself. If you are not preparing for multiple contradictory future scenarios, then you are not preparing but gambling. What is the optimal hedge—the simplest, cheapest, and most complete coverage against radical departures from the status quo? I’ve proposed the following set: crude call options, dollar put options, Dow put options, 30 days food and water and a shotgun. Call it a future first-aid kit. My proposal is only a starting point, and certainly imperfect. How can it be improved?

It is also worth pointing out that such a hedge is only viable if it helps to achieve a future end-game vision that functions under both the status quo and collapse. In some Mad Max future, 30 days of food and a shotgun is a start, a broad base of knowledge is even better, but the point of the hedge is to get ensure existing plans come to fruition. Taking out a loan now to create that end-game vision in the near future, and then hedging against scenarios that would make you unable to repay that loan over the long term might be (contrary to “conventional wisdom”) more prudent than saving to get there some day…

**This financial hedge is, unfortunately, a bit more complex than simply buying one of each of these three options. For now I’m not going to delve into the intricacies of coordinating the strike prices and expiration dates of multiple options necessary to create a smooth hedge against risk through time. The general advice, though trite, is that if you don’t understand how to invest in options, you shouldn’t invest in options.

Parting question: I think this is a viable methodology for creating an individual plan of action. Can it be extended to a broader, societal plan? Financial hedges tend to be zero-sum in nature, so can't serve as the basis for a societal hedge--would any societal hedges necessarily pay "fair value" for risk, and therefore make hedging against multiple, contradictory future scenarios impracticable??

Cleantech.com has a report on some Cool companies at Cleantech 2007.

So, herewith, we thought it would be fun to bring you three of the most interesting startup companies we talked to—three that we'll bet you've never heard of.

Aphios - Biomass pretreatment for cellulosic biofuels

Boston-based Aphios, a biopharmaceutical company, has come up with a way to possibly make the first stage of cellulosic biofuel easier, cheaper and less water-intensive.

In converting cellulosic mass to fuel, enzymes have to navigate the tightly woven fibers of cellulosic biomass to do their work. Today, cellulosic materials are typically pretreated by acid hydrolysis or "steam explosion." Both methods are energy-intensive, and require large amounts of water to flush the materials so that the enzymes aren't harmed by the pretreatment. (Interested in the details of how cellulosic ethanol is being made today? Download and listen to the archive of Cleantech.com's web seminar What's real and what's not in cellulosic biofuels.)

Aphios' "critical fluid combination", or CFC process, uses carbon dioxide produced from the ethanol fermentation step, as well as a small amount of ethanol itself, to expand the cellulosic fibers and make them accessible. "Plus, we get added benefit because the carbon dioxide dissolves in the water and causes massive amounts of carbonic acid," said Trevor P. Castor, president and CEO, to Cleantech.com.

Castor claims his process can get a 300% improvement in enzymatic conversion efficiency versus steam explosion, and 60% better than acid hydrolysis pretreatment. For less money than either. The company has a pilot project at a power plant in its hometown of Woburn, Mass., and says it has not yet been "shaking the tree" to find more customers.

Ah. Tree. Cellulosic. We get it.

Advanced Energy Products - Night Breeze

Davis, California-based Advanced Energy Products is using relatively low tech, at a relatively low cost, to lower new homes' heating and cooling bills. The company's Night Breeze system cools homes on hot summer nights by essentially venting the house to cooler outside air, if it indeed is cooler (the system is smart enough to know.) It heats homes, when needed, using heat from the water heater, or conventional gas furnace.

By analyzing the last few days of data, the controller is smart enough to predict the next day's temperatures, and passively heat or cool the house overnight to maximize the home's ability to cope with the next day's temperature using a minimum of power, explained Don Logsdon, VP of sales and marketing.

The system involves software and simple ducting and fan hardware. It is only available at this time to new home builders, but retrofit kits for existing homes will be available soon, said company president Mark Berman. Night Breeze only costs "a few thousand dollars", and pays for itself within a few years, the company said.

Innovative Thin Films - a self-cleaning coating for solar panels

Dirty solar panels are more than just an eyesore. They're less effective, with power loss ranging between 5-20 percent. Knowing this, solar installers often factor in 5-20 percent more panels than an installation should take, just so the customer gets the rated value of the system they're buying, according to Innovative Thin Films of Toledo, Ohio.

The company, co-founded by chemistry professor Dean Giolando of the University of Toledo, has developed a nanotechnology-based thin film that, when applied to the surface of a solar module, "turns conventional grime into CO2 and water, using a small amount of UV light," according to professor Giolando.

The result? For an added cost of an estimated $2.10 per square meter, and no loss in light to the panel, solar modules can stay clean perpetually, in theory. And solar installers can, in theory, sell smaller, "right-sized" systems, for lower cost (or not). Giolando is quick to point out that testing is not complete. The durability of the material is unknown, he admits. But the company's initial prototype equipment is at least able to apply the film to solar modules at assembly line speeds.

If it works, and lasts in the harsh environment of real world roofs, it could be an exciting product. Not to mention help put the clean in cleantech.

The Guardian reports the melting ice cap brings diamond hunters and hopes of independence to Greenland.

Helicopters have been hard to hire in Greenland this summer. In most countries that would not be a big problem, but for the locals on the world's biggest island - where there are no road networks and sparse settlements are often 100 miles apart - it can make life tricky.

The scarcity has been caused by a diamond rush with prospectors, mostly from North America, believing they can strike it rich. As the ice cap recedes due to rising temperatures, rock covered for centuries could produce spectacular finds. The interest in the Greenland tundra was sparked partly by the announcement this year of the discovery of a 2.4-carat diamond at Garnet lake in west Greenland, the largest of 236 diamonds found in a trial dig in the area by Hudson Resources of Vancouver.

While the Hudson company was willing to announce its find, presumably to encourage its investors, most prospectors are less keen to discuss their activities in this vast mineral rich wilderness.

The belief in Greenland's potential riches stems from the fact that the geology is identical to that found across the now ice-free north-west passage in Canada, which has led to large opencast mining in the Arctic region.

But Greenland has other potential riches too. Gold has been discovered and is already being mined, although so far at a loss, and there are deposits of other minerals such as zinc, that could be exploited. Oil giants are negotiating licences to explore blocks of the coastline covering thousands of square miles.

The dash for minerals is fuelling another debate in Greenland: whether the country should go for independence from Denmark. With its 56,000 population scattered over an area almost the size of Europe, Greenland is heavily dependent on a subsidy from Denmark for survival. The island has internal self-government but Denmark is responsible for foreign policy.

Aleqa Hammond, the foreign minister in Greenland's home-rule government, hopes that the oil and mineral companies moving in will create sufficient wealth for her country to break from colonial rule. "It is natural for a country to want to be independent. We do not feel ourselves part of Europe - we are an Arctic people - but our way of life is changing and we have to change with it. My mother's generation fought for Greenland homeland government and achieved it in 1979, leaving only foreign affairs and defence in the hands of Denmark.

"Then, we could not strike out alone because we were so heavily dependent on Danish money, and we still are, but we can change that by exploiting our natural resources to achieve financial and political independence."

But some argue that independence has dangers. Greenland is the land mass closest to the North Pole and has rapidly assumed greater strategic importance as its much more powerful and populous neighbours vie for a slice of the Arctic's supposed mineral wealth. The United States is strengthening its air base at Thule on the extreme north of the island and the Russians have already planted flags on the sea bed.

But rather than putting her faith in mineral wealth, Mrs Hammond believes that her country's best prospect of buying its independence lies in hydro-electricity. The vast lakes and melting ice cap provide enormous potential for electricity free from fossil fuel and the Greenland government is negotiating with Alcoa, an aluminium company, to built the world's second largest smelter.

The Energy Blog reports that Florida power company TECO has cancelled an IGCC Power Plant. The number of "clean coal" plants (of varying degrees) being constructed remains very samll.

This is but one of the many coal fired power plants that have been either canceled or put on hold - but this is the first IGCC plant I have heard of that has been canceled. Power companies are coming under more pressure to put in environmentally friendly power plants, but the government has not moved on any regulations that require any restriction on CO2 emissions. Several power companies have said they would back carbon capture and sequestration requirements, but they do not want to put in such plants unless their is an even playing field regarding such requirements.

Perhaps the recent development of technologies that can be applied to conventional coal fired power plants is one consideration affecting their decision. Nuclear power is probably the safest route to go as far as not having to worry about CO2 emissions, but its capital expense is still very high and even though the approval process has been simplified, that is yet to be demonstrated in the real world. Natural gas is also a fairly safe route, but future costs of natural gas are quite uncertain.

Renewable energy, especially for large base load plants is not generally accepted as the answer. I would think with TECO's load growing at 150 megawatts per year it might be possible to establish a policy of installing renewable energy incrementally to meet its needs. Florida is situated where solar power, offshore wind and someday wave power might be considered. By installing a mix of renewable energy technologies which have different time periods of peak output, the resulting power production is considerably leveled out to provide a more continuous flow of power. Solar, with about four hours of storage, matches the peak load for most areas. The large load for air conditioning and a fairly small industrial load would seem to me to make a good case for solar power in Florida. Florida Power and Light recently made a commitment to solar power, so at least one utility thinks Florida is a suitable location for solar power.

After Gutenberg has some further comments about this and options for harnessing solar power in Florida.

In a recent post Jim Fraser suggests that TECO (Tampa Electric) establish a policy of installing renewable energy incrementally to meet a load growing at 150 megawatts per year. Energy Blog commentator Kit P disagrees with such an assertion, “Florida does not have a good solar resources for making electricity.” Well, yes and no. According to Solar Millennium, Florida is only a good location, rather than a very good or excellent location for solar power. Property value makes solar farms less practical. Yet there could be novel ways to install solar.

Florida benefits from an electric infrastructure that potentially could incorporate such an increase in a renewable energy portfolio. Energy Blog commentator Andre Angelantoni counters the objection to solar in Florida, asserting that solar is becoming economic without government subsidy2.

Jim Fraser makes a passing reference to recent development of Renewable Energy Sources in Florida, and, this blog, relays some additional detail about two examples, one solar thermal and one biomass.

The choice of these two examples is intentional since they also demonstrate the potential for greater development of ISCC (Integrated Solar Combined Cycle). Wherebiomass is used to generate power, It would seem especially to make sense to use a combined system since gasification of bio-solids lacks any diurnal, seasonal or climatic (i.e., cloudy days) restrictions. A thermal energy system could operate day and night.

Still there are GHG emissions from the gasification of biomass, much less when coal is the primary feedstock augmented with biomass. Before the arguments over the pros and cons of any reliance by Florida utilities upon utility-scale solar power, Fraser notes that several power companies “have said they would back carbon capture and sequestration requirements.”

Yet he perceives a reluctance to invest in such technology until such time that there are requirements. (It would seem that the health of the populace subjected to the most polluting plants or a global catastrophe in the making is insufficient incentive.)

Newsweek has a look at the Burmese rebellion and some of the underlying causes - "Burma: It's the Oil and Gas, Stupid" (there are more stories rounded up by Energy Bulletin at the link).

World leaders may be condemning the junta's crackdown, but foreign businesses don't want to lose their pieces of Burma's energy pie. Why the latest sanctions are unlikely to work.
---
Analysts describe it as the Burmese paradox: How can the rulers of a country so rich in energy, teak, minerals and gems be in such financial trouble? Even as it sits on top of 19 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and billions of barrels of crude oil reserves, the junta had to abruptly hike fuel prices so high in August that it triggered the popular uprising led by Buddhist monks.

Part of the explanation is simply bad governance. The Burmese regime is so arrogant-and inept-that it doesn’t expect citizens to rebel even when they watch their hard-won savings disappear overnight. That’s what happened in the summer of 1988, when the regime's surprise demonetization of the local currency, the kyat, meant a lot of money was suddenly not worth the paper it was printed on.

...today, the country’s infrastructure is so decrepit that the regime cannot adequately exploit its own resources without outside help. Despite the country's lucrative oil and gas sectors, the domestic refining industry is a mess due to half a century of mismanagement, lack of investment and neglect. Local refineries aren’t suited to processing the high sulfur content in Burmese oil. As a result, the government has to import nearly all of its diesel, to the tune of nearly 20,000 barrels daily by 2004.

Combine that hunger with today’s high prices, and you can easily see how the need to import diesel could help prompt a price rise. This wasn’t the first time the regime imposed such a hike, either; two years ago fuel prices shot up ninefold. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist-actually Burma’s junta supremo Than Shwe is a former postal clerk-to know people might be mad about the abrupt Aug. 15 doubling of diesel prices and fivefold increase in the cost of compressed natural gas, a hike passed on to passengers using public transport.

...Burma’s economic picture would be depressing enough without the involvement of Big Oil. One of the key reasons why sanctions against the regime are unlikely to work is because the junta's foreign partners hope to maintain business as usual. Foreign firms have been scrambling for a piece of Burma's oil and gas industry since the regime liberalized investment rules in 1988.

These are not obscure players or small-time plays. Burmese natural gas, worth $2.8 billion, generates one fifth of Thailand’s electricity. China wants to build pipelines and roads through Burma that would allow its oil imports to bypass vulnerable chokepoints in the Malacca Straits, which could be blocked by the U.S. Navy in the event of Sino-U.S. tensions.

State-run Chinese firms are also bidding for contracts in Burmese gas fields, as are South Korean and Indian competitors. India’s oil minister, Murli Deora, was present in Rangoon for energy cooperation talks with junta leaders when antigovernment protests broke out last month. Burma’s partners aren’t all Asian either. When earlier European Union and U.S. economic sanctions were levied against Burma, Total of France and Chevron remained involved in the Yadana gasfield. (At the time, existing investments were exempt; Chevron has a 28 percent stake because of its takeover of Unocal, Total’s original partner.)

Now we hear that the EU has just toughened its sanctions against Burma, expanding the visa bans for junta leaders and suspension of some imports such as timber and gems. But such measures-similar to those announced last week by the United States-will be toothless unless key oil and gas firms climb onboard. Today French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner hinted that Total-which extracts more than 17 million cubic meters of natural gas daily from its Burmese fields, according to its corporate Web site-“will not be exonerated” from post-crackdown sanctions. Total officials have argued that the firm has made no new capital expenditures in Burma since 1998 and that any “forced withdrawal” by Total would simply pave the way for rivals to take its place. Which is why China, Thailand, India and Russia have been muted in their condemnation of Burma’s recent bloodletting. They may hate the junta’s repression, but they love the thought of biting off a bigger piece of Burma’s energy pie.

Grist has an interview with Nobel Peace Prize winner (and Club Of Rome member) Wangari Maathai. On a related note, Reuters reports that Climate activists Al Gore and Sheila Watt-Cloutier are tipped for this years Nobel peace prize.

question Tell us about the origins of the Green Belt Movement and why you decided to center your activism around tree planting.

answer We started in 1977 to mobilize ordinary women in communities to provide themselves with their basic needs for living, much of which are derived from trees -- firewood for energy, building materials and fencing materials, drinking water, rich soil for planting, fodder for their animals. They learned how to separate the soil for crops and protect areas where their waters come from. Much of the drought in Africa is a result of deforestation, which leaches the soil of minerals and moisture. ...

question Can you do as much for the cause from the inside as you did from the outside?

answer There is a certain constraint in government -- you can't get away with everything because there are other interests that must be taken care of. But I have tried to give myself freedom to disagree and am quite happy now to serve in the government where I can make real changes. I have complained enough, and that's all you can do when you are outside.

question Can you give some examples of some of the changes you've made?

answer For example, the government wanted to take out green spaces in the city and put up buildings in them; people wanted to privatize forests, or own parts of the public land, and there were no policies to stop this. We argued that it is our business to have open spaces and a clean and healthy environment, but the law said no, it's none of your business -- you have to own it to show you have an interest. We have changed that law to say yes, you can have an interest in protecting the commons.

question In your Nobel Prize acceptance speech, you talked about the environment as a path to peace: "A degraded environment leads to a scramble for scarce resources and may culminate in poverty and even conflict."

answer Yes, and I think this is a reality in the whole world, not only in Africa, but perhaps more so in Africa. We have not enjoyed peace or enjoyed good government or enjoyed good management of our natural resources, and therefore have had massive poverty and a lot of conflict.

The connection between peace and the environment can be explained using the [analogy of] the traditional African stool, which has three legs that support the base on which we sit. I believe these three legs are symbolic. One represents good management of our natural resources, equitable distribution of the same, and a sense of accountability. Another represents good government -- a democratic state that respects humankind so that we can have dignity as human beings. The third represents peace. The base on which we sit is development. If you try to do the development where you have no legs, or where you have two legs or one leg, the base is out of balance. It is unsustainable.

The drums of war are still beating erratically regarding Iran, though its hard to see how anyone (even a lunatic like Cheney) could foresee this as ending in anything other than disaster. The Atlantic Free Press considers the question, Are En route to a military confrontation with Iran ?

'I cannot understand why we don't name what is evident and indeed a wholly defensible pre-emptive position' says Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the private bank known as the Federal Reserve, speaking to The Guardian. He describes in his new book the public secret that the motive for the war against Iraq was rooted in oil: 'I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil'. Greenspan describes what I wrote starting in November of 2001 in my seven part series on oil - that it was one of the major reasons to attack Iraq. Without much ado, USCentcom - the American command center that carries out attack plans - writes: 'The national interests outlined in the National Security Strategy and the objectives articulated in our National Military Strategy form the bases for the Central Command's objectives and supporting strategy. Primary among U.S. interests in the USCENTCOM AOR [Area of Responsibility] is uninterrupted secure access to Arabian Gulf oil.' This by the way is a strategy developed by National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski for the Democratic President Jimmy Carter and which was named the Carter Doctrine.

The original designation [video] for the attack on Iraq in 2003 was Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL), before being renamed Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Henry Kissinger, a man of equal stature to Greenspan, actually writes the same thing as the former Fed chair in relation to oil, but this time on Iran: '[...] an Iran that practices subversion and seeks hegemony in the region - which appears to be the current trend - must be faced with red lines it will not be permitted to cross. The industrial nations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on which their economies depend, and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is incompatible with international security.' Speaking about those same weapons of mass destruction, but this time in reference to the war against Iraq, Greenspan says: 'I thought the issue of weapons of mass destruction as the excuse was utterly beside the point'. It remains to be seen to what extent history will repeat itself now that it's not oil-rich Iraq - but its oil-rich neighbor Iran - that is being accused of possessing or producing weapons of mass destruction by the same people that invaded Iraq on the basis of arguments and accusations which, as I described afterwards as well as during that period, appeared to be false.

Investigative reporter John Pilger writes: 'The main reason was oil. [Former US treasury secretary Paul] O'Neill was shown a Pentagon document entitled Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts, which outlined the carve-up of Iraq's oilfields among the major Anglo-American companies. Under a law written by American and British officials, the Iraqi puppet regime is about to hand over the extraction of the largest concentration of oil on earth to Anglo-American companies.' Meanwhile criticism is being heard (1, 2, 3) of the plans on how Iraqi oil will have to leave Iraq. Pilger: 'Nothing like this piracy has happened before in the modern Middle East. Across the Shatt al-Arab waterway the other prize: Iran's vast oilfields. Just as non-existent weapons of mass destruction or facile concerns for democracy had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq, so non-existent nuclear weapons have nothing to do with an American onslaught on Iran.'

Links:

* TreeHugger - Oil Execs to World - We Must Cut Consumption
* The Rude Awakening - The End of Las Vegas. Some retro peak oil doomerism.
* Peak Oil Passnotes - Where Peak Oil Is Wrong
* Jeff Vail - Visions of a Biofuel Future
* The Guardian - World's largest offshore wind farm is given government approval for Kent
* Cleantech.com - PPL going green with methane. Landfill gas power in Pennsylvania.
* ZDNet - Radioactive laptops? Perhaps not...
* Transition Culture - Australia’s First Transition Town. On the Sunshine Coast, surprisingly (to me anyway). More commentary at TreeHugger.
* The Australian - Algae to flourish in parched Murray River
* Clean Break - Don't rely on CEOs to save the planet
* The Oil Drum - Poverty of Vision
* National Review - Strength Needs Energy. This is actually a sensible article from the CEO of Dow Chemical - how did it get published in the NRO ?
* Past Peak - Heart Of Darkness. No sense coming out of the Pod itself of course. He is one creepy guy.
* Eureka Street - Australia needs distance from US Iran attack planning
* Jerome a Paris - An insight on US strategic thinking - why so much cowering fear ?. Deconstructing some securocrat's fantasy of the Long Great War Game.
* Stratfor - Geopolitical Diary: The Kurdish Oil Reality. Looks like the fallback strategy is to just do localised deals and put more pressure on the Iraqi government that way.
* JUST - Blackwater, Oil and the Colonial Enterprise
* The Age - Did Republican ties turn a Prince into Iraq's security king ?
* SMH - Government secrecy is eroding public's right to know
* Cryptogon - Burma: Thousands of Executed Protesters Dumped in Jungle. Hard to tell how true this is at the moment.