The Bullroarer - Sunday 5th October 2008
Posted by Big Gav on October 5, 2008 - 8:05am in The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand
The West Australian - Fears petrol prices could double
Petrol prices could double within six years as demand for oil soars but supply barely grows, warns a former chief engineer for petroleum giant BP.
Speaking ahead of a conference in Perth today which will focus on the growing global food and fuel price crisis, Jeremy Gilbert said the world had almost reached peak oil production while demand was tipped to grow by 50 per cent over the next two decades.Improved extraction techniques meant oil fields were running down faster than expected while discovery rates for new fields had declined steadily since the late 1970s. The world would go through at least one decade of “energy deficiency”, in which oil supplies diminished but renewable energy sources did not reached adequate production levels, he said
ABC - 'Bailing out' the environment
The threat of a looming global financial crisis has led to the swift implementation of brave ideas by governments and regulators. The response may reveal how the world could avert the looming crises of climate change and resource depletion by backing the clean technology ('cleantech') sector. ... The world of course faces another potential catastrophe that could have an impact far worse than a financial meltdown: continuing global climate change and resource depletion.
After Gutenberg - An Important Commercial Message
Writing for the Melbourne Herald-Sun, Mary Bolling sees a battle brewing between cyclists and scooter-ists. “The Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce has asked Roads Minister Tim Pallas to consider allowing scooters to use bike lanes on key arterial roads, but Bicycle Victoria strongly opposes it.”
The Australian - LNG delays export plant as it searches for funds
GLADSTONE export hopeful LNG has delayed selecting a liquefied natural gas customer for its planned $500 million Queensland plant as it seeks help from potential buyers to finance the project amid frozen credit markets. The company, which has an agreement to process Arrow Energy and Shell's coal seam gas in the region, had hoped to select a partner last month but yesterday said it did not expect that to happen until next month.
The Australian - Woodside's North West Shelf Angel platform under budget
Woodside's executive vice-president of the North West Shelf, Eve Howell, trumpeted the completion of Angel on time and under budget, a feat that has become increasingly rare in the resources sector as materials and labour have become in short supply and expensive.
The Australian - Angel produces first gas at North West Shelf
WOODSIDE Petroleum said today the $1.6 billion Angel platform at the North West Shelf Venture has produced its first gas. The platform has capacity of 800 million standard cubic feet of gas and up to 50,000 barrels of condensate a day and its output will be processed at the North West Shelf Venture's integrated system at Karratha in Western Australia.
Reuters - Tokyo Gas signs 8-yr deal to buy LNG from W.Australia
Tokyo Gas Co said on Thursday it has signed an eight-year deal to buy a total of 530,000 tonnes per year of liquefied natural gas from Western Australia, starting from April next year.
NZ Herald - Power companies generate less for Govt coffers
At a time when the Government could do with the money, the combined fiscal contribution from the state-owned electricity generators looks set to fall. If the three companies adhere to the dividend policies in the statements of corporate intent they agreed with their shareholding ministers - Meridian 65 per cent, Mighty River 50 per cent and Genesis 40 per cent - the Government can expect to receive some $178 million in dividends from their latest profits, less than half the $383 million it got over the past year.
The Age - Marchers make voice heard on freeway noise
ABOUT 200 people marched along Burke Road, Glen Iris, in Melbourne's east yesterday to protest at an increase in noise levels once the Monash Freeway is widened.
The Age - Plan firms for water targets
MELBOURNE residents could be asked to cut their daily water use to 150 litres each this summer to counter the looming shortage caused by poor spring rainfalls.
ABC - Science first, economy second in climate change fight: chief scientist
Australia's new chief scientist has refused to be drawn on whether she agrees with the emissions cuts proposed in Professor Ross Garnaut's final report on climate change.
Peak Energy - No one cares more about the environment than oil companies
Peak Energy - Inpex to Use Bacteria at Old Oil Wells to Produce Gas
Peak Energy - Mobile Phone Towers Powered by Renewable Energy
Peak Energy - Paint Power
Peak Energy - Paint Power Part 2
Peak Energy - Chrysler Joins The EV Revolution
Peak Energy - The growth of Wal*mart
Peak Energy - Somali Pirates And Over-Fishing
Peak Energy - Handout Day
Peak Energy - Financial Eugenics
Peak Energy - Cooperation And The Wendigo
"MELBOURNE residents could be asked to cut their daily water use to 150 litres each this summer to counter the looming shortage caused by poor spring rainfalls."
That's not very ambitious, we use 150lt/day total in a household with three adults - 50lt each.
Well - state government and "ambitious" aren't exactly synonyms, are they...
True.
But the thing is, household water use is only about 9% of all water use in Australia [source, ABS]. Agriculture is 70%, water supply, leaks and sewage is 8%, power stations 6%, manufacturing and mining 3% each.
It cannot be that only households are wasting any water. Surely other sectors of the economy can save water. Or perhaps we can even reduce some sectors and use the water more profitably. Agriculture returns about A$0.60/kl, and manufacturing $32-$680/klt. [source]
Our households could easily use much less water - ours does, as I noted above. But even if all eight million or so households used no water at all, it would only drop overall water use by 9% - not enough to cover the drought or climate change. Everyone must do their share.
No, water isn't really a fungible resource unless you want to build pipelines everywhere. Its more accurate to examine use within certain geographic areas.
We're already building water pipelines everywhere. It is, within a continent, an entirely fungible resource in every sense of the word.
I think you have to be careful comparing agricultural to household consumption in that way.
The water used to produce that food is accounted next to farmers, but people eat that food. If people start growing there own veggies and household water consumption goes up what then? Or if we stop growing that food and just manufacture?
There are many ways that agricultural usage of water can be improved... but probably the biggest would require a cultural change... by changing our diet.
I'm not sure if Id be an advocate of the statistics you sourced at Urban Ecology Australia. This argument that X litres produces Y dollars can be misleading...
By this argument then, if we produce any food at all then it should be beef and cheese. As these currently have greater $$ "values" per litre.
IF however you compare the amount of water required per mass of product produced then the CSIRO gives us:
* For 1 kilogram oven dry wheat grain, 715 – 750 litres of water
* For 1 kg maize, 540 – 630 litres
* For 1 kg soybeans, 1650 – 2200 litres
* For 1 kg paddy rice, 1550 litres
* For 1 kg beef, 50,000 – 100,000 litres
* For 1 kg clean wool, 170,000 litres
We could then go on to compare the calorific content of these foods. We could also wonder about the nutritional balance as well.
But using dollar normalisations skips over this important point.
I just found it in my search to respond.. but this site Water Footprint Network looks like it has some interesting stats.
For example the country comparator page tells us that although Japan only uses 1153 m3/cap/year, fully 64% of that is from outside the country...
Or "to produce one cup of coffee we need 140 litres of water". So when Mr and Ms Urban dweller sit down to have a cuppa... we need to think a little more widely.
As we recently saw with Dr Garnauts suggestion about meat, the average Aussie doesn't seem to be ready for such a cultural change.
Nor, it would seem, are large parts of the rest of the world that readily accept our beef and lamb exports.
Fascinating.
That "Water Footprint" paper lists the following amounts of "virtual water" (average amount of water required to produce the commodity) for some common drinks...
1 glass of beer (250 ml) = 75 virtual litres of water.
1 glass of milk (200 ml) = 200 virtual litres of water.
So I know what I'll be drinking from now on!
;-)
(Thinks: I wonder how much virtual water there would be in a glass of water?)
Sure. And the loo flushes away my poo. So what? The point is that in a household there are efficient and inefficient uses of water, useful and wasteful. Water to wash my body after a hard and sweaty day's work we can fairly say is water better-used than the same amount hosing down the driveway. One sinkful to do the dishes is less wasteful than 20 sinkfuls.
If in households there are useful and wasteful ways to use water, efficient and inefficient uses, it stands to reason that there are useful and wasteful, efficient and inefficient uses of water in agriculture, mining and so on. Perhaps you've never lived in the country. I have, and farmers typically waste vast amounts of water. Huge sprinkler systems spray water from above onto paddocks on 42 degree centigrade days. On any day above 30 degrees, less than one-quarter of the water falling will actually arrive at the roots of plants in an open field.
There's lots of stuff like that, huge waste everywhere. Consider: if the agricultural sector could reduce water use by one-sixth, this would be equivalent to the domestic use stopping entirely. Reduce by a sixth? Surely they could manage that.
Is this a useful comment?
I simply try to make the point that YES, farming uses a lot of water... and I agreed with you that there could be savings, but my comment was to the indirect consumption of water by consumers in order to satisfy there wants...
So, that when you link to a site that uses statistics of $/L I suggest that the "waste" seen when farmers use centre pivot methods to produce pasture for beef or diary production is them responding in a "rational" economic way to a consumers desire for cheese and hamburgers for which they get paid a premium... at least by that statistic.
Thus I suggested caution. We under price water... or over value beef.
I suspect your comment about centre pivots was plucked out after your flushing exercise.
YES. It would be nice to see centre pivots preferably operated at night.
YES. In some areas they are sucking up ground water.
But they also replace flood irrigation and the potential for inducing salinity problems.
Are you suggesting that farmers are not rational economic agents?
A centre pivot is probably the most efficient way that large areas of pasture can be irrigated. You are not going to be able to drip irrigate pasture. This link from the Victorian DPI suggests that:
BUT ultimately farmers are doing this because of the foods we demand...
You assume too much.
I was born in the country. I well know what it is out there. I have seen the vast changes from the small family sized dairy to the monster industrial complexes of today. I have also worked in environmental research focused on the Murray region and have had frequent interactions with stake holders from all sides. It's not a simple issue.
I think Phil is away (ie. no Bullroarer tonight) but here's a story I noticed in the Curious Snail:
For information on the Container Deposit Legislation in South Australia.
Or you could try this pamphlet.
As kids it was great to be able to take a few large coke bottles back to the shop and get some lollies. It's all a bit more centralised now.
And another from Micheal Lardelli at Online Opinion - Peak oil and retirement:
Big Gav,
Retired people (in Australia) are probably going to be the least affected by a post-peak oil world.
They won't need to commute to work and can use public transport when it isn't packed by commuters, and get concessions on fairs.
If their incomes decline below about $50,000 they get some top up from the old age pension.
Any super income is tax free.
They have time to grow a vegetable garden, save money by cooking instead of eating out.
They can travel during non-school holiday periods, when costs are less.
If they are worried about finances they can get a discount on drug medication.
Just the same I would rather be 16 again, than 60.