The non-profit organization All Aboard Ohio has launched an online petition drive to help advance the Ohio Hub rail project. This is a very worthwhile project and deserves all of the support we can give it.

To sign, go to:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/OhioHubPlan/

On the petition page are links to both the Ohio Hub project and All Aboard Ohio.

A Laurin

A group in Kinsale, Ireland prepared a peak oil preparedness plan called Kinsale Energy Descent Action Plan. One of the chapters in their plan is titled Economy and Livelihoods. It starts with a good explanation of the emotional and lifestyle impact the current global corporate economic structure has had on most of our lives - which is quite an eye opener. Then the authors explain their plan for transitioning their community away from heavy reliance on cheap energy towards a sustainable future.

Economy and Livelihoods is attached.

Anita

A study titled, Public Transportation's Contribution to U.S. Greenhouse Gas Reduction, was prepared for the American Public Transportation Association (AFTA) by Science Applications International Corporation. The organization, Science Applications International Corporation, is the same entity that produced the Hirsch report, Peaking World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management. On September 26, 2007 AFTA put out a press release announcing this important study. There remains no more questions to be answered regarding the importance of public transportation and it's ability to help mitigate global warming.

Also, Environmental Science and Technology Online News did a very interesting story, "Higher ozone levels from renewable fuels" last May. The author accurately quoted the U.S. EPA acknowledging that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (which mandates 7.5 million gallons of renewable fuel by 2012) will only displace .8 to 1.6% of the petroleum used in the transportation sector and will only reduce transportation sector CO2 emissions by .4 - .6%. The U.S. EPA admits that NOx emissions will increase 6 - 7% and VOC emissions will increase 4 - 5% as a result of burning more corn ethanol. This is not good news for Ohioans as we have 35 counties (see attachmen) that currently don't meet EPA air quality standards.

Both the American Public Transportation Association's Press Release and the Environmental Science and Technology Online News article are in the attachment titled "Railnotcornethanol".

Anita Laurin, Coordinator

The editor of the Columbus Dispatch did an excellent piece on corn ethanol
on August 10, 2007 titled "Look before Leaping".
http://www.dispatch.com/dispatch/content/editorials/stories/2007/08/10/c...

The Dispatch brought attention to the pollution the refineries create, the energy needed to create a fuel that will take you 3/4 as far as gasoline, the increased cost of food, and the environmental degradation that is occurring. It was great to see them weigh in on this really important topic.

However, the Executive Director of Clean Fuels Ohio, Sam Spofforth, responded with another letter to the editor - published 16 days later. His response (link below) contained both misrepresentations and falsehoods. It is unfortunate for Ohio that this group has gained so much traction since it was founded in 2002. By the way, 2002 is the same year Governor Taft signed into law the inclusion of corn ethanol as a recipient of Ohio Air Quality Development Authority funds which made ethanol refineries (that are very polluting) eligible for state subsidies and/or incentives.

Clean Fuels Ohio is part of the federal Clean Cities program that was launched in 1993 in response to the Energy Policy Act of 1992. This program has 80 coalitions throughout the country and their stated goal (in August 2007) is to displace 2.5 billion gallons of petroleum annually by 2020. The US corn ethanol production has already surpassed that goal. This program needs to be de-funded. It was never designed to address peak oil, global warming or air pollution. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 was pushed by the 1st George Bush to garner support in his run for a second term and win votes in the corn states.

Sadly, getting votes and support in the corn states in election 2008, is still influencing the way Congress is trying to expand huge corn subsidies in the Farm Bill 2007.

Recently released paper on biofuels that is really quite interesting. The authors take a close look at the environmental, energy, and political issues surrounding corn ethanol and other biofuels. They also expose how factory farms are moving near corn ethanol refineries and the strain the two of them will put on communities.

http://www.newenergychoices.org/uploads/RushToEthanol-rep.pdf
THE RUSH TO ETHANOL: NOT ALL BIOFUELS ARE CREATED EQUAL
Analysis and Recommendations for U.S. Biofuels Policy by
Food & Water Watch and Network for New Energy Choices In collaboration with Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School

Attached is their description of the "Iron Triangle" that needs to be exposed to stop the spread of this unsustainable poor quality fuel.
Anita

Attached is a chart from MORPC's 2004 "Fact Book". It certainly supports the need for a System Wide Light Rail System. The "Fact Book" in its entirety can be found at http://www.regionalconnections.org/resources/documents/pdf/factbook/Regi...

The Ohio Sierra Club sent a letter to Governor Strickland expressing their concerns regarding his corn ethanol program and the subsidies going to the various aspects of it's production. It is public record, so I am making it available to members of CORE. Feel free to quote it or disperse it. The letter was co-signed by Attorney Rick Sahli of Columbus, OH. He is past Executive Director of Ohio Environmental Council and a former Director of the Ohio EPA.

While attending the Great Lakes Renewable Energy Fair, I had the opportunity to talk to a representative of the Cherryland Electric Cooperative. For those interested, attached is their plan for reimbursing customers who use wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, biomass, waste-to-energy and landfill gas energy.

Seppo and I attended the Great Lakes Energy Fair in Onekama, Michigan in June. The folks up there were great. The organizers of the fair were so well "organized" it was impressive. Also, there were several other speakers talking about oil and gas depletion. We saw some pretty impressive solar ideas and the cutest small communter car than ran on electricity.

One of the members of the audience asked me to put my slide presentation on our website, so it is attached.

Anita

This checklist was inputted by several environmental organizations as well as members of CORE. The checklist was designed to hang on the refrigerator as a reminder that we are at an energy crossroads and need to think more about how we use energy. It's unlikely that anyone will be motivated to do everything on the list, however most of us can make some of these changes with little or no difficulty.

Some like the term "powerdown".

Have fun,

Anita

Unfortunately, Congress has joined the Bush administration and plans on passing legislation that will madate corn ethanol as a solution to our liquid fuel predicament. They plan on committing billions of our dollars to achieve this "false" solution. Contact Sherrod Brown and let him know you are opposed. Our money would be better spent on re-establishing our passenger rail system. Details about the shortcomings of this lousy fuel: http://www.energybulletin.net/25558.html

Here is a talk given by Nicholas Hollis at the BioEnergy '98 Conference in Madison, Wisconsin. Mr. Hollis is the President of the State Agribusiness Council, Washington, D.C.

Agribusiness and Bioenergy: A Case Study of Dysfunctional Partnerships and Anti-competitive Behavior

http://www.relocalize.net/files/AgribusinessandBioenergy-Hollis.pdf

The attached file is a request for immediate action regarding public transportation in Ohio. Please take a few minutes to review it and respond. Hopefully we are all aware of the importance of insuring and enhancing public transportation.

Thank you,
Anita

This is a wonderful article by David Ehrenfeld about the need for reducing consumption as well as more efficient technology.

Attached is the article from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS) titled, Environmental, Economic, and Energetic Costs and Benefits of Biodiesel and Ethanol Biofuels.

PNAS is a widely accepted, juried national science magazine. These researchers from the University of Minnesota have taken a comprehensive look at the real costs of biofuel production.

Some of their observations:
"Even dedicating all U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12% of gasoline demand and 6% of diesel demand."

"The markedly greater releases of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and pesticides from corn, per unit of energy gain, have substantial environmental consequences, including being a major source of the N inputs leading to the ‘‘dead zone’’ in the Gulf of Mexico and to nitrate, nitrite, and pesticide residues in well water. "

" . . . corn grain ethanol releases 88% of the net GHG emissions of production and combustion of an energetically equivalent amount of gasoline.

"Although blending ethanol with gasoline at low levels as an oxygenate can lower emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ≤ 10 µm (PM10) upon combustion, total life-cycle emissions of five major air pollutants [CO, VOC, PM10, oxides of sulfur (SOx), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx)] are higher with the ‘‘E85’’ corn grain ethanol–gasoline blend than with gasoline per unit of energy released upon combustion."

"Even when not cost competitive, however, biofuel production may be profitable because of large subsidies. In the U.S., the federal government provides subsidies of $0.20 per Energy Equivalent Liter (EEL) for ethanol and $0.29 per EEL for biodiesel. Demand, especially for ethanol, also comes from laws and regulations mandating blending biofuels in at least some specified proportion with petroleum. Ethanol and biodiesel producers also benefit from federal crop subsidies that lower corn prices (which are approximately half of ethanol production’s operating costs) and soybean prices."

Ethanol subsidies are going to create problems for us in Central Ohio regarding local food production. Here's some thoughts from a member of the Franklin County Capital Chapter of the Ohio Ecoligical Food and Farm Association:

"I think we could be as diverse agriculturally as Michigan (if we are not already). Increased local food production would boost Ohio's economy as well. And energy issues as well as security issues make local foods practically a no-brainers.

The scene of local and sustainable food production has changed a lot over the past decade or two. It used to be largely a problem of demand - local farmers did not always have a market for their product. Now there is an increasing problem of supply -- farm and other local markets have increased dramatically and large institutions, etc. have growing interest in local foods but there are not always enough farmers to meet the demand. (Though there are also still demand issues as well having to do with getting the right product to the right market for a fair price...)

Two major issues are distribution and lack of farmers (there are probably a lot more!). For small/medium sustainable farmers, meeting the demand of a hospital or school would be difficult without a distribution network that the institution could work with - a central point where an order could be made rather than working with 20 different farms for 40 different items. Plus many farmers are far from urban centers where individual consumers could purchase their products.

Additionally, the work of local farmers is difficult, time consuming and expensive. I know of only a few farmers who do not supplement their income with a second job or who are not retired. Subsidies go to huge non-sustainable operations and many consumers are unwilling or unable to pay the true cost of food. Land is not cheap, particularly the closer one gets to cities, and equipment costs are high as well. Beginning farmers have to work hard to find people to help them learn the basics. The bottom line is that we, as a community, do not always take care of our farmers and value their vital contributions to our lives."

These issues seem to point toward some advocacy on our part regarding the 2007 Farm Bill, if we are to encourage our local farmers. As Willie Nelson's great article of 4/27/06 stated:

"If you care about local and democratic control, demand a Farm Bill that curbs the power of factory farms and the influence of lobbyists for large food corporations. If you care about health and nutrition for children, demand a Farm Bill that puts more fresh, wholesome food in our cities' schools. If you want your children and grandchildren to enjoy the benefits of a clean environment, demand a Farm Bill that increases protection of our natural resources by helping farmers transition to organic and more sustainable growing methods. The future of good food depends on you."
Willie Nelson is the president and founder of Farm Aid.
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/35404/

Footnote:
I plan on attending the 7th Annual Ohio Farmland Preservation Summit in November and learning more about how we can support our local farmers. The Farm Bill 2007 is going to be an incredibly important piece of legislation!!

AL

Regarding the PNAS article - The document contains copyrighted material. Central Ohio Relocalization Effort is making this article available in our efforts to advance the understanding of environmental and climate protection issues. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

October 1, 2006
Came across the attached report, Future World Oil Supply, just today. It's uncanny how these folks were aware of our current dilemma waaaay back in 2002. Of particular interest (at a time when political ads supporting the War on Terrorism are all over our TV stations in Ohio - just a month away from mid-term elections) was this conclusion: "These fields are increasingly scarce and only available in regions which have already been known for decades, mainly in Iraq."

Excerpts:
The main facts, and conclusions are:
• The peak of oil discoveries was reached in the 1960s. This is a historical fact.
• This peak in discoveries has to be followed by a peak in production, since we can only produce what has been found before.
• The production peak of individual fields is a historical fact, almost all large oil fields have already passed their production maximum and are in decline.
• The aggregation of the production profiles of individual fields (with their individual peaks) sums up to a production peak of individual oil regions. Historically peak production was reached e.g. in Austria in 1955, in Germany in 1968, in the USA in 1971, in Indonesia in 1977. Recent regions joining the club of countries with declining production rates are Gabon (1997), UK (1999), Australia (2000), Oman (2000) and Norway (2001).
• The aggregate decline of mature regions is getting steeper with every new “member of the club“ . In order just to keep overall production flat ever fewer regions have to increase their production.
• This pattern can already be observed over more than thirty years. Even the quantitative estimates of peak oil production have been sufficiently accurate for more than 20 years. It is very likely that the peak of world oil production will be reached by 2010 at the latest.

Due to diminishing exploration successes, the financial situation of oil companies is deteriorating.
An escape out of this dilemma is only possible for a limited time. These are the main options:
• Companies merge to increase their individual production and reserve situation by simultaneously downsizing their staff.
• Discovery and or development of new large fields with a favourable return on investment. These fields are increasingly scarce and only available in regions which have already been known for decades, mainly in Iraq. The frontier areas (Caspian and deep sea drilling) do not belong to this category.
• Dramatic price increases to compensate for higher production costs. That might be a reason why Exxon has started to point out the fact of oil depletion: perhaps they want to prepare the public for higher prices in future.

************************************
When you compare the conclusions of the attached report AND this Joshua Holand story, The Great Iraq Oil Grab, things look a bit different than the US news reports would have us believe. If you add to the mix the points made in the movie Syriana . . .

http://www.alternet.org/story/36463/
May 22, 2006

Excerpts:
That's the central tenet of corporate globalization. Trade deals like NAFTA -- and the agreements implemented by the WTO -- are designed to "harmonize" countries' domestic laws regulating everything from capital flow to food safety to the environment in order to make them friendly to international investment. In Iraq, that philosophy was taken to an extreme, at gunpoint and with disastrous consequences.

Oil -- the engine that drives Iraq's potentially rich economy -- was the prize that made it worth a full-scale commitment of American armed forces.

~Rewarding the corporations

Saying that Iraq's vast oil reserves -- projected by some analysts to be the largest in the world, greater than Saudi Arabia's -- was the sole motivation for the U.S. invasion of Iraq simplifies a complex issue. Opening Iraq's economy has the potential to reward the Bush administration's corporate allies with enormous windfalls as the country rebuilds after 25 years of war. Iraq has a well-educated work force and is well-positioned on global trade routes. Oil is the cherry on the sundae.

That's why Iraq's new oil laws have to be viewed in a larger context. Gaining control of the bulk of Iraq's oil was a key part of a broader economic invasion of the country, launched by an administration dominated by ideologues who view the agenda of corporate globalization as a vital part of the United States' national, as well as economic, security.

The Coalition Provisional Authority, under L. Paul Bremer (who U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi called the "dictator of Iraq") instituted an infamous set of "100 rules" -- rules that privatized Iraq's state companies, threw open its economy to foreign investment, established a flat tax and instituted a dozen other measures that the big-business right has lobbied for around the world -- largely unsuccessfully -- for decades.

They not only slashed corporate taxes and allowed foreign multinationals to take 100 percent of their profits out of the country, they also gave them -- by law -- the same status as Iraqi firms. That means that all the things countries like Iraq do to direct a portion of their foreign investment income into developing their domestic economies are off the table: Foreign firms can't be asked to invest in the local economy or buy goods from domestic firms or hire a certain number of Iraqi workers or build schools and health clinics or any of the other strategies that are common in poor but resource-rich countries. Saudi Arabia's tax on foreign energy producers would violate Iraqi law.

The same company that's helping draft Iraq's permanent oil law, BearingPoint Inc., planned Iraq's entire economy under a previous contract. All of the Bremer rules worked their way into the Iraqi Constitution as well; Chapter 6, Article 126, specifies that although the rest of the orders issued by the Transitional Authority are canceled, the "100 orders" remain on the books.

~Oily new laws
I recently conducted an interview with Juhasz, who explained the details:

The United States crafted a new oil law for Iraq that provided for production sharing agreements (PSAs), which are contractual terms between a government and a foreign corporation to explore for, produce and market oil. Production sharing agreements are not used by any country in the Middle East or, in fact, by any country that's truly wealthy in oil. They're used to entice investors into an area where the oil is expensive to produce or there isn't a lot of oil.

But Iraq's oil reserves are very easy and cheap to get to. You essentially just stick a pipe in the ground and you get oil. There's absolutely no reason for Iraq to enter into PSAs, but there's every reason for Western oil companies to want them -- they provide the best terms short of full privatization of the oil.

[It's estimated that] Iraq has 80 oil fields. Seventeen of them have been discovered. Under the new oil law -- written into the constitution -- those 17 will be under the control of the Iraqi national oil company.

All undiscovered oil fields are now open to the PSAs. That means, depending on how much oil there is in Iraq, foreign companies will have control over at least 64 percent of Iraq's oil and as much as 84 percent.

PSAs are the worst possible deals for countries; in Latin America some of the worst PSAs gave domestic governments royalties of just one percent of their natural gas revenues.

_________________________________________________________

Sure prefer Relocalization and Conservation over the infernal wars being waged by the Corporate Transnationals and the governments who support them.

I still remember the slogan from the 60's - "War is Unhealthy for Children and Other Living Things!"
AL

In the past year, I've heard from a visiting Professor from UCLA, the film An Inconvenient Truth, OSU Professor Lonnie Thompson, 20/20 ABC special and NASA scientist James Hansen (Reuters & AP article attached) that we have ONLY TEN YEARS TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING or it will be too late - forever.

This is so alarming to me! My youngest grandchild will only be twelve in 10 years and I can't see gambling with her future. If we don't act now, our kids/grandkids won't have a future.

Attached are three documents that might be useful in spreading the word and encouraging behavior changes.

~Citizen's Conservation Checklist - which has been contriubted to, reviewed and approved by different environmental organizations. This checklist is for hanging on your fridge as well as distribution
~The article about NASA Scientist James Hansen - also for distribution
~Turn off the lights label page - which can be printed. These labels can be pasted all over your house as well as your workplace.

And if you run across folks who don't think global warming is man-made, just ask them want they plan on doing if in 10 years they are proven completely wrong (no shadow of a doubt) and it's do late to act?

AL

Attached are two Executive Summaries of government documents that can be helpful when talking to local government officials:
1) The Hirsch Report
2) Energy Trends and Their Implications

Also attached is an article recently written by Rep Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) referencing both of these reports.

AL

Attached are documents to help advocate for the Ohio HUB rail plan in Ohio.
a) Copy of Brochure explaining Ohio HUB plan
b) Copy of sample letter (easy to edit) for Senator's DeWine and Voinovich
c) Copy of action alert flyer, "Best Way to Get Off Oil", with instructions and contact information

Attached is a promotional flyer for our upcoming event "Peak Oil Update from Italy" featuring Professor Korpela. This event and the details are listed on our home page.

Also attached is a list of ASPO - 5 speakers and topics.

Congratualations are in order to Central Ohio Relocalization Effort (CORE) member Professor Korpela. He is now a member of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil - USA advisory board.

http://www.aspo-usa.com/AdvisoryBoard.cfm

Matthew Simmons is the President of the Advisory Board and other notables serving on the board include:

Dr Colin J. Campbell - Oxford PhD petroleum geologist. Founder of ASPO and ASPO Ireland. .

Dr. Robert L. Hirsch - PhD physicist and principal author of the FEB 2005 SAIC report "The Peaking of World Oil Production".

Mr. John T. Heinen - affiliated with the Post Carbon Institute, the Midwest Renewable Energy Association and the Community Solution, a program of Community Service, Inc. He is a Moderator/Administrator for Peak Oil News and Message Boards (www.peakoil.com ) and also moderates the Peak Oil forum for Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich at www.kucinich.us .

Mr. Tom Whipple - a retired US government analyst who currently writes a weekly column on peak oil for the Virginia newspaper the Falls Church News Press. He also edits and distributes ASPO-USA's weekly Peak Oil Review and daily Peal Oil Notes.

Mr. David Room - founder of "Energy Preparedness" and lecturer on energy issues. (David Room was key in facilitating the "beta" version of the Post Carbon Institute's Relocalization Manual.)

Attached is a profile of Professor Korpela.

AL 

Published on 4 Apr 2006 by GraphOilogy. Archived on 4 Apr 2006.
Open letter to Texas newspapers about peak oil: 'Why aren’t you listening?'

by Jeffrey J. Brown

April 2, 2006

Mr. Wesley R. Turner, President & Publisher
Fort Worth Star Telegram

Mr. James H. Moroney , III, Publisher & CEO
The Dallas Morning News

Subject: What Are Two Texas Billionaires,
Richard Rainwater & T. Boone Pickens,
Saying About Peak Oil & Why Aren’t You Listening?

Gentlemen:

I realize that I don’t have to introduce Richard Rainwater and Boone Pickens to you two gentlemen, but for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with Messrs. Rainwater and Pickens, following are brief introductions.

Richard Rainwater is the Texas based businessman who was chiefly responsible for turning the Bass Family’s inheritance of $50 into a $5 billion dollar fortune. Mr. Rainwater was therefore indirectly responsible for the remarkable urban renaissance of downtown Fort Worth, as a result of the Bass family’s massive investments. Mr. Rainwater also had a material role in George W. Bush’s selection as Managing Partner of the Texas Rangers Baseball Team, which launched Mr. Bush on his way to the Governor’s Mansion and then to the White House.

Mr. Pickens, now based in Dallas, has had a long and storied career in the oil and gas industry. Like most Texas oilmen, Mr. Pickens has had his ups and downs. Most recently he has been on an up cycle, via his investment firm, BP Capital.

These two gentlemen share an uncanny and proven ability to accurately predict future trends. The only real mistake that I am aware of is Mr. Pickens’ timing regarding natural gas prices some years ago. He was right about the price move, but he was just a little early.

Mr. Rainwater was profiled in the 12/14/05 issue of Fortune Magazine, “The Rainwater Prophecy.” Mr. Rainwater is deeply concerned about Peak Oil. In the article, Mr. Rainwater said, “This is the first scenario I’ve seen where I question the survivability of mankind.” Mr. Rainwater first became concerned about Peak Oil after reading “The Long Emergency” by James Howard Kunstler.

According to Bill McKenzie, with the Dallas Morning News, the primary reason that President Bush used the “Addicted to OIl” phrase in his state of the Union Speech was the Fortune article about Richard Rainwater, and again Mr. Rainwater became concerned about Peak Oil after reading Mr. Kunstler’s book.

On November 1, 2005 the Greater Dallas Planning Council and the Southern Methodist University Environmental Sciences Department cosponsored a symposium featuring Mr. Kunstler and Matthew R. Simmons entitled “The Unfolding Energy Crisis and its Impact on Development Patterns.” Mr. Pickens, via BP Capital, was one of the lead underwriters of the event.

Mr. Pickens, several of his associates, and several other notable Dallas businessmen such as Herbert Hunt were at the Simmons/Kunstler symposium, but no one from your respective editorial and news departments were able to make the event--despite multiple notices of the event.

In any case, Mr. Pickens has publicly stated that he believes that the world is at peak oil production. Mr. Pickens has publicly suggested increasing the gasoline tax, in an attempt to reduce oil consumption, with offsetting tax cuts elsewhere.

I certainly don’t speak for either Richard Rainwater or Boone Pickens, but my impression of these two gentlemen--along with Matt Simmons and Jim Kunstler--is that they are American patriots, in the truest sense of the word, who are trying to warn their fellow Americans about the dangers posed by Peak Oil.

In the Fortune interview, Mr. Rainwater was quoted as follows, “I believe in Hubbert’s Peak. I came out of Texas. I watched oil fields reach peak and go over, and I’ve watched how people would do all they could, put whatever amount of money into the field, and they couldn’t do anything about it.”

Much of the Peak Oil debate is based on pioneering work done by a famous Texas born geoscientist, M. King Hubbert. My coauthor, “Khebab,” and I wrote an article that was published on the Energy Bulletin website, “M. King Hubbert's Lower 48 Prediction Revisited: What can 1970 and Earlier Lower 48 Oil Production Data Tell Us About Post-1970 Lower 48 Oil Production?” Following is an excerpt from that article.

Fifty years ago this week, on March 8, 1956, at a meeting of the American Petroleum Institute in San Antonio, Texas, M. King Hubbert, in the preprinted version of his prepared remarks, had the following statement, "According to the best currently available information, the production of petroleum and natural gas on a world scale will probably pass its climax within the order of a half century (i.e., by 2006), while for both the United States and for Texas, the peaks of production may be expected to occur with the next 10 or 15 years (i.e., 1966 to 1971)." As more and more people are learning, Lower 48 oil production, as predicted by Dr. Hubbert, peaked in 1970, and it has fallen fairly steadily since 1970.

Kenneth Deffeyes, in Chapter Three of his recent book, "Beyond Oil: The View From Hubbert's Peak," described a simplified way of predicting the production peaks for various regions and for their subsequent declines. One simply plots annual production (P) divided by cumulative production to date (Q) on the vertical axis, or P/Q, versus Q on the horizontal axis. Stuart Staniford, on The Oil Drum Blog, has described this technique as "Hubbert Linearization" or HL.

With time, a HL data set starts to show a linear progression, and one can extrapolate the data down to where P is effectively zero, which gives one Qt, or ultimate recoverable reserves for the region. Based on the assumption that production tends to peak at about 50% of Qt, one can generate a predicted production profile for the region. The Lower 48 peaked at 48.5% of Qt.

Using the HL technique, Dr. Deffeyes, an associate of Dr. Hubbert, predicted that the world crossed the mathematical 50% of Qt mark on December 16, 2005. In other words, Dr. Deffeyes believes that the world is now where the Lower 48 was at in the early Seventies.

We used the HL method to predict post-1970 Lower 48 cumulative oil production, using only 1970 and earlier production data. Our work indicated that the HL method was 98.7% accurate in predicting post-1970 Lower 48 cumulative oil production.

We need to differentiate between conventional and nonconventional oil. Perhaps the best way to differentiate the two types of oil is to classify it the following way. Conventional--the oil will move to a wellbore on its own. Nonconventional--the oil and oil-like solids have to be surface mined or heated in order to move to a wellbore (or synthesized from lighter hydrocarbons).

Dr. Deffeyes estimates that we that we have two trillion barrels of recoverable conventional oil reserves worldwide and that we have used half of this amount.

Fossil fuels can be viewed as a continuum, from natural gas, to natural gas liquids, to condensate, to light sweet crude oil to heavy sour crude oil to bitumen to coal. (Kerogen, a precursor to bitumen, can also be processed to yield oil.) This list is a progression from gas, to liquid to solid. It is also a progression from cleanest, natural gas, to dirtiest, coal.

The world wants Liquid Transportation Fuels (LTF’s)--gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. LTF’s can be obtained for the least expenditures of energy and capital from light sweet crude. It only makes sense that light sweet crude will peak before heavy sour, and based on the current historically high spreads between light sweet crude and heavy sour crude, that appears to be the case.

The world is increasingly turning toward the endpoints--natural gas/natural gas liquids on the light end and bitumen/coal on the heavy end--in an attempt to maintain and increase our supply of LTF’s. There are several problems. These are hugely capital intensive programs that tend to produce liquids at very low rates compared to conventional oil sources, and on the heavy end there are some fairly severe environmental consequences. Another point that is often overlooked is that every fossil fuel resource, except for kerogen, is currently being commercially exploited. In other words, we are simply talking about increasing our rate of extraction of our finite fossil fuel resource base in a desperate attempt to maintain the current American way of life of driving $50,000 SUV’s on 50 mile roundtrips to and from $500,000 mortgages.

Currently, the most significant source of nonconventional oil is the tar sands play in Alberta, Canada, where bitumen is being extracted via surface mining or via the injection of steam into deeper beds.

From fossil fuel and nuclear sources, the world currently uses the energy equivalent of a billion barrels of oil (Gb) every five days. The mighty East Texas Oil Field, the foundation of so many Dallas fortunes, the largest oil field in the Lower 48, and the field that was largely responsible for providing the oil to power the Allies victory over the Axis powers in World War II, made about 5.5 Gb. The field is currently producing 1.2 million barrels of water per day, with a 1% oil cut. It took about 75 years to pretty much fully deplete the East Texas Field. In terms of oil equivalent, the Barnett Shale Gas Play in North Texas should ultimately produce, over several decades, on the order of 4-5 Gbe.

The world uses, from nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the energy equivalent of the recoverable reserves in the East Texas oil Field or the Barnett Shale Play in less than 30 days.

In the 4/2/06 Star Telegram, Automotive Journalist Ed Wallace, in the classified advertising section, wrote a rebuttal to the Peak Oil theories. Mr. Wallace’s two basic points: (1) improved technology will increase recoverable conventional reserves by 50% to 3,000 Gb and (2) nonconventional oil sources will add another 3,000 Gb. Therefore, based on Mr. Wallace’s estimates, we have used 1,000 Gb out of a 6,000 Gb resource base.

In the Viewpoints (Op-Ed) section of the Dallas Morning News, similar “cornucopian” energy abundance articles were published last year making basically the same points that Mr. Wallace made.

In regard to the technology issue, this assertion is directly contradicted by our experience in Texas (peaked at 54% of Qt), the overall Lower 48 (peaked at 49% of Qt) and the North Sea (peaked at 52% of Qt). Nothing the industry has tried in these regions has reversed the production declines once about half of the oil reserves were consumed. The reason is best illustrated by the East Texas field, now producing water with a 1% oil cut. What can better technology do to help a field that has watered out?

In regard to the nonconventional sources of oil, Mr. Wallace is primarily focused on the Canadian tar sands and shale oil (kerogen). The tar sands play is a proven commercial success, that is however hugely energy intensive and that is also yielding vast amounts of contaminated waste water. Mr. Wallace cites the most widely used estimate of 175 Gb in recoverable reserves (note that this should be discounted by about 35% to 50% to get net energy equivalent). He also cited a vague estimate by a Shell executive of 2,000 Gb, that can’t be currently recovered. There is one interesting research program testing some new shale oil technologies, but there is nothing commercial yet.

In any case, let’s look at past and current estimates of Canadian tar sands production. In 2003, the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimated that total Canadian oil production--driven by increasing tar sands production--would increase by 700,000 BOPD from 2003 to 2005. The reality? Total Canadian oil production fell from 2003 to 2005. The tar sands production fell short of estimates, and the increasing tar sands production the Canadians had could not make up for the decline in conventional Canadian oil production.

The Canadians themselves are estimating that tar sands production will only increase to about three million BOPD (mbpd) in 2016 from one mbpd today. Note that we will probably start losing a net two mbpd to four mbpd in conventional oil production per year, starting this year. Again, note that you have to discount the tar sands production by 35% to 50% to get net energy.

In effect, Mr. Wallace, and the other energy cornucopians see no problem with the $50,000 Hummer, $500,000 mortgage way of life.

Messrs. Rainwater and Pickens disagree. I can’t speak for them, but I assume that they believe that while nonconventional oil will help, it will only serve to slow the rate of decline of total oil production.

Some types of ethanol production (not from corn sources) appear have some possibilities, but there are a number of problems. Among the problems is a basic conflict between land devoted to food production and land devoted to fuel production. By the way, the US is probably now a net food importer. Currently, the US uses up to 10 calories of fossil fuels to produce one calorie of food. Ponder the impact on our food supply of a declining oil supply.

I realize that US media companies are facing severe economic pressures, and I realize that you are heavily dependent on advertising revenues from the housing/auto industries and from related companies. However, in my opinion we have hit the iceberg. The US media can lash themselves to the sinking ship, by failing to face reality, or you can face the reality of finite energy resources and start heading for the lifeboats.

I am supporting a proposal to abolish the Payroll (Social Security + Medicare) Tax and to replace it with an energy tax, principally a tax on liquid transportation fuels. This would unleash powerful economic forces against profligate energy use. Since it is in effect a consumption tax, it would tax those who currently don’t pay the Payroll Tax, by using cash. Instead of taxing payrolls to fund the Social Security and Medicare systems, we would instead tax energy consumption.

Alan Drake, a consulting engineer, has written a compelling article advocating a crash program of electrifying our transportation system, with special emphasis on Urban Rail.

I am working with a small group regarding the possibility of a Fall symposium on the Energy Tax and Urban Rail proposals, and we would be delighted to have support from The Fort Worth Star Telegram and/or The Dallas Morning News.

Note that these two proposals would address: the Social Security/Medicare crisis; the Peak Oil crisis; the loss of farmland due to suburban sprawl and Global Warming issues. We would replace “dumb growth” with “smart growth,” New Urbanism projects along mass transit lines.

In addition, I would at least ask you to give your readers a balanced report on the Peak Oil issue. Two leading citizens of your respective cities--Richard Rainwater and T. Boone Pickens--are deeply concerned about Peak Oil. The stated mission of the Fort Worth Star Telegram is: “Earning the People’s Trust Daily.” I assume that the Dallas Morning New concurs with this mission statement.

In my opinion, the US media have two choices regarding the Peak Oil issue. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, you can now have either your honor or the status quo. If you do nothing regarding Peak Oil, you will soon have neither the status quo nor your honor.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey J. Brown