Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Thousands flee as cyclone closes on Persian Gulf
Associated Press
Thousands of people fled low-lying areas Tuesday as the strongest cyclone to threaten the Arabian Peninsula in 60 years barreled toward the oil-rich Persian Gulf — with southern Iran next in its path.
Cyclone Gonu was expected to skirt the region’s biggest oil installations but could disrupt shipping through the Straits of Hormuz, causing a spike in prices, oil analysts said.
…”If the storm hits Iran, it’s a much bigger story than Oman, given how much bigger an oil producer Iran is,” said Antoine Haff of FIMAT USA, a brokerage unit of Societe Generale. “At a minimum, it’s likely to affect tanker traffic and to shut down some Omani oil production as a precautionary measure,” Haff said.
Late Tuesday, Cyclone Gonu, packing winds of 120 miles (193 kilometers) per hour, was churning northwest through the Indian Ocean about 265 miles (427 kilometers) southeast of Oman’s capital, Muscat, according to AccuWeather.com meteorologist Lisa Wieser.
(5 June 2007)
TOD covers Cyclone Gonu (Day 2)
The Oil Drum and Chuck Watson of KAC/UCF
KAC/UCF and Chuck Watson are forecasting, based on their damage models, that the Qalhat (Sur) LNG terminal will be out for 20-30 days and the Mina al Fahal oil terminal will be down for 10-15 days–all of this assuming they are built to US standards.
…Why might Gonu matter? Well, that answer begins with the fact that the world production of petroleum plateauing around 85 mbbl/day, any slight blip in supply or exporting could be quite noticeable on the world markets. A sizeable portion of the world’s petroleum exports go through the Gulf of Oman.
Particularly, Oman matters in this because it produces 743,000 bbl/day; Oman is also a net exporter, non-OPEC, whose production peaked earlier in the decade. (Thanks to Mike from Green Car Congress for the link.).
Of course, this storm also has the potential to affect Iran, UAE, India, and/or Pakistan for that matter–mainly because of shipping disruptions, but there could be some real effects on infrastructure and assets depending on track and landfall. There are also refining and other production assets in Southern Iran, especially in Chah Bahar.
(5 June 2007)
Much more at original, where you can add to the list of articles and resources.
Also: TOD covers Cyclone Gonu (Day 1)
Inconvenient truths for financial planners
Richard Vodra, Financial Planning
The economic effects of climate change and oil shortages present a unique challenge for We’ve gotten used to paying $3 for a gallon of gasoline and come around to the idea that global warming is a real phenomenon. Helped by United Nations reports backed by thousands of scientists, and our own ability to observe reality, Americans are accepting the idea that global climate change is real. What consequences should we be preparing for? And as financial planners, what specific steps can we recommend to clients?
In the October 2005 issue of this magazine, I wrote about the concept of Peak Oil…
As financial planners, we need to help our clients address the challenges that these developments pose in both their personal and investing lives.
Scenario One: Business as Usual
Traditional financial planning has operated within a framework I call “business as usual.” It assumes that, for the simple reason that it’s tough to make accurate predictions, life will remain basically the same. What that means: America’s economy will continue to grow, but China’s and India’s will grow faster. People everywhere will continue to build suburbs, roads, airports, cars, factories and power plants. Resources in this model are not constrained, nor are there limits to growth. Under this scenario, planners use historic asset returns to plan our clients’ 40-year-long retirements, beginning years or even decades from now. This conceptual framework informs the way much of the planning community works today.
Unfortunately, the business-as-usual scenario is probably a fantasy. If we continue along our current path, global warming will accelerate and become irreversible as we burn all the oil, coal and gas we can, and attempt to replace a declining oil supply with new fuels that are more polluting, cost more and are less convenient to use. Financial and environmental costs will increase until the system simply can’t keep up.
Fortunately, we can take steps now as individuals, corporations, communities and nations to prepare for Peak Oil and to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that will lead to further global climate change. In fact, many of us are doing so. Developing new systems for energy production and conservation, transportation and other aspects of modern life will take plenty of effort and capital. But if we wait until shortages are obvious and prices for energy and goods have gone way, way up, the task will be much more difficult. The sooner we start, the lower the costs will be, both in terms of money and lifestyle.
Scenario Two: The Coming Durable Society
The coming durable society accepts the reality of Peak Oil and global climate change, but assumes that people will take the necessary steps to address these problems by creating sustainable and more localized economies. Under this scenario, some aspects of our lives, such as energy consumption, may eventually more closely resemble 1957 rather than 2007. But we will also harness human creativity to develop new technologies and efficiencies that reduce the impact these changes will have on how we live.
This scenario is based on the idea that natural resources will continue to be scarce and expensive, making access to energy and transportation less reliable.
(1 May 2007)
Severe climate change unlikely before we run out of fossil fuel
Kjell Aleklett, On Line Opinioin
The issues of climate and future temperature increases have become part of our everyday life, and central in this debate is carbon dioxide. The fossil fuels we use contain carbon and hydrocarbon compounds, and carbon dioxide is released together with energy when we burn these.
However, it seems that the amounts of fossil fuels themselves are not perceived as a problem among those debating climate change. Instead, the problem is only ever that we are expected to use too much of them. The idea that the combined volumes of these fuels are insufficient to cause the changes in climate that are currently discussed is nowhere to be heard.
…We have no need to discuss or dispute the temperature increase up to the present day, but we must discuss and dispute the temperature increases that the IPCC-families indicate and the fossil fuel resources that the IPCC uses in its prognoses.
We need new estimates of future temperature increases based on realistic expectations of oil, natural gas and coal use. Only then can we make sensible decisions for our future.
The world’s greatest future problem is that too many people must share too little energy. In the current political debate we presumably need to replace the word “environment” with “energy”, but the policy required to tackle the energy problem will greatly benefit the environment.
First published in Dagens Nyheter, Sweden.
(5 June 2007)
An expanded version of an article published May 18 by Energy Bulletin: Global warming exaggerated, insufficient oil, natural gas and coal.
