Re: Re: Re: Re: : Yet another take on Hubbert's peak
Rich countries reduce pollution, in part, by exporting it to poor countries. On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 10:44:00AM -0400, Julio Huato wrote: Sam Pawlett [EMAIL PROTECTED]: How are they [poor countries as they develop] to pay for it [limiting environmental damage]? World Bank loans? I try not to assume anything, but it's safe to say that LDC countries will follow the path of least resistance (i.e. the cheapest) towards industrialization. That's what has and is happening. I mean, why import natural gas for 'clean' power boilers when you have lots of domestic coal? Most LDC's are already heavily in debt to the North and will (and should) try to keep an independent energy policy. The premise is that they will grow and become richer countries. By definition, richer countries have more opportunities and resources to, among other things, limit environmental damage. Of course, wealth is not a sufficient condition. But my question was, why should we think that poor countries -- as they grow -- won't develop the will and mechanisms to use these additional opportunities and resources in a way that limits environmental damage? Ha. Maybe in the 19th century [Marx's dictum that undeveloped capitalist countries will tend to develop capitalistically], but it will not happen as long as imperialism and capitalism are hegemonic in the world system. Imperialism (extra-economic forms of exploitation of workers in poor countries by capitalists from rich countries) certainly has a negative influence on the development of capitalism in the poor countries. To put it mildly, colonial plunder didn't help the poor countries to grow. But, important as it is, the relative role of imperialist exploitation in the overall exploitation of workers in the Third World tends to decline as capitalist production proper expands. And I'm talking about capitalist development in the Third World. IMO, the main obstacle to the development of capitalism in the Third World is not imperialism. We would expect the poor countries to pollute like hell as the rich countries have done. Why would that be the case? Why should we not believe in the great wisdom of the old man: One nation can and should learn from others? Not that the learning process is smooth and straightforward. Some leftists (Bello,Martin K.K.Peng) argue that rich countries setting environmental standards for poor ones constitutes a form of imperialism since env. standards are a barrier to economic growth. Northern environmentalism is just another means of keeping the South under the boot. I am sensitive to that argument. If higher environmental (and labor) standards are the weapon of choice of capitalists from rich countries to compete against capitalists in poor countries, why should we oppose them? I'd let the capitalists in the poor countries take care of themselves. Higher environmental and labor costs imposed on capitals that operate in poor countries put these capitals at a disadvantage, but they are not -- by far -- the main obstacles to capitalist growth in these countries. If you imply that, in the long run, capitalist growth is a necessary condition for the living and working conditions of workers in the Third World to improve, I agree. Of course, things would change if a union of rich socialist countries showed up to assist the poor ones. _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: : Yet another take on Hubbert's peak
Julio Huato wrote: IMO, the main obstacle to the development of capitalism in the Third World is not imperialism. What is? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : Yet another take on Hubbert's peak
Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Rich countries reduce pollution, in part, by exporting it to poor countries. If Third World countries get to grow, they are likely to be in a position to limit or negotiate this in better terms. _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : Yet another take on Hubbert's peak
Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Julio Huato wrote: IMO, the main obstacle to the development of capitalism in the Third World is not imperialism. What is? Doug To state it in general may not be particularly helpful. But here it goes. In my opinion, the main obstacle to the development of capitalism in the Third World is not imperialism, but (1) the persistence of pre-capitalist or semi-capitalist forms of production and (2) 'superstructural' constraints, such as laws, lack thereof, etc. Furthermore, these conditions allow for the imperialist proclivity of the rich countries to take easy advantage. Just like capitalist industrial production in the north of the US and in England benefited temporarily from (and reinforced) slave production in the south, imperialism uses and reinforces traditional forms of production, weak legal systems, corruption, etc. in the poor countries. Over time, the benefits dwindle as does the commitment of the capitalists in the rich countries to their old allies. _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : Yet another take on Hubbert's peak
This sounds like the articulation of modes of production approach reviewed back in the late 70's in NLR by Aidan-Foster-Carter. Another part of what Julio says sounds like to me like the Peruvian economist touted by Mario Vargas Llosa, and the late Richard Milhous Nixon, whose name I'm blanking on. Hernando de Soto? BTW, the son of Mario, has a newish book, I just saw with two other co-authors, newly issued by the libertoons at Madison Books, Guide To The Perfect Latin American Idiot, by Plineo A. Mendoza, Mario's son and another author. Blurb on back claims it is funny and was a bestseller in S. America. Looks like on a quick look see a polemic against dependency theory and Fidelismo. Less scholarly than say, The Dependency Moment, by Robert Packenheim published by Princeton Univ. Press a few yrs. back. Comments, please on Packenheim or this idiot book. Michael Pugliese From: Julio Huato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 7/12/01 12:06:08 PM Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Julio Huato wrote: IMO, the main obstacle to the development of capitalism in the Third World is not imperialism. What is? Doug To state it in general may not be particularly helpful. But here it goes. In my opinion, the main obstacle to the development of capitalism in the Third World is not imperialism, but (1) the persistence of pre-capitalist or semi-capitalist forms of production and (2) 'superstructural' constraints, such as laws, lack thereof, etc. Furthermore, these conditions allow for the imperialist proclivity of the rich countries to take easy advantage. Just like capitalist industrial production in the north of the US and in England benefited temporarily from (and reinforced) slave production in the south, imperialism uses and reinforces traditional forms of production, weak legal systems, corruption, etc. in the poor countries. Over time, the benefits dwindle as does the commitment of the capitalists in the rich countries to their old allies. _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : Yet another take on Hubbert's peak
The New York Times Magazine had a lengthy article about Hernando de Soto on July 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/01/magazine/01DESOTO.html?pagewanted=all What is especially interesting is that he is apparently catching on in various places: Aristide in Haiti and Mubarak in Egypt, among others, are working with him. He also made the following comments: At our hotel the last night, I asked de Soto if he expected to see any country he has worked in turn around in his lifetime. If one nation succeeded with his plan on each continent, he told me earlier, it would set the continent on fire. This night there was less bravado. I'll probably see it by the end of my life, he said, shrugging. You don't know. One thing he felt sure of, however. If something like his agenda didn't catch on, a backlash against globalization was unavoidable. The social war is going to be terrible unless you do something, he said. You can't wait 30 years, and it's not just Oliver Twist. It's Oliver Twist with James Bond's weapons. I asked about critics who say he's peddling an idee fixe that ignores the critical role of culture in development. De Soto could barely contain himself. I'm not writing for Harvard students, he said. I'm writing basically for Aristide and Hosni Mubarak and Gloria Arroyo and Fox. Political leaders know this isn't a one-shot idea. They know it amounts to a revolution. David Shemano
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : Yet another take on Hubbert's peak
michael pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This sounds like the articulation of modes of production approach reviewed back in the late 70's in NLR by Aidan-Foster-Carter. Another part of what Julio says sounds like to me like the Peruvian economist touted by Mario Vargas Llosa, and the late Richard Milhous Nixon, whose name I'm blanking on. Hernando de Soto? BTW, the son of Mario, has a newish book, I just saw with two other co-authors, newly issued by the libertoons at Madison Books, Guide To The Perfect Latin American Idiot, by Plineo A. Mendoza, Mario's son and another author. Blurb on back claims it is funny and was a bestseller in S. America. Looks like on a quick look see a polemic against dependency theory and Fidelismo. Less scholarly than say, The Dependency Moment, by Robert Packenheim published by Princeton Univ. Press a few yrs. back. Comments, please on Packenheim or this idiot book. Michael Pugliese I hope that doesn't make me guilty by association. To be fair with these authors, I haven't read any of the materials referenced above. In my own silly mind, what I said follows from Marx. _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : Yet another take on Hubbert's peak
Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I knew I should have phrased that differently! No. It's fair, Michael. And thank you for all the URLs. I have heard of de Soto before. Louis Proyect already honored me by associating me with him. But I haven't read him directly. Now I should. _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: Re: RE: Re: Yet another take on Hubbert's peak
Ken Hanly wrote: I think most people agree with you to the following: 1)there is an impending global energy shortage that will cause a crisis within capitalism 2) the New Economy doesn't alter the fact that capitalism is dependent upon traditional energy sources I'm not sure I agree with 1); it's been wrongly asserted so many times in the past - staring over 100 years ago - that one should be pretty careful about predicting it again. I notice that Mark forwarded an item from the FT about a dry hole in Azerbaijan. There was a story next to that in the print edition of the paper on Japanese investment in Iran which will develop that country's reserves and production capacity. But I guess a glass at 50% capacity is always half empty. Doug
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Yet another take on Hubbert's peak
At 01:19 PM 7/9/01 -0400, you wrote: But I guess a glass at 50% capacity is always half empty. pessimist: the glass is half empty. optimist: the glass is half full. realist: it's half a glass of water. surrealist: it's a cow. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Yet another take on Hubbert's peak
At 01:19 PM 7/9/01 -0400, you wrote: But I guess a glass at 50% capacity is always half empty. pessimist: the glass is half empty. optimist: the glass is half full. realist: it's half a glass of water. surrealist: it's a cow. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine = nerd: it's a bunch of 0's and 1's. nonnerdly, Ian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Yet another take on Hubbert's peak
post-modernist: it's two glasses, one is the panoptical (phallocratic) glass, the Other is its decentered (womanist) subject. - Original Message - From: Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 2:02 PM Subject: [PEN-L:14847] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Yet another take on Hubbert's peak At 01:19 PM 7/9/01 -0400, you wrote: But I guess a glass at 50% capacity is always half empty. pessimist: the glass is half empty. optimist: the glass is half full. realist: it's half a glass of water. surrealist: it's a cow. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine = nerd: it's a bunch of 0's and 1's. nonnerdly, Ian
Re: Re: RE: Re: Yet another take on Hubbert's peak
I'm no geologist (nor do I play one on TV), but it's possible (as Thomas Gold suggests) that the supply is like the supply of magma under the ground. It would go away _very_ slowly as the earth cools. In any event, people can and do figure out ways to use oil more efficiently each year. Wall Street Journal - April 16, 1999 Odd Reservoir Off Louisiana Prods Oil Experts to Seek a Deeper Meaning By CHRISTOPHER COOPER Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL HOUSTON -- Something mysterious is going on at Eugene Island 330. Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330's output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels a day. Then suddenly -- some say almost inexplicably -- Eugene Island's fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Yet another take on Hubbert's peak
to separate the tar from the sand and rock. A slurry of the tar sand with water is heated to 50 to 80 o C. This lifts the tar from the sand surface and the tar, which floats can be separated from the sand, which sinks. Other processes are under development, including: SOLVENT BASED EXTRACTION Really a solvent assisted hot water process, suitable for lower grade tar sands. Treated with water and a solvent, hydrocarbon or methylene chloride. Counter current operation, with water and solvent recycled. Obtain a purer bitumen, and a solid tailings, but more expensive. AOSTRA TACUIK PROCESS Direct retorting or heating (Coking) of tar sands, Heat to evaporate oils, so separate oil sands and partially upgrade at the same time. Leave behind as much carbon (coke) as possible, so the hydrogen content of the rest is incrased. However, similar systems for upgrading oil shale have nor worked out well. IN SITU RECOVERY Steam The 70% of the resource that is below 170 m depth will have to be extracted using in-situ methods as it is too deep to mine using open pits. One advantage is that it is warm enough at this depth to keep the tar in a viscous fluid form. The methods most likely to be used would involve heating the tar in some way in order to make it less viscous, so that it will flow to a well and can be pumped out. This is being done by Imperial Oil at Cold Lake. The bitumen here is more like a heavy oil than tar. A huff and puff technique is used. Steam is made at the surface and pumped down into a 3 thick sand layer which lies under the 27 metre thick layer of tar sands (huff). After many months the temperature of the tar is high enough for it to flow through the sand, pushed by the pressure of the steam and it can be pumped out (puff). ( huff, h for heat, puff, p for pressure). Up to 50% of bitumen/oil can be obtained in this way. Cold Lake produces about 130,000 bbl per day. Add things to reduce surface tension of oil/water, to steam, such as CO2, surfactants and hydrocarbons. Combustion Another way to heat the tar is to burn, underground, some of the oil. It has proven very difficult to control the fires so that they mainly heat the tar sand layer and not the surrounding rocks and also move slowly across the tar sand layer. BITUMEN UPGRADING This will be discussed later in the course. The bitumen from the tar sands has a low hydrogen content ( 10%) which has to be increased to 13% in order to convert the bitumen into a synthetic crude oil which can be sent to a refinery and treated in the same way as a natural crude oil. The amount of sulfur and nitrogen in the bitumen must also be decreased, from 5 to 0.2% and from 0.5 to 0.02 % respectively. Waste Products The waste sands could be processed to obtain titanium and vanadium. They are eventually taken back and used to fill up the open pit mines. Tailings (waste slurry) are a problem with this process as they are very stable and cannot be easily separated into water and solids. They are pumped into large tailings ponds, over time the tailings will probably separate out. - Original Message - From: Mark Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 3:20 AM Subject: [PEN-L:14806] RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Yet another take on Hubbert's peak Ken Hanly: Of course I forgot. References you supply demolish the idea that tar sands ,or anything else I expect, make an atom of difference. The discussion is about the articulation of accumulation crisis and energy crisis. In that context, Alberta tar sands are simply a distratcion. They are a grave threat to Canada's environment and add to GHG emission. That's the only relevance. Mark Jones
Re: RE: Re: RE: Yet another take on Hubbert's peak
Of course I forgot. References you supply demolish the idea that tar sands ,or anything else I expect, make an atom of difference. Nevertheless the development of the tar sands is reality not fantasy. It may be that they will not make a large difference but they surely will make some difference. It does not further your case either to call something that is a reality a fantasy or claim that what will make some difference will make none. But how do you know that your own references are so reliable. See for example the following on some of the problems involved: http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/worldoil.html Anyway the Alberta Oil Sands are on line and production is increasing. However I guess the companies involved must be going broke- although that is news to me- since according to your sources their development is not logistically or economically feasible. How then is it that production is increasing? Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Mark Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 6:55 PM Subject: [PEN-L:14799] RE: Re: RE: Yet another take on Hubbert's peak Ken, only today I sent you offlist the refs which inter alia demolish the idea that tar sands will ever or could ever make an atom of difference. Even if they were environmentally feasible (like most unconventional petroleum, they're not) they are not logistically or economically feasible. The EROEI (energy return on energy invested) is just too low. The economics are just staggeringly adverse. What we are talking about here is not a few percentage points plus or minus at the margins, which is all Alberta tar sands could ever be. The *whole* of renewables (photovoltaic, wind, wave, geothermal etc) PLUS Athabasca and Orinoco heavy oil, tar sands etc amounts to less than 5% of commercial energy supply. There will NEVER be an absolute shortage of even conventional oil and Shaikh Yamani is right to worry, as he did recently, that Opec can put itself out of business long before oil runs out. When BP reinvented itself as 'Beyond Petroleum' a Fleet St wag said they meant 'Beyond Parody': 99% of BP's business is and almost certainly always will be, in fossil energy. You have to look beyond the hype. Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly Sent: 08 July 2001 00:23 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:14795] Re: RE: Yet another take on Hubbert's peak Tar sands as a source of oil will remain fantasy? Already just the mining of the Alberta sands produces over 15 percent of Canadas oil. See the chart at as well: As conventional production declines, tar sands production is rapidly expanding. In situ extraction is being used NOW as well as mining. There are substantial extractable reserves. The tar sands are already on stream at least the Alberta ones are; and they are among the largest if not the largest in the world. Here is the Alberta govt. website: http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/sands/royalty/oilsand1.htm Cheers Ken Hanly . As for non-conventional resources like tar-sands--let alone hydrogen--they will remain mere fantasy. In the wake of a sever slow-down, neither capital--nor, crucially, effective demand-- will exist capable of bringing the alternatives onstream. World capitalism can slip into a post-crash equilibrium state which can endure for decades or longer, amid unprecedented social stress and immiseration. To say this is not (obviously) to seek it or to welcome it; but only by resolutely analysing historical processes, and not by hiding from them, can we hope to positively influence outcomes.
