I hate to keep harping on this — but since nobody else is really talking about it, at least in the organs of public discussion, the job is left to me — we have to get cracking on the revival of the railroad system in this country, if we expect to remain a united country. This is such a no-brainer that the absence of any talk about it is a prime symptom of the zombie disease that has eaten away our brains. Automobiles (the way we use them) and airplanes are utterly dependent on liquid hydrocarbon fuels, and you can be certain we’ll have trouble getting them. You can run trains by other means — electricity being state-of-the-art in those parts of the world that do it most successfully. I know that California just voted to create a high-speed rail link between Los Angeles and San Francisco. It’s an optimistic sign, but it shows more than a little techno-grandiose over-reach. High-speed rail would require a mega-expensive re-do of the tracks. We need to scale our ambitions for this more realistically. California (and every other region of America) would benefit much more from normal-speed trains running every hour on the hour on tracks that already exist than from a mega-expensive, grandiose sci-fi program that might not get built for ten years. The dregs of the Big Three automakers can and should be reorganized to produce the rolling stock for a revived railroad system.

Even amidst the financial carnage underway right now, the public is enjoying a respite from high-priced gasoline, but it is due to be short-lived. As I’ve already said, we are in danger not just of oil prices going way back up again, but of losing access to our supplies from the exporting countries. In other words, we’re just as likely to face shortages as high prices, and soon. Oil shortages are certain to produce a political freak-out here unless we get our heads screwed on right — and this means that the next President had better prepare quickly for a comprehensive action plan in the face of such an emergency (which has to include a robust public information initiative).

That this meltdown is building straight into the Christmas holidays is one of those accidents of history that leaves one reeling in wonder and nausea. The cable networks better be prepared to bombard the public with round-the-clock showings of It’s a Wonderful Life, because they’re going to need all the moral support they can get as zombies stalk through the silent night, holy night.

Regards,
Jim Kunstler

November 27, 2008

Zombie Economics, Part II was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

As long as there are abundant local supplies of rice, countries are happy, eager in fact, to export excess production in order to generate foreign exchange. But as soon as local consumption exceeds locally available production, then all hell breaks loose and the next thing you know countries are banning exports, a move that has already been undertaken by Vietnam and a number of other countries.

In that scenario, price eventually no longer becomes a factor in the availability of the commodity. Vietnam, for example, is not going to let its people starve just because higher global prices would allow it to earn an extra $10 a bag of rice.

And so in the face of the prospect of any serious shortage of an important resource — energy being maybe the most important — export markets freeze up and the price begins to be set at the margin, literally based on a global competition for the dwindling supplies that manage to leak out around the edges.

“People are crazy not to be focusing on the oil export situation,” Dr. Brown told me.

Of course, the question of energy alternatives is a big topic and one which needs a far more extensive discussion than space allows for here.

Will viable alternatives be developed to help mitigate a domino collapse of oil exports? Absolutely. Of those alternatives, nuclear, solar and heavy oil seem to hold the greatest promise.

But the sheer scope of the problem — with the world now consuming the energy equivalent of one billion barrels of oil every five days — assures that we are probably decades away from a real solution.

In the words of Jeffrey Brown…

“If you look at the situation in terms of presidential terms, looking at fossil fuels plus nuclear the world burned through the equivalent of 10 percent of all oil ever consumed in Bush’s first four-year term. And, in our model, we’re going to burn 10 percent of all remaining conventional crude in the second four years of Bush’s term.

“That is the equivalent of around 25 billion barrels a year. So that’s 100 billion barrels every four years, and we’ve burned 1,000 billion barrels. It gets interesting when you consider that current estimates are that we’ve only got 1,000 billion barrels of conventional crude remaining. I think with natural gas liquids, we’ve got a little bit more. But of the conventional crude oil, we’ve got 1,000 billion remaining. Which then begs the question, how fast can we bring on the tar sands and everything else?”

Grasping for straws, I asked Jeff about an article I had read recently about the Bakken oil shale reserves around North Dakota.

“They’re talking about somewhere between 200 billion and 500 billion barrels in situ, but the USGS recently came out with a mean estimate of between 2.5 and 4.4 billion barrels recoverable, as an outer limit,” he replied, before continuing.

“In 1966, they said, if Lower 48 ultimately recoverable is 150 billion barrels, then the U.S. would peak in 1966. If the recoverable oil from the Lower 48 ultimately came in at 200 billion barrels, then the U.S. peak would come in 1971. The higher-end estimate probably turned out to more accurate, and the U.S. peaked in 1970. But the point is this; a one-third increase of estimated ultimate recoverable — a total increase of 50 billion barrels — postponed the peak by all of five years.”

The trend for sustained higher energy prices appears solidly in motion.  If Brown and the ELM are correct, energy prices will double then double again.

Even if he is wrong and prices don’t rise geometrically, the global dogfight to replace declining supplies — decidedly exacerbated by the loss of Mexican and maybe Russian exports in the near future — is going to get ugly and expensive.

So, what’s the investment angle? Paradoxically, the larger energy companies are probably a bad bet, because they are forced to replace their depleting reserves, which is getting harder and more expensive to do with each passing day.

It is our contention that, because the solutions to the world’s energy problems are going to involve a variety of energy sources and technologies, you have to build a portfolio that is equally varied.

That assures you are well positioned to profit from the broader trend, while avoiding the risks of being overly exposed to a single sector. (As an example, solar has had a great run, but most solar plays are now overvalued).

The good news is that there are no shortage of high quality energy-related investments available…in coal, heavy oil, LNG, photovoltaics, natural gas consolidators, “run of river” hydroelectric, uranium and small to mid-cap oil companies with the potential for significant near-term gains in reserves or production.

In the final analysis, it comes down to two choices; you can either suffer the consequences of persistent higher energy prices, or use the work Jeffrey Brown has done with the Export Land Model as an early warning and get positioned to profit.

The decision is yours, but don’t wait long to make it.

Regards,
David Galland, Casey Research
June 24, 2008

Oil Exports was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder