We’re Not Alone…

Thank GOD! I thought to myself. They’re here!

My mind raced. We’re not alone in the galaxy. The aliens have arrived. They’re going to save us. Kind of like at the end of Star Trek: First Contact.

My mental gears kept turning. Unless they’re here to destroy us with death rays, like in The War of the Worlds. And then eat us, like in The Thing. All while they take our oil, gold, rare earths, tungsten, cobalt, vanadium and other good stuff. Like in Independence Day.

I wondered if an alien would leap out from the floating disk and say, “Take me to your leader?” Hmmm… But would some trigger-happy National Guardsman pull a Kent State and shoot him, like in The Day the Earth Stood Still?

Oh, man. We don’t want to get pushed around by the aliens, of course. But if somebody shoots the alien, it’ll make for trouble. We’ll have an interplanetary crisis on which hinges the fate of humanity.

Hmmm… If somebody shoots the alien, my advice is to sell your stocks. Go to cash, pronto. Meanwhile, you’d definitely be glad you bought gold — and TOOK DELIVERY! See? I told you so. When you buy gold, take delivery.

It’s All About Ratings

I pondered the cosmic implications for, oh… all of about half a second. Then I listened to the television announcer in the background. He described how an errant balloon was drifting over Colorado with a little boy onboard. Damn, I thought. No aliens. Just a bad imitation of The Wizard of Oz.

Then the milk of human kindness began its slow IV drip into my veins. For as much as I’d have preferred real aliens landing to take over (c’mon, could they be worse than the current crop of commissars?), I worried about the little boy.

I figured that yes, maybe it was happening like the TV drones were saying — although TV drones often lie like rugs. A wayward balloon? A little boy? OK, it might be real. If so, then it’s high drama, literally. Stranger things have happened. Remember the OJ slow-speed chase in the white Ford Bronco, through Los Angeles, down Interstate 405, back in 1994? Historic, no?

Yep, maybe some little tyke climbed into a gondola. I’d hate to have the kid fall to his death from a balloon. In living color. On the 42-inch flat-screen TV with awesome resolution. Of course, the TV news vultures would be all over the story. Live at Five. I can only imagine the headline in Variety: “Kid Falls, Ratings Soar.” That’s showbiz, right?

Except, as you surely know by now — unless you’ve been living on Mars or something — there was no little boy on the flying saucer. It was just some guy trying to do a publicity stunt. It was all a hoax.

Not a Hoax — We’re in Trouble

I’ll tell you about something that was drifting over Colorado last week, and it’s NOT a hoax. It’s Peak Oil. I attended the 2009 international conference of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO), out in Denver. Here’s the long and short of it. We’re in trouble. With a capital “T,” and that rhymes with “P,” and that stands for Peak Oil.

Last week, I told you about how Marcio Mello, one of the explorationists that discovered the offshore Tupi oil field of Brazil, gave ASPO a spellbinding stemwinder of a keynote talk about the newly discovered oil resources of the Brazilian pre-salt play. It was a great talk. I believe Marcio. Not only do I believe him, but I’m choosing investment ideas based on his research. Marcio has changed the thinking within the world oil exploration community. Marcio is a player. He’s a game changer.

But let’s get real about this. Sure, there’s a LOT more oil out there. As in, “out there,” 150 miles and more offshore, in 8,000 feet of water and deeper, beneath 20,000 feet of rock and salt. You see the problem, right?

Yes, that offshore resource is out there, and it’s super hard to extract. This is not the “easy oil” of the good old days. (Just kidding. It’s never been easy.)

But we’re looking ahead. And that’s why we’re invested in the future of deep-water oil, plus subsea equipment builders and service companies. These are long-term plays, for a long-term process of deep-water development.

Meanwhile, Brazil is still building the shipyards in which it will build the drill ships and platforms, which will develop the offshore arenas, over many, many years. Again, you see where I’m going with this, right?

Sure, there’s a lot of offshore development going on now. But there’s much, much more that’s going to happen in the coming decades. It HAS to happen. And that’s the problem. It’ll take time. And capital. And many people with critical skills. And some of those critical skills have not yet been developed. And it’s just super complex. By comparison, maybe building a flying saucer is easy.

Peak Oil: We’re There

By every measure, the world’s output of crude oil peaked between 2005 and 2007. Peak Oil? Hey, we’re there.

What do I mean? That’s output of crude oil, as in conventional petroleum that flows or gets pumped out of wells. Yes, the worldwide total output of what we generically call “oil” has risen — slightly — in recent years. But that’s because there are increasing volumes of natural gas liquids (NGLs) in the mix, plus unconventional oil like what the global marketplace obtains from Canada’s oil sands.

Let me focus on NGLs for a moment. In other words, the global energy industry is blowing down the gas caps on older fields. That’s how you get NGLs. That, and spinning the NGLs out of tight gas, like what we see with another recent addition to the OI portfolio.

In a macro sense, it means that the global energy industry is pulling what’s left of the conventional oil out of the early-discovered fields and taking the gas too. When it comes to Peak Oil, we’re there, and in fact, we’re past it.

The future of conventional petroleum output is downhill, even with the future output from the deep-water offshore discoveries. That deep-water oil will sure help, but it won’t power the world of the future the way it powered the world of the past. We live in a different world now.

Thus, the energy future is all about transition to something else. It gives a whole new meaning to that phrase, “Take me to your leader.” Huh? What leader? Most of the world’s policymakers are clueless about this.

More on NGLs, and “Oil Pharmacies”

Let me clarify things some more. NGLs are hydrocarbon fractions that are not methane and ethane. NGLs are present in the high-pressure, high-temperature gas that flows from the ground. But NGLs are not gaseous at surface conditions. After a short time at the surface, NGLs condense out of the gas flow and become liquid. It goes back to Boyle’s Law and the “ideal gas law” in chemistry.

NGLs condense out of natural gas flows, from oil field gas caps and from some tight-gas output like we see in the Marcellus Shale of Pennsylvania. NGLs include things like propane, butane, pentane and other items up the hydrocarbon chain, up to and including high-grade gasoline.

NGLs are nice. But they’re not crude oil. According to Matt Simmons last week in Denver, “There’s no such thing as West Texas Intermediate [WTI] oil anymore.” Mr. Simmons states that places like the pipeline crossroads at Cushing, Okla., are little more than “crude oil pharmacies” anymore.

That is, there are lower and lower flows of conventional oil from the wells of the traditional U.S. oil patch. Thus, operators at Cushing take whatever oil they can obtain from one place, plus whatever oil they can obtain from another place. They mix and match, and blend it all with synthetic crude from Canada. Maybe they add some imported oil juice and then send it down the line as WTI.

Along those lines, Venezuelan economist Carlos Rossi stated to ASPO his analysis of oil trends in the U.S. “You are worried about your foreign oil imports now,” he said. “You in the U.S. import about 65% of your oil today. You don’t like it. But if you follow the clear trends, by 2025, you’ll be importing about 92% of your oil. You’ll like that even less.” No doubt.

On that cheery note, let me quote James Kunstler, who recently summed up the problem, describing “the tragic evolution of an industrial economy into a financial-finagling economy.”

Jim Kunstler’s view is that sooner or later, the citizens will awaken and wonder how the energy situation could get so out of hand, or “stealing of their future,” as he phrases it. “Whatever else one might say about American culture,” adds Kunstler, “it is keenly attuned to a sense of heroes and villains. We take great pride in our ability to blow away the bad guys.”

Maybe those aliens realize this. And that’s why they haven’t shown up yet.

Until we meet again,
Byron King

October 27, 2009

Deep-Water Oil Won’t Cure Peak Oil was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

That’s the most that can be produced. So when recession causes a temporary decrease in world consumption, it can seem like those 85 million barrels are enough. But consumption is bound to resume its upward climb, while those 85 million barrels a day are all we get. The day of reckoning has just been delayed for a little bit.

“Can’t we get more than 85 million barrels?” some folks are bound to wonder. Let’s look into that.

Those Stubborn “Peak” Curves

This week I was in Denver, attending the 2009 conference of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas (ASPO). Despite all the happy talk in the Big Media about how the oil situation is under control, I assure you that the oil situation is NOT under control.

The market meltdown and world recession of the past year has bought some time, or stolen some time may be a better way of saying it. All the “peak” curves are still out there, but are merely adjusted a bit to the right on the timelines.

As Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant R. Lee Ermey likes to say on the television show Mail Call, “Wipe that smile off your face.” We’re staring at an energy problem that’s coming down the tracks like a runaway freight train. It’s just astonishing that more people don’t appreciate the looming impact of Peak Oil.

Meanwhile, the politicians are fooling around with the health care issue. Hmmm… I have some news for them. If you screw up energy, health care isn’t going to matter very much.

Oil Output Not Increasing

It might be a comforting thought to believe that world oil output can increase. Indeed, many policymakers in the U.S. and Europe apparently dream themselves to sleep at night pondering how the current oil volume of about 85 million barrels per day could move upward to, say, 95 million barrels per day — “if only the world oil industry were more efficient.”

Yeah, right. Except the global oil industry is not that model of dreamland efficiency. Sure, there are some bright spots. The big internationals like Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, etc. are good. There are some really good state oil firms like Brazil’s Petrobras and Norway’s StatoilHydro. Saudi Aramco is outstanding. These guys are all doing great work to keep the world’s pipelines and tankers filled.

But much of the rest of the world’s oil industry lacks the knack for capital discipline and crisp project execution. Venezuela’s oil industry is a basket case, what with the Chavez-led nationalizations and mass firings of recent years. Output is falling in Venezuela, and this from a nation with among the largest hydrocarbon reserves anywhere in the world.

Mexico’s national firm, Pemex, is nothing but a piggy bank for the politicians, who suck most of the investment capital away from the oil patch and into their own boondoggles. Thus is Pemex walking off a cliff of underinvestment, depletion and decline. According to Matt Simmons, Pemex may not be exporting any oil at all to the U.S. within 18-24 months.

Iran’s oil industry is in a slow death spiral, despite the occasional report of Chinese assistance with field development. Apparently, there’s a “Twitter Revolution” going on in Iran that includes people at the grass roots impeding the oil industry. Well, it worked to depose the Shah back in 1979. Perhaps the Iranians can rid themselves of their mullahs in a similar way.

Next door in Iraq, chaos reigns. According to Matt Simmons, the Iraqis “are in the dark about how to run their oil industry.” The Iraqi oil legislation is so burdensome that almost all players within the international energy industry are spurning Iraq, including the Chinese. Wow. When the Chinese won’t invest in your oil fields, there MUST be something wrong.

And so it goes. The bottom line is that we should expect a global oil shock by 2012, or earlier if global economic activity kicks into high gear. It should go without saying that despite any calamities that may come from such a thing, you would be very happy if you’d taken advantage of lower oil prices to stock up.

Until we meet again,
Byron King

October 23, 2009

Peak at 85 Million Barrels of Oil a Day was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

In a riveting talk that lasted well over an hour, Marcio detailed the immense petroleum potential of offshore Brazil, as well as the Amazon Basin.  If Marcio’s estimates are correct, Brazil may be the location of near 200 billion barrels of additional petroleum resources.  That’s well within the range of current resource estimates for Saudi Arabia.

For good measure, Marcio described the petroleum potential of offshore West Africa — another 130 billion barrels — as well as the Congo region, with 50 billion barrels or more.

Finally, Marcio described the “unknown potential of the US back yard, the Gulf of Mexico (GOM).”  Marcio offered remarkable insight into the deep regions of the GOM, 100 miles and more offshore Texas and Louisiana.  He showed early work he performed on a number of GOM areas, including the site of BP’s (BP: NYSE) recent billion-plus barrel find at the Tiber site.

It was clear from the reaction of many in the ASPO audience that Marcio hit nerves.  If his analyses of the South American, African and GOM petroleum systems are right, then in the future the world has access to much more conventional oil than people previously believed.  But it’s not the same as saying the nothing has to change in modern habits of energy use.  Getting this oil will require a trillion-dollar level of offshore, deepwater investment.  It’s a 50 to 100 year project.

The new thinking about deep petroleum systems may allow the world’s energy thinkers to back off from raw geologic concerns about the wheres and how-muches of resources.  But like a game of “whack-a-mole,” the reduced worry about geology now translates into a new emphasis on exploration and development technology, as well as capital, skilled personnel, political issues, environmental safety and climate alteration.

In the past 20 years, Marcio has pioneered the idea of detailed geochemical analysis of “petroleum systems” in the Southern Hemisphere.  The goal of the work is to identify and locate deply buried oil-bearing zones.  Marcio’s work led directly to dozens of oil finds by Petrobras, both onshore and offshore.  His work has also led to significant oil finds in the Caribbean region, Colombia and Peru.

Some Bad News

After Marcio Mello offered his ebullient view of future oil supplies in the world’s deep waters, the next day was a return to earth for the assembled throng at the Denver meeting of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas. The day was filled with well-informed viewpoints on the looming issues of energy scarcity in a capital-constrained world. Among other things…

Geologist Art Berman offered a decidedly negative view of the latest “big thing,” which is obtaining large volumes of natural gas from tight shales. In a comprehensive review of production and flow rates from several thousand wells drilled in the past decade in the Barnett Shale of Texas, Mr. Berman has a gloomy forecast.

Looking at a large sampling of Barnett wells, the overall data reveal that initial gas flows decline rapidly. With some wells, the drop-off is as much as 70% in the first year, with further declines of 20% in the second year.

This hardly dovetails with the happy talk about how “shale gas” will supply U.S. energy requirements for the next several decades, if not a couple of centuries. It appears that most Barnett wells are short-term money losers, with a few prolific wells carrying the bulk of capital expenditure. Across the industry, according to Mr. Berman, the whole process stays afloat due to liberal application of borrowed money, as well as dilution of existing shareholders by production companies issuing new stock.

According to Mr. Berman, the picture is not much better in other shale plays, such as the Fayetteville and Haynesville shales. And similar gloomy data are just now starting to come in on the embryonic gas play in the giant Marcellus formation of Pennsylvania.

And Peak Oil Still Looming

Matt Simmons gave another of his famous talks about the specter of Peak Oil. The only things that are changing, according to Mr. Simmons, are that things are getting worse for future energy supplies. It’s difficult to say with specificity how bad things are, because the data are so poor on a worldwide basis.

“Look at what happened with the bad information we had, or didn’t have, with the financial institutions over the past couple of years,” said Mr. Simmons. “With our energy data, it’s worse. We’re in for some shocks that will change our lives in ways that’ll rival Pearl Harbor.”

Expect to see oil at $200 per barrel by the end of 2010, according to Mr. Simmons. Also expect to see net oil exports from Mexico simply vanish within 24 months or less. This will play havoc with U.S. refiners on the Gulf Coast. Mexico has simply delayed for too long its effort to explore, drill and rebuild its fast-depleting oil resources. Mexico is going to have to scramble to salvage something from its looming energy disaster. These die are cast.

Things could go wrong with energy supplies in any of a dozen places, according to Mr. Simmons. For example, there’s a stealth “Twitter revolution” in Iran that’s slowly shutting down that country’s oil production. Shutting down the oil industry was the straw that broke the camel’s back and brought down the Shah in 1979. There’s some thinking that it may work to rid Iran of its mullahs.

In Venezuela, the output of the state oil company PdVSA is declining at alarming rates due to political interference and underinvestment.

In Nigeria, the low-grade civil war could quickly morph into a large-scale civil war.

In Iraq, according to Mr. Simmons, “They’re in the dark about how to rebuild their oil industry.”

And of course, a lucky terrorist shot could take down any of hundreds of major oil installations worldwide, wreaking havoc through the following ripple effect.

Mr. Simmons admires Brazil’s Petrobras, calling it “the finest large oil company in the world today.” But the offshore success of Petrobras will simply not be able to make up for the multitude of other problems with the global energy industry. There won’t be enough oil, and it won’t arrive in time. Longer term, Mr. Simmons expects to see oil at $500-700 per barrel. “People need to understand how expensive it is to obtain oil,” said Mr. Simmons.

Much of the world’s energy infrastructure is old and rusting and will require several trillions of dollars to replace — if it can be replaced. (Is there enough steel, for example? Where will the money come from?) Add the aging work force, within which many new hires were laid off in the past year. There’s a serious lack of skilled talent across the board, and no amount of clever management and automated “expert systems” will make up the difference.

Finally, new technology is coming on line slower than most people anticipated. The deeper, more challenging environments are sucking down technology and money, and yielding less than expected in many cases. According to one study, only eight out of 100 major energy projects came in on time, were within budget and yielded the expected volumes of oil and natural gas. Thus are high costs, delays and reduced cash flows hurting the ability of the energy industry to maintain adequate levels of capitalization.

The stark fact is that oil is going to get a lot more expensive and the bull market in oil will be firmly in place for a long time. Smart investors would take advantage of any corrections or dips to get themselves set for the ride.

Until we meet again,
Byron King

October 20, 2009

An Update on Peak Oil from ASPO was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

No one reads it. The mainstream media ignore it.

It’s the product of the best prognosticators in the Department of Energy. Okay, that may be what puts most people off. But if you’re patient enough to dig into it, it will cough up some fascinating nuggets of information.

The present edition is no exception. The report refrains from spelling out the conclusion that seems most obvious from its data. However, confirming a trend begun just last year, the 2009 edition clearly reveals that the government has been forced to admit that Peak Oil is coming. Moreover, it’s expected to arrive much faster than was believed as recently as two years ago.

This represents a remarkable turnaround in the agency’s opinion. Up until 2008, they were predicting unbroken growth in world oil supplies for the next two decades. But in ’08 and ’09, the rosy picture turned decidedly unrosier.

Before we look at the numbers, a couple of notes on terminology. The EIA makes its projections based on what its analysts call the “reference case,” i.e., average economic growth. It also provides estimates for better- and worse-case scenarios, but the reference case represents the best guesses they have.

Oil (as we generally think of it), upon which most of the world economy depends, is termed “conventional liquids,” i.e., the stuff that comes gushing up from under Saudi sands. “Unconventional liquids” – extra-heavy oil, bitumen, coal-to-liquids, gas-to-liquids, and biofuels – are also covered in the report, as we’ll see, but conventional is far and away the most important one at this moment in history.

With that in mind, by 2007 the IEO was in its final year of irrational exuberance, confidently predicting that world production of conventional liquids would be 107.5 million barrels/day (up from 81.9 in 2005). That dovetailed nicely with a forecast for world demand of 118 million b/d, with 10.5 million barrels of unconventional liquids taking up the slack.

By ’08, they had put the info into table form, and look what happened:

Same table, ’09:

Projected production, as you can see, is suddenly shriveling up. From 107.5 million b/d of oil projected for 2030 in 2007, to 102.9 million b/d in 2008, to this year’s meager expectation for 93.1 million. That’s a drop of 13.4% in only two years, and posits production growth of only 11.6 million b/d (14.2%) from 2006 levels.

If that isn’t an admission that the era of Peak Oil is upon us, what is?

The report assumes that some of this stunning shortfall will be made up by development of unconventional liquids to the tune of 13.5 million b/d, including a jump of 5.9 million b/d in biofuels. At the same time, while conventional liquid production from non-OPEC nations is projected to grow only 7%, OPEC is expected to substantially increase its contribution, ramping up output by almost 25%. (All figures are for the period of 2006-2030.)

Does this seem optimistic? Well, it presupposes some heavy lifting on the part of OPEC, a dicey proposition in the best of times.

And it means creation of the infrastructure necessary to exploit extra-heavy oils, tar sands, shale, ultradeep deposits and other unconventionals, all of which require sophisticated technological know-how and face significant environmental challenges.

Biofuel production could more easily be elevated. But to reach the lofty level of nearly 6 million b/d would necessitate a huge diversion of cropland from food to energy, certain to be attended by a rise in food prices, not to mention potentially serious food shortages. The need for food being rather more primal than the need for gasoline, politicians are going to be reluctant to risk loosing angry mobs into the streets.

Even if all of these developments proceed flawlessly, though, we’ll still have to face a widening gap between production and consumption. Or will we?

As it turns out, we’re in luck! Or so the EIA would have us believe. Because, accompanying that falling supply is – you guessed it – declining demand. In 2007, the IEO anticipated world demand for all liquids of 118 million b/d in 2030. This year, that estimate shrank to 107 million b/d, right in line with production.

The important point to take away from the IEO’s analysis is that the world is facing a decline in liquid fuel production and the government, after years of straight-faced denial, is now admitting it.

Does this mean we’re going to run out of oil? No. But supply constrictions mean that the good old days of limitless, cheap oil are gone. And, though viable alternatives eventually will be developed, there’s no way of putting a timetable on that. In the interim, we’re going to have to pay up if we want to keep the family jalopy on the road.

How much? The IEO report’s reference case calls for $130/barrel oil in 2030, but that’s based on relatively modest demand increases from India, China, and other developing nations, and we find it very optimistic. It easily could be twice that.

Regards,
Doug Hornig

August 31, 2009

Washington Capitulates: Peak Oil Is Real was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

For now, the “bottom” is in — that is, the bottom of this society’s ability to process reality. It may continue for a month of so, even after the “stress test” for banks is finally let out of the massage parlor with a “happy ending.” But events are underway that are beyond the command of personalities. We’re done “doing business” in all the ways that we’ve been used to, but we just can’t get with the new program. Let’s count the ways:

1) The revolving credit economy is over. It’s over because we can’t increase energy inputs to the system, which is one way of saying “peak oil.” Of course hardly anybody believes this right now because the price of oil crashed nine months ago, along with global manufacturing and trade. But nothing has changed on the peak oil scene — except perhaps that ever more new oil projects have been cancelled for lack of financing, which will boomerang on us (even if swine flu doesn’t) in the form of much lower future oil production. In any case, the credit fiesta is over, and the “consumer” economy with it, because industrial growth as we have known it is over. It’s over globally, too, though all regions of the world will not experience its demise the same way at the same rate.

The Asian nations may swap things around a while longer but China is basically screwed. They have less oil left than we have (which is saying, not much at all) and they won’t corner the rest of the global oil market without starting World War Three. Meanwhile, they’re running out of water and food. Good luck becoming the next global hegemon. Oh, and Japan imports 90 percent of its energy; India over 80 percent. Fuggeddabowdit.

Credit will not vanish everywhere overnight — even in the USA — because it is not distributed equally everywhere. But it will vanish in layers, and here in the USA a very broad layer of the lower and middle classes are now losing their access to it in one way or another — personally, in small business — and they will never get it back. Anyone who intends to thrive in the years just ahead had better plan on doing it on the basis of accounts receivable — and what they receive might not even necessarily come in the form of US dollars. It may come in the form of gold or silver or in the promise of reciprocal services rendered.

This has enormous implications for two of the items in which our credit-dispensing operations are most deeply vested: houses and cars. Unfortunately, these are exactly the things that economic life has been based on for decades in our nation, which leads to the next categories:

2) The suburban living arrangement is over, along with all its accessories and furnishings. Taken as “all of a piece,” the suburban expansion was one sixty-year-long orgasm of hypertrophy. We did it because we could. We won a world war and threw a party. We had lots of cheap land and cheap oil. It made lots of people lots of money and all its usufructs have become embedded in our national identity to the dangerous degree that the loss of them will provoke a kind of national psychotic breakdown. In fact, it already has. The completely unrealistic expectation that we can resume this way of life is proof of it.

The immediate problem is that we can’t build anymore of it. The next problem will be the failure of the stuff that already exists. The first stage of that is now palpable in the mortgage foreclosure fiasco and, just beginning now, the tanking of malls, strip centers, office parks and other commercial property investments. The latter will accelerate and become visible very quickly as retail tenants bug out and weeds start growing where the Chryslers and Pontiacs once parked. The next stage, which involves large demographic shifts in how we inhabit the landscape, has not quite gotten underway.

3) The Happy Motoring fiesta is over. You’d think that with Chrysler crawling into the bankruptcy court, and GM just weeks away from the same terminal ceremony, the news media would begin to suspect that the foundation of everyday life in this country was cracking. Instead, all we hear is blather about “market share” shifting to Toyota. News flash: not only will we make fewer automobiles in the USA, but Americans will buy far fewer cars made anywhere. We’ll keep the current fleet moving a while longer, but when it’s too beat to repair, we won’t be changing it out for a new fleet — despite all the fantasies about hybrids, plug-and-drive electrics, and so on. The masses will be too broke to buy these things. What’s more, they will be very resentful of the shrinking economic “elite” who can afford them. And, anyway, our roads and highways are destined to fall apart very quickly because there is no way we can sustain the necessary rate of normal maintenance. Meanwhile, we remain completely un-serious about public transit — even about fixing the vestiges that still exist. The airline industry, of course, will be toast inside of five years.

4) Our food production system is approaching crisis. There’s no way we can continue the petro-agriculture system of farming and the Cheez Doodle and Pepsi Cola diet that it services. The public is absolutely zombified in the face of this problem — perhaps a result of the diet itself. President Obama and Ag Secretary Vilsack have not given a hint that they understand the gravity of the situation. It is probably one of those unfortunate events of history that can only impress a society in the form of a crisis. It also happens to be one of the few problems we face that public policy could affect sharply and broadly — if we underwrote the reactivation of smaller, local farm operations instead of shoveling money to giant “agribusiness” (or Citibank, or Goldman Sachs, or AIG…). I maintain that this may be the year that the crisis gets our attention, because capital is suddenly harder to get than fossil-fuel-based fertilizer.

All these epochal discontinuities present themselves, for the moment, as a season of muted “hope” and general apathy. The days are suddenly mild. We’ve resumed old and happy habits of grilling meat outdoors and motoring to those remaining places that were not blanketed with franchised food huts and discount malls. We have a new, charming president with an appealing family. Newly-minted dollars are flowing to the “shovel-ready.” The new bad news is less bad than the old bad news (or seems to be). And the year just past has been such a bummer that our hard-wired human nature tells us that good things must be just around the corner.

Personally, I think a lot of good things await us, but not the ones we’re expecting — not a return to buying slurpees on credit cards. It will be very salutary to leave behind the junk empire we’ve accumulated and move into an epoch of quality and purpose. For the moment, though, our hopes reside elsewhere.

Regards,
James Howard Kunstler

May 8, 2009

The Bottom for Credit Thanks to Peak Oil was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

What’s going on now is nature’s way of telling you that America’s standard of living has to be reduced by something between 20 and 50 percent.  You can have it in the form of a compressive deflationary depression, including widespread bankruptcies… or you can have by way of inflation, in which money loses its value.  But there’s one basic qualification to this: the way down is not symmetrical with the way up.  That is, it’s really not just a matter of ratcheting down to a standard of living half of what it was, say, in 2006, because in the event all the various complex systems that support everyday life enter failure mode before our society re-sets at a theoretically lower level of equilibrium.

By this I mean our methods for getting food, for moving about the landscape, for deploying capital, for trading and manufacturing, for schooling, doctoring, and running public services all destabilize and, to some degree or other, fail to deliver their contribution to normal daily life.  Banking (capital deployment) is already mortally wounded.  It remains to be seen how this will affect the food supply half a year ahead in the harvest season.  Capital is as big an “input” for our method of farming as diesel fuel or fertilizers made from methane gas.  The failure of banking will combine with city and state insolvency to crush public transit, law enforcement, fire protection, and whatever flimsy local safety nets exist to keep the ultra-poor and helpless from die-off.  The lowering of living standards by 20 to 50 percent essentially eliminates all but the must critical commerce, meaning that most of the stores in the malls and strip malls lose their customers and shed employees, while the mall and strip mall owners lose their rents, and the bankers lose performing commercial real estate loans. As all this occurs, tax revenues go way down, schools can’t pay their employees or buy diesel fuel for their yellow bus fleets. More people lose the ability to carry health insurance.  Hospital emergency rooms are overwhelmed. Health care descends to Third World levels.  Meanwhile, pensions are destroyed, the elderly live on dog food and ketchup…

This is where we’re headed. It could easily be worse than the 1930s, when we still had plenty of family farms, plenty of oil, plenty of factories in good running order, and a highly regimented population of workers unaccustomed to luxury, leisure, and entitlement.  We’ve hardly begun to see the potential political repercussions of economic disorder now underway.  I think it will start to show in a big way not long after Memorial Day, when the current false euphoric Wall Street rally ends in yet another pool of tears, and the despair trickles downward. A crucial piece of the outcome depends on what happens over at Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department – which lately seems to have seceded from the federal government.  A peeved public is going to start wondering why the bankers and insurers have not been called in by the criminal division to do a little ‘splainin’.  As the spring yields to summer, the Obama team’s current fix-it plans are also likely to have run out of credibility.  Mr. O better be prepared to get a new game.

I spent the weekend at the yearly Aspen Institute Environmental Forum – a confab lately devoted about equally to the energy and climate fiascos.  It’s a peculiar exercise, since major sponsors include the oil and gas companies and the auto industry. The Saturday center-ring panel on peak oil, for instance, was shockingly weak, led by the flack from the Shell corporation, a charming lady, highly-skilled at blowing green smoke up the public’s ass. Even more shocking is the consensus among the presenters and attendees – including the hotshots of climate and energy science and the elder statespersons of environmentalism – that the energy problem merely amounts to finding other means for running all our cars.  The assumption that we must remain car-dependent remains absolutely entrenched among these people who ought to know better.  Of course, the words “public transit” were barely uttered.  It’s disappointing to find such idiocy among this particular elite.

But Sunday’s departure really plunged me into the epicenter of American idiocy – namely, the airline industry.  They’ve been running airplanes out of Pitkin County, Colorado for at least fifty years, but they seem to discover a’fresh every morning that strange winds blow through the valley.  After jerking around absolutely everybody in the terminal for a couple of hours with unexplained delays, the United Airlines ground crew announced that all flights for the day were cancelled, causing a rhino rush back out through the security checkpoints to re-booking counters.  I ended up on a bus for the Denver Airport – a five hour trip, including twenty-miles of parking-lot quality traffic along I-70 where the jackass Colorado DOT had closed down one eastbound lane, despite the fact that it was Sunday and there was no work going on there.

You’d also think that after all these years, the state of Colorado might have organized choo-choo train service from Denver into the ski valleys of the Rockies, given how important the ski industry is to the state’s economy – and how incredibly fragile the airline service is. But that would be too sensible for a nation determined to become the Bulgaria of the western hemisphere.  So, instead, they get up every single morning in Aspen and try to figure out whether commercial aviation works out there, and half the time it doesn’t.  Anyway, the Aspen Institute was very generous in organizing the bus trek out of there, and putting up us travelers stranded overnight in airport hotels.  Mine was some rummy operation called the Staybridge Inn where the vaunted in-room wireless didn’t work in my room, so I write to you in a dreary little chamber off the lobby where children are screaming from their overdoses of fry-max and melted cheese in the only dining venue (Ruby Tuesdays) along this massively over-scaled boulevard of chain motels.  I can easily see the whole miserable strip becoming a ruin inside of five years as the airline industry dies. Final note: the hotel elevator proudly declares itself to be the German-made product of the ThyssenKrupps corporation.  America’s so lame, it can’t even make its own elevators anymore.

(I apologize for a somewhat sloppy blog this week.  My tendencies to insomnia are aggravated by high altitude and I am cross-eyed with sleeplessness…)

Regards,
James Howard Kunstler

March 31, 2009

Reduced Standards of Living was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

The chief criticism is that the government should not be entrusted with any additional power to tax, for all the usual reasons.  With this point, I agree wholeheartedly and enthusiastically.  So why propose a tax?

The reason for the tax is to address a problem, one of unprecedented proportion and importance.  This problem is that we are now at peak oil – from here on out the world’s oil production will be declining.  This will, at the very least, hobble our economy, since our economy rides on the shoulders of energy consumption.  Immediate action is required to minimize later catastrophic suffering.

As natural market forces drive the cost of oil through the roof, you can be sure that the government will be ready to help out, with all kinds of regulations that distort the market, such as CAFE regulations, public transportation projects, and rationing.  Rather than all this counterproductive government meddling, a gas tax that exploits market forces directly would stimulate all the desirable capitalistic impulses with a minimum of governmental meddling and bureaucratic drag and a maximum of positive effect.

A second criticism is that the tax will not help the poor or save the environment.  While I disagree with this view, this was never the motivation for the proposal.  The motivation for the tax is to anticipate the inevitable escalation of the price of oil, in order to give us the needed time and the motivation to adjust to limited oil.  The fact that it helps the poor (and the majority) serves as a political sweetener.

As to not helping the poor, the “net-positive” gas tax is a financial win for the 60 percent of households with the least income, with a net gain of over $2,000 for those in the lowest decile.  It is hard to believe that this tax would not help the poor.

A third criticism is that reduced U.S. consumption due to the tax would decrease the worldwide price of oil, which would in turn slow foreign alternative energy research.  I can only see this as a benefit.  It would reduce the effective price of gasoline to U.S. consumers, lower than they would be paying without the tax, and it would give U.S. industry a competitive advantage in alternative energy research.

A fourth criticism is that the poor will suffer because they won’t be able to manage their windfall gain from the tax.  This is insulting to the poor, because being poor does not imply being stupid.  But to the extent that it might carry some truth, having a gas tax rebate should be considered as a valuable learning experience.

A final criticism is that the higher price of gasoline caused by the tax will be disruptive to businesses.  To the extent that this criticism has validity, we should act now, preemptively, with a net-positive gas tax, to avoid the impact of later calamitous price hikes.

Global oil production has now peaked and is now in a state of permanent decline.  Thanks to our relatively free and open market, the price of oil has largely been pegged to the cost of production rather than to the value of consumption.  We should ask ourselves what the value of consumption truly is, for this is where the price of oil will soon be heading.  What is the most you would be willing to spend for a gallon of gasoline?  $10, $20, $30, …?  Or alternatively, who needs to be killed in order to keep the price of gasoline affordable?  Think about it.

Regards,
George Doddington

March 30, 2009

A Response to Criticism of a “Net-Positive” Gas Tax was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

My guess is that the disorder in agriculture will be pretty severe this year, especially since some of the world’s most productive places — California, northern China, Argentina, the Australian grain belt — are caught in extremes of drought on top of capital shortages. If the US government is going to try to make remedial policy for anything, it better start with agriculture, to promote local, smaller-scaled farming using methods that are much less dependent on oil byproducts and capital injections.
     
This will, of course, require a re-allocation of lands suitable for growing food. Our real estate market mechanisms could conceivably enable this to happen, but not without a coherent consensus that it is imperative to do so. If agri-business as currently practiced doesn’t founder on capital shortages, it will surely collapse on disruptions in the oil markets. President Obama at least made a start in the right direction by proposing to eliminate further subsidies to farmers above the $250,000 level. But the situation is really more acute. Surely the US Department of Agriculture already knows about it, but the public may not be interested until the shelves in the Piggly-Wiggly are bare — and then, of course, they’ll go apeshit.
    
The recent huge drop in oil prices has left the public once again convinced that the world is drowning in oil — if only the scoundrelly oil companies were forced to deliver it at reasonable prices. The public has been consistently deluded about this for decades. What’s missing so far is for the president of the US to lay out the reality of the situation in a dedicated TV address. I know a lot of you think that Jimmy Carter already tried this and failed to make an impression (and ruined his presidency in the process). I guarantee you that Mr. Obama will have to do this sometime in the next few years whether he likes or not, and he’d be well-advised to get it done sooner rather than later. And by this I don’t mean just vague allusions to “energy independence” or “renewables” in speeches devoted to many other issues. I mean telling the public the plain truth that we’ll never offset oil depletion and the intelligent response is to do everything possible to transition to walkable towns and public transit, not to sustain the unsustainable.
     
The alternatives — i.e. what we’re trying now — is to further delude ourselves into thinking that we can run WalMart and the suburbs by some other means than oil. Despite all our investments in these things, we won’t be able to run them by other means, and the news about this had better get out before enormous disappointment turns into titanic rage. If Americans think they’ve been grifted by Goldman Sachs and Bernie Madoff, wait until they find out what a swindle the so-called “American Dream” of suburban life turns out to be.
    
On this blizzardy Monday in the power centers of America, attention is fixed on the never-ending fiasco of AIG — a company whose main product turned out to be credit default swaps, and is now choking on them. Kibitzers on the sidelines of finance are forecasting a king-hell bear market suckers’ rally in the stock markets followed by a belly flop to Dow 4000 or lower. I myself called for Dow 4000 two years ago — and was obviously a bit off on my timing. All this is surely trouble enough. But while your attention is focused on Rick Santelli in the Chicago trader’s pit, or Larry Kudlow desperately seeking “mustard seeds” of new growth in financials, try to let one eye stray to the horizon where these other complex systems are working out their next moves. Farming. The oil markets. These are the coming theaters of alarm and distress.

Regards,
James Howard Kunstler

March 3, 2009

Peak Oil, Credit and the Collapse of Complex Systems: What Next? was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

Prices communicate information. The NYMEX February oil contract fell over 5% today in New York trading to $34.40. This suggests oil is falling in value, at least in the short term. And maybe that’s not totally a lie.

After all, the current oil price results from two factors. First, the absence of leverage from the oil futures market leaves prices reflecting immediate supply and demand. With inventories full, the market seems well supplied (so much so that OPEC is cutting production). Second, the reality that oil demand will be flat or slightly fall this year because of the worldwide financial pandemic.

Adequate supply plus stagnant demand equals $35 oil. So why is the December 2010 oil contract trading nearly 80% higher at $61.80? What could possibly happen between now and December 2010 that would cause oil to go up 80%?

Well, for one thing you might be in the early stages of an economic recovery by then. Demand would have recovered. Shares could be higher. Everything could be fine.

But we can think of at least three reasons why the current oil price is headed much higher this year (not in 2010). First, the lower oil price is actually going to lead to lower oil production later this year and next. Oil production is declining to begin with. But the crash in prices has put the kibosh on exploration and production.

Second, as Diggers and Drillers contributor Mike Graham explains in a January article on the subject, the clear trend within the oil market is that historical exporters are exporting less oil. There are several reasons for this, which Mike gets into in his story.

One is that oil exporters are hoarding it now and waiting for higher prices later. Another is that oil exporters are consuming more of their own production, leaving less for export. And still a third reason is that the world’s largest oil exporters face declining production trends thanks to…you guessed it…Peak Oil.

Yes. Peak Oil has not gone away. It’s been sent to the corner while the Credit Depression hogs the stage. But Goldman Sachs oil analyst Jeffrey Currie issued a report yesterday predicting a, “swift and violent rise” in oil prices in the second half of 2009.

Currie told a conference in London that, “”Thirty dollar oil reflects the same imbalances that got us to $147 oil. The problems haven’t gone away. We still believe the day of reckoning is to come.” What problems?

There are still major infrastructure bottlenecks in the global oil network. Currie says that despite the big fall off in demand, “This is not 1982-1983 all over again. The supply picture’s radically different…the demand picture’s radically different. The key difference is that today there are no large-scale next generation projects that are going to save the world. Commodity demand is exponentially higher than it was.”

This brings us to the third reason oil prices should rise later this year: the oil trade is back on. Sure, credit may still be a scarce commodity. But if you judge traders by their actions, you can see the market is setting up for a big oil back draft. As evidence, Bloomberg reports that, “Morgan Stanley hired a super tanker to store crude oil in the Gulf of Mexico, joining Citigroup Inc. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc in trying to profit from higher prices later in the year, two shipbrokers said.”

Our friend Dan Amoss back in America calls this the oil arbitrage trade, where supply is stockpiled offshore, and thus withheld from refiners, allowing existing gasoline inventories to be worked down. Then in six to twelve months time, when crude prices have moved higher, you simply park your ship at the terminal and cash in on the difference between what you paid six months ago (today) and the new market price.

It is normal for the oil futures to be in contango, where spot prices are lower than futures prices. What’s less normal is the amount of oil being stockpiled offshore. “Frontline Ltd., the world’s biggest owner of supertankers, said Jan. 14 about 80 million barrels of crude oil are being stored in tankers, the most in 20 years,” Bloomberg ads.

We also suspect that oil as an inflation hedge will come back into vogue later this year, which might be adding to the appeal of buying today at bargain basement prices. What’s more, you can never discount (although you can never fully quantify) the geopolitical aspect of oil prices. A good general rule of thumb is the more war there is in the Middle East, the more likely oil is to go higher.

Next is a massive topic we are reluctant to introduce today. But we have to. There is no other way around it. It begins with a question: how much air is left in the credit bubble?

Actually, the question comes via Howard Ruff and Steve Hochberg. Let’s start with Hochberg.

He’s the lead analyst at Elliot Wave International. Bob Prechter’s folks have been forecasting for years that the collapse of the credit bubble would lead to a general and massive deflation, including much lower gold prices. In his latest analysis, courtesy of a DR Reader, Hochberg explains:

“The systemic build up of total market credit is so large, currently about $52 trillion, that its implosion will swamp the Fed’s attempts to inflate. And as Conquer the Crash discusses, the remaining dollars that are not extinguished through bankruptcy, restructuring and write-offs, will increase in value. The thirst for cash will be insatiable relative to all other assets.

“Initially, the Fed’s attempt to inflate was akin to using a garden hose to refill Lake Mead after the Hoover Dam collapsed. Over the past five months the chart shows that the Fed has graduated to a fire hose. But creating just over $2 trillion in the face of a contracting pool of $52 trillion in total credit market debt is just not going to get the job done, and the only thing getting hosed right now is us.”

“Eventually credit will contract to the point whereby the income generated from economic production will be able to sustain it and at that point, yes, the U.S. dollar should indeed collapse of the weight of all the Fed’s machinations and gold should soar. But before the market arrives at that point, deflation must run its course. In our opinion, there is still a long way to go.”

But how far? A lot depends on the composition of that $52 trillion in credit. It can’t all just vanish can it? But how much of it is securitised by relatively stable assets? And how much of it could potentially melt away under the intense heat of deflation?

This is not an easy question to answer. But it begins with knowing what you’re dealing with. Specifically, you have to know who owes how much, and who owns how much. Those are two different questions. Let’s deal with the first one. And we promise we’ll make this as painless as possible. If you want to review this data yourself, by the way, you can find it here.

Keep in mind this data deals just with the U.S. And keep in mind it is government data. But the general question is this: how much deflation is left in the credit bubble and who stands the most to lose from it?

The Fed breaks up the total credit market debt outstanding into three categories: Domestic Nonfinancial Sectors (households, farms, nonfinancial corporations, state and local governments, and the Federal government), Financial Sectors (commercial banking, REITs, broker dealers, savings institutions, Government sponsored enterprise, Agency and GSE pools, and issuers of asset backed securities), and finally, the rest of the world.

What we find is that $32.9 trillion in credit market debt outstanding, as of the third quarter in 2008, was owed by the domestic non-financial sector. That’s 63% of the $52 trillion total. Households are on the hook for most of that, with $13.9 trillion owed (or 26% of all credit market debt outstanding). That would mostly be home mortgages we reckon.

Next within the financial sector are non-financial corporate businesses with $7 trillion, non-farm corporate businesses at $3.7 trillion, state and local governments at $2.2 trillion, and the United States Federal government at $5.5 trillion.

So what does it tell us? Well it tells us that if U.S. house prices continue to fall, there is a lot of room left to deflate in the credit bubble, at least several trillion dollars. It’s not hard to see this happening, given the rise in foreclosures, the prospect of even less federal funding for refinancing of mortgages, and the sudden collapse of America’s banking model.

But the lack of credit for refinancing and the looming wave of Alt-A recasts this year and next is, in some sense, already old news. What also keeps us up at night is the $16 trillion in credit owed by the financial sectors. How much of that is at risk to further deflation?

You can get an idea by looking at the L2 table on page 59 of the Flow of Funds report. There is $6 trillion in corporate bonds outstanding. Nearly $5 trillion in Agency and GSE-backed securitised mortgage pools are on the books, and another $3.1 trillion in GSE debt itself. This does not include $1 trillion in “other loans and advances” which may or may not include home equity lines of credit.

We’re sure you get the picture by now. There is still at least $8 trillion housing related assets owed by the financial sector. That might be kind of tough to pay off, given the falling value of the assets which securitise that debt. So who stands the most to lose if households can’t pay their mortgages, corporations default on their bonds, and housing-related assets held by financial corporations continue to fall?

The financial sector combined holds $37 trillion in credit market “assets.” It owns $37 trillion in other people’s promises to pay. Those promises, all $37 trillion of them, are on the books at face value. What’s more, U.S.-chartered commercial banks (Citibank, Bank of America for example) own $8.2 trillion in credit market “assets.” Life insurance companies own another $2.9 trillion. Money market mutual funds own $2.1 trillion in credit market assets, while mutual funds own $2.3 trillion.

Do you see what we’re getting at? The institutions that have the most to lose from a fall in the value of their credit market “assets” also have large obligations to shareholders and pensioners. Those institutions are counting on those assets to meet their own future liabilities (which do not fluctuate in value). And households are relying on those assets to retire, or in some cases, to live month-to-month on a fixed income.

Someone is going to lose, somehow. Or everyone will.

Households win if the value of the credit they owe (their mortgage) is written down or managed lower by some new law. But investors counting on that asset (often the household itself through a pension or life insurance) don’t win if the amount they are owed is arbitrarily reduced.

Either way, Prechter’s group is probably right. There is more deflation ahead. A lot of it. And not just in housing.

The corporate bond market would be another place to look. Corporate defaults haven’t begun to rise noticeably yet. But faced with a much slower economy and much higher borrowing costs, it’s going to be tough for highly indebted firms to roll over their debt, much less take on anything new. Dividends are already being slashed here in Australia.

And where does the deflation of the $52 trillion credit bubble leave us? Well Howard Ruff reckons we get a period of serious deflation, punctuated by a period of hyperinflation. Over at Kitco, he writes that, “First, we will continue to plunge into a major deflation period which will be characterized as a ‘recession,’ and later in the year as a ‘depression.’ Deflation and inflation are always monetary phenomena.”

“Second, deflation will evolve into a run-away-hyper-inflationary depression because of what government will do to try to prevent deflation, which is synonymous with depression and has overtones of the 1930s.”
How will government accomplish that? Stay tuned…

Regards,
Dan Denning

January 26, 2009

The Swift and Violent Rise of Oil was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

Just as global oil production peaked, our economy evolved into a morbid hypertrophy, and the chief manifestation of it was the suburban sprawl-building fiesta that has now climaxed in the real estate bust. By the early 21st century, when so much American manufacturing had been swapped out to Asia, there was no business left except sprawl-building — a manifold tragedy which wrecked the banks that financed it, and left the ordinary people mortgaged to it with ruinous liabilities.

That economy is now in its death throes. The “normality” it represents to so many Americans is gone and can’t be brought back, no matter how wistfully we watch it recede. Even so, it was obviously not good for the country. The terrain of North America has been left scarred by unlovable objects and baleful futureless vistas that, from now on, will shed whatever pecuniary value they once had. It represents the physical counterpart to the financial mess that has been left to the young generations to clean up — and the job will take a very long time.

We have to, so to speak, get to place mentally where we can face the kinds of change that are now necessary and unavoidable. We’re not there yet. It’s not clear whether the elected new national leadership knows just how severe the required changes will really be. Surely the public would be shocked to grasp what’s in store. Probably the worst thing we can do now would be to mount a campaign to stay where we are, lost in raptures of happy motoring and blue-light-special shopping.

The economy we’re evolving into will be un-global, necessarily local and regional, and austere. It won’t support even our current population. This being the case, the political fallout is also liable to be severe. For one thing, we’ll have to put aside our sentimental fantasies about immigration. This is almost impossible to imagine, since that narrative is especially potent among the Democratic Party members who are coming in to run things. A tough immigration policy is exactly the kind of difficult change we have to face. This is no longer the 19th century. The narrative has to change.

The new narrative has to be about a managed contraction — and by “managed” I mean a way that does not produce civil violence, starvation, and public health disasters. One of the telltale signs to look for will be whether the Obama administration bandies around the word “growth.” If you hear them use it, it will indicate that they don’t understand the kind of change we face.

It is hugely ironic that the US automobile industry is collapsing at this very moment, and the ongoing debate about whether to “rescue” it or not is an obvious kabuki theater exercise because this industry is hopeless. It is headed into bankruptcy with one hundred percent certainty. The only thing in question is whether the news of its death will spoil the Christmas of those who draw a paycheck from it, or those whose hopes for an easy retirement are vested in it. But American political-economy being very Santa Claus oriented for recent generations, the gesture will be made. A single leaky little lifeboat will be lowered and the chiefs of the Big Three will be invited to go for a brief little row, and then they will sink, glug, glug, glug, while the rusty old Titanic of the car industry slides diagonally into the deep behind them, against a sickening greenish-orange sunset backdrop of the morbid economy.

A key concept of the economy to come is that size matters — everything organized at the giant scale will suffer dysfunction and failure. Giant companies, giant governments, giant institutions will all get into trouble. This, unfortunately, doesn’t bode so well for the Obama team and it is salient reason why they must not mount a campaign to keep things the way they are and support enterprises that have to be let go, including many of the government’s own operations. The best thing Mr. Obama can do is act as a wise counselor companion-in-chief to a people who now have to leave a lot behind in order to move forward into a plausible future. He seems well-suited to this task in sensibility and intelligence. The task will surely include a degree of pretense that he is holding some familiar things together and propping up some touchstones of the comfortable life. But the truth is we are all going to the same unfamiliar new territory.

The economy we’re moving into will have to be one of real work, producing real things of value, at a scale consistent with energy resource reality. I’m convinced that farming will come much closer to the center of economic life, as the death of petro-agribusiness makes food production a matter of life and death in America — as opposed to the disaster of metabolic entertainment it is now. Reorganizing the landscape itself for this finer-scaled new type of farming is a task fraught with political peril (land ownership questions being historically one of the main reasons that societies fall into revolution). The public is completely unprepared for this kind of change. We still think that “the path to success” is based on getting a college degree certifying people for a lifetime of sitting in an office cubicle. This is so far from the approaching reality that it will be eventually viewed as a sick joke — like those old 1912 lithographs of mega-cities with Zeppelins plying the air between Everest-size skyscrapers.

The crucial element in the transformation underway will be emotion. The American experience for a few generations has produced an adult population with very childish instincts, increasingly worse each decade. For instance, the desperate power fantasies among the younger tattooed lumpenproles — those with next-to-zero real economic power — suggest a certain unappetizing playing-out of resource competition when the supply of Cheez Doodles and Pepsi starts to dwindle. But even the heretofore gainfully employed middle classes are pretty lost in fantasies at least of comfort and convenience. For years now, I have wondered how their sense of grievance and resentment will be expressed when the supermarket shelves run bare and the cardboard signs get taped over the local gas pump and the cable TV gets cut off for non-payment. You wonder, to put it bluntly, how far gone we really are.

Regards,
Jim Kunstler

December 19, 2008

Oil And Resources: Change You Won’t Believe was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder