Friday, March 25, 2011
Can a peak oil novel change the conversation?
The following piece appeared on 321energy by invitation from the owners of that site.
Those who are aware that world oil production is nearing or has perhaps passed its all-time peak will no doubt find the following scenario familiar: You're at a party or other event talking with a group of people you've only just met and you mention peak oil. All you get are blank stares. Absolutely no one knows what you are talking about.
To those who stay on top of the oil news, it's hard to believe that most people, even most supposedly educated and informed people, have no clue about the trajectory of the world's most important commodity. With all the websites, blogs, articles, videos, documentaries, and books devoted to the topic of peak oil, somehow it seems inconceivable that the peak oil idea has gotten so little purchase on the public mind.
So, we say to ourselves that we must redouble our efforts to try to get the word out. But it occurred to me back in 2007 that we might not be getting the word out in all the right ways. I realized then that much of what the public learns it learns through entertainment and the arts, and that these were neglected avenues for peak oil activists. And so, I resolved to write a peak oil-themed novel. That novel finally came to fruition last year with the title Prelude.
My aim was as follows: Write an engaging thriller that would appeal to readers because it is a good thriller, not because it is a book about peak oil. Story first, message second! I imagined that the book's initial path of distribution, however, would be through those who are peak oil aware. They would read the book and decide (I hoped) that it was an excellent tool for spreading awareness about peak oil--a book that anyone who liked to read novels would find compelling.
So far things are going according to plan. Many people have said they enjoyed Prelude, even those who already know a lot about peak oil. And, more important, they have recommended it, given it or lent it to friends, family members and colleagues. My own experience is that people who have read the book and who had no prior familiarity with the peak oil issue say essentially, "I had no idea!" These newly aware readers seem anxious to tell others what they have learned.
A few other novels that mention peak oil have been published since I conceived of Prelude. I count this all to the good. Peak oil themes have also found their way into art, cartoons, stand-up comedy, theater, songs and even poetry. This is an excellent start, and I expect mentions of peak oil in the arts and entertainment to continue to increase as the reality of our situation unfolds.
My own approach was to set the story of Prelude in contemporary society. I believed that readers would more readily identify with a world familiar to them than one set in the distant future or transfigured by an imaginary crisis. I wanted to create a story that would allow people to reinterpret the news they are getting about energy within the context of peak oil and set them on the road to further inquiry. Only time will tell if I have succeeded.
I am, however, encouraged by the gracious people at 321energy, especially Bob Moriarty and Jim Nrg. They feel so strongly that Prelude can and should succeed that they invited me to write this piece. On top of that they offered to feature the book on this site, an extraordinary gesture for a site devoted mostly to investment information. But I think both men understand how much better off the world would be if everyone understood peak oil, and families, communities, businesses and governments began to prepare for its consequences.
If you end up reading Prelude and find it compelling, I hope you will pass it on or recommend it. There have been cases in the past where a novel has broadly informed and dramatically galvanized public opinion. Uncle Tom's Cabin, the novel about slavery published in 1852, revolutionized Americans' thinking on the topic. It turned out to be the second bestselling book of the 19th century, right behind the Bible. Two generations later Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle, which followed the life of a worker in a Chicago meatpacking plant. Appearing in early 1906, it so enraged the public about unsanitary conditions in such plants that it led to the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act by the end of that year.
Could Prelude result in something as dramatic as all that? Well, it's already changing the conversation for some people. And, with the help of the good folks at 321energy and the book's expanding readership, who knows?
__________________________________
To learn more about Prelude, visit www.preludethenovel.com.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Calculating calamity: Japan's nuclear accident and the "antifragile" alternative
Famed student of risk and probability and author of The Black Swan Nassim Nicholas Taleb tells us that in 2003 Japan's nuclear safety agency set as a goal that fatalities resulting from radiation exposure to civilians living near any nuclear installation in Japan should be no more than one every million years. Eight years after that goal was adopted, it looks like it will be exceeded and perhaps by quite a bit, especially now that radiation is showing up in food and water near the stricken Fukushima Dai-ichi plant. (Keep in mind that "fatalities" refers not just to immediate deaths but also to excess cancer deaths due to radiation exposure which can take years and even decades to show up.)
Taleb writes that it is irresponsible to ask people to rely on the calculation of small probabilities for man-made systems since these probabilities are almost impossible to calculate with any accuracy. (To read his reasoning, see entry 142 on the notebook section of his website entitled "Time to understand a few facts about small probabilities [criminal stupidity of statistical science].") Natural systems that have operated for eons may more easily lend themselves to the calculation of such probabilities. But man-made systems have a relatively short history to draw from, especially the nuclear infrastructure which is no more than 60 years old. Calculations for man-made systems that result in incidents occurring every million years should be dismissed on their face as useless.
Furthermore, he notes, models used to calculate such risk tend to underestimate small probabilities. What's worse, the consequences are almost always wildly underestimated as well. Beyond this, if people are told that a harmful event has a small chance of happening, say, 1 in a 1,000, they tend to dismiss it, even if that event might have severe consequences. This is because they don't understand that risk is the product of probability times severity.
If the worst that walking across your room could do is cause a bruise from falling, you wouldn't think much about it. Even if the chance of getting a bruise were significant, you'd probably be careful and figure it's worth the risk. But if walking across your room subjected you to the possibility of losing your arm, you might contemplate your next move a bit more.
But, the point Taleb makes is that the people of Japan did not know they were subjecting themselves to this severe a risk. If they had, they might have prepared for it or they might have even rejected nuclear power altogether in favor of other energy sources. But, both the probability and severity of this event were outside the models the regulatory agencies used. This is one of the major reasons we often underestimate risk and severity. But even if such an event had been included, the consequences would most likely have been considerably underestimated.
It is the nature of complex societies to continually underestimate risks. What we tend to do is to assign a probability to a possible harmful event and think that by assigning that probability we have understood the event and its consequences. It is a kind of statistical incantation that is no more useful than shouting at the rain. But because it comes wrapped inside a pseudo-scientific package, we are induced to believe it. If important men and women with PhDs have calculated the numbers, they must be reliable, right?
When it comes to calculating the extremes of physical attributes such as the height or weight of human beings, we have a large number of cases and we have the limits of biology and physics to guide us. No human can be 100 feet tall or weigh 10,000 pounds. But when it comes to social phenomena, we are often lost. Human-built systems produce unpredictable outcomes precisely because humans are so unpredictable. They have behavior patterns, but those patterns can't be described in equations. In our world, millions and even billions of people are making decisions which affect markets, technology and society every day, and no one is capable of observing and calculating the effects of such decisions. This makes any resulting patterns difficult if not impossible to ascertain. And, when we try to gauge the effect of actual and possible natural phenomena on human-built systems and vice versa with the precision of several decimal places, we are only fooling ourselves.
So what should we do? Normally, we say we should try to make our systems more robust, that is, harder to destroy or cripple under extreme conditions. This seems altogether reasonable. But what if there is another choice? What if it is possible to build systems that thrive when subjected to large variations? Taleb points to such a possibility in an article entitled "Antifragility or The Property Of Disorder-Loving Systems." The text is difficult unless you've read his other work extensively. But look at the chart, and you will begin to get an idea of what he means by antifragility.
The relocalization movement should take note that as serious a thinker as Taleb has characterized a decentralized, artisan-based culture as one that is antifragile. It might be useful to figure out how to explain this advantage to interested audiences who are watching the complex systems of modern society crumble around them.
Taleb writes that it is irresponsible to ask people to rely on the calculation of small probabilities for man-made systems since these probabilities are almost impossible to calculate with any accuracy. (To read his reasoning, see entry 142 on the notebook section of his website entitled "Time to understand a few facts about small probabilities [criminal stupidity of statistical science].") Natural systems that have operated for eons may more easily lend themselves to the calculation of such probabilities. But man-made systems have a relatively short history to draw from, especially the nuclear infrastructure which is no more than 60 years old. Calculations for man-made systems that result in incidents occurring every million years should be dismissed on their face as useless.
Furthermore, he notes, models used to calculate such risk tend to underestimate small probabilities. What's worse, the consequences are almost always wildly underestimated as well. Beyond this, if people are told that a harmful event has a small chance of happening, say, 1 in a 1,000, they tend to dismiss it, even if that event might have severe consequences. This is because they don't understand that risk is the product of probability times severity.
If the worst that walking across your room could do is cause a bruise from falling, you wouldn't think much about it. Even if the chance of getting a bruise were significant, you'd probably be careful and figure it's worth the risk. But if walking across your room subjected you to the possibility of losing your arm, you might contemplate your next move a bit more.
But, the point Taleb makes is that the people of Japan did not know they were subjecting themselves to this severe a risk. If they had, they might have prepared for it or they might have even rejected nuclear power altogether in favor of other energy sources. But, both the probability and severity of this event were outside the models the regulatory agencies used. This is one of the major reasons we often underestimate risk and severity. But even if such an event had been included, the consequences would most likely have been considerably underestimated.
It is the nature of complex societies to continually underestimate risks. What we tend to do is to assign a probability to a possible harmful event and think that by assigning that probability we have understood the event and its consequences. It is a kind of statistical incantation that is no more useful than shouting at the rain. But because it comes wrapped inside a pseudo-scientific package, we are induced to believe it. If important men and women with PhDs have calculated the numbers, they must be reliable, right?
When it comes to calculating the extremes of physical attributes such as the height or weight of human beings, we have a large number of cases and we have the limits of biology and physics to guide us. No human can be 100 feet tall or weigh 10,000 pounds. But when it comes to social phenomena, we are often lost. Human-built systems produce unpredictable outcomes precisely because humans are so unpredictable. They have behavior patterns, but those patterns can't be described in equations. In our world, millions and even billions of people are making decisions which affect markets, technology and society every day, and no one is capable of observing and calculating the effects of such decisions. This makes any resulting patterns difficult if not impossible to ascertain. And, when we try to gauge the effect of actual and possible natural phenomena on human-built systems and vice versa with the precision of several decimal places, we are only fooling ourselves.
So what should we do? Normally, we say we should try to make our systems more robust, that is, harder to destroy or cripple under extreme conditions. This seems altogether reasonable. But what if there is another choice? What if it is possible to build systems that thrive when subjected to large variations? Taleb points to such a possibility in an article entitled "Antifragility or The Property Of Disorder-Loving Systems." The text is difficult unless you've read his other work extensively. But look at the chart, and you will begin to get an idea of what he means by antifragility.
The relocalization movement should take note that as serious a thinker as Taleb has characterized a decentralized, artisan-based culture as one that is antifragile. It might be useful to figure out how to explain this advantage to interested audiences who are watching the complex systems of modern society crumble around them.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Prelude goes international
Prelude, my peak oil novel, is now available internationally through many online and brick and mortar bookstores. To get a sense of the ever-widening scope of distribution, have a look at the “Where to Order” page on the Prelude site or see the sidebar on this blog. Those in Europe and Japan will find the book easy to get and much cheaper to ship since their orders will be originating in or near their home countries. Distribution in Canada is also widening as independent bookstores now have Prelude listed in their ordering systems. Amazon Canada is listing the book online as well.
By midsummer Prelude will be printed and distributed in Australia making the book easier for those in the land down under to obtain.
Prelude is currently only available in English. But I’m hoping that will change in the year ahead.
By midsummer Prelude will be printed and distributed in Australia making the book easier for those in the land down under to obtain.
Prelude is currently only available in English. But I’m hoping that will change in the year ahead.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Memo to market: High oil prices are DE-flationary
As the European Central Bank (ECB) prepares to raise interest rates to prevent inflation, the bank cites rising commodity prices, particularly oil prices, as a sign of that inflation. What the bank and other market participants don't seem to understand is that high commodity prices and, in particular, high oil prices are deflationary.
The logic is so simple it's hard to understand why smart people with advanced degrees can't see it. Commodities, particularly oil, pull money away from other sectors of the economy. When people are forced to choose between paying for heat and gasoline or paying the mortgage, they pay for heat and gasoline. Cars don't budge without gasoline (unless you can afford an electric one) and most people need their cars to get to work. The heat can be turned off rather quickly by the utility company in comparison to the glacial pace of a mortgage foreclosure that can take many months and sometimes more than a year.
This situation is particularly problematic because it pulls money out of the financial sector. And, despite all the nonsense about the financial industry being on the mend, the industry is actually becoming more and more vulnerable by the day as it increases its exposure and leverage to financial and commodity markets. The speculative animal spirits of the banks, hedge funds and other large investors, buoyed by all the virtually free money available for borrowing and huge taxpayer-financed injections into zombie banks, may now be hurtling us toward another jaw-dropping financial catastrophe. As Hyman Minsky might put it, stability and prosperity lead to instability and crisis as market participants become more and more emboldened on the upswing creating the illusion that all is well. Then, when prices and credit expansion go beyond what the economy can sustain, a decline ensues that is often dramatic as confidence suddenly shifts to revulsion and fear.
As housing prices continue to sink, the immense amount of bad mortgage debt still floating around the financial system becomes even more putrid than before. Someday the institutions which hold the debt will have to stop pretending that they are going to get paid back. But the prelude to that will be deflation brought on by the high prices of oil and commodities which tend to depress economic activity as household spending is reserved for essentials rather than discretionary items. As the animal spirits in the markets get dampened by the realities in the economy, the stage is set for a crisis--a turning point when confidence and liquidity turn into fear and illiquidity as big investors try to exit positions all at the same time.
Compounding the deflationary forces inherent in high commodity prices are severe cutbacks by states hit by declining revenues, federal cutbacks, and austerity programs now being implemented across Europe. All of these add to the deflationary juggernaut.
It is certainly possible that commodity prices including oil could rise much higher before the effects described above finally topple the economy. And, it's possible that those prices could moderate and fall gently in a way that might lengthen any economic recovery under way. But it does seem that we are much closer to a top in commodity prices than to a bottom.
The U.S. Federal Reserve Board seems to agree that high oil prices could be deflationary. One of the Fed governors indicated that the Fed's attempts to boost the economy by buying government bonds (and thus lowering long-term interest rates) could be extended if oil prices continue to rise.
I don't know what the interest rate policy for the ECB or the Federal Reserve should be. I think neither have good options. I do know that 10 of the last 11 recessions were preceded by oil price shocks. And, this time we are dealing with shocks not only in oil, but also in food, just as we did in 2008. And, I don't have to remind readers what happened after that.
Will we see a repeat of 2008 in 2011? Mark Twain used to say that "history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." So far the stanzas of 2011 seems to be rhyming quite well with those of 2008. There have been price spikes in food and oil followed by denials that these could derail the economy coupled with unrest on the streets of many countries related in part to high food and energy costs. But I'd say look for an unexpected divergence between the two periods. Whether that divergence turns out to be detrimental or felicitous will, however, not change the fact that high commodity prices are deflationary.
The logic is so simple it's hard to understand why smart people with advanced degrees can't see it. Commodities, particularly oil, pull money away from other sectors of the economy. When people are forced to choose between paying for heat and gasoline or paying the mortgage, they pay for heat and gasoline. Cars don't budge without gasoline (unless you can afford an electric one) and most people need their cars to get to work. The heat can be turned off rather quickly by the utility company in comparison to the glacial pace of a mortgage foreclosure that can take many months and sometimes more than a year.
This situation is particularly problematic because it pulls money out of the financial sector. And, despite all the nonsense about the financial industry being on the mend, the industry is actually becoming more and more vulnerable by the day as it increases its exposure and leverage to financial and commodity markets. The speculative animal spirits of the banks, hedge funds and other large investors, buoyed by all the virtually free money available for borrowing and huge taxpayer-financed injections into zombie banks, may now be hurtling us toward another jaw-dropping financial catastrophe. As Hyman Minsky might put it, stability and prosperity lead to instability and crisis as market participants become more and more emboldened on the upswing creating the illusion that all is well. Then, when prices and credit expansion go beyond what the economy can sustain, a decline ensues that is often dramatic as confidence suddenly shifts to revulsion and fear.
As housing prices continue to sink, the immense amount of bad mortgage debt still floating around the financial system becomes even more putrid than before. Someday the institutions which hold the debt will have to stop pretending that they are going to get paid back. But the prelude to that will be deflation brought on by the high prices of oil and commodities which tend to depress economic activity as household spending is reserved for essentials rather than discretionary items. As the animal spirits in the markets get dampened by the realities in the economy, the stage is set for a crisis--a turning point when confidence and liquidity turn into fear and illiquidity as big investors try to exit positions all at the same time.
Compounding the deflationary forces inherent in high commodity prices are severe cutbacks by states hit by declining revenues, federal cutbacks, and austerity programs now being implemented across Europe. All of these add to the deflationary juggernaut.
It is certainly possible that commodity prices including oil could rise much higher before the effects described above finally topple the economy. And, it's possible that those prices could moderate and fall gently in a way that might lengthen any economic recovery under way. But it does seem that we are much closer to a top in commodity prices than to a bottom.
The U.S. Federal Reserve Board seems to agree that high oil prices could be deflationary. One of the Fed governors indicated that the Fed's attempts to boost the economy by buying government bonds (and thus lowering long-term interest rates) could be extended if oil prices continue to rise.
I don't know what the interest rate policy for the ECB or the Federal Reserve should be. I think neither have good options. I do know that 10 of the last 11 recessions were preceded by oil price shocks. And, this time we are dealing with shocks not only in oil, but also in food, just as we did in 2008. And, I don't have to remind readers what happened after that.
Will we see a repeat of 2008 in 2011? Mark Twain used to say that "history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." So far the stanzas of 2011 seems to be rhyming quite well with those of 2008. There have been price spikes in food and oil followed by denials that these could derail the economy coupled with unrest on the streets of many countries related in part to high food and energy costs. But I'd say look for an unexpected divergence between the two periods. Whether that divergence turns out to be detrimental or felicitous will, however, not change the fact that high commodity prices are deflationary.
Sunday, March 06, 2011
The tyranny of the future
So often each of us evaluates the present based on our fantasy of the future. That fantasy has been heavily influenced by the science fiction genre in books and film--a genre which is, of course, an outgrowth of faith in unlimited technological progress. In one of the popular Star Trek movies, the future is referred to poetically as the "undiscovered country," a phrase borrowed from Hamlet where it really refers to death. Perhaps the screenwriter was cleverer than we realize.
Most people imagine the future to be a place of plenty where energy is abundant and cheap, where every door is an automatic door and, most important, all of the problems of the present have been solved by technology: no pollution, no disease (or at least a lot less of it), no climate change, no high prices, no violence (at least no street violence) and no poverty (except, of course, on planets that haven't yet reached our level of development). It's a recipe for inaction and passivity in the face of the many daunting challenges humankind now faces. And, it has a political dimension that suits the current power structure: "Just sit back and we'll take care of the future. You don't need to challenge our ideas or authority because everything will work out for the best." It is a message right out of the mouth of Dr. Pangloss in Candide that we live in "the best of all possible worlds."
This is, of course, not the only fantasy about the future. There are grim forecasts of darkened landscapes of destruction caused by war or by mere neglect following some civilization-destroying catastrophe--a plague, a severe solar storm which knocks out the electrical grid, a famine caused by biotechnology gone awry, or a world hopelessly scorched by runaway global warming. And, this is yet another recipe for paralysis. What can one really do in the face of such catastrophes? As friend of mine once said, "You can't prepare for the end of civilization."
But, you can prepare for something short of that. An outcome between "the best of all possible worlds" techno-optimism and a Mad Max-style collapse of civilization actually calls for more imagination, and, above all, it calls for action. And, that is when the future stops being a narrow-minded tyrant and becomes a field of imagination and possibilities. This is no license for soft-headed optimism, but rather a goad to pragmatic thinking about the needs of people and societies and the biosphere that supports them.
What do humans actually need to lead full and joyful lives? That is the question we should start with. Admittedly, it is not an easy question to answer. To a certain extent it will be geographically and culturally determined. But right now fossil fuels are doing all the talking, telling us that unlimited resource consumption is our glorious birthright and the key to human achievement and happiness.
But, people achieved happiness, fulfillment, and even long life before fossil fuels, and they may very well do so after fossil fuels have stopped being burned. H.D.F. Kitto in his famous popular guide to the life of the ancient Greeks points out that for those living in Greece at the time--if they survived fatal childhood diseases--the Mediterranean climate afforded a lifespan of 60, 70 and even 80 years for many. Not bad for a nation without modern medicine. Longevity then is not merely the property of modern peoples. And, it is, in the end, not the sole criterion for a good life; 100 years in prison seems worse, not better, than 60 years of life as a free person.
We are constantly told that the way in which we live today is better than the way people lived before the modern industrial age. Perhaps that should at least be prefaced with the qualification that some privileged people who lead middle- and upper-class lives in wealthy industrial countries should count themselves better off than their ancestors. But it is worth noting that even the culturally advanced ancient Greeks imagined that their golden age had long since passed and that their civilization was well decayed. Ironically, today, we consider that supposed period of decay to be the time of their greatest achievements.
What lies ahead for humanity may end up seeming better or worse than what we have today. But it will certainly be different. Wouldn't it be a good idea for each of us to consider our role in this future rather than have that role defined for us by fantasies that lead to paralysis or lure us into a naive passivity?
Most people imagine the future to be a place of plenty where energy is abundant and cheap, where every door is an automatic door and, most important, all of the problems of the present have been solved by technology: no pollution, no disease (or at least a lot less of it), no climate change, no high prices, no violence (at least no street violence) and no poverty (except, of course, on planets that haven't yet reached our level of development). It's a recipe for inaction and passivity in the face of the many daunting challenges humankind now faces. And, it has a political dimension that suits the current power structure: "Just sit back and we'll take care of the future. You don't need to challenge our ideas or authority because everything will work out for the best." It is a message right out of the mouth of Dr. Pangloss in Candide that we live in "the best of all possible worlds."
This is, of course, not the only fantasy about the future. There are grim forecasts of darkened landscapes of destruction caused by war or by mere neglect following some civilization-destroying catastrophe--a plague, a severe solar storm which knocks out the electrical grid, a famine caused by biotechnology gone awry, or a world hopelessly scorched by runaway global warming. And, this is yet another recipe for paralysis. What can one really do in the face of such catastrophes? As friend of mine once said, "You can't prepare for the end of civilization."
But, you can prepare for something short of that. An outcome between "the best of all possible worlds" techno-optimism and a Mad Max-style collapse of civilization actually calls for more imagination, and, above all, it calls for action. And, that is when the future stops being a narrow-minded tyrant and becomes a field of imagination and possibilities. This is no license for soft-headed optimism, but rather a goad to pragmatic thinking about the needs of people and societies and the biosphere that supports them.
What do humans actually need to lead full and joyful lives? That is the question we should start with. Admittedly, it is not an easy question to answer. To a certain extent it will be geographically and culturally determined. But right now fossil fuels are doing all the talking, telling us that unlimited resource consumption is our glorious birthright and the key to human achievement and happiness.
But, people achieved happiness, fulfillment, and even long life before fossil fuels, and they may very well do so after fossil fuels have stopped being burned. H.D.F. Kitto in his famous popular guide to the life of the ancient Greeks points out that for those living in Greece at the time--if they survived fatal childhood diseases--the Mediterranean climate afforded a lifespan of 60, 70 and even 80 years for many. Not bad for a nation without modern medicine. Longevity then is not merely the property of modern peoples. And, it is, in the end, not the sole criterion for a good life; 100 years in prison seems worse, not better, than 60 years of life as a free person.
We are constantly told that the way in which we live today is better than the way people lived before the modern industrial age. Perhaps that should at least be prefaced with the qualification that some privileged people who lead middle- and upper-class lives in wealthy industrial countries should count themselves better off than their ancestors. But it is worth noting that even the culturally advanced ancient Greeks imagined that their golden age had long since passed and that their civilization was well decayed. Ironically, today, we consider that supposed period of decay to be the time of their greatest achievements.
What lies ahead for humanity may end up seeming better or worse than what we have today. But it will certainly be different. Wouldn't it be a good idea for each of us to consider our role in this future rather than have that role defined for us by fantasies that lead to paralysis or lure us into a naive passivity?
Sunday, February 27, 2011
When the believers stop believing: Chesapeake dumps shale gas assets
Only two years ago Chesapeake Energy Corp. president Aubrey McClendon was telling us about the limitless future of natural gas in North America. It was going to free us from foreign oil by allowing us to convert our vehicle fleet to run on domestically produced natural gas from vast shale deposits. Technology was now making these deposits accessible, and McClendon offered up "research" done by a nonprofit largely funded by his company that showed that these deposits could power America for another century.
It is a good thing that McClendon, who still runs Chesapeake, isn't taking his own advice these days. Back in mid-2008 when natural gas prices leapt above $13 per thousand cubic feet, the company was riding high as the darling of the shale gas drillers.
Since the crash in late 2008, natural gas prices have been mired in the $3 to $4 range, not high enough to justify the high costs associated with most shale gas drilling. And that means, of course, that natural gas drilling is taking place only in those spots which are deemed easy enough and cheap enough to exploit profitably at these prices. Gas drilling rig counts in North America slipped from more than 1,600 at the end of August 2008 down to fewer than 700 during the worst of the bust in mid-2009 and settled at 906 last week, according to Baker Hughes.
In testimony before the U.S. Congress in 2008 McClendon said to our elected representatives: "Many of you think of our industry as being part of the 'oil and gas industry' and therefore attached at the hip to the oil industry. However, nothing could be further from the truth." (PDF) He went on to say:
It is a good thing that McClendon, who still runs Chesapeake, isn't taking his own advice these days. Back in mid-2008 when natural gas prices leapt above $13 per thousand cubic feet, the company was riding high as the darling of the shale gas drillers.
Since the crash in late 2008, natural gas prices have been mired in the $3 to $4 range, not high enough to justify the high costs associated with most shale gas drilling. And that means, of course, that natural gas drilling is taking place only in those spots which are deemed easy enough and cheap enough to exploit profitably at these prices. Gas drilling rig counts in North America slipped from more than 1,600 at the end of August 2008 down to fewer than 700 during the worst of the bust in mid-2009 and settled at 906 last week, according to Baker Hughes.
In testimony before the U.S. Congress in 2008 McClendon said to our elected representatives: "Many of you think of our industry as being part of the 'oil and gas industry' and therefore attached at the hip to the oil industry. However, nothing could be further from the truth." (PDF) He went on to say:
Imagine tomorrow if your hometown or national newspaper proclaimed that you had introduced a plan that would, in one stroke, cut gasoline's cost in half, reduce our oil imports, improve our air quality, enhance national security, strengthen the dollar, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create tens of thousands of new jobs in the U.S. in the automotive, truck, steel, natural gas and related industries. The papers might say you just have changed the course of American history.
It was an inspiring vision even if delivered in a somewhat obsequious manner. With the high-minded help of America's domestic natural gas drillers, the country could free itself from the tyranny of oil, McClendon told the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
Fast forward to today. So poor is the natural gas business now that McClendon has decided to sell off a good portion of Chesapeake's shale gas assets in order to concentrate on oil trapped in shale. Why? Because the price of oil is so much higher relative to natural gas, proving that price is the key driver in exploiting hard-to-get hydrocarbon resources. Since McClendon's 2008 testimony, the natural gas industry seems to have been rejoined at the hip to the oil industry (or perhaps it was never really separated). So much for cheap, abundant natural gas for the next century. So much for freeing ourselves from the tyranny of oil.
In truth, I don't blame McClendon for doing what he's doing. His job is to make money for his shareholders, and unlike many presidents of public traded companies, McClendon owned a huge stake in the company before a margin call nearly wiped him out. Since then he has bought back about 900,000 shares according to Chesapeake's latest proxy statement (PDF). Before the margin call he owned more than 33 million shares representing about 5 percent of the company, far more than most corporate chief executives.
But just because McClendon's interests are aligned with his shareholders doesn't mean they are aligned with the interests of the American public. And, the notion that a self-interested energy company executive can give solid advice to Congress about long-term policy is nonsense. Of course, policymakers need to collect information from the oil and gas industry in order to understand our current energy situation. But that is altogether different from expecting objective policy advice.
So, where does that leave us with respect to natural gas in the United States? We are not quite back to where we were before the shale gas boom. But domestic natural gas supplies aren't going to be as plentiful as previously believed. The shale gas boom that had seemed to raise U.S. domestic gas production by 11 percent turned out to be a mirage. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) announced in early 2010 that as a result of poor methodology, it had been overestimating U.S. domestic gas production by (surprise) about 10 to 12 percent, almost the same amount as the growth attributed to the shale gas boom.
And, the same agency--an agency known for its persistently optimistic energy supply forecasts--now shows domestic gas production stagnant through 2020 and barely meeting tepid growth in demand through 2035. (The EIA has been known in the past to simply match production to projected consumption and assume that supplies will somehow come from somewhere.) The stated reason for the less-than-buoyant projection is that growth in shale gas production is expected only barely to offset declines in production from other sources of natural gas.
Natural gas prices are low now because the U.S. economy remains in low gear. Should it accelerate to high gear, count on much higher natural gas prices as demand picks up. Then perhaps we'll have a shale gas boom again followed by a bust.
Both the murky projections of future natural gas supplies and the wildly cyclical nature of the industry make it a questionable platform for energy security. What America and the world needs now are new steady, dependable and climate-friendly sources of energy, sources as steady as the rays of the sun and as clean as the wind on plains.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
My congressman has selective science disorder
My congressman has selective science disorder. He's been much in the news of late as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the U.S. House of Representatives. His name is Fred Upton, and he told us as recently as April 24, 2009 that "[c]limate change is a serious problem that necessitates serious solutions."
But now that he has finally gotten a little power, he has contracted selective science disorder. And, who can blame him? He's been in the wilderness for so long. He held no important posts even when his own party was in power in Congress from 1995 to 2007 because Republicans considered him too moderate. It seems his first taste of real power has thrown off his mental balance.
When it was clear that he would become the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I told friends that the country could do a lot worse, that others who were being considered for the post were flat-out climate change deniers who didn't believe in science as a basis for public policy. I was relieved when Upton was finally confirmed as the choice of the Republican leadership.
But my relief was short-lived. The signs of selective science disorder began to show up immediately. Now, I suppose you are all wondering what this strange, new-fangled, but fast-spreading disease is. It consists simply in accepting the fruits of science when it provides you the comforts and conveniences you desire (and comports with the financial interests of your campaign donors) and rejecting particular findings of science when those findings conflict with your continuing desire for those comforts and conveniences (and run counter to the financial interests of your campaign donors).
It's an affliction that also strikes many religious conservatives who reject compelling geological evidence of Earth's 4.5-billlion-year history in favor of the creation story, and then get on their computers or cellphones to tell you about it--not reflecting that if they reject science as a basis for modern society, then, to be consistent, they would have to give up all the gadgets that modern science has made possible. (I don't blame these people for not abandoning their conveniences. But I do fault them for being so oblivious to the logical conclusions of what they are saying, namely, that since science can't be trusted, the products of science can't be trusted. And, yet they trust them!)
Now, Fred Upton is no religious conservative, and he is no troglodyte when it comes to science. In fact, Upton embraces the complex findings of science when it comes to nuclear energy. And, he supports scientific research to develop so-called carbon capture and sequestration technology that is being touted as a way to make coal "clean." He also likes other energy-producing products of science such as wind turbines and solar panels.
So when the overwhelming evidence from scientific inquiry concluded that humans were making a very large contribution to global climate change through the burning of fossil fuels, Upton embraced this conclusion. After all, he was on the side of technologies that could potentially address that problem.
But now he says he is not convinced that anything needs to be done to regulate carbon emissions. He describes the greenhouse gas regulations that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating as a "power grab." He is, of course, being disingenuous. He knows full well that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the existing Clear Air Act. Actually, it would be a power grab to undo this.
With his newfound revulsion for science, will Mr. Upton now toss his cellphone into the trash or turn off the fuse box in his house or refuse to fly on airplanes back to his district because the science of flight is still evolving and may not be completely settled in every respect? Of course, he will do none of these things. That's because selective science disorder creates a built-in blindness to contradictory thinking and a susceptibility to campaign campaign contributions from special interests who only like science when it increases their own wealth.
P.S. If you are a climate change denier, before you comment on this post, read my Comments Policy. You may decide it's not worth your time to comment here.
But now that he has finally gotten a little power, he has contracted selective science disorder. And, who can blame him? He's been in the wilderness for so long. He held no important posts even when his own party was in power in Congress from 1995 to 2007 because Republicans considered him too moderate. It seems his first taste of real power has thrown off his mental balance.
When it was clear that he would become the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I told friends that the country could do a lot worse, that others who were being considered for the post were flat-out climate change deniers who didn't believe in science as a basis for public policy. I was relieved when Upton was finally confirmed as the choice of the Republican leadership.
But my relief was short-lived. The signs of selective science disorder began to show up immediately. Now, I suppose you are all wondering what this strange, new-fangled, but fast-spreading disease is. It consists simply in accepting the fruits of science when it provides you the comforts and conveniences you desire (and comports with the financial interests of your campaign donors) and rejecting particular findings of science when those findings conflict with your continuing desire for those comforts and conveniences (and run counter to the financial interests of your campaign donors).
It's an affliction that also strikes many religious conservatives who reject compelling geological evidence of Earth's 4.5-billlion-year history in favor of the creation story, and then get on their computers or cellphones to tell you about it--not reflecting that if they reject science as a basis for modern society, then, to be consistent, they would have to give up all the gadgets that modern science has made possible. (I don't blame these people for not abandoning their conveniences. But I do fault them for being so oblivious to the logical conclusions of what they are saying, namely, that since science can't be trusted, the products of science can't be trusted. And, yet they trust them!)
Now, Fred Upton is no religious conservative, and he is no troglodyte when it comes to science. In fact, Upton embraces the complex findings of science when it comes to nuclear energy. And, he supports scientific research to develop so-called carbon capture and sequestration technology that is being touted as a way to make coal "clean." He also likes other energy-producing products of science such as wind turbines and solar panels.
So when the overwhelming evidence from scientific inquiry concluded that humans were making a very large contribution to global climate change through the burning of fossil fuels, Upton embraced this conclusion. After all, he was on the side of technologies that could potentially address that problem.
But now he says he is not convinced that anything needs to be done to regulate carbon emissions. He describes the greenhouse gas regulations that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating as a "power grab." He is, of course, being disingenuous. He knows full well that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the existing Clear Air Act. Actually, it would be a power grab to undo this.
With his newfound revulsion for science, will Mr. Upton now toss his cellphone into the trash or turn off the fuse box in his house or refuse to fly on airplanes back to his district because the science of flight is still evolving and may not be completely settled in every respect? Of course, he will do none of these things. That's because selective science disorder creates a built-in blindness to contradictory thinking and a susceptibility to campaign campaign contributions from special interests who only like science when it increases their own wealth.
P.S. If you are a climate change denier, before you comment on this post, read my Comments Policy. You may decide it's not worth your time to comment here.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Prelude interview on WJR now online
My interview on Detroit radio station WJR about my peak oil novel, Prelude, is now online. The interview, which aired February 13 as part of the regular Sunday night program “The Greening of the Great Lakes,” can now be heard by clicking here and then clicking on the arrow underneath “Kurt Cobb talks with Kirk Heinze on WJR.”
Sunday, February 13, 2011
The week of the game changer in oil, or was it?
This past week was supposedly the week of the game changer in the world of oil. Leaked U.S. diplomatic cables from Saudi Arabia called into question the ability of the globe's largest oil exporter to raise production to satisfy a world increasingly thirsty for petroleum. In the United States a technique called hydraulic fracturing--which has seemingly unlocked vast natural gas resources--will now be applied to oil trapped in shale deposits. Are these two developments really the so-called game changers they are claimed to be?
Let's take the Wikileaks revelation that Saudi Arabian oil reserves--thought to be the biggest in the world--have been vastly overstated. It turns out that what the former head of exploration and production at Saudi Aramco--the state-owned oil company that controls all oil and gas development in the country--told American diplomats in late 2007 was too nuanced for their unbriefed brains to capture correctly in diplomatic cables.
Sadad al-Husseini, the man in question, did tell the diplomats that world oil reserves are probably overstated by 300 billion barrels. The diplomats got confused and thought he was talking about Saudi Arabia alone. (Al-Husseini responded with a press release last week to clarify the matter.) Al-Husseini probably did tell the diplomats that Saudi Arabia would likely never exceed its planned expanded output of 12.5 million barrels a day, something he said publicly during that period. Perhaps back in 2007 al-Husseini saw the bottleneck in construction resources needed for such an expansion and equivocated about whether the Saudis would actually meet their 2009 deadline for developing that capacity. In the end they did.
This should all be seen against the backdrop of U.S. Energy Information Administration projections at the time that had Saudi Arabia supplying the world with 15.4 million barrels a day of oil in 2030. This number seemed like mere fantasy to anyone who was reading the news carefully as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the person of the king himself appeared to affirm the 12.5 million barrel limit previously hinted at by his oil minister.
But U.S. diplomats did catch the basic message of al-Husseini. He was trying to warn them that projections for oil production out of Saudi Arabia were too optimistic and that this had serious implications for world supply. And, yet few countries seem to be preparing for this eventuality.
In a rather contradictory way al-Husseini told the diplomats that while he "does not subscribe to the theory of 'peak oil'...a global output plateau will be reached in the next 5 to 10 years and will last some 15 years, until world oil production begins to decline." That's a rather clear statement of peak oil theory. Probably al-Husseini was trying to distance himself from the doomers in the peak oil community, and the diplomats did not have enough background to understand what he was trying to do.
That was 2007. Oil flows may have recently just barely exceeded their 2008 highs, but world oil production has essentially been stagnant since 2005. One doesn't need secret diplomatic cables, however, to understand a story last week on the Saudi plan to require insulation in homes to reduce energy demand. Why would a country regarded as the most energy-rich in the world have to embark on an efficiency program? It was right there in the story: "Without reducing the rate of energy consumption growth, the kingdom could see oil available for export drop some 3 million barrels per day (bpd) to less than 7 million bpd in 2028, Khalid al-Falih, the chief executive of state oil firm Saudi Aramco said last year."
Were the Wikileaks revelations a game changer in the world of oil? Hardly. All the basic, but horribly muddled, information in the cables was already public. And, the flat trend of oil production for the last several years has been plain for all to see. Still, governments and societies largely prattle on as if nothing is wrong. Well, perhaps one thing did change. U.S. government officials are now known to have spoken the words "peak oil," albeit in secret cables. At last the feckless corporate media has reason to ask them why. But will they?
But wait, there was another supposed game changer last week as well. This one was supposed to allay our fears about future oil supplies. Oil companies have discovered that the same fracturing technologies used to extract natural gas trapped in shale can now be applied to certain deposits of oil trapped in shale. In the United States alone the new process could mean 2 million barrels a day by 2015 from previously neglected fields once thought too difficult to develop. “It could potentially be a real game changer,” Peter Tertzakian, chief energy economist at Calgary-based ARC Financial Corp, told The Globe and Mail.
But is it really a game changer? Well, it certainly is if you are an oil company on the prowl for the last scraps of oil hidden in hard-to-reach places under the earth. And the hype serves to entice investors into putting money into ventures to extract oil locked tightly in shale, referred to as "tight oil."
But if you are merely a consumer of oil, these new finds won't mean much to you. If the projections are correct, then oil flows from tight oil in the United States will represent about 2 percent of world production in 2015. And if the more pessimistic estimates of the U.S. Energy Information Administration come closer to actual U.S. tight oil production in 2015, that production will represent about 0.5 percent of world production. Neither amount is enough to move the price of oil. Of course, not one word is spoken about declines in production from other U.S. fields which in aggregate have been in decline for 40 years. Will this supposed new bounty reverse that ongoing decline? Not a word in the press about this.
There is reason, however, to doubt the claims now being made for tight oil supplies--reasons beyond the fact that the companies making them are often publicly traded and therefore have incentive to manipulate their stock prices. The original shale gas promoters believed that natural gas would be uniformly available from the giant shale basins found in the United States. They were wrong. Only a few sweet spots have been profitable.
As humans have done throughout the age of oil, tight oil developers will target the sweet spots first since they are the cheapest and easiest to exploit. Then, they'll move on to areas that are progressively harder and thus more expensive to exploit. Over time tight oil won't become easier to get; it'll become harder to get just like shale gas.
Another caution is that tight oil development only thrives in high oil price environments. The shale gas technology which is being applied to tight oil was supposed to herald an ongoing boom in natural gas. Instead when natural gas prices plummeted in 2008 and stayed low, shale gas drilling became far less economical and much of the industry teetered on bankruptcy. The fact that Chesapeake Energy Corp., one of the darlings of the shale gas boom that fell on very hard times, is now focusing on tight oil extraction tells you all you need to know about the viability of tight oil. The technology works when prices are high. But, as we've seen above, it won't be a panacea for strained world oil supplies even if high prices persist.
One final stumbling block will be concerns about drinking water aquifers because of the water and chemicals forced under high pressure into the oil formations to fracture the shale and release the oil. Already several states are considering tougher regulations--which will, of course, drive up costs--and one municipality, Buffalo, New York, banned hydraulic fracturing within the city limits and banned as well "storing, transferring, treating or disposing fracking waste within the city." The measure was largely symbolic since there are no plans for such drilling in the city. But it marks a watershed for municipal regulation and provides a template for others who feel uneasy about the millions of gallons of wastewater mixed with chemicals injected into each well that never return to the surface.
In the end it is the flow rate of oil that matters, not the size of the putative resource. No matter how big each new find is, no matter what new technology is applied, if we can't achieve production rates consistent with our need for economic growth, we will be in trouble. Look at the rebound of oil prices since the 2008 crash, and you will know that we already are in trouble.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating: If you inherit a million dollars with the stipulation that you can only draw out $500 a month, you may be a millionaire, but you will never live like one. When it comes to oil, there may still be very large resources left. Yes, we may technically all be the equivalent of "oil millionaires." But it looks very much as if we are still destined to have lower and lower flow rates for that oil in the decades ahead--which was the already the situation before this week of game changers that weren't.
Let's take the Wikileaks revelation that Saudi Arabian oil reserves--thought to be the biggest in the world--have been vastly overstated. It turns out that what the former head of exploration and production at Saudi Aramco--the state-owned oil company that controls all oil and gas development in the country--told American diplomats in late 2007 was too nuanced for their unbriefed brains to capture correctly in diplomatic cables.
Sadad al-Husseini, the man in question, did tell the diplomats that world oil reserves are probably overstated by 300 billion barrels. The diplomats got confused and thought he was talking about Saudi Arabia alone. (Al-Husseini responded with a press release last week to clarify the matter.) Al-Husseini probably did tell the diplomats that Saudi Arabia would likely never exceed its planned expanded output of 12.5 million barrels a day, something he said publicly during that period. Perhaps back in 2007 al-Husseini saw the bottleneck in construction resources needed for such an expansion and equivocated about whether the Saudis would actually meet their 2009 deadline for developing that capacity. In the end they did.
This should all be seen against the backdrop of U.S. Energy Information Administration projections at the time that had Saudi Arabia supplying the world with 15.4 million barrels a day of oil in 2030. This number seemed like mere fantasy to anyone who was reading the news carefully as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the person of the king himself appeared to affirm the 12.5 million barrel limit previously hinted at by his oil minister.
But U.S. diplomats did catch the basic message of al-Husseini. He was trying to warn them that projections for oil production out of Saudi Arabia were too optimistic and that this had serious implications for world supply. And, yet few countries seem to be preparing for this eventuality.
In a rather contradictory way al-Husseini told the diplomats that while he "does not subscribe to the theory of 'peak oil'...a global output plateau will be reached in the next 5 to 10 years and will last some 15 years, until world oil production begins to decline." That's a rather clear statement of peak oil theory. Probably al-Husseini was trying to distance himself from the doomers in the peak oil community, and the diplomats did not have enough background to understand what he was trying to do.
That was 2007. Oil flows may have recently just barely exceeded their 2008 highs, but world oil production has essentially been stagnant since 2005. One doesn't need secret diplomatic cables, however, to understand a story last week on the Saudi plan to require insulation in homes to reduce energy demand. Why would a country regarded as the most energy-rich in the world have to embark on an efficiency program? It was right there in the story: "Without reducing the rate of energy consumption growth, the kingdom could see oil available for export drop some 3 million barrels per day (bpd) to less than 7 million bpd in 2028, Khalid al-Falih, the chief executive of state oil firm Saudi Aramco said last year."
Were the Wikileaks revelations a game changer in the world of oil? Hardly. All the basic, but horribly muddled, information in the cables was already public. And, the flat trend of oil production for the last several years has been plain for all to see. Still, governments and societies largely prattle on as if nothing is wrong. Well, perhaps one thing did change. U.S. government officials are now known to have spoken the words "peak oil," albeit in secret cables. At last the feckless corporate media has reason to ask them why. But will they?
But wait, there was another supposed game changer last week as well. This one was supposed to allay our fears about future oil supplies. Oil companies have discovered that the same fracturing technologies used to extract natural gas trapped in shale can now be applied to certain deposits of oil trapped in shale. In the United States alone the new process could mean 2 million barrels a day by 2015 from previously neglected fields once thought too difficult to develop. “It could potentially be a real game changer,” Peter Tertzakian, chief energy economist at Calgary-based ARC Financial Corp, told The Globe and Mail.
But is it really a game changer? Well, it certainly is if you are an oil company on the prowl for the last scraps of oil hidden in hard-to-reach places under the earth. And the hype serves to entice investors into putting money into ventures to extract oil locked tightly in shale, referred to as "tight oil."
But if you are merely a consumer of oil, these new finds won't mean much to you. If the projections are correct, then oil flows from tight oil in the United States will represent about 2 percent of world production in 2015. And if the more pessimistic estimates of the U.S. Energy Information Administration come closer to actual U.S. tight oil production in 2015, that production will represent about 0.5 percent of world production. Neither amount is enough to move the price of oil. Of course, not one word is spoken about declines in production from other U.S. fields which in aggregate have been in decline for 40 years. Will this supposed new bounty reverse that ongoing decline? Not a word in the press about this.
There is reason, however, to doubt the claims now being made for tight oil supplies--reasons beyond the fact that the companies making them are often publicly traded and therefore have incentive to manipulate their stock prices. The original shale gas promoters believed that natural gas would be uniformly available from the giant shale basins found in the United States. They were wrong. Only a few sweet spots have been profitable.
As humans have done throughout the age of oil, tight oil developers will target the sweet spots first since they are the cheapest and easiest to exploit. Then, they'll move on to areas that are progressively harder and thus more expensive to exploit. Over time tight oil won't become easier to get; it'll become harder to get just like shale gas.
Another caution is that tight oil development only thrives in high oil price environments. The shale gas technology which is being applied to tight oil was supposed to herald an ongoing boom in natural gas. Instead when natural gas prices plummeted in 2008 and stayed low, shale gas drilling became far less economical and much of the industry teetered on bankruptcy. The fact that Chesapeake Energy Corp., one of the darlings of the shale gas boom that fell on very hard times, is now focusing on tight oil extraction tells you all you need to know about the viability of tight oil. The technology works when prices are high. But, as we've seen above, it won't be a panacea for strained world oil supplies even if high prices persist.
One final stumbling block will be concerns about drinking water aquifers because of the water and chemicals forced under high pressure into the oil formations to fracture the shale and release the oil. Already several states are considering tougher regulations--which will, of course, drive up costs--and one municipality, Buffalo, New York, banned hydraulic fracturing within the city limits and banned as well "storing, transferring, treating or disposing fracking waste within the city." The measure was largely symbolic since there are no plans for such drilling in the city. But it marks a watershed for municipal regulation and provides a template for others who feel uneasy about the millions of gallons of wastewater mixed with chemicals injected into each well that never return to the surface.
In the end it is the flow rate of oil that matters, not the size of the putative resource. No matter how big each new find is, no matter what new technology is applied, if we can't achieve production rates consistent with our need for economic growth, we will be in trouble. Look at the rebound of oil prices since the 2008 crash, and you will know that we already are in trouble.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating: If you inherit a million dollars with the stipulation that you can only draw out $500 a month, you may be a millionaire, but you will never live like one. When it comes to oil, there may still be very large resources left. Yes, we may technically all be the equivalent of "oil millionaires." But it looks very much as if we are still destined to have lower and lower flow rates for that oil in the decades ahead--which was the already the situation before this week of game changers that weren't.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Prelude makes The Huffington Post
Prelude has been mentioned in a peak oil-related commentary on The Huffington Post by writer Kelpie Wilson. I met Kelpie at a conference a couple years ago. She's currently the communications editor at the International Biochar Initiative. In that regard I recently wrote a piece reviewing Albert Bates' The Biochar Solution. Albert is active in the IBI as you might expect. The Huffington Post mention offers by far the most visibility for Prelude to date.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)