News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.3K     0 

Don't think that the low fuel prices will remain so forever.

Over 30% of what comes up from Saudi oil fields is water that was injected to bring up the oil. The oil is running out, getting more expensive. They are desperately trying to gain market share by putting rivals out of business with low prices. This just makes the oil under Kirkuk more important to the US.

From this link:

What is Saudi Arabia not telling us about its oil future?

It is popular these days to speculate about why Saudi Arabia cajoled its OPEC allies into maintaining oil production in the face of flagging world demand. As the price the world pays for oil and oil products has plummeted, the price OPEC members are paying in terms of lower revenues is high, even unbearable for those who didn't save up for just such a rainy day.

Was the real reason for the decision to maintain production the desire to undermine rising U.S. tight oil production--which has now proven embarrassingly vulnerable to low prices after years of triumphalist talk from the industry about America's "energy renaissance"? Were the Saudis also thinking of crippling Canada's high-cost tar sands production? Was it Sunni Saudi Arabia's wish to undermine its chief adversary in the region, Shiite Iran? Was the Saudi kingdom doing Washington's bidding by weakening Russia, a country that relies so heavily on its oil export revenue?

The Saudis say explicitly that they believe non-OPEC producers must now balance world oil supply by cutting back production rather than relying on OPEC--meaning mostly Saudi Arabia--to do so. And, those cutbacks in the form of drastically reduced investment are already taking place in the United States, Canada and around the world as low prices are forcing drillers to scale back their drilling plans dramatically. It is not well understood, however, that almost all of the growth in world oil production since 2005 has come from high-cost deposits in the United States and Canada which has made the two countries easy and tempting targets for the Saudis' low-price strategy.

Recently, investment manager Jeremy Grantham opined in Barron's that Saudi Arabia has probably made the wrong decision. He explains as follows:

[T]he Saudis could probably have absorbed all U.S. fracking increases in output (from today’s four million barrels a day to seven or eight) and never have been worse off than producing half of their current production for twice the current price … not a bad deal. Only if U.S. fracking reserves are cheaper to produce and much larger than generally thought would the Saudis be right. It is a possibility, but I believe it is not probable.


First of all, he vastly overestimates the ability of the United States to increase its RATE of production, though he correctly assesses the production cost and longevity (or lack thereof) of U.S. tight oil reserves. Even the ever-optimistic U.S. Energy Information Administration believes that U.S. oil production will plateau in 2019 (not far above where it is now) and start to decline after 2020.

But, my concern is with Grantham's assertion that the Saudis could have let U.S. drillers simply drill away while OPEC countries--meaning again, mostly Saudi Arabia--reduce their production without being worse off financially than they are now. U.S. tight oil production would presumably play itself out by 2020 or so and then start to decline allowing OPEC to recapture market share and raise prices again.

But there is one possibility which Grantham is blind to, one mentioned to me by a friend. It's a big what-if. But then pretty much everything is a what-if when it comes to the secretive Saudis.

What if the Saudis are acting now to undermine U.S. and Canadian oil production because they realize that Saudi production will soon reach a peak, level out for several years and then start to decline in no more than, say, a decade? What if the Saudis fear that energy efficiency, fuel substitution (say, toward natural gas), and mandated greenhouse gas emission reductions will inevitably diminish their oil revenues beyond the next decade? What if this coming decade will therefore be the best time to maximize Saudi revenues per barrel? It would then make sense for the Saudis to cripple North American production now with, say, a year of low prices which should be enough to make investors skittish for many years thereafter. Then, the Saudis can capitalize on higher prices during the next nine years as the kingdom experiences its peak flows and before energy use reduction strategies threaten oil revenues.

(This assumes that they are right about the reluctance of investors to return to the tight oil fields and tar sands after having been walloped by the current low prices, something that would slow or prevent further growth in U.S. and Canadian oil production. If investment returns readily with any price increase, it is possible we could see wildly fluctuating prices due to short boom/bust cycles in the U.S. and Canadian oil industry, something I regard as possible but unlikely. This is because I expect many if not most of the current tight oil leases to pass into the hands of the major international oil companies as a result of bankruptcies of and distressed sales by the independent tight oil players in the coming year to 18 months. Those majors will take a more measured and patient approach to the development of those leases.)

Now, of course, no one knows what the Saudis know about their own oil reserves or anticipated flow rates. Saudi Aramco, the Saudi national oil company which controls all oil development and production in the country, is 100 percent owned by the government and therefore is not obliged to release information to the public nor submit to an outside independent audit. But the Saudis have already publicly stated that the world cannot count on them for more than 12.5 million barrels per day (mbpd). The country currently pumps about 9.7 mbpd of which it exports about 6.9 mbpd.

If the Saudis are acting now to cripple U.S. and Canadian production for the reasons my friend suggests, it means world oil supplies are going to be much more problematic after 2020 than many people suppose. It implies that at some point in the next 10 years OPEC will cease to be able (rather than cease to be willing) to balance world oil supplies. And, it suggests that no one else will be ready to act in that role when the time comes.
 
Interesting article, but I don't consider oil prices to be a major determinant in curbing sprawl. Fluctuations in oil prices encourage or discourage sprawl on a personal decision-making level, but saving people money on commuting costs is not the main reason for creating more urban walkable and sustainable communities. If sprawl was just about oil prices (or air pollution) one could argue that once electric cars become more viable the fight against sprawl should stop. That's not going to happen because sprawl isn't just about oil prices and air pollution, it is about health, ecology, economic sustainability, protection of farmland, and congestion, among other things.
 
CBC did a nice mini documentary on how Canadian cities can be redesigned to benefit people instead of cars.

[video=youtube;jQfC6mKTErg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQfC6mKTErg[/video]
 
Drunk driving bad!

We hear that a lot. Yet, most cities encourage just that.

Three hour time limits on street parking. No street parking after midnight (or whatever time) in some jurisdictions. Outside of Toronto, most of the cities don't even have early morning (Blue Night) transit service.

Bars, nightclubs, banquet halls, restaurants, etc. must have parking lots, especially in the 905. Some are too far from the nearest transit stop.

From this article, at this link:

Mother's Against Drunk Driving Should Also Be Against Zoning

Why Do Bars Have Parking Lots If We Aren't Supposed To Drive Home?

When it comes to drunk driving, America may have a bigger driving problem than a drinking problem. Sometimes I tell people that I became a planner in order to ensure everyone can safely imbibe and safely get home. When you step back and think about it though how well do we really think through our development decisions regarding drinking establishments? I contend that the way typical code treats drinking establishments is indicative of the kind of misguided positivism that is pervasive in modern planning. The kind of prescriptive guidance that can specify how many trees you need in a parking lot but completely misses the simple practical relationship between how people use the site and their ability to stay safe. Modernist standardization erases the creativity and common sense that come from small scale solutions.

I have never understood how a zoning code could, in good faith, permit a drinking establishment that could only possibly be reached by car. In doing so are we not creating a scenario in which people have no option but to drive to a place where they then become unable to safely drive home? I am hardly the first person to comment on the absurdity of this arrangement.

One thing is clear, that we expect them to regardless of design. I suppose we are to assume that taxis and designated drivers make this possible. Safe ride options such as Uber and those folks who drive your car home and then bike back are filling the gap too. I suspect that, in reality, the difference is a mix of these options and intoxicated driving. My challenge to organizations like MADD is to consider the extreme recklessness of encouraging drinking in places where there is no practical way home without a car.

Let’s take a practical comparison. Allow me to set the mood. First let’s start with a traditionally located local pub in West Asheville called Westville Pub. Westville is located in an old brick row building at the traditional center of the West Asheville neighborhood. This block has always been at the commercial epicenter of the outwardly growing community but was built in such a way that it could evolve and adapt. Simply put, you’ll find it at the heart of downtown West Asheville.

Buffalo Wild Wings, however, exists in a Euclidian wonderland of single use commercial boxes that is the traditional center of nothing. One might assume that in crossing the eastern threshold of Asheville’s Tunnel you have travelled through a worm-hole into a dimension populated with chain stores and simultaneously present in every city in America. The buildings and their design might as well have been downloaded from the internet.

Comparing Bar Designs for Safety

Now let’s compare the two from the perspective of someone how wants to drink and needs to get home without a car. Even qualitatively the differences are quite clear. One thing that immediately becomes apparent is the drastic difference in parking opportunity at Westville. While people might often complain about the lack of parking in downtown environments, in this case its entirely the point. Look at the ample parking around Buffalo Wild Wings. Look how convenient it makes driving to a place where people want to drink.

Put another way, only Westville offers an alternative to driving. Look how many houses and small streets surround Westville. This makes it at least possible to leave the bar without getting in a car at all. You could conceivably walk to Buffalo Wild Wings just like you could conceivably walk through barbed wire or a swamp. My point is that it is far from practical. As I point out in a moment there are multiple barriers to getting home safely without a car. There is little you would be likely to walk home to unless you were staying in the Hampton Inn. Even if you did walk you would have to deal with car spaced distances and poor infrastructure. Take, for example, the brambles that surround the site like a barb-wire fence and lack of sidewalks.


1425656124906

Buffalo Wild Wings

If we Do The Math and try to put numbers to this comparison we can start to see the difference. As a simple metric we can take the relative Walkscores of the two sites. Wild Wings is a modest 52 (somewhat walkable) while Westville is 82 (very walkable). I, once again, call out to MADD to consider the inverse of bar Walkscores a measure of drunk-driving potential. In reality, the disparity is far greater than Walkscore is able to process. This is the composite score which under-weights things like terrain and infrastructure and assumes that any address you type in is residential.

Another way to compare the sites is to consider how many people could walk home in half an hour. In theory Buffalo Wild Wings could get you as far as downtown or Kenilworth in half an hour but this is unlikely. The travel time fails to take into account the kind of dangerous roads you would be walking (e.g. no sidewalks, lack of light), the mountain you would be climbing, or the tunnel you would be walking through. Furthermore, as you can see in a wider aerial view, there are few non-commercial areas within range. Most of what you can walk to, ironically, is more surface parking. Westville’s compact, gridded (comparatively) design, by contrast, gives it access to basically all of West Asheville.

Designed For Drunk Driving

The point that I would like get through is that drunk driving is a design problem and one which is driven by homicide-ally misguided policy. What is astonishing is that many of these problems are not just overlooked by code but actually exacerbated by it. Who called for all those parking spots and brambles around Wild Wings? It was likely built into standard zoning practice. Parking for bars is required while roadside memorials for those killed by drunk driving are illegal. Westville Pub is probably illegal in most zoning jurisdictions. Complex parking and zoning requirements are a barrier to small businesses, like Westville Pub, all over the country.

Just like roads are designed for mobility and then saddled with inappropriate speed limits, the design and practical function of drinking establishments are at odds. We try to fill the gap with education and enforcement but ultimately people tend to do what they feel like they are able to do.

Somewhere in an engineer’s manual is a ghoulishly wrong standard that calls for a certain number of parking spots per square foot of bar. Ghoulish because if we extend that standard we can assume a certain number of those parking spots will be filled with drunk drivers and a certain number of those drunk drivers will kill someone. Our slavish inability to see that driving is not a requirement is literally taking lives.
 
Drunk driving bad!

We hear that a lot. Yet, most cities encourage just that.

Three hour time limits on street parking. No street parking after midnight (or whatever time) in some jurisdictions. Outside of Toronto, most of the cities don't even have early morning (Blue Night) transit service.

Bars, nightclubs, banquet halls, restaurants, etc. must have parking lots, especially in the 905. Some are too far from the nearest transit stop.

From this article, at this link:

I can't tell you the number of times I've thought about this driving by suburban pub chains on the highway. When I worked near Clarkson GO Station there was a Fionn MacCool’s I would frequent after work and the bartenders would know which regulars took the GO Train and which regulars drove, but I imagine this is not often the case.
 

Hume's become really wedged up his own butt the last few years. It was really on display during the Mirvish-Gehry thing where he showed full-on disdain for city planners and their silly concerns about things like shadow and traffic studies, as if they were installing a sculpture rather than 3 condo towers. He's right about some things (e.g. it's not the the planners driving the agenda) but then he attacks them for the planning decisions of the past. The cities "up to their necks in sprawl" or filled with cul de sacs aren't because of the people who were at the forum the other day.

And if it's the developers who are really in control (debatable, but certainly true in at least some areas) what's the point blaming planners, many of whom (especially in Toronto, Markham and other places) are espousing precisely the same thing as Hume? Aside from a shout-out to Hazel and her too-late embrace of smart growth, he acts as if nothing has changed in 20 years, and I don't think that's accurate.

It's like if I convened a panel of urban affairs columnists and then attacked Hume for the fact there's sprawl in Burlington. I don't know if it's to provide cover for himself or because he was being "polite" that he didn't name the planners in question.

So, yeah...I agree there is sprawl and some municipalities can do better and the development industry has more power than it should....but think much of the rest of it just junk. He's doing a lot of venting lately (as evidenced by his ongoing video series of things he hates about Toronto).
 
Hume's become really wedged up his own butt the last few years.

...

So, yeah...I agree there is sprawl and some municipalities can do better and the development industry has more power than it should....but think much of the rest of it just junk. He's doing a lot of venting lately (as evidenced by his ongoing video series of things he hates about Toronto).

...and that is why I have yet to read or watch any of Hume's video series. I see the headline then I move on. :D
 
He has been on a bit of a rant streak lately, but I hear what he's saying. 905 planners are mostly out to lunch when it comes to smart growth, and they do have control over things like zoning and neighbourhood design. They are the ones who put employment zones next to highways and ensure that neighbourhoods turn their backs to suburban arterials. I think a lot of them are happy with the status quo - after all, that's why they live in the 905 in the first place.
 
He has been on a bit of a rant streak lately, but I hear what he's saying. 905 planners are mostly out to lunch when it comes to smart growth, and they do have control over things like zoning and neighbourhood design. They are the ones who put employment zones next to highways and ensure that neighbourhoods turn their backs to suburban arterials. I think a lot of them are happy with the status quo - after all, that's why they live in the 905 in the first place.

I think there's multiple fallacies in there, starting with the notion that planners (or any municipal staff) necessarily live where they work.

But mostly I think it's the same problem as Hume: generalizing about an area home to several million people and the people who work there. Obviously it's true that 905 planners have IN THE PAST put employment zones next to highways and otherwise allowed auto-oriented development but that's not a 905 thing, that's a North America-wide thing, and even a global thing.


But Hume was talking about the people in place today and I know for a fact there are people working in places like Mississauga, Markham and Richmond Hill and maybe even in Vaughan that are not happy with the status quo. Do you KNOW any 905 planners when you say they're "mostly out to lunch"?

Markham is the obvious example but they've been bucking the status quo for 20 YEARS and it's safe to say others have come to their way of thinking over that time and that painting the 905 with one brush is no more sensible than painting the 416 with one brush.

Finally, as to how much control they have; they make recommendations and councillors have decision making power. Actually, more to the point, the OMB has decision making power. So even if your head of planning is an avowed New Urbanist, there are several layers between that person establishing a zoning regime and what actually gets approved. To the extent developers are driving the agenda, my personal impression is that this is happening more at the political level than the staff level. Because (as Hume points out) planning takes time, it takes time for progressive planning ideas to filter through from staff to council to reality. Suggesting that planners are the problem really misses the point, IMHO. (e.g. If Places to Grow fails to materialize it won't be because it was a bad PLAN. It will be because the province didn't provide infrastructure to support it or the tools/enforcement to ensure municipalities can fulfill it etc.)
 
Obviously I'm generalizing, but generalizations can be useful. Only an insider can really know where things go wrong, but from looking at the finished product (i.e., Official Plans) it is obvious that most 905 municipalities give short shrift to transit, walkability and sustainable design. They are stuck in the auto mentality because they drive to work, and know that everyone else in town wants to do the same.
 
He has been on a bit of a rant streak lately, but I hear what he's saying. 905 planners are mostly out to lunch when it comes to smart growth, and they do have control over things like zoning and neighbourhood design. They are the ones who put employment zones next to highways and ensure that neighbourhoods turn their backs to suburban arterials. I think a lot of them are happy with the status quo - after all, that's why they live in the 905 in the first place.

Agreed. Hume can be a bit loopy, but I'm glad he's telling it like it is in this article. There's too much tactless self-congratulation going on across the GTA, and espousing of empty epithets regarding "smart" planning and "the future!!"

But mostly I think it's the same problem as Hume: generalizing about an area home to several million people and the people who work there. Obviously it's true that 905 planners have IN THE PAST put employment zones next to highways and otherwise allowed auto-oriented development but that's not a 905 thing, that's a North America-wide thing, and even a global thing.

But where do we draw the line between the present and "THE PAST"? Will every mistake (even ones made recently) be written-off as something that occurred 'in the past? This is one of the things Hume was talking about: planners who perpetually ponder "the future", while being disconnected from the present realities. And once the future turns into the present, and mistakes are plainly evident - well that’s okay because it's now ‘the past! We’re moving forward to the future!’.

Like when was York Region’s South Service Centre opened? Can’t be that long ago. There’s nothing "urban" or "smart" about putting the HQ of the region’s transit system in one enormous sea of parking, facing the loading docks of a Pier 1 and Montana’s. That's more of a present issue than something that occurred in a bygone era known as the past.
 
Cul-de-sacs are actually kind of rare in new subdivisions now. It's been mostly crescents the past decade or so... Even before that cul-de-sacs were never as prevalent in GTA as they are in other urban areas, especially in the US. If anything the GTA represents the opposite trend. Not only have cul-de-sacs been phased out, new subdivisions have increasingly grid-like layout, which obvious from a glance at a map. How can a guy who is paid to write about urban planning issues not notice these things.
 
Like when was York Region’s South Service Centre opened? Can’t be that long ago. There’s nothing "urban" or "smart" about putting the HQ of the region’s transit system in one enormous sea of parking, facing the loading docks of a Pier 1 and Montana’s. That's more of a present issue than something that occurred in a bygone era known as the past.

Hey, it's a MILESTONES. If you're gonna talk about the suburbs, don't mix up your chain eateries! That building has been there a while now...10 years? And I've heard some stories about how planning has changed in RH. Anyway, who cares where the HQ is? Does anyone care the TTC HQ is on top of Davisville Station? Not that it's a great or urban building but the fact YRT is based there seems beside the point. There's no disputing these are still suburbs but it seems pretty clear RH wouldn't approve a building like that now.

As for cul de sacs, I'd also note that there are often lots of walking paths (with crescents too) that people don't count when talking about walkability. I happen to live on a crescent with a pedestrian walkway that takes me to a bus stop in 3 minutes. Google maps thinks it takes me almost 3 time that long because it doesn't know about the path. Just a minor caveat to ponder.
 
Last edited:
Good point about the path networks through cul de sacs, which are pretty much a standard for new developments that have dead ends. You basically get the best of both worlds with those: quiet streets with no through traffic, and a (moderately) walkable neighbourhood.

IIRC Keesmat tweeted this image, or one like it. Which is more or less meaningless when there’s a path network in place. And since it’s only auto users that are at a disadvantage by facing a circuitous beeline, it kinda throws a wrench in the whole notion that winding roads with deadends are detrimental to walkability.

cul-de-sac-vs-connected-grid-480x244.jpg


Another style of development that tends to get a bad rap are “towers-in-the-parkâ€. I’m sure many of us are well-versed in the supposed ills of such style of buildings. But it’s not all bad. Large green spaces surrounding buildings, front entrances set well back from the busy main road...it’s actually pretty sweet. Urban meets suburban meets nature. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a new urban philosophy readopts this style of building.
 

Attachments

  • cul-de-sac-vs-connected-grid-480x244.jpg
    cul-de-sac-vs-connected-grid-480x244.jpg
    42.9 KB · Views: 566

Back
Top