text:
Its like the release of a new Star Wars movie or Tom Clancy book! I love it when I get a surprise article on my iPad! Ok; I'm going to read it now and then perhaps think of some insightful comment. . .
The Really, Really Big Picture
[Many longtime followers of the Crash Course have asked Chris to update his forecasts for Peak Oil in light of the production increases in shale oil and gas over recent years. What started out as a modest effort at clarification morphed into a much more massive 3-report treatise as Chris sifted through mountains of new data that ultimately left him more convinced than ever we are facing a global net energy crisis – despite misguided media efforts intended to convince us otherwise. His reports are being released in series over the next several weeks; the first installment is below.]
There has been a very strong and concerted public-relations effort to spin the recent shale energy plays of the U.S. as complete game-changers for the world energy outlook. These efforts do not square up well with the data and are creating a vast misperception about the current risks and future opportunities among the general populace and energy organizations alike. The world remains quite hopelessly addicted to petroleum, and the future will be shaped by scarcity – not abundance, as some have claimed.
This series of reports will assemble the relevant data into a simple and easy-to-understand story that has the appropriate context to provide a meaningful place to begin a conversation and make decisions.
Since completing the Crash Course in October of 2008, much has gone as I anticipated in the way of money printing, official neglect of the main predicaments we face, and generally higher petroleum costs (2012 was the record so far on a yearly basis).
What has not changed is the general trajectory of liquid fuels becoming increasingly expensive and more difficult to produce. I know that this runs counter to virtually every news article that has come out recently. It is time to separate the data and facts from the hype. Much has recently been either muddied or presented so far out of context as to be more distortive than helpful.
This entire body of analysis is so large that it will be broken into three pieces.
The first is a general world outlook for petroleum that presents the macro picture, provides some necessary clarifications on definitions, and illustrates that all of the data is consistent with the idea that the world is on a plateau of oil production. Here we note that exactly zero of the major energy outlooks provided by the IEA, the EIA, BP, and especially the inexcusably sloppy piece put out under the auspices of Harvard (the Maugheri report of 2012) all failed to make any mention of the declining net energy provided by any of the new unconventional oil finds. This is a crucial oversight.
The second report will focus on natural gas in the U.S., with a particular emphasis on shale gas, the supposed game-changer that we have read so much about. There are some very important elements to this story, but the punch line is that there's nowhere near "100 years" of this magic fuel, it costs more to produce than it is being sold for at present here in early 2013, and – once we include the idea of future increases in consumption – there may only be in the vicinity of 20-30 years of proven and probable reserves. And that is if and only if prices rise by a factor of 2.5x or more from the current $3.30 per therm market price.
The third will focus on tight oil, often called shale oil (not to be confused with oil shale, a very common mistake), and make the case that, while it may have some modifying effect to the Peak Oil story, it lacks the ability to return the world to anywhere near its prior glory years of ~2% per year growth in global oil output.
The summary of all three reports leads to the conclusion that all efforts to cram the world full of fresh rounds of new debt lending are going to end in failure because the requisite net energy is simply not there to support continued debt accumulations running several-fold faster than actual economic productive output.
Enormous risks are continuing to build in the world's financial landscape, and the continued unwillingness to confront the truth about our global energy predicament is both puzzling and frightening. The conclusion is that our future resilience as individuals, corporations, or countries will hinge to a very large degree on whether or not we heed the warning signs and adapt our lives and habits to the actual circumstances.
The Really, Really Big Picture
The really big picture goes like this: Humans discovered about 400 million years worth of stored sunlight in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas, and have developed technologies that will essentially see all of that treasure burned up in just 300 to 400 years.
On the faulty assumption that fossil fuels will always be a resource we could draw upon, we fashioned economic, monetary, and other assorted belief systems based on permanent abundance, plus a species population on track to number around 9 billion souls by 2050.
There are two numbers to keep firmly in mind. The first is 22, and the other is 10. In the past 22 years, half of all of the oil ever burned has been burned. Such is the nature of exponentially increasing demand. And the oil burned in the last 22 years was the easy and cheap stuff discovered 30 to 40 years ago. Which brings us to the number 10.
In every calorie of food that comes to your table are hidden 10 calories of fossil fuels, making modern agriculture and food delivery the first type in history that consumes more energy than it delivers. Someday fossil fuels will be all gone. That day may be far off in the future, but preparing for that day could (and one could argue should) easily require every bit of time we have.
What galls me at this stage is that all of the pronouncements of additional oil being squeezed, fractured, and otherwise expensively coaxed out of the ground are being delivered with the message that there's so much available, there's nothing to worry about (at least, not yet.) The message seems to be that we can just leave those challenges for future people, who we expect to be at least as clever as us, so they'll surely manage just fine.
Instead, the chart above illustrates that on a reasonably significant timeline, the age of fossil fuels will be intense and historically quite short. The real question is not Will it run out? but Where would we like to be, and what should the future look like when it finally runs out? The former question suggests that "maintain the status quo" is the correct response, while the latter question suggests that we had better be investing this once-in-a-species bequeathment very judiciously and wisely.
Energy is vital to our economy and our easy, modern lives. Without energy, there would be no economy. The more expensive our energy is, the more of our economy is dedicated to getting energy instead of other pursuits and activities. Among the various forms of energy, petroleum is the king of transportation fuels and is indispensible to our global economy and way of life.
To what do we owe the recent explosion in technology and living standards? To me the answer is simple: energy.
Because a very large proportion of our society was no longer tied up with the time-consuming tasks of growing their own food or building and heating their own shelter, they were free to do other very clever things, like devote their lives to advancing technology.
When energy starts to get out of reach either economically or geologically, then people revert to more basic things, like trying to stay warm – such as this fellow:
Greeks Raid Forests in Search of Wood to Heat Homes
Jan 11, 2013
EGALEO, Greece—While patrolling on a recent cold night, environmentalist Grigoris Gourdomichalis caught a young man illegally chopping down a tree on public land in the mountains above Athens.
When confronted, the man broke down in tears, saying he was unemployed and needed the wood to warm the home he shares with his wife and four small children, because he could no longer afford heating oil.
"It was a tough choice, but I decided just to let him go" with the wood, said Mr. Gourdomichalis, head of the locally financed Environmental Association of Municipalities of Athens, which works to protect forests around Egaleo, a western suburb of the capital.
Tens of thousands of trees have disappeared from parks and woodlands this winter across Greece, authorities said, in a worsening problem that has had tragic consequences as the crisis-hit country's impoverished residents, too broke to pay for electricity or fuel, turn to fireplaces and wood stoves for heat.
I think it is safe to assume that all of the people in Greece who are chopping down trees to stay warm are not simultaneously working on the next generation of technology. Energy first; everything else second. In other words, our perceived wealth and well-being are both derivatives of energy.
Like every other organism bestowed with abundant food – in this case, fossil fuels that we have converted into food, mobility, shelter, warmth, and a vast array of consumer goods – we first embarked on a remarkable path of exponential population growth. Along with these assorted freedoms from securing the basics of living, we also fashioned monetary and economic systems that are fully dependent on perpetual exponential growth for their vitality and well-being. These, too, owe their very sustenance to energy.
It bears repeating: Not just energy is important here, but net energy. It's the energy left over after we find and produce energy that is available for society to do all of its complicated and clever things.
Not only is the world struggling right now to increase global oil production, but all of the new and unconventional finds offer us dramatically less net energy to use as we wish.
Where We Are, in Three Simple Charts
One narrative that is being heavily marketed right now is that the shale plays are true game-changers and there's really nothing to worry about for the foreseeable future. Heck, the story says that the U.S. will soon exceed Saudi Arabia in oil production and become energy independent, that it has so much natural gas that it might as well build export terminals, and that there's 100 years of natural gas just waiting to be used.
Unfortunately, none of this is really true. Here's how I can make the case for that assertion using just three charts.
This first chart comes to us from the EIA courtesy of one Mr. Sweetnam, a former director at the EIA who was promptly reassigned to a distant position when his superiors discovered that this chart revealing declines in existing conventional oil fields had been released to the public.
What this graph shows is the projected decline of all known projects in 2009 (so this does not have the U.S. shale 'revolution' baked into it, but I'll get to that shortly), and it shows that those projects are going to slip from delivering 85 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil to just 45 million bpd between 2012 and 2030. In other words, 40 million bpd will go missing. But it's worse than that, because demand is expected to grow, leaving a gap of more than 60 million bpd by 2030.
If that sounds like a lot, it is, but that's just an assumed rate of production decline of 4.08% per year, which is right in the midzone of expert estimates. Some estimate decline rates as high as 6.5%, which would really amplify the drop and the resulting gap.
The top line is showing how much oil demand would grow if it was going to expand at the usual historical rates. The gap between those two modeled states is 60 million barrels [Edit: this orignially read "43 million barrels" but has been corrected]. To put that in a U.S. shale context, the EIA projects that the domestic shale plays might deliver as much as 3 million barrels per day by 2020, which is nothing to sneeze at, but even with that there's a projected 60 million bpd shortfall Edit: this orignially read "40 million barrels" but has been corrected].
The second chart I want you to look at is this one which shows total world crude oil production over the past 12 years:
Between 2004 and 2012, the total supply of global crude oil + condensates (a definition which excludes the non-transportation fuels known as natural gas plant liquids and biofuels) has just flopped around in a tight band with only 5% wiggle.
It bears noting here that the 2004 average spot price for crude oil (using the Brent contract, as that better defines the 'world oil' price) was $38.35/bbl, while the average 2012 spot price was $111.63, or 2.9 times higher than the 2004 price.
Despite this near tripling in price, the global supply is just sitting there stuck on a plateau. Economically speaking, this is not supposed to happen. What is supposed to happen is that suppliers will react to these higher prices and deliver more to the market, and then prices will settle down. But that hasn't happened, which indicates that global oil supplies are, as expected, constrained by something other than market forces.
This brings us to the third chart of global spending on oil projects:
What also happened during the time that global supplies of crude oil were undulating along that 5% plateau? Global expenditures on oil projects jumped by 100% from $300 billion per year to $600 billion. With a 100% increase in capital spending by the petroleum industry, we saw petroleum supplies remain more or less stuck in the exact same spot.
I am of the impression that $600 billion a year is a lot of money and that the people dedicating that capital are applying it to the very best projects available. I make the further assumption that when a project is identified and pursued, it is brought on line as rapidly as possible. There are not that many ways to look at this data other than noting that we are spending more and more to get the same...for now.
If you want to know why oil costs over $110 on the world stage, the last two charts above give you the answer: There's just not that much of it to go around.
Despite all of this effort and expense, the world is basically treading water with respect to overall production. The reason for that is contained in the first chart out of these three: The race is now on to bring new projects on line quickly enough to offset the losses from existing fields.
Petroleum is neither a U.S. issue nor any other specific country's issue, but rather a global commodity of immense importance. While the development of the shale plays in the U.S. is of domestic importance, it has not altered the global dynamic of static oil production – at least not detectably in the global supply charts. Not yet.
Conclusion (to Part I)
In Part II: How Energy Woes Will Trigger Financial Crisis, we look at the latest global petroleum supply and demand data and see clearly that cheap oil has become extinct. That era is over for humankind.
My prediction is that the underlying rates of depletion will continue to fight the recent production gains in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world until they soon come to a standstill, eventually swamping even heroic efforts.
Steadily rising energy costs and decreasing net energy yields will simply not be able to fund the future economic growth and consumptive lifestyles that developed nations are depending on (and that developing nations are aspiring to). In fact, the persistent global economic weakness we've been experiencing over the past years is an expected symptom of the throttling constraint decreasing net energy places on growth.
If you care about the future of the economy, your standard of living (or that of your children), and/or your quality of life, you need to fully understand this relationship between growth and net energy. Your individual future (and our collective one) depends on it.
Click here to read Part II of this report (free executive summary; enrollment required for full access).
Looking for a financial adviser who sees the world through a similar lens as we do? Free consultation available.Learn More »
Prosper! is a "how to" guide for living well no matter what the future brings.Learn More »
51 Comments
So I should keep the Prius and not get a new Camaro. I will really miss muscle cars.
I have been leading green initiative at work and have subsequently been labeled a "tree hugger". If you can believe it in this day and age. When all the gas plays became news, peolpe have been coming up to me saying, "how does it feel to be wrong" in there own inimical ways. Chris has made me lazy on the energy research side, when he announced he would be doing these pieces, I said to myself that I would wait for his reports. The broad context of energy and resource depletion is so solid and well documented, even large discoveries don't dent the large picture as the report aptly points out. Well done, thanks for the detail and confirmation, look forward to future reports.
It is still so strange, at work most people are so completely oblivious about the big picture, meet in the evening with the local transition initiating group and everyone takes the impending problems for granted. I know everybody experiences the mostly the same thing, but it still boggles my mind. As Mike Rupert says, who are you going to relate to and work with, the guys sitting and drinking at the Titanic bar asking you to sit down and relax or those up on the deck frantically trying to build life boats. I need to let this go.
...it will go, you will just stop explaining and find comfort in the fact you are right, and taking care of those you care for. It's why we are here, Buds then...
Good Luck
One small quibble: In the third paragraph under the chart "World's Liquid Fuels Supply," you contrast the projected 3 MMBPD increased US production projected by the EIA for 2020 with the 43 MMBPD indicated in the chart for after 2030. I would like to know what the EIA says the US production will do after 2020. I understand it will probably still be a very small percentage of the total worldwide demand deficit, but if I am going to use this, I would like to be making as accurate a comparison as possible.
From the The Telegraph:
Shale gas is unlikely to be a "game-changer" for the UK over the next two decades, energy giant BP said, as it warned that Europe would become increasingly dependent on imported gas.
I have been leading green initiative at work and have subsequently been labeled a "tree hugger". If you can believe it in this day and age. When all the gas plays became news, peolpe have been coming up to me saying, "how does it feel to be wrong" in there own inimical ways. Chris has made me lazy on the energy research side, when he announced he would be doing these pieces, I said to myself that I would wait for his reports. The broad context of energy and resource depletion is so solid and well documented, even large discoveries don't dent the large picture as the report aptly points out. Well done, thanks for the detail and confirmation, look forward to future reports.
It is still so strange, at work most people are so completely oblivious about the big picture, meet in the evening with the local transition initiating group and everyone takes the impending problems for granted. I know everybody experiences the mostly the same thing, but it still boggles my mind. As Mike Rupert says, who are you going to relate to and work with, the guys sitting and drinking at the Titanic bar asking you to sit down and relax or those up on the deck frantically trying to build life boats. I need to let this go.
Amen to that! (To just letting it go.)
Its good to have some more definitive dates. But when are we going to truly feel the negative affects worldwide, in every country. Oil shortages would effect everyone on earth. There are corrupt countries that maintain a wealthy minority just by printing money and putting it into briefcases I'm sure. When are they going to feel it. When will the top 1% feel it? Heres one example, the most expensive houses near where I live in Sydney are struggling to be sold, and half of them are up for sale. The asking prices are $10,000,000 to $20,000,000. I think the rich are finally getting it. Those houses weren't such a great investment.
The 2012 AEO has a Table 23 with projections of world oil prices from 2015 to 2035. The average of all predictions goes from approximately $100 in 2015 to approximately $120 in 2035. The maximum prediction in that table is from AEO 2012 reference, at about $145 in 2035. I take it your price estimates would be much, much higher?
Hi Chris,
I just wanted to bring to your attention a couple of items:
1. para 6 I believe you accidently have BP shown as PB
2. second para after the chart "Worlds Liquid Fuels Supply" I suspect that the gap that you are refering to between the two models is about 63 and not 43 as written (106 - 43 = 63).
"The gap between those two modeled states is 43 million barrels."
As always keep up the great work.
Great piece, but you're mis-reading this excellent chart exactly the same way most people seem to.
What this graph shows is the projected decline of all known projects in 2009 (so this does not have the U.S. shale 'revolution' baked into it, but I'll get to that shortly), and it shows that those projects are going to slip from delivering 85 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil to just 45 million bpd between 2012 and 2030. In other words, 40 million bpd will go missing. But it's worse than that, because demand is expected to grow, leaving a gap of more than 60 million bpd by 2030
I use this same chart and most people misinterpret it. Specifically:
The gap between those two modeled states is 43 million barrels.
No, that's not what the "43" indicates. The "43" means that global production from projects known in 2009 would decline to 43mmbpd by 2030. It would "read better" if the number "43" were moved down and to the right.
As it is, most people interpret the "43" to be the size of the gap between the projected demand line and production from then-known fields. In actuality, the gap is 62mmbpd, i.e. 105mmbpd 2030 demand projection minus 43mmbpd production from previously known sources equals 62mmbpd shortfall, or more than 5 new Saudi Arabias worth of new oil discoveries needed to fill the gap.
To put that in a U.S. shale context, the EIA projects that the domestic shale plays might deliver as much as 3 million barrels per day by 2020
Ok, but in fairness there are credible projections estimating that in aggregate, the Bakken, Eagle Ford, Barnett and other U.S. plays could collectively produce up to 4.8mmbpd. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and accept their number without critique. Heck, let's round it up for good measure and call it 5mmbpd by the time all the new shale plays are exploited.
Five million barrels a day of NEW production is nothing to shake a stick at. It's fully HALF of Saudi Arabia's output. Since we need to find 62mmbpd, again rounding generously, five million barrels of new production solves just 1/12th of the problem. We still need 4.5 more Saudi Arabias to be discovered in the next 7 years to replace the remaining 55mmbpd projected shortfall. If we can just find those 4 1/2 more Saudi Arabias in the next 7 years, the overall Peak Oil problem will have been solved completely.
The bottom line is still that to solve the problem we need to find exactly TWELVE TIMES the highest projected annual production estimate from all the U.S. shale plays combined. This is a big deal and even just 1/12th is still a major achievement against such a monumental goal as 60mmbpd. But we can't lose sight of where we stand. We are 1/12th of the way there, and no more major finds are even on the radar at this point. That's where we stand. 1/12th of the way to a real solution, 7 years to go. 55 million barrels per day of new oil production left to be discovered.
...and this will be proven also: Your numbers are too conservative still. Saudi Arabia will be absolutely proven (over time) to be far less than is even guess estimated. Before here to there the above ground issues will be so great that these numbers anticipated will just NOT materialize. Hoarding will be such a problem too that all these numbers are just a fragile attempt at making sense of it all, and yet all the ears of leadership are of the Mauldin kind (there's no problem Folks) and I just hope this isn't true.
I still get all of my best guess estimates and opinions from "Twilight in the Dessert" and Matt Simmons 'got it right' research.
Respectfully Given
Since Erik has popped his head in PP again... and it's always nice to have him commenting here.. I will point out that he wrote an EXCELLENT piece recently that gets down to brass tacks of energy and the future of the dollar (as the reserve currency);
But that immunity cannot last forever. The loss of reserve currency status will be the forcing function that begins a self-reinforcing vicious cycle that brings about a U.S. bond and currency crisis. While many analysts have opined that the USA cannot go on borrowing and spending forever, relatively few have made the connection to loss of reserve currency status as the forcing function to bring about a crisis.
We're already seeing small leaks in the ship's hull. China openly promoting the idea that the yuan should be asserted as an alternative global reserve currency would have been unthinkable a decade ago, but is happening today. Major international trade deals (such as China and Brazil) not being denominated in U.S. dollars would have been unthinkable a decade ago, but are happening today.
Demand and supply are both a function of price and price is a function of supply and demand. So who knows what will be produced from exotic plays in the future?
So...what do you think the price will be? The AEO 2012 studies I linked to when from an average of about $100 per barrel in 2015 to about $120 in 2035, with a maximum value of about $145 in 2035. (All values were in 2010 dollars.)
Do you think the real price will be $200 (in 2010 dollars)? $300? More?
Or perhaps even more importantly, in 2011, the U.S. consumed about 134 billion gallons of gasoline, at a cost of about $3.50 a gallon. So that's a total cost of about $470 billion. The U.S. GDP in 2011 was about $15 trillion, so spending on gasoline was about 3.1 percent of GDP.
What do you think the numbers will look like in 2035?
...and his opinion seems to be in direct conflict with Pettis and Chanos so who is to be weighted more?
Pettis wrote this and so much more:
Chanos this and so much more:
Gordon Chang seems to NOT believe in the China story and I just don"t know what to think.
I do understand though that China is a developing country and to get to developed status and a serious economy then they have to move their paltry 38% consumer driven economy to a world norm of somewhere near 60% (?). So, I will keep my mind wide open and just let things develop without over committing myself to any one ideal or opinion.
I believe Pettis has been on the ground focused on China, and Chanos has some serious boots on the ground too.
Perhaps ET can share his direct contacts, and where his research comes from.
I read and with great interest the article in "Resiliency", and many assumptions were made and some of it conjecture and not completely clear to me as it just isn't clear just yet. One question: If China wanted to destroy the dollar it most certainly can but in the process would destroy itself. So, this dance could go on for some time yet are my thoughts. Brazil and local Asian countries are one thing, being a part of a basket of currencies to a new reserve currency is quite another, especially when you are still a developing economy and NOT a developed economy. In any case, I get the contexts of the article by Mr. Townsend but too many assumptions, and no real timeline from point A to point B was established.
The "Triffin Paradox" had me smiling a bit as Charles had referenced this and Chris seemed to down play this as beneath the level of importance and not relevant but I never understood why.
So many brainiacs in conflict that who is completely sound in judgement is a toss up. I will say I completely agree with the negative influence "Peak Oil" will have on the world IS NOT fully appreciated by the economists and the public just on supply and demand. To be found energy is a serious issue and NO ONE truly understands where that will come from but then again we do have thin air money so thin air energy I guess.
Erik T gets my full support with regards to Peak Oil, and nothing he has written contradicts the research of Simmons, Nelder, Campbell, ASPO, Oil Drum and the like.
Respectfully Given
Great article. Another thing to consider is the unknown externalities that are inevitably coming. As Japan can attest, there are Real energy costs (30% in their case) to Mother nature's push back on our externalities. We can't factor in the unkown, but considering the eponential rate of external costs, especially from those 'developing' counties (adding to the externals), I think we can logically assume bigger costs are coming in the future. How much more energy will we need to rebuild after these catastrophes?... putting even more downward pressure.
Bob, I agree, the ME cartel hasn't accurately reported oil levels since their conception. We really have no idea how much they have left, just rough estimates.
Resilience is the key!
Thank You
...the greatest message Chris, Adam and all associated with PP can give is Preparations and Resilience.
All oil and gas companies talk their books, they live with two sets of books, one for public consumption and one for them.
In Chris's next Part (2) of the energy equation he is likely to speak of natural gas and the depletion rate per well is incredible and can't possibly represent what the Oil and Gas talking heads are saying, yet that is what gets out there. Plus to get the price necessary for the production of the BTU from natural gas will be triple the price as it is now so kills the economy yet again.
The article you provided that was written by Erik T. is truly a wonderful even excellent article and should be a must read by all wanting a comprehensive read of the state of affairs we find our world in.
Erik left open for our consideration a lot to think about and contemplate. Well written for sure.
Thank you
Thanks for reviewing the whole article.. I thought maybe you got hung up on the China angle, which was mentioned in the very small excerpt I published, but is not really the focus of the article... It is not so much about China "stealing" the reserve currency as it is about that slot being ours to lose.. and lose it we will at this rate.
Jim, I realized how abrupt I sounded and it was unintended. Erik really went at this very intelligently and I just realized how critical I sounded without fully saying what I felt about his article. It is first rate and so is Eriks work.
Be Good
Another great article. I had to read the following excerpt a few times since I was confused in the wording:
"The same holds true for oil exporting countries. If they converted all their dollar revenues back into their own currencies, doing so would make their currencies more expensive against the dollar. That would make their exports less attractive because, being priced in dollars, they would fetch lower and lower prices after being converted back into the exporting nation's domestic currency."
The less attractive/lower prices threw me off, but assuming other currencies and the price per barrel remain constant/competitive in real prices it makes sense. I always have to run the exchange conversions in relation to price a few times in my head to get it right. Just a thought, the reference to "reckless" spending may not be reckless at all but "inevitable" spending in keeping with the paradox of thrift as well as the need for funding military action to maintain the reserve currency status. Regardless, unfortunately it ends badly for all scenarios.
Thank You
So the guy who is paid to patrol the parks on cold winter nights does nothing to protect the resources of the park? A few tears won't hasten the regrowth of that stump, and the wood being freshly cut, much of its fuel value will be wasted just to vaporize the sap. For one night's warmth, years of tree growth disappear in toxic smoke, probably in some absurdly inefficient fireplace. That poor "poacher" will return night after night until the forest is gone. And what will he burn NEXT winter? Banknotes, maybe. (Weimar marks were more valuable as fuel than as currency, according to the Wikipedia article on hyperinflation.)
If the forest tract was privately owned, would the owner be justified to use deadly force to protect it? Now is the time to establish a legal foundation for the defense of "property essential to sustainable life", for killing my tree today may threaten the lives of my family one, ten, or one hundred years from now.
Thanks for the many kind words here.
The real question we in the PO camp must ask ourselves is whether or not to trust our own data.
Like Chris, I'm very fond of using the WEO 2009 chart because it shows the decline of fully 62mmbpd by 2030, and it makes a very persuasive case.
But wait a minute... Don't we all agree here that U.S. government data is suspect? People like Chris and I tend to take something like the 2009 WEO report, and conclude "These people are conservative and vested in protecting the status quo, so if even THEY are saying this stuff, it MUST be true!"
But what if the data upon which we base our "realistic" projections is no more "realistic" than the readily available data now saying that shale oil & gas solves everything? How do we know that 60+mmbpd is a real number, when we are so quick to dismiss other U.S. government data which because it is biased in the opposite direction, we are quick to view with suspicion?
I don't think we know. Perhaps Chris has done much more work than I have, and has independently verified the 2009 WEO chart with his own original research. But I doubt it. More likely, Chris, like me, feels inclined to put more faith in what seem to be more "honest" numbers than the ones we know are phony. But the point is we don't know. Maybe the 62mmbpd decline figure was the inflated fantasy number, and in reality the 5mmbpd from the shale plays will solve everything!
Personally, I'm still willing to bet with my wallet that Chris and I are right, and that the situation is worse than the official story is telling us. But the point is, we don't know. The people like Chris and myself who are standing up saying "Hey! This is crazy!" are working from other people's data. We assume it's right when it jibes with our intuition and personal biases, and we refute it when it contradicts what we believe intuitively. But the reality of the situation is still that nobody has the resources to do adequate original research to really know for sure. We're just doing our best to figure out which "official" data is real and which is not.
...thank you for this. I was initially trying to prod for new informational source and delivered it badly. I so agree however with yours, Chris's numbers. I basically look at a long term trend line as confirmation for my beliefs about Oil and as you know that is basically straight up for some years now. Projecting out I just don't see the flow rate at the wells even coming close to satisfying demand.
Just a terrific report Erik and after I realized my error in not stating this fact I wrote about it. Sometimes I get stuck on a thought,and unintent ionally I cut short a review. It can be a silly point too. Everything today seems silly to me though. Action is all I want to give us something before the lights go out. Use oil wisely and build something out of it.
All DATA is not to be believed as perfect, and trusting you and Chris to make sense of best guess estimate is nice when doing the math and seeing what I am seeing.
Best Regards
...too as I read your article so while it seemed I centered on China the fact is I see all these countries as a "KaBoom" moment setting off very uncertain times. Hell, I see Iran as the greatest threat to grinding all commerce to a halt world wide and might be the best example of the Oil price spike you were referencing. It's what I visualized as I read your article.
In reviewing the names of countries I provided I am certain of this: All their data is contrived. I also have housing crisis in Australia, Canada and just everywhere I see serious problems and just shake my head at what is at stake in the not to distant future. Frankly it is mind numbing research if just one major world economy but when it is all the great world economies in the same state of affairs , and the major issue being the printing of "thin air money" seems balanced throughout as they war to be the exporting nation. We all can't be that I am certain of that.
OK, time to crash now and needed to get all of what I was thinking of out so an understanding of what I was thinking while reading your report is clear.
Again, Thank you
I'll use a story that I've told on here before, but it apply's to this conversation.
At one of my 4th of July parties a few years back, I asked a high ranking military officer (General) from the Pentagon:
"Is Peak Oil Real?"
His Answer (Paraphrased):
"Does it really matter? If we say it's real, it is."
What this means is, it doesn't matter whether the #'s are right or not, the government and military are working off of the basis that Peak Oil is real. Which means that the public should be working from the same thought process.
And again, whether Peak Oil is a real phenomenon or not, the Military says it is, and that's how it will play out, so plan accordingly.
Thanks for the many kind words here.
The real question we in the PO camp must ask ourselves is whether or not to trust our own data.
Like Chris, I'm very fond of using the WEO 2009 chart because it shows the decline of fully 62mmbpd by 2030, and it makes a very persuasive case.
But wait a minute... Don't we all agree here that U.S. government data is suspect? People like Chris and I tend to take something like the 2009 WEO report, and conclude "These people are conservative and vested in protecting the status quo, so if even THEY are saying this stuff, it MUST be true!"
But what if the data upon which we base our "realistic" projections is no more "realistic" than the readily available data now saying that shale oil & gas solves everything? How do we know that 60+mmbpd is a real number, when we are so quick to dismiss other U.S. government data which because it is biased in the opposite direction, we are quick to view with suspicion?
I don't think we know. Perhaps Chris has done much more work than I have, and has independently verified the 2009 WEO chart with his own original research. But I doubt it. More likely, Chris, like me, feels inclined to put more faith in what seem to be more "honest" numbers than the ones we know are phony. But the point is we don't know. Maybe the 62mmbpd decline figure was the inflated fantasy number, and in reality the 5mmbpd from the shale plays will solve everything!
Personally, I'm still willing to bet with my wallet that Chris and I are right, and that the situation is worse than the official story is telling us. But the point is, we don't know. The people like Chris and myself who are standing up saying "Hey! This is crazy!" are working from other people's data. We assume it's right when it jibes with our intuition and personal biases, and we refute it when it contradicts what we believe intuitively. But the reality of the situation is still that nobody has the resources to do adequate original research to really know for sure. We're just doing our best to figure out which "official" data is real and which is not.
I generally agree with everything you wrote in this article. The exception is shale gas.
Working as a solar energy project developer and wanting to understand shale gas inpacts better, I organized a session at last years NESEA BuildingEnergy conference on shale gas and searched for the best answers I could find.
One part of the answers I was seeking came from Tim Bigler, Senior Market Strategist for Natural Gas Operations for Hess. I asked him about prices being, as you suggest, well below the cost of development and extraction. He explained that most of the dry gas in shale fields is accompanied by "natural gas liquids" which are tied in the market to petroleum prices, so that as long as petroleum prices remain high, the wells can be profitable even if the natural gas prices remain pretty low.
The other big question was one inspired by a question key to your long term analysis, net energy return on energy investment. The only person I could find who has done such a study is Mike Aucott, a Research Scientist for the New Jersey Department of Enevironmental Protection, who did an analysis on EROI for Marcellus shale gas. He started the study expecting to find that the cost of extraction had minimal energy returns relative to energy invested. He included energy inputs including the embodied energy in steel distribution system piping, the fuel to truck water, the embodied energy in the concrete for well casings and pretty much everything he could identify associated with Marcellus gas extraction. His finding was that for every one unit of energy invested, 68 units are returned from Marcellus gas fields, which beats every other form of fossil fuels and many renewables. This is a guy who started the Philadelphia Ecology Action Club back in the 1970s, spent his career in the environmental protection game and can only be described as an ardent environmentalist, as well as a thorough and honest PhD scientist.
My take away from those two presentations is that shale gas will be a game changer for quite some time, perhaps not a hundred years, but long enough to have gas soften the economic impacts of the energy shortages we all expected in the near future.
Chris, the OECD-driven forecasts I've seen put 2030-2040 oil cost in the range of $125-175/bbl (2012 dollars). Can the global economy grow at a reasonable rate paying $175/bbl for oil? How high can our global median household energy expenditure get before GDP growth is wiped out by the cost of achieving that growth?
We know that economics is a key driver of innovation. While I'm convinced that fossil oil is our #1 structural issue moving forward, I'm not convinced that it's a deal breaker. The more carefully I look at the future of PV electricity (and the range of emerging renewables in general), I think we may be incorrectly estimating our future net energy mix.
With experience in electrical engineering and economies of scale, offshore mfg dynamics, and cost-demand trends, I think there's a high probability that, by 2040-2045, PV electricity will be cheaper than gas-coal-nuke for >80% of the global population who use electricity. I'm happy to go into detail on that, but in short I think a conservative trend line puts 2040 median installed PV electricity at roughly $0.04/kwh. Double that for grid delivery, assuming a local grid exists. Combine this with emerging renewables and I believe by 2080 the industrialized world will be using 80% renewable electricity.
In short, I think we're underestimating future electrical economics driving fossil oil alternatives. Most (certainly not all) fossil oil applications can be converted to electrical analogs, and I believe 2010-2080 will see a profound acceleration in this trend. Mobility and storage R/D will continue to attract increasing dollars in all sectors: govt, industry, academics.
One forecast puts 2035 as the year when hybrid-EV-PI vehicles start to outsell IC. I think it will be sooner, perhaps 2025-2030, via (currently unanticipated) accelerations in efficiencies, range, charge-times, and net cost. I'm assuming similar oil-to-elec crossovers in other applications – agriculture, military, etc. Ultimately, I think 120M b/d 2040 oil forecasts are too high, and that affordable renewable electricity will accelerate innovation, displacing oil demand faster than most are anticipating.
That said, the planet will likely have >500M IC vehicles still running in 2040. I think 2000-2100 will be a profoundly difficult era of human history. The good old days of cheap energy are gone, but I do see an era of cheap energy returning. It's those 100 years in the middle -- especially the critical period around 2030-2060 -- that will challenge us to our core, but I have a "reasonable" confidence that economics will drive innovation that will help us survive this difficult century.
...an issue going forward. Why I'm shaking my head is when I read Mauldin (who I respect very much) talking as if he has such great faith. Well, I will too when I start seeing gas pipelines, windmills, solar, hydro, and geothermal every darn where. In addition it sure would be nice to have a priority on developing the battery storage system necessary to gather and store. Right now these are scattered about here and there.
When I do see a windmill or solar I get a great feeling of relief but it is short lived only because it's not near enough.
I still see no movement until Debt is destroyed, and the status quo is removed so that new thoughts can come forward for the change that will be required to build the next generation economy. The central banks and our energy problem are part and parcel the same issue. One props the economy and the other tears it down. So I see the China's, Europe's, Japan's, the U.S. as all connected.
All that you have to do in order to 'believe' the Sweetnam graph is to believe that currently producing fields are cranking out 85 Mbpd and that the weighted average rate of decline for those fields is 4.08%.
I agree this is the crux of the issue, and I agree that the future decline rate will be at least 4.08% if nothing changes. But I'm not quite ready to throw all my faith into the 4% decline rate because I am coming around to the view that it can and will be mitigated.
Consider the following "news story":
HOUSTON -- Saudi Aramco announced today that it would acquire 100% of Chesapeke Energy. The embattled company (Chesapeke) lost considerable share value despite its many successful projects employing horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies following several management scandals. An Aramco representative said, "Basically, or strategy is to acquire the excellent technology capabilities and re-deploy them in order to mitigate production declines in our existing "Elephant" fields in KSA. We're going to give all our major oilfields a facelift which will include drilling horizontals and using fracking extensively to increase flow rates from existing oilfields, and our acquisition of CHK today gives us the core competence to achieve these goals.
No, that's not from the AP - I just made it up. But the point is, it could easily be true. So far as I can tell (PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, folks) fracking and horizontal drilling should be able to markedly increase flow rates from existing "Elephant" fields. The reason it hasn't been done yet is that most people don't "believe in" Peak Oil.
Yeah yeah, I know... Increasing the flow rates the way I describe is just asking for more trouble later because the rate of decline, once the limits of fracking are reached, will be much higher. But if the world followed that kind of thinking, we wouldn't be in this fossil fuel predicament to start with.
I contend that there is a CRITICAL bit of information, which unfortunately I don't know how to research. The question we need to ask is not what decline rate Sweetnam's chart uses or what anyone else has projected. That's not what matters. I contend the core question is this:
Assuming that fracking, horizontal drilling, and any other technologies can and will be used to the extent that it is economic to do so in order to mitigate decline of existing oil resources, what will the net decline rate be after considering the mitigating effects?
For starters, it's not even possible to answer that question without knowing (or projecting) the oil price, since the ability to mitigate depends on the cost of mitigation divided by the incremental production being economic. But I contend it will be, at least to some extent.
So the way I see this going down is approximately as follows:
- For now, most people deny PO is real
- A big price spike wakes them up. Probably in the $150-$200 range
- The industry responds by employing fracking and lateral drilling to improve flow rates from existing MENA region fields.
- This takes time and the oil market goes wild for a while until the mitigations are felt
- Oil prices come back down (but not all the way) once the mitigations are effective and flow rates increase.
- Eventually, a sudden-stop sort of energy crisis happens, but of course we wait until the 11th hour to form a plan for what to do about it.
My frustration is that I can't figure out where to research this more thoroughly. Some of the questions I ponder:
Is anyone currently considering or making plans to use these techologies on the aging elephant fields?
How long will it take to ramp up and how much will it cost, expressed in $ per bbl of incremental production resulting from the mitigation?
How long is the lead time to manufacture the drilling equipment, deliver it, etc. In other words, if the Saudis decided tomorrow to use these technologies aggressively to mitigate flow rate declines, how long would it take them to order the equipment, put it to use, and actually see results in flow rate increases?
Anyway, my point is simply that it's a moving target. When those 4%+ decline rates start to actually happen for real in a measurable way, there will be PLENTY of energy and resources devoted to solving the problem. So far as I can see, there are no true solutions, but there are plenty of ways to kick the can down the road, and delay the onset of the actual crisis. Hmm. Sounds familliar! ;-)
Erik, it's my impression that fracking is used only in "tight" rock formations, although I know they use horizontal drilling in deep sea wells. I question whether either method would be productive in traditional land based fields.
Hydraulic fracturing is the propagation of fractures in a rock layer, by a pressurized fluid. Some hydraulic fractures form naturally—certain veins or dikes are examples—and can create conduits along which gas and petroleum from source rocks may migrate to reservoir rocks. Induced hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracturing, commonly known as fracing, fraccing, or fracking, is a technique used to release petroleum, natural gas (including shale gas, tight gas, and coal seam gas), or other substances for extraction.[1] This type of fracturing creates fractures from a wellbore drilled into reservoir rock formations.
In the Bakken decline rates are about 80% after two years. With oil at about 90$/bbl, these wells barely break even and for production to be maintained will require exponential growth in the number of well after some peak, which is probably not far off.
All charts in this post are clickable for a larger version.
Findings from this in-depth study of time series for production from some individual wells:
- Presently the estimated breakeven price for the "average" well in the Bakken formation in North Dakota is $80 - $90/Bbl In plain language this means that presently the commercial profitability for new wells is barely positive.
- The "average" well now yields around 85 000 Bbls during the first 12 months of production and then experiences a year over year decline of 40% (+/-) 2%
- The recent trend for newer "average" wells is one of a perceptible decline in well productivity (lower yields)
- As of 2007 and also as of recent months, the total production of shale oil from Bakken, has shown exceptional growth and the (relatively high) specific average productivity (expressed as Bbls/day/well) has been sustained by starting up flow from an accelerating number of new wells
- Now and based upon present observed trends for principally well productivity and crude oil futures (WTI), it is challenging to find support for the idea that total production of shale oil from the Bakken formation will move much above present levels of 0.6 - 0.7 Mb/d on an annual basis.
Authoritative research companies (like Bernstein Research) and widely acknowledged specialists/institutions like USGS and SPE have recently and in general arrived at identical conclusions by applying different sets of methodologies and from studying other areas.I am of course in no position to rule out that the required breakeven price in the future could be lowered driven by technological innovations and improvements in well design and operations. However recently there have been a flow of reports that casts a reasonable doubt that this will become a given.
The content for this post was first posted in two parts (with data as of June 2012) on my Norwegian blog; "Fractional Flow" Part 1 and Part 2.
Check out this article in Wired, which suggests Shell beleives 300 billion barrles can be recovered from existing wells.
Thanks for the link Fred. I interpret Shell to be saying,"We have used up this oil field, but it still has a lot of potential for any buyer"
I have a motorcar like that. It still has a lot of potential for a young buyer.
How does heating the viscous oil affect the EROEI?
I see that they say that the process is only viable with high oil prices. That problem is easily solved. We can print more money,
I suspect you are right that the "enhanced recovery" technologies for old oil fields have a pretty lousy EROEI and generally only make sense when oil prices are extremely high. If it were otherwise, the major players would probably have already used those methods. The good thing about getting to those high prices is that all sorts of renewable and conservation solutions make clear economic sense at high price levels too. As a society, once we have polluting solutions costing about the same as clean energy solutions, hopefully it will be a lot easier to make the right choices.
If we are lucky we can make that transition before the crazy money printing completely undermines our entire economy. But as you imply, its hard to be optimistic about that watching the news out of Washington.
If the forest tract was privately owned, would the owner be justified to use deadly force to protect it? Now is the time to establish a legal foundation for the defense of "property essential to sustainable life", for killing my tree today may threaten the lives of my family one, ten, or one hundred years from now.
You seriously think it should be legal to kill a person to protect a tree?
there is a tendancy to look for data that confirms your theory, rather than actually look at the data for what it is.
for example Govts. have been printing money like water causing terrible inflation.
real inflation is around 10% a year when you look at things like university fees, cost of a soft drink, etc.
so oil at $30-40, 10-12 years ago, equals oil at $60-80 today. just because of the manipulation of the currency....
so arguing that new supply hasn't immediately jumped onto the market to shove oil back to $30-40 level, is not realistic, because $30-40 in 2013 is not worth anything like what it was in 2000-2002, and that has nothing to do with oil, only to with paper money printing....
why therefore should oil producers rush to create new supply, it's a tricky business storing millions of barrels of oil.
they are simply enjoying a more volatile market and an incresed risk premium as the focus has sifted from the cold war era into more complex politics surrounding the christian / islam issues.
discounting the $ value of oil alone, kills a greater part of your argument.
No "Plan", go figure.
technet wrote:
"real inflation is around 10% a year when you look at things like university fees, cost of a soft drink, etc. so oil at $30-40, 10-12 years ago, equals oil at $60-80 today. just because of the manipulation of the currency...."
Price inflation of energy has little to do with WCURCIR or the velocity of money (or, as you say, the "manipulation of currency"). "Real inflation" has hovered around 2-3% for the last 10 years, with an occasional glitch one way or another. True, certain goods and services have risen far faster than others: Health care, college tuition, and energy are 3 that come to mind.
Energy costs shot up disproportionately to real inflation over the last few years simply due to supply and demand. If oil had followed real inflation, a $30/bbl in 2002 would today be around $40. Oil is getting harder to get, and world demand is rising, hence the price keeps heading north. It's not rocket science.
We're seeing a deflationary trend in U.S. natural gas prices relative to a few years ago. But as Chris points out, it will be some time before NG can displace petroleum in vehicles. And by that time, U.S. LNG exports (etc.) will likely set North American NG prices back to parity with world prices, reducing our current price advantage.
As noted earlier, I think most forecasters are underestimating the impact of renewable electricity 2010-2080. I think we will reach a maximum global electricity price somewhere around 2020-25, and then see a steady decline, sending "net present economic signals" that accelerate electric storage and mobility R/D far faster than we are anticipating. I think those signals are already at work. An added benefit will be a reduction in greenhouse gas generation as coal and NG plants are shuttered.
California is already generating 15% of its electricity from renewables, and on-target to be at 30% by 2022. Nearly half of all new U.S. energy infrastructure investment is renewable. Germany is on-target to be 80-100% renewable by 2050, with the EU not far behind. Desert PV generation is now under $0.09/kwh (without feed-in tariffs) with a conservative downward price curve to $0.02/kwh by 2040. Labs are currently achieving 5x-10x battery efficiency and cycle improvements with low cost, manufacturable techniques (nano, etc.)...
A renewable electrical technosystem is accelerating. Will it accelerate fast enough, and economically enough, to get us over the 2030-2060 hump without collpase? Nine billion people are a lot of mouths to feed. It's going to be interesting. JL
CantoL writes:
One forecast puts 2035 as the year when hybrid-EV-PI vehicles start to outsell IC. I think it will be sooner,
I do too. I think the huge revolution that virtually no one sees is computer-driven vehicles. I think this will not only accelerate the trend towards electrical vehicles, it will completely revolutionize car ownership and car design. Right now, virtually everyone owns (or leases) their vehicles. In about 30 years, I think virtually no one will own or lease a vehicle. All vehicles will be ordered, like an airline ticket.
Further, at present, there are virtually no cars in the U.S. that only accomodate a driver, whereas the majority of vehicle miles traveled in the U.S. are by drivers without a passenger. Therefore, I think that, within 30 years, most vehicle miles traveled will be in super-small battery-powered and computer-driven cars. Think of a Smart Car cut in half to eliminate the extra seat, and battery-powered.
More details are here:
I listened last night to the BBC Radio 4 programme "In Business" called "Gas Leak" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006s609). I usually have great respect for the BBC - not this time.
It was taken as red that shale gas was making America self sufficient in energy, and that the very low price proved that a great energy transformation happened, and that this would happen all over the World. How wrong! No mention about depletion rates, actual quantities on the ground, and how America actually still imports most of its energy via Oil. The programme was extremely misleading.
The focus of the programme was on Gazprom and how it historical link of oil and gas prices was now discredited and that the discrepancy between US (low) and Europe (high) gas prices demonstrated market manipulation by Gazprom. It would seem to me that Gazprom gas prices are determined by how it obtains its gas and likely to be closely linked with oil. I'm not aware of liquified gas imports to Europe from the US that could reduce the price in Europe - it all sounds very unlikely. (of course I don't mean to imply that Gazprom is a squeaky clean company by any means). Gazprom is under investigation from the EU and is also accused of supporting anti Shale gas protests in order to protect its markets. This seems rather unlikely. A Gazprom official even said that Shale gas wouldn't come to much in Europe, but was totally ignored by the presenter.
For the BBC this was a very badly researched topic. I will be writing to the BBC to try and put them straight.
What I would like to see is a graph of net energy vs time (over a period, say, from 1000 a.d. to the present). Can anybody point me to data of this type? I've seen the 'cliff edge' graph used for illustrative purposes in the Crash Course - the one that shows that as ERoEI falls, net energy drops off dramatically. But I've not seen any attempt to quantify this in real world consumption figures (in MTOE, say)
It seems to me that such a graph would illustrate the problem with fewer distractions - e.g.dollar oil price, budget cuts (here in the UK, at least), unemployment rates, debt, US gas bonanzas, etc. Yes, I realise these are all related, but I'm looking for a fundamental conclusion like: 'we humans are trying to achieve the same things (grow food, heat homes, move ourselves around) with a smaller and smaller amount of energy per head.'
So, a) does this one simple conclusion do too much violence to the complexity of the situation?, and b) if not, can someone point me to the data?
Wasn't thinking straight, was I? What I described - a graph of net energy, would just be a graph of consumption. What I really ought to ask for is a stacked graph, net energy underneath the energy taken to acquire it.


text:
By Chris Wright
Springsteen is 'The Boss'.
Saunders is only really the boss as far as Wolves are concerned.
Thanks to Pies fan Archie for the spot. Top work amigo!
Got a Shit Lookalike for Pies that you're sitting on? Share it with us by emailing firstname.lastname@example.com or Tweeting us on @waatpies.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The holiday family dinner can test patience, fray nerves or ignite old feuds. This year, try diversionary tactics.
In the spirit of harmonious family time, here are a few strategies for every room to get relatives breaking bread without breaking down or breaking things.
The Family/Living Room
Have a stack of board games for all ages at the ready.
Have a fun (non-competitive) family game of charades or Pictionary. Winning teams win dollar store prizes from a mystery grab bag.
Set up a craft table for younger children. Think simple, low fuss, less mess crafts that aren't complicated and don't require a lot of help from adults. For even less fuss, set out holiday-themed colouring books with loads of crayons and markers.
Give the children disposable cameras and let them fire away.
Teens aren't generally known for their communication skills and desire to hang out with the family, so why not let them fire up video games for a night? Get adults involved in a playoff with the younger ones. Host a friendly (very friendly) pre-dinner competition. Sanity-saving tip: Mute the sound and shelve Grand Theft Auto and other ultra-violent video games.
The Bathroom
Keep this room well stocked with all the necessary supplies, extra toilet paper at the ready, a full liquid soap dispenser -- or go wild and break out the fancy soaps.
The Dining Room
Assign age-appropriate children and an adult to set the table. Get another (or the same) crew to clear the table after dinner. Set Christmas crackers at each place setting.
Set up a special kids' table for the wee ones.
At family dinners, think family style. Instead of serving perfectly presented plates, pass food around the table so everyone can serve themselves.
Before tucking in, offer a nice, short toast to the family and thank everyone for coming. While noshing, go around the table and let everyone share stories about what they are most grateful for in the past year or a happy, funny or unexpected highlight of the past year. The kids' stories will likely offer great laughs to break any tension.
The Front Walk
After dinner and dishes, it's time for a walk around the block with the children. Bring the dog. Work up an appetite for dessert. If there's snow on the ground, make a snowman or create snow angels. Check out neighbourhood holiday light displays.
Another option: Set up a post-dinner family photo at an assigned time in front of the Christmas tree or at the dinner table.
The Kitchen
No one likes a kitchen martyr, that one person (typically the hostess) who gets stuck with planning the menu, buying the groceries, making and serving the meal and then cleaning up after the meal.
Instead of martyr, think taskmaster. Get family members to pull tasks from a hat, separating kid duties and adult duties.
Assign kitchen duties to a few people. Sign teens up for vegetable prep duty. At dinnertime, enlist someone to carve the meat, another to mash the potatoes, and one more to stir the sauce, among other final last-minute dinner details.
Get a dishwashing or dishwasher loading crew formed before dinner. Appoint a leftover leader to put extra food away.
Several Rooms
Set out small plates of nibblies for guests to munch on before dinner to avoid the always annoying question "When will supper be ready?" Assign one family member to appetizer-refilling duty. Don't serve too much pre-dinner food or the main event will be spoiled. Whet the appetite, don't douse it.


text:
Building Good Credit for Grad School
NOTE: The following discussion refers to building good credit for grad school in the United States. Please be aware that the details in your location may be quite different.
Most graduate students must take out loans to finance their education. Anyone may take out certain Federal loans as allowed by their financial aid package, but in order to be approved for private loans or Federal PLUS loans, applicants need to have a good credit history. Additionally, it is important to garner good credit to obtain the lowest possible interest rates on those loans. Building good credit for grad school, and the minimal debt that accompanies it, will make your experience less stressful and significantly cheaper, while also allowing you to use your good credit to jumpstart your life (buy a house, rent an apartment, purchase a car, etc) after you graduate.
Your credit report catalogues your credit-based transactions and bill payments, which are then analyzed to give you a FICO score (developed by the Fair Isaac Corporation, this three digit number reflects your creditworthiness). To get healthy credit for graduate school, start improving your FICO score two years before you plan to enroll in order to leave plenty of time to comfortably pay down debt. If you plan to enroll in less time than that, you can still follow these same basic rules. Even if you don't end up applying for grad school, an improved FICO score is an asset in any major financial investment you may make later on.
Start improving your credit by checking your credit report and FICO score for free (you are allowed one free report per year) at Annualcreditreport.com. Investigate what, if anything, is hurting your credit report and then take the proper steps to correct it. You can improve your credit and increase your score in three easy ways:
- Pay your bills on time.
- Pay down your debt.
- Keep your oldest line of credit and don't seek new debt.
Pay your bills on time
Paying all of your bills on time for one full year will greatly improve your credit. Paying your bills on time shows that you are able to responsibly manage your money and that you are a low risk for defaulting on a loan. Utility accounts, credit cards, and loans all show up on your credit report, and one late payment for any of them can blemish your rating. One late payment on a bill to one company may give the other companies a reason to charge you a higher interest rate as well. If you are generally very good about paying your bills, but are tardy on one payment, don't worry. Just be careful to make all of your subsequent payments on time to correct the error and get your credit score climbing again.
Pay down your debt
Your credit rating is also affected by your ratio of debt to credit. By minimizing the amount you owe while maintaining a high credit limit, you will improve your credit rating. For example if you have a credit card with a $5,000 line of credit, but you only charge $100 in any given month, and pay the $100 off immediately, you will show that while you have much available credit, you aren't cavalier about using it.
Keep your oldest line of credit and don't seek new debt.
By keeping and paying down your old lines of credit, instead of transferring debt to a new credit card for a temporary rate reduction, you show that you are committed to paying your debt. The older your lines of credit, the higher your FICO score. If you have a high rate of interest, simply call the bank that issues your card and ask for a lower one—they will usually comply. Use only one credit card while you pay off the rest to reach a zero balance.
Once you're down to a zero balance on all cards, keep the one you've had the longest and get rid of the rest to eliminate the risk (or temptation) of incurring new debt. Even if, for example, you can afford to make payments on a car, don't buy one. Make a choice—a car loan or a school loan—not both. By having numerous sources of credit, you spread yourself thin, and your likelihood to default on one or more increases.
Conclusion and further resources
By following these simple rules—ideally starting two years before you apply for student loans—you are much more likely to be approved for better loans and to get a favorable interest rate on them. This will save you many thousands of dollars over the life of your loans, especially since a strong FICO score will benefit you in any major financial investment you make (not just grad school).
Remember, the three main factors affecting your credit report and FICO score are bill payment, the ratio of total debt to total credit, and the length of your credit history. Lucky for you, these are also the three aspects of your credit report over which you have the most control. You can inform yourself further by exploring other financial advice online and by contacting the financial aid offices of your prospective schools.
- Read our other articles on financing your education
- See GradSchools.com for more info on financial aid and student loans


text:
Would You Pay $85 a Month for Unlimited Espresso?
New York City is getting a new version of the bottomless cup of coffee.
A subscription-model coffee club, in which customers can pay a monthly fee to get unlimited java from selected cafes, launches Monday in the city after a successful run in Israel.
The CUPS mobile app is designed to compete with the smartphone-driven loyalty card programs offered by coffee giants Starbucks and Dunkin' Donuts.
Not surprisingly, the price varies depending on the customer's preferred high-end coffee. New Yorkers who prefer espresso will pay a monthly fee of $85 for unlimited coffee at about 40 independent cafes citywide.
A subscription from unlimited brewed, drip, pour-over or filtered coffee or tea is $45 a month.


text:
As part of our Revitol product line we have now developed a revolutionary new cream to be used as a preventative treatment for stretch marks before, during and after pregnancy. This Stretch Mark Prevention cream will also help to reduce the appearance of existing stretch marks!
- Promotes healthy skin
- Helps increase production of collagen and elastin in the epidermis
- Increases the elasticity and strength of the skin
- Decreases the appearance of existing stretch marks
- Effectively prevents the development of stretch marks
- Keeps skin healthy and firm
- Is easy to apply
While some women start showing a tendency of developing stretch marks during puberty, others only experience problems for the first time during a pregnancy. As the woman's abdominal area can be flat for the first four months of the pregnancy she can suddenly 'catch up' during the fifth and sixth month, with extremely fast growth which subjects the abdominal skin to a significant amount of tension. In this situation the fetus is growing at a rate faster than the mother's skin can keep up with, resulting in epidermal ruptures leading to stretch marks.
Every person is unique and skin grows at different rates, causing some people to suffer from stretch marks more severely than others.
Because stretch marks are in essence scars, they are extremely difficult to eradicate completely, so prevention is key! It contains 100% natural ingredients such as squalene oil, vitamin E, vitamin A, vitamin D3 as well as aloe vera and grapefruit seed extracts. Together they form a powerful new blend that will increase the elasticity of your skin and stimulate the production of new skin cells.
Thanks to its high quality blend of ingredients it will also effectively help to reduce the appearance of, and diminish existing stretch marks.
While the best time to start using this preventative treatment is during the early stages of pregnancy or when you are trying to conceive. However, it is never too late to start and you will experience great results on areas that have already been affected by stretch marks!
Why would you tolerate stretch marks if you can help or minimize them? Just because you are having a child does not mean you have to give up your body!
Now you can take control over your appearance and make sure you will not suffer from this unsightly problem in the first place! No need to cover up on the beach or to be ashamed around your significant other, you can regain your confidence while this product regenerates your skin and diminishes the appearance of your current stretch marks while preventing new ones from forming!
You can feel confident about your body and our offer; for a limited time only we are offering up to TWO FREE BOTTLES of cream so you can start your preventative treatment early and carry it on for as long as needed at a price below the regular retail rate.
We guarantee you will feel the difference in your skin within just a few short weeks. If you are using the product while already pregnant you will notice a significant decrease in the 'tightness' of your skin over your abdominal area, thighs and breasts. This is thanks to the increased skin elasticity and strength resulting from treatment with this revolutionary product.
Stretch Mark Prevention cream possesses powerful ingredients to effectively prevent and reduce the appearance of Stretch Marks while strengthening and deeply conditioning your skin.
The Stretch Mark Prevention cream's squalene oil promotes healthy skin while the vitamin E and grapefruit seed extract act to strengthen the collagen and elastin found deep in the lower epidermis. By stimulating the production of your own body's natural collagen your skin will become stronger and its natural elasticity will be increased. This will significantly aid in the prevention of dermal ruptures that eventually result in stretch marks. Vitamin D3 is a natural derivative of vitamin D produced by your own body when you expose your skin to the sun. However, for it to aid in the regeneration of the epidermal layer far more sunlight is required than our everyday modern life will allow, thus alternate sources of vitamin D3 become a necessity. The vitamin D3 in this product will complement the vitamins E and A in the stimulation of new dermal cell production.
Don't get caught up in false promises!While other products offer to make stretch marks disappear completely, we will offer you a product that truly works and we will only promise you our realistic results: it is very hard to remove stretch marks completely. A great product, such as our Stretch Mark Prevention cream, will significantly diminish the appearance of stretch marks, but we cannot guarantee they will be gone completely. While others may just offer promises, we offer a product that truly delivers and proves itself. When using the product on existing stretch marks, best results are obtained on new scars that are still red and elevated. On older tissue it will take longer to see the full effects of this fantastic cream.
Don't wait for stretch marks to appear! As pregnancy progresses abdominal skin can often feel overly sensitive and tight, and this sensitivity does not always disappear afterwards. Stretch marks do not disappear either when left untreated.
Now you can both prevent and treat them with one great product: Stretch Mark Prevention cream from our revolutionary Revitol line of products!
For more information and prices click on the banner below


text:
Silkk The Shocker (Of No Limit) - All I Do Is Win Freestyle (Making His Return To The Game)
Off his new mixtape "All I do is Win"
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.
Comments will only be displayed by verified emails. No Spamming or Racism.


text:
Everyone dreams of that first kiss. Of that magic moment when your lips finally meet those of that special person you've waited your whole life for. A little awkward, a little scary, a little hot and every bit amazing. We speculate that the whole world will shake and time will just stop. No one, however, ever imagines that kiss would be lethal.
Sixteen year old Mercy Moore's life got more than just complicated. The kiss that originally could have meant she would finally have a boyfriend, now was the kiss that could have very nearly ended his life. A small detail her mother conveniently never told her will take her life for an abrupt u-turn. Dating, no love, was now completely and utterly impossible.
But life, however cruel, goes on. Far too soon for her taste, Mercy finds herself at a party with the elite students of her school and her best friend. And of all things, playing a stupid game that could very well mean the death of someone in that small room. If it were not for her best friend, the hottest guys in school, and a small need to fit in, she may have been able to escape the disaster that was to come. Her worst nightmare, her personal curse, her very life, only gets dangerously worse.
Author Interview:
My inspiration for Beg for Mercy in the Cambion series began when I was shopping anther book around. Even though there was a lot of positive feedback, there were no takers. The reason given to me multiple times was that market at the time was saturated with the paranormal being portrayed in my book even though it was in a new way. So I sat back to think about something not done before.
And, although a succubus has been written about, it hadn't been done in young adult ("YA") at least not as the main character or topic. Mercy was born. I just thought it would be interesting to explore a teenage succubus. The next question was how to do a sex/lust demon it and keep it YA. Thus, Mercy couldn't be full demon, so I made her a cambion, which is a half succubus/or incubi and half human.
Now, what problem would a teenage girl full of hormones and an inner lust demon react in her human life? Generally speaking, when I write, I know my beginning and ending. I also know a few bumps in the road along the way. But then I let the characters go from there.
Figuring a succubus would be beautiful and alluring, wouldn't be interesting to see how she would react to multiple guys trying to get her attention? So I explored that. Later, I found that there is a double standard in books as well with girls and boys. Where hot boys in books can have girls falling all over them, some find that Mercy having multiple guys interested in her unrealistic. That perplexed me some. If she is a lust demon, it would stand to reason that many guys would want to date her.
So in Beg for Mercy, we explore Mercy and how she handles being human and having an inner demon that controls her from time to time. And of course, someone is trying to kill her. I'm a hopeless romantic, so this story tends to lean more on romance than action but has the undercurrent of mystery. In the next book, Waiting for Mercy, there is more action and more questions answered. I'm in the middle of writing Angel of Mercy the next in the story, which will continue with action and solving a few open questions and should be out very soon.
Thanks for having me and giving me the opportunity to share about my inspiration to this story.
Author Bio:
Shannon first love was reading, diving into other realities to explore and brave new worlds. To share her writing is the best experience of all. Her first series explores the life and trials of being Mercy Moore, a teenage cambion. When Shannon isn't writing she loves to shop and watch horror movies that make turning out the lights seem like a stupid idea.
You can explore more about her at her website www.shannondermott.com. She can also be found on Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter.
GIVEAWAY: a Rafflecopter giveaway


text:
Jon Stewart Slams 'Merger Madness' on Daily Show
It isn't every day that Jon Stewart and the Daily Show take on Deal Journal's bread and butter: Merger Madness.
But last night he started his show by critiquing the recent coverage of the merger boom compared to the steadily unsure economy.
He and correspondent John Hodgman criticized, and satirized, Wall Street's desire to build up corporate behemoths, drawing a somewhat questionable line from Warren Buffett's purchase of Heinz to To Big Too Fail. Stewart warned that mega deals have in the past hurt the economy and consumers.
Watch for yourself and let us know your thoughts in the comments. (It's in two parts.)


text:
Frank Boulben, CMO of Research In Motion, sat down for an interview with Forbes. When asked why he took the job with RIM, he said it was appealing to participate in what could be the "greatest comeback in tech history." His point is taken, but he's forgetting about a little company named Apple that was six weeks from bankruptcy that grew to be the most valuable company in the world.
He also says that BlackBerry 10 will have 70,000 apps supporting it at launch. That is a much lower number of apps than iOS or Android have supporting their devices, but it's not a bad number to launch with. It is very likely that most of the apps you use will be available on BlackBerry 10.
Mr. Boulben has his work cut out for him. He has to convince the world that RIM makes a better product than Apple, Google, and Microsoft. Good luck.


text:
The XXIO9 iron set features the newest improvement to the dual speed technology, a boost in efficiency for the initial portion of the downswing. Lag is increased by utilizing a heavier hear and a lighter shaft with a higher balance point moving the CG closer to the grip. This improvement to the club brings the club head in tight to the body of the golfer for a more efficient swing, which generates more centrifugal force for increased head speed and greater distance.
You are about to post a review for XXIO XXIO9 Graphite Iron Set based on your knowledge of its playability. This review will show up under all variations of XXIO XXIO9 Graphite Iron Set, including new, personalized, and custom logo.
Optional, So we can reply
You will receive a response in approximately 1 business day. if you provided an email address, you will receive a copy of the answer via email. Your question may be posted on this page when answered.
Sign up now to be alerted of our great deals!


text:
Photo Source: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qm-ds7JfmzU/hqdefault.jpg
Beautiful: The Carole King Musical is a jukebox musical with a book by Douglas McGrath that tells the story of the early life and career of Carole King, using songs that she wrote, often together with Gerry Goffin, and other contemporary songs by Barry Mann, Cynthia Weil, Phil Spector and others.
The original production of Beautiful received its world premiere at the Curran Theatre, San Francisco, in October 2013, with direction by Marc Bruni and choreography by Josh Prince, and starring Jessie Mueller and Jake Epstein as Carole King and Gerry Goffin, respectively. It made its Broadway debut at the Stephen Sondheim Theatre in January 2014. A West End production starring Katie Brayben as Carole began in February 2015. A U.S. tour launched in September 2015.
Beautiful: The Carole King Musical had a pre-Broadway try-out in San Francisco, California, at the Curran Theatre from September 24, 2013 through October 20, with an official opening October 8. The production was staged by Marc Bruni, with choreography by Josh Prince and musical direction by Jason Howland. Jessie Mueller played Carole King. The musical sold out its entire run at the Curran Theatre.
The musical opened on Broadway at the Stephen Sondheim Theatre on January 12, 2014, after previews from November 12, 2013. In addition to Mueller as King, the cast features Jake Epstein as Gerry Goffin, Anika Larsen as Cynthia Weil and Jarrod Spector as Barry Mann. King attended the April 3, 2014 performance and appeared on stage with the cast at the curtain call, singing "You've Got a Friend" together with them.
A production in London's West End opened on February 25, 2015, following previews beginning February 10, 2015, at the Aldwych Theatre. Prior to the announcement, Baz Bamigboye from the Daily Mail reported that producers are looking for a full British cast for the transfer, meaning that Jessie Mueller would not transfer for the London production. On September 25, 2014, it was announced that British actress Katie Brayben would take the lead role of Carole King, with further casting including Alan Morrissey as Gerry Goffin, Gary Trainor as Don Kirshner, Glynis Barber as Genie Klein, Lorna Want as Cynthia Weil and Ian McIntosh as Barry Mann. Beginning November 30, 2015, Cassidy Janson took the lead role of Carole King and Diane Keen replace Glynis Barber in the role of Genie Klein.
The musical began a U.S. tour starting in September 2015 in Providence, Rhode Island, at the Providence Performing Arts Center, with engagements across the United States, ending in San Francisco in August 2016. The role of Carole King will be played by Abby Mueller (the sister of Jessie Mueller), with Liam Tobin as Gerry Goffin and Becky Gulsvig as Cynthia Weil.
From the Beautiful: The Carole King Musical soundtrack booklet
Act I
At Carnegie Hall in 1971, Carole King sings "So Far Away". Then, in Brooklyn 1958, 16-year-old Carole tells her mother, Genie, she is going into Manhattan to try to sell a song to music publisher Donnie Kirshner. In the long tradition of mothers, Genie is opposed to her daughter's wish and in the equally long tradition of teenagers not caring about their mother's opinion, Carole goes anyway. At 1650 Broadway, she hears the "1650 Broadway Medley". She then sings her new song "It Might As Well Rain Until September". Donnie says he will take it and hopes she has others. At Queens College, Carole meets a handsome young lyricist named Gerry Goffin. They agree to collaborate, musically and romantically, which in both cases turns out to be a fertile arrangement. When they go to Donnie's to play their new song, Carole confesses to Gerry that she is pregnant. Gerry asks her to marry him. It gives her an extra depth of feeling when she sings their new song for Donnie, "Some Kind of Wonderful", which The Drifters then record.
They get an office at 1650. While there, Carole meets a new lyricist Cynthia Weil ("Happy Days Are Here Again"), who is looking for a composer to work with. Gerry and Carole sing their new song "Take Good Care of My Baby", during which Barry Mann, the composer with the office next door, enters. Barry meets Cynthia and they decide to collaborate. As they begin to work, sparks fly. Donnie tells them he needs a song for the Shirelles. The couples compete for the job. In Donnie's office the next morning, Carole and Gerry present "Will You Love Me Tomorrow". Cynthia and Barry perform "He's Sure the Boy I Love". Donnie picks Carole and Gerry's song for The Shirelles and it goes to no. 1 ("Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow" (Reprise)). And so, on either side of the same wall, a competition is born. The two teams turn out an amazing parade of songs: "Up on the Roof", "On Broadway", "The Loco-Motion" and "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'".
Gerry and Carole are at the taping of a TV special where their new song, "One Fine Day", is being performed by the dazzling Janelle Woods. During a break, Gerry confesses to Carole that he is restless in their marriage. He wants to sleep with Janelle, and he doesn't want to lie about it. Carole is stunned. As the song begins again, she takes it over and sings it herself.
Act II
Carole is in a recording studio doing a demo of "Chains". Gerry is off with Janelle but tells her he will meet her later. Nick, a guitarist, asks Carole to come sing at the Bitter End sometime but she declines — she's a songwriter, not a singer. The thing with Gerry is getting her down so she goes and talks to Cynthia who is also having trouble with Barry — they split up. Carole decides to tell Gerry he has to end the affair with Janelle. As she leaves, Barry comes in. He and Cynthia make up and play their new song, "Walking in the Rain". Gerry shows up, but he is not making sense. He eventually has a breakdown. At the hospital, he tells Carole he will end the affair with Janelle and that he wants to come home. She suggests they make a new start and move to the suburbs ("Pleasant Valley Sunday").
Barry, Cynthia and Donnie come to see the new house. Barry plays their new song, "We Gotta Get Out of This Place". Depressed that he and Carole can't do as well, Gerry leaves in a funk for the city. While he is gone, it comes out that Barry and Cynthia have seen him with another woman, a singer named Marilyn Wald. Carole goes to Marilyn's apartment and Gerry is there. It's the final straw, and she ends their marriage. At the Bitter End, where Barry and Cynthia hear their song "Uptown", Carole explains she went to Los Angeles for a vacation and has started writing on her own. Nick, the guitarist from the studio who asked her to sing with his group, is playing there and urges her to sing. She sings her new song, "It's Too Late". She decides to move to Los Angeles. At 1650, she says goodbye to Donnie, Barry and Cynthia and plays them a parting present ("You've Got a Friend").
In Los Angeles, she records her album, Tapestry. The session goes well until the last song, which she is afraid to sing. It's a song she wrote with Gerry and she is afraid of the feelings it may stir up. Her producer, Lou Adler, persuades her. She sings "(You Make Me Feel Like) A Natural Woman". The album is a smash. Carole is at Carnegie Hall for her concert. Before the show starts, Gerry knocks on her dressing room door. He has brought her a good luck present, but has something even more valuable: an apology for all the ways he hurt her. With a full heart he wishes her well. Carole comes onto the stage of Carnegie Hall alone. She sits at the piano. Then with all the joy inside her, she sings "Beautiful".
Musical numbers
All songs written by Goffin and King except as noted
† Not included on the original Broadway Cast Album.
The musical uses a 12-member orchestra consisting of three keyboards, two guitars, bass, drums, percussion, two reeds, trumpet/flugelhorn, and trombone/bass trombone. In addition the performer playing Carole King plays the piano if it is Katie Brayben (London) whereas Jessie Mueller (Broadway) needed piano lessons so she could mime.
The Broadway cast album was recorded in February 2014 by Ghostlight Records and was released in digital form on April 1, 2014. It was in stores as of May 13, 2014. (The Broadway cast album includes the song "You've Got a Friend", although that song is not listed in the opening night credits.) The album was also released on a vinyl format.
Principal roles and original casts
Broadway Cast Replacement History
Scott J. Campbell took over the role of Gerry Goffin from Jake Epstein on September 23, 2014.
Paul Anthony Stewart took over the role of Don Kirshner from Jeb Brown on September 23, 2014.
Chilina Kennedy took over the role of Carole King from Jessie Mueller on March 7, 2015.
Jessica Keenan Wynn took over for Anika Larsen in the role of Cynthia Weil while she was on temporary maternity leave starting on March 10, 2015.
Anika Larsen returned to the role of Cynthia Weil on October 13, 2015.
Ben Jacoby took over the role of Barry Mann from Jarrod Spector on March 3, 2016.
Jessica Keenan Wynn has returned to the role of Cynthia Weil on April 26, 2016, replacing Anika Larsen.
West End Cast Replacement History
Cassidy Janson replaced Katie Brayben in the role of Carole King on November 30, 2015.
Diane Keen replaced Glynis Barber in the role of Genie Klein on November 30, 2015.
Critical reception
Ben Brantley, reviewing for The New York Times, called the musical a "friendly, formulaic bio-musical". He wrote that the musical shows the change in King from a modest songwriter to the popular and confident performer of those songs, showing the "real, conflicted person within the reluctant star."
Jesse Green, in his review for the New York Magazine, praised the performers but criticized the book, writing that the musical does not have the "dramatic coherence of book biomusicals". Similarly, Elyse Sommer, in her review for curtainup.com, praised the performers, especially Mueller, Spector and Larsen, as well as the "shimmery lighting" and the costumes. She wrote that while the musical "doesn't hang its songs on the greatest or most suspenseful story ever told, it has enough bounce and Broadway show glitz to keep you in your seat".
Awards and nominations
Original Broadway production
Original London production
Film adaptation
On March 22, 2015, it was announced that Sony Pictures would be bringing the musical to the big screen with Douglas McGrath adapting his book into a screenplay and stage producer Paul Blake producing through Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman's production company, Playtone.
The producers of the original Broadway production include: Paul Blake, Sony/ATV Music Publishing, Jeffery A. Sine, Richard A. Smith, Mike Bosner, Harriet Newman Leve, Elaine Krauss, Terry Schnuck, Orin Wolf, Patty Baker, Roger Faxon, Larry Magrid, Kit Seidel, Lawrence S. Toppall, Fakston Productions, Mary Soloman, William C. Cohen, John Gore, Barbara Freitag, Loraine Alterman Boyle, Matthew C. Blank, Tim Hogue, Joel Hyatt, Marianne Mills, Michael J. Moritz Jr., StylesFour Production, Corey Brunish, Brisa Trinchero, Jeremiah J. Harris, Sherry Kondor (Executive Producer), Christine Russell (Executive Producer).
External links
Official Broadway Site
Official West End Site
Beautiful: The Carole King Musical at the Internet Broadway Database
Beautiful - The Musical


text:
Parents often name their children aspirationally, bestowing upon their offspring names that they hope will help their offspring succeed. The mother of Great Britain's Destinee Superstar really brought out the big guns.
She's ten now, which, if we're talking in terms of Willow Smith, is nearly elderly, but Destinee Superstar's mother believes she's going to win it all.
Destinee's mother, whose last name is shockingly not Superstar (perhaps Destinee took the last name of her father, a Mr. Superstar, who is second cousins once removed with that guy who just changed his name to Captain Awesome), believes that her little girl looked "just like Elvis" when she emerged from the womb, what with her infant sideburns and hip gyration and all of the screaming women who constantly followed her around. Now, it seems that Mme. Superstar is making herself a pop video.
Overwhelming stage momminess of this article aside, I hope that Destinee achieves at least a modicum of success, because with a name like Destinee Superstar, you're destined to be either famous and awesome or ruthlessly mocked by peers with names like Jayden-Aiden Hunter Cooper.
This Ten Year Old's Name is Destinee Superstar... [The Daily Mail]


text:
Toni Nielson
Let Love In
Location: Providence/United States
This song may contain
explicit lyrics and content
and is not desired to be heard by children under 18. If you are under 18 years old you are prohibited from viewing this page. Unless approved by a parent or legal guardian.
Copyright protected © 2003-2007 All Rights Reserved for this artist and works


text:
Jim Alaimo needed a new logo design and created a contest on 99designs.
A winner was selected from 457 designs submitted by 49 freelance designers.
My Pet's Brace
We are certified orthotists and prosthetists who have helped people live life better through braces (knee, ankle, etc) and prostheses and now provide those same services to pets; primarily dogs. We make custom braces on referrals from veterinarians.They send us a cast of the dog and we fabricate a device for them. Most of our referrals will come from the vets themselves, however we will have a powerful website that will be viewed by many pet owners, who will in turn tell their vets about us.
• Our tag-line is "Helping Pets Live Happier Lives".
• We have a strong team ethic with the pet, pet family, veterinarian and our company representing the team.
• Our service is cutting edge and this should be reflected in the design, but not too much.
• We need a balance of professional and friendly but it must be fun.
This is a new market in the pet industry. There are only 3 other companies like this in the US and they are not very professional.
Our primary audience is the veterinarian, who we have found to be very caring and not in the business primarily for the money. We are the same way. Our goal is to help vets provide an alternative to care if their patient is not a candidate for surgery or to help them provide a supportive device (brace) for the pet, pre or post surgically.
Our secondary audience is the pet owner themselves. We are a caring company and want to portray that comfort level to the pet owner. We will take care of their pet as a family member.
Our third audience is the rehabilitation professional that may provide physical therapy or other rehabilatative services to the pet.
We are looking for something rather simple and not confusing with too many colors.
We like "new" colors that reflect an innovative company yellows, blues, greens, but are open to your creativeness.
We will consider symbolic interpertations like a dog jumping over a mountain, meaning they can achieve things they couldn't do before they got hurt, but we also like literal interpertations like a dog wagging its tale which reflects happiness.
We like the idea of a dog wearing a brace on it's front or hind leg but that is not a necessity.
We open to consider caricatures, drawings or pictures that convey our message.
We want the logo to eventually be used for letter and evelope design so the format must be accepatable for printing companies.
Our primarly means of communication will be the web, the format must be .jpg and layered.psd or other formats for web design.
Find out how a design contest works or learn more about our logo design services.