View Full Version : Let's talk about oil


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Narz
Aug 17, 2006, 02:11 AM
Over the past years I've become more and more interested in sustainable living as well as becoming as physically (as well as emotionally) self-sufficient as possible.

Thru self-analysis I haven't been able to help but notice the habits of people (both close and distant) around me.

I've found studying people's consumption habits particular interesting. It is particularly interesting how it almost all ties into the oil industry.

I recently (five minutes ago) found some good material on youtube that sums up alot of the concepts and theories I've been reading about.

Online Videos

Peak Oil Movie on the History Channel (59 minutes) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=495148273412977176&hl=en) (longest one I've found for free)

Peak Oil Hits Mainstream - CNBC (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=747947551&play=1)

End of Suburbia (52 minute version back on YouTube!) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug)

Peak Oil: Gas Prices, Supply Depletion & Energy Crisis (10 minutes) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMQd5nGEkr4)

Basic Messege, Streaming Text, Dramatic Music (shortest, consise, less content than the above) (http://youtube.com/watch?v=dCD0IsuF4Ac)

Websites

ASPO - The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (http://www.peakoil.net/)

Life After the Oil Crash website (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/)

LocalFuture.org (solution oriented) (http://localfuture.org/)

Peak Oil Forums (you'll find Narz there, I have about 800 posts) (http://peakoil.com/forums.html)

Peak Oil in the "Mainstream" (http://peakoil.com/fortopic35648.html)

Books

The Long Emergency (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0871138883/ref=ase_narcitycom-20/103-4895665-5500666?s=books&v=glance&n=283155&tagActionCode=narcitycom-20)

PowerDown (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0865715106/ref=ase_narcitycom-20/103-4895665-5500666?s=books&v=glance&n=283155&tagActionCode=narcitycom-20)
___________________________________________

What are your thoughts on this? How do you expect this to affect your country? Your personal life?

___________________________________________

Some more recent video links & an article (6/29/08) :

Here are some videos I thought were worth watching. Most of them from the mainstream news.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D05I2v4RbpE

Krugman with Olbermann on "The Energy Question of 2008" (critical of McCain and Obama both) from MSNBC's Countdown. (7 mins)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh6x9gA2u-A

Jeff Rubin of CIBC predicts $7 gasoline on CNBC with Erin Burnett, which he says would take 10 million cars off the road. Kind of a scary conclusion, finally hitting the mainstream. Personally I don't see how the world economy can keep chugging along at this rate. Light rail & new technology will not appear in time, IMO (but that subject is still pretty much taboo in mainstream media because it's too scary to contemplate). Good video. (4 mins)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TDs57H3I6Oo

Great talk by Bill Moyers straight shooting about oil & Iraq. (6 min)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqg3P3wOV60

James Howard Kunstler on CBC talking about the end of the cheap oil age (touching the issues of food, air travel, suburbs, etc.). Very well done, his book is good too. (8 min)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM1x4RljmnE

"Are humans smarter than yeast?" this one is entitled. A bit overdrawn out and simplistic, it still does a decent job pointing out the disconnect between businessmen & economists on one hand and reality on the other. (8 min)

Oh, and while I'm here, thought I'd share this (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/28/business/wbjoe28.php?page=1) also. The article is entitled "No evidence of manipulation in oil trading". So much for McCain's conspiracy theory.

I have watched all the videos & recommend them all.

ArneHD
Aug 17, 2006, 02:28 AM
Last I heard was that Norway, at it's current rate of production, has enough Oil for about 60 years. I guess that we should prepare for an American invasion.

tomsnowman123
Aug 17, 2006, 07:50 AM
New energy resources definately need to be researched more than they are now. People keep putting them off saying hat they are too expensive and whatnot. Oil will run out one day, we don't have an infinite amount. We need to focus on switching to a lifestyle that won't hurt future generations by destroying the enviroment, draining resources, etc. Unfortunate, America is nowhere near doing this, most people are happy in their SUV's.

I remember being at a GM conference about 3.5 years ago, when they said hydrogen cars would be cheap and redily available to everyone by 2010. Hmm... don't see that coming. There is a lack of motivation, and, as such, we continue to use up oil and hurt our future.

JerichoHill
Aug 17, 2006, 09:14 AM
Do I really need to cover this topic again? Peak Oil is a misnomer. There is no coming oil crash. The economic mechanism will prevent this, just as it has for other commodities.

There is PLENTY of oil left, its just more expensive to get. As oil gets more expensive, alternative fuels become more attractive to invest in, produce, and distribution. As that occurs, the cost of alt fuels is lowered, and eventually oil will be an afterthought.

If this has occured for numerous other commodities and is a trend that has yet to be broken by any comodity, what makes oil so different?

Please understand economics!

Extrapolating current trends into the future is NOT good science.

tomsnowman123
Aug 17, 2006, 09:18 AM
Do I really need to cover this topic again? Peak Oil is a misnomer. There is no coming oil crash. The economic mechanism will prevent this, just as it has for other commodities.

There is PLENTY of oil left, its just more expensive to get. As oil gets more expensive, alternative fuels become more attractive to invest in, produce, and distribution. As that occurs, the cost of alt fuels is lowered, and eventually oil will be an afterthought.

If this has occured for numerous other commodities and is a trend that has yet to be broken by any comodity, what makes oil so different?

Please understand economics!

Extrapolating current trends into the future is NOT good science.

But I am also talking about what's good for the planet, not the bottom line. Cars, for example. Hydrogen cars would be 100% better for the enviroment, but we don't look towards them at all. Once again, this is an example of people giving money more importance then the enviroment, health, well-being, etc.

Leonel
Aug 17, 2006, 09:30 AM
Last I heard was that Norway, at it's current rate of production, has enough Oil for about 60 years. I guess that we should prepare for an American invasion.

Oh don't be ridiculous! I would think you would be the last person to fall for liberal stereotypes!

*stuffs Norway invasion plans under the desk* :crazyeye:

Whomp
Aug 17, 2006, 09:42 AM
I'm fully agree with Jericho and approve his message. :D

It comes down to what the market will bear. When gas hit $3.00/gallon the volume of minivans and S.U.V.'s that were turned in accelerated and smaller vehicles acquired. It's at these prices that it becomes feasible to risk capital exploring for alternative means as well as more difficult ways of extracting oil.

I would contend that there's at least a $20 terrorism premium in oil prices. This is a new factor for experts to chomp on since it's not going away anytime soon.

Tenochtitlan
Aug 17, 2006, 10:04 AM
Do I really need to cover this topic again? Peak Oil is a misnomer. There is no coming oil crash. The economic mechanism will prevent this, just as it has for other commodities.

There is PLENTY of oil left, its just more expensive to get. As oil gets more expensive, alternative fuels become more attractive to invest in, produce, and distribution. As that occurs, the cost of alt fuels is lowered, and eventually oil will be an afterthought.

If this has occured for numerous other commodities and is a trend that has yet to be broken by any comodity, what makes oil so different?

Please understand economics!

Extrapolating current trends into the future is NOT good science.
Isn't there a risk of a depression though?

bhsup
Aug 17, 2006, 10:12 AM
I will never buy into ANY of this peak oil stuff. Yeah, it'll get more expensive, but we're not touching 3/4th of the earth regarding oil. May not be technologically feasible right now, but we could eventually get deep sea crawlers (go watch the Abyss movie for an idea), extract from coal and shale, and so forth.

Running out of oil will not be a concern for generations.

El_Machinae
Aug 17, 2006, 10:16 AM
The main problem comes with wasting oil, not the price of oil. In general, the poorer people need the oil to be cheaper than the rich people do. As well, the economy much prefers cheaper oil.

The environment seems to suffer no matter the price of oil. It needs artificial barriers to consumption as well as encouragement of clean drilling techniques.

There's another thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=163571&highlight=suv+are+the+problem) about Oil Wastage though

MobBoss
Aug 17, 2006, 10:18 AM
This planet will be running on oil long after you and I and everyone we know has turned to dust.

tomsnowman123
Aug 17, 2006, 10:18 AM
The environment seems to suffer no matter the price of oil. It needs artificial barriers to consumption as well as encouragement of clean drilling techniques.

Thank you, it seems that nobody seems to care about that part.

Whomp
Aug 17, 2006, 10:26 AM
Isn't there a risk of a depression though?
How and why?
A depression would be preceeded by mass euphoria not pessimism.
People are saying there's was a lot of uncertainty in the market about inflation. Likewise, there was extreme concern about how high the Fed would raise interest rates. Plus, there was worry that the war in the Mideast would hinder the transport of oil, raise its price, and spread to a wider conflagration. For all of these reasons,means it's a bad time to buy. I say do the opposite of the herd.

As the saying goes buy on the cannons, sell on the trumpets


Here's my theory
the Planet Saturn was in the Astrological sign of Sagittarius. The significance of this is that Sagittarius, the combined horse/man, with Saturn having a connection in Greek / Roman / Etruscan mythology to agriculture as well as weights and measures and coins, means that Saturn in Sagittarius represents the third Horseman of the Apocalypse, economic depression. When Saturn is in Sagittarius you may get the trigger event, such as a stock market crash, that begins an economic depression. Saturn will not be in Sagittarius for many years, but you can still expect great economic chaos in 2006-2007 as we will then be in the seven year End Times period, ending with Armageddon in 2007. Cross your fingers! ;)

El_Machinae
Aug 17, 2006, 10:30 AM
Scientifically, I think that the $20 terror premium is quite handy, because the innovation in alternative fuels will proceed a lot more quickly once people are purchasing the products (to create a feedback loop)

betazed
Aug 17, 2006, 10:46 AM
There is PLENTY of oil left, its just more expensive to get.

Not sure where you are getting that from. While estimates of existing oil reserves vary widely what is not for argument is that we have not found any new large oil reserve for quite a while. When is the last time we found a Ghawar or Alaska? So our replacement ratio is pretty close to zero.


As oil gets more expensive, alternative fuels become more attractive to invest in, produce, and distribution. As that occurs, the cost of alt fuels is lowered, and eventually oil will be an afterthought.

This might be wishful thinking on your part. The demand for oil is empirically seen to be pretty inelastic. It is definitely inelastic between the 2 - 3 dollar range. How do we know it is not inelastic in the 3 - 4 dollar range?

Hence, if it is inelastic the demand is the same and there is absolutely no incentive for oil suppliers to invest in alternate fuels. Why should they?

lastly, any alternate energy medium requires vast amount of public investment in infrastrcuture and would require long gestation times. Not ideal for private enterprises; and I do not see any government (or at least the US government actively pursuing any strategic goal in alternate energy needs).


If this has occured for numerous other commodities and is a trend that has yet to be broken by any comodity, what makes oil so different?

Why is oil different? Shouldn't that be obvious. what other commodity is there in recent times over while wars have been fought? What other commodity is there whose price increase would definitely lead to inflation. Literally, oil grinds the gears of western civilzation.

Extrapolating current trends into the future is NOT good science.

But not taking into account special factors is not good science either. :)

Kozmos
Aug 17, 2006, 10:47 AM
Can Hydrogen push me 240 kph? I dont think so.

North King
Aug 17, 2006, 11:16 AM
It's quite amusing to hear neo-cons claiming that somehow we're not running out of oil, that it isn't a worry at all, and so on, when the neo-con leaders are working their butts off to secure the major sources of oil supply. It all makes perfect sense from a geo-political viewpoint, if you think that they're looking to secure oil. If you don't think that, then what the Bush administration is pursuing is not only stupid, it has no justification, legal, strategic, political, what have you.

Whomp
Aug 17, 2006, 11:17 AM
Betazed--venture investments in alternative-energy companies has jumped this year and last.

Venture capitalists put $139.5 million into solar, wind and geothermal energy companies through the second quarter of the year, already surpassing the $95 million they spent in all of 2004, according to the National Venture Capital Association, Thomson Financial and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Here's a few:
Energy Innovations Inc. of Pasadena, Calif., and Nonosolar Inc. of Palo Alto — make solar cells while the third, Jadoo Power Systems Inc. of Folsom, California, makes fuel cells.

On a bigger scale there's a company outside of the energy business called Cypress Semiconductor. They invested in SunPower, and SunPower is attempting to bring high efficiency solar cells to the real world market place through the introduction of the A300.

T.J. Rodgers, President and CEO of Cypress says that “back in 1976 ... a watt cost $62. We’ve now driven down the cost of a watt to about $3.67, and we can see our way to making a profit by selling a watt for $2.” “Cumulative world shipments as of 2002 were about 1,000 megawatts – that’s an important number,” he said since a typical power plant generates 1,100 megawatts. So a typical power plant – about 400 in the U.S. – is a gigawatt of power. The solar industry from 1976 through 2000 generated a total combined output to equal one power plant. “The total available market for the solar industry in megawatts in 2005 was 1,300 megawatts. The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is 31 percent."

http://www.sunpowercorp.com/

Whole Foods I believe will be 100% solar within 2 years.

joycem10
Aug 17, 2006, 11:25 AM
I agree with those above who say that market forces will eventually work to make oil an afterthought except in the chemicals & plastics industry.

While the demand for energy is inelastic, energy does not necessarily have to come from oil. As the price of oil increases and technology increases, alternative energy souces become more viable.

Who says only oil companys are responsible for innovations in energy? Like Whomp said, theres hundreds of alt energy startups. Hell, put your money where your beliefs are and invest in an alt energy company or dedicate your education to this issue. If you come up with a viable idea, it'll be worth millions.

Thats my glib reply.


what other commodity is there in recent times over while wars have been fought? What other commodity is there whose price increase would definitely lead to inflation.

Not really recent, but salt is an example.

betazed
Aug 17, 2006, 11:32 AM
@Whomp: You are missing two key points. (a) The problem is more than just cost of energy and (b) the investment required to solve this problem is not millions, not billions but hundreds of billions. Lets take (a) first.

Say we change all our power production to some magical zero-point energy source today and cost of energy is magically changed to 0 dollars/joules. Does that make us oil independent? Unfortunately no. Reason is that a large part of the economy is not just dependent on energy but dependent on the medium of energy too - which is oil. i.e. they cannot utilize any energy unless it is not in the oil form. Think of all the cars, planes, fertilizer plants, tanks, fighters etc. etc. They need not just energy but specifically oil. Average energy cost means nothing to them. So it does not matter how much money you spend in alternative fuel research, unless you whole infrastructure changes from oil consuming to non-oil comsuming you do not gain oil independence.

Now you estimate how much investment it would take to make that transition. After that compare it to the venture capital investment figures you mentioned.

You will get the picture.

Phlegmak
Aug 17, 2006, 11:38 AM
Let's talk about oil

Even though olive oil is preferable to vegetable oil, one has to be careful when frying with olive oil because it burns very easily.

I use olive oil for everything.

MobBoss
Aug 17, 2006, 11:42 AM
It's quite amusing to hear neo-cons claiming that somehow we're not running out of oil, that it isn't a worry at all, and so on, when the neo-con leaders are working their butts off to secure the major sources of oil supply. It all makes perfect sense from a geo-political viewpoint, if you think that they're looking to secure oil. If you don't think that, then what the Bush administration is pursuing is not only stupid, it has no justification, legal, strategic, political, what have you.

Who said that? Certainly not me. I just said we got more than enough to last until you, me and everyone we know is long dead. Will we run out one day? Sure....but neither of us will live to see it. And that is far enough out that I am pretty comfortable that an alternate will be found to replace it.

Phlegmak
Aug 17, 2006, 11:48 AM
This planet will be running on oil long after you and I and everyone we know has turned to dust.

Is it because oil is a renewable resource? If that's what you're getting at, then yes, I agree with you. In another 500 million years, we'll have another 300 year supply of oil.

StarWorms
Aug 17, 2006, 11:49 AM
Can Hydrogen push me 240 kph? I dont think so.
Can my Fiat Punto go at 160kph? I don't think so:lol:

Whomp
Aug 17, 2006, 11:50 AM
Betazed I appreciate your intellectualism. It's a breath of fresh air and I like the debate. :thumbsup:

Unquestionably cheap oil is gone. The bar has been raised. This much is true however it's billions of investment over many, many years. In the meantime we adapt.

You may not be old enough but the whole economy was supposed to collapse during the S&L bailout. It didn't and buying financial stocks at that point was a home run. I tend to take a more moderate view I guess.

Another good example globally is Brazil.

From what I've read their planes are flown purely on ethanol. GOL is a very successful airline in a very difficult oil environment because their jets fly on ethanol.

They ran almost 96% ethanol in their cars in the middle 80's. Prices of oil declined and barely 10% were using it by 2003. Now that they're rising again 73% of the cars sold in Brazil are "flex" cars where they can run on either. Hybrid cars can also function on ethanol.

betazed
Aug 17, 2006, 12:11 PM
Betazed I appreciate your intellectualism. It's a breath of fresh air and I like the debate. :thumbsup:

We aim to please. :)

In the meantime we adapt.

No doubt. I am not selling a doomsday scenario here or saying that the end of the world is near. The problem of oil dependence is entirely tractable (and as you correctly point out Brazil has taken the bull by the horns). All that I am saying is that I do not see such an approach from the largest oil consuming country on the planet – and just private enterprise cannot provide the investment necessary for the transition. {I am a whole-hearted supporter of private enterprise, capitalism and free market. But I must admit its limitations too. Capitalists are ill-equipped in seeing problems that lie decades ahead and requires investments and planning on the order of decades.} Additionally, a blissfully ignorant attitude of the average American (as Mobboss provides an example in this thread) does not help at all in the endeavor. What we need is a Manhattan project for oil independence. So in this case, having a chicken little attitude of the sky is falling may not be a bad idea, since it might force us out of our current torpor.

Taking specifically the ethanol conversion of Brazil, you should see how much of it was a state driven and how much of it was private entrepreneurship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

OTOH, on a purely implementation pov, I am not sure that an ethanol based solution is ideal for America either. It would require large farmlands and lots of labor neither of which we can devote to pure ethanol production. But I may be mistaken about that.

IglooDude
Aug 17, 2006, 12:35 PM
OTOH, on a purely implementation pov, I am not sure that an ethanol based solution is ideal for America either. It would require large farmlands and lots of labor neither of which we can devote to pure ethanol production. But I may be mistaken about that.

Large farmlands in the US/Canada? Check.
Lots of labor (an opened-up southern border)? Check.

North America may be unusually well suited to pure ethanol production. Talk about hitting two birds with one piece of shale...

Whomp
Aug 17, 2006, 12:41 PM
Large farmlands in the US/Canada? Check.
Lots of labor (an opened-up southern border)? Check.

North America may be unusually well suited to pure ethanol production. Talk about hitting two birds with one piece of shale...
Corn is a bit less effective than sugar hence the $.56 tariff on sugar ethanol however ADM has cranked it up anyhow. Iowa is becoming a mini ethanol Saudi Arabia.

I suggest anyone who believes there's no end in sight on oil prices should purchase shares of ADM now.

betazed
Aug 17, 2006, 12:43 PM
Large farmlands in the US/Canada? Check.

Well, Brazil does it by producing sugarcane. In US we try to do it using corn. Can you grow sugarcane in US climate etc? I do not know.


Lots of labor (an opened-up southern border)? Check.

I like the idea. Now lets try to get those immigration xenophobes on board. :)

Urederra
Aug 17, 2006, 12:43 PM
I opened this thread about biobutanol (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=175635) some time ago and I only had 3 replies.

Butanol has several advantages over ethanol, being possible to transport it via pipes is just one of them. But the low response I had (only 3 replies) shows the lack of interest of the people at the forum in new fuels technology.

Masquerouge
Aug 17, 2006, 12:55 PM
I've read a very good article in an old NYT magazine explaining how the crisis about oil was not one of oil running out, but one of demand far exceeding production capacity. And given that an refinery takes at least 5 years to build, this could not be adjusted in real-time.

I also think that there is a very poor incentive for private companies to research alternative energies, because it is much cheaper and faster to wait until someone comes along with an usable new energy after years or R&D, and copy that, than invest in the research yourself. Sure, you have patents, but once the breakthrough has been made it's a piece of cake to come up with something similar that is not a blatant copy. For these reasons, I would not rule out goverment-subsidized projects, particularly in places where oil is expensive and imported (like Europe and Japan, who had the knidness to fight a bitter war over the ITER fusion reactor just to make my point :) )

Finally, the infrastructure that's built around oil is massive. From the extraction to the end product, what's going to happen to it if we decide to not use oil anymore? Unless the new energy source can make use of it, which would be very doubtful, again only governments will be able to afford creating a brand new infrastructure for the new energy. Will they?

Whomp
Aug 17, 2006, 12:56 PM
I opened this thread about biobutanol (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=175635) some time ago and I only had 3 replies.Everyone in the U.S. was driving in their car on holiday? :cool:


Butanol has several advantages over ethanol, being possible to transport it via pipes is just one of them. But the low response I had (only 3 replies) shows the lack of interest of the people at the forum in new fuels technology.I'm very interested Urederra.
Dupont is an interesting case since they are a huge petroleum consumer os the company has plenty of incentive to find a solution as a chemical company. They have a goal of deriving 25% of their revenue from products that are made with renewables by 2010.

Urederra
Aug 17, 2006, 01:05 PM
Everyone in the U.S. was driving in their car on holiday? :cool:


Oh, that might be the reason. :(
C&EN, the magazine of the American chemical society, said that Butanol could be profitable when the price of the oil barrel is around $40. How much is now and how much would a gallon of gas be if the barrel reaches $40?

IglooDude
Aug 17, 2006, 01:13 PM
Oh, that might be the reason. :(
C&EN, the magazine of the American chemical society, said that Butanol could be profitable when the price of the oil barrel is around $40. How much is now and how much would a gallon of gas be if the barrel reaches $40?

It's currently at $70 or so, and gas here is averaging about $3/gallon.

Narz
Aug 17, 2006, 01:37 PM
Do I really need to cover this topic again? Peak Oil is a misnomer. There is no coming oil crash. The economic mechanism will prevent this, just as it has for other commodities.

There is PLENTY of oil left, its just more expensive to get. As oil gets more expensive, alternative fuels become more attractive to invest in, produce, and distribution. As that occurs, the cost of alt fuels is lowered, and eventually oil will be an afterthought.

If this has occured for numerous other commodities and is a trend that has yet to be broken by any comodity, what makes oil so different?

Please understand economics!

Extrapolating current trends into the future is NOT good science.
You talk about economics like it is some actual physical law that automatically creates new solutions when the people want it. As if, when enough people want a viable replacement for oil "the market" will automatically come up with one just in the nick of time. All innovations come about thru research (often years and years of research) and experimentation not the mystical "market". Supply and demand are a good thing to study but they don't conjure new ideas out of thin area nor do they make non-viable ideas (like most alternative fuels currently are, at least as a replacement for oil) suddenly workable.

This planet will be running on oil long after you and I and everyone we know has turned to dust.
You must think God's rapture is coming pretty soon. Me, I plan to live for 80-100 more years.

El_Machinae
Aug 17, 2006, 01:39 PM
I guess Narz is somewhat right. It's like saying evolution will handle climate change. It will, we just won't enjoy it.

Narz
Aug 17, 2006, 01:40 PM
One Roman solidier to another during the empire's last years - "Don't worry mate, the market will come up with a solution to these barbarians. Naysayers have been talking up us being overrun for years and it's never happened. Bunch of chicken littles they are!".

MobBoss
Aug 17, 2006, 01:43 PM
You must think God's rapture is coming pretty soon. Me, I plan to live for 80-100 more years.

The rapture? Nah...things have not gotten anywhere near sucky enough for that to be close. And even if you do manage to lve for 80-100 more years I am willing to bet oil will still be a primary fuel source.

Narz
Aug 17, 2006, 01:52 PM
The rapture? Nah...things have not gotten anywhere near sucky enough for that to be close. And even if you do manage to lve for 80-100 more years I am willing to bet oil will still be a primary fuel source.
I highly doubt it. Even peak oil's biggest skeptics realize that we're run out by 2050 or so.

North King
Aug 17, 2006, 02:19 PM
Who said that? Certainly not me. I just said we got more than enough to last until you, me and everyone we know is long dead. Will we run out one day? Sure....but neither of us will live to see it. And that is far enough out that I am pretty comfortable that an alternate will be found to replace it.

We're going to run out pretty soon, as Narz pointed out, even the skeptics realize this. USGS surveys report it around 2050. And quite frankly, the time to start researching and implementing renewables is not when the crisis is upon us; it is now.

blackheart
Aug 17, 2006, 02:25 PM
Can Hydrogen push me 240 kph? I dont think so.
Yes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089614/

Electric can too.

http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/lix-75-the-worlds-fastest-electric-car
http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/video-wrightspeed-x1

Urederra
Aug 17, 2006, 02:31 PM
Can Hydrogen push me 240 kph? I dont think so.

It can even put you into orbit
http://mt.middlebury.edu/middblogs/asmith/smittyfitty/space-shuttle.jpg

Whomp
Aug 17, 2006, 02:40 PM
I believe many of you are overly pessimistic. We've seen humans change throughout history from wood to coal to oil. IMO we are seeing another technological revolution.

Here's a few things to chew on.

Transportation accounts for half of global oil consumption and of that 45% comes from cars, SUVs and light trucks.
Detroit needs to get the message and stop the "90% pay while getting 90 days off" deals they give to some of their employees. Times are changing and major changes in market share will occur from here on out. The problem for Detroit is Japan has no oil so they've been preparing for this problem for years.
Next year Toyota will have their top 7 cars available as hybrids and Lexus their top 3 (one car will go 0 to 60 faster than the Corvette).
30% of car sales are to high-travel fleets (taxicab and police) and they will dominate hybrid sales. A New York cab will recoup the hybrid price premium in two years without tax incentives.

Plug ins which will be the next big step in hybrid innovation The capabilities for batteries need to expand and their costs must fall. The U.S. has ample capacity to accommodate the electrical demands however in areas like the southeast, great plains and midwest where costs for electricity are less than $40 per megawatt plug ins will make more sense. Not so great in California, Texas, Florida and New York which all pay over $90 per megawatt.

BTW I just had a F16 scream past my window! :eek:

I forgot it's the air and water show in Chicago this weekend. :lol:

Masquerouge
Aug 17, 2006, 02:52 PM
The U.S. has ample capacity to accommodate the electrical demands however in areas like the southeast, great plains and midwest where costs for electricity are less than $40 per megawatt plug ins will make more sense. Not so great in California, Texas, Florida and New York which all pay over $90 per megawatt.

How is the US electricity produced? I know it's not nuclear, but is it coal, gas or oil? 'Cos if it's oil, you're back to square one...

CIVPhilzilla
Aug 17, 2006, 03:02 PM
I'd rather not have to continue to rehash old arguments, because it will never end. I'll just say I have faith in the market and investors to realize when oil is a losing industry, and alternates are in. I might look into the alternates to find some good investment oppertunities.

JerichoHill
Aug 17, 2006, 03:03 PM
Isn't there a risk of a depression though?

recession maybe, depression no,

overblowing disaster like its MOFOING SNAKES ON A MOFOING PLANE...Yes

JerichoHill
Aug 17, 2006, 03:04 PM
But I am also talking about what's good for the planet, not the bottom line. Cars, for example. Hydrogen cars would be 100% better for the enviroment, but we don't look towards them at all. Once again, this is an example of people giving money more importance then the enviroment, health, well-being, etc.

Its about costs first. Whats the cost of oil vs. the cost of other fuels. You use the cheaper one... (and yes, I am including all costs, including environmental)

Whomp
Aug 17, 2006, 03:05 PM
How is the US electricity produced? I know it's not nuclear, but is it coal, gas or oil? 'Cos if it's oil, you're back to square one...
Very diverse. 50% coal, 20% nuclear, 18% natural gas, 6.5% hydro, 3% petroleum.

JerichoHill
Aug 17, 2006, 03:08 PM
@Whomp: You are missing two key points. (a) The problem is more than just cost of energy and (b) the investment required to solve this problem is not millions, not billions but hundreds of billions. Lets take (a) first.

Say we change all our power production to some magical zero-point energy source today and cost of energy is magically changed to 0 dollars/joules. Does that make us oil independent? Unfortunately no. Reason is that a large part of the economy is not just dependent on energy but dependent on the medium of energy too - which is oil. i.e. they cannot utilize any energy unless it is not in the oil form. Think of all the cars, planes, fertilizer plants, tanks, fighters etc. etc. They need not just energy but specifically oil. Average energy cost means nothing to them. So it does not matter how much money you spend in alternative fuel research, unless you whole infrastructure changes from oil consuming to non-oil comsuming you do not gain oil independence.

Now you estimate how much investment it would take to make that transition. After that compare it to the venture capital investment figures you mentioned.

You will get the picture.

Actually no. Whomp and I pretty much hit the nail on the head here.

I was talking to McCloskey (look him/her up) recently. There's nothing that we as economist can do to convince the public that peak oil does not in theory and in reality exist. Because, it is a necessary condition that people become very afraid of peak oil so that we don't run out of oil.

This isn't wishful thinking. It is what happened each and every time some body said "We are running out of X."

JerichoHill
Aug 17, 2006, 03:11 PM
You talk about economics like it is some actual physical law that automatically creates new solutions when the people want it. As if, when enough people want a viable replacement for oil "the market" will automatically come up with one just in the nick of time. All innovations come about thru research (often years and years of research) and experimentation not the mystical "market". Supply and demand are a good thing to study but they don't conjure new ideas out of thin area nor do they make non-viable ideas (like most alternative fuels currently are, at least as a replacement for oil) suddenly workable.


You must think God's rapture is coming pretty soon. Me, I plan to live for 80-100 more years.


S&D do that every day with new products being introduced.

Narz
Aug 17, 2006, 03:16 PM
what is S&D?

Whomp
Aug 17, 2006, 03:26 PM
what is S&D?
Supply and demand. It comes down to the breakeven point. Call a car dealership and ask them.
In the Chicagoland area, when gas hit $3/gallon the car dealers were receiving minivans in exchange for more fuel efficient cars.

Alternative studies have been going on for years but there was no economic need or efficiency in it. Solar's come a long way of the last 20 years.

What I find interesting is 12 years ago when oil was in the low teens you couldn't find a geologist who believed oil could hit $30/barrel. Ever.

IglooDude
Aug 17, 2006, 04:22 PM
Supply and demand. It comes down to the breakeven point. Call a car dealership and ask them.
In the Chicagoland area, when gas hit $3/gallon the car dealers were receiving minivans in exchange for more fuel efficient cars.

Alternative studies have been going on for years but there was no economic need or efficiency in it. Solar's come a long way of the last 20 years.

What I find interesting is 12 years ago when oil was in the low teens you couldn't find a geologist who believed oil could hit $30/barrel. Ever.

Even a geologist familiar with how completely headthwacked the Middle East can get?

Leatherneck
Aug 17, 2006, 04:34 PM
If I remember correctly the current problem with Hydrogen Power is safety as in a wreck it could become well ... a small Hydrogen bomb.:eek: But in one of the many rags I read it said something about them getting closer to finding that method of safely storing, transporting and using it.

Urederra
Aug 17, 2006, 04:46 PM
Safety is a problem, but not enough to produce a Small Hydrogen bomb. It is a problem because hydrogen is the ligthest gas you can have, meaning that it diffuses very easily, so it is quite difficult to contain. And also reacts with oxygen in a explosive manner. The space shuttle burns hydrogen, and you see what the problems are when things go bananas.

The other problem with hydrogen is that it is not a source of energy, it is just a way to store it, very efficiently, though, since hydrogen is a very small and light molecule, but you cannot find free hydrogen on Earth, it has to be produced, and that takes energy, which is released when hydrogen burns, so it is not a source of energy, but a storage system.

Whomp
Aug 17, 2006, 04:50 PM
Even a geologist familiar with how completely headthwacked the Middle East can get?
There's the ruse. They probably didn't account for the terrorism premium, which probably stands at $20/barrel, for one. Second, I don't think they accounted for acclerated growth from two of the "brics". Brazil and Russia were ok since they had resources however India and China were not accounted for. Supply and demand more moving along nicely until demand accelerated there. A chart would be very revealing.

North King
Aug 17, 2006, 05:10 PM
If I remember correctly the current problem with Hydrogen Power is safety as in a wreck it could become well ... a small Hydrogen bomb.:eek: But in one of the many rags I read it said something about them getting closer to finding that method of safely storing, transporting and using it.

Not quite a H-Bomb. Those things are powered by nuclear fusion, and the temperature and pressure inside an auto accident is nowhere near enough to create conditions for fusion. As Urederra said, the main problem is combustion of the Hydrogen.

This is why we need resealable fuel tanks for hydrogen cars. :smug:

Anyway, I'm very fond of the idea of using nuclear fission power with fast breeder reactors (which recycle their fuel to be used again), and using the electricity generated to create Hydrogen in order to power our cars. If someone sees a problem with this "brilliant" scheme, please tell me, because this is the only energy method I can see that's sustainable and good for the environment. :D

Leatherneck
Aug 17, 2006, 05:18 PM
Not quite a H-Bomb. Those things are powered by nuclear fusion, and the temperature and pressure inside an auto accident is nowhere near enough to create conditions for fusion. As Urederra said, the main problem is combustion of the Hydrogen.



I know, I was being over the edge ... but I do remember reading something about safety ... that knowledge has now been filed in the deep dark recesses of the "Hmm interesting." department of the mind, to make room for new and more interesting worthless trivia.

Kozmos
Aug 17, 2006, 05:23 PM
Yah sorry I dont have a jillion billion dollars for those toys, I'll stick to my SAAB.

El_Machinae
Aug 18, 2006, 04:36 AM
Man, $30 a barrel would be nice. It would stifle alternative fuel innovation something fierce, but every other part of our economy would benefit.

Maybe governments are waiting for viable alternative fuels before taxing CO2? While politically expedient, it's not very efficient for forcing innovation.

PrinceOfLeigh
Aug 18, 2006, 06:48 AM
Let's talk about oil
Ahh the little known Salt & Pepper B-Side.

Che Guava
Aug 18, 2006, 07:40 AM
Maybe governments are waiting for viable alternative fuels before taxing CO2? While politically expedient, it's not very efficient for forcing innovation.

Too true: necessity is the mother of invention, and getting off of the petroleum energy-mobile might soon be a real necessity. Imgaine if all the money going into subsidizing and supporting the petroleum industry was redirected to alternative fuels and energy? Well, it'd be chaos for awhile, but after that....

El_Machinae
Aug 18, 2006, 08:13 AM
That's why the $20 'terror premium' is not so bad, from a scientific view. Now, it would be much nicer to have a different barrier, clearly, but we'll take what we get.

betazed
Aug 18, 2006, 09:42 AM
There's nothing that we as economist can do to convince the public that peak oil does not in theory and in reality exist.

Huh?

How can it not exist? Unless you believe that there is an infinite supply. If the total amount of oil in earth is a finite quantity and the actual generation of oil (a chemical process) is less than the demand of oil then there is a point in time when the production must peak. This is a mathematical certainity.

Now whether that point in time has passed or it is in the near or far future is arguable. But how can you argue its existence?

Also, I think it is intellectually dishonest to hand-wave and say the "market" will take care of it. We really need to show how the market will take care of it. This is specifically important because the "market" has never in the past discovered a new source of energy. It has been supremely efficient in utilizing a new source once it was discovered thought. The market did not teach us how to split the atom for example.

Narz
May 22, 2007, 08:06 PM
Peak energy is back in the news.

Fears over looming energy crisis in UK

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article1813006.ece


From The Sunday Times
May 20, 2007
Fears over looming energy crisis in UK
The lights could go out in Britain within eight years as demand is predicted to outstrip supply
Grant Ringshaw

ACROSS Britain, cities are plunged into darkness. In London, the Underground grinds to a halt, leaving panicked commuters stranded in oppressively hot carriages. In office blocks, lifts stop operating and the air-conditioning shuts down. Employees swelter in stifling conditions.

This is not the postapocalyptic vision of some film-maker, but a realistic scenario as Britain grapples with a looming energy crisis. The statistics are frightening. In only eight years, demand for energy could outstrip supply by 23% at peak times, according to a study by the consultant Logica CMG. The loss to the economy could be £108 billion each year.

“The idea of the lights going out is not a fantasy. People seem to accept that security of energy supply is a right. It is not. The industry will have to work hard to maintain supply and for that we need a clear framework,” said Simon Skillings, director of strategy and energy policy at Eon UK, Britain’s largest integrated energy company.

This Wednesday, the government’s delayed energy white paper will attempt to provide some answers. It is a crucial document that will determine whether Britain can deliver on its pledge to slash carbon emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020. The white paper will seek to tackle a host of tough issues – from nuclear power to energy efficiency, renewable power sources and clean-fuel projects. A planning white paper, due tomorrow, is also seen as crucial after a number of energy projects have been delayed for years or slapped down by local authorities.

The scale of the challenge is immense. By 2015, Britain’s generating capacity could be cut by a third as ageing coal and nuclear power stations are closed. Britain is also moving from being self-sufficient in oil and gas as North Sea production declines. In 2005, the UK became a net importer of gas. By 2010, imports could account for 40% of British gas needs; by 2020, 80% to 90%.

The most contentious area is likely to be nuclear power. Nuclear reactors account for about 20% of Britain’s electricity, but this will shrink to 6% in 20 years as ageing plants are closed down. By 2023, only Size-well B could be in operation.

Already controversial, the government’s commitment to building new nuclear power stations became even more sensitive when the High Court agreed with the environ-mental lobby group Greenpeace that the consultation process was “seriously flawed”.

The white paper is expected to give guidance on how the government would like to see new reactors built, but will have to stress that any decision will depend on a new, more detailed, consultation round.

What the energy industry wants is clarity. Even so, energy companies, including RWE, Eon, Suez, EDF, General Electric and West-inghouse, have already held talks with British Energy about using the sites of its eight nuclear power stations to build new reactors.

Combining the need to secure Britain’s energy supply and reduce carbon emissions will require £55 billion in investment in the next few decades, according to Logica CMG.

Exactly where the money will be spent hangs in the balance. One of the big issues is how the government plans to encourage operators to build cleaner but more expensive power stations. To make the economics work, much will depend on the price of carbon and the credits power operators need to buy if they overshoot emissions targets.

This falls under the EU emissions-trading scheme. If the EU cracks down and imposes higher penalties on “dirty” power producers, the price of carbon would in theory be pushed up. Centrica believes that carbon prices would need to double from the current €19 (£13) per tonne to make a £1 billion clean-coal project it is considering in Teesside economically viable.

“If the UK is to hit tough targets on reducing CO2 emissions, it is vital that the structure of the EU emissions-trading scheme is optimised to encourage the building of really low-emitting power generation stations,” said Jake Ulrich, managing director of Centrica Energy.

Another key area is carbon capture; this involves trapping carbon-dioxide emissions from coal or gas-fired stations and storing them underground, probably in old North Sea oil reservoirs. Schemes include Centrica’s Teesside proposal while BP is considering building a £500m power station in Peterhead, Aberdeenshire, in partnership with Scottish & Southern Electricity.

However, power-industry executives claim that each project would need several hundreds of millions of pounds in government support – far higher than the Treasury’s financing plans.

Meanwhile, the government is under pressure to encourage desperately needed new gas-storage facilities. The UK has storage capacity to cover only two weeks of gas needs against two to three months for France and Germany.

New objectives for renewable energy are also expected. The renewables obligation, where suppliers are bound to source a rising percentage of electricity supply from renewable sources, will be refocused to give more support to costlier offshore wind farms and biomass projects used to co-fire coal-powered stations.

Britain is already struggling to meet its ambitious target of supplying 10% of electricity needs from renewables by 2010 and 15% by 2015. Today’s figure is about 2%.

“The goals are very ambitious and we are currently behind the curve. Investment would have to be accelerated very substantially to have any chance of meeting those targets,” said Jayesh Parmar of Ernst & Young.

Those targets are likely to get even tougher. In a little-noticed detail, the EU agreed in March to make it compulsory for 20% of all energy used to come from renewable sources by 2020.

As for the British consumer, the white paper will underline the need for smart meters, which measure exact energy use and cost, to be installed in people’s homes. There is also support for microgeneration projects – small-scale wind turbines, solar panels and gas devices to create electricity. However, the sums are tiny – £12m in grants is up for grabs this month from the Department of Trade and Industry, in addition to £6.8m already paid out.

The big question is whether the UK can act fast enough to tackle the looming crisis. Even if the government’s nuclear plans remain intact, it could be at least 10 years before the first new nuclear station is ready. A typical coal or gas-fired project could take between three and five years to construct.

GoodGame
May 22, 2007, 08:09 PM
Understanding the energy crunch is important, especially in the parts of the world where energy is used frivolously (look at me!!)

I believe it's critical for nations to cooperatively get into the alternate and renewable energy research and at overdrive speed, rather than waiting for the consumer market to demand it (at which time the transition probably won't be smooth or socially stable).

Narz
May 22, 2007, 08:23 PM
Well said GoodGame.

Ball Lightning
May 22, 2007, 08:26 PM
Theres a documentary on Australian TV, which is 2 hours long about oil on thursday night, and you'll probably be able to download it afterwoods, i'll get a link once i watch it.

Narz
May 22, 2007, 08:30 PM
Thanks Ball Lightning, what's it called? I'd like to look it up.

Ball Lightning
May 22, 2007, 08:34 PM
Its called "Crude", you'll be able to find it at www.abc.net.au (australain broadcasting corporation).

Urederra
May 22, 2007, 08:34 PM
Air conditioning in the UK, in May?

I can't believe it.

Is The Sunday Times one of these tabloids you can't trust?

History_Buff
May 22, 2007, 08:49 PM
How can it not exist? Unless you believe that there is an infinite supply. If the total amount of oil in earth is a finite quantity and the actual generation of oil (a chemical process) is less than the demand of oil then there is a point in time when the production must peak. This is a mathematical certainity.

Because it doesn't. The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones.

The reason peak oil doesn't exist is that demand will eventually fall off, as the price climbs. Despite the price inelasticity of oil, it's an economic certainty.


Also, I think it is intellectually dishonest to hand-wave and say the "market" will take care of it. We really need to show how the market will take care of it. This is specifically important because the "market" has never in the past discovered a new source of energy. It has been supremely efficient in utilizing a new source once it was discovered thought. The market did not teach us how to split the atom for example.

No, the market didn't teach us to split the atom, war did. Demand will remain for the time being though, and as oil becomes more expensive, it will become more economical to develop alternative sources, or, since many capable ones already exist, simply implement them.

But at the same time, there is no reason we can't help the market along a little. Carbon taxes and alternative subsidies are very much a good idea, particularly with Climate Change looming on the horizon. (And to all you non-believers, lets not argue whether we are the cause, because it's not important. It is happening, and anthropogenic CO2 certainly won't help keep the temperature where it is.)


That, or we'll start fighting world wars over oil, which will make us come up with something better, as it always has in the past.

Yuri2356
May 22, 2007, 08:57 PM
How is the US electricity produced? I know it's not nuclear, but is it coal, gas or oil? 'Cos if it's oil, you're back to square one...

At very least, it would help focus the problem-solving efforts. (ie. Refit x thousand power plants to some new energy source, rather than replace x million vehicles.)

amadeus
May 22, 2007, 09:35 PM
It's quite amusing to hear neo-cons claiming that somehow we're not running out of oil, that it isn't a worry at all, and so on, when the neo-con leaders are working their butts off to secure the major sources of oil supply. It all makes perfect sense from a geo-political viewpoint, if you think that they're looking to secure oil. If you don't think that, then what the Bush administration is pursuing is not only stupid, it has no justification, legal, strategic, political, what have you.
You might want to get that knee-jerk checked out.

Desmond Hawkins
May 22, 2007, 11:12 PM
As others have pointed out, there will be a residual oil-based infrastructure for a long time. However, nuclear power combined with electric cars, hybrids, a general increase in vehicle efficiency, and a dramatic change in lifestyle planning could seriously reduce dependency.

As for ethanol, I can only see food prices rising in the coming decades, and ultimately arable land will probably be better used there. While there is a lot of "excess" land in North America, environmental problems in places like China could seriously decrease the quality and quantity of land for production there. People will need food to eat more than they will need it to burn.

BasketCase
May 22, 2007, 11:52 PM
When I was a kid, one of the science books I kept on the shelf said the Earth had about thirty years' worth of oil left, at then-current consumption rates.

That was just about thirty years ago. Yet our estimates of remaining reserves have gone up rather than down.

So I think it's pretty safe to say the Peak Oil theory is ocean foam, and that we actually have no freaking idea how much oil we really have left.

Desmond Hawkins
May 23, 2007, 12:01 AM
When I was a kid, one of the science books I kept on the shelf said the Earth had about thirty years' worth of oil left, at then-current consumption rates.

That was just about thirty years ago. Yet our estimates of remaining reserves have gone up rather than down.

So I think it's pretty safe to say the Peak Oil theory is ocean foam, and that we actually have no freaking idea how much oil we really have left.

Ya, but it costs about 10 times as much to extract oil from the newly classified reserves in Alberta compared to those of Saudi Arabia. In fact, there is talk of building a 2,500 megawatt nuclear reactor just to power Shell's proposed development west of Fort Mac. Not to mention all of the natural gas that needs to be used just to get at this oil...

BasketCase
May 23, 2007, 12:05 AM
I don't see that supposedly higher cost reflected in oil or gas prices.

When you adjust for inflation, today's gallon of gas (supposedly a record high!) actually costs less than a gallon of gas did during the various oil crises of the 70's.

The new reserves we've discovered over the last thirty years don't cost significantly more to extract than the reserves of thirty years ago. Technology is one of the primary reasons; over time, any given deposit of oil becomes more and more feasible to extract.

ainwood
May 23, 2007, 04:25 AM
The new reserves we've discovered over the last thirty years don't cost significantly more to extract than the reserves of thirty years ago. Technology is one of the primary reasons; over time, any given deposit of oil becomes more and more feasible to extract.
Partly correct. It become technically feasible to extract more out of a given reservoir. It turns some fields from being uneconomic to marginal; and marginal to attractive.

The actual reserves replacement ratios take this into account, as reserves are re-evaluated each year. Actual 'new reserves' additions are getting scarcer.

Peak oil is a 'fact', but timing uncertain. 8 years? I'd suggest that isn't the result of peak oil - but lack of energy infrastructure, and running out of gas (well, inability to import enough). There are still a lot of new (large) oil & gas projects that won't be coming on stream for another 8-10 years.

MrCynical
May 23, 2007, 06:40 AM
Air conditioning in the UK, in May?

I can't believe it.

Is The Sunday Times one of these tabloids you can't trust?

Depends on the weather. Air conditioning was certainly being used fairly heavily at the end of April in the UK this year. May's been rather cold and soggy this year so far.

And no, the Sunday Times isn't a tabloid. This story involves far too many numbers and far too few celebrities for it to be remotely plausible as a tabloid story.

GoodGame
May 23, 2007, 07:46 AM
How old is your information?

May I suggest reading the theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

When I was a kid, one of the science books I kept on the shelf said the Earth had about thirty years' worth of oil left, at then-current consumption rates.

That was just about thirty years ago. Yet our estimates of remaining reserves have gone up rather than down.

So I think it's pretty safe to say the Peak Oil theory is ocean foam, and that we actually have no freaking idea how much oil we really have left.

GoodGame
May 23, 2007, 07:52 AM
That's reasonable. Cellulosic ethanol would be gold however. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

It's argued too that ethanol is a crappy replacement for oil, and will need chemical modifying.

Personally I think if society in general doesn't achieve great success in replacing oil thru alternative and biological fuels, it will start resembling China.
http://www.gct.com/gcc/images/gct/newsletter/photos/beijing_article_main.jpg



As for ethanol, I can only see food prices rising in the coming decades, and ultimately arable land will probably be better used there. While there is a lot of "excess" land in North America, environmental problems in places like China could seriously decrease the quality and quantity of land for production there. People will need food to eat more than they will need it to burn.

Joe Harker
May 23, 2007, 07:54 AM
Isn't the Falkland Islands meant to be rich in oil
Argentina will be slighty annoyed if there is!

Ball Lightning
May 24, 2007, 08:23 PM
The show about crude was good, it told me all about how it was formed and what it does and otehr stuff to. I'll make a topic about it later when i have time.

Regards

Ball Lightning
CFC's Global Warming stopper

Narz
Jul 19, 2007, 07:45 PM
Looks like the "experts" have been wrong nine years running. Perhaps they forgot to take into account that oil is a finite resource. :crazyeye:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=a4TaaWTvtxLE&refer=energy


Oil May Top Analyst Estimates a Ninth Year, Deutsche Bank Says

Crude oil may exceed analysts' estimates for a ninth year as forecasters fail to recognize the lasting effect of changes to supply and demand fundamentals, according to Deutsche Bank AG.

"The analyst community has been slow to adjust to the new world order,'' Michael Lewis, Deutsche Bank's London-based head of commodities research, said in a telephone interview yesterday. "We're now in the ninth consecutive year where the market is underestimating the strength in the oil price.''

...The repeated failure to accurately predict oil prices can be linked to the use of a "mean-reversion'' model, which assumes that prices shrug off temporary disruptions and return to historical norms, Lewis said.

Oil predictions have been put off course by a "sequence of events'' including the resilience of the global economy, and Asian growth in particular, Lewis said. The dollar's slide to a record low against the euro, hurricanes in the U.S. Gulf, disappointing supply growth outside OPEC, and underinvestment in spare capacity, have also played a part.

It is "difficult to see'' such factors, which have put upward pressure on prices, "moving in reverse,'' Lewis said. They will be exacerbated by a "growing wedge over the next 10 years'' between annual supply growth of about 1.6 percent, and a depletion rate for existing oilfields of about 3.5 percent, Lewis said.

Desmond Hawkins
Jul 19, 2007, 09:47 PM
Well, it looks like Calgary will get another skyscraper or two from this news.

Whomp
Jul 20, 2007, 10:53 AM
The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.--John Maynard Keynes

Narz--maybe you can explain a few things to us novices that peak oil theory is imminent and I emphasize imminent.

Most of the theories I've read say that unrestrained extraction of a finite resouce rises along a bell-shaped curve that peaks when about half the resource is gone. Would you agree with this assessment?

If so does this actually mean externalities like regulations, taxes (complex investment structures), technology, policy considerations (Venezuela production decline and key employees moving to Alberta) and even wars (see Iran/Iraq wars impact of offshore wells) don't impact the level of production and exploration?

The strangest part of the argument to me is how they believe that discovery and depletion is what nature has to offer rather than being influenced by oil prices which then determines the amount of capital available for drilling. It also seems to discount policy considerations whereby governments (see Venezuela again) determines when exploration is allowed, at what economic value and what can be extracted.

I guess as an investor (my own small opinion) would be the drop in exploration reflects sound economic behavior since no one wants to waste money exploring for something that won't be used for decades.

Last, why am I to believe your theorists over the geologists at USGS or the people who have developed an extremely expensive database at Petroconsultants (IHS Energy). Are your people made up of academics that prove their work like this? I've see a lot of graphs but no citations. If they did have proof I'm sure every oil futures trader would want that database and would pay considerably more than websites and books these guys sell.

Atlas14
Jul 20, 2007, 11:19 AM
That's reasonable. Cellulosic ethanol would be gold however. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

It's argued too that ethanol is a crappy replacement for oil, and will need chemical modifying.



Ethanol produces more carciniogenic byproducts than oil.

El_Machinae
Jul 20, 2007, 11:32 AM
More than gasoline, maybe, but not diesel (or biodiesel)

Stolen Rutters
Jul 20, 2007, 11:50 AM
I have stock in oil. I have stock in alt. energy companies. Both are doing well so far.

Urederra
Jul 20, 2007, 12:30 PM
I bumped this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=218484) to ask the OP poster if the links he provides in this OP and in his bumping posts are as reliable as the link he provided in the thread i just bumped.

robo-snickers
Jul 20, 2007, 02:26 PM
i bet bush is looking at this thread right now

Narz
Jul 21, 2007, 02:59 PM
The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.--John Maynard Keynes
But the market can't stay irrational forever.

Narz--maybe you can explain a few things to us novices that peak oil theory is imminent and I emphasize imminent.

Most of the theories I've read say that unrestrained extraction of a finite resouce rises along a bell-shaped curve that peaks when about half the resource is gone. Would you agree with this assessment?
Sounds right.

If so does this actually mean externalities like regulations, taxes (complex investment structures), technology, policy considerations (Venezuela production decline and key employees moving to Alberta) and even wars (see Iran/Iraq wars impact of offshore wells) don't impact the level of production and exploration?
Of course they will effect production but Albertan oil is not the same as Venezulean oil. I don't think most peal oil theory advocates claim the curve will be perfectly. New discoveries will effect it, terrorism will effect it, wars will effect it, new technology will effect it. However, given the rate of new discoveries it doesn't seem likely that there will be any new discoveries large enough to significantly alter things. Perhaps new technology will save us but I haven't seen anything revolutionary enough yet.

The strangest part of the argument to me is how they believe that discovery and depletion is what nature has to offer rather than being influenced by oil prices which then determines the amount of capital available for drilling. It also seems to discount policy considerations whereby governments (see Venezuela again) determines when exploration is allowed, at what economic value and what can be extracted.
Well, if we allowed all oil to be drilled immediately and as fast as possible (economic & environmental considerations be damned) it would only worsen the situation, IMO. Better to converse while we still have a choice in the matter to buy ourselves some more time for alternative fuel research.

I guess as an investor (my own small opinion) would be the drop in exploration reflects sound economic behavior since no one wants to waste money exploring for something that won't be used for decades.
The arguments I've heard for not building new refineries is that there is no point since there's not enough new oil being extracted to refine it.

Last, why am I to believe your theorists over the geologists at USGS or the people who have developed an extremely expensive database at Petroconsultants (IHS Energy). Are your people made up of academics that prove their work like this? I've see a lot of graphs but no citations. If they did have proof I'm sure every oil futures trader would want that database and would pay considerably more than websites and books these guys sell.
Ok, peak oilers aren't my people (anymore than civfanatics are my people. As for the varying predictions, how can you be sure they're accurate no matter who forecasts them? There is obviously alot of fraud in the forecasting industry (for example, IIRC, most of the Middle East suddenly doubled their reserves at one point with no apparent explanation and surprisingly no questioning).

So, did you pay for the USGS forecast? If not, how do you know what they say?

BTW, I'm not an oil expert and you probably (almost certainly) know more about the industry than I do. That said, I am suspicious of the predictions and intentions of those who make claims on both sides (including "my people" ;)), that said, isn't it better to be safe than sorry? If we underestimate the amount of cost-effectively extractable oil in the ground don't you think we'll be better off than if we over-estimate it? I dare not call myself a "conservative" because of what that word has come to mean these days but I do believe it's better to prepare for the worst and hope for the best then merely to expect the best & only the best (the idea that "the market" will "automatically" solve the problem). This type of thinking seems insane to me. Nothing is solved but thru the effort and change in attitudes & behavior of the masses. The idea that we'll automatically solve our energy concerns seems about as logical as the idea that we'll automatically curtail global warming or even automatically survive as a species. This type of optimism (which I associate with adolescence) can sometimes be a self-fulfilling prophecy (for example, as a young adult I had supreme confidence in my driving & despite being somewhat reckless and, as I was actually a pretty good driver underneath my recklessness I avoided accidents for years) but then again, eventually, inevitably, reality tempers the unrealistic (in my case I got in an accident that would have killed me had I been driving a British car - i.e. : the car was totaled passenger side of the car was crushed, praise Allah I had no one in the car but me).

The abandonment of the gold standard is another example of a short term fix leading inevitably (IMO) to long term negative effects.

Just my limited, subjective, somewhat intuitive perspective.

Whomp
Jul 21, 2007, 03:25 PM
Narz we're in agreement it will happen it's the scale and slope that we probably disagree on. I've been doing this long enough to realize that the markets climb a wall of worry and every year for the last 100 I could give you a reason why. Some legitimate (S&L bailout, biotech and internet bubbles)and some not so much (call me a imminent peak oil skeptic).

I won't answer your post since I've answered it in another thread and yes I have access through my firm and other firms research to many of the forecasts and databases I mentioned. Here are my posts for posterity sake.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5708276&postcount=40

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5709643&postcount=50

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5710109&postcount=61

StarWorms
Jul 21, 2007, 03:56 PM
People will only stop using oil when it becomes too expensive. It will gradually cost more and more to find and retrieve oil because there's less chance of finding it now that we've taken a lot of it. It will be harder to retrieve because the leftover bits will be more difficult to get out of the ground as the easy stuff has been taken.

Bassist
Jul 21, 2007, 03:57 PM
As you may well have gathered from playing civilization, oil is a very important resource; however Civ misrepresents how important this convenient resource is for the modern world economy. I personally believe we're just past peak and we're yet to feel the consequences of that, which might be as soon as this fall.

Bas

Narz
Jul 21, 2007, 04:00 PM
Edit - Re : Whomp

Thanks for the food for thought.

That said, I still maintain it's ideal to be prepared for a worst case scenario. I also maintain that never has the world economy been as vulnerable as it is now (terrorism, China & other "developing nations" wanting to live as decadent lives as us, over-specialization & dependence on complex systems beyond comprehension, climate change, soil erosion, etc.).

I also will never believe in the viability of expodential growth or believe that the current rate of human expansion (population, comfortability of life, etc.) is at all sustainable and ultimately we're going to have to pay for our greed & hubris. This is nothing I can prove with graphs or editorials, just my take on the situation. In the end, we're not above nature nor beyond overreaching. It's not that I don't have faith in human ingenuity, it's that I find that overestimating it's limits can often be disasterous.

But, hey, I hope the doomiest of the doomers are wrong and that the economy stays stable for the next five years at least. I'm woefully unprepared for economic, social or climate turbulence at the present moment.

What does happen I will be very, very curious to see. Certainly it will be an interesting era this 21st century. As supposedly "eventful" the past few decades (my lifetime) have been I think it will be nothing compared to what's to come.

Narz
Jul 27, 2007, 02:51 PM
PEMEX predicts it's own demise within seven years (http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7BF1F8B8FE-DA99-4717-8FBD-2B3C4F90FBA3%7D)&language=EN)

ainwood
Jul 27, 2007, 03:36 PM
The arguments I've heard for not building new refineries is that there is no point since there's not enough new oil being extracted to refine it.
Like Venezuelan oil is different from Albertan oil, refineries need to be designed to handle certain types of crude, or old ones modified.

If we underestimate the amount of cost-effectively extractable oil in the ground don't you think we'll be better off than if we over-estimate it? The rules around what can, and cannot be classified as reserves are very clear. Yes, there are some assumptions that can be conservative, and some that are not, but they all have to be defendable in audits. Basically, for new fields, you cannot book reserves until you have committed funding to develop them. Just finding them is not good enough. You can list 'scope for recovery', but the markets take little view of that. For existing fields, the reserves are actually a minor function of price. If production rates decline to the point where OPEX exceeds production (or actually, the return on investment means the money is best spent elsewhere), the field will be shut-down; whether reserves remain or not. However, an increase in the oil price changes the economic cut-off.

mdwh
Jul 27, 2007, 03:45 PM
Do I really need to cover this topic again? Peak Oil is a misnomer.

There is PLENTY of oil left, its just more expensive to get.Well that's exactly what Peak Oil says. How is it a misnomer? It's "_Peak_ Oil", not "Ran Out Of Oil"...

As oil gets more expensive, alternative fuels become more attractive to invest in, produce, and distribution. As that occurs, the cost of alt fuels is lowered, and eventually oil will be an afterthought.I hope you are right. (What alternative fuels are out there, out of curiousity?)

If this has occured for numerous other commodities and is a trend that has yet to be broken by any comodity, what makes oil so different?
Well I think you answer yourself here:

[quote]Extrapolating current trends into the future is NOT good science.

mdwh
Jul 27, 2007, 03:46 PM
Do I really need to cover this topic again? Peak Oil is a misnomer.

There is PLENTY of oil left, its just more expensive to get.Well that's exactly what Peak Oil says. How is it a misnomer? It's "_Peak_ Oil", not "Ran Out Of Oil"...

As oil gets more expensive, alternative fuels become more attractive to invest in, produce, and distribution. As that occurs, the cost of alt fuels is lowered, and eventually oil will be an afterthought.I hope you are right. (What alternative fuels are out there, out of curiousity?)

If this has occured for numerous other commodities and is a trend that has yet to be broken by any comodity, what makes oil so different?
Well I think you answer yourself here:

Extrapolating current trends into the future is NOT good science.

(Edit: There needs to be a warning when replying to old posts!)

CIVPhilzilla
Jul 27, 2007, 09:46 PM
But I am also talking about what's good for the planet, not the bottom line. Cars, for example. Hydrogen cars would be 100% better for the enviroment, but we don't look towards them at all. Once again, this is an example of people giving money more importance then the enviroment, health, well-being, etc.

How are you going to produce that Hydrogen? Hydrogen isn't naturally occurring in our environment. Right now we only have technology that results in more energy being used than we can ever recover from the hydrogen. That would mean more power plants would need to be built to perform the electrolysis, which currently the most popular energy source for power plants is coal. Not to mention all the energy expended into retrofitting 500 million cars to run off a new fuel source.

Desmond Hawkins
Jul 27, 2007, 11:02 PM
Like Venezuelan oil is different from Albertan oil, refineries need to be designed to handle certain types of crude, or old ones modified.

This is what they have been opting for... at least EnCana in partnership with Conoco (or was it Exxon?). That signals to me that they expect the tar sands to maintain or replace crude flow, not expand it.

Narz
Jul 28, 2007, 12:45 AM
How are you going to produce that Hydrogen? Hydrogen isn't naturally occurring in our environment. Right now we only have technology that results in more energy being used than we can ever recover from the hydrogen. That would mean more power plants would need to be built to perform the electrolysis, which currently the most popular energy source for power plants is coal. Not to mention all the energy expended into retrofitting 500 million cars to run off a new fuel source.
I agree that "the hydrogen economy" is most likely a pipe dream.

BTW, I haven't seen tomsnowman in many months. ;)

Narz
Nov 04, 2007, 01:08 PM
http://energybulletin.net/36087.html
http://www.rawlovers.com/PeakOil.pdf

$100 a barrel coming soon! Probably before '08.

I know the Chinese think that "May you live in interesting times" is a curse but I don't care. Bring on the collapse baby! :rockon:

More than anything I am filled with curiosity. How will the 2008 candidates deal with this issue? It's getting more mainstream daily, soon it will hit a threshold of undenyability like global warming before it. But right now it's politically taboo to discuss it or it's consequences (besides blathering for a minute or two about the latest biofuel that will save us).

I feel like a man who knows he's dreaming. I am enjoying all the abundant madness for what it is. Knowing it won't last helps me really marvel in it. The massive aisles of Costco, the massive bodies at Walmart, the ability to get almost anything imaginable on the Internet, often with free shipping. Entertainment and stimulation from around the world, from yahoo chess to mail order brides, rum, cocaine, sea bass, bananas.

And of course all of you. I don't regret my time here though some might call it frivolous.

Enjoy the pinnacle. Peace. :)

JerichoHill
Nov 04, 2007, 03:45 PM
Narz, so you don't like prosperity?

To the above question about what other fuels there are? Plenty. Biofuels, shale oil, to name 2

Desmond Hawkins
Nov 04, 2007, 07:08 PM
Narz, so you don't like prosperity?

It can get pretty boring... why do you think so many of the best romantic stories have a war setting? ;)

Merkinball
Nov 04, 2007, 07:39 PM
How are you going to produce that Hydrogen? Hydrogen isn't naturally occurring in our environment. Right now we only have technology that results in more energy being used than we can ever recover from the hydrogen. That would mean more power plants would need to be built to perform the electrolysis, which currently the most popular energy source for power plants is coal. Not to mention all the energy expended into retrofitting 500 million cars to run off a new fuel source. - Civ

This isn't entirely true. Hydrogen cars are feasible, they are efficient, the problem right now is the cost (they are at least 15 G's more expensive than an average car to produce), and the safety of a car moving with a tank full of hydrogen. Safety is the number one concern surrounding the advent of hydrogen cars. And infrastructure to produce it is already being built. There's no reason, or sense to retrofit or convert regular cars into hydrogen cars. If hydrogen ever becomes viable, which is inevitable, and SAFE, possible, but down the road, then gas combustion engines will phase themselves out.

When I started college my university had collaborated with GM and completed an entire prototype. Back then, they figured they'd be hitting the road to the general market in 2008 (of course, they'd be more like toys for collectors like the first hybrids were). Don't really know where that stands at this point.

An alternatively powered car will eventually be a gold mine to whoever successfully develops it. And it really is no more than ten years off.

Narz
Nov 04, 2007, 07:56 PM
Narz, so you don't like prosperity?
Hopefully by the time of the next depression I'll be set up in a sustainable situation where I can keep up my current standard of living if not improve it. Not all people suffer equally in a crash.

But social and emotional prosperity is more important than money. Rich people off themselves all the time, emotion health > money in the bank (not that their US dollars will be worth much in ten years anyway).

Irish Caesar
Nov 04, 2007, 08:13 PM
How are you going to produce that Hydrogen?

High-temperature fast reactors.

:cool:

bigfatron
Nov 05, 2007, 06:44 AM
An alternatively powered car will eventually be a gold mine to whoever successfully develops it. And it really is no more than ten years off.

They were saying alternative-fuel powered cars were ten years off when I was a teenager - now I'm in my late forties!

Seriously, this kind of change takes massively longer than industry gurus like to theorise, espcially as we can't settle on a single alternative fuel source - is it ethanol, hydrogen, lpg, or what? Each option needs a massive infrastructure to be createdaas an upfront, sunk investment, which reduces the likelihood of anyone taking the risk.

In essence there is enormous inertia behind retaining the existing infrastructure and oil dependence long last the time at which change would otherwise be logical.

I agree with the geenral thrust of the laissez-fair argument - markets generally 'solve' problems. But you have to keep in mind the cost may be one we are unprepared to pay - markets don't 'give a . .. .. .. .' about people or impacts, they just deliver the required adjustment. Moreover market economics are particularly badly suited to dealing with prisoners' dilemma or similar game theory scenarios, and the combination of global warming and oil shortage is the biggest 'game' imaginable.

Thus free market economics allowed millions to starve in nineteenth century Ireland, because it was the best economic outcome - a similar outcome for oil availability would be pretty bad for almost all of us.

So we need to support free market solutions, but within a national/federal/international framework that provides support for consistent infrastructure development.

BFR

JerichoHill
Nov 05, 2007, 08:18 AM
Hopefully by the time of the next depression I'll be set up in a sustainable situation where I can keep up my current standard of living if not improve it. Not all people suffer equally in a crash.

But social and emotional prosperity is more important than money. Rich people off themselves all the time, emotion health > money in the bank (not that their US dollars will be worth much in ten years anyway).

Umm,

So do poor people. There's a very good link between a certain level of income and overall life satisfaction.

Fwiw, you're going to have to wait a long time for a big depression. I can tell you are quite the doomsayer. I can also tell you that the doom and gloom spouted by the media isn't as bad as the reality of what will happen.

Scare tactics sell stuff. Ignore them

Mulholland
Nov 05, 2007, 08:40 AM
Umm,

So do poor people. There's a very good link between a certain level of income and overall life satisfaction.

Fwiw, you're going to have to wait a long time for a big depression. I can tell you are quite the doomsayer. I can also tell you that the doom and gloom spouted by the media isn't as bad as the reality of what will happen.

Scare tactics sell stuff. Ignore them

I don't know what planet you're living on but from my perspective 'the media' keeps telling us everything is going to be all right. I tend to agree with Narz in that we're in for some big changes and they're not going to be ushered in smoothly by the free market.

ArneHD
Nov 05, 2007, 12:34 PM
So do poor people. There's a very good link between a certain level of income and overall life satisfaction.

I thought that the relation was that poor and rich lived roughly equally satisfactory lives, but that poor lived considerably less satisfactory lives if they lived among the rich, or within eyesight of the rich.

Narz
Nov 05, 2007, 12:58 PM
Umm,

So do poor people. There's a very good link between a certain level of income and overall life satisfaction.
Only up to a certain point. Then it levels off.

Fwiw, you're going to have to wait a long time for a big depression. I can tell you are quite the doomsayer. I can also tell you that the doom and gloom spouted by the media isn't as bad as the reality of what will happen.
The only "media" I absorb is little newsclips and articles here & there on the Internet. As far as I've seen peak oil has so far been completely ignored by the mainstream media, except a little while ago when oil broke $90 some analysists on CNN mentioned it.

Scare tactics sell stuff. Ignore them
Eh? Excessive optimism is essential to keep people buying stuff they don't need which is essential to keeping the economy growing. I'm buying less, used when I can, trading for stuff or getting it for free even better, and buying to last a lifetime ideally.

mdwh
Nov 05, 2007, 05:36 PM
This isn't entirely true. Hydrogen cars are feasible, they are efficient, the problem right now is the cost (they are at least 15 G's more expensive than an average car to produce), and the safety of a car moving with a tank full of hydrogen. Safety is the number one concern surrounding the advent of hydrogen cars. And infrastructure to produce it is already being built. There's no reason, or sense to retrofit or convert regular cars into hydrogen cars. If hydrogen ever becomes viable, which is inevitable, and SAFE, possible, but down the road, then gas combustion engines will phase themselves out.You're missing the point - it takes more energy to make hydrogen than we can get out of it. It's nothing to do with cost, it's a fundament law of the Universe. So hydrogen will not be an energy source for us. It can work as energy storage, but we still have to use alternative means to generate that energy in the first place.

ThERat
Nov 06, 2007, 01:00 AM
I attended a local conference on renewable energies. Quite interesting, I wanted to know what the experts think about the subject matter.
I don't think any of the people attending the conference would think that we can continue the way we produce energy and fuel as it is now.
As the ambassador of Brazil rightly pointed out, there are 2.3 billion people in he world below the poverty line. These people want access to basic electricity and stuff eventually.
This is where I see the biggest challenge. How do we ensure that emerging China and India do no completely nullify any effort to get greener?

I guess the market forces would work and as oil gets a more expensive commodity, developed nations would finally realize that its smarter not to use that precious black stuff for running cars. Guys, don't forget that virtually all chemical industries depend on that feedstock including pharmaceuticals.
We can't afford to use oil for transportation for much longer. What is he proper fuel to replace that, is a real headache for me. Hydrogen is no stuff that simple lies around waiting for us to harvest that. You have to use energy to produce it or can do so by steam reforming (not exactly that green either). Ethanol on a large scale? Well, unless we convert the a large part of the rain forest of Brazil and South East Asia into crop fields...

Maybe, we have to change the way we live. But, to be honest, that is very tough and I am not too optimistic, that humans can do that.

We all are a lazy bunch. Why do Americans all drive those crazy SUV's? Heck, I even see them in Singapore, a place being a concrete desert. Be it laziness or mere status symbol mentality (When I tell people I use public transport to get around, eye brows are raised), humans won't change habits. Let petrol get more expensive, simple economic pressure will stop humans wasting too much.

Now, add to this the sheer amount of rapid increase of energy needs and consumption of China and India and I think we got a huge mountain to climb in order to avoid the global scale climate change.

Humans usually react more than they pro-act. It's after a disaster or mishap, that we get smarter and say 'why didn't we think of that'. It works on smaller scale issues such as
- putting your hand into fire and find out it's pretty damn hot
- not studying for a test and fail
- realizing it isn't that smart to develop residential areas or even tourist spots next to a flood area, earthquake zone, volcano, mud slide or avalanche areas etc etc
- knowing that tinkering with nuclear reactors as done in Chernobyl isn't that smart
(more examples could be inserted here)


However, global warming is so complex and such a slow process, the human race seems to be unable to deal with it. You guys might be more optimistic than I am but I think our planet cannot and will not be able to support life as we live it for more than 6 billion people. The earth will change and we humans will have to adapt and I am sure it will be very very painful for most of us.

Winner
Nov 06, 2007, 01:24 AM
Do I really need to cover this topic again? Peak Oil is a misnomer. There is no coming oil crash. The economic mechanism will prevent this, just as it has for other commodities.

There is PLENTY of oil left, its just more expensive to get. As oil gets more expensive, alternative fuels become more attractive to invest in, produce, and distribution. As that occurs, the cost of alt fuels is lowered, and eventually oil will be an afterthought.

If this has occured for numerous other commodities and is a trend that has yet to be broken by any comodity, what makes oil so different?

Please understand economics!

Extrapolating current trends into the future is NOT good science.

And you should understand that oil isn't used just as a source of energy. Ever heard about plastics?

Also, the mechanism that you believe will prevent economic crisis resulting from high oil prices is not so smooth as you think. You don't count with rapidly increasing demand in the developing countries, which drives the prices skywards. You ignore the fact that we still don't have any reasonable alternative for fossil fuels as the main source of energy.

Fusion power is being developed, but it will hardly become feasible before 2050. Nuclear power would be good, but people don't want it. Renewable sources of energy are mostly extremelly expensive or simply unfeasible for large-scale production.

Simply put, the belief that the Holy Rule of Economics will prevent the crises is just a wishful thinking and an excuse for doing nothing about our irresponsible use of resources.

Narz
Nov 06, 2007, 01:55 AM
Simply put, the belief that the Holy Rule of Economics will prevent the crises is just a wishful thinking and an excuse for doing nothing about our irresponsible use of resources.
Well stated.

Narz
Nov 06, 2007, 02:16 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/business/02wargame.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.writingshop.ws/html/drinking_sand.html

Articles in spoiler if no want click links. ;)




NY Times
A War Game Supposes Scarce and Risky Oil

WASHINGTON, Nov. 1 — War in Iran. Gasoline rationing, at $5 a gallon. A military draft. A Chinese takeover of Taiwan. Double-digit inflation and unemployment. The draining of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

This is where current energy policy is leading us, according to a nightmare scenario played out as a policy-making exercise here on Thursday by a group of former top government officials.

Two bipartisan business-supported groups sponsored an elaborately staged role-playing game called Oil ShockWave that tried to dramatize the impact of American dependence on oil imported from unstable and unfriendly parts of the world.

The organizers have an agenda: They hope to prompt Congress to act on energy legislation and to push the issue into the presidential campaign.

The game was set in the spring and summer of 2009, under a new administration that has inherited current energy policy.

The match that ignited the conflagration was $150-a-barrel oil, brought on first by instability in Central Asia and then a military and political confrontation with Iran and Venezuela.

The president’s senior advisers — played by former White House aides, military leaders and cabinet officers, met urgently to try to fashion advice for the president to cope with the political, economic, social and military effects of the oil shock. The president, of unspecified party affiliation, remained offstage throughout but was consistently referred to as “he.”

The group was led by the national security adviser, played by Robert E. Rubin, secretary of the Treasury during much of the Clinton administration. At one point, weighing a variety of unpleasant options, Mr. Rubin said in near despair, “This wouldn’t be this big a problem if the political system a few years ago had dealt with these issues.”

Carol M. Browner, the Democratic former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who played the secretary of energy, chimed in, “Year in and year out, it has been difficult to get a serious energy policy.” She and others noted that previous Congresses failed to act on auto mileage standards, efficiency measures and steps to replace foreign sources of oil. Michael D. McCurry, President Clinton’s former press secretary, who played a senior counselor to the fictional new president, said that energy issues were barely discussed in the 2008 campaign.

That is the moral of the story, according to its organizers. Congressional inaction and political inattention could lead to dire, yet completely foreseeable consequences.

“Once a crisis actually hits, policy tools are largely ineffectual,” said Jason S. Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center, one of the event’s sponsors. “The participants recognized that Congress has to get out in front on oil security before events overtake it.”

The other sponsor was Securing America’s Future Energy, or SAFE, an action-oriented group committed to reducing the nation’s dependence on oil. It is led by Frederick W. Smith, the chairman of FedEx, and retired Gen. P. X. Kelley, former commandant of the Marine Corps.

Both groups have issued numerous reports on American oil policy and have urged Congress to act quickly to reduce the demand for oil, increase supplies from reliable sources and reduce economic dependence on fossil fuels.

Thursday’s exercise, the organizers acknowledge, was a bit of a stunt to publicize the issues and nudge Congress and the presidential candidates.

All the former policy makers recruited for the cast got promotions, except Mr. Rubin. “Life can be cruel,” said he remarked.

Richard L. Armitage, deputy secretary of state in President Bush’s first term, moved up to secretary of state. Retired Gen. John P. Abizaid, former head of the Pentagon’s Central Command, played the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. John F. Lehman, secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, became secretary of defense. Gene Sperling, former national economic adviser to President Clinton, was the secretary of the Treasury. Philip D. Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 commission, served as the fictional director of national intelligence.

The only leading participant not to have held a senior government post was Daniel Yergin, an expert on the oil industry and chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates.

The official surrogates sat in a mock-up of a White House situation room and considered the options for dealing with an uprising in Azerbaijan that had cut the flow of oil through the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. As oil prices rose past $110 a barrel, they discussed what the president should say and do. Ms. Browner, as the fictional energy secretary, suggested reimposing the national 55-mile-an-hour speed limit. The political advisers rejected that as an “eat your peas” proposal that would not go over well in Congress or with the public.

Surveying the financial markets, which were plunging as oil prices spiked, Mr. Rubin fell back on a favorite phrase as a top Wall Street executive and government official: “Markets go up and markets go down.”

Much of the discussion echoed the current debate over the run-up in real-world energy prices. “Is this a short-term spike or a long-term economic reality?” Mr. McCurry asked. No one had an answer.

When the group reassembled, it was a few months later, and the crisis had deepened. Iran had drastically cut its oil production in response to Western economic sanctions imposed because of its nuclear weapons program. The Venezuelan leadership of Hugo Chávez followed suit, driving prices beyond $150 a barrel. The Iranian nuclear program touched off talk of war. The military advisers urged redeployment of the bulk of America’s naval and air power to the Persian Gulf in anticipation of war, and urged reinstatement of the draft for young men and women.

Domestic policy advisers recommended limited releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and mandatory fuel-saving measures, like gasoline rationing and limits to Sunday driving.

Mr. McCurry said the president realized that he had no good choices. “He knows he’s a one-term president because of this,” he said.

Robbie Diamond, president of SAFE, said the exercise demonstrated the economic and national security costs of the American dependence on foreign oil.

“Now they have the opportunity on Capitol Hill to truly rise above ideology and enact a comprehensive energy bill that meaningfully reduces our oil dependence,” he said. “Without measures that address both supply and demand, they have failed the American people.”


Drinking Sand
Article By: John Schettler

Americans know that “Head-On” is applied directly to the forehead, and that it’s available without a prescription. They know that getting auto insurance from Geico is so simple a Caveman could do it, and the Cavemen, apparently the last oppressed and downtrodden racial group in America, now have their own sitcom so we can all share the angst. Americans are indeed well informed. They know that the Hayatt Gold Passport just got more rewarding, and that they can choose from six dinner combinations starting at $6.99 at Ruby Tuesday. They can also get unlimited calls, digital TV, and wireless broadband internet all from AT&T for just $99.99. In fact, Americans are well aware of the fact that a 40 year old man can get $100,000 worth of coverage in life insurance for as little as $14.99, and that the call is free, the quote is free, and there is absolutely no obligation. Of course, old J.G. Wentworth wants to make sure they also know that they can get CASH today for their structured settlement or annuity, because its our money, and we should use it when we need it, by God.

It’s amazing how much Americans can learn, over and over again, just by watching a 5 minute TV commercial segment. With nearly 20 minutes of advertising in every hour of programming now, it is simply impossible for typical viewers not to know all these things, the insistent and urgent mantras broadcast at great expense by corporations hungry for our consumer dollars. That aside, when they check their email each morning, people also learn about 15 different ways they can increase their male member’s size, or to quote one message title directly: “A real man should have a real penis. Here it is.” Apparently the mail sender, Terry H. Goldberg in this iteration of the ubiquitous spam promising male enhancement, is now threatening to ship you just what you need. (Here it is?)

dog-bounty-hunterSo with all this information being broadcast at us 24 hours a day, it would seem that Americans should be the most well informed people on the planet. Yet ask them who their congressmen or senators are, and about 10% can tell you the answer. CNN made sure we all knew that Dog the Bounty Hunter was back in the dog house again, as the story of his indelicate racial speech topped their morning news on Nov 1. It is revealing that the top searches listed on the popular search engine Yahoo for Nov 1 were: Pierce Brosnan, Brett Favre, Nicole Kidman, The Exorcist, Daylight Savings Time, Bobby Darin, Mashed Potatoes, Alex Rodriguez and Sabrina Bryan. The 5.6 Bay Area Earthquake also made the top ten. Apparently the impending oil crisis, global warming and climate change, financial shenanigans, plummeting stocks, the Iraq war, the demise of the dollar and other inconvenient major news is of no real interest to Americans on Yahoo. And the staggering news from Mexico is glossed over in a 10 second newsbyte. Massive flooding, whole provinces under water, half a million homes destroyed, one of the largest cities on earth in danger of being 7 feet under water.

mexico-flood

These things don’t rate compared to any of the celebrity names that made the day’s top search list on Yahoo. And they are by no means as important as finding out when Daylight Savings Time ends…and the earthshaking significance of… mashed potatoes? David Penner of Counterpunch summed up the disconnect between reality and the things typical Americans give their energy to this way: “Listen to what people are talking about on TV, on the streets, and in restaurants, and it is clear the American people are pathologically disconnected from reality. This disconnection from reality is particularly pronounced in both the media and academia, where the most critical issues of our time are either completely ignored, or drowned in a barrage of hyperbole and euphemistic blather. It is as if, due to so many decades of brainwashing, Americans are no longer capable of reason, no longer capable of independent thought.”

Is it any wonder then that the major news outlets pepper their broadcast with chatty, smiley coverage of celebrities, nonsense stories, and entertainment?

American PresidentSpeaking of entertainment, in the American President Michael Douglas, in the role of our Commander in Chief, is told by his vehement Press Secretary that Americans are hungry for leadership, and that they would crawl across a desert like thirsty men seeking water in the hopes of finding it, even drinking the sand when they find a mirage instead. “They don’t drink the sand because they are thirsty for leadership,” Douglas returned, remarking that they have elected presidents who have difficulty putting two sentences together. (Sound familiar?) “They drink the sand because they don’t know the difference.”

Do we know the difference in this country between what is really important and the trivial idiocy that is so often served up to us on our “news” stations? While Americans know who the next Idol will likely be, and all the intimate details of the Britney Spears meltdown, the typical US television viewer would be hard pressed to tell you anything about the Arctic meltdown, or why oil recently hit $96 a barrel, if they even picked up on that little headline at all. The things Americans don’t know are apparently irrelevant compared to that $6.99 offer from Ruby Tuesday or the travails of the bounty hunter. American’s don’t know that oil production, as measured in real barrel output, peaked in late 2005 and has been trending down ever since. They don’t know that every major oil field on earth is also past peak production and is now in decline. How’s that for a news item? Hear anything about it on CNN or FOX lately? That’s right, every major oil field currently in production is now in decline: Ghawar in Saudia Arabia is wheezing away under intense seawater infusion to keep the well pressure up, Cantarell in Mexico is losing 11% per year now in real production, Burgan in Kuwait is well past peak and trending down. The North Sea rig output is abysmal, and even Chevron reported a 26% drop in profits due to their operations there. Now UK is desperately looking elsewhere for oil, along with the burgeoning economies of China, India and, of course, the US.

The Gulf States, seeing that the jig is up where oil is concerned, are busy investing all those petro -dollars into massive amusement parks, sky scraping hotels, and trendy new real estate resorts. Have a look at what the Arabs have been building in this artist rendition of Dubai, all currently well protected by CENTCOM, of course. It makes Las Vegas look like a dusty desert ghost town by comparison, and includes a big amusement theme park twice the size of Disneyland in Orlando. Clearly the Arabs know they cannot drink sand when the oil revenues run dry.

Dubai-2008-JS

What we are talking about here is the primary fuel that powers all our cars and trucks, and heats a large percentage of our homes each year. Oil is the foundation of our high tech consumer/car driven society, and everything we have built these last 50 or 60 years has flowed from a vast supply of cheap petroleum. 15 years ago it was under $12 a barrel. The $96. high the last week of October represented a 55% increase over the price just one year ago, and it will go higher still.

James Kunstler is certainly correct when he writes: “When historians glance back at 2007 through the haze of their coal-fired stoves, they will mark this year as the onset of the Long Emergency – or whatever they choose to call the unraveling of industrial economies and the complex systems that constituted them.”

And if the unraveling of our industrial economy seems a bit harsh, then you simply haven’t been paying attention to the financial news in recent months. With trillions in leveraged debt still unaccounted for, an amount double the GDP of the entire US, the bad financial news of August and September that came to be called the “Credit Crunch” is just getting started. The fraud and accounting deception that has been playing a shell game with all this heavily leveraged real estate debt will eventually have to be reckoned with. To mix metaphors, the game on Wall Street is more like musical chairs. The music keeps playing, and most traders have found a place to sit their assets, fleeing to commodities, or gold, or playing the stock hopping game. But the reality of the financial situation we are facing is that there are fewer and fewer chairs, because so many of these securities were falsely rated AAA when they were really worth little more than a bucket of sand. And another 25 basis point Fed cut did little to change the situation. Eric Fry, reporting on Rude Awakening put it this way: “ The rate cut did not make everything all better. It did not make anything better…because it can't. A rate cut cannot convert a defaulted subprime mortgage into a valuable asset. It cannot convert a AAA-rated CDO full of toxic, overpriced garbage into an actual AAA security…and most of all, a rate cut cannot convert liars into truth-tellers.” I might add that it cannot convert sand into water either, or create an informed public that knows the difference between truth, reality, and the falsehood and deception of the world we are shown by our corporate controlled media institutions.

So it was no surprise that November opened with a bear market getting more bad news from Citigroup , J. P. Morgan, AIG, and Credit Suisse, and stocks plummeted, with the Dow was down 362 at the close of the day, and down again the following morning. The Fed injected another $41 billion into the monetary system on Nov 1st, like a doctor trying to save a dying patient by giving him a blood transfusion. Nervous traders were looking to October’s non-farm payroll reports on Nov 2 for signs of hope that the street economy was not being threatened by their devious investment mirage. All those jobs that have been created, like ticket takers, product demonstrators, waiters, dishwashers, are supposed to prove the economy is “strong.” You see, they drank the sand too, by the thousands, and now bank after bank is busy drawing thick red lines through printouts of expected loan revenues, realizing it is all just one big liability, and they are desperately struggling to find ways of keeping the bad loans off their accounting books.

Mish Shedlock pegged the trauma hitting the banking system as he watched stocks fall: “Notice today's selloff in Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C), Countrywide (CFC), JP Morgan Chase (JPM), Washington Mutual (WM), Corus Bank (CORS), Bank United (BKUNA), etc. This selloff is not over a possible dividend cut at Citigroup, profit taking, diminished odds of further rate cuts or any other thing the talking heads might be saying. Solvency is the issue here, and I am not just talking about Citigroup. I am talking about solvency of the system itself. Rate cuts fueled this mess. Rate cuts cannot be the answer.” Citigroup alone, he commented, currently lists over $2.2 trillion in liabilities. A mere 5.4% drop in assets would make the bank insolvent.

Everything is fine as long as the music keeps playing, as long as there is someone else that you can pass the bucket of sand to in a CDO or fradulently rated security. When the music stops, who will be left standing with all that bad debt? Who will be left with the worthless paper so cleverly constructed by financial fraudsters? The market is starting to ask this hard question. And what will the public do when they realize, at long last, that their nest egg has fallen, like Humpty Dumpty, and they will have no retirement, no home when the foreclosure man comes calling? Foreclosures were up 30% last month, and 1 of every 196 home mortgages is now in default.

Meanwhile the dollar we all struggle to earn each day continues to plummet in value against other world currencies. It has lost a third of its value in just the last five years. Amazingly, the Canadian dollar is now stronger than the old Greenback. You need $1.06 US to buy one these days. This means that all those goods we import each year are going to cost more and more. This is called inflation, and it silently saps the vitality of an economy until it dies.

All this will indeed be shocking news to most Americans, because they continue to go about their business as if nothing was wrong. They falsely believe that America is the richest country on earth—while the reality is that we are the world’s greatest debtor. They feel the pressure of this unacknowledged truth on their pocketbooks, however. Their weakening dollar buys less and less each month, and they have been simply going to the plastic to rack up more credit card debt to get by. Consumer debt is now a staggering $905 billion dollars. And the banks are starting to worry that it will go the way of CDOs, leveraged securities, or other hocus pocus instruments of credit cooked up in the last ten years—into the reality of complete default.

An article in reformer.com spelled out the true scale of what we are facing this way: “We are rapidly approaching a time of reckoning. What happens when the American people discover that our nation will soon be fighting with Asia and Europe for control of a rapidly dwindling supply of petroleum? When they discover the dollar is becoming an increasingly worthless currency on the world markets? When they discover that other countries are tiring of lending America money to prop up a bankrupt government? When they discover that most of the wealth created over the past decade is based on fraud? When they discover that our current way of life is unsustainable in a world of scarcer resources caused by the double whammy of peak oil and climate change? You won't find the candidates running for president from either party talking about these things.”

And after five or six debates from the Republican or Democratic candidates what have we heard about any of the real issues threatening this country? They think Americans can't handle the truth, can’t drink real water. So they offer up sand, with debates over immigration, abortion, gay rights or the mega -threat posed by the “terrorists,” who have not harmed a single soul in this country for over 6 years. (More people have drowned in their bathtubs than the death toll from terrorism. In fact, death by drowning in your bathtub is by far the more series threat, statistically.) Instead of real leadership, candidates scramble to find the most inoffensive and non-committal ground possible. Hilary Clinton, the current Democratic front runner, is a master of bobbing, weaving, and taking no real position that might alienate voters in any way. On the latest debate, as the trailing pack of hopefuls challenged her to speak clearly, Clinton rambled on, saying virtually nothing of substance. Finally Obama hit the nail on the head when he said: “One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face…She has not been honest and clear.”

Heaven forbid that we ever stop the entertainment and shopping in this country and be honest about what we face, for the crisis that is coming will bring unprecedented challenges. It means the end of the automobile as our primary means of transport. Yes, the end of that long love affair with your car that the auto makers have associated with your personal freedom. You will drive only when absolutely necessary, because the fuel will be too expensive to afford. Gasoline inventories are now using a JIT model. (“Just In Time” delivery to the pumps.) They will soon be forced to switch to a new model: JNT , or “Just Not There.”) We’ve seen it before, with gas shortages, odd-even buying days, but the shortages looming ahead will be profound by comparison. We’re presently on track to see oil production decline 4% per year. This means it will move from 81 million barrels per day to ….something considerably less by 2020, perhaps 58 million barrels. Look closely at those numbers. In that difference of 23 million barrels of production per day we will see the fall of the “American Way Of Life.” It is a difference that encompasses a vast darkness—war, famine, the demise of the social freedoms we have enjoyed.

The end of cheap, endless food, and even competition for clean running water, is also at hand. That difference of 23 million barrels of oil per day will require the complete restructuring of our society, from the way we move and work in our cities, to the way we feed ourselves, if we can. Like the Titanic, no one wants to believe that we are, indeed, on the sinking ship of fatally declining oil production, and the life boats will likely only have room for a privileged few. We’ve hit the berg, and are now just playfully kicking the ice shards about on the upper deck. If the “powers that be” know these things, why are they not busily engaged in restoring our waterways and rail systems for the primary mass transport we will so desperately need? Instead, they pursue business as usual, salted by the wil ‘o the wisp of “Alternative Fuels” in an effort to hold onto the motorcar model of America. But all alternative energies combined can provide no more than 5% of our energy needs today. It will take time, and I mean 20 years or more, before that can rise to as much as 15%.

Another dark truth about all this is that the powers that be do know what is coming, but instead of planning and advocating the radical restructuring of our economy, they are war gaming scenarios of catastrophe. Matthew Savinar reported: “Washington insiders are game-planning for future oil market crises. Former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and CENTCOM Commander John Abizaid next week join in a simulation of deepening energy crisis. Their "Oil Shockwave" exercise, staged by two energy policy groups, involves a 2009 scenario where oil prices reach $160 a barrel with Iran in turmoil.”

The last time such a scenario was run, in 2005, the Washington Post covered it with this headline: “Outcome Grim at Oil War Game: Former Officials Fail to Prevent Recession in Mock Energy Crisis.” Things have only gotten worse as the last weeks of 2007 slide away toward the all important “holiday shopping season.” But my guess is that Americans will soon be hard pressed just to keep food on the table, with little room on the plastic to jump on Wal-Mart’s deeply discounted DVD players. The Pentagon has been running games of their own—on how the American public will react to food shortages, and what PSYOPS (propaganda and deception posing as “news”) would be useful in such an event. They are filling their buckets with sand.

Americans don’t want to think about these awkward truths, even if they do hear about them. The Pentagon won’t really have to work that hard on their PSYOPS. The news media is not about finding and exposing the truth, or informing us on vital issues so we can take appropriate action. It is about selling us things, distracting us, entertaining us, protecting the advertiser’s status quo and precious bottom line profits. Instead of much needed truth, we are served up a bundle of false assumptions about the world that most people have come to accept without question. The greatest of these “Big Lies” put forward endlessly by our media is that we are now engaged in something called a “War on Terror.” It was supposedly started by a bunch of crazy radicals with 6 hours of flight training in a piper cub. Americans now believe, as Tim O’Shea of rense.com put it, that: “An airliner can be flown with professional precision by a group of crazed amateurs into a 100-storey building and can cause that building to collapse on its own footprint. Twice.” (Not to mention the third building that collapsed, (WTC-7), from the top down, when it wasn’t even struck at all, and while no fire ever reached the top floors where the collapse clearly begins.) And to put icing on that cake, most Americans still falsely believe that the Iraqis attacked the World Trade Center, not 19 men from our dear friend Saudi Arabia, as we were told before the dust had settled over the ruin of the World Trade Center. Soon, perhaps, they will be persuaded that it was actually Iranians who did the dastardly deed. Because they seem to be accepting, without question, that the Iranians are now the ones busily manufacturing WMDs—not Saddam as we were told before the invasion of Iraq. Oh well, I guess the media is just busy doing what it does best, shoveling sand, and the viewers just don’t know the difference.

The saddest thing about all of this is that if we really had leadership, as opposed to the corporate serving cabal in charge now, we could revolutionize this country in a vital way. We could build cars that get well over 100mpg, the Germans rolled out a prototype that got 362 mpg earlier this year. We could build out light, high-speed rail to connect all our cities and reduce freeway madness, creating millions of jobs in the process. We could revitalize our waterways, promote river traffic, and begin planning for different ways of growing and distributing food locally as opposed to having it travel 1800 miles in a diesel truck to reach our dinner plates. But all this means the existing game of big box corporate stores and their centralized warehouse distribution models has to end. Heaven forbid we ever do something for the benefit of the American people as opposed to the benefit of American corporations. So I’m afraid that it will all just have to collapse on us before we truly get the message that we cannot live the way we do any longer. “The American Way Of Life” is negotiable, Mr. Cheney. Get a clue.

But perhaps that is the plan after all. Why do all this building and remodeling when you can watch the house burn down and collect the insurance? Someone is getting very rich off the pain. The arms dealers, pharmaceuticals, mercenaries, shifty CEOs, have all been cashing in. Frankly, I pity the next president. Should Hilary win the election, she will preside while it all falls apart. And then the same devious men who have brought us to the edge of this crisis will be waiting with the final chapter of their plan as her disastrous first term concludes. The plan was laid long ago. It is called “Project Endgame: 2012,” and when everything really starts to fall apart, when the truth about the world finally penetrates the fog of entertainment programming in this country, the people will be so hungry for leadership, for anyone who can lead them out of the crisis, and they will drink sand. Some figure will emerge in 2012, from the neo-con right, and promise us all that salvation is at hand…but there will have to be a few changes, a few harsh measures instituted…a few laws discarded.

I hope you’ve been saving up all your hard earned cash. Maybe it will buy you a ticket to Dubai and a weekend in one of those swank hotels when it all falls apart.

Article By: John Schettler, November, 2007

Godwynn
Nov 06, 2007, 04:04 PM
I found this cruising Wikipedia today.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/35/Available_Energy-2.jpg

If my math is correct, global consumption is only .00016% of available solar energy.

Irish Caesar
Nov 06, 2007, 04:55 PM
If my math is correct, global consumption is only .00016% of available solar energy.

Available is the catch; how do they define it?

mrt144
Nov 06, 2007, 05:01 PM
I am already discounting what narz has to say based on him living in Santa Cruz. there is no economic reality there.

Godwynn
Nov 06, 2007, 05:10 PM
Available is the catch; how do they define it?

I don't have a clue. It was food for thought. :)

mdwh
Nov 06, 2007, 08:05 PM
That'll be handy for when we've built our Dyson Sphere. In the meantime?

Irish Caesar
Nov 06, 2007, 08:28 PM
I don't have a clue. It was food for thought. :)

I think so, too; my guess is that that's an estimated figure if it could all be harnessed somehow... it would be interesting to see what their assumptions are, though.

Power conversion efficiency, solar cell tech considered, where to place the things, etc...

Godwynn
Nov 06, 2007, 08:44 PM
I think so, too; my guess is that that's an estimated figure if it could all be harnessed somehow... it would be interesting to see what their assumptions are, though.

Power conversion efficiency, solar cell tech considered, where to place the things, etc...

I'm no scientist, and this is purely a guess/opinion but I think the Wind and Solar are vastly over exaggerated in the picture. :(

Darth Meanie
Nov 06, 2007, 08:50 PM
What I have to say pertains to America and OPEC:

Oil has hit 96$ a barrel. It is nearing triple digit figures. America is sick of this, but keeps doling out the dough to the middle east. Why? America has more than enough oil to supply itself in the richest land in the world. Why do we not access it? Because laws from the 60s made by protesting, economically hippies made creation of new refineries and oil drills unprofitable with pointless restrictive laws. Why should America be contained by actions made 4 decades ago by people who hit the bong before writing them?

America needs to access its own resources. The creation of new refineries would boost the economy and cut the trade defecit AND, if well done, lower GHG Emissions by retiring less efficient wells and refineries. And while we are at it, why not build new nuclear plants as well? New nuclear plants could be more efficient and less risky than current ones! Environmentalists, Hippies and Conservatives can all stand to profit from new nuclear plants.

As long as we keep buying foreign oil, we are making an unjustifiable trade off.

Every barrel of foreign oil we buy today takes money OUT of the pockets of American citizens and IN to the pockets of our enemies.

Mulholland
Nov 06, 2007, 09:37 PM
What I have to say pertains to America and OPEC:

Oil has hit 96$ a barrel. It is nearing triple digit figures. America is sick of this, but keeps doling out the dough to the middle east. Why? America has more than enough oil to supply itself in the richest land in the world. Why do we not access it? Because laws from the 60s made by protesting, economically hippies made creation of new refineries and oil drills unprofitable with pointless restrictive laws. Why should America be contained by actions made 4 decades ago by people who hit the bong before writing them?

America needs to access its own resources. The creation of new refineries would boost the economy and cut the trade defecit AND, if well done, lower GHG Emissions by retiring less efficient wells and refineries. And while we are at it, why not build new nuclear plants as well? New nuclear plants could be more efficient and less risky than current ones! Environmentalists, Hippies and Conservatives can all stand to profit from new nuclear plants.

As long as we keep buying foreign oil, we are making an unjustifiable trade off.

Every barrel of foreign oil we buy today takes money OUT of the pockets of American citizens and IN to the pockets of our enemies.

There is so much misinformation in your post I wouldn't know where to begin.

Theige
Nov 06, 2007, 09:44 PM
There is so much misinformation in your post I wouldn't know where to begin.

But the basic idea is there: Reduce our dependence on foreign energy. I think everyone agrees with that.

Mulholland
Nov 06, 2007, 09:51 PM
But the basic idea is there: Reduce our dependence on foreign energy. I think everyone agrees with that.
Except the basic premise of how to do it is fatally flawed. There is not enough oil on US soil to sustain the economy for any extended period of time. Building refineries will not solve the problem that the oil will still have to be bought outside the country. And the hippies and environmentalists as he so endearingly calls them will probably contribute more to the energy crisis through real action than simply drilling in the ANWAR will ever do.

ThERat
Nov 06, 2007, 09:52 PM
But the basic idea is there: Reduce our dependence on foreign energy. I think everyone agrees with that.Good idea, how about you guys add energy conservation to that? It's about time America uses modern technology properly instead of wasting huge amounts of resources.

@Darth Meanie...what have hippies done to you that you detest them so much. Didn't know it was them that brought America into such a dilemma. Well, at least they had fun smoking pot instead of fighting a useless war in Iraq.

Theige
Nov 06, 2007, 10:06 PM
Except the basic premise of how to do it is fatally flawed. There is not enough oil on US soil to sustain the economy for any extended period of time. Building refineries will not solve the problem that the oil will still have to be bought outside the country. And the hippies and environmentalists as he so endearingly calls them will probably contribute more to the energy crisis through real action than simply drilling in the ANWAR will ever do.

Well he did mention nuclear power, give him that. Add all the other renewable sources, and conservation, as thERat said, and we'll get somewhere.

JerichoHill
Nov 07, 2007, 07:53 AM
It can get pretty boring... why do you think so many of the best romantic stories have a war setting? ;)

Wow. Thats a seriously good point

JerichoHill
Nov 07, 2007, 07:54 AM
I don't know what planet you're living on but from my perspective 'the media' keeps telling us everything is going to be all right. I tend to agree with Narz in that we're in for some big changes and they're not going to be ushered in smoothly by the free market.

Must read different media. I see the headlines everyday about the dollar falling and stuff collapsing and all that

JerichoHill
Nov 07, 2007, 07:55 AM
I thought that the relation was that poor and rich lived roughly equally satisfactory lives, but that poor lived considerably less satisfactory lives if they lived among the rich, or within eyesight of the rich.

No. There's an income level where the amount of happiness that comes from each additional increase in happiness begins to have decreasing marginal returns. It flat-lines as we get the ridiculously rich

JerichoHill
Nov 07, 2007, 07:57 AM
And you should understand that oil isn't used just as a source of energy. Ever heard about plastics?

Also, the mechanism that you believe will prevent economic crisis resulting from high oil prices is not so smooth as you think. You don't count with rapidly increasing demand in the developing countries, which drives the prices skywards. You ignore the fact that we still don't have any reasonable alternative for fossil fuels as the main source of energy.

Fusion power is being developed, but it will hardly become feasible before 2050. Nuclear power would be good, but people don't want it. Renewable sources of energy are mostly extremelly expensive or simply unfeasible for large-scale production.

Simply put, the belief that the Holy Rule of Economics will prevent the crises is just a wishful thinking and an excuse for doing nothing about our irresponsible use of resources.


My home is green. I drive a scooter. I can grow my own food. Thanks for judging me.

And yes, I realize oil is used for more than just going a go-go. Glad to know I didn't waste 8 years of college

Desmond Hawkins
Nov 07, 2007, 08:18 AM
My home is green. I drive a scooter. I can grow my own food. Thanks for judging me.

Ya well, I live in a janitor's closet at my place of work, get around barefoot, and I don't eat food. THERE, I WIN!

JerichoHill
Nov 07, 2007, 08:28 AM
Ya well, I live in a janitor's closet at my place of work, get around barefoot, and I don't eat food. THERE, I WIN!

Of course you do. Youre supporting Putin

Darth Meanie
Nov 07, 2007, 09:10 AM
The hippie stuff was just for emphasis. I guess I was a little harsh about that. Alaska, California, and Florida could supply America with oil for decades though. We just are not drilling that much, which is what I am complaining about.

EDIT: Nuclear power is also the way to go. I personally applaude hybrids for being fuel efficient and less wasteful, but we need a better power source to do that to. Renewed interest in nuclear power could decrease waste, increase power, decrease power bills, and let us retire older, more dangerous nuclear plants.

Narz
Nov 07, 2007, 09:57 AM
Alaska, California, and Florida could supply America with oil for decades though.
Where'd you hear that one?

Source?

Darth Meanie
Nov 07, 2007, 01:35 PM
My AP US History teacher, and he was a geography major. There is a certain about 13 acre or so reserve in alaska that holds enough oil to last for a decade alone.

Godwynn
Nov 07, 2007, 02:21 PM
My AP US History teacher, and he was a geography major. There is a certain about 13 acre or so reserve in alaska that holds enough oil to last for a decade alone.

ANWR can sustain the American Economy for a grand total of 385 days.

It has 7.7 billion in proven reserves, and we use 20 million barrels a day.

Narz
Nov 07, 2007, 02:45 PM
My AP US History teacher, and he was a geography major. There is a certain about 13 acre or so reserve in alaska that holds enough oil to last for a decade alone.
Haha, oil is geology, not geography. :lol:

Integral
Nov 07, 2007, 02:55 PM
ANWR can sustain the American Economy for a grand total of 385 days.

It has 7.7 billion in proven reserves, and we use 20 million barrels a day.

Drilling in ANWR could help as a stopgap measure, though, when combined with other energy sources. However, I'd only support drilling there if it was combined with a measure to drastically increase research in alternative energies. ANWR should be a last resort, IMO.

What we really need is a friggin huge gas tax. I'm serious. Tax the hell out of gasoline, then rebate it with lower income taxes. If oil addiction is really such a massive environmental, security, and sustainability concern, then why aren't drastic measures being considered?

[Support for said gas tax can be found here (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/rogoff-joins-pigou-club.html). Also here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club).]

JerichoHill
Nov 07, 2007, 04:51 PM
:cool:

[Support for said gas tax can be found here (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/rogoff-joins-pigou-club.html). Also here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club).]

And here (I mean, me)

Whomp
Nov 07, 2007, 05:17 PM
Prices have been parabolic lately and I'm pretty sure when everyone's telling the same story it's time to run from this bubble. If you say this time is different then may you be the greater fool.

Mark Hulbert follows investment newsletter writers and they're one of the greatest contrary indicators. They're very bullish on oil.

It's interesting how much TWRT just paid a guy in the Chicago suburbs for his manufacturer of gearing systems for the wind turbine, oil and gas and energy-related industries. Substitutes, like car sharing, are happening fast and if you haven't noticed you better open your eyes.

To prove my point this is easily one of the toppiest articles I've read recently.
Beauty Queen Startup Makes Waves In US Gulf Where Anybody Can Buy

By Brian Baskin andJessica Resnick-Ault
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
HOUSTON -- The rush to cash in on the oil boom has garnered an unlikely participant: a startup founded by a 25-year-old beauty queen.

In a sweep of leases off the Louisiana coast, Kimberlee International Energy won all 15 plots it bid on to develop oil in the Gulf of Mexico. The success rate was unusual in one of the hottest lease sales in the past decade, though the bids were miniscule: Kimberlee spent an average of only $349 as the sole bidder on its leases, while giants like Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) spent millions on blocks that saw six or more companies bidding.

But a close look at the Jacksonville, Fla. company suggests it has made the smallest of ripples in the industry, not the large waves it claims. While Kimberlee presents itself as an energy company with a global footprint and close ties with energy majors like BP PLC (BP), its claimed partners say they've never heard of the company and none of Kimberlee's founders have a background in the energy business. At a time when the U.S. is actively pushing to reduce its dependence on overseas oil, the Kimberlee story illustrates how just about anybody can bid to develop leases in federal waters.

"(We check) if they have enough money to satisfy our bonding requirements and pay their rents," said Eileen Angelico, a spokeswoman at the Minerals Management Service, which oversees the offshore oil and gas industry. "We don't monitor what they tell other people."

On the surface, Kimberlee's website may seem to have all the trappings of a global energy company, embellished with the photo of Kimberlee Borland, holding her Miss Black Universe tiara, on the home page. A close look at the site tells a revealing story: much of it is lifted verbatim from publicly available documents from BP.

David King, who identified himself as a vice president of Kimberlee International, said this is because of a collaboration with the U.K.-based energy giant. BP offers a different take. "We don't have any involvement with this Kimberlee International Energy Corporation," said Neil Chapman, a BP spokesman.

Kimberlee also takes credit for brokering a $1.4 billion refinery sale in the U.K., buying BP's Dutch assets and entering the exploration fray on five continents almost overnight. Details of these and other megadeals were cribbed from the websites of major oil companies, as was its pledge for ethical corporate governance, which was partially lifted from an old BP annual report.

The Gulf of Mexico leases are real, though it isn't clear what Kimberlee International plans to do with them. Unlike leases bought by BP or Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSB.LN), which cover thousands of acres and potentially contain major new oil fields, Kimberlee purchased scraps of land in sections of the Gulf that have been almost tapped dry after 60 years of production. The company nevertheless plans to spend $3 billion to produce more than 200,000 barrels a day from its leases, said King, a spending level rivaling the largest Gulf projects.

Beauty Queen In Business
Filings with the Delaware Secretary of State's office and the MMS show two listed executives: David Pope, the bishop of an online megachurch, and Borland. Pope is head of New Life International Ministries Inc., a business registered in Delaware in his name. As a young man, he said in a biography posted on an associate's website, "there was never a doubt in mind that I would make one billion dollars."

New Life's website touts both spiritual and financial achievements, ranging from a mining company to a television network, none of which could be verified independently. An employee at a bible college New Life claims to manage said it hadn't had a relationship with Pope in years. A message left for Pope at Kimberlee International's offices was returned by King, on a cell phone registered to the bishop.

Borland, meanwhile, was raised in Alaska, and obtained a degree in office administration in 2004 from Florida A&M University in Tallahassee. She stayed on with her alma matter after graduating, assisting the school's board of trustees in 2006 and early 2007 while they selected a new president.

"She had an enormous amount of energy and insight," said Rev. R.B. Holmes, a trustee at the Tallahassee university and head of a Tallahassee church. "She appeared to have impeccable integrity and a positive attitude."

Borland was crowned Miss Black Universe in 2006, but is now locked in a dispute with the event's organizers, with both sides claiming the other failed to fulfill their contractual obligations. Two companies, one owned by the original organizers and one by Borland herself, hold U.S. trademarks connected to the title.

Around the time she was winning her tiara, Borland became president of at least three companies. All are based out of the same Jacksonville address, a "virtual office" that provides mail forwarding, an answering service and meeting space to companies based elsewhere, according to Regus Group PLC (RGU.L), which rents the address.

One, Destiny Promotional Management calls itself a "licensed and bonded Model/Talent Agency," but isn't registered with the Florida state body that oversees such companies. Another, Destiny Consultants Worldwide, also unregistered, offers financial services, and will launch a hedge fund, according to King.

Calls to Borland's companies were returned by King. He said she was unavailable because she was traveling and due to "security concerns."

The third company is Kimberlee International, which on paper is off to the fastest start. In one press release, issued about six months after the company was founded and entitled "Beauty Queen Finds More Than Swiss Chocolate in Switzerland," the company touts its purchase of a 25% interest in BP's Coryton refinery outside London.

The release is deja vu -- with a twist -- for Swiss refiner Petroplus, which purchased a 100% interest in the plant in February and issued a press release to announce the deal. Kimberlee International's "Swiss Chocolate" statement took Petroplus" original text and inserted a 25% interest for itself.

"We are 100% owners of Coryton and did not have any business partners in the deal other than BP and paid service providers," such as lawyers and engineers, said a Petroplus spokesman.

Kimberlee also claims to have had a hand in Petroplus' latest refining deal to buy two French refineries from Shell. However, King couldn't specify his company's claimed share in the plants, and wasn't aware that the $875 million transaction had been completed.

Eye On Other US Assets
King said he couldn't explain why Kimberlee's partners denied doing business with his company, adding that he had "worked with executives at those corporations." He declined to name any of the executives.

He also said that Kimberlee International's real headquarters is in Zurich, Switzerland, although the company is absent from Swiss business registries. King noted that the privately-held company's investor base comes largely from countries across Europe and the Middle East, including the U.K., Switzerland, and the "United Americas," in an apparent reference to the United Arab Emirates. He declined to name any investors.

Kimberlee International's overseas assets are tough to pin down, but its U.S. holdings appear set to grow. The company is registered with the MMS to participate in the 2008 federal lease sale in Alaska. At the leasing stage, where the MMS is involved, the government's only concern is a firm's ability to pay various fees associated with owning exploration and development rights, said Angelico, the MMS spokeswoman.

King said Kimberlee's under-the-radar status in the energy world should come as no surprise, despite the many high-profile projects with which the company claims to be involved.

"We're trying to go about the business as quietly as we possibly can," he said. "I know it's generating some attention."

Desmond Hawkins
Nov 07, 2007, 10:56 PM
Haha, oil is geology, not geography. :lol:

Well, there are geographies of oil as well, in terms of its spatial distribution and whatnot.

Jabarten
Nov 07, 2007, 11:04 PM
Amazing how some people think that drilling in ANWR will be the answer to oil's recent spike....

hint hint....it's because the dollar is terrible. I don't care if you drill every single last drop in that reserve the next day, it won't help the dollar....:lol:

Integral
Nov 07, 2007, 11:08 PM
Increase in supply --> lower prices. Simple supply & demand theory. This has nothing to do with the recent fall of the dollar.

Now, ANWR isn't big enough to affect prices a lot, but it could put a dent in them.

Gas/Carbon tax FTW. If this is a crisis, as you all say it is (and I am inclined to agree), then drastic measures are appropriate.

Jabarten
Nov 07, 2007, 11:23 PM
Increase in supply --> lower prices. Simple supply & demand theory. This has nothing to do with the recent fall of the dollar.


Within the last 2 months...I disagree, that is why I said "recent". I know there is alot of demand side problems, but when a commodity is valued in Dollars, and the US dollar has been getting a proverbial "behind the wood shed beating", it doesn't take much to ascertain a significant amount of oil's pricing problem on the dollar itself. The Dollar has lost about @26% of its value against most currencies so far this year (at least that is the last soundbite I got from CNBC)....

But again, just my views, and again, drilling in ANWR isn't going to solve it at all, even just for a day or two.....

Homie
Nov 08, 2007, 12:16 AM
Let's talk about oil baby, let's talk about you and me, let's talk about ...lalalala-lalalala-la-la-la...let's talk a-booooout oil, let's talk about oil.

Narz
Nov 08, 2007, 12:43 AM
:lol: Nice mood lightener Homie. But seriously, life as we know it will be a nostalgic memory by 2020. :evil:

Homie
Nov 08, 2007, 12:45 AM
:lol: Nice mood lightener Homie. But seriously, life as we know it will be a nostalgic memory by 2020. :evil:

Thank you. It is a spoof of the title using that 80's song "Let's talk about sex baby"

Narz
Nov 08, 2007, 01:15 AM
Thank you. It is a spoof of the title using that 80's song "Let's talk about sex baby"
I know. It brings back fond memories of parties I went to in junior high. :nostalgia:

El_Machinae
Nov 08, 2007, 08:05 AM
Amazing how some people think that drilling in ANWR will be the answer to oil's recent spike....

hint hint....it's because the dollar is terrible. I don't care if you drill every single last drop in that reserve the next day, it won't help the dollar....:lol:

You're totally right.

Historically, the cost of oil has gone up in Canadian Dollars too. Back-of-the-envelope tells me that it's gone up about 50% in the last five years or so. Nothing to sneeze at. Really good for those of us who invested in Integrated Oil

But the USD is getting a drumming, which is making the cost of oil look worse than it is.

Narz
Nov 12, 2007, 02:51 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193624,00.html

Even Fox News can't keep it's head in the sand forever.

...Meanwhile, in the Senate, Republicans are advocating $100 rebate checks for citizens to help with the high cost of gas...
Those aren't republicans. True republicans don't exist anymore (maybe with the exception of Ron Paul).

Godwynn
Nov 12, 2007, 02:51 PM
Rebate checks wouldn't work.

Homie
Nov 13, 2007, 12:08 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193624,00.html

Even Fox News can't keep it's head in the sand forever.


Those aren't republicans. True republicans don't exist anymore (maybe with the exception of Ron Paul).
Amen.

Rebate checks wouldn't work.

Politicians with their interventionist solutions, Mises is turning in his grave saying:"Told you so!"

LightFang
Nov 13, 2007, 12:28 AM
Rebate checks wouldn't work.

QFT. That would only increase demand and give us higher gas prices!

Godwynn
Nov 13, 2007, 06:42 AM
QFT. That would only increase demand and give us higher gas prices!

Perhaps that is exactly what the politicians want?

El_Machinae
Nov 13, 2007, 07:44 AM
Take the $100 and buy a share in an Alternative Energy company

JerichoHill
Nov 13, 2007, 08:00 AM
:lol: Nice mood lightener Homie. But seriously, life as we know it will be a nostalgic memory by 2020. :evil:

No, it won't. What makes your proclamations of doom more accurate or relevant than the millions of doomsdayers before?

When I was your age, everyone was spouting doomsday about NAFTA, how it was going to end the US

Yawn

JerichoHill
Nov 13, 2007, 08:01 AM
Take the $100 and buy a share in an Alternative Energy company

Which one? The 99 that go bust or the 1 that doesn't?

El_Machinae
Nov 13, 2007, 08:16 AM
Which one? The 99 that go bust or the 1 that doesn't?

99:1 isn't really bad speculation, especially considering that you might buy the one that gets 33% return-on-investment.

But I guess you could invest in an Alt.E mutual fund for a much lower return. The advantage, of course, is that your money will be working on actual solutions instead of just purchasing more expensive oil.

JerichoHill
Nov 13, 2007, 09:48 AM
99:1 isn't really bad speculation, especially considering that you might buy the one that gets 33% return-on-investment.

But I guess you could invest in an Alt.E mutual fund for a much lower return. The advantage, of course, is that your money will be working on actual solutions instead of just purchasing more expensive oil.

El Mach,

If you're given 99:1 odds for a 33x payout, that means you are playing a sucker's game. Simple Math dude.

Narz
Nov 13, 2007, 05:26 PM
No, it won't. What makes your proclamations of doom more accurate or relevant than the millions of doomsdayers before?

When I was your age, everyone was spouting doomsday about NAFTA, how it was going to end the US

Yawn
Lolz, the fact that someone predicted something once (when you werez my age) means that my predictions now are wrong, I didnt kno!! :(

Seriously Jericho, maybe you should have taken a few Logical Reasoning classes along with your Econ ones.

Theige
Nov 14, 2007, 08:55 PM
Lolz, the fact that someone predicted something once (when you werez my age) means that my predictions now are wrong, I didnt kno!! :(

Seriously Jericho, maybe you should have taken a few Logical Reasoning classes along with your Econ ones.

Its not that its been predicted once, but millions of times, throughout history, and the ball just keeps on rolling...

Narz
Nov 14, 2007, 09:45 PM
Its not that its been predicted once, but millions of times, throughout history, and the ball just keeps on rolling...
I never suggested the ball would stop rolling.

Empires have risen as fallen (as this one too shall pass) and yet life goes on, but certainly not equally for all. I'm sure there were those who forcasted an early demise to the Roman Empire who were scoffed at ("Lolz, those doomsayers said it would happen in 450AD"). Yet 400 years later the population of Rome had dropped from 1 million to 10,000 (99% gone). We think we're immune from that type of fate due to globalization and our massive technological dependence but if anything, we're more vulnerable than ever before.

JerichoHill
Nov 15, 2007, 05:55 AM
Narz,

I'm not swayed by doomsayers. You tell me to take courses. Logical reasoning?

Well, I guess 8 years of college studying mathematics, compsci, economics, and human psychology was for nothing because Narz says I didnt take a logical reasoning course...

Narz
Nov 15, 2007, 10:43 AM
Narz,

I'm not swayed by doomsayers.
See, calling someone by a particular label and then dismissing their ideas wholesale because they disturb you isn't a good approach to life. Even if I was a slobbering lunatic who also believed in shape-shifting aliens it doesn't necessarily invalidate my opinions about the future of energy. Also, I'm not the only one who's espousing these theories. Many oil insiders like Matt Simmons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Simmons) are aware of these trends.

How many years does oil production have to be at a plateau for before you stop blaming political factors and accept that maybe production has peaked? Honestly, it seems like you're just calling this bull**** because that's what you want to believe. Do you have evidence nations are withholding oil or that we will be able to ramp up production to maintain exponential economic growth until cold fusion saves the day?

Well, I guess 8 years of college studying mathematics, compsci, economics, and human psychology was for nothing because Narz says I didnt take a logical reasoning course...
Not for nothing, I'm sure it was useful, but you can take all the courses in the world and still have blind spots. Nothing to be ashamed of, just take stock in yourself and see how to self-correct. :)

Theige
Nov 15, 2007, 10:48 AM
I never suggested the ball would stop rolling.

Empires have risen as fallen (as this one too shall pass) and yet life goes on, but certainly not equally for all. I'm sure there were those who forcasted an early demise to the Roman Empire who were scoffed at ("Lolz, those doomsayers said it would happen in 450AD"). Yet 400 years later the population of Rome had dropped from 1 million to 10,000 (99% gone). We think we're immune from that type of fate due to globalization and our massive technological dependence but if anything, we're more vulnerable than ever before.

So you think it more accurate to compare the USA in 2007 to Rome in 450 AD, than to say the examples of 20th century United Kingdom, France, Netherlands, etc. ?

JerichoHill
Nov 15, 2007, 12:46 PM
@@Narz

As the price of oil goes up, that induces R&D into alternative energy products.

As R&D goes up, the timetable for the mass implementation of these technologies goes down. This is investment at work.

At some point, the technology is good enough to produce alternative energy that it takes over as the standard. The price of oil is now irrelevant.

The world starts consuming this new energy product and stops consuming oil.

Until next time...

--Who? He has a wikipedia entry. It says "His examination of oil reserve decline rates helped raise awareness of the unreliability of Middle East oil reserves as the published reports have never been verified." So how does his existence help your case? If his claims cannot be verified...

How many years does oil production have to be at a plateau for before you stop blaming political factors and accept that maybe production has peaked? Honestly, it seems like you're just calling this bull**** because that's what you want to believe.
--No, its because I understand economics and the history of technological innovation. 50 years ago the average american could not afford to fly, we just started to have tv, there was no internet. How come you deny that the world cannot radically change in 10 years.

Look at the tude change in global warming in 5 years! Things change very quickly (a decade?) . The problem for you peak oil folks is that you completely ignore the fact that technological innovation occurs really freaking quickly now!

Cold fusion? More like improve solar, wind, and water power and develop fuel cells. Woohoo! No problem.

(This ignore substitutes such as shale oil, ethanol, menthol, etc etc etc)


Not for nothing, I'm sure it was useful, but you can take all the courses in the world and still have blind spots.
--I'm almost insulted.

JerichoHill
Nov 15, 2007, 12:47 PM
So you think it more accurate to compare the USA in 2007 to Rome in 450 AD, than to say the examples of 20th century United Kingdom, France, Netherlands, etc. ?

Well obviously! Why not since comparing the US to the UK in the 1700s during the industrial age would suggest that life keeps on going.

Narz
Nov 15, 2007, 03:30 PM
So you think it more accurate to compare the USA in 2007 to Rome in 450 AD, than to say the examples of 20th century United Kingdom, France, Netherlands, etc. ?
Yes, although in the end all comparisons fail since we're in such a unique situation.

Europe in the 20th century experienced massive expansion, now we've conquered the entire globe and our daily undermining it's ability to hold us in such vast numbers. A dieoff seems inevitable.

@@Narz

As the price of oil goes up, that induces R&D into alternative energy products.

As R&D goes up, the timetable for the mass implementation of these technologies goes down. This is investment at work.

At some point, the technology is good enough to produce alternative energy that it takes over as the standard. The price of oil is now irrelevant.

The world starts consuming this new energy product and stops consuming oil.
Sounds like faith based thinking to me.

Fred : You're girlfriend is kind of a b!tch man, she doesn't seem to love you at all.
Joe : Meh, when she gets bad enough I'll leave her and find a new girl.
Fred : Shouldn't you be looking now?
Joe : Nah, when I'm desperate enough, I'll start. It will be a painless transition and thru my effort I will automatically find a new lady without any transition period of loneliness.
Fred : :dubious:

Is there any guarantee Joe will find a new girl, no. Just as there is no guarantee we will automatically find a new source of cheap energy. The fact that we haven't put much (comparatively speaking) effort into it virtually ensures a hard crash.

Perhaps a better analogy would be the inane idea that if we pollute every fresh water source in the world that "the market will find us a new liquid to drink".

--Who? He has a wikipedia entry. It says "His examination of oil reserve decline rates helped raise awareness of the unreliability of Middle East oil reserves as the published reports have never been verified." So how does his existence help your case? If his claims cannot be verified...
Dude, the burden of proof is on those making the positive claims. The positives claims are that there are tons of reserves in the Middle East. You can accept that on faith if you like but don't claim it's the logical step to take.


--No, its because I understand economics and the history of technological innovation. 50 years ago the average american could not afford to fly, we just started to have tv, there was no internet. How come you deny that the world cannot radically change in 10 years.
I don't deny it.

The fact that we've accomplished all these breakthrus in the past (thanks to our "energy slaves" hard at work) says nothing about our ability to continue to do so in the future. Some of the rich in ancient Rome had indoor plumping and were living it up (while heavily depleting their natural resources and pissing off their neighbors... hmm, sound familiar ;)), they would have scoffed at any kind of "doomsayer scenerio" as well I'm sure.

Look at the tude change in global warming in 5 years! Things change very quickly (a decade?) . The problem for you peak oil folks is that you completely ignore the fact that technological innovation occurs really freaking quickly now!
Everything happens fast indeed, a collapse that in the past would take years, now it could happens within weeks.

While information technology has blown up, the way we transport ourselves and power our homes has remained incredibly stagnant by comparison. Our beloved Pruis's still can't even stand up to a Geo Metro from near 30 years ago. While I might pay some credence to comspracy theories about big corps supressing technology I I skeptical that that is the whole story. Perhaps not all problems can be automatically solved by throwing enough money at them, snapping fingers and saying Woohoo.

Cold fusion? More like improve solar, wind, and water power and develop fuel cells. Woohoo! No problem.
Uh-huh. You're trippin'. Show me a plan, any plan, anywhere, that suggests we can continue "business as usual" with wind, solar, water and fuel cells?

(This ignore substitutes such as shale oil, ethanol, menthol, etc etc etc)
All rife with problems.

I'm almost insulted.
My point was to think for yourself and look beyond the surface of things. Formulas and models are great in theories but they are always simplistic and generally rest upon numerous untested assumptions.

JerichoHill
Nov 15, 2007, 03:53 PM
[QUOTE=Narz;6153971]

Sounds like faith based thinking to me.
--So basically summarizing the historical trend of technology is summarizing mythology! Oh heaven forget that we didnt even have electicity until 18 something.

Fred : You're girlfriend is kind of a b!tch man, she doesn't seem to love you at all.
Joe : Meh, when she gets bad enough I'll leave her and find a new girl.
Fred : Shouldn't you be looking now?
Joe : Nah, when I'm desperate enough, I'll start. It will be a painless transition and thru my effort I will automatically find a new lady without any transition period of loneliness.
Fred : :dubious:
--What kind of argument is this.


Is there any guarantee Joe will find a new girl, no. Just as there is no guarantee we will automatically find a new source of cheap energy. The fact that we haven't put much (comparatively speaking) effort into it virtually ensures a hard crash.
--No, it doesnt You didnt even sink what I said.

Dude, the burden of proof is on those making the positive claims. The positives claims are that there are tons of reserves in the Middle East. You can accept that on faith if you like but don't claim it's the logical step to take.
--No, the burden of proof is on the doomsayers, who have YET TO BE RIGHT. Time and time again the optimists have been proven to be correct by the steady march of time.

Uh-huh. You're trippin'. Show me a plan, any plan, anywhere, that suggests we can continue "business as usual" with wind, solar, water and fuel cells?
--Didnt Shane just post somethign about a breakthrough in solar tech?


My point was to think for yourself and look beyond the surface of things. Formulas and models are great in theories but they are always simplistic and generally rest upon numerous untested assumptions.
--So basically, you think that I am unable to think for myself. Man, again, i guess they forgot to teach us how to think in grad school. Heaven forbid!

Narz
Nov 15, 2007, 04:45 PM
No, it doesnt You didnt even sink what I said.
Maybe I'm dense, I caught that the market will automatically find a substance or method than is equal and/or superior to oil. To me this seems like a leap of faith.

No, the burden of proof is on the doomsayers, who have YET TO BE RIGHT. Time and time again the optimists have been proven to be correct by the steady march of time.
Quite a generalization you have there. Did the optimists predict the great depression? Oil wars in the Middle East? Global warming? Where are the flying cars and clean nuclear power plants? Why are cars less efficient today than in the early 80's?

Again, you've commited the fallacy of thinking that because "the other side" has "always been wrong" (a dubious assumption) that you don't have to prove yourself.


--Didnt Shane just post somethign about a breakthrough in solar tech?
Yes but it's not available to the general population yet, it's scalability to the mass market is yet to be proven.

Also, I don't think any solar companies or researchers would make the claim that all of the world's energy needs can be met by solar.

So basically, you think that I am unable to think for myself.
Just taking what I'm given (the doomers have always been wrong, free market FTW!, etc.).

Anyway, I think we've done this a few times before, haven't we? ;) I'm skeptical that we're going to be able to convince each other of much at this moment in time. I think I'll give it a rest for now. You can have the last word. :)

JerichoHill
Nov 15, 2007, 06:02 PM
Did the optimists predict the great depression?
No, but we recoverd didnt we?

Oil wars in the Middle East?
No, but thats been going on for centuries anyways. And the world is still growing

Global warming?
No, but optimists predicted that technology would be created to help combat it, and thats correct. Heck, even us economists contributing with tax schemes and pollution permits

Where are the flying cars and clean nuclear power plants?
This is not the Jetsons. Cars are cleaner. Nuclear power plants are safer
Why are cars less efficient today than in the early 80's?
Care to site that?

Again, you've commited the fallacy of thinking that because "the other side" has "always been wrong" (a dubious assumption) that you don't have to prove yourself.
No. I am saying that the pessimists have always been wrong so the burden of proof is on them. History supports optimism


Also, I don't think any solar companies or researchers would make the claim that all of the world's energy needs can be met by solar.
Was that what I claimed? No. I said shane posted something about how good solar power was getting.


Just taking what I'm given (the doomers have always been wrong, free market FTW!, etc.).
I did not say anything about free market FTW. I say optimists have been right, pessimists havent


Anyway, I think we've done this a few times before, haven't we? ;) I'm skeptical that we're going to be able to convince each other of much at this moment in time. I think I'll give it a rest for now. You can have the last word. :)
Thanks. Have a great night, says the optimist

Narz
Nov 15, 2007, 06:22 PM
Care to site that?
Overall efficiency has slightly improved (not nearly as much as you'd imagine though) but total average is lower due to bigger cars.

Thanks. Have a great night, says the optimist
You too. :)

I know I took the last word :( I just wanted to clarify what I meant.

Theige
Nov 15, 2007, 08:06 PM
Yes, although in the end all comparisons fail since we're in such a unique situation.

Europe in the 20th century experienced massive expansion, now we've conquered the entire globe and our daily undermining it's ability to hold us in such vast numbers. A dieoff seems inevitable.


Sounds like faith based thinking to me.

I agree that the world now is unique, and comparisons with the past can only take you so far.

Getting into faith is a little tricky. I am not religious and do not have any unwavering faith in god, but i do believe as long as the majority believes we will succeed, we will. I have faith in the human race, and its ability to succeed. I do believe, that the power of belief is incredibly powerful. :p When the majority begins to believe that all our efforts to succeed are futile, I think then there is the possibility of the crap hitting the fan.

Then again, a small part of me can see your viewpoint, and I'm not going to say 100% you are wrong, because no one can know the future, and maybe it has absolutely nothing to do with faith, that we're screwed royally no matter what. But I do believe, that if we as a race believe in ourselves and our ability to succeed as a race to eternity (or at least a relatively long time) then we will. I like the phrase, "cautiously optimistic."

Desmond Hawkins
Nov 15, 2007, 08:06 PM
JH, the point isn't whether or not in the long-term people will find alternatives that will allow for increased economic vigour; it is whether or not you will find them in time to avoid a hard crash. Saying the world is going to . .. .. .. . in 10 years doesn't mean it won't be good again in 100. It just means it will probably go to . .. .. .. . in 10 years.

Narz's dialog was actually pretty good.

JerichoHill
Nov 15, 2007, 08:54 PM
it seemed that he was saying that there would be a recovery at all

Desmond Hawkins
Nov 15, 2007, 10:52 PM
it seemed that he was saying that there would be a recovery at all

Possibly... but I read it as suggesting that the recovery could take so long that one might as well plan their life around a long period of depression. 10-20 years is a long time. You can't just wait it out, you have to seriously alter your life plans in that case. Never mind a 30 or 40 year depression. In that case, it might as well be until you are dead.

I don't think I personally agree that there will be a major depression everywhere for the better part of a century, but a repeat of the 30s (or possibly worse) would be enough for me to start planning my life now to accommodate it.

Although it is also possible that Canadians will just win from the whole situation, in which case I apologize to the Bangladeshis for life's terrible irony.

Narz
Nov 16, 2007, 12:15 AM
I agree that the world now is unique, and comparisons with the past can only take you so far.

Getting into faith is a little tricky. I am not religious and do not have any unwavering faith in god, but i do believe as long as the majority believes we will succeed, we will. I have faith in the human race, and its ability to succeed. I do believe, that the power of belief is incredibly powerful. :p When the majority begins to believe that all our efforts to succeed are futile, I think then there is the possibility of the crap hitting the fan.
IMO, it's a fine balance. You want people to take the situation seriously enough to motivate them to seek alternatives but yeah, you don't want them so hopeless that they lose all hope.

Then again, a small part of me can see your viewpoint, and I'm not going to say 100% you are wrong, because no one can know the future, and maybe it has absolutely nothing to do with faith, that we're screwed royally no matter what. But I do believe, that if we as a race believe in ourselves and our ability to succeed as a race to eternity (or at least a relatively long time) then we will. I like the phrase, "cautiously optimistic."
Well you gotta have a little bit of optimism otherwise what's the point? It just seems to me that the 21st century is a pivotal make-or-break age for mankind. Possibly more full of horror atrocities than the 20th but hopefully one where humanity as a whole "wakes up" to the interconnectedness of all life and evolves beyond the whole "be fruitful, multiple & subdue the Earth" phase into a more mature stage. IMO, our long term survival depends on it.

it seemed that he was saying that there would be a recovery at all
As long as humans exist there will be commerce and exchange of ideas, I simply don't think our current political, social and economy systems can hold together much longer. By "much longer" I'm not necessarily talking in terms of months or even probably the next couple of years (otherwise I'd prioritizing other things besides CFC ;)) but it seems to me that something's got to give. This is just my "gut" feeling (and based on stuff I've read about energy, climate change, soil depletion, loss of biodiversity, population growth, etc.), purely subjective and maybe entirely wrong. I'm not trying to depress anyone. I hope the best of what we've achieved over the last few centuries (as well as much of our technology) can be preserved (and continue to expand) but I believe the age of human beings as virus is nearing it's end and personally I'm not saddened by this. If we do get thru our mid-life crisis without a heart attack and ever manage to make it into space I hope we'll have matured enough to view our role in the universe as stewards rather than simply seeing what (and who?!) we meet as resources to be exploited at any cost.

Narz
Nov 16, 2007, 12:47 AM
Oil Apocolyspe movie (History Channel) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=495148273412977176&hl=en)

Note : can't vouch for how long that link will stay good

JerichoHill
Nov 16, 2007, 06:25 AM
Hmm, the history channel is really getting into doomsday stuff (saw the lost book of nostradamus).

Narz, if thats your outlook, it doesnt come across as such. Thats an inherently positive hope, but your posts up to that point were increasingly chicken little.

Anyways, its not that im over on the other side saying "lets go fishing, everythings going to be okay" We'd be foolish to say there are no looming problems for humanity's future. But the way we express the outlook is different.

humanity's had some rough stretches, even in the last 100 years. We though the US midwest was going to turn to dust, the world enslaved by evil, destroyed by a nuclear blast, then nuclear winter, then asteroids, then communism, then american foreign policy, and now we have terrorism and global warming. I dont get hyped on each crisis because (in my opinion) its in the interests of those in charge to create crisises (look at how much of civil liberties were curtailed after 911). Its like an action movie, gotta keep you occupied.

Desmond Hawkins
Nov 16, 2007, 09:01 AM
The cod never came back to the Grand Banks off Newfoundland. People just assumed they would never reach a threshold, because they hadn't reached a threshold yet. They just kept overfishing, and the whole economy collapsed.

Ironically for our conversation, the first glimmer of hope Newfoundland has had over the last couple of decades is the drilling of offshore oil. :lol:

JerichoHill
Nov 16, 2007, 11:17 AM
The cod never came back to the Grand Banks off Newfoundland. People just assumed they would never reach a threshold, because they hadn't reached a threshold yet. They just kept overfishing, and the whole economy collapsed.

Ironically for our conversation, the first glimmer of hope Newfoundland has had over the last couple of decades is the drilling of offshore oil. :lol:

Point taken.

I think thats a localized event though. Peak oil is global. I could see depletions occuring in local environs

Narz
Nov 16, 2007, 01:26 PM
Point taken.

I think thats a localized event though. Peak oil is global. I could see depletions occuring in local environs
:hmm: Why is local nonrenwable/nonreplacable resource depletion emotionally acceptable but not global resource depleation. I mean, when oil reserves worldwide are in decline then globally we will be in decline. Humans haven't been powerful enough & interconnected enough to screw ourselves on a global level (the way that similarly shortsighted & hubristic isolated cultures have time & again) at any time before in history but now we are. It is entirely possible, especially if we don't take such a possibility seriously (as even those who grudgingly accept global warming and soon will accept peak oil still probably don't).

Note : dunno if anyone noticed but I linked to the wrong video (a werid al yankovitch one instead of the history channel doc :crazyeye: ).

Here's the correct link (will edit the old post too) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=495148273412977176&hl=en). I haven't watched it yet myself, I've heard it's a bit overly rosy though (projecting peak in 2030) and the followed it the next day with a a alternative energy show (full of sunny promises no doubt). It's got a lot of big names though and it's encouraging that at least mainstream TV is acknowledging this as an issue, I'm gonna watch it sometime this weekend prolly.

JerichoHill
Nov 16, 2007, 02:32 PM
Oh nevermind. its just us talking anyways.

Narz
Nov 16, 2007, 02:53 PM
Watched it now, while waiting for my girlfriend to pick me up for work (she's not here, looks like I'll be biking), quite good. The cheery ads for SUV's, communications, investments, secure & safe retirement funds (yeah right) and cheap pharmaceuticals (all dependent on cheap energy) are somewhat ironic (look at the mindless expressions on the SUV family at 48:30 on the video for an example, in the context on the five minutes of documentary before and after it's quite humorous in a dark sort of way).

Oh nevermind. its just us talking anyways.
Well, we still have to keep up appearances for the lurkers. :lol:

JerichoHill
Nov 16, 2007, 04:33 PM
so we shouldn't tell anyone about us...
shhhh

Desmond Hawkins
Nov 16, 2007, 05:25 PM
Point taken.

I think thats a localized event though. Peak oil is global. I could see depletions occuring in local environs

Why is it that there can be ecological collapses with lower scale systems, but not higher scale systems? The thresholds may be higher, but how is there a fundamental difference? The point is that there is no guarantee that information feedback will result in a change of behaviour or change in technology fast enough to avoid the breach of these thresholds. Whether it is on the scale of a local marine ecosystem or the whole biospheric/climatic system doesn't qualitatively change this issue.

Economic systems are not guaranteed to solve problems, in the same way that evolution is not guaranteed to stop mass extinction from time to time. Sometimes biodiversity/biomass/GDP/well-being go into retreat.

Narz
Nov 22, 2007, 01:25 PM
Why is it that there can be ecological collapses with lower scale systems, but not higher scale systems? The thresholds may be higher, but how is there a fundamental difference? The point is that there is no guarantee that information feedback will result in a change of behaviour or change in technology fast enough to avoid the breach of these thresholds. Whether it is on the scale of a local marine ecosystem or the whole biospheric/climatic system doesn't qualitatively change this issue.

Economic systems are not guaranteed to solve problems, in the same way that evolution is not guaranteed to stop mass extinction from time to time. Sometimes biodiversity/biomass/GDP/well-being go into retreat.
Well put Sobi!

Judging by the ambivilance of the public (and many the economists they trust to do their thinking for them ;)) it seems to me that a major meltdown is nearly inevitable.

This in Time magazine from yesterday (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686824,00.html)

In July 2006, the world's oil rigs pumped out crude at a rate of nearly 85.5 million bbl. a day. They haven't come close since, even as prices have risen from $75 to $98 per bbl. Which raises a question of potentially epochal significance: Is it all downhill from here?

It's not as if nobody predicted this. The true believers in what's called peak oil--a motley crew of survivalists, despisers of capitalism, a few billionaire investors and a lot of perfectly respectable geologists--have long cited the middle to end of this decade as a likely turning point.

In the oil industry and the government agencies that work with it, such talk is usually dismissed as premature. There have been temporary drops in oil production before, after all--albeit usually during global economic slowdowns, not boom times. In most official scenarios, production will soon begin rising again, peaking at more than 110 million bbl. a day around 2030.

That's alarming enough in itself. Even the optimists think we have less than three decades to go? But at industry conferences this fall, the word from producers was far gloomier. The chief executives of ConocoPhillips and French oil giant Total both declared that they can't see oil production ever topping 100 million bbl. a day. The head of the oil importers' club that is the International Energy Agency warned that "new capacity additions will not keep up with declines at current fields and the projected increase in demand."

This isn't quite the same as saying that oil production has peaked and is about to start declining sharply--the view of the true peakists. In "peak lite," as some call it, the big issues are not so much geological as political, technical, financial and even human-resource-related (the world apparently suffers from a dearth of qualified petroleum engineers). These factors all delay the arrival of oil on the market, meaning that production would not so much peak as plateau. But with demand rising sharply, especially from China and India, even a plateau could be precarious.

It's not that the world is running out of oil. There are massive reserves available in Canadian tar sands, Colorado shale, Venezuelan heavy oil and other unconventional deposits. The problem is that most of this oil is hard to extract and even harder to refine, and it isn't likely to account for a significant share of global production anytime soon. Almost everybody agrees that the pumping of conventionally sourced oil outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has already peaked or will peak soon, a reality that even discoveries like the recent 8 billion-bbl. find off the coast of Brazil can't alter because production from so many existing fields is declining.

The big question mark is OPEC, which represents the oil powers of the Middle East and a few other big exporters and currently accounts for 41% of world oil production. Every optimistic scenario assumes that this share will rise dramatically in the coming decades. That is, if things turn out well, the U.S. will become substantially more dependent on Saudi Arabia and its neighbors. Great!

Then there's the gloomy view. In his 2005 book Twilight in the Desert, energy-industry investment banker Matt Simmons opened up a still raging debate over whether Saudi Arabia, OPEC's top producer, really can pump much more oil than it does now. Since the book appeared, Saudi output has dropped from 9.6 million bbl. a day to 8.6 million, despite rising prices.

Saudi officials used the occasion of an OPEC summit in Riyadh in mid-November to say they could up production at any time. But that raises the pesky question of why they don't. So far, the answer from OPEC leaders has been that high prices are the fault of speculators and the falling dollar, not low production. They're not just blowing smoke. Lynn Westfall, chief economist of refiner Tesoro Corp., says there's more than enough oil for sale right now. The price pressure, he explains, "is coming from financial participants in futures markets."

If OPEC's members are not able to boost production in coming years, though, it will be impossible to keep blaming the traders as prices rise. What happens then? "If we had better data, we could hold a global summit and say, 'Gentlemen, it's nobody's fault, but we've peaked,'" says Simmons. "We've got to embrace some conservation practices that are draconian, or we will be at war with each other."

Among the peakists, war and economic breakdown are favorite themes. They figure that cheap oil is the essential fuel of modern capitalism, which will founder without it. A more hopeful take is that innovation is the essential fuel of modern capitalism and that high oil prices will drive rapid advances in conservation and alternative energy. Either way, the beginning of the end of the oil era may be upon us, well ahead of schedule.

All this and yet no comment on the real world IMPLICATIONS. :scared: :( :crazyeye: :nuke: Other articles on Hairspray (some movie apparently), holiday shopping, "Should Fertilized Eggs Have Rights?" and Bob Dylan. Yep, a hard crash seems pretty much inevitable.

Narz
Nov 22, 2007, 01:47 PM
Wall Street Journal Also Has an Article on PO from a couple days ago (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119543677899797558.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news)

Oil Officials See Limit Looming on Production
By RUSSELL GOLD and ANN DAVIS
November 19, 2007

A growing number of oil-industry chieftains are endorsing an idea long deemed fringe: The world is approaching a practical limit to the number of barrels of crude oil that can be pumped every day.

Some predict that, despite the world's fast-growing thirst for oil, producers could hit that ceiling as soon as 2012. This rough limit -- which two senior industry officials recently pegged at about 100 million barrels a day -- is well short of global demand projections over the next few decades. Current production is about 85 million barrels a day.

...

Mr. Simmons scoffs at estimates that production from proven fields will decline only 4.5% a year. He thinks a more realistic rate of decline is 8% to 10% a year, especially because modern technology actually succeeds in depleting fields faster.

If he's right, the industry needs to add new daily production of at least eight million barrels -- 10 times current Alaskan production -- just to stay even.

Mr. Simmons thinks the world needs to shift its energy focus from climate change to more immediate concerns. "Peak oil is likely already a crisis that we don't know about. At the furthest out, it will be a crisis in 2008 to 2012. Global warming, if real, will not be a problem for 50 to 100 years," he says.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/P1-AJ631A_PEAKO_20071118202042.gif

Only problem with the graph is that it shows a steady increase thruout the latter part of the 00's (however the hell you say that) when in fact production has remained stagnant for about a year now.

Narz
Nov 22, 2007, 04:47 PM
Matt Simmons pwns the cornicopian disbelivers on CNBC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0P8yQSTU74)

Enjoy your Xmas shopping. It's gonna be a different world next holiday season. You heard it here first.

Narz
Nov 29, 2007, 04:00 PM
Good thread on the current warning signs on PeakOil.com, steam_cannon's post specifically (http://peakoil.com/fortopic34380.html)

I'm still somewhat skeptical that we will see EXTREME effects within the next year or two (ones that can't be blamed on market speculation or Muslim hostility) but it's hard to imagine things won't be radically different for the average American (Australian, European, Asian, etc.) within 10-15 years.

Bronx Warlord
Nov 29, 2007, 04:19 PM
My advice to any person over 18

save your money, spend it wisely

Narz
Nov 29, 2007, 05:19 PM
My advice to any person over 18
Why not under 18 too?

If I could have back all the dough I poured into baseball cards and invested it (MicroSoft, Starbucks, Amazon.com come to mind though during the 80's and 90's almost any diversified stock portfolio would have done) I'd be a rich man!

Of course today's investing strategy would have to be vastly different than one during the golden years (pun intended) of the US empire. Still, screw artificial boundaries on exercising restraint; being broke, pregnant or smacked silly by life in general can happen at any time, not just when the state (and newspapers), deems you a man (or woman in the case of pregnancy).

save your money, spend it wisely
And God forbid don't accept it in American dollars! ;)

JerichoHill
Nov 30, 2007, 06:55 AM
@@Narz

Why not under 18 too?
Because they typically do not earn money except through an allowance

If I could have back all the dough I poured into baseball cards and invested it (MicroSoft, Starbucks, Amazon.com come to mind though during the 80's and 90's almost any diversified stock portfolio would have done) I'd be a rich man!
Probably not. I kinda did that. Didn't exactly make me rich. Gave me a headstart.

And God forbid don't accept it in American dollars!
Well, unless folks are willing to move out of America, then there really isn't a choice, is there? Kinda silly advice.

Narz
Nov 30, 2007, 09:26 PM
@@Narz

Why not under 18 too?
Because they typically do not earn money except through an allowance
I earned about $10 a week thru allowance for chores & whatnot. Doesn't sound like much but it's still $520 a year. Still something.

If I could have back all the dough I poured into baseball cards and invested it (MicroSoft, Starbucks, Amazon.com come to mind though during the 80's and 90's almost any diversified stock portfolio would have done) I'd be a rich man!
Probably not. I kinda did that. Didn't exactly make me rich. Gave me a headstart.
Every little bit helps when you're a broke "young adult". :D

And God forbid don't accept it in American dollars!
Well, unless folks are willing to move out of America, then there really isn't a choice, is there? Kinda silly advice.
Indeed, I was being silly.

JerichoHill
Dec 01, 2007, 08:10 AM
Narz,

Its nice to consider saving 520 bucks a year, but in the big scheme, tahts mainly a drop in the bucket. I did the samethiing. I should've spent it on more dates with chicks

Quasar1011
Dec 01, 2007, 01:09 PM
How come nobody has mentioned that Brazil looks set to join the list of major oil exporters in a few years?

Offshore discovery could make Brazil major oil exporter (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2007-11-09-brazil-oil_N.htm)

Oil discovery rocks Brazil (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/11/08/brazil.oil.ap/)

Even the west African nation of Ghana had a major oil find earlier this year, setting it up to join the list of nations that export oil.

Can The Crude Oil Save Ghana?
(http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/artikel.php?ID=126086)

We haven't reached peak oil yet.

innonimatu
Dec 01, 2007, 02:04 PM
How come nobody has mentioned that Brazil looks set to join the list of major oil exporters in a few years?

Oil discovery rocks Brazil (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/11/08/brazil.oil.ap/)

We haven't reached peak oil yet.

That discovery has been discussed, in another thread. It pretty much ended when someone pointed out that, even should the best estimate be proven correct, the oil would only be enough to satisfy the equivalent of 80 days of world demand.

It's one drop into a fast emptying bucket.

Narz
Jan 16, 2008, 01:03 PM
Time's up for petrol cars, says GM chief (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/times-up-for-petrol-cars-says-gm-chief/2008/01/14/1200159363527.html) : "THE world's biggest car maker, General Motors, believes global oil supply has peaked and a switch to electric cars is inevitable."

Found the link from here : 2008 - the year peak oil joins climate change at the top of the agenda? (http://greensblog.org/2008/01/15/2008-the-year-peak-oil-joins-climate-change-at-the-top-of-the-agenda/)

innonimatu
Jan 16, 2008, 02:34 PM
Time's up for petrol cars, says GM chief (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/times-up-for-petrol-cars-says-gm-chief/2008/01/14/1200159363527.html) : "THE world's biggest car maker, General Motors, believes global oil supply has peaked and a switch to electric cars is inevitable."

Found the link from here : 2008 - the year peak oil joins climate change at the top of the agenda? (http://greensblog.org/2008/01/15/2008-the-year-peak-oil-joins-climate-change-at-the-top-of-the-agenda/)

Oh great! soon we'll have people complaining that peak oil is a conspiracy orchestrated by the large automakers!

mrt144
Jan 16, 2008, 04:55 PM
Oh great! soon we'll have people complaining that peak oil is a conspiracy orchestrated by the large automakers!

:lol: its a conspiracy orchestrated by the ignorant. there will always be oil, the price simply will change, and will change enough so that more cost effective alternatives will take the place of it. :p

mdwh
Jan 16, 2008, 07:08 PM
:lol: its a conspiracy orchestrated by the ignorant. there will always be oil, the price simply will change,Exactly, you've just summed of the point about peak oil. The problem is not when/if it runs out, the problem is when supply drops causing prices to skyrocket. I'm not sure I'd refer to that as "simply" though.

and will change enough so that more cost effective alternatives will take the place of it. :pWhat are these cost effective alternatives?

mrt144
Jan 16, 2008, 10:14 PM
Exactly, you've just summed of the point about peak oil. The problem is not when/if it runs out, the problem is when supply drops causing prices to skyrocket. I'm not sure I'd refer to that as "simply" though.

What are these cost effective alternatives?

time will tell what is more cost effective. we arent at the point yet. for prices skyrocketing, what time frame and what % are you talking about? as for supply dwindling, what % and what time frime. skyrocket is a subjective term.

Narz
Feb 17, 2008, 03:23 AM
CERA: Action needed to avoid oil crisis, Hess chief says (http://www.pennenergy.com/display_article/320225/7/PRARC/none/GenIn/1/CERA:-Action-needed-to-avoid-oil-crisis,-Hess-chief-says/)

Pertinent parts of the article here :

HOUSTON, Feb. 15 -- Oil companies, oil-producing countries, and consumers need to act now to avoid the oil crisis that is coming within the next 10 years, said John B. Hess, chairman and chief executive of Hess Corp.

"It is not only a matter of demand. It is not only a matter of supply…. We need to take steps on both fronts, and we need to start today," Hess told an overflow crowd Feb. 12 at the Cambridge Energy Research Associates' annual energy conference in Houston.
...
"Given the long lead times of at least 5-10 years from discovery to production, an oil crisis is coming and sooner than most people think. Unfortunately, we are behaving in ways that suggest we do not know there is a serious problem," Hess said.
...
"It is imperative that we change our mindset, our sense of urgency, or the consequences will be severe."
...
"Each of us has the responsibility to act in the long-term global interest rather than short-term self interest so that we leave a more secure world for future generations," Hess said. "Resolving this issue through greater global collaboration can be a model for managing other future shortages, such as water, and benefit the global community. The more interdependent we are, the greater our chances of having a sustainable future together."
...
Renewable fuels, natural gas liquids, and unconventional oil resources such as oil sands and oil shale "need to be encouraged," Hess said. However, he said, "Their contributions to supply are not material enough to bridge the gap in oil requirements over the next 10 years."
...
Supply
"Since 1980, discoveries have not replaced our annual global crude oil production," Hess noted. "Discoveries are getting smaller and located in more difficult environments, such as the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, Brazil, and West Africa, where companies are now drilling in water depths of up to 7,000 ft and searching for targets that are in some cases more than 30,000 ft deep. Such numbers were unimaginable 10 years ago and speak to the industry's extraordinarily innovative technology to meet increasingly complex challenges to find, develop, and produce crude oil."

He said, "We need to find a new production province like the Alaska North Slope or Angola every year to ensure that we can grow our oil resource base to support increases in production for future generations. We stopped making such meaningful discoveries during the late 1990s."

There is concern whether non-OPEC producing countries can maintain their supply role of a few years ago. According to Hess, US oil production peaked in 1970. North Sea production peaked in 2000. Mexico peaked in 2004. "Within the next few years, conventional non-OPEC production will reach a plateau. In fact, 60% of the world's oil production is from countries that have already peaked," Hess warned.
...
With OPEC now down to 2.5 million b/d of spare capacity, Hess said, "We no longer have the safety margin for supply interruptions and demand spikes to ensure price stability. OPEC, with approximately two thirds of the world's proven conventional crude reserves and one third of its production capacity, certainly has the resource base to relieve the pressure." However, he said, "All oil producers—OPEC and non-OPEC alike—simply are not investing enough today to ensure sufficient capacity to meet oil needs in the next 10 years."
...
With oil demand growing 1-1.5 million b/d, global crude supply capacity will fall short of global demand between 2015-20. "While the International Energy Agency predicts global demand to average 98.5 million b/d in 2015, based upon current behavior, I do not see how we will meet this projection," Hess said.

Narz
Mar 13, 2008, 03:31 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/

Bring on the apocalypse baby! :D

I have no regrets though. I mean if I had it to do over I'm not sure I would spent quite as much time with you beautiful people here in purgatory but... it's been real. :)

mrt144
Mar 13, 2008, 03:54 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/

Bring on the apocalypse baby! :D

I have no regrets though. I mean if I had it to do over I'm not sure I would spent quite as much time with you beautiful people here in purgatory but... it's been real. :)

:lol: so does this mean you'll pack up your stuff and send it to me? i mean, since you're not going to need it and all.

and it's only $2.64 a gallon of oil

CivGeneral
Mar 13, 2008, 03:58 PM
Ok, time to whip the Iraqi oil fields to pump out sweet sweet Crude :whipped:!

Or we might have to demand OPEC to increase production! :trouble:

Narz
Mar 13, 2008, 04:04 PM
Ok, time to whip the Iraqi oil fields to pump out sweet sweet Crude :whipped:!

Or we might have to demand OPEC to increase production! :trouble:
While we're at it lets demand the Arizona skies produce more rain! :mad:

Not everything can be solved with force young padawan. ;)

Narz
Mar 13, 2008, 04:06 PM
:lol: so does this mean you'll pack up your stuff and send it to me? i mean, since you're not going to need it and all.
No ways. I likes my stuff. And I plan to keep it. The apocolyspe doesn't mean everybody dies. ;)

and it's only $2.64 a gallon of oil
Enjoy it while it lasts. And what the heck state do you live in that it's so cheap? In Cali it's about $1 more than that.

Edit : you must not be in the United States. It's over $3 gallon (http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/sbsavg.asp) everywhere now.

Narz
Mar 13, 2008, 04:18 PM
Oh, by the way. Some guy just put ABC's "Crude" onto Youtube. I haven't watched it yet but I've heard it's very, very good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJXdCbyM7EM (1st segment) (edit : that Indian girl at 3:10 is cute!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8laB5cK4aJk (2nd segment)

You can figure out the rest.

It's about oil BTW, not Howard Stern. ;)

mrt144
Mar 13, 2008, 04:23 PM
No ways. I likes my stuff. And I plan to keep it. The apocolyspe doesn't mean everybody dies. ;)


Enjoy it while it lasts. And what the heck state do you live in that it's so cheap? In Cali it's about $1 more than that.

Edit : you must not be in the United States. It's over $3 gallon (http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/sbsavg.asp) everywhere now.

There are 42 gallons in a barrel. Is crude oil the same as gasoline ;)

Cutlass
Mar 13, 2008, 04:27 PM
Ok, time to whip the Iraqi oil fields to pump out sweet sweet Crude :whipped:!

Or we might have to demand OPEC to increase production! :trouble:

we've kind of proved to the satisfaction of OPEC members that we can't force them to increase production.

Narz
Mar 13, 2008, 04:30 PM
There are 42 gallons in a barrel. Is crude oil the same as gasoline ;)
Remember mrt, oil sellers have to make a profit. Wheat may cost such-and-such amount per bushel but obviously the consumer will pay significantly more.

CivGeneral
Mar 13, 2008, 04:33 PM
we've kind of proved to the satisfaction of OPEC members that we can't force them to increase production.
A couple of Bombers, Destroyers, and Tanks can fix that :mischief:.

Mountain-God
Mar 13, 2008, 05:00 PM
A couple of Bombers, Destroyers, and Tanks can fix that :mischief:.

By blowing up the oil wells? ;)

Forget OPEC - go local and alternative - long run, cheaper and more reliable. No more bent to the will of OPEC! :D

Cutlass
Mar 13, 2008, 05:50 PM
A couple of Bombers, Destroyers, and Tanks can fix that :mischief:.

I think we've proved that that isn't going to work. Thanks to Bush we don't have enough of a military left to occupy another oil producing nation and control it enough to keep the oil flowing. We can't even get the oil flowing in Iraq.

mrt144
Mar 13, 2008, 07:08 PM
Remember mrt, oil sellers have to make a profit. Wheat may cost such-and-such amount per bushel but obviously the consumer will pay significantly more.

I was poking fun at your typo where you claimed oil was $111 per gallon in the post headline ;)

Narz
Mar 13, 2008, 07:26 PM
I was poking fun at your typo where you claimed oil was $111 per gallon in the post headline ;)
Heh, ok, fixed the typo. :D

Narz
Apr 29, 2008, 03:38 AM
Just recently jumped over $120/barrel.

From the NY Times... We're Entering an Age of Unprecedented Scarcity

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/worldbusiness/28oil-WEB.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

“According to normal economic theory, and the history of oil, rising prices have two major effects,” said Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the International Energy Agency, which advises industrialized countries. “They reduce demand and they induce oil supplies. Not this time.”

Analysts at Barclays Capital said last week that non-OPEC supplies were “seemingly dead in the water.” Goldman Sachs raised similar concerns last month, saying that growth in non-OPEC supplies “can no longer be taken for granted.”



“What is disturbing here is that things seem to get worse, not better,” an analyst at Goldman Sachs, David Greely, said. “These high prices are not attracting meaningful new supplies.”

The outlook for oil supplies “signals a period of unprecedented scarcity,” an analyst at CIBC World Markets, Jeff Rubin, said last week.



“It’s a crunch,” said J. Robinson West, chairman of PFC Energy, an energy consulting firm in Washington. “The world is not running out of oil, but rather it’s running out of oil production capacity.”

Recently, the case that has attracted the most attention is Mexico, the second-biggest exporter to the United States, which seems increasingly helpless to stem the collapse of its largest oil field, Cantarell. Last week, the country’s state-owned oil company, Pemex, said that production had fallen 300,000 barrels a day so far this year to 2.9 million barrels a day, a stunning drop from its peak production of 3.4 million in 2004.

A combination of falling production and rising domestic consumption could wipe out Mexico’s exports within five years, including the 1.5 million barrels it sends to the United States each day.


Further clouding the picture, Saudi Arabia, the world’s top oil exporter, signaled last week that it might have trouble increasing its production.

The International Energy Agency estimates that current investments will be insufficient to replace declining oil production, let alone increase overall output. The energy agency said it would take $5.4 trillion by 2030 to increase global output, a level of investment that is unlikely to be met. It said a crisis “involving an abrupt run-up in prices” could not be ruled out before 2015.

In other words... the free market is not solving everything. :run:

Godwynn
Apr 29, 2008, 06:36 AM
In other words... the free market is not solving everything. :run:

No one said it would be fast or easy.

JerichoHill
Apr 29, 2008, 07:02 AM
Last I checked, a cartel (OPEC) is not a free market.

Cutlass
Apr 29, 2008, 07:38 AM
Quote:
Analysts at Barclays Capital said last week that non-OPEC supplies were “seemingly dead in the water.” Goldman Sachs raised similar concerns last month, saying that growth in non-OPEC supplies “can no longer be taken for granted.”
Quote:
“What is disturbing here is that things seem to get worse, not better,” an analyst at Goldman Sachs, David Greely, said. “These high prices are not attracting meaningful new supplies.” Exxon-Mobile :mischief:

Theige
Apr 29, 2008, 08:04 AM
Last I checked, a cartel (OPEC) is not a free market.

But their price gouging ended in failure in the early 1980s, did it not?

Todays prices merely reflect supply, and demand. And for us Americans, the devalued US dollar.

And I believe in real terms the price of oil is less now than it was in the 70's.

JerichoHill
Apr 29, 2008, 09:23 AM
Yes, they failed to collude in the 1980. However, being a cartel means that they did not have an incentive to increase production or refinement capacity, so much of the problem today is because of their function as a cartel.

And that's why today, supply is having difficulty keeping up with demand, and prices are rising.

Imcalfin
Apr 29, 2008, 10:04 AM
My pet oil news peevee: whenever there is a story about oil supply/production issue some economist or other finance professional is interviewed. Not that there is anything wrong with that but I can count the times I've seen a petroleum engineer or geologist interviewed with my fingers. You would think that the people that actually deliver the product from the depths might have an insight or two about why the stuff is getting so expensive. Not for the lack of effort on their part I suspect.

Or maybe I just watch and read the wrong news.

JerichoHill
Apr 29, 2008, 10:09 AM
Eh, thats a good pet peeve.

Oerdin
Apr 29, 2008, 10:13 AM
The main reason the high prices of the last year have not yet resulted in new supplies coming to market is most of the big new fields discovered have been off shore fields. It normally takes around a decade once a field has been test drilled for a rig to be built, put in place, and for production to begin. That assumes political delays are no more then average but often times NIMBYs are able to hang up production for years and years.

Take California, the Monterrey formation is well known to have crap loads of oil but no new rigs have been constructed since 1967 because NIMBYs and anti-oil activists have found a political way to block all development. It's complete garbage because a hangful of millionaires with beach front estates are blocking progress which would easily double the state's oil output, provide tens of billions of new tax revenues, and provide tens of thousands of new high paying jobs.

Welders and steel workers along with engineers would be needed to build the platforms and geologists would be needed as would rough necks to work the rigs. These are all jobs where people make between $50k-$150k per year. Exactly the type of jobs we need today.

Narz
Apr 29, 2008, 02:53 PM
And I believe in real terms the price of oil is less now than it was in the 70's.
No, we passed that point over a month ago, IIRC. The price of oil in the late 70's or early 80's (think it was '81 or something but not certain) was at something like $109/barrel in 2008 dollars but we're far above that point now.

Narz
May 21, 2008, 10:45 PM
Over $135 a barrel now. Even I didn't guess it would spike up this fast!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601104&sid=aus2.Nneh3Os&refer=mideast

LightFang
May 21, 2008, 11:17 PM
Stagflation, GO!

scy12
May 21, 2008, 11:19 PM
How long until it hits $150 ?

Narz
May 21, 2008, 11:23 PM
Even if you measure in Euros the trend is unsettling.

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o263/Daneelo/ET%20graphs/OilEuros/CrudesED_Long_2008-03-18.gif

Keep in mind this graph is over two months old and oil is already about 20% higher.

Narz
May 21, 2008, 11:24 PM
How long until it hits $150 ?
I'd wager by mid-July.

scy12
May 21, 2008, 11:24 PM
At what figure will the increase stop ? Can it reach $200 ?

Narz
May 22, 2008, 12:34 AM
At what figure will the increase stop ?
I don't know. I suspect it will plateau at various places as all stops are pulled to increase supply (or, in the off chance of a global decrease in demand) but there's no telling what they high could be. I don't think it could go much over $500 without precipitating global economic collapse.

Can it reach $200 ?
I don't see why not. Probably not this year though it's possible.

Theige
May 22, 2008, 05:49 PM
It will come down, this is a speculative bubble, helped out by a weak dollar.

It will drop back under $100, but I'm not ignoring the fact that this is a problem, production is peaking, and we need to do something about it fast.

CivGeneral
May 22, 2008, 06:12 PM
I'd wager by mid-July.
By then, I am all for a war against Iran to get their juicy sweet oil and American Privateers intercepting oil tankers and just taking the oil.

Narz
May 22, 2008, 07:31 PM
By then, I am all for a war against Iran to get their juicy sweet oil and American Privateers intercepting oil tankers and just taking the oil.
If we attack Iran they will cut us off completely and we'll likely have $5 (gallon) gasoline overnight (maybe higher). It would likely be the beginning of a major world war.

Whomp
May 22, 2008, 07:39 PM
We don't get oil from Iran. There's a possibility they won't be able to export within the next 8 years due to lack of investment. Kind of the issue all around right now. Too many nationalistic oil countries like Mexico, Venezuela and Iran who are not incited to look long term on increasing production.

Like we saw in the 70's urbanites will switch when the pain becomes too great. Consumption is already down in the US this year but that's hardly the big picture.

Narz
May 22, 2008, 07:54 PM
But if we invade Iran we might face sanctions of some kind. I don't think the Middle Easten community as a whole will take too kindly to us invading another sovereign nation (this one without even a Saddam Hussein to make excuses with).

Whomp
May 22, 2008, 08:07 PM
It's highly unlikely we'd attack any countries without consensus. They'd have to do something really stupid for that to happen and there would be consensus at that point. Anyhow, if it's me we take off our sanctions and then they only have themselves to blame when their economy implodes under its own domestic demand.

Narz
May 22, 2008, 08:09 PM
AFAIK, we didn't have a consensus when we attacked Iraq.

CivGeneral
May 22, 2008, 08:15 PM
If we attack Iran they will cut us off completely and we'll likely have $5 (gallon) gasoline overnight (maybe higher). It would likely be the beginning of a major world war.
If they do cut us off, they better be prepared to duck under their desks and kiss their butts good bye as we come in and take their oil. Peace can only last so long before we start getting teed off at the high price of gas.

Whomp
May 22, 2008, 08:16 PM
Completely different circumstances since that's proven to be very unpopular and costly. There's not a congressman right or left that would go for another like that.