About $100 a barrel oil

[Abdul Alhazred]

Single trader behind oil record (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7169543.stm) (BBC)

The man behind the record rise in oil prices to $100 a barrel was a lone trader, seeking bragging rights and a minute of fame, market watchers say.

A single trader bid up the price by buying a modest lot and then sold it immediately at a loss, they claim.

The New York Mercantile Exchange said that US crude oil futures traded just once in triple figures on Wednesday.

Some analysts questioned the validity of the trade, though their concerns faded as oil set a record on Thursday.

New York light sweet crude climbed to a new high of $100.05 a barrel on Thursday.

...

:eek:

[The Atheist]

Smart guy, the financial equivalent of the four-minute mile.

[Tokenconservative]

GAS PRICES ROCKETING UPWARD HERE!!!!

Prices last week: $2.63.

PRICES ROCKE UPWARD TO A MASSIVE, ECONOMY COLLPSING um.....$2.69...AS PER-BBL PRICES ROCKET UPWARD TO $100!!!!

AUUUUGGGGHHHHH!!!!

TEOTWAWKI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SHEESH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TOKIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Abdul Alhazred]

GAS PRICES ROCKETING UPWARD HERE!!!!

Prices last week: $2.63.

PRICES ROCKE UPWARD TO A MASSIVE, ECONOMY COLLPSING um.....$2.69...AS PER-BBL PRICES ROCKET UPWARD TO $100!!!!

AUUUUGGGGHHHHH!!!!

TEOTWAWKI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SHEESH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TOKIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where are you?

In Chicago it's been around $3.00 for a while.

[bruto]

GAS PRICES ROCKETING UPWARD HERE!!!!

Prices last week: $2.63.

PRICES ROCKE UPWARD TO A MASSIVE, ECONOMY COLLPSING um.....$2.69...AS PER-BBL PRICES ROCKET UPWARD TO $100!!!!

AUUUUGGGGHHHHH!!!!

TEOTWAWKI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SHEESH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TOKIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You must have been listening to the wrong radio staion again. Marketplace on NPR reported what Abdul said.

We're paying about 3.19 here in Vermont. Not rocketing, of course (you're the only one here who seems determined to characterize everything from whispering and hinting on up as shrieking and screaming), but it sure as hell is not going down.

[Tokenconservative]

You must have been listening to the wrong radio staion again. Marketplace on NPR reported what Abdul said.

We're paying about 3.19 here in Vermont. Not rocketing, of course (you're the only one here who seems determined to characterize everything from whispering and hinting on up as shrieking and screaming), but it sure as hell is not going down.

NH...and what percentage of that is taxes?

I suppose if you put a sock in your environmentalists' mouths for a month or two and permitted a refinery to be built somewhere thereabouts, your gas would be a cheap as mine.

Has it NEVER gone down in price?

If not, I'd say there's something very fishy. Here, it goes up, it comes down. Goes up, comes down. Up...down.

It's still (here...we just stupidly elected a Dem governor and he is champing at the bit to raise taxes on it so we'll be more in line with traditionally far left liberal states like yours) about what I was paying (real dollars) in 1978 or so.

Considering that the cost of living has generally decreased in that time, it's a net decrease in price.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Where are you?

In Chicago it's been around $3.00 for a while.

While that's again, one of the cleveresteest attempts yet to get personal info about me, I will decline to answer other than to say: in a state wisely run by Republicans for a long time, now run by socialists and yeah, we're expecting big fuel tax increases soon so that we can be more inline with other, more traditionally socialists states like yours.

Tokie

[Magyar]

NH...and what percentage of that is taxes?
Tokie

As usual too busy being full of ignorant foaming at the mouth republican meme to do any research. FYI, NH is one of the lowest gas taxes in the nation and less than the taxes of red neck republican states like

Texas,
Mississippi
PA
UT
W VA

just to name a few, but don't let actual facts get in the way of your fantasies.

http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

[bruto]

NH...and what percentage of that is taxes?

I suppose if you put a sock in your environmentalists' mouths for a month or two and permitted a refinery to be built somewhere thereabouts, your gas would be a cheap as mine.

Has it NEVER gone down in price?

If not, I'd say there's something very fishy. Here, it goes up, it comes down. Goes up, comes down. Up...down.

It's still (here...we just stupidly elected a Dem governor and he is champing at the bit to raise taxes on it so we'll be more in line with traditionally far left liberal states like yours) about what I was paying (real dollars) in 1978 or so.

Considering that the cost of living has generally decreased in that time, it's a net decrease in price.

Tokie

Of course it goes up and down, but you'd have to be really hiding your head in the sand to believe that the trend is not upward. Our prices are lower than those in New York, a little higher than those in Massachusetts. Our gas tax is a half cent less than that in New Hampshire. Of course that is mere information, never a deterrent to your usual rants.

Our far left liberal state has a Republican governor.

Vermont is landlocked, has no oil resources of its own, and its biggest port is Burlington. There is no possible way to get large quantities of oil into Vermont except by train, truck, or barge. Why on earth would it make sense to build an oil refinery in Vermont? It's not an environmental issue. It simply would be a very stupid thing to do. Of course it's much easier for you to suggest such stupidity than actually to think clearly or speak honestly, but it does you little credit.

[exlex]

Even in Minnesota a gallon of gas'll cost you $2.99, roughly. It's been down to $2.63 within the last month, but for the most part I would say $3 is what it costs around here.

[rjh01]

In Australia petrol is about $US 3.50 a us gallon. So please stop complaining about how high petrol prices are in the US because they are not high. Petrol prices should be a lot higher.

NB Petrol is $A1.47 per litre

[KoihimeNakamura]

It's currently $2.92 at our local air force base.

Tokie's just going on one of his remarkably silly rants again.

[joobie]

In Australia petrol is about $US 3.50 a us gallon. So please stop complaining about how high petrol prices are in the US because they are not high.

if gas prices in australia nearly doubled in the past couple years, would you complain they're getting higher?

i understand there's a need for perspective, but it works both ways.

[rjh01]

if gas prices in australia nearly doubled in the past couple years, would you complain they're getting higher?

i understand there's a need for perspective, but it works both ways.


I know that petrol has gone up by more than 50% over the last 2 years or so and will go up again in the future. Yet it is not a major issue here. So the answer to your question is no.

Next.
Edit Translation issue
Gas (US) = petrol (rest of world)

[bruto]

I don't see much complaining in this thread. It's plain observation that the nominal price is rising, whether or not you think it should, and whether or not you think the real cost of living is going down.

[joobie]

I know that petrol has gone up by more than 50% over the last 2 years or so and will go up again in the future. Yet it is not a major issue here. So the answer to your question is no.

well, when most people complain when the price of something rises, most other people really don't seem to take much of an issue with it.

the price of gas in japan is even higher than it is in australia, so any australian who complains about what whiners americans about the price of gas must be a real jackass.

:)

(i'd like to point out that the price of gas doesn't impact me much since i don't actually drive)

[BenBurch]

Where are you?

In Chicago it's been around $3.00 for a while.

Out here in Elgin, IL it is averaging about $3.17 per gallon. A far cry from the $0.998 I was paying here in the fall of '99.

But that was under the leadership of a man who played "hide the weasel" with hot babes in the Oval Office, so I guess this is a preferable situation, huh?

[Abdul Alhazred]

I really don't think you can credit or blame any president for the price of oil.

It's been pretty much a bipartisan hands off policy since the 1980s.

I don't recall gas being under a dollar in the 1990s, or the 1980s.

[Abdul Alhazred]

The price of oil goes up because there's less of it. Of course there will be some fluctuation along the way.

Cutting taxes during high demand times (a perennial trick in Illinois these days), can only go so far.

[rjh01]

Actually more oil is being consumed that ever before. What has happened is that China imports much more oil than ever. This is what is making oil more expensive, rather than the supply going down. The price is unlikely to fall much until China goes into recession.

[BenBurch]

I really don't think you can credit or blame any president for the price of oil.

It's been pretty much a bipartisan hands off policy since the 1980s.

I don't recall gas being under a dollar in the 1990s, or the 1980s.

Bush's foreign policy has made us enemies in the petrostates - that is without a doubt. I believe this HAS raised the price of oil.

And regular unleaded really was very briefly under one dollar out here in Elgin in '99. And I know this because I still have the email I wrote somebody then saying how unusual that was, and pointing out that in adjusted dollars that price was nearly back to where it was before the Oil Embargo in the 70s.

[Prometheus]

I really don't think you can credit or blame any president for the price of oil.

It's been pretty much a bipartisan hands off policy since the 1980s.

I don't recall gas being under a dollar in the 1990s, or the 1980s.

According to this site (http://www.lesjones.com/posts/002732.shtml), U.S. average gas price dropped below a dollar/gallon several times in '98 and '99.

[joobie]

yep, but that was nearly 10 years ago and no one will remember it today.

just like they don't realize that gas is more expensive elsewhere as they pay more for it than they're used to.

[Abdul Alhazred]

I see. The price dropped in Elgin for a day or two, and I wasn't there to see it.

Pretty much some local condition and not the sort of trend attributable to foreign policy.

Since when does whether people like us affect the price of oil? The international market price is the same for everyone.

It's not like the days of the oil embargo in the 1970s. Everybody is selling to everybody, now.

[Darat]

In the UK petrol per gallon is around £4.59 (so about $9 per gallon). What is interesting is that whilst that will seem a lot to many USA folks it would appear that in "real terms" compared to 1983 it hasn't changed that much - see: http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/petrolprices.html.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Darat: Isn't that mostly taxes, though?


ETA: Just to bring others up to speed, the UK is itself a significant oil producer.

So could the USA be one again. We've got the oil in the ground, and at $100/bbl it could be worth the trouble of extracting it. The problem is political, not just simple economics of supply.

[Prometheus]

So could the USA be one again. We've got the oil in the ground, and at $100/bbl it could be worth the trouble of extracting it. The problem is political, not just simple economics of supply.

Wouldn't it make more sense to wait until everyone else runs out, and then extract our own from the ground? But then again, since the Republicans changed the rules in 1995, we've also been exporting Alaskan crude (http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/natural/nrgen-25.cfm). Go figure!

[LawnOven]

I don't recall gas being under a dollar in the 1990s, or the 1980s.

I do, and presumably we are from the same state; a summer, a year or two after I started driving (like 98 or 99). Though gas may have been more expensive in Chicago (as it often is)... still I'll bet it was close to a dollar at least.

Haha, all this makes me glad I don't have to drive anymore, I guess. Gas maybe more expensive in Japan, but for most people, I think having a car is a luxury rather than a necessity.

[Prometheus]

Haha, all this makes me glad I don't have to drive anymore, I guess. Gas maybe more expensive in Japan, but for most people, I think having a car is a luxury rather than a necessity.

Wow, I miss Osaka. Some of the best food in the world there! But anyway, I've lived in several locations where having a car was not at all necessary, and I never missed having one. I also noticed that my personality changed quite a bit when I was sans car--much happier, more willing to ignore pet peeves, more likely to strike up a friendly conversation with strangers....

But here in suburban America I can't imagine keeping my family running smoothly without at least 2 of 'em (Now we have 3).

I think it'll take a huge amount of infrastructure, and at least 2 generations to wean Americans off our cars.

[Earthborn]

In the UK petrol per gallon is around £4.59 (so about $9 per gallon).UKsians also get more per gallon. A UK gallon is about 4.5 liters, while a US gallon is only 3.8 liters.

[Soapy Sam]

I drive a diesel VW Golf.
Yesterday, I paid £1.09 per litre- so no gallon confusion.
£1.09 X 1.99 = $2.169
/ 0.26417 = $8.21 per US gallon.

[rjh01]

I think it'll take a huge amount of infrastructure, and at least 2 generations to wean Americans off our cars.


I agree. That is why you need to start that process now. Massive increases in tax on all types of oil for any use, is a start. Spend the money on developing alternative fuels eg solar, wind.

[bruto]

I agree. That is why you need to start that process now. Massive increases in tax on all types of oil for any use, is a start. Spend the money on developing alternative fuels eg solar, wind.You might want to think more carefully about some of the implications of this plan, especially for poorer Americans, especially those in northern rural areas, who are already having a difficult time with energy prices, and who do not have the option of switching to alternative fuels for home heating, nor the option of public transit. This is not to say that such a plan is impossible, but it requires more than an evolution of infrastructure; we need to rethink demographics too. Maybe an incentive for poor folks from Maine and upstate NY down to Louisiana?

[rjh01]

This is why we need to start doing it now. We are already late. Oil prices are already going up, fast. If we increase them even more now, we will not have to suffer a lot later, when oil reaches $1,000 a barrel, which it might do in in 10 years (assume it just doubles every three years and this is what you get)

To show the recent price increases see this graph http://www.forbes.com/static_html/oil/2004/oil.shtml

[bruto]

This is why we need to start doing it now. We are already late. Oil prices are already going up, fast. If we increase them even more now, we will not have to suffer a lot later, when oil reaches $1,000 a barrel, which it might do in in 10 years (assume it just doubles every three years and this is what you get)

To show the recent price increases see this graph http://www.forbes.com/static_html/oil/2004/oil.shtmlI don't question the need for change and development of alternatives. What I question is the automatic assumption that it should come from taxing oil at a time when it is still the only alternative available to many.

I'm reminded, for some reason, of a recent actual suggestion that because health insurance is so expensive that many people cannot afford it, we should fund the solution with a surtax on health insurance.

[rjh01]

I would love to hear alternative ideas of how we can get the world less dependant on oil.

Yes we do need to spend massively on developing alternative sources of energy. But that takes money that could be spent on other things that are very popular among influential people.

[pipelineaudio]

I agree. That is why you need to start that process now. Massive increases in tax on all types of oil for any use, is a start. Spend the money on developing alternative fuels eg solar, wind.

You can subsidize my increase with a massive tax on your food and water then kthx

[Prometheus]

I agree. That is why you need to start that process now. Massive increases in tax on all types of oil for any use, is a start. Spend the money on developing alternative fuels eg solar, wind.

I think there might be a serious problem with the "for any use" part. What about all the non-energy uses like plastics, fertilizers, artificial flavorings, industrial chemicals, paint, etc.? And would such a tax cover all imports of such products? If not all it would accomplish is killing off bunch more of our own industry in favor of Chinese competitors.

[Darat]

Darat: Isn't that mostly taxes, though?


...snip...

Yes around 70% of UK petrol price is taxation in the guise of fuel duty & VAT.

Have to say I don't object to the relatively high tax on petrol and so on; our road infrastructure is very expensive to maintain and improve and this does mean that there is a fairly good correlation between how much you use the roads and how much you pay in taxation.

[Nogbad]

UKsians also get more per gallon. A UK gallon is about 4.5 liters, while a US gallon is only 3.8 liters.

Still makes our petrol come out at $7.65 a US gallon. On the plus side the wheels haven't fallen off the economy so the US can probably withstand a fair number of price hikes yet. :)

[Tokenconservative]

As usual too busy being full of ignorant foaming at the mouth republican meme to do any research. FYI, NH is one of the lowest gas taxes in the nation and less than the taxes of red neck republican states like

Texas,
Mississippi
PA
UT
W VA

just to name a few, but don't let actual facts get in the way of your fantasies.

http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

Ah...and prices are up over $3.00/gal and have been a while, our taxes are prolly somewhere near the middle and our prices have been down in the low $2.60s for some time...

I don't know. I guess you'd have to figure out why you are getting ripped off on your own.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

You might want to think more carefully about some of the implications of this plan, especially for poorer Americans, especially those in northern rural areas, who are already having a difficult time with energy prices, and who do not have the option of switching to alternative fuels for home heating, nor the option of public transit. This is not to say that such a plan is impossible, but it requires more than an evolution of infrastructure; we need to rethink demographics too. Maybe an incentive for poor folks from Maine and upstate NY down to Louisiana?

LOL!

You crack me up, Bruto...why is that folks in say, Gillette, Wyoming who commute to Cheyenne, can't use the trains or busses, or maybe share a cab?

Tokie

[Cainkane1]

Single trader behind oil record (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7169543.stm) (BBC)



:eek:


All I know is that the brains of the free world better get together and come up with something to burn besides oil.

[Geek Goddess]

In Australia petrol is about $US 3.50 a us gallon. So please stop complaining about how high petrol prices are in the US because they are not high. Petrol prices should be a lot higher.

NB Petrol is $A1.47 per litre


"should be" - that doesn't even make sense


Being in the industry, to me 'gas' means natural gas, and 'gasoline' means petrol/fuel. I was taken aback when someone was complaining about $3 gas - natural gas is about twice that right now!


I agree. That is why you need to start that process now. Massive increases in tax on all types of oil for any use, is a start. Spend the money on developing alternative fuels eg solar, wind.


There are wind farms throughout southern California/Arizona, West Texas. Wind power was pushed by the environmentalists, and a great amount of money has been spent developing some infrastructure.

Now, environmentalists are complaining about the huge wind farms, because they are (a)unsightly and destroy the view; and (b) eagles, condors, and other birds might run into the blades and be killed. The Kennedys fought have wind farms put out off the coast of Massachusetts.

You can't win!

[bruto]

LOL!

You crack me up, Bruto...why is that folks in say, Gillette, Wyoming who commute to Cheyenne, can't use the trains or busses, or maybe share a cab?

TokieI'm not sure which part of my post you're responding to, or whether or not you're serious, and I wonder if you actually are following my anti-taxation argument, or assuming that because I am some kind of "lib" I must be taking the wrong side of the argument, so let's try once more.

Do you, then, support the idea of drastically jacking up energy taxes to fund energy research (which is the proposal I was referring to)? My argument was against that proposal. Do you actually favor that proposal?

I don't know anything about commuting options in Wyoming. But I know that here in Vermont there are large areas, mine included, in which no public transit exists at all. The nearest town with a local bus and more than a convenience store is 12 miles away. If I commuted from where I am to Rutland, the largest local city and largest employment center, which is about 30 miles away, I could take a bus, but I would have to drive at least 12 miles to catch it. In order to share a cab, one has to find someone going to the same place. This is not always a viable option in rural areas (I assume you realize that what makes an area rural is that people do not live very close to each other!), especially if the cab must be summoned from many miles away in the first place, and must burn the same high priced gas as other vehicles. There is no local train service.

And of course, we're not just talking about the price of gasoline in cars, but the price of other energy as well, which is what my comment about demographics was about. If you're going to jack up the price of heating fuel, you may have to rethink where poor people are going to live, because they're already having trouble keeping up. And if you're going to jack up the price of all fuel, you might also have to rethink how farming is done. Of course, those who support big and concentrated agribusiness will have fewer problems with this, and I'm not out to start a thread on farming, but whatever your preference there, a drastic energy tax would change rural demographics in a hurry. It doesn't matter for the purpose of this discussion whether or not you think that's good or bad. It's a factor either way. When the rural agricultural economy goes belly-up, people have to go somewhere else and do something else, and if you happen to live in that somewhere else, you'd better start thinking about where you want them to go!

Now mind you, I have no such problem, since I do not commute, do not farm anything but money, and I can afford the rising energy prices, but I don't think a huge new energy tax would be a good idea for many reasons not directly connected with my immediate self interest. Perhaps one or more of us has misconstrued something in this, but I'm surprised that someone as conservative as you claim to be would not jump harder than I did on a proposal for "massive increases in taxes" on oil! I happen not to think that a "sin tax" on petroleum consumption is a very good idea at all, and it's a worse idea if the alternatives are either not available or not affordable to large segments of the population. If the purpose of the tax is to develop alternatives which are not currently viable or available, it seems reasonable to suggest that the alternatives should be at least substantially developed before we use the leverage of high taxation to force people to seek them.

[Tokenconservative]

According to this site (http://www.lesjones.com/posts/002732.shtml), U.S. average gas price dropped below a dollar/gallon several times in '98 and '99.

Yeah, I remember that...it was a big deal.

Oh, and in 1999, the residential foreclosure RATE (the important number) was about 6%.

Tokie

[bjornart]

I know that petrol has gone up by more than 50% over the last 2 years or so and will go up again in the future. Yet it is not a major issue here. So the answer to your question is no.

Next.
Edit Translation issue
Gas (US) = petrol (rest of world)

Eh... In this part of the "rest of world" we fill our cars with 'bensin' (pronounced 'benseen'). Unless we drive diesels.

[BenBurch]

http://www.wtrg.com/daily/clfclose.gif

What a difference a year of incompetent leadership makes!

[rjh01]

That graph says that crude oil has gone up over 70% in the last year. All you people that have been saying (or thinking) there is no alternative to car transport had better either be willing to pay heaps more or create an alternative. You no longer have the luxury of cheap energy.

As for worrying about importing goods made with cheap oil, well the cheap oil does not exist. Coal, yes, but not oil. China has to import most of its oil.

Remember you will be paying $30 a US gallon within 7 years. Assume 70% increase per year and starting price of $3 a US gallon. Do not like it? Tough.

[Prometheus]

....
As for worrying about importing goods made with cheap oil, well the cheap oil does not exist. Coal, yes, but not oil. China has to import most of its oil.


Who are you talking about? I don't think anyone here said anything like that. I pointed out that if we heap a huge TAX on top of the already high oil prices in this country then Chinese companies that pay the same price for oil minus the TAX would have a competitive advantage.


Remember you will be paying $30 a US gallon within 7 years. Assume 70% increase per year and starting price of $3 a US gallon. Do not like it? Tough.

We don't need to like it, 'cause it ain't gonna happen. At worst, prices might double or--at a stretch--triple in 7 years. Still worriesome, but shrieking the sky is falling only makes you look foolish when it doesn't come to pass.

[rjh01]

The only things that will stop such an increase is a recession in China. They are growing at a huge rate and are consuming energy at an exponentially increasing rate. The Chinese people have just started driving cars on a mass scale. Plus a lot of Chinese industry needs oil to function. Hence the demand for oil is going to go up. Supply will not go up much. Anyone selling new supplies of oil will demand huge prices for it as it is located in remote, hard to get, places. So something must give. That is price.

If a country finds alternatives to oil they will be at an advantage in a few years time when oil gets too expensive. The countries and industries can either change now, gradually or suddenly in a few years time.


Does anyone have any reason to think that the price of oil will not go up in the same way it has gone up in the last few years?

[Prometheus]

The only things that will stop such an increase is a recession in China. They are growing at a huge rate and are consuming energy at an exponentially increasing rate. The Chinese people have just started driving cars on a mass scale. Plus a lot of Chinese industry needs oil to function. Hence the demand for oil is going to go up. Supply will not go up much. Anyone selling new supplies of oil will demand huge prices for it as it is located in remote, hard to get, places. So something must give. That is price.

If a country finds alternatives to oil they will be at an advantage in a few years time when oil gets too expensive. The countries and industries can either change now, gradually or suddenly in a few years time.


Does anyone have any reason to think that the price of oil will not go up in the same way it has gone up in the last few years?

I agree with everything in this post. I was only arguing with the $30/gal in 7 years math. Even if the price of gasoline increases over the next 7 years at double the rate that it has over the past 7 years, that will still be less than $10/gal. (Jan 8 2001 average price in the U.S. was $1.40, so it's increased about 115% in 7 years; $3.00 + 230% = $9.90)

[Prometheus]

The Google company is funding R&D which they say will bring the cost of solar-generated electricity to less than that of coal-generated electricity within 5 years. If their claim holds up, it won't be long after that hydrogen fuel cells render gasoline obsolete, anyway.

[rjh01]

I agree with everything in this post. I was only arguing with the $30/gal in 7 years math. Even if the price of gasoline increases over the next 7 years at double the rate that it has over the past 7 years, that will still be less than $10/gal. (Jan 8 2001 average price in the U.S. was $1.40, so it's increased about 115% in 7 years; $3.00 + 230% = $9.90)

If you look at the graphs posted in posts 34 and 48 you will find that crude oil prices have been going up fast since about 2003. This may not be reflected in the retail gasoline prices due to other factors. However the graphs indicate that sometime or other you can look forward to steep price rises. I know in Australia we already have had them.

The Google company is funding R&D which they say will bring the cost of solar-generated electricity to less than that of coal-generated electricity within 5 years. If their claim holds up, it won't be long after that hydrogen fuel cells render gasoline obsolete, anyway.

When this works it will be one of the things that will help solve many problems. There is an article on a similar subject in January 2007 Scientific American called 'Solar grand plan.'


By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions

Edit. Remeber even when solar power gets economic, it will take many years to replace non-renewable power stations, plus everything else.

[Francesca R]

Of course it goes up and down, but you'd have to be really hiding your head in the sand to believe that the trend is not upward. Well, no. The trend has been upward since late 1999 when crude oil last bottomed out at $10bbl. What the trend will be, we can not know.

This is why we need to start doing it now. We are already late. Oil prices are already going up, fast. If we increase them even more now, we will not have to suffer a lot later, when oil reaches $1,000 a barrel, which it might do in in 10 years (assume it just doubles every three years and this is what you get)It's very aggressive to assume the price of oil will double every three years. If you are confident about that, I assume you are borrowing heavily to fund a huge long oil futures position? Oil is a better investment than any financial asset if you are correct.

Remember you will be paying $30 a US gallon within 7 years. Assume 70% increase per year and starting price of $3 a US gallon. Do not like it? Tough.Even more aggressive. This is highly unlikely IMO.

Does anyone have any reason to think that the price of oil will not go up in the same way it has gone up in the last few years?Evidently few expect it to do so, or the futures curve would reflect expectations of still higher crude which it does not. Most "professional" forecasts (merely educated guesses of course) are for lower oil prices. China is likely to slow down, but not go into recession which would be a catastrophe for the country. The developed world could well enter recession. Higher prices increase the incentive to substite oil and to extract more proven reserves.

[itzybitzy]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2230347841be6707aa.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10160)
Not so cute, anymore.
Gas is now $3.69 a gallon here in the West Slope of the Sierras. As this finite resource dries up, the inertia tolerated for decades by cheap and plentiful stocks will change to developing more aggressive alternative energies.
Nuclear power is being dusted off in the U.S., for instance. I read somewhere that Saudi Arabia could look to producing oil for about 70 more years, then its over for them.
It is too bad that this great lubricant has been burned instead of saved for better uses.
(i'd like to point out that the price of gas doesn't impact me much since i don't actually drive)
Think again, friend. If you eat food, drink water, heat your house, use electricity, buy anything shipped or manufactured...
<http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html>

[bruto]

Well, no. The trend has been upward since late 1999 when crude oil last bottomed out at $10bbl. What the trend will be, we can not know.

Point taken. I'm observing, not forecasting.

[Solitaire]

Smart guy, the financial equivalent of the four-minute mile.


Yes, the four minute mile with hurricane force winds at your back. :D


NB Petrol is $A1.47 per liitre.


Hm. $4.93 a gallon. Give it five years or so.


I really don't think you can credit or blame any president for the price of oil.


Actually, with this one you can.

This president, like past Republican presidents, has increased the size of government and increased spending. Since the government needs funding and Bush cut taxes and Americans have a negative savings rate, the government has to borrow money from overseas investors. This at first doesn't have much of an effect, but as interest payments rise the dollar falls in proportion. I'd estimate that half the trade deficit is from federal, state, and local governments.


Massive increases in tax on all types of oil for any use, is a start. Spend the money on developing alternative fuels eg solar, wind.


No need. It's built into the system.

If the trend in borrowing continues then in 2012 I expect to see a barrel of oil priced around $160 to $200 depending upon demand. (In other words the dollar falls from 0.64 Eu to 0.40 Eu.) And keep in mind at that price, the United States becomes a net exporter of synthetic oil.


I'm reminded, for some reason, of a recent actual suggestion that because health insurance is so expensive that many people cannot afford it, we should fund the solution with a surtax on health insurance.


Actually, that's how the current system works. Hospitals cannot charge people with no money - the poor - so to make up for the loss they charge those who can pay - those with insurance - more for the hospital services.


All I know is that the brains of the free world better get together and come up with something to burn besides oil.


How about some Tiger in the tank? (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1713598,00.html) :)

[bruto]

Actually, that's how the current system works. Hospitals cannot charge people with no money - the poor - so to make up for the loss they charge those who can pay - those with insurance - more for the hospital services.



True, hospital prices are raised to the insured to pay for the uninsured, but I'm talking about a proposal that takes it one step further: that the cost of the insurance itself be surcharged to subsidize insurance for those who cannot now afford it. I don't know how complex the bureaucratic mechanism for such a tax would be, but the possibility for silliness is considerable. So, presumably, I, who can afford insurance, will pay more for mine. By itself, that's not so unreasonable, but those who can just barely afford insurance now might well be put into the "cant-pay" pool by the added tax. Those who remain will pay an extra tax to make up the difference, so at least a goodly number of those put into the "can't-pay" pool by the surtax will be subsidized by the surtax to be able to pay, whereupon they will be able once again to afford both the insurance and the surtax. Whererupon all the insured will use their now more expensive insurance to pay hospital fees that still probably are padded to cover those who remain too poor to buy any insurance at all. Of course, in so far as employers foot much of the bill for insurance, much of this surtax would be paid by them, and much of their added expense would probably be subsidized in some way either by increased prices or tax breaks. Now this scheme may well manage, somehow, to get more people insured, but it has an alice-in-wonderland quality to it compared to other ways of getting health care to the poor, and it's a mighty convoluted way to avoid the stigma of "socialized medicine."

This is matter for another thread, but I've had similar issues with sales tax increases, which hit the poor hardest. Republican representatives here in VT have suggested in the past that we should increase revenues by taxing food too. This would be justified in their minds, because in Vermont, there is a supposed remedy in the income tax setup, whereby poor people get a rebate for sales tax paid during the previous year. In other words, the State borrows money from its poorest citizens at zero percent interest (if they keep good records).

[Francesca R]

I really don't think you can credit or blame any president for the price of oil.Actually, with this one you can.

This president, like past Republican presidents, has increased the size of government and increased spending. Since the government needs funding and Bush cut taxes and Americans have a negative savings rate, the government has to borrow money from overseas investors. This at first doesn't have much of an effect, but as interest payments rise the dollar falls in proportion. What has any of that got to do with pushing up the price of oil? That's an argument for why the dollar has gone down. Oil is not only more expensive in dollars.

I'd estimate that half the trade deficit is from federal, state, and local governments.You are confusing the trade balance (net exports) with the government (fiscal) deficit I think. Government spending hits the trade account if the government imports goods and services but not if spending is all domestic and not if taxes are cut. Similarly, government borrowing--even in foreign currency--does not affect the trade balance.

Fiscal deficits and public debt can be advanced as an argument for currency weakness. However, I would return to the counterpoint I have made to this on other threads: if the dollar is falling because investors are worried about the sums that the US government owes, then why is the yield on US treasury bonds so close to a multi-decade low?

[Tokenconservative]

Went inta town t'day and noticed sumptin....gas prices is um.. down.

Garshkt!

Whooda thunk it!?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2230347841be6707aa.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10160)
Not so cute, anymore.
Gas is now $3.69 a gallon here in the West Slope of the Sierras. As this finite resource dries up, the inertia tolerated for decades by cheap and plentiful stocks will change to developing more aggressive alternative energies.
Nuclear power is being dusted off in the U.S., for instance. I read somewhere that Saudi Arabia could look to producing oil for about 70 more years, then its over for them.
It is too bad that this great lubricant has been burned instead of saved for better uses.

Think again, friend. If you eat food, drink water, heat your house, use electricity, buy anything shipped or manufactured...
<http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html>

It's hard for me to believe anyone is this economically ignorant.

I pay about $1/gal less than you, and pricing here is...dropping.

Now, I'm not sure where you live, but if it's in the boonies, or in CA, WA, OR, and a number of states on the other Left Coast, most of what you pay is in exorbitant taxation. I pay high taxes in a gallon, too...and our brilliant, newly-elected socialist gubner wants to raise those taxes even more to pay for protecting us from "global warming."

So let's see if you can figger out why you pay so much for a gallon of gas.

By the way, I know people who are paying under $2/gal right now in the lower mid-west...hmm....

Tokie

[Prometheus]

It's hard for me to believe anyone is this economically ignorant.

I pay about $1/gal less than you, and pricing here is...dropping.

Now, I'm not sure where you live, but if it's in the boonies, or in CA, WA, OR, and a number of states on the other Left Coast, most of what you pay is in exorbitant taxation. I pay high taxes in a gallon, too...and our brilliant, newly-elected socialist gubner wants to raise those taxes even more to pay for protecting us from "global warming."

So let's see if you can figger out why you pay so much for a gallon of gas.

By the way, I know people who are paying under $2/gal right now in the lower mid-west...hmm....

Tokie

According to the Tax Foundation website (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1054.html), the state with the lowest combined local/state/federal gasoline tax is Alaska, at 26.4 cents/gallon, and the state with the highest is Hawaii, at 60.1 cents/gallon.

So at most 33.7 cents of the difference can be attributed to taxes.

[Tokenconservative]

According to the Tax Foundation website (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1054.html), the state with the lowest combined local/state/federal gasoline tax is Alaska, at 26.4 cents/gallon, and the state with the highest is Hawaii, at 60.1 cents/gallon.

So at most 33.7 cents of the difference can be attributed to taxes.

Well, clearly I must be lying about the 66.-something difference, then.

No doubt for nefarious reasons...Bwahahahahahahahahahhahah!!!

[Prometheus]

Well, clearly I must be lying about the 66.-something difference, then.

No doubt for nefarious reasons...Bwahahahahahahahahahhahah!!!

Yeah, that must be it. Tell me, were you this paranoid before we were all out to get you? :D

[coalesce]

Out here in Elgin, IL it is averaging about $3.17 per gallon. A far cry from the $0.998 I was paying here in the fall of '99.

But that was under the leadership of a man who played "hide the weasel" with hot babes in the Oval Office, so I guess this is a preferable situation, huh?

Afraid I have to disagree here.

They weren't hot babes.

Michael

[Almo]

Yes around 70% of UK petrol price is taxation in the guise of fuel duty & VAT.

Have to say I don't object to the relatively high tax on petrol and so on; our road infrastructure is very expensive to maintain and improve and this does mean that there is a fairly good correlation between how much you use the roads and how much you pay in taxation.

Yeah, I'm with you there.

UKsians also get more per gallon. A UK gallon is about 4.5 liters, while a US gallon is only 3.8 liters.

But gas is metered in liters in the UK, so they don't pay by the "gallon."

[rjh01]

Well, no. The trend has been upward since late 1999 when crude oil last bottomed out at $10bbl. What the trend will be, we can not know.

It's very aggressive to assume the price of oil will double every three years. If you are confident about that, I assume you are borrowing heavily to fund a huge long oil futures position? Oil is a better investment than any financial asset if you are correct.

Even more aggressive. This is highly unlikely IMO.

Evidently few expect it to do so, or the futures curve would reflect expectations of still higher crude which it does not. Most "professional" forecasts (merely educated guesses of course) are for lower oil prices. China is likely to slow down, but not go into recession which would be a catastrophe for the country. The developed world could well enter recession. Higher prices increase the incentive to substitute oil and to extract more proven reserves.

I still say the price of oil will rise a lot in the next few years. The only thing that will stop the price rise in the short term is a world recession. Once the recession is over the price of oil will go back up. It will stop only when alternatives to oil start to be used in a big way.

Or maybe we only get out of the recession when alternatives to oil start to be used in a big way.

As for investments I suggest that buying shares in oil and other energy companies may give good capital gains. But this is not investment advice.

However the only way to tell if this is rubbish or otherwise is to wait and see.

[Lensman]

(i'd like to point out that the price of gas doesn't impact me much since i don't actually drive)

...but you buy stuff that's been transported by vehicles that consume the $100/barrel oil, so as the price of oil goes up, so does the cost of transporting our goods that we all purchase - so the price of that goes up too, so you are indeed impacted by higher fuel prices.

[soylent]

NH...and what percentage of that is taxes?

If you assume the fractions used for gasoline and diesel are as valuable as the other fractions the 100$/42 US gallon price of crude oil would suggest a price of 2.4$ per gallon plus the cost of refining and profit margins.

I'd say the cost of the tax on gasoline in the US is much too small if anything. Taxes on fuels can reasonable be expected to pay for the costs of their particulate polution(kills thousands of people every year. Diesel and biodiesel are worse than gasoline in this respect), should pay for building and repairing public roads, should pay for the military externalities(knowingly funding nasty people and governments) etc.

If no tax is leveraged on gasoline, everyone who is affected by these externalities pays for them. It's like a reverse tax leveraged by a random fuel consumer on society in general and if you truly are a conservative you should find that just as distasteful as you apparently find taxes themselves.

[rjh01]

If you assume the fractions used for gasoline and diesel are as valuable as the other fractions the 100$/42 US gallon price of crude oil would suggest a price of 2.4$ per gallon plus the cost of refining and profit margins.

I'd say the cost of the tax on gasoline in the US is much too small if anything. Taxes on fuels can reasonable be expected to pay for the costs of their particulate pollution(kills thousands of people every year. Diesel and biodiesel are worse than gasoline in this respect), should pay for building and repairing public roads, should pay for the military externalities(knowingly funding nasty people and governments) etc.

If no tax is leveraged on gasoline, everyone who is affected by these externalities pays for them. It's like a reverse tax leveraged by a random fuel consumer on society in general and if you truly are a conservative you should find that just as distasteful as you apparently find taxes themselves.

Plus oil is a non-renewable source. If you want more oil then you need to get it from a more remote place and either pay a higher price for it or use higher technology to extract it.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Single trader behind oil record (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7169543.stm) (BBC)



:eek:

It is not that oil has gone up, it is that the dollar (which oil is traded in) has gone down.

[Prometheus]

It is not that oil has gone up, it is that the dollar (which oil is traded in) has gone down.

To some degree, isn't that mutually reinforcing? I mean, if oil goes up, doesn't that drive the value of the dollar down?

[Tokenconservative]

If you assume the fractions used for gasoline and diesel are as valuable as the other fractions the 100$/42 US gallon price of crude oil would suggest a price of 2.4$ per gallon plus the cost of refining and profit margins.

I'd say the cost of the tax on gasoline in the US is much too small if anything. Taxes on fuels can reasonable be expected to pay for the costs of their particulate polution(kills thousands of people every year. Diesel and biodiesel are worse than gasoline in this respect), should pay for building and repairing public roads, should pay for the military externalities(knowingly funding nasty people and governments) etc.

If no tax is leveraged on gasoline, everyone who is affected by these externalities pays for them. It's like a reverse tax leveraged by a random fuel consumer on society in general and if you truly are a conservative you should find that just as distasteful as you apparently find taxes themselves.


Yeah, the taxes on gas are ...too small!

Of course you'd say that. You are a lib, and clearly a Keynesian.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

It is not that oil has gone up, it is that the dollar (which oil is traded in) has gone down.

But don't forget: both wealth and oil are finite things. We know that we are "RUNNING OUT!!!" of oil, and so that will naturally drive the price up, and wealth, in the Keynsian (leftist) model cannot be created nor destroyed, only moved around (in very small circles).

Tokie

[JEROME DA GNOME]

To some degree, isn't that mutually reinforcing? I mean, if oil goes up, doesn't that drive the value of the dollar down?

If there were the correct amount of dollars in circulation and oil supply decreased or oil supply demand went up than the dollar would be worth less because one could buy less oil with the same amount of dollars, you are correct. But this would take time and not be as dramatic as we are seeing today as it is not directly affecting the dollar value and many things outside of oil are traded in dollars. This is not the circumstance we are experiencing for the most part. What we are experiencing is a mammoth influx of newly created dollars into the world market place which immediately and directly lowers the value of the dollar for all things traded in dollars, and as oil is for the most part is traded in dollars we see the dramatic increase in the cost of oil.

[soylent]

Yeah, the taxes on gas are ...too small!

Of course you'd say that. You are a lib, and clearly a Keynesian.

So you believe third parties should pay for the externalities of people who consume excessive amounts of oil?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So you believe third parties should pay for the externalities of people who consume excessive amounts of oil?

How do you define excessive?

You do understand that if you raise the tax on gas than everything you purchase from clothing to food will cost more?

[Tokenconservative]

So you believe third parties should pay for the externalities of people who consume excessive amounts of oil?

You seem to have some of the terminology down, but you seem not to understand it.

Please define "excessive" in economic theory (non-Keynesian)?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

How do you define excessive?

You do understand that if you raise the tax on gas than everything you purchase from clothing to food will cost more?

Oops!

Da Gnome beat me to it.

You apparently don't understant socialist economics, Jerry...the gummint would just freeze pricing on all that.

That would fix the problem. Especially if the price was already "excessive." Or say, for really fat people who use "excessive" amounts of cloth in their clothing.

By the way. If you are going to talk about this, you need to say something cool like "exteralities." I used to like to throw "juxtaposition" in here and there.
Tokie

[bruto]

How do you define excessive?

You do understand that if you raise the tax on gas than everything you purchase from clothing to food will cost more?Of course one could raise the tax a little more selectively, say on gasoline at the pump only, without raising the price of diesel and heating fuel and propane, and it would be a little fairer, but it would still not be entirely fair, because what is excessive in one place is not in another. The birkenstock-wearing whole grain grinding ladies at the natural foods co-op will see little effect on the cost of running their Priuses, but they'll end up paying much of it back to the plumber who can't afford to trade in his van. Any system designed to slice the differentiation any finer between frivolous excess and necessity would be so complicated and involve so much administration and enforcement it would almost certainly eat up the savings.

[soylent]

How do you define excessive?

Fuel efficiency is much lower than what could be achieved with relative ease with negligible impact on safety. Fuel use is higher than what it would be if it's actual costs where accounted for in the price of the fuel. Therefor I find it fair to call it excessive.

You do understand that if you raise the tax on gas than everything you purchase from clothing to food will cost more?

It would reflect the actual cost of using that oil, including the cost born by third parties. If you cannot afford to use it, don't. There's lots of room to cut oil use without significantly impacting the quality of goods or quality of life.

Do you see any kind of risk in depleting the easy oil now and being forced to use the much more expensive tar sands, liquified natural gas and coal, biofuels etc. in the future?

[MilwaukeeMike]

Try $60.... I think in the current macro environment we are more likely to hit $60 than $100 again.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Fuel efficiency is much lower than what could be achieved with relative ease with negligible impact on safety. Fuel use is higher than what it would be if it's actual costs where accounted for in the price of the fuel. Therefor I find it fair to call it excessive.

You did not define your term: How do you define excessive?

What exactly are you calling excessive?

It would reflect the actual cost of using that oil, including the cost born by third parties. If you cannot afford to use it, don't. There's lots of room to cut oil use without significantly impacting the quality of goods or quality of life.

What would reflect the actual cost? Raising tax on gas? To what level would reflect the actual cost?

You are sorely mistaken about how cheap gas does provide you with an easy lifestyle.

How do you think they transport the goods you purchase at the mall?

Do you see any kind of risk in depleting the easy oil now and being forced to use the much more expensive tar sands, liquified natural gas and coal, biofuels etc. in the future?

Oil may not be depletable. You should research what the Russians are doing today concerning deep drilling of oil where the dinosaurs did not tread.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Try $60.... I think in the current macro environment we are more likely to hit $60 than $100 again.

Not if the Federal Reserve keeps pumping newly created dollars into the world market.

[Solitaire]

What has any of that got to do with pushing up the price of oil? That's an argument for why the dollar has gone down. Oil is not only more expensive in dollars.


If we remove the dollar context from the picture and use a currency like the euro then the rise in demand largely explains the rise in oil prices. (Of course, I'm not saying that the euro is a static unchanging value, even though I'm using it as if it were.) From the view of an American, which is the context I was in, the fall in the dollar means much higher oil prices.


You are confusing the trade balance (net exports) with the government (fiscal) deficit I think.


I'm working with a model of the exchange rate. So both the trade balance and national debt matters.


Government spending hits the trade account if the government imports goods and services but not if spending is all domestic and not if taxes are cut. Similarly, government borrowing--even in foreign currency--does not affect the trade balance.


Then I wonder what accurately reflects the capital flows.


Fiscal deficits and public debt can be advanced as an argument for currency weakness. However, I would return to the counterpoint on other threads: if the dollar is falling because investors are worried about the sums that the US government owes, then why is the yield on US treasury bonds so close to a multi-decade low?


Argument for me, here, means an independent variable. :)

All I'm doing is making statements about supply and demand; and in this case the supply of dollars and the demand for euros. When a borrower gets dollars from Europe, the European investors send euros that get converted into dollars, that flow has a small effect of reducing the amount of dollars and increasing the amount of euros flowing into the exchange, thus temporarily strengthening the dollar.

The dollar doesn't fall because investors worry about government debt.

As the government increases its debt, it increases the amount of interest payed back to the investors. And this allows me to predict that the dollar will continue falling. The increasing amount of dollars put into the exchange by the government and the removal of euros to pay investors causes the dollar to weaken. Of course personal debt, borrowed from outside the country does the same thing, but I assume consumers will eventually pay off their debts, restoring the exchange rate.

P.S. If investors did become worried about the dollar and stopped loaning money, what would happen to the dollar?

[Tokenconservative]

Fuel efficiency is much lower than what could be achieved with relative ease with negligible impact on safety. Fuel use is higher than what it would be if it's actual costs where accounted for in the price of the fuel. Therefor I find it fair to call it excessive.

It would reflect the actual cost of using that oil, including the cost born by third parties. If you cannot afford to use it, don't. There's lots of room to cut oil use without significantly impacting the quality of goods or quality of life.

Do you see any kind of risk in depleting the easy oil now and being forced to use the much more expensive tar sands, liquified natural gas and coal, biofuels etc. in the future?

The first paragraph above defines "excessive" in economic terms...?

I say that Fabio has "excessive" hair...he should be taxed for it!!!

If fuel costs are not accounted for in the price at the pump, where are they accounted for? Fuel in the US is not subsidized as it is in Europe.

This next bit offers the hoary leftist strawman that "they" are wildly consumptive and that "they" thumb their noses at conservation...you realize that people who can afford to drive an H2 can do so because they are SMART about money (most cases) right? I realize the leftist stereotype is the wealthy playboy heir to some "robber baron" fortune, or Paris Hilton type, but in reality that's not the reality.

Followed by a demand to establish some vague risk assessment. Risk of...what? Industrial accidents? That I might lose even more hair?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Try $60.... I think in the current macro environment we are more likely to hit $60 than $100 again.

Wait...what!?

B--but how will leftist fearmongers run around shrieking if the price goes....d-down!?

[Solitaire]

What we are experiencing is a mammoth influx of newly created dollars into the world market place which immediately and directly lowers the value of the dollar for all things traded in dollars, and as oil is for the most part traded in dollars we see the dramatic increase in the cost of oil.


Actually we are experiencing the destruction of dollars. The banks no longer make loans on capital brought to them and worse as loans get paid off, capital leaves the banks. And as capital leaves the bank the money supply contracts.

The Federal Reserve recently tried getting the loan process started by re-loaning 65 billion dollars it had available. But the banks concerns over transparency that cannot be cured by loaning them more money. If they cannot fix this basic issue of trust then there is the very real problem that prices will start falling meaning recession or even a depression.

I'm thinking the Federal Reserve may have to bypass the banks and find other entities who can make loans and get the economy going again.


Oil may not be depletable. You should research what the Russians are doing today concerning deep drilling of oil where the dinosaurs did not tread.


Russians Destroy Zionist "Peak Oil" Plot (http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html)

Let's see: Zionist Conspiracy, Peak Oil, Petrodollar Hegemony, Abiotic Oil...

Yep. That's absolutely nuts! :D

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Russians Destroy Zionist "Peak Oil" Plot (http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html)

Let's see: Zionist Conspiracy, Peak Oil, Petrodollar Hegemony, Abiotic Oil...

Yep. That's absolutely nuts! :D

I prefer infromation from the USGS.

USGS (http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/programs/html/school/moviepage/03.01.01.html)

These wells are about a kilometer and a half deep, and the deepest oil and gas wells penetrate the Earth's crust to about 8 kilometers.

The world's deepest well is now being drilled in the Soviet Union.



11-1-05 -- "Peak vs Deep Oil" - Full Segment (7:39trt) You could start at the 3 minute mark.
HdcRX35zQx0&NR=1

[Hindmost]

There really isn't anything to stop oil prices from increasing. The trend is going to be higher even though it may dip to $70US/ barrel in the near future.

80% of the oil used today comes from fields found before 1973. There has not been a major find since the 70s. All found today is becoming increasingly hard and expensive to extract.

EIA projects that oil production will expand from 85 million barrels a day to about 120 million barrels by 2020-2030 if current trends continue...that appears to be more than is possible to extract on a dailly basis unless a bunch of oil is found fairly quickly. Recent oil discoveries have been small in comparison to the 60s and 70s.

http://www.aspousa.org/aspousa3/

If there were enough infrastructure in other forms of energy, it wouldn't be much of problem with the world's economy. Over 80% of energy used around the world is based on oil. That can't be replaced quickly and the replacement will have a higher average cost. If anything else was cheaper, everyone would be using it already.

Pipe dreams include hydrogen, corn base ethanol, oil shale and tar sands (now called oil sands). Anyone that thinks all that needs to be done is to drill more wells

sidebar: Recently, OPEC met to discuss changing the oil base currency to euros. This could require US to raise interest rates to strengthen the dollar and offset this action.

glenn

[Tokenconservative]

....gas is down another .03/gal. here.....

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

There really isn't anything to stop oil prices from increasing. The trend is going to be higher even though it may dip to $70US/ barrel in the near future.

80% of the oil used today comes from fields found before 1973. There has not been a major find since the 70s. All found today is becoming increasingly hard and expensive to extract.

EIA projects that oil production will expand from 85 million barrels a day to about 120 million barrels by 2020-2030 if current trends continue...that appears to be more than is possible to extract on a dailly basis unless a bunch of oil is found fairly quickly. Recent oil discoveries have been small in comparison to the 60s and 70s.

http://www.aspousa.org/aspousa3/

If there were enough infrastructure in other forms of energy, it wouldn't be much of problem with the world's economy. Over 80% of energy used around the world is based on oil. That can't be replaced quickly and the replacement will have a higher average cost. If anything else was cheaper, everyone would be using it already.

Pipe dreams include hydrogen, corn base ethanol, oil shale and tar sands (now called oil sands). Anyone that thinks all that needs to be done is to drill more wells

sidebar: Recently, OPEC met to discuss changing the oil base currency to euros. This could require US to raise interest rates to strengthen the dollar and offset this action.

glenn

...and so new areas opened to exploration in places like Siberia we know cannot produce enough oil.

Um....how, 'zactly, do we know this?

Tokie

[Hindmost]

...and so new areas opened to exploration in places like Siberia we know cannot produce enough oil.

Um....how, 'zactly, do we know this?

Tokie

Common knowledge if one follows the industry.

glenn

[JEROME DA GNOME]

There really isn't anything to stop oil prices from increasing. The trend is going to be higher even though it may dip to $70US/ barrel in the near future.

Slow down, the price of everything increases. It has been relatively static since 1913. It is called controlled inflation.

[soylent]

You did not define your term: How do you define excessive?

What exactly are you calling excessive?

I did. Far more than nescessary to achieve the task at hand. More than what would be consumed if the actual cost of using the oil was reflected by its price.

What would reflect the actual cost? Raising tax on gas? To what level would reflect the actual cost?

The public road network ought to be paid for chiefly by its users. Since gasoline consumption is strongly tied to the weight of the car and how long you spend driving, a reasonable way to accomplish this is to aqcuire the funds for public roads from a tax on vehicle fuel. If you wish to be more accurate you could tax vehicle use by type(heavy vehicles are far more damaging) and by the distance traveled.

The costs of ensuring a stable oil supply should be included in the cost of oil to it's consumers. Large strategic reserves are kept(especially in the US), fairly large subsidies are given to oil R&D and oil exploration. Oil rich nations are a frequent center of conflict and large military expenses have been incured over the years to keep them stable.

Out of the handful of studies I've seen on the externalities of gasoline, I've yet to come across one that puts them at <1 USD/gallon. Maybe you could remedy this situation?

What I'm asking for is a redistribution of taxes to more accurately reflect the cost of oil and not a net increase in taxes; so that people stop acting like it's only worth $3/gallon.

You are sorely mistaken about how cheap gas does provide you with an easy lifestyle.

That was never in dispute. I clearly stated that gasoline consumption could easily be reduced by a large fraction without affecting anyones welfare negatively. I did not make the claim that we could simply eliminate oil use.

Hauling my ass to and from work in 3 tonnes of metal, glass and rubber instead of a car suited for the task does not contribute to my welfare in any way.

Nor does keeping my tires at the wrong pressure.

Nor does wasting significant quantities of gas on short trips more easily accomplished with a bicycle or on foot unless I already have an active lifestyle(I don't).

Nor does eating downright unhealthy quantities of meat(most meat is produced inefficiently from 10-20x the energy from grains and soy beans.).

Nor does wasting much of my vehicles' fuel on heating the breaking mechanism instead of using regenerative breaks.

Nor does living so far from work that I have to spend 2 hours in a car every day to get there and back.

Nor does shipping bulk goods using trucks instead of freight trains.

The US managed to cut its 'gallons of oil consumption per GDP' roughly in half since the 70's and there's lots and lots of room left to decrease this further.

Oil may not be depletable. You should research what the Russians are doing today concerning deep drilling of oil where the dinosaurs did not tread.

I'm not aware of any significant oil deposit having ever been shown to be from an abiogenic origin; and there is a very simple test for it. Plants show a small preference for the lighter isotopes of carbon in their CO2; simply testing CO2 from some burnt oil with mass spectroscopy will reveal if it's origin is abiotic or not.

The mechanisms proposed for producing abiotic oil haven't been shown to be plausible deep in the Earth's crust.

Neither the rate of abiotic oil formation in the Earth´s crust nor the amount of abiotic oil in total has ever been shown to be remotely enough to call oil undepletable. It's debatable if abiotic oil even exists.

It's simply a dream at this stage and I do not see much likelyhood for it to become reality. If such a thing even exists, the economics of drilling that deep to extract oil have not been shown to be reasonable. I think we're more likely to go after liquified coal and stranded natural gas or even methane clathrates even if abiogenic oil exists. We'll probably sooner use nuclear power to produce the heat required for extracting oil from tar sands(currently obscene quantities of stranded natural gas is burned to produce it; more than the energy content in the resulting oil).

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I did. Far more than nescessary to achieve the task at hand. More than what would be consumed if the actual cost of using the oil was reflected by its price.

O.K., the price of gas determines if it is used excessively.

What is the correct price so as to not have gas used excessively?



The public road network ought to be paid for chiefly by its users.

It is currently. It is called the gas tax. You do need to gather knowledge before expressing opinions.

[Prometheus]

The public road network ought to be paid for chiefly by its users. Since gasoline consumption is strongly tied to the weight of the car and how long you spend driving, a reasonable way to accomplish this is to aqcuire the funds for public roads from a tax on vehicle fuel. If you wish to be more accurate you could tax vehicle use by type(heavy vehicles are far more damaging) and by the distance traveled.


The problem here is that everyone uses the public road network, albeit indirectly. Or rather, everyone benefits directly from its availability. Your food, clothing, medicine, the materials to build your shelter--all were delivered via the public road system. House on fire? Need an ambulance? Police? Why shouldn't everyone equally pay for the infrastructure that makes their assistance possible?

[Matteo Martini]

There really isn't anything to stop oil prices from increasing. The trend is going to be higher even though it may dip to $70US/ barrel in the near future.

80% of the oil used today comes from fields found before 1973. There has not been a major find since the 70s. All found today is becoming increasingly hard and expensive to extract.

EIA projects that oil production will expand from 85 million barrels a day to about 120 million barrels by 2020-2030 if current trends continue...that appears to be more than is possible to extract on a dailly basis unless a bunch of oil is found fairly quickly. Recent oil discoveries have been small in comparison to the 60s and 70s.

http://www.aspousa.org/aspousa3/


What do you think it will happen?
A major war between US, EU and China for oil?

[ingoa]

Even in Minnesota a gallon of gas'll cost you $2.99, roughly. It's been down to $2.63 within the last month, but for the most part I would say $3 is what it costs around here.

Doing the coversion into $US and gallons (US) we have to pay 7.90 $US per gallon. (Frankfurt area in Germany.)

[Tokenconservative]

Common knowledge if one follows the industry.

glenn

O.
M.
G!!!

LOL!

When Tokie says something that's common knowledge to all mankind...ankind..kind....you are always the very first, Hind to shriek "link!? LIIIINNNKKKKKKKKKK!!!!?" Here and in other forums we've run into each other in.

But when you post some blatantly false assertion you back it up with saying "well, if YOU were in the right industry, you'd just know, that's how!!!"

LOL!

Nearly too rich for words!

Tokie

[Hindmost]

What do you think it will happen?
A major war between US, EU and China for oil?

A few weeks back, the CEO of Exxon indicated that Exxon could produce oil at current levels for the next 14 years...as if that was a long time.

Of course oil related energy costs will increase dramatically in the next few decades.

Infrastructure for alternative energy sources have been dormant for many years in many places...however, the US is probably in the worst shape as much of the economy is oil energy based and has probably done the least to develop alternative fuels. The engineering cost to develop alternate fuels such as switchgrass ethanol and coal gassification is moving too slow. Corn based ethanol is just useless from an energy balance point of view.

The US uses about 45 quads of oil based energy per year right now. I would estimate that about 20 quads of that would have to be replaced within the next two decades...but that is just an educated guess. 20 quads/year is the equivalent of about 3.4 billion barrels of oil/year.

70% of the oil use in the US is for transportation. Augmenting the existing system of refineries and piping etc...will take decades and require engineering that isn't available due to lack of industrial capacity and lack of engineers. The US just isn't doing anything extensive enough.

Electricity production is less vulnerable due to nuclear and coal technology being used for the majority of electricity production.

For the US, If oil gets priced in Euros and the dollar keeps falling, that could add a different wrinkle as well. The US could be required to raise interest rates and this would have repercussions on the economy and the stock market.

Since it is very doubtful that the world can produce the EIA projected 120 million barrels of oil a day, economic growth world wide will slow. With population growth at about 75 million people a year, a lot of new food production will be also be needed.

I really can't speculate if any war would break out. However, the world economy will not grow as projected and there could be some famines in the world and associated problems. Food production and transportation takes a bunch of energy.

If the energy could be replaced in a reasonable amount of time, then the effects will be minimal. But who can tell that?

glenn

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I really can't speculate if any war would break out. However, the world economy will not grow as projected and there could be some famines in the world and associated problems. Food production and transportation takes a bunch of energy.

If major war does break-out this is good news for Americans and the dollar. America is the safe place to place assets when there is turmoil.

[Hindmost]

O.
M.
G!!!

LOL!

When Tokie says something that's common knowledge to all mankind...ankind..kind....you are always the very first, Hind to shriek "link!? LIIIINNNKKKKKKKKKK!!!!?" Here and in other forums we've run into each other in.

But when you post some blatantly false assertion you back it up with saying "well, if YOU were in the right industry, you'd just know, that's how!!!"

LOL!

Nearly too rich for words!

Tokie

Glad I could make you laugh.

If you knew what I posted was blatantly false, they why did you ask anything?

Sorry to tell you, Siberia's reserves are well known. And the caspian sea reserves are much lower than expected.

glenn

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Glad I could make you laugh.

If you knew what I posted was blatantly false, they why did you ask anything?

Sorry to tell you, Siberia's reserves are well known. And the caspian sea reserves are much lower than expected.

glenn


To understand what is happening with the "peak oil" myth you need to understand the bennie babies phenomenon.

[Hindmost]

If major war does break-out this is good news for Americans and the dollar. America is the safe place to place assets when there is turmoil.

I have to disagree that a major war would be a good thing for anyone.

glenn

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I have to disagree that a major war would be a good thing for anyone.

glenn

It was "good" for America as a consequence of WWI and WWII.

[Prometheus]

I think we're a lot more likely to see lot's of local skirmishes between smaller countries as the big boys squeeze them out of the oil market from the bottom up.

[Hindmost]

To understand what is happening with the "peak oil" myth you need to understand the bennie babies phenomenon.

Oil is finite...so peak oil can't be a myth. (unless, you are a creationist that believes your god will provide for you.)

There is no way the world is replacing oil energy reserves as fast as they are being used. Now, when the peak occurs is open to debate, but it will occur independent of bennie babies.

glenn

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I think we're a lot more likely to see lot's of local skirmishes between smaller countries as the big boys squeeze them out of the oil market from the bottom up.

Agreed.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Oil is finite...so peak oil can't be a myth.

Evidence?

[Hindmost]

Evidence?

Are you joking?

glenn

[Prometheus]

To understand what is happening with the "peak oil" myth you need to understand the bennie babies phenomenon.

:confused: Huh?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

:confused: Huh?

The creation of false short supply.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Are you joking?

glenn

No.

Do you have evidence that oil is finite?

[Hindmost]

No.

Do you have evidence that oil is finite?

Unless the laws of physics have changed, if oil in not finite, then it is infinite...and I really can't debate creationism.

However, if you don't believe the link I provided below and T Boone...then take a look at peakoil.com.

glenn

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Unless the laws of physics have changed, if oil in not finite, then it is infinite...and I really can't debate creationism.

The laws of physics have no relevance to oil being finite.

Creationism; of which I not not subscribe, has nothing to do with oil being finite.

You have demonstrated that you have ZERO evidence that oil is finite.

[Hindmost]

The laws of physics have no relevance to oil being finite.

Creationism; of which I not not subscribe, has nothing to do with oil being finite.

You have demonstrated that you have ZERO evidence that oil is finite.

You have demonstrated zero evidence that oil it is infinite and if oil is not finite, then it would have to be infinite and that--as far as matter and energy is concerned--defies the associated laws of thermodynamics.

Take a look a http://www.peakoil.com/ and the links with T Boone Pickens (http://www.aspousa.org/aspousa3/)

and

http://www.oilcrisis.com/summary.htm

If you want energy projections, take a look at this from the US govt.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/


Hubbert predicted that US oil production would peak about 1969-1970. He did this in the 50s. US production peaked in 1970 and has been dropping ever since.

Now, if you dismiss someone like Pickens with his knowledge, I really can't be any more helpful. see this link:

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=10766

glenn

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You have demonstrated zero evidence that oil it is infinite and if oil is not finite, then it would have to be infinite and that--as far as matter and energy is concerned--defies the associated laws of thermodynamics.

You made the assertion that oil IS finite. It is your responsibility to evidence this assertion.

[Hindmost]

You made the assertion that oil IS finite. It is your responsibility to evidence this assertion.

I have. Read all of the links that I have posted. However, I would like to see how you think it is not finite and therefore infinite.

glenn

[Geek Goddess]

O.
M.
G!!!

LOL!

When Tokie says something that's common knowledge to all mankind...ankind..kind....you are always the very first, Hind to shriek "link!? LIIIINNNKKKKKKKKKK!!!!?" Here and in other forums we've run into each other in.

But when you post some blatantly false assertion you back it up with saying "well, if YOU were in the right industry, you'd just know, that's how!!!"

LOL!

Nearly too rich for words!

Tokie

Hindmost is correct.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I have. Read all of the links that I have posted. However, I would like to see how you think it is not finite and therefore infinite.

glenn

Your first two links are assuming finite. No evidence there.

You third link provides use with this:
Theory:

It is widely accepted that oil is a finite resource; there are basic laws which describe the depletion of any finite resource:

Another statement without validation.


Your final two links also present the assumption that oil is finite.


Please evidence your assertion. Presenting others making the same assertion is NOT evidence.


You must understand that if your premise is in question it is impossible to have a talk.

[Hindmost]

Your first two links are assuming finite. No evidence there.

You third link provides use with this:


Another statement without validation.


Your final two links also present the assumption that oil is finite.


Please evidence your assertion. Presenting others making the same assertion is NOT evidence.


You must understand that if your premise is in question it is impossible to have a talk.

Well, I can't argue with woo. The mass of the earth is a non-infinite 6 x 10^2^4kg. If you want to stick your head under the tar sands believe that is all recoverable oil...fine with me--but, I am done with this portion of the discussion.

glenn

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Well, I can't argue with woo. The mass of the earth is a non-infinite 6 x 10^2^4kg. If you want to stick your head under the tar sands believe that is all recoverable oil...fine with me--but, I am done with this portion of the discussion.

glenn

You do know that matter does change form?

[Prometheus]

:popcorn1

[UserGoogol]

I can't find rigorous evidence that the supply of oil is finite, but there is a reason why oil is called a fossil fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel). The standard theory is that petroleum is produced when tons of carbon from organisms manages to get buried underground and then over millions of years converts to petroleum, which we can then dig up. Of course this is an ongoing proccess, but the rate at which oil is created in this way is far too slow in human terms to be worth considering, so in this sense petroleum is finite.

Of course, if you want to be pedantic, petroleum isn't the only kind of oil and other kinds of oil can be produced on a more timely schedule, (from olive oil to more high tech stuff) so in this sense oil is not finite. But peak oil is talking about petroleum, so that's not relevant.

[Matteo Martini]

A few weeks back, the CEO of Exxon indicated that Exxon could produce oil at current levels for the next 14 years...as if that was a long time.

Of course oil related energy costs will increase dramatically in the next few decades.

Infrastructure for alternative energy sources have been dormant for many years in many places...however, the US is probably in the worst shape as much of the economy is oil energy based and has probably done the least to develop alternative fuels. The engineering cost to develop alternate fuels such as switchgrass ethanol and coal gassification is moving too slow. Corn based ethanol is just useless from an energy balance point of view.

The US uses about 45 quads of oil based energy per year right now. I would estimate that about 20 quads of that would have to be replaced within the next two decades...but that is just an educated guess. 20 quads/year is the equivalent of about 3.4 billion barrels of oil/year.

70% of the oil use in the US is for transportation. Augmenting the existing system of refineries and piping etc...will take decades and require engineering that isn't available due to lack of industrial capacity and lack of engineers. The US just isn't doing anything extensive enough.

Electricity production is less vulnerable due to nuclear and coal technology being used for the majority of electricity production.

For the US, If oil gets priced in Euros and the dollar keeps falling, that could add a different wrinkle as well. The US could be required to raise interest rates and this would have repercussions on the economy and the stock market.

Since it is very doubtful that the world can produce the EIA projected 120 million barrels of oil a day, economic growth world wide will slow. With population growth at about 75 million people a year, a lot of new food production will be also be needed.


Also, soon a lot of Indians and Chinese will want a car, right?
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-01/10/content_7401354.htm


I really can't speculate if any war would break out. However, the world economy will not grow as projected and there could be some famines in the world and associated problems. Food production and transportation takes a bunch of energy.


What about smaller cars, hybrids, etc.??


If the energy could be replaced in a reasonable amount of time, then the effects will be minimal. But who can tell that?


If you are interested, there is an article you maybe willing to look at:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103451

[Tokenconservative]

I can't find rigorous evidence that the supply of oil is finite, but there is a reason why oil is called a fossil fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel). The standard theory is that petroleum is produced when tons of carbon from organisms manages to get buried underground and then over millions of years converts to petroleum, which we can then dig up. Of course this is an ongoing proccess, but the rate at which oil is created in this way is far too slow in human terms to be worth considering, so in this sense petroleum is finite.

Of course, if you want to be pedantic, petroleum isn't the only kind of oil and other kinds of oil can be produced on a more timely schedule, (from olive oil to more high tech stuff) so in this sense oil is not finite. But peak oil is talking about petroleum, so that's not relevant.

For some reason, monstershouters always forget that we can now make Texas light crude from waste animal parts.

Price p bbl about 2 yrs ago: $80.

I wonder why nobody ever mentions this, and when I do it is studiously ignored?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Well, I can't argue with woo. The mass of the earth is a non-infinite 6 x 10^2^4kg. If you want to stick your head under the tar sands believe that is all recoverable oil...fine with me--but, I am done with this portion of the discussion.

glenn

The problem with "this portion" of the discussion is the implied strawman: humans are too stupid, greedy, not directed enough by Big Brother...whatever, to ever, ever, EVER come up with some other means of making their scooters go, once "all the oil runs out!!!"

Why does this debate assume that?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Hindmost is correct.
Ah.

Well.

There it is.

Tokie

[Hindmost]

For some reason, monstershouters always forget that we can now make Texas light crude from waste animal parts.

Price p bbl about 2 yrs ago: $80.

I wonder why nobody ever mentions this, and when I do it is studiously ignored?

Tokie

How many quads can we get out of waste animal parts?

glenn

[Tokenconservative]

How many quads can we get out of waste animal parts?

glenn

OH!

My!

Now he's done it!!!

He's introduced a esoteric "insider" term!!

OH!

My!

That'll certainly show ever' body how dumby and pig-ig'nant is ol Tokie!!!


Sheesh.

Tokie

[Hindmost]

Also, soon a lot of Indians and Chinese will want a car, right?
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-01/10/content_7401354.htm

Very true...when I was living in Korea, there was an absolute explosion of people buying cars as the economy grew. Obviously, competition for oil will ensue.

What about smaller cars, hybrids, etc.??

I think hybrids are overhyped right now. The energy balance is not the best and the batteries are expensive and don't last long enough. Plug in cars seem useless unless the electricity supply greatly increases--and electricity burns mainly fossil fuel. Two-thirds of the energy is lost to produce electricity, so that is really not efficient.

Now, lighter cars with carbon fiber construction and more efficient engines would be great and that would give a bunch of energy savings.


If you are interested, there is an article you maybe willing to look at:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103451

I have read the article as I get scientific american as well... the plan looks very ambitious. One of the key factors is that the solar cells will have to gain efficiency. Other issues include availability of exotic elements and setting up a DC current infrastructure and the viability of compressed gas storage....but something should be done with solar.

glenn

[Hindmost]

OH!

My!

Now he's done it!!!

He's introduced a esoteric "insider" term!!

OH!

My!

That'll certainly show ever' body how dumby and pig-ig'nant is ol Tokie!!!


Sheesh.

Tokie

In post 102, I provided the equivalent amount of energy in a quad and how much is the US consumes based on oil...its just a big number of BTUs. Anyhow, the US uses about 100 quads of energy from all forms in a year. The world total is over 400 and projected to be over 500 in the next two decades. Right now, IIRC, over 80% of that is from oil and natural gas.

Tokie, you always seem to be able to focus on the lump of coal in a mountain of diamonds.

glenn

[bruto]

OH!

My!

Now he's done it!!!

He's introduced a esoteric "insider" term!!

OH!

My!

That'll certainly show ever' body how dumby and pig-ig'nant is ol Tokie!!!


Sheesh.

Tokie

Does your (or my) ignorance of the unit make the question a stupid one? I don't think so. It's easy enough to look up. And why is it an insult to you personally? Would you rather he talked down to you and assumed from the start that you are poorly informed in the subject you're arguing about?

So, I looked up "quads," as anybody could, and find that a quad is a very large quantity of energy indeed, a quadrillion BTU, which seems like a lot; but in global terms it's not really all that much. It seems pertinent to ask how much of that energy we can actually make out of waste animal parts, and more importantly, how much energy we can make out of waste animal parts that we are not currently using for something else.

It also seems worth asking, if even two years ago a barrel of ersatz crude from waste animal parts could be produced for 80 bucks, are we now seeing large production of this wonderful stuff, which is now 20 bucks a barrel cheaper than dino oil? If not, why not? What, or who, is preventing it? Could it be that you're mistaken about either the abundance or the economy of this process?

By the way, I am not at all doubting that the process exists. A very little bit of Google hunting confims that there have been some quite promising developments, especially using turkey parts and pig manure. Nor do I doubt that the benefit is considerable, and that every such development helps us to conserve oil supplies and find alternative ways to function without sacrifice. And, in addition, we should also mention that the developments that seem to be in the forefront here are being made by "big agribusiness," demonstrating one of the strengths of a capitalistic economic model. It's wrong to dismiss the drops that fill the bucket, but that should not blind us to the size of the bucket. Your post on this subject implied that oil from waste animal parts could be globally significant by itself, and it is not at all silly, esoteric, or off topic to address that question in terms of quads.

[Tokenconservative]

In post 102, I provided the equivalent amount of energy in a quad and how much is the US consumes based on oil...its just a big number of BTUs. Anyhow, the US uses about 100 quads of energy from all forms in a year. The world total is over 400 and projected to be over 500 in the next two decades. Right now, IIRC, over 80% of that is from oil and natural gas.

Tokie, you always seem to be able to focus on the lump of coal in a mountain of diamonds.

glenn

Yes, and letfies like you say we will be "out" of oil sometime soon...how can that be when we can make it?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Does your (or my) ignorance of the unit make the question a stupid one? I don't think so. It's easy enough to look up. And why is it an insult to you personally? Would you rather he talked down to you and assumed from the start that you are poorly informed in the subject you're arguing about?

So, I looked up "quads," as anybody could, and find that a quad is a very large quantity of energy indeed, a quadrillion BTU, which seems like a lot; but in global terms it's not really all that much. It seems pertinent to ask how much of that energy we can actually make out of waste animal parts, and more importantly, how much energy we can make out of waste animal parts that we are not currently using for something else.

It also seems worth asking, if even two years ago a barrel of ersatz crude from waste animal parts could be produced for 80 bucks, are we now seeing large production of this wonderful stuff, which is now 20 bucks a barrel cheaper than dino oil? If not, why not? What, or who, is preventing it? Could it be that you're mistaken about either the abundance or the economy of this process?

By the way, I am not at all doubting that the process exists. A very little bit of Google hunting confims that there have been some quite promising developments, especially using turkey parts and pig manure. Nor do I doubt that the benefit is considerable, and that every such development helps us to conserve oil supplies and find alternative ways to function without sacrifice. And, in addition, we should also mention that the developments that seem to be in the forefront here are being made by "big agribusiness," demonstrating one of the strengths of a capitalistic economic model. It's wrong to dismiss the drops that fill the bucket, but that should not blind us to the size of the bucket. Your post on this subject implied that oil from waste animal parts could be globally significant by itself, and it is not at all silly, esoteric, or off topic to address that question in terms of quads.

1. It's clear the intent of introducing esoteric, insider terms like that is to first and foremost, shut down discussion. This is a classic Libbie Playbook tactic: say something that is non-understandable by the Avg. Joe, making it sound like only an utter ignoramus would not know it (in this case that unit of measure) in the hopes that you will shame them into going away.

2. Dun't work with Tokie. Tokie is well aware of how ignorant he is AND well aware of this laughbably transparent Playbook tactic.

3. The experimental production plant that was making this stuff when I first heard about it was a very small operation. But nice bit of begging of the question there! By the way, it's not "eratz." It's light, Texas crude.

4. When you, as a lefty, say "helps 'us': do this, that and the other thing, what do you mean? (I of course KNOW what you mean, but I'd very much like to hear your um...rationalization).

Tokie

[Hindmost]

Yes, and letfies like you say we will be "out" of oil sometime soon...how can that be when we can make it?

Tokie

Now, that radical lefty T. Boone Pickens seems to be worried...so this is obviously a political issue alone.

In fifty years or so, the production will be very low and recoverable oil will be limited. That is if Hubbert's analysis that was proved correct for the US is valid for the world. Most think it is.

What is this making oil you say. Is it the cow thingy..again, how many quads...or barrels per year can we make? And how much energy needs to be put in and how much energy do we get out? (energy balance is very important and the main reason corn based ethanol is useless)

glenn

[bruto]

1. It's clear the intent of introducing esoteric, insider terms like that is to first and foremost, shut down discussion. This is a classic Libbie Playbook tactic: say something that is non-understandable by the Avg. Joe, making it sound like only an utter ignoramus would not know it (in this case that unit of measure) in the hopes that you will shame them into going away.Utter nonsense. The term is easily understood, and pertinent to the discussion. Even if it is not a common term, it is hardly an esoteric insider term. It was explained earlier, and it's a useful measure to use if you're talking seriously about energy in a global context.

2. Dun't work with Tokie. Tokie is well aware of how ignorant he is AND well aware of this laughbably transparent Playbook tactic.It's nobody's fault but your own if you prefer to remain ignorant and are unable to take 15 seconds to find out the meaning of a word. If you are convinced that using a word you don't immediately know is the end of discourse, you're either uninterested in real discourse, or a fool - or both.

3. The experimental production plant that was making this stuff when I first heard about it was a very small operation. But nice bit of begging of the question there! By the way, it's not "eratz." It's light, Texas crude.It may resemble Texas crude, but if it came from turkey parts, it's ersatz, no matter how good it is.

4. When you, as a lefty, say "helps 'us': do this, that and the other thing, what do you mean? (I of course KNOW what you mean, but I'd very much like to hear your um...rationalization). I'm not sure why you should bring the term "lefty" into this discussion at all. Can you not read the meaning of the sentence you're referring to? What kind of rationalization is needed for a clear statementP:Nor do I doubt that the benefit is considerable, and that every such development helps us to conserve oil supplies and find alternative ways to function without sacrifice. ? Do you disagree with that? You brought up the alternative source of energy from animal parts. I am stating that even if it doesn't solve all our problems, it helps. Is that a hard idea to parse? Can you not accept any statement at face value without turning it into some kind of political screed?

Tokie[/QUOTE]

[Solitaire]

Try $60....
I think in the current macro environment we are more likely to hit $60 than $100 again.


Congratulations! You're prediction almost matches the World Bank's prediction. (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8U2B6300.htm) :D


"Peak vs Deep Oil"


That was terrible. :eek:

Oil from decaying dinosaurs and prehistoric forests? If he had said that oil comes from decaying dinoflagellates, I could have given him partial credit. But then he said that the oil comes out from deep in the crust as the Earth spins. What now? "[T]hat oil is ... a biproduct of a continuing biochemical reaction below the earth's surface that is brought to attainable depths by the centrifugal forces of the earth's rotation." Okay, we're deep in crackpot territory. (Amazon Review) (http://www.amazon.com/Black-Gold-Stranglehold-Jerome-Corsi/dp/1581824890)

When plans and animals get buried under thick layers of rock they turn into coal. When small marine organisms, like phytoplankton and zooplankton, get buried under thick layers of rock they produce oil. Methane gas gets released by this process along with other gasses which is why coal mines sometimes explode and oil wells need flaring.

All the coal, methane, and oil on planet Earth comes from organic sources relatively near the surface. Very deep down no organic material exists. Oxygen constitutes 46.6% of the weight of the Earth and most of the mantle deep down. If any organic material came into contact with this oxygen deep down then it will literally burn. So it cannot be the source of the world oil.

That's not to say that oil cannot exist deep down in subduction zones where one plate goes under another, like the Pacific plate under the American plate in California. You might be able to drill diagonally tens of kilometers and find usefully amounts organic material. But the movement of the rocks will likely break up your well.

[Geek Goddess]

Yes, and letfies like you say we will be "out" of oil sometime soon...how can that be when we can make it?

Tokie

Some of us 'righties' say it, also.

You claim that 'quad' is inside knowledge of which you are not aware, and then still claim to know enough to discuss this logically?

I've been in this business since May 1981. Maybe some day I will know as much as you.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Yes, and letfies like you say we will be "out" of oil sometime soon...how can that be when we can make it?

Tokie
I asked you this before and didn't see an answer.

The average American requires about 260 KWh of energy each day. About 100 KWh of that comes from petroleum. The food a typical person eats in a day contains about 2-3 KWh of energy. So how much oil do you think we'll be able to make from animals or other farm products?

Do you have this naive idea that we can solve our energy needs based on farm waste? If we go the biofuels route, food will the waste product of our energy industry, not vice versa.

[bruto]

So tokie claims that he's too incorrigibly ignorant to understand or even to look up the basic terminology, but he alone is right about everything else.

When I make a statement that essentially agrees with him, he contests it because his own blind prejudice against what he mistakenly believes others to be makes agreement impossible.

If I actually were a communist agent or leftist operative, I'd create a buffoon who can never admit an error, never see past his own misplaced prejudices, never back up a statement or find a link, and never understand why others consider him a fool. As it happens, I am neither a communist agent nor a leftist operative, but I need not bother to be: the mission is accomplished without my help. Tokie does so well at being his own worst enemy that he needs no others.

[Hindmost]

might as well get the word directly from the radical lefty...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lweCK8spBX8


glenn

[bruto]

I suppose it's almost taboo at this point, but I thought it might be interesting to get back to the subject of oil, and how much of it there is, and such issues.

I guess I'm wondering whether Jerome Da Gnome and others could stop the semantic parrying, and we could try to figure out what people are actually saying, which would make it a little easier to figure out who, if anyone at all, is actually making sense.

It seems reasonable, that since the entire universe is not made of oil, and since we could in theory if not in practice measure the amount of oil that is in and on the earth, or at the very least we can reasonably say that the oil on the earth is not greater in volume than the earth itself, that the oil reserves of this planet are finite in the sense of extension. Can we at least get past that?

So then we come to the question of whether the supply is infinite in the sense of being inexhaustible over time. This can mean a few different things. It could mean that there is no possible way even to conceive of its being consumed, or that there is no possible way that we would ever actually consume it, or it could mean that there is little or no likelihood that this event will actually happen. Or perhaps it could mean something else that I have not thought about.

Assuming that this is what is being talked about, I'd be interested to hear from those involved whether the issue is a theoretical or a practical one.

Is it not possible even to imagine that we could use up the oil faster than it is generated? Is there some idea that oil can never, even in principle, be depleted no matter how fast we extract it (independent of existing technology or rate of demand)? This seems a hard position to maintain, but I'd be interested to hear opinions on that.

Or is it simply highly unlikely, or even impossible that we will do so? This seems at least possible to support, though I have not seen really persuasive arguments for it. I can at least see the possibility that as extraction becomes more difficult, and more costly, alternatives might become sufficiently attractive, and conservation sufficiently popular, that the remaining oil reserves would never be entirely depleted. [(edited to add) I presume too that there is at least the possibility that there will always be some oil we cannot find, though that by defnition means we cannot use it either.] But that is not quite the same as saying that oil reserves are not finite.

Would anybody care to step out of the semantic morass for a moment and define what is being talked about? It seems Tokenconservative finds common ground and shared understanding distasteful, but I have at least some hope that others could find a bit more willingness at least to be mutually understood.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Congratulations! You're prediction almost matches the World Bank's prediction. (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8U2B6300.htm) :D



That was terrible. :eek:

Oil from decaying dinosaurs and prehistoric forests? If he had said that oil comes from decaying dinoflagellates, I could have given him partial credit. But then he said that the oil comes out from deep in the crust as the Earth spins. What now? "[T]hat oil is ... a biproduct of a continuing biochemical reaction below the earth's surface that is brought to attainable depths by the centrifugal forces of the earth's rotation." Okay, we're deep in crackpot territory. (Amazon Review) (http://www.amazon.com/Black-Gold-Stranglehold-Jerome-Corsi/dp/1581824890)

When plans and animals get buried under thick layers of rock they turn into coal. When small marine organisms, like phytoplankton and zooplankton, get buried under thick layers of rock they produce oil. Methane gas gets released by this process along with other gasses which is why coal mines sometimes explode and oil wells need flaring.

All the coal, methane, and oil on planet Earth comes from organic sources relatively near the surface. Very deep down no organic material exists. Oxygen constitutes 46.6% of the weight of the Earth and most of the mantle deep down. If any organic material came into contact with this oxygen deep down then it will literally burn. So it cannot be the source of the world oil.

That's not to say that oil cannot exist deep down in subduction zones where one plate goes under another, like the Pacific plate under the American plate in California. You might be able to drill diagonally tens of kilometers and find usefully amounts organic material. But the movement of the rocks will likely break up your well.


The fact that the alternative postulation is likely incorrect does not mean that the original premise is correct.


Why are you positive that oil is derived from organic material?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Assuming that this is what is being talked about, I'd be interested to hear from those involved whether the issue is a theoretical or a practical one.



As I do not know the real origin of oil, I can not say if "we" will consume it at a rate which will leave us without. I do know that "we" tend to hold thoughts; such as oil being a by-product of organic material, until it is shown beyond all doubt to be false. I also do know that; as with Bennie Babies, fake shortages are used to create false demand. I do know that "necessity is the mother of invention" is not just a children's phase, it is evidenced by human history.

The sky is falling does not work when logic is applied unless the sky is really falling.

[Geek Goddess]

The fact that the alternative postulation is likely incorrect does not mean that the original premise is correct.


Why are you positive that oil is derived from organic material?

Its composition?

[bruto]

As I do not know the real origin of oil, I can not say if "we" will consume it at a rate which will leave us without. I do know that "we" tend to hold thoughts; such as oil being a by-product of organic material, until it is shown beyond all doubt to be false. I also do know that; as with Bennie Babies, fake shortages are used to create false demand. I do know that "necessity is the mother of invention" is not just a children's phase, it is evidenced by human history.

The sky is falling does not work when logic is applied unless the sky is really falling.So I guess that doesn't really seem to address my question. Are you saying that the origin of oil is so little known that we are wasting our time trying to figure out how much there is, and whether it will run out? Are you considering an alternative theory? I don't recall either asking about the sky falling or suggesting that it is. I'm trying to decouple this discussion, however briefly, from politics and ideology and alarmism or its opposite, to see if there's any point to the discussion at all. It seemed reasonable to start at the question of what we mean when we say that the supply of oil is finite or not. If necessity is the mother of invention, doesn't somebody have to figure out what is necessary? You stated earlier that if the premise of finite oil is in doubt, there could be no discussion. I would like to start there, and try to figure out what you, at least, mean by "finite" and why you think doubt of that premise makes further discussion impossible.

Right now, it seems as if the main thrust of your argument could be shortened to "I don't know what oil is so nobody should talk about it." That doesn't seem very productive.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Its composition?

Do you have evidence that oil can only be composed of previously organic material?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So I guess that doesn't really seem to address my question. Are you saying that the origin of oil is so little known that we are wasting our time trying to figure out how much there is, and whether it will run out? Are you considering an alternative theory? I don't recall either asking about the sky falling or suggesting that it is. I'm trying to decouple this discussion, however briefly, from politics and ideology and alarmism or its opposite, to see if there's any point to the discussion at all. It seemed reasonable to start at the question of what we mean when we say that the supply of oil is finite or not. If necessity is the mother of invention, doesn't somebody have to figure out what is necessary? You stated earlier that if the premise of finite oil is in doubt, there could be no discussion. I would like to start there, and try to figure out what you, at least, mean by "finite" and why you think doubt of that premise makes further discussion impossible.

Right now, it seems as if the main thrust of your argument could be shortened to "I don't know what oil is so nobody should talk about it." That doesn't seem very productive.

My point is that common thoughts about the origin of oil is used as alarmist propaganda.


I am happy to talk to you about this, but my premise stands. If you would like me to toss my premise and speak about the hypothetical I will.

Please, initiate the talk.

[Hindmost]

I suppose it's almost taboo at this point, but I thought it might be interesting to get back to the subject of oil, and how much of it there is, and such issues.

I guess I'm wondering whether Jerome Da Gnome and others could stop the semantic parrying, and we could try to figure out what people are actually saying, which would make it a little easier to figure out who, if anyone at all, is actually making sense.

It seems reasonable, that since the entire universe is not made of oil, and since we could in theory if not in practice measure the amount of oil that is in and on the earth, or at the very least we can reasonably say that the oil on the earth is not greater in volume than the earth itself, that the oil reserves of this planet are finite in the sense of extension. Can we at least get past that?

So then we come to the question of whether the supply is infinite in the sense of being inexhaustible over time. This can mean a few different things. It could mean that there is no possible way even to conceive of its being consumed, or that there is no possible way that we would ever actually consume it, or it could mean that there is little or no likelihood that this event will actually happen. Or perhaps it could mean something else that I have not thought about.

Assuming that this is what is being talked about, I'd be interested to hear from those involved whether the issue is a theoretical or a practical one.

Is it not possible even to imagine that we could use up the oil faster than it is generated? Is there some idea that oil can never, even in principle, be depleted no matter how fast we extract it (independent of existing technology or rate of demand)? This seems a hard position to maintain, but I'd be interested to hear opinions on that.

Or is it simply highly unlikely, or even impossible that we will do so? This seems at least possible to support, though I have not seen really persuasive arguments for it. I can at least see the possibility that as extraction becomes more difficult, and more costly, alternatives might become sufficiently attractive, and conservation sufficiently popular, that the remaining oil reserves would never be entirely depleted. [(edited to add) I presume too that there is at least the possibility that there will always be some oil we cannot find, though that by defnition means we cannot use it either.] But that is not quite the same as saying that oil reserves are not finite.

Would anybody care to step out of the semantic morass for a moment and define what is being talked about? It seems Tokenconservative finds common ground and shared understanding distasteful, but I have at least some hope that others could find a bit more willingness at least to be mutually understood.

Actually, it is nice to get back to the heart of the topic.

The point that I was trying to make was the fact that since oil is a finite resource, the price has to trend upward unless something replaces oil or large new discoveries are made.

Back in the 60s and 70s, a fair number of large oil discoveries were made...since that time, there have not been any major discoveries. Recent "big" discoveries have been in the 8 to 10 billion barrel range. The world consumes about 30 billion barrels/year and discoveries have lagged far behind that value. We are essentially using about two times what we find right now.

To date, the world has consumed about 1000 billion barrels of oil. Proved reserves are about 1200 billion barrels. It is unlikely that more than about 200 billion more will be found. However, maybe there is something out there. The validity of proved reserves is suspect because all the of the OPEC countries revised their reserve estimates upward anywhere from 40 to about 200% back in the 80s. The amount they can pump daily is based on their reserves.

Being past peak means we will not be able to pump more than about 90 million barrels a day--it does not mean the world is going to run out soon. However, by 2050, the pumps will be supplying very little oil. The oil pressure in the wells just won't allow it. Example, in the US, there are about 500,000 wells and 400,000 produce only about 10 barrels a day or less due to low pressure. Enhanced recovery by injecting water or liquid carbon dioxide improves the amout of oil that can be extracted, but the total that can be extracted is about 25 to 50% of what is in a well. When a field is past its peak, the amount oil flowing always keeps going down. There is reasonable evidence that enhanced recovery accelerates that downside.

North Sea oil, discovered in the 70s has past its peak and is going down faster than expected. Alaska's prudhoe bay was pumping 2 million barrels/day at its peak in the 80s, but is now down to 800,000/day.

Geologists have refined Hubberts stuff and the data indicate that the peak is right about now. Even if it isn't and it is 10 or 20 years from now, that is just not that much time considering how much energy is really used on a daily basis.

Many were bullish about Russian oil reserves...however, there hasn't been a major discovery in Siberia for about 10 years and the caspian sea area reserves were overestimated at about 175 billion barrels...it is looking more like about 18 billion barrels now.

The world is comsumming 85 million barrels a day. If we are at peak, then the amount of oil pumping each day will decrease each year. The projected oil use of 120 million barrels/day appears to be difficult to achieve.

Right now, the US uses about 45 quads/year of energy from oil and about 100 quads/year from all sources--coal, nuclear, hydro etc. That will have to be gradually replaced and is the reason that I typically ask how many quads can come out of any technology when someone mentions something. Right now, corn based ethanol can replace less than one quad of energy for the US and takes a bunch of land and water to grow the corn.

The garbage about deep drilling well to 40,000 feet is woo. The deepest we can drill now is about 23,000 feet. In addition, the idea that the earth produces oil so we will never run out has no scientific validity. There isn't any evidence that it exists...however...I would like it to be true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Take a look at peakoil.com--that is Hubberts work amplified.

Possible ways to make up the difference is conservation. Switchgrass ethanol and coal gasification. Switchgrass gives an energy gain of about 500% output compared to input. However, there is no low cost enzyme that can convert the cellulose into sugar. It may be years before that is possible. With corn, the energy balance gain is very small--maybe 20%. And ethanol has problems with transportation. It can't be pumped through existing pipelines because it absorbs water and loses energy. So it must be trucked. This is why it is a non-starter and the 2005 energy bill in the US missed the point in this area.

Tar or oil sands are a bit of a dream as well. The official reserves are set at about 1000 billion barrels. However, anything below about 200 feet is not recoverable as it will use more energy than can be recovered from refining. The oil is difficult to extract from the sand (think about getting oil off the garage floor) and it doesn't have enough hydrogen to be refined. So it has to be soaked in naptha to bring it up to refining capability. A waste methane well could also be used to add the hydrogen IIRC.

Even at 100 dollars US per barrel, oil is a bargain. This indicates that alternate sources are still expensive. If they weren't, someone would be out there selling the stuff.

With 80% of the world energy use based on fossil fuels that are not replaceable, something has to happen. Replacing oil infrastructure over time with something else is going to take a bunch of money and engineering. I really wish it was moving faster.

glenn

[BenBurch]

Um, My Conservative Brethren?

If Markets are so damned efficient, and incapable of being wrong about the scarcity of a commodity, then why has oil risen from $58/bbl a year ago to $95/bbl now?

Seems to me the Invisible Hand is asleep at the switch if we have an inexhaustible supply of crude oil...

[Hindmost]

My point is that common thoughts about the origin of oil is used as alarmist propaganda.


I am happy to talk to you about this, but my premise stands. If you would like me to toss my premise and speak about the hypothetical I will.

Please, initiate the talk.

Can you please clear something up for me so that I might address this issue better.

Are you advocating that the biogenitic theory of oil production on the earth is not valid?

Are you advocating the the abiogenitc theory of oil production on the earth is valid?

glenn

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Actually, it is nice to get back to the heart of the topic.

The point that I was trying to make was the fact that since oil is a finite resource, the price has to trend upward unless something replaces oil or large new discoveries are made.

I think you missed the point.

I will read the rest and respond as if a hypothetical.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Um, My Conservative Brethren?

If Markets are so damned efficient, and incapable of being wrong about the scarcity of a commodity, then why has oil risen from $58/bbl a year ago to $95/bbl now?

Seems to me the Invisible Hand is asleep at the switch if we have an inexhaustible supply of crude oil...

Are you aware of the seen hand that manipulates the amount of dollars available to purchase oil?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Can you please clear something up for me so that I might address this issue better.

Are you advocating that the biogenitic theory of oil production on the earth is not valid?

Are you advocating the the abiogenitc theory of oil production on the earth is valid?

glenn


I am stating that the answer is unknown and as such efforts to act upon an unknown necessarily have unknown consequences.

[BenBurch]

Are you aware of the seen hand that manipulates the amount of dollars available to purchase oil?

Except it goes up in Euros and Yen too... :rolleyes:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Except it goes up in Euros and Yen too... :rolleyes:

The commodity is primarily traded in... ??? :boggled:

[Hindmost]

I am stating that the answer is unknown and as such efforts to act upon an unknown necessarily have unknown consequences.

Then there is nothing left to discuss. I cannot address unknowns and far reaching hypotheticals. If we assume the origin of oil in unknowable, then science is not available for analysis.

However, the consensus among the world experts is that the biogenetic theory of oil production is correct and that the abiogenetic theory has no validity.

glenn

[bruto]

One last attempt with Jerome here: whatever the genesis of oil, does it matter to the question of how much of it is available, and what is even meant by the term "finite?" You keep saying that the statement that oil resources are finite is only hypothetical. Can you explain then, in what way you would consider them not to be finite?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Then there is nothing left to discuss. I cannot address unknowns and far reaching hypotheticals. If we assume the origin of oil in unknowable, then science is not available for analysis.

However, the consensus among the world experts is that the biogenetic theory of oil production is correct and that the abiogenetic theory has no validity.

glenn

Flat world argument?

[BenBurch]

The commodity is primarily traded in... ??? :boggled:

Specie is the very definition a fungible commodity.

[Prometheus]

For some reason, monstershouters always forget that we can now make Texas light crude from waste animal parts.

Price p bbl about 2 yrs ago: $80.

I wonder why nobody ever mentions this, and when I do it is studiously ignored?

Tokie

Soylent Black coming soon to a war zone near you!

[JEROME DA GNOME]

One last attempt with Jerome here: whatever the genesis of oil, does it matter to the question of how much of it is available, and what is even meant by the term "finite?" You keep saying that the statement that oil resources are finite is only hypothetical. Can you explain then, in what way you would consider them not to be finite?

You seem to be asking an existential question. What is finite? How could this be answered under the restraint that you are establishing?

Do not allow the others to skew your perception of our conversation. You obviously have an active reasoned mind.


I doubt that there is not enough oil that is easily extracted to power this world for a multitude of human generations.

I doubt that if (or when) oil does become scarce that another source of even more efficient energy will be harnessed.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Soylent Black coming soon to a war zone near you!

:cool:

Someone is paying attention!

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Specie is the very definition a fungible commodity.

Your premise was concerning the value of the currency being traded against the commodity. Not the value of currency against other currency.

See below:

Except it goes up in Euros and Yen too...

Said in reference to oil.

[Gurdur]

Jerome da gnome, you are basing all your opinions on mere wishful thinking. Others prefer science.

Let us know when:

1) the price of oil drops owing to all that infinite oil out there that you pretend exists. Do explain why this hasn't yet happened.
2) abiogenetic oil is found and shown to be such.

[Gurdur]

If major war does break-out this is good news for Americans and the dollar. America is the safe place to place assets when there is turmoil.

Which explains why the American Civil War and the Vietnam War were so good for the US economy.

Oh, wait ............

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Which explains why the American Civil War and the Vietnam War were so good for the US economy.

Oh, wait ............

A civil war is a different beast. Now the Vietnam war worked out rather well.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome da gnome, you are basing all your opinions on mere wishful thinking. Others prefer science.

Let us know when:
:)

1) the price of oil drops owing to all that infinite oil out there that you pretend exists. Do explain why this hasn't yet happened.

Why in the world would the controllers of a market allow it to fall from their grasp?

2) abiogenetic oil is found and shown to be such.

I will. You let me know when biotic oil is established beyond the speculation stage.

[fishbob]

I prefer infromation from the USGS.

http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/programs/html/school/moviepage/03.01.01.html

11-1-05 -- "Peak vs Deep Oil" - Full Segment (7:39trt) You could start at the 3 minute mark.


Two points:

1 - Your USGS link says nothing at all about deep abiotic oil.

2 - A guy in California arguing with a guy in Texas about oil.
Guess which one is realistic and which one is a whacko.

3 - Abiotic oil is idiotic in the same way the 911 CTrs are.

[fishbob]

:)
You let me know when biotic oil is established beyond the speculation stage.

More than 20 years ago.
Way more.

In the mid 80s, I worked in the geochemistry division of Mobil's R&D Lab in Dallas. Coolest place to work ever - except for the downsizing and layoffs as financial types took over the business.

We looked at chromatography and related chemistry for 10s of thousands of oil samples and potential source rocks. They tend to match very well. You could bank on it (and they did) in Peru, North Slope, Gulf of Mexico, North Sea, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, China, and everywhere else that Mobil ever drilled.

If you want to stick with your anti-reality abiotic oil gullibility, I got some great deals on ear-candles. Call now for details.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Two points:

You are starting off poorly, you made three points. ;)

1 - Your USGS link says nothing at all about deep abiotic oil.

The depths are below what is considered possibly biotic. How do you explain the oil being at such depth?

2 - A guy in California arguing with a guy in Texas about oil.
Guess which one is realistic and which one is a whacko.

The location of the speaker is related to the validity of his speech?

I am beginning to think you are putting me on.

3 - Abiotic oil is idiotic in the same way the 911 CTrs are.

You are putting me on. :)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

More than 20 years ago.
Way more.

In the mid 80s, I worked in the geochemistry division of Mobil's R&D Lab in Dallas. Coolest place to work ever - except for the downsizing and layoffs as financial types took over the business.

We looked at chromatography and related chemistry for 10s of thousands of oil samples and potential source rocks. They tend to match very well. You could bank on it (and they did) in Peru, North Slope, Gulf of Mexico, North Sea, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, China, and everywhere else that Mobil ever drilled.

If you want to stick with your anti-reality abiotic oil gullibility, I got some great deals on ear-candles. Call now for details.


Nothing you have presented above evidences biotic oil. :confused:

[fishbob]

Not to you maybe.
Of course nothing you presented 'evidenced' abiotic oil either, yet you seem convinced.

Hmmmm.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Not to you maybe.
Of course nothing you presented 'evidenced' abiotic oil either, yet you seem convinced.

Hmmmm.

I have not stated that oil is either biotic or abiotic. I do not know which is correct. Science does not know which is correct. I have stated that if one is to act based on an unknown than one will have an unknown consequence.

[fishbob]

. . . . Science does not know which is correct. . . . . .
Mepps. Mepps. Unacceptable.

Science has a damn good idea which is correct.
Deal with it.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Mepps. Mepps. Unacceptable.

Science has a damn good idea which is correct.
Deal with it.

Scientific evidence that oil is biotic please.

[Matteo Martini]

Scientific evidence that oil is biotic please.

Jerome,
maybe I am competely wrong in understanding your point, but, do not you think oil is being consumed (by far) faster than it is produced by Nature?

[Matteo Martini]

Peak oil anyone?
http://peakoil.blogspot.com/
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

[Hindmost]

Flat world argument?

I don't understand the flat world statement?:confused:

You are presenting an arguement from personal incredulity. Since you don't accept biogenetic oil is the answer despite its sound theory, then the answer is unknown to everyone and unknowable.

This pushes the discussion into the woo/magical/creation range. Science cannot be applied properly when all you have to do is say, "you don't know that" to every scientific arguement presented about the origin of oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum

glenn

[Geek Goddess]

Jerome sounds to me like the creationist who argues that if science can not explain something to his level of understanding, evolution is untrue. Many of those creationists have no background in geology, biology, chemistry, or any other related field. You can pile books, research, and references ten feet deep on their doorstep, but if they can't understand the science or won't open the book, you're wasting your breath.

I suspect, from his writings, that he has no knowledge of organic chemistry. There is no point trying to explain to him the technical information, because he believes in special creation.

[bruto]

You seem to be asking an existential question. What is finite? How could this be answered under the restraint that you are establishing?

Do not allow the others to skew your perception of our conversation. You obviously have an active reasoned mind.


I doubt that there is not enough oil that is easily extracted to power this world for a multitude of human generations.

I doubt that if (or when) oil does become scarce that another source of even more efficient energy will be harnessed.

OK, I think I have a reasonable idea of where you're coming from, though I wonder if there's a negative missing from the last sentence.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome,
maybe I am competely wrong in understanding your point, but, do not you think oil is being consumed (by far) faster than it is produced by Nature?

I doubt it. The price is still way too low for this to be considered.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome sounds to me like the creationist who argues that if science can not explain something to his level of understanding, evolution is untrue. Many of those creationists have no background in geology, biology, chemistry, or any other related field. You can pile books, research, and references ten feet deep on their doorstep, but if they can't understand the science or won't open the book, you're wasting your breath.

I suspect, from his writings, that he has no knowledge of organic chemistry. There is no point trying to explain to him the technical information, because he believes in special creation.

What you have presented is "science says", without presenting what science says. This presents a lack of understanding and a reliance on faith that the common belief is correct. This sounds much more like Woo than admitting that science does not have enough evidence for either conclusion.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

OK, I think I have a reasonable idea of where you're coming from, though I wonder if there's a negative missing from the last sentence.

There is a negative missing. :o

[Geek Goddess]

What you have presented is "science says", without presenting what science says.
Hindmost presented many links. He, I, and several others have presented information and links to information. I read posts on this thread, and see that what 'science says' has been discussed repeatedly. You chose to ignore it, or you don't understand it.

This presents a lack of understanding and a reliance on faith that the common belief is correct. This sounds much more like Woo than admitting that science does not have enough evidence for either conclusion

HAHAHAHA. Don't even go there. Science has as much evidence for the origin of oil as it does for plate tectonics or the flipping of the magnetic poles. I've spent 35 years learning what science says, and 27 years using that science. I'm an engineer, which means I am an applied scientist. I have no lack of understanding. I rely on my evaluation of the evidence.

If the science I use is faulty, or someone's wishful thinking, or woo, or just plain incorrect, I would be dead right now. I rely on the proven science and technology, the best distilled wisdom of thousands of men and women much smarter than me to do my daily job. I put my life, and the life of hundreds of others, on the line. If the science is wrong, if *I* am wrong, things blow up.

Can you fill me in on your background vis a vis this topic? You throw terminology around, but no content. Are you educated in geology or chemistry, have you read treatises or had a great deal of independent study? If so, what are your references? Books or papers? Anything, so I know you have access to valid information that I can check out, and either agree with or refute. If I am wrong about something, I want to know the correct way.

I predict you will not answer. (Surprise me.) I notice that is typically the case when someone argues vehemently against a topic, but has no personal or specialized information himself. I was even immortalized in someone's you-tube rant when I suggested that a web designer barely out of high school might know a *bit* less information about chemical usage than I do. He called me names, but never did show any credentials for why his view was valid.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Hindmost presented many links. He, I, and several others have presented information and links to information. I read posts on this thread, and see that what 'science says' has been discussed repeatedly. You chose to ignore it, or you don't understand it.



HAHAHAHA. Don't even go there. Science has as much evidence for the origin of oil as it does for plate tectonics or the flipping of the magnetic poles. I've spent 35 years learning what science says, and 27 years using that science. I'm an engineer, which means I am an applied scientist. I have no lack of understanding. I rely on my evaluation of the evidence.

If the science I use is faulty, or someone's wishful thinking, or woo, or just plain incorrect, I would be dead right now. I rely on the proven science and technology, the best distilled wisdom of thousands of men and women much smarter than me to do my daily job. I put my life, and the life of hundreds of others, on the line. If the science is wrong, if *I* am wrong, things blow up.

Can you fill me in on your background vis a vis this topic? You throw terminology around, but no content. Are you educated in geology or chemistry, have you read treatises or had a great deal of independent study? If so, what are your references? Books or papers? Anything, so I know you have access to valid information that I can check out, and either agree with or refute. If I am wrong about something, I want to know the correct way.

I predict you will not answer. (Surprise me.) I notice that is typically the case when someone argues vehemently against a topic, but has no personal or specialized information himself. I was even immortalized in someone's you-tube rant when I suggested that a web designer barely out of high school might know a *bit* less information about chemical usage than I do. He called me names, but never did show any credentials for why his view was valid.


Ahh, the old badge display argument.

Do you have a badge that presents your expertise in this specific topic?

This is a silly game you are attempting to play. See, unless your badge is specific to this exact topic than your badge is irrelevant.

:boxedin:

[fishbob]

Scientific evidence that oil is biotic please.

Google up [alkanes alkenes biomarkers], sit back and read for a year or two.

You made the claim regarding abiotic oil.
Howzabout you provide some evidence?

Before you post anything, consider:
What do we have deep in the earth? Heat and pressure.
What does heat do to organic materials? Breaks them down.
What is methane? The most broken down hydrocarbon.
What natural process could convert methane to oil with heat and pressure? None of the abiotic claimants seem to have a clue.

[Gurdur]

Why in the world would the controllers of a market allow it to fall from their grasp?
Oh, it's a conspiracy theory now, is it? :D Giant green lizards inconveniently hiding the evidence for you?
A civil war is a different beast. Now the Vietnam war worked out rather well.
Really? Funny. The Vietnam War was rather bad for USA govt finances, etc., and when you start wishing wars on others just so you think you can make a profit, you've got no morality left at all, seeing as to just how you've got no facts either, and instead all you have is weird conspiracy claims.

[fishbob]

There is no point trying to explain to him the technical information, because he believes in special creation.
Too late - I tried before I read your advice.

[Earthborn]

Do you have a badge that presents your expertise in this specific topic?Yes, she does: (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74470)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1045445cd15a535bcc.jpg

[Geek Goddess]

Ahh, the old badge display argument.

Do you have a badge that presents your expertise in this specific topic?

This is a silly game you are attempting to play. See, unless your badge is specific to this exact topic than your badge is irrelevant.

:boxedin:

I do.

Show me yours.

ETA: Earthborn, cool! I forgot about that one!
ETA2: I didn't forget about the plant, I forgot about the thread.

[BenBurch]

If oil is abiotic, all wildcat drilling has shown that it ACTS as though it were biotic and from surface life;

- It is stored in geologic structures entraining ancient sediments
- It is found only in the presence of particular fossilized microbes, so much so that there is a field of industrial paleontology to serve that need
- It has the isotopic concentrations that indicate it to be a product of life.

HOWEVER, I am still willing to entertain the possibility that SOME oil comes from the "deep hot biosphere", just not enough of it to matter to our present Malthusian Crisis.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I do.

Show me yours.

ETA: Earthborn, cool! I forgot about that one!
ETA2: I didn't forget about the plant, I forgot about the thread.

What did you say you do for XTO Energy?

[fishbob]

What evidence did you provide for abiotic oil?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Live Science (http://www.livescience.com/environment/051011_oil_origins.html)

In the 1950's, however, a few Russian scientists began questioning this traditional view and proposed instead that petroleum could form naturally deep inside the Earth.

Abiogenic sources of oil have been found, but never in commercially profitable amounts. The controversy isn't over whether naturally forming oil reserves exist, said Larry Nation of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It's over how much they contribute to Earth's overall reserves and how much time and effort geologists should devote to seeking them out.

With the price increasing these finds may become commercially viable.



GEOTimes (http://www.geotimes.org/nov02/NN_oil.html)

While geologists agree that crude oil can come from inorganic means, the majority of commercially recovered petroleum, they say, is organic.

The price of oil will determine if the capital expense of recovering inorganic oil is worth the risk.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

There is no point trying to explain to him the technical information, because he believes in special creation.

Where have I stated that?

You would not just make something up so as to deflect from your inability to "explain the technical information"?... Would you?

[fishbob]

As evidence goes, what you posted is pitiful.

The Live Science has nothing.
The GEO Times has a bit - but also has this - last paragraph: “The potential that inorganic hydrocarbons, especially methane and a few other gases, might exist at enormous depth in the crust is an idea that could use a little more discussion. However, not from people who take theories to the point of absurdity,” he says. “This is an idea that needs to be looked into at some point as we start running out of energy. But no one who is objective discusses the issue at this time.”

[bruto]

Live Science (http://www.livescience.com/environment/051011_oil_origins.html)





With the price increasing these finds may become commercially viable.



GEOTimes (http://www.geotimes.org/nov02/NN_oil.html)



The price of oil will determine if the capital expense of recovering inorganic oil is worth the risk.Both of your statements here seem at least as speculative and unproven as any of those you are so vigorously arguing against.

[DannyJ]

It was on the news before that Bush is in Saudi Arabia to try and get the oil prices back down for the economy.

[Hindmost]

It was on the news before that Bush is in Saudi Arabia to try and get the oil prices back down for the economy.

The Saudi's can accommodate some increases in production, however, they may be a peak as well--or close to it. The Saudi's have typically indicated they will increase production when needed since the issues in the 70s. The question is how long can that be done.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E6DC113CF932A1575BC0A9639C8B 63

http://www.iags.org/n0331043.htm

glenn

[DannyJ]

Well the economy seems to be slipping so it might have to happen fast, although I don't think it will.

[Geek Goddess]

What did you say you do for XTO Energy?

Go fish. I know a couple of the VPs, though.

If you ever guess it correctly, I will tell you.

You would not just make something up so as to deflect from your inability to "explain the technical information"?... Would you?

Making stuff up would serve no purpose. I have no such inability.

You, on the other hand, cannot answer direct questions.

[Matteo Martini]

Geek Goddess and Glenn (and anybody else, whoever wants to answer),
can I ask you a side question?
Is it possible and economically viable to extract oil from tar sands?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands

[Geek Goddess]

Geek Goddess and Glenn (and anybody else, whoever wants to answer),
can I ask you a side question?
Is it possible and economically viable to extract oil from tar sands?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands

I don't have any personal experience with tar or oil sands, so I'm not a good person to speak about capital investments or operating costs associated with these fields. I've been to a few technical presentations, but no hands-on work.

It is technically possible. Whether or not it is economic depends on the capex and opex, the value of the product on the market, and what infrastructure exists, or has to be built, to extract, transport, and refine the product.

[Matteo Martini]

I don't have any personal experience with tar or oil sands, so I'm not a good person to speak about capital investments or operating costs associated with these fields. I've been to a few technical presentations, but no hands-on work.

It is technically possible. Whether or not it is economic depends on the capex and opex, the value of the product on the market, and what infrastructure exists, or has to be built, to extract, transport, and refine the product.

So, if it is technically possible, what is this "peak oil" all about, since there are 1.4T barrels of oil there, and the world consumes "only" 24B barrels per year?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Peak oil doesn't mean when we run out, it means when production peaks and that happens before we "run out".

But the numbers you cite are only 50 or so more years of oil. Less if you factor in growth. And some of that "oil" is expected to require more energy to extract than it contains.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Go fish. I know a couple of the VPs, though.

If you ever guess it correctly, I will tell you.

You are the one that presented the badge argument, and now you are declining to present your badge?
:confused:

Making stuff up would serve no purpose. I have no such inability.

You, on the other hand, cannot answer direct questions.

Neither have you. ;)


Ohh; and by the way, I have several VPs working for me, not the other way around. As if this matters, but you did bring it up.

[Matteo Martini]

Peak oil doesn't mean when we run out, it means when production peaks and that happens before we "run out".


Yes, I forgot that point, you are right
If there are 1.4T barrels still untapped and fully recoverable, and we consume 24B per year at current levels, why should we peak at all in the near future?


But the numbers you cite are only 50 or so more years of oil.

Well, many scientist claim that "peak oil" would happen in the next few years (or, it is happening now)


Less if you factor in growth. And some of that "oil" is expected to require more energy to extract than it contains.

I thought the 1.4T barrels were the estimate of (economically) recoverable oil
Alberta Government calculates that about 28 billion cubic metres (174 billion barrels) of crude bitumen are economically recoverable from the three Alberta oil sands areas at current prices using current technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Oil_Sands#Estimated_oil_reserves

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Both of your statements here seem at least as speculative and unproven as any of those you are so vigorously arguing against.

My statements which you quoted are sound according to economic theory.

[Matteo Martini]

Yes, I forgot that point, you are right
If there are 1.4T barrels still untapped and fully recoverable, and we consume 24B per year at current levels, why should we peak at all in the near future?


I reply to myself.
As you can not exctract 80 million barrels per day from the Alberta Oil Sands, the rate of production projected by 2015 is 3 million barrels per day.
OK, I should really think more before commenting here

[bruto]

My statements which you quoted are sound according to economic theory.Quite possibly. But you continually call for a higher standard of substantiation than that from others, do you not?

[RecoveringYuppy]

I thought the 1.4T barrels were the estimate of (economically) recoverable oil
You could be right.

[Geek Goddess]

You are the one that presented the badge argument, and now you are declining to present your badge?
:confused: Don't give me that, you thought you were being clever and trying to guess who I work for. I don't do anything for XTO, and never have. I know a couple executives at that company. Since I've been doing this work for 27 years, and serve on some industry committees, it would be weird if I did NOT have acquaintances and friends at most of the other energy companies. It's a rather small world, with not near as many people working in it as you might think. And we tend to be concentrated in relatively few cities. If you will look at XTO's list of Senior VPs (on their web site), I went to college with two, and worked at another company with four of them. I am familiar with the company, their areas of operation, own a bit of their stock, and have been in their offices in downtown Fort Worth.

Of course, that might be another 'badge' showing that I am very familiar with the business. There is also someone on the forum that worked with me at one time. I know his badge, I looked it up on our corporate email system.



Neither have you. ;) I have told you what I do, my education, my background, and another person linked to a thread discussing a project I managed a while back. I haven't published any technical papers in several years, so I have no links to anything I have written.


Ohh; and by the way, I have several VPs working for me, not the other way around. As if this matters, but you did bring it up.
??? I didn't ask the titles of people working for you. Business cards are quite easy to print. I asked about your expertise, knowledge, or research about the topic of this thread. I asked what YOU do, what YOU know.

[fishbob]

GG:

There is no point trying to explain to him the technical information . . .

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Quite possibly. But you continually call for a higher standard of substantiation than that from others, do you not?

Well, that is human nature is it not?

[Geek Goddess]

GG:


Thank you :D

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Of course, that might be another 'badge' showing that I am very familiar with the business. There is also someone on the forum that worked with me at one time. I know his badge, I looked it up on our corporate email system.


You were attempting to create parameters for the talk which established that your opinion carried greater authority than the other posters.

Please present the validation of this authority.



Keep in mind this analogy: A person who can build a building does not need expert knowledge of how the earth created the base building materials.

[Prometheus]

Jerome, I like your new custom title! One question: If we take away your helmet, will you stop? :cool:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome, I like your new custom title! One question: If we take away your helmet, will you stop? :cool:

The above literally made me laugh out loud.

Thanks!

:D :D :D

[Geek Goddess]

You were attempting to create parameters for the talk which established that your opinion carried greater authority than the other posters.

Please present the validation of this authority.



Keep in mind this analogy: A person who can build a building does not need expert knowledge of how the earth created the base building materials.

:bwall

[Hindmost]

Geek Goddess and Glenn (and anybody else, whoever wants to answer),
can I ask you a side question?
Is it possible and economically viable to extract oil from tar sands?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands

I don't have direct experience with this, however, I have read a fair amount on this topic. Oil/tar sands are profitable...but...

It is much more difficult to mine oil than to drill for it. Stripping the oil from the sand is difficult and requires a nasty chemical stuff that produces alot of waste. The oil produced is not refinable so it must be soaked with naptha to increase the hydrogen content and make the oil less viscous. A waste methane well can be used for this too.

The sands must be able to be strip-mined to be economical...too deep and then it takes more money and energy to mine the oil than the processing would get back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands#Extraction_process

Suncor co. converts tar sands to refinable oil. Their production capacity is limited and the capital cost of building enough capacity is enourmous. Now they only produce 350,000 barrels per day--when compared with how much oil is used...well, it is just not enough.

It takes 2 tons of oil sands to make one barrel of oil.

http://www.suncor.com/default.aspx?ID=54

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/22/MNG46CMUPL60.DTL


by the way...when I was back in college quite a few years ago...the estimated world oil reserves were about 600 billion barrels. And the estimated oil shale was considered equal to that in the western US...now, if you can find a method to extract that and gain energy reasonably, then you might have something. The world reserves are quite large.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale

there is energy out there...it is the transition from cheap easy oil to alternatives that will be too interesting.

glenn

[Matteo Martini]

I don't have direct experience with this, however, I have read a fair amount on this topic. Oil/tar sands are profitable...but...
[..]

So, what do you think it will happen when the conventional reserves of oil will peak?
Since tar sands reserves are problematic, ethanol is not an option so far, solar is not an option for transportation, nuclear fusion is at least 45 years away, and the number of people in the world who want and will get a car is increasing dramatically..
..what will happen?

[Prometheus]

So, what do you think it will happen when the conventional reserves of oil will peak?
Since tar sands reserves are problematic, ethanol is not an option so far, solar is not an option for transportation, nuclear fusion is at least 45 years away, and the number of people in the world who want and will get a car is increasing dramatically..
..what will happen?

Efficiency/technology will improve; those who lack the money to purchase the new technology will fight.

[Matteo Martini]

Efficiency/technology will improve; those who lack the money to purchase the new technology will fight.

How can you be so sure technology will improve, as experts themselves do not know how?

[Prometheus]

The above literally made me laugh out loud.

Thanks!

:D :D :D

:th:

[Matteo Martini]

Just read here, PV-solar systems will be available soon at USD2 per watt.
If you spend USD20000, you will have a 10KW system available.
http://weblog.infoworld.com/sustainableit/archives/2007/12/solar_google_gr.html

This system will take only two hours to fill the battery of a Chevy Volt.
http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive/2007/01/10-chevrolet-volt-concept/

[Hindmost]

So, what do you think it will happen when the conventional reserves of oil will peak?
Since tar sands reserves are problematic, ethanol is not an option so far, solar is not an option for transportation, nuclear fusion is at least 45 years away, and the number of people in the world who want and will get a car is increasing dramatically..
..what will happen?

Touched on this before....I really can't tell.

However, all alternative energies will be more costly than oil. If they weren't more exensive, they would be used today. $100 per barrel oil is still relatively cheap. The difficult part will be the transition from oil to the next technologies which will be a combination of items. All have issues

oil sand: difficult to refine. high capital cost. 2 tons of sands/barrel

switchgrass ethanol: doesn't exist yet. No infrastruction to produce enough ethanol. Water and weather dependent.

biodiesel: a dream...can't make enough with it unless something new comes along.

oil shale: lots of oil, but no economic method to extract the oil. no infrastructure. Approximately one ton of shale per barrel of oil.

Solar: Great but expensive and the sun doesn't always shine. Need new DC transmission system if large scale applications used.

Wind: Great, but expensive capacity factors are low and the wind typically doesn't blow as much when needed in summer. Off shore facilities should be built immediately.

Nuclear fission: starting up again...take time to build plants and lots of engineering and craft talent and huge infrastructure of companies to build components...can't take over for coal and electricity production will probably remain flat overall in the next 30 years.

Nuclear fusion: It is always about 25 years away...may never be feasible.

This is a link to a powerpoint that shows the energy situation in the US and where the energy comes from..the powerpoint can be downloaded.

Very few people even know the extent of oil refineries and piping systems in the US. It is a huge infrastructure see slide 55 on the ppt.

http://www.sc-2.psc.edu/news/GerstGibbon.html

A combination of all alternatives will be needed in my opine. Depending on how smooth the transition is will determine what happens--can all the plants and new sources be harness before oil becomes scarce. If not, I think there will be famines as a minimum. The effect on the transportation industry will be great. Example: I doubt people will be flying everywhere when oil will be needed for food production. How and when that type of effect will ripple through the world's economy is difficult to tell. With 8-9 billion people projected to be on the planet by 2050, that is a lot of energy to come up with.

glenn

[Matteo Martini]

Solar: Great but expensive and the sun doesn't always shine. Need new DC transmission system if large scale applications used.


Just read in the net:
The NYT quotes Nansolar's founder and CEO Martin Roscheisen saying, "With a $1-per-watt panel, it is possible to build $2-per-watt systems."
http://weblog.infoworld.com/sustaina...google_gr.html

With an expense of USD20000, you can have a 10KW system, which can power your electric car
http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive...-volt-concept/

[Solitaire]

The fact that the alternative postulation is likely incorrect does not mean that the original premise is correct.


One might propose a third option that space aliens created the world's oil. It sounds crazy. But the space alien option explains the origin of oil just as good as abiogenic oil and it has just about as much evidence backing it up. Look at all the UFO reports in the twentieth century. ;)


Why are you positive that oil is derived from organic material?


I know marine organisms die and pile up on sea beds and I can find the organisms and their remains. I know that the surrounding geology erodes and covers the dead organisms and I can find these deposits without much difficulty. From science I know that geological processes eventually push these deposits down deep enough where they turn into oil and I can find the intermediate stages by drilling into sediments and rocks. Further more, I can take samples at any stage and in the laboratory and apply the proper levels of heat and pressure to produce oil. But I do not need to do all that work because scientist have already done it.

Is there any point that has not been observed and tested?


I am stating that the answer is unknown and as such efforts to act upon an unknown necessarily have unknown consequences.


At times this discussion borders on philosophy questions like, "Is the world around me real?" or "Do I exist?"

I think you need at least take a few classes in chemistry, geology, mathematics, and physics. That way you'd get the knowledge, tools, and most importantly the hands on experience you need to answer the questions about the origin of oil.

[Prometheus]

How can you be so sure technology will improve, as experts themselves do not know how?

It's a best guess, based on the fact that I see new and better technology all around me on a daily basis. We already have technologies that allow for huge gains in efficiency, but they have not been economically distributed yet, and they are coming down in price all the time. When the cost of available energy outstrips the cost of distributing higher efficiency, that distribution will take place. Can you think of any reasonable basis for an argument that this will not happen?

[BenBurch]

In fact, we will NEVER "run out" of oil.

But when the extraction cost gets to $600/bbl, nobody will be recovering any except for feedstock for chemistry that cannot be done cheaply enough any other way.

And again, wildcatters have drilled in a lot of places that abiotic oil should have pooled and come up dry, so if there is ANY, there is very, very little.

Looking to abiotic oil to help us out of the Malthusian Crisis is like being in a huge stadium when all the lights fail, and saying, "The game can go on, because we have a flashlight!"

[Solitaire]

I just priced a barrel of oil in euros using a exchange rate factor, nothing bad happened.

Year | Dollars | Rate | Euros
1999 | 12.00 | 1.00 | 12.00
2000 | 28.00 | 0.85 | 33.00
2001 | 30.00 | 0.80 | 37.00
2002 | 20.00 | 0.75 | 26.00
2003 | 30.00 | 0.90 | 33.00
2004 | 32.00 | 1.10 | 29.00
2005 | 43.00 | 1.15 | 37.00
2006 | 60.00 | 1.00 | 60.00
2007 | 60.00 | 1.10 | 54.00
2008 | 92.00 | 1.25 | 73.00

In 1972 the MIT study Limits To Growth predicted that in 2003 oil would become scarce and prices would rise dramatically. As you can see, the prediction business is extremely difficult to pull off for long periods of time. That's why I stick to the short term.

Source One (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oil_Prices_Medium_Term.png)
Source Two
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Euro_exchange_rate_to_USD%2C_JPY%2C_and_GBP. png)

[fishbob]

Well, that is human nature is it not?

To cheat, to not play fair?

Some humans. Not the ones I normally associate with.

[Matteo Martini]

It's a best guess, based on the fact that I see new and better technology all around me on a daily basis. We already have technologies that allow for huge gains in efficiency, but they have not been economically distributed yet, and they are coming down in price all the time. When the cost of available energy outstrips the cost of distributing higher efficiency, that distribution will take place. Can you think of any reasonable basis for an argument that this will not happen?

Dunno how old are you, but I remember in the 80s, people were sure a trip to Mars was to be possible at the beginning of this century, at the latest.
If you look at "Where will we be in the next 100 years" predictions in the 1900s, they all predicted flying cars, ..
Human progress works in unexpected ways

[JEROME DA GNOME]

One might propose a third option that space aliens created the world's oil. It sounds crazy. But the space alien option explains the origin of oil just as good as abiogenic oil and it has just about as much evidence backing it up. Look at all the UFO reports in the twentieth century. ;)

Except that we do know that abiogenic oil does exist.


ETA: I think you need at least take a few classes in chemistry, geology, mathematics, and physics. That way you'd get the knowledge, tools, and most importantly the hands on experience you need to answer the questions about the origin of oil.

[Prometheus]

Dunno how old are you, but I remember in the 80s, people were sure a trip to Mars was to be possible at the beginning of this century, at the latest.
If you look at "Where will we be in the next 100 years" predictions in the 1900s, they all predicted flying cars, ..
Human progress works in unexpected ways

Name any technology that hasn't either been replaced with something better, or gotten more efficient in its own right, since its inception.

I also remember in the 80's the thought that people might one day, 200 years in the future, be carrying around miniature personal "communicators" was sci-fi enough to get the whole audience laughing out loud during Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

And, I'm not even remotely suggesting anything so off the wall as flying cars.

[Earthborn]

Except that we do know that abiogenic oil does exist.Wikipedia (which I consider a more credible source than that article you cited) says that we don't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin) know of any abiotic oil. There is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds) formed abiogenically within the crust, which is the essential prediction of the abiogenic petroleum theory.

Here (http://www.energybulletin.net/2423.html) is another interesting article on this issue.

[Matteo Martini]

Name any technology that hasn't either been replaced with something better, or gotten more efficient in its own right, since its inception.

I also remember in the 80's the thought that people might one day, 200 years in the future, be carrying around miniature personal "communicators" was sci-fi enough to get the whole audience laughing out loud during Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

And, I'm not even remotely suggesting anything so off the wall as flying cars.

Yes.
But the point is that the world consumes 80 million barrels of oil per day, and the demand will maybe rise in the near future.
According to many, oil has peaked, or will peak soon.
How can you know that a viable alternative will be able to replace oil (partially) soon enough?

[fishbob]

Except that we do know that abiogenic oil does exist.


ETA: I think you need at least take a few classes in chemistry, geology, mathematics, and physics. That way you'd get the knowledge, tools, and most importantly the hands on experience you need to answer the questions about the origin of oil.

Nobody could be so completely hypocritical without spraining a bunch of brain cells. I sincerely hope you are just putting us on.

Please read Earthborn's linked article before you hurt yourself.

[Hindmost]

Name any technology that hasn't either been replaced with something better, or gotten more efficient in its own right, since its inception.

I also remember in the 80's the thought that people might one day, 200 years in the future, be carrying around miniature personal "communicators" was sci-fi enough to get the whole audience laughing out loud during Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

And, I'm not even remotely suggesting anything so off the wall as flying cars.

In general, electricity production hasn't changed in a long time. The efficiency of the plants has remained the same for decades--limited by the thermodynamic cycle. Pumps, valves and turbines don't change much. Mature technologies only make incremental changes.

Unfortunately, rocket propulsion hasn't made too many advances either.

glenn

[Prometheus]

Yes.
But the point is that the world consumes 80 million barrels of oil per day, and the demand will maybe rise in the near future.
According to many, oil has peaked, or will peak soon.
How can you know that a viable alternative will be able to replace oil (partially) soon enough?

You're arguing against something that I never said. I never suggested that some sort of magical tech would come along and make everything alright before we have serious problems. I said that as energy becomes more scarce, efficiency would improve and those who can't afford it would fight. I said nothing at all about finding a viable alternative to oil.

[Prometheus]

In general, electricity production hasn't changed in a long time. The efficiency of the plants has remained the same for decades--limited by the thermodynamic cycle. Pumps, valves and turbines don't change much. Mature technologies only make incremental changes.

Unfortunately, rocket propulsion hasn't made too many advances either.

glenn

From the time electricity production was first introduced, quite a few changes have been made. Turbines are a lot more efficient now (they lose a lot less waste heat). Also photoelectric cells and fuel cells are newer technologies that are beginning to become commercially viable.

I know next to nothing about rocket propulsion, but I'd be very suprised if there have truly not been any significant advances in that field as well.

Besides, as I've already pointed out, we already have
technologies that greatly improve efficiency, that will become economically viable soon: LED lighting uses a fraction of what ordinary lights use. It's expensive, and has other problems as well, but they're getting better almost daily. Aerogel insulation is quickly coming down in price. It's already possible to build a passive solar home that requires no heating system for only about 50% more than an ordinary home, and again, prices are coming down.

A big part of the reason why energy demand is increasing is because there hasn't been enough financial incentive to seek the efficiency that's already possible. That's changing rapidly.

I'm not trying to say we don't have any problems. We have big ones. But we're not going to run out of energy. We will very likely have a period of increased war and political turmoil as things change, but it won't be the end of the world.

[fishbob]

I can't quite figure out whether that is an optimistic or pessimistic position, but I pretty much agree with it.

[bruto]

Name any technology that hasn't either been replaced with something better, or gotten more efficient in its own right, since its inception.

The roller chain on my bicycle.:)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The roller chain on my bicycle.:)

The functionality of the "roller chain" has not improved?

I doubt you would use choose a 100 year old design over a current design.

[BenBurch]

I might stipulate that a few boreholes have come up with possibly abiotic oil. But the quantity is so very minor that ocean floor methane hydrates are a better target by thousands of times over.

[Prometheus]

The roller chain on my bicycle.:)

Try one of these:

ETA: http://www.rohloff.de/en/technical/slt_99/patent/index.html