NationStates Jolt Archive

Roscoe Bartlett and Tom Udall from the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus on the National Petroleum Council report. (http://www.eenews.net/tv/video_guide/650)

IEA Report from two weeks ago:

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Crude-oil supplies will be tighter in coming years, with a "supply crunch" after 2010 as OPEC's spare production capacity evaporates, the International Energy Agency predicted Monday.
Supplies will tighten because economic growth will drive up demand and offset significant increases in oil-refining capacity, the IEA said, according to media reports citing the agency's annual medium-term forecast.
The IEA, which monitors energy markets for the world's 26 most-advanced economies, doesn't forecast oil prices, but its conclusions imply consumers should expect continued upward pressure on energy costs, The Wall Street Journal reported in its online edition, See Wall Street Journal story (subscription required).
"Oil and gas price pressures look set to remain in the coming years," the IEA reported, according to the Journal. "Slower-than-expected (gross-domestic-product) growth may provide a breathing space, but it is abundantly clear that if the path of demand doesn't change on its own, it may well be driven to change by higher prices.".
The report comes as crude oil for August delivery settled Monday at $72.19 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. See futures movers
That price is close to the $77.03 nominal high reached nearly a year ago but still well below the inflation-adjusted highs reached 27 years ago, according to the Journal. Based on May consumer-price data in the U.S., a barrel of crude fetched $101.26 in April 1980 when adjusted for inflation, according to the report.
According to the IEA report cited by the Journal:
Global oil demand is projected to expand 2.2% a year, on average, reaching 95.8 million barrels a day by 2012, up from 86.13 million barrels a day this year. The forecast is based on global economic growth of about 4.5% annually. Oil demand is expected to increase most rapidly in Asia and the Middle East.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which supplies more than 40% of the world's daily oil needs, will have little spare capacity left by 2012.
Increases from non-OPEC oil producers and biofuel producers should start flagging after 2009.
Natural-gas markets also will be tight because of inadequate supply increases, limiting the ability of consumers to switch between oil and natural gas.
Should GDP growth slow an annual 3.2% in the years to 2012, the need for OPEC oil would be reduced by some 2 million barrels a day, but that would merely postpone by a year the point at which demand surpasses the growth in global oil capacity, according to the report.
The IEA pegged total growth in non-OPEC supply at 2.6 million barrels a day by 2012, to 52.56 million barrels a day from 49.98 million barrels a day in 2007 about half the rate of projected growth in demand, according to the report.
The IEA also said OPEC's spare capacity, the safety cushion in the world system, is expected to remain constrained until 2010, then shrink to minimal levels by 2012, when the exporters collectively will be able to pump only a paltry extra amount , the equivalent of 1.6% of world demand, according to the Journal.
The shrinking of OPEC's spare capacity in the past decade has made the oil market skittish about any development that could conceivably threaten supply, resulting in volatile markets and prices.

That doesn't surprise me one bit. World oil production has been at a plateau since 2005; even if it does start increasing again, the supply cushion has been evaporated over the past couple years and it's not coming back. Capacity would have to increase at a faster rate than demand in order to restore that cushion, and I seriously doubt it's even remotely possible.

Throw in all the refinery problems and our continued resistance to conservation, increased efficiency and real alternatives and things are going to be quite expensive for a long time. I wouldn't rule out $100 oil by 2009, if not earlier.

Throw in all the refinery problems and our continued resistance to conservation, increased efficiency and real alternatives and things are going to be quite expensive for a long time. I wouldn't rule out $100 oil by 2009, if not earlier.

I think you could see $100 by the end of the year possibly.

That doesn't surprise me one bit. World oil production has been at a plateau since 2005; even if it does start increasing again, the supply cushion has been evaporated over the past couple years and it's not coming back. Capacity would have to increase at a faster rate than demand in order to restore that cushion, and I seriously doubt it's even remotely possible.

Throw in all the refinery problems and our continued resistance to conservation, increased efficiency and real alternatives and things are going to be quite expensive for a long time. I wouldn't rule out $100 oil by 2009, if not earlier.

I wouldn't rule out $100 oil by September. One well placed hurricane. One well placed explosive. One well placed rig fire. One well placed comment by the right person, even, can trigger a bull run on oil.

The problem is no one understands the depth of this problem and they don't seem to want to until they get run over. This is going to hurt in ways people never thought possible.

At least we won't have to worry about gay marriage or flag burning or teh alternative minimum tax anymore.

I wouldn't rule out $100 oil by September. One well placed hurricane. One well placed explosive. One well placed rig fire. One well placed comment by the right person, even, can trigger a bull run on oil.

I would agree, but the fact that the hurricane season has been revised down decreases the chance of a serious disruption. However, it's not impossible, especially considering how serious the inventory situation is for gasoline.

The problem is no one understands the depth of this problem and they don't seem to want to until they get run over. This is going to hurt in ways people never thought possible.

People never do. I mean, just look at all the crises of human history; time and again, people ignore the problem and then it blows up in their faces leaving a trail of destruction that could take years to recover from. In the end, we're better off, but that still means years and years of economic suffering before we get there.

At least we won't have to worry about gay marriage or flag burning or teh alternative minimum tax anymore.

Society is most progressive when it's faced with adversity, so maybe we'll end up better off afterwards...if anything, maybe it will shut people up about those trivial issues for once in their lives.

I would agree, but the fact that the hurricane season has been revised down decreases the chance of a serious disruption. However, it's not impossible, especially considering how serious the inventory situation is for gasoline.My point wasn't that a hurricane could cause oil to reach $100, it was that just about anything can - hurricanes, bombs, a heated exchange between the US and Iran, the bull run is on a hair trigger.



People never do. I mean, just look at all the crises of human history; time and again, people ignore the problem and then it blows up in their faces leaving a trail of destruction that could take years to recover from. In the end, we're better off, but that still means years and years of economic suffering before we get there. Yeah. Probably lasting the rest of our lifetimes. The worst thing is that it didn't have to happen this way, but it is probably too late to do much about it. We're on the Titanic and we've got about 400 yards to go before we hit that ice berg. Too late to stear out of the way. Just gotta brace yourself and hope you can get to the lifeboats...



Society is most progressive when it's faced with adversity, so maybe we'll end up better off afterwards...if anything, maybe it will shut people up about those trivial issues for once in their lives.

I think people won't give a shit about anything else when the supermarket shelves empty.

My point wasn't that a hurricane could cause oil to reach $100, it was that just about anything can - hurricanes, bombs, a heated exchange between the US and Iran, the bull run is on a hair trigger.

Oh, of course. I just think hurricanes are the biggest potential catalyst for that kind of move.

Yeah. Probably lasting the rest of our lifetimes. The worst thing is that it didn't have to happen this way, but it is probably too late to do much about it. We're on the Titanic and we've got about 400 yards to go before we hit that ice berg. Too late to stear out of the way. Just gotta brace yourself and hope you can get to the lifeboats...

Of course, it would also help if we loaded the lifeboats to capacity in the first place...even if not everything can be saved, a lot of it can and the rest can be rebuilt. There's nothing more foolish than panicking.

We can overcome this if we want to work for it, but that might mean, God forbid, driving a much smaller hybrid car, paying more for things we want, conserving what we do use and producing more food locally. Maybe we'll even have to use canvas bags instead of plastic ones.

I think people won't give a shit about anything else when the supermarket shelves empty.

I don't know, look what happened in the Soviet Union and the rest of the Eastern Bloc. Hungry people are angry people.

I read an article about how organic farming can equal or exceed the productivity of conventional farming techniques even on a global scale. If we can combine that with a program to perennialize our food crops (as is being worked on in many places around the US), we would greatly reduce the need for fossil fuels and fossil-based fertilizers in agriculture.

All we might need are trucks to ship them, but that's nothing compared to the amount on the crops itself. And if people started growing more locally, we wouldn't even need that much infrastructure...all that suburban backyard grass crop should be put to good use.

Oh, of course. I just think hurricanes are the biggest potential catalyst for that kind of move.

nah...

Bomb at a Saudi oil facility or attack on Persian Gulf shipping. Hurricane's big, though, if it hits the right area of the gulf.



Of course, it would also help if we loaded the lifeboats to capacity in the first place...even if not everything can be saved, a lot of it can and the rest can be rebuilt. There's nothing more foolish than panicking.

We can overcome this if we want to work for it, but that might mean, God forbid, driving a much smaller hybrid car, paying more for things we want, conserving what we do use and producing more food locally. Maybe we'll even have to use canvas bags instead of plastic ones.



I don't know, look what happened in the Soviet Union and the rest of the Eastern Bloc. Hungry people are angry people.

I read an article about how organic farming can equal or exceed the productivity of conventional farming techniques even on a global scale. If we can combine that with a program to perennialize our food crops (as is being worked on in many places around the US), we would greatly reduce the need for fossil fuels and fossil-based fertilizers in agriculture.

All we might need are trucks to ship them, but that's nothing compared to the amount on the crops itself. And if people started growing more locally, we wouldn't even need that much infrastructure...all that suburban backyard grass crop should be put to good use.


tick
tock

tick
tock

tick
tock

tick
tock...

Yeah. Probably lasting the rest of our lifetimes. The worst thing is that it didn't have to happen this way, but it is probably too late to do much about it. We're on the Titanic and we've got about 400 yards to go before we hit that ice berg. Too late to stear out of the way. Just gotta brace yourself and hope you can get to the lifeboats...So what you're saying is that we need to ram the "iceberg" instead of trying to avoid it? It has been theorized that if the Titanic had hit the iceberg head on it would not have been as severely damaged and would have stayed afloat long enough for most of the passengers to escape. The bow would've gotten a mighty big dent in it, but that would've been better than the great gash in the side it got from trying to evade. If that theory works for this we just need to create a huge demand for oil and dry up the supplies faster than we're doing now. Who's with me?!:p





Anyone? :(

Ok, how about we adjust gas prices to match the ones in Denmark then? 6,8$ /gallon should reduce the demand for fossil fuels, though I doubt the americans would appreciate it, so funny to hear them complaining about the 'oh so expensive' gas. :p

So what you're saying is that we need to ram the "iceberg" instead of trying to avoid it? It has been theorized that if the Titanic had hit the iceberg head on it would not have been as severely damaged and would have stayed afloat long enough for most of the passengers to escape. The bow would've gotten a mighty big dent in it, but that would've been better than the great gash in the side it got from trying to evade. If that theory works for this we just need to create a huge demand for oil and dry up the supplies faster than we're doing now. Who's with me?!:p





Anyone? :(No.

Ok, how about we adjust gas prices to match the ones in Denmark then? 6,8$ /gallon should reduce the demand for fossil fuels, though I doubt the americans would appreciate it, so funny to hear them complaining about the 'oh so expensive' gas. :p

Most Americans are just blind to the importance of energy in our society. An example - I ride a motorcycle. My uncle drives a civic. We both drive just about exactly as far to work. The other day we were arguing about whether or not I'm stupid for riding a motorcycle because it is not as safe. The important part of the conversation was that I told him I could drive round trip to work four times on a single tank of gas. He countered by saying he could do the same thing. It didn't dawn on him until I pointed it out that he holds 15 gallons and I hold 4.7. The point is that if gasoline was anything other than a minor inconvenience he would have immediately caught on to the difference.