NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid={429FAAA5-FA4B-4F24-A765-67A3157A500B}&siteid=nbk

Some interesting pulls...

Risks and potential risks to oil supplies are always key. "Even with a bit of a [crude] supply glut at present, we're one or two major supply shocks away from seeing triple digits and that's a scary thought because there just isn't any substitute to oil in the global economy," said Neal Ryan, a manager and market analyst for Ryan Oil & Gas Partners in New Orleans.

"More than any other reason, the oil market is trading inversely to the record supply figures ... because the rationale is beginning to sink in that the easy, cheap oil has been found and tapped out," he said.

...

Also, some "influential reports" suggest that the demand and supply balance will continue to tighten, said Fischer, pointing out that the IEA expects world oil demand to rise 1.8% this year and 2.5% next year.

And "it doesn't take too much data crunching to understand that the production curve in some of the largest fields in the world is past peak levels and are dropping precipitously," said Ryan

...

It's the "realization that the cheap oil era is over that has prices on tear, followed up by the fact that alternative fuel sources just aren't showing up on the scene to fill that void in an economically feasibly scenario," said Ryan.
Then there's the theory of peak oil -- the notion that any finite resources will have a beginning, middle and end of production, according to PeakOil.com.

"The theory of peak oil is no longer just theory," said Kevin Kerr, editor of Global Resources Trader, a newsletter of MarketWatch, the publisher of this report.

"As the market knows, key fields are disappearing," he said. He points to Mexico's Cantarell oil field as an example.

It's good to time things politically. Imagine what would happen to certain political parties if they were in power at the time the oil crash happened.

They would be lucky to stay alive, much less get re-elected, or remain a viable party.

It's good to time things politically. Imagine what would happen to certain political parties if they were in power at the time the oil crash happened.

They would be lucky to stay alive, much less get re-elected, or remain a viable party.

Wow. What a hypothetical situation.

That could apply anywhere.

Wow. What a hypothetical situation.

That could apply anywhere.

Remember 1929?

How long did it take Republicans to recover?

If I were a Republican strategist, I would suggest throwing every election so they LOSE even bigger than they might otherwise do.

Then, the oil crash.

After that, the Democratic Party would either have to declare a police state to stay in power, or cease to exist as a political entity.

It's good to time things politically. Imagine what would happen to certain political parties if they were in power at the time the oil crash happened.

They would be lucky to stay alive, much less get re-elected, or remain a viable party.

Are you suggesting that the entire world is in on a conspiracy to fake an oil shortage that they can then blame on the Republicans? That's probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Remember 1929?

How long did it take Republicans to recover?

20 years and one autocrat.

If I were a Republican strategist, I would suggest throwing every election so they LOSE even bigger than they might otherwise do.

Confronted with a problem, you would cut and run.

Then, the oil crash.

After that, the Democratic Party would either have to declare a police state to stay in power, or cease to exist as a political entity.

Like the Republicans in 1929?

Are you suggesting that the entire world is in on a conspiracy to fake an oil shortage that they can then blame on the Republicans? That's probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

No, I'm saying that since this is real, and what's coming will be B.A.D., Republicans should take advantage of it.

Figure that they'll do worse in the next election cycle anyways...

Give the Democrats a full majority in both houses, and let them take the blame.

No, I'm saying that since this is real, and what's coming will be B.A.D., Republicans should take advantage of it.

Figure that they'll do worse in the next election cycle anyways...

Give the Democrats a full majority in both houses, and let them take the blame.

It's not waiting until the next presidency. It's coming while Bush is still in office. He will take the blame, as he should, for ignoring the gathering clouds during his tenure and basically just being too incompetent to do anything about it. The next president will have the opportunity to speak honestly to the American people and to put our country back on a war footing like we were on during WWII to help mitigate these problems. If the next president, Republican or Democrat, does not do something to rally our country around solving this delimna, then I fear you won't give a shit what party comes along next.

It's not waiting until the next presidency. It's coming while Bush is still in office. He will take the blame, as he should, for ignoring the gathering clouds during his tenure and basically just being too incompetent to do anything about it.

He's hardly the only one to blame. We've squandered 20 years of cheap oil and have made almost zero improvement during that time regardless of the party in power (which just goes to further show how little difference there is between the two). Fuel economy at the end of the 1990's was significantly worse than it was a decade earlier...the level of complacency was shameful even though the warning signs had been on the wall for decades.

He's hardly the only one to blame. We've squandered 20 years of cheap oil and have made almost zero improvement during that time. Fuel economy at the end of the 1990's was significantly worse than it was a decade earlier...the level of complacency was shameful even though the warning signs had been on the wall for decades.

We're going to pay for it, and heavily. It's only a question of when, now.

That bridge collapse? In a couple months no one will ever remember it occurred, because they'll be too busy worrying about how to pay for gasoline. :(

He's hardly the only one to blame. We've squandered 20 years of cheap oil and have made almost zero improvement during that time. Fuel economy at the end of the 1990's was significantly worse than it was a decade earlier...the level of complacency was shameful even though the warning signs had been on the wall for decades.

I understand that, but an oil shortage was not staring us in teh face in 1991 or even 1998. The signs of an impending oil shortage have been there to see for at least the last three years, though and Bush did nothing. In fact, he still hasn't done anything and it's on our doorstep now.

So Dan, can you give us some predictions for what will happen over the next six months or so?

So Dan, can you give us some predictions for what will happen over the next six months or so?

No. Over the next few years the oil markets will continue to tighten until they can no longer support the way we live in North America and Europe and they way they are trying to live in China and India. How we react - wether we fight over what is left or cooperate to figure out how to change our lives and adapt to new realities, is up in the air. Short term predictions are difficult. Someone said, "predictions are dangerous - especially when it comes to the future."


Or something like that...

I'm afraid the idea of substituting coal for oil will just be too tempting for countries looking to support their demand for energy, namely the US

Complete ecological collapse, here we come. Maybe, just maybe, we'll have enough foresight to realize that if we turn to coal, we'll destroy the planet faster than we are now. Though I doubt it.

I'm afraid the idea of substituting coal for oil will just be too tempting for countries looking to support their demand for energy, namely the US

Complete ecological collapse, here we come. Maybe, just maybe, we'll have enough foresight to realize that if we turn to coal, we'll destroy the planet faster than we are now. Though I doubt it.

They already are planning to sub coal for oil. Flowserve, a company that builds pipelines for oil companies, just won a lucrative contract in China to help build FT coal to liquids plants. We've several on the books here that are supposed to be waiting for carbon sequestration technology to mature, but when the oil crunch really bites in I've a feeling we'll abandon that wait. Also, the switch to plugin hybrid cars is another way to sub coal for oil. Natural gas is in decline in North America and no one wants an LNG plant near them so voters and civic action groups keep standing in the way of building them. That means that, even with nuclear power being back in chic, the real heavy lifting in regards to new electricty generation will probably be done by coal.

They already are planning to sub coal for oil. Flowserve, a company that builds pipelines for oil companies, just won a lucrative contract in China to help build FT coal to liquids plants. We've several on the books here that are supposed to be waiting for carbon sequestration technology to mature, but when the oil crunch really bites in I've a feeling we'll abandon that wait. Also, the switch to plugin hybrid cars is another way to sub coal for oil. Natural gas is in decline in North America and no one wants an LNG plant near them so voters and civic action groups keep standing in the way of building them. That means that, even with nuclear power being back in chic, the real heavy lifting in regards to new electricty generation will probably be done by coal.

Which means we're all completely screwed. Once we start belching coal smoke into the air, that'll be it. Coal is a worse greenhouse polluter than oil is, the ecosystem can't handle a switch.

Which means we're all completely screwed. Once we start belching coal smoke into the air, that'll be it. Coal is a worse greenhouse polluter than oil is, the ecosystem can't handle a switch.

I'm not so sure. The net energy we use will decline. We simply won't be able to produce coal to liquids as quickly as we pump oil so it will force conservation anyways. My guess, and this is just a guess, is that we will just use less. I don't think we'll be able to ramp up ctl or gtl or biofules quickly enough to stall a decline in net liquid fuels availability and, thus, use so my feeling is that Peak Oil will have the positive side effect of reducing CO2 emmisions.

But, "predictions are dandgerous...

So Dan, can you give us some predictions for what will happen over the next six months or so?


I predict war, death, babies being born, more death, a country in africa gets renamed, a country in the middle east threatens Israel and the US, and uh gas prices go up by 75 cents at least. The end.

I predict war, death, babies being born, more death, a country in africa gets renamed, a country in the middle east threatens Israel and the US, and uh gas prices go up by 75 cents at least. The end.

I think you'll find they go up by a lot more than 75 cents. I think you'll also find chronic shortages. I think you'll also find that food prices will skyrocket.

I predict war, death, babies being born, more death, a country in africa gets renamed, a country in the middle east threatens Israel and the US, and uh gas prices go up by 75 cents at least. The end.

I think you'll find they go up by a lot more than 75 cents. I think you'll also find chronic shortages. I think you'll also find that prices for just about everything else also go up rather quickly.

I predict war, death, babies being born, more death, a country in africa gets renamed, a country in the middle east threatens Israel and the US, and uh gas prices go up by 75 cents at least. The end.

Which country in the Middle East threatens the US again? Iraq I suppose, with it's WMDs? Or was it Afghanistan. I know - it's whatever country in the Middle East our government decides it's time to bomb next. Bombed by the US = it was a threat to the US!

The obvious solution would be to invade various weak yet oil-rich Middle-Eastern nations (Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, the UAE, etc.) and forcibly seize their oil-production apparatuses; there may not be enough oil to power the entire world, but there's enough oil to power the US for some time to come. As long as we exert our current (although fleeting) military dominance, we can adequately satisfy the needs of our people while simultaneously plunging other countries into decline as lack of natural resources contracts their economies.

The obvious solution would be to invade various weak yet oil-rich Middle-Eastern nations (Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, the UAE, etc.) and forcibly seize their oil-production apparatuses; there may not be enough oil to power the entire world, but there's enough oil to power the US for some time to come. As long as we exert our current (although fleeting) military dominance, we can adequately satisfy the needs of our people while simultaneously plunging other countries into decline as lack of natural resources contracts their economies.

It would probably take more oil to do that than it would be worth.

It would probably take more oil to do that than it would be worth.

Not really, no. You vastly overestimate the amount of oil required for a military expeditions -- it pales in comparison to the oil consumption by everyday motorists in the US.

Not really, no. You vastly overestimate the amount of oil required for a military expeditions -- it pales in comparison to the oil consumption by everyday motorists in the US.

You're right. The 200,000,000 cars on the road every day in North America do use more oil than the military, but the military does use about 5 to 7 million barrels/day and that's before the invasion and occupation of much of the Middle east. All of OPEC together pumps about 29 million barrels/day and the countries you mention, with the exception of Kuwait, are small time producers within OPEC. You also fail to take into account the obvious reaction by the rest of OPEC which would probably be shutting of their taps completely in which case, to supply North America's need, you'd need to occupy enough foreign oil producing countries to pump somewhere in the neighborhood of 22 million barrles/day. That would mean pretty much all of the Middle East which, of course, would mean you'd need even more oil...

...but the military does use about 5 to 7 million barrels/day and that's before the invasion and occupation of much of the Middle east.

Source? According to mine, "the Defense Department is the largest single consumer of fuel in the United States, using approximately 1.8 percent of the country’s total transportation fuel." While that is substantial, it is nowhere near the amount you suggest.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2002/Mar/Pentagon_Needs.htm

In any case, I made a thread to deal with this issue in particular.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=534614

Apparently many politicians in the Arab states and Venezuela are actually itching for another oil embargo against the US.

As I've said countless times. If the effects of the impending oil shortages are in the bottom 70% of predictions, bullet straight to the head. I've got nothing to live for in a world like that.

As I've said countless times. If the effects of the impending oil shortages are in the bottom 70% of predictions, bullet straight to the head. I've got nothing to live for in a world like that.

...

So you'd just give up completely? Wow, that's pathetic.

...

So you'd just give up completely? Wow, that's pathetic.
I make no claims to the contrary.