NationStates Jolt Archive

Oil might hit $200/barrel pretty soon.

I'm sure that peak oil nonsense is just left-winged scaremongering though! Just like global climate change. How long before reality starts to cut through the standard US right-wing "blargh, denial!" b.s?

Well with the oil thing - within two years, evidently:

From Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ayxRKcAZi630&refer=home#):

Goldman's Murti Says Oil `Likely' to Reach $150-$200 (Update5)

By Nesa Subrahmaniyan
Enlarge Image/Details

May 6 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil may rise to between $150 and $200 a barrel within two years as growth in supply fails to keep pace with increased demand from developing nations, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. analysts led by Arjun N. Murti said in a report.

New York-based Murti first wrote of a ``super spike'' in March 2005, when he said oil prices could range between $50 and $105 a barrel through 2009. The price of crude traded in New York averaged $56.71 in 2005, $66.23 in 2006 and $72.36 in 2007. Oil rose to an intraday record of $122.49 today on speculation demand will rise during the peak U.S. summer driving season.

``The possibility of $150-$200 per barrel seems increasingly likely over the next six-24 months, though predicting the ultimate peak in oil prices as well as the remaining duration of the upcycle remains a major uncertainty,'' the Goldman analysts wrote in the report dated May 5.

A report yesterday showed U.S. service industries expanded in April, signaling higher energy use. The Institute for Supply Management said its index of non-manufacturing businesses, which make up almost 90 percent of the economy, grew for the first time since December. China is increasing refining capacity and boosting imports to meet rising demand for the Olympic Games.

U.S. gasoline demand typically climbs going into the summer season when Americans take to the highways for vacations. The peak-consumption period lasts from the Memorial Day weekend in late May to Labor Day in early September. Monthly fuel sales were the highest during August in five of the last six years, according to data from the Department of Energy.

China Consumption

China, the world's fastest-growing major economy, has more than doubled oil use since New York crude oil dropped to this decade's low of $16.70 a barrel on Nov. 19, 2001. Record prices have failed to stem rising consumption in developing nations, with demand led by China, India and the Middle East.

Price forecasts for spot U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude oil for 2008 to 2011 were revised higher by Goldman. The 2008 price estimate was raised to $108 a barrel from $96, the 2009 forecast to $110 from $105, and 2010 to 2011 estimates are projected at $120 from $110, the analysts including Murti and Brian Singer said, citing slowing supply growth in Mexico and Russia, and low spare production capacity in OPEC.

Deutsche Bank AG Chief Energy Economist Adam Sieminski, who forecasts oil averaging $102.50 next year, today said Asian demand and limited extra supply will keep pushing oil to record levels. There's a ``huge risk'' that prices will rise to a level, perhaps $200, ``when demand finally collapses because ordinary people can no longer afford to burn as much energy as they are burning now,'' Sieminski said in an April 25 report.

Threats to Supply

Oil has also rallied amid a dispute between the U.S. and Iran regarding the Persian Gulf oil producer's plan to develop nuclear energy.

In Nigeria, Africa's biggest oil exporter, militants have attacked oil installations and kidnapped workers since the beginning of 2006, forcing Royal Dutch Shell Plc to halt output.

In Venezuela, production has slumped to about 2.34 million barrels a day from almost 3 million barrels a day in 2002, according to Bloomberg's estimates, before President Hugo Chavez fired almost 20,000 workers who had closed the state oil company in an attempt to overthrow the government.

Iraq's oil production has yet to reach levels attained before the U.S.-led invasion of 2003 as the country struggles with sectarian fighting and attacks on its energy infrastructure.

Mexico's production has fallen below 3 million barrels a day since October as Petroleos Mexicanos, the state-owned oil company, failed to compensate for a 30 percent drop at Cantarell, its largest field, which accounts for 40 percent of output.

OPEC Capacity

``There are supply constraints with many producers, especially from non-OPEC struggling to find new reserves and China and Middle East demand keeps growing,'' said Victor Shum, senior principal at energy consultant Purvin & Gertz Inc. in Singapore. ``The fundamentals are prompting investors to get into oil in a big way and all that points to higher prices.''

Spare production capacity of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is low and the group's exports may fall because of ``lackluster'' supply growth and rising domestic consumption in member countries, the Goldman analysts said.

``Non-OPEC supply is struggling to grow, with notable declines being seen in Mexico and Russia showing signs of rolling over following an extended period of rapid growth,'' said Goldman, the world's biggest securities firm by market value.

Prices are also poised to gain as major oil-exporting countries restrict foreign investments, limiting supply growth, while demand from developing countries, or ``non-OECD'' nations is rising on economic expansion and power shortages, prompting higher demand for gasoil and fuel oil, the Goldman analysts said.

`Super-Spike'

Crude oil for June delivery was trading at $122.18 a barrel, up $2.21, on the New York Mercantile Exchange at 12:22 p.m. Futures yesterday rose to $119.97, the highest closing price since trading began in 1983.

``The core of our super-spike view has been that a lack of adequate supply growth coupled with price-insulated non-OECD demand growth'' is leading to higher prices, the analysts said. That could result in a ``sharp correction in oil demand,'' the Goldman analysts said.

Crude oil's increase above $100 a barrel was partly because of the dollar's decline against the euro, which boosted oil prices because it made commodities cheaper for buyers outside the U.S. and attracted investors as a hedge against inflation. Oil in New York touched $100 a barrel on Jan. 2.

The U.S. currency has declined more than 5 percent against the euro so far this year.

Members of OPEC, which supply more than 40 percent of the world's oil, have said supplies are adequate and blamed speculators for pushing prices up to records. The producer group won't consider raising output before it meets in September as the market is well supplied, Qatari Oil Minister Abdullah al-Attiyah said on May 2.

There's a fundamental misperception that so-called speculators are driving prices to unjustified levels, the Goldman analysts said. ``Unfortunately, we do not think the energy crisis will be solved by finding and punishing the big bad speculator.''

Commodity investors, the Goldman analysts wrote, are ``helping to solve the energy crisis'' by speeding up the process for oil companies to spend more on energy projects and at the same time encourage efficiency.

To contact the reporter on this story: Nesa Subrahmaniyan in Singapore at nesas@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: May 6, 2008 12:27 EDT

It's a good thing then that I don't buy oil by the barrel.

Or at all really.

Yep. It's pretty sad.

It's a good thing then that I don't buy oil by the barrel.

Or at all really.

Bad news for me, I bathe in the stuff. And what am I going to use to drown baby animals in now?

I was so Busy with Sexy, Age, and Wizard threads that a serious one just...surprised me tonight, lol...


There is the glimmer of hope that i drive a tiny Hyundai Accent...so i dont require all that much gas...

It's a good thing then that I don't buy oil by the barrel.

Or at all really.

The fact that you left this comment on the internet makes it untrue.

Every use something made plastic? Or buy food from a supermarket? Then you're using oil. In this day and age it's pretty much impossible not to use oil on a regular basis. Everything depends on it.

They can use other things, like corn, for plastic nowadays...Saw it on the Modern Marvels episode of Corn, lol....

Every use something made plastic?
Plastic is a byproduct, keep that in mind. Oil is not used with the intent to create plastics out of it, instead it is used as a source of fuel, and the materials needed for plastics are just sort of... there.

The fact that you left this comment on the internet makes it untrue.

Every use something made plastic? Or buy food from a supermarket? Then you're using oil. In this day and age it's pretty much impossible not to use oil on a regular basis. Everything depends on it.

Well, it started off the discussion, didn't it?

That's all I was aiming for.

I hope that oil prices rise quickly and stay high, so we are forced to turn to alternative energy. It's about damn time we did. If these oil prices drop again progress will pretty much grind to a halt because if we can do it cheaply and its good for the economy, who cares if it will only last another 20 years or so? Future repercussions be damned!

I hope that oil prices rise quickly and stay high, so we are forced to turn to alternative energy. It's about damn time we did.
Did not happen in 1973-81.
If these oil prices drop again progress will pretty much grind to a halt because if we can do it cheaply and its good for the economy, who cares if it will only last another 20 years or so? Future repercussions be damned!
Most power generation from renewable energy is really a profound waste of time at the moment, especially photovoltaics. Making absolutely massive price rises in all goods due to increased transport costs will cause a rise in inflation. Having governments having to shell out a lot of money for waste-of-time renewables will also create inflation.

We do not want this. 40 years of steady progress in renewables at the same pace at the economy will be better in the long term than 10 years of rushed designs.

Well, it started off the discussion, didn't it?

That's all I was aiming for.

Damn, suckered again by Bann-ed, the true master of manipulation. Damn you, fiend!

Did not happen in 1973-81.

No, because the crisis was ended shortly. It did however lead to the developement and research of many alternatives. Not to mention that was more a man-made situation.. this slow depletion of oil is a natural process now.
Most power generation from renewable energy is really a profound waste of time at the moment, especially photovoltaics. Making absolutely massive price rises in all goods due to increased transport costs will cause a rise in inflation. Having governments having to shell out a lot of money for waste-of-time renewables will also create inflation.
Progress costs money.
We do not want this. 40 years of steady progress in renewables at the same pace at the economy will be better in the long term than 10 years of rushed designs.
I agree that slow and intelligent progress is far better than a scramble for salvation. However, if the costs rise slowly and the oil is depleted slowly, there will be no impetus whatsoever for the use of alternatives.

From my understanding, and Lord knows this has probably been pointed out a thousand times, the rise in prices comes from increased global demand, especially from the likes of China and India, not because we're running out of oil.

In fact, there's plenty of oil, especially if you factor in Alberta and other places, it may be harder to reach but it's certainly there and technology will make it easier and easier.

The reason is went up in the early 70's was because OPEC cut production, it dropped when Saudi Arabia broke, and I personally feel that break is very much tied to why Saudi Arabia gets such a sweet deal from the US, ultimately leading to why there's war in Iraq, a bargain with the devil was made.

So I'm not sure prices will fall too soon and, as others, I hope it's a good thing as alternatives become cheaper.

It's not because we're running out though, it does have fairly dire consequences for the climate though given the huge increase in unclean energy production.

From my understanding, and Lord knows this has probably been pointed out a thousand times, the rise in prices comes from increased global demand, especially from the likes of China and India, not because we're running out of oil.

In fact, there's plenty of oil, especially if you factor in Alberta and other places, it may be harder to reach but it's certainly there and technology will make it easier and easier.

It's not because we're running out though, it does have fairly dire consequences for the climate though given the huge increase in unclean energy production.

Even if we look at it in the most 'optimistic' sense possible: Oil will run out and we will need to sit around for a million years or so to get more.

But no, we will probably never use it all up, it just won't be cost effective to extract or process it.

From my understanding, and Lord knows this has probably been pointed out a thousand times, the rise in prices comes from increased global demand, especially from the likes of China and India, not because we're running out of oil.


Chicken or the egg. Demand is only going to rise and supply is only going to diminish. Economically speaking, this situation is called "running out."

Did not happen in 1973-81.

Most power generation from renewable energy is really a profound waste of time at the moment, especially photovoltaics. Making absolutely massive price rises in all goods due to increased transport costs will cause a rise in inflation. Having governments having to shell out a lot of money for waste-of-time renewables will also create inflation.

We do not want this. 40 years of steady progress in renewables at the same pace at the economy will be better in the long term than 10 years of rushed designs.

Not to mention 73' -83' was caused more by a decline in the value of western currency then anything else.

...and we will need to sit around for a million years or so to get more.

Fire up the solar-powered PS3!

Well, folks, looks like it's time to stop investing in commodities. This kind of irrational exuberance is a classic sign that the bubble is reaching its top, especially when combined with a healthy dose of "things are different this time". Given that commodities typically have a 10-year secular bull market cycle, we're getting pretty close to the end of this rally (if you assume it started in 1999, which is pretty reasonable given that was the beginning of the oil price rally).

Honestly, this entire complex is getting out of control; the levels of froth and speculation are just begging for a washout. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of investors that lost out on the housing bubble are trying to get in to commodities in a last ditch effort to recoup their losses.

Oil might hit $200/barrel pretty soon.
And on the back of speculation and greater demand, not falling supply. I'm not saying peak oil isn't true - it's pretty obvious that oil will in fact run out at some point: I just don't think that it will be as early as some people think, and I know enough about that particular market and industry to be able to tell demand- from supply-related issues.

And on the back of speculation and greater demand, not falling supply. I'm not saying peak oil isn't true - it's pretty obvious that oil will in fact run out at some point: I just don't think that it will be as early as some people think, and I know enough about that particular market and industry to be able to tell demand- from supply-related issues.

I think, Neu Leonstein, you recall as well as I do not only similar statements during the housing bubble but also classics like Henry Blodget's Amazon.com $1,000/share price call...if there's one lesson people need to learn, it's that things don't go up forever.

In fact, oil just might hit $200 per barrel...but the crash and subsequent washout will be similarly epic.

Well, folks, looks like it's time to stop investing in commodities. This kind of irrational exuberance is a classic sign that the bubble is reaching its top, especially when combined with a healthy dose of "things are different this time". Given that commodities typically have a 10-year secular bull market cycle, we're getting pretty close to the end of this rally (if you assume it started in 1999, which is pretty reasonable given that was the beginning of the oil price rally).

Honestly, this entire complex is getting out of control; the levels of froth and speculation are just begging for a washout. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of investors that lost out on the housing bubble are trying to get in to commodities in a last ditch effort to recoup their losses.

You show wisdom beyond your years.

I have to agree. I wonder when this dogpile is going to collapse.

This is going to make the Depression and World War 2 look tame, even without the climate change (ie mass extinction number six) thrown in.

Oil might hit $200/barrel pretty soon.

You mean the value of your currency is going to fall another 50%? :D

MAY? in TWO years?

you mean it hasn't yet?

meh, the sooner people get their heads out of their tailpipes and start restoring a decent per capita level of public transportation the happier i'll be.

not that i have any intention of holding my breath until they do, but i'm sure at least half the world finds it amusing the panic us fat bastards are having over it.

=^^=
.../\...

200 by the end of the year most likely

You mean the value of your currency is going to fall another 50%? :D

finally someone who understand the biggest reason for the price of oil increase is the decline of the dollar.

finally someone who understand the biggest reason for the price of oil increase is the decline of the dollar.Sorta-kinda-but-not-really. The oil price is done in dollars; where that's concerned, it is the standard. Besides, the oil price has been rising longer than the dollar has been falling.

Not to mention 73' -83' was caused more by a decline in the value of western currency then anything else.

Which sounds awfully similar to right now, yeah?

Once the dollar rebounds we're going to see oil somewhere in the $80 range. That probably won't happen before the election. The markets know that the commodity bubble is about to burst and that the Fed won't cut rates any more.

And on the back of speculation and greater demand, not falling supply.

Speculation? Peak oil is speculation now? Or are you referring to the fact that people, including oil companies, are waking up to the reality and now there's a "grab em if you can" mentality with regards to remaining oil?

I'm not saying peak oil isn't true - it's pretty obvious that oil will in fact run out at some point: I just don't think that it will be as early as some people think, and I know enough about that particular market and industry to be able to tell demand- from supply-related issues.

I don't see how you can separate supply and demand in this case.

This isn't just another commodity and we're all chatting about the price. This is a commodity without which our civilization, at this point, would COLLAPSE. That's not speculation, that's just plain true. It's also true that it will run out and has already hit the peak production, at a time when demand is only going up (and will continue to, unless the miracle-alternative tech pops up).

If you move to iceland they use hydrogen.......america should follow in the steps of Iceland, Brazil or we could drill in the west and alaska and off of florida before the mexicans get it!!!

finally someone who understand the biggest reason for the price of oil increase is the decline of the dollar.

If that were true, we Canadians would still be paying 80¢ a litre for gas.


Parity: suck on it!

Not to mention 73' -83' was caused more by a decline in the value of western currency then anything else.
Much like white farmers leaving Zimbabwe in times of economic crisis, it's not exactly clear cut as to which end is cause and which is effect.

We just discovered a huge reserve here in Brasil. So yay, I guess?

I'm sure that peak oil nonsense is just left-winged scaremongering though! Just like global climate change.
It makes me giggle that first leftists went screaming about global warming and painted anyone who opposed their facts about global warming as earth hating polluting walking nuclear radiation, but once scientists started saying...wait a minute, perhaps there will be some global cooling, Leftists right away changed the hot button phrase to global climate change! :D:D:D

It makes me giggle so much. I just love pointing out the errors and never ending retardation of the left.

If you move to iceland they use hydrogen.......america should follow in the steps of Iceland, Brazil or we could drill in the west and alaska and off of florida before the mexicans get it!!!

So we should go the way of Brazil? Where would America get that huge jungle habitat to slash and burn to grow our sugar? No one talks of the loss of a ecological wonder. To busy saving tundra wasteland in Alaska I guess.

It makes me giggle that first leftists went screaming about global warming and painted anyone who opposed their facts about global warming as earth hating polluting walking nuclear radiation, but once scientists started saying...wait a minute, perhaps there will be some global cooling, Leftists right away changed the hot button phrase to global climate change! :D:D:D

It makes me giggle so much. I just love pointing out the errors and never ending retardation of the left.

But, but they said the Earth would warm back up after cooling! Still Global Warming! Lol it's all a big ruse it seems. Oh well back to the SUV to go drive around the block a few times for the hell of it. :eek:





it's a joke people.

So we should go the way of Brazil? Where would America get that huge jungle habitat to slash and burn to grow our sugar? No one talks of the loss of a ecological wonder. To busy saving tundra wasteland in Alaska I guess.
Right! While offshore drilling in Florida would have terrible ecological effects on our waters here...though the fucking Cubans are already tapping into it, the proposed Alaska drilling area doesn't even damage anything nor does anything really even live there! It's artic tundra!

http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/anwr.bmp

But, but they said the Earth would warm back up after cooling! Still Global Warming! Lol it's all a big ruse it seems. Oh well back to the SUV to go drive around the block a few times for the hell of it. :eek:





it's a joke people.
Hehehe...In fact, I'm gonna go leave my monster truck on, put it in neutral and just put a brake on the gas pedal, just to use some more gas when I'm not driving it.






(for the record, I do believe that we are helping to exacerbate the changes in the enviornment and we-humanity should work to reduce emissions and harmful pollutants, and am more making fun of the typical leftists crusade on anyone who doesn't agree with their definition on it...even though it turned out to be wrong)

I just watched a 2004 documentary called The End of Suburbia. Gas prices shown in some scenes were just hitting $2/gallon. All the segments about peak oil and rising costs of damn near everything leading to recessions that would never end are kinda eerie, now that it's four years since the film was released and here it is all...happening...and stuff.

I just watched a 2004 documentary called The End of Suburbia. Gas prices shown in some scenes were just hitting $2/gallon. All the segments about peak oil and rising costs of damn near everything leading to recessions that would never end are kinda eerie, now that it's four years since the film was released and here it is all...happening...and stuff.

Some things are just predictable.

Suburbia won't end. The UK still has suburbs and when I lived there gas was $5 US a gallon.

The never ending recession however sounds like a prelude to war.

Hehehe...In fact, I'm gonna go leave my monster truck on, put it in neutral and just put a brake on the gas pedal, just to use some more gas when I'm not driving it.

You and Rush Limbaugh. Cozy.

(for the record, I do believe that we are helping to exacerbate the changes in the enviornment and we-humanity should work to reduce emissions and harmful pollutants, and am more making fun of the typical leftists crusade on anyone who doesn't agree with their definition on it...even though it turned out to be wrong)

Thought I'd blow this up a few points since you were too cowardly to put it in regular sized type.

Y'know what? FORGET climate change for a minute and let's concentrate on how war without end is the neocon solution to the peak in supply of oil and its eventual tailing off. Let's talk about how ethanol and biodiesel cost more energy to create than they produce as fuels. Let's talk about hydrogen being exactly the same way. There are all the alternative fuels gone, not to mention mass-farming (because petroleum products include fertilizers and pesticides), cheap food (whose effects we're already seeing around the world, exacerbated by the biofuels boondoggle), and the entire economy-of-constant-growth that was never sustainable in the first place.

Perhaps you can disregard climate change. Fine. What about energy?

This isn't just another commodity and we're all chatting about the price. This is a commodity without which our civilization, at this point, would COLLAPSE. That's not speculation, that's just plain true. It's also true that it will run out and has already hit the peak production, at a time when demand is only going up (and will continue to, unless the miracle-alternative tech pops up).

Oil production has not peaked. This is a fact; the highest crude oil production, both in terms of crude oil and total liquids supply in world history was hit in January of this year. While peak oil will most definitely happen, it has not happened yet and the supply picture honestly doesn't justify prices at this level by any stretch of the imagination. In addition, peak oil takes a lot longer than people think; if the history of US oil production is any indication, peak oil does not equal a huge drop in output...it's a gradual decline that may even level out as technology enhances recovery rates.

Are there barriers to production? Yes. Does this equal a peak in output? No.

Some things are just predictable.

Suburbia won't end. The UK still has suburbs and when I lived there gas was $5 US a gallon.

The never ending recession however sounds like a prelude to war.

Suburbia won't end? How? The UK isn't NEARLY as big as the USA and has a fairly effective train system. One person interviewed in the film suggested that suburbia will become the ghetto in 20-40 years. Multiple families living in McMansions and using the yard to grow their own food with a single windmill and solar panel to provide local power generation.

Doesn't sound too bad, actually.

However, the point they made about needing to live locally (and the end of, say Toronto's 3000-mile Caesar salad) was quite clear.

Some things are just predictable.

Suburbia won't end. The UK still has suburbs and when I lived there gas was $5 US a gallon.

The never ending recession however sounds like a prelude to war.

UK suburbs don't look like American suburbs.

Oil production has not peaked. This is a fact; the highest crude oil production, both in terms of crude oil and total liquids supply in world history was hit in January of this year. While peak oil will most definitely happen, it has not happened yet and the supply picture honestly doesn't justify prices at this level by any stretch of the imagination. In addition, peak oil takes a lot longer than people think; if the history of US oil production is any indication, peak oil does not equal a huge drop in output...it's a gradual decline that may even level out as technology enhances recovery rates.

Are there barriers to production? Yes. Does this equal a peak in output? No.

Does ANY of that justify NOT preparing for when the peak arrives, if it hasn't yet? Re-tooling infrastructure will take at least 50 years including research and development.

Thought I'd blow this up a few points since you were too cowardly to put it in regular sized type.
I had it small because it would have ruined the joke, you fool. Not because I'm "too cowardly"....If I was indeed, I wouldn't have written it at all. Though it's nothing to be cowardly about, every civilizaed person knows that mass industralization without checks has the potential to destroy the enviornment and earth we live in/on.

Y'know what? FORGET climate change for a minute and let's concentrate on how war without end is the neocon solution to the peak in supply of oil and its eventual tailing off. Let's talk about how ethanol and biodiesel cost more energy to create than they produce as fuels. Let's talk about hydrogen being exactly the same way. There are all the alternative fuels gone, not to mention mass-farming (because petroleum products include fertilizers and pesticides), cheap food (whose effects we're already seeing around the world, exacerbated by the biofuels boondoggle), and the entire economy-of-constant-growth that was never sustainable in the first place.

Perhaps you can disregard climate change. Fine. What about energy?
I'm not disregarding climate change..or what? You totally got me wrong. Totally.

As for energy. I have a 5 point plan.

1. Encourage more tax breaks for consumers buying more fuel efficient cars, and to the companies who create them.

2. Drill in ANWAR to increase supply thus through the supply and demand principal, decrease cost.

3. Wean onto Alaskan oil and slowly off Middle Eastern oil.

4. Build more nuclear power pants and use more nuclear power, though this would take a long time to see results, because construction takes forever.

5. Understand that oil is temporary and invest heavily in nuclear and alternate fuels (technology and research for it) that would not dip into the food sources....as we are doing now.:rolleyes:

And do all these more or less at the same time....that is, during the same presidency, of the hypothetical me president.

Suburbia won't end? How? The UK isn't NEARLY as big as the USA and has a fairly effective train system. One person interviewed in the film suggested that suburbia will become the ghetto in 20-40 years. Multiple families living in McMansions and using the yard to grow their own food with a single windmill and solar panel to provide local power generation.

Doesn't sound too bad, actually.

However, the point they made about needing to live locally (and the end of, say Toronto's 3000-mile Caesar salad) was quite clear.

I personally believe gas would have to be near $6 before it really starts to show an impact. I could be wrong but I don't think it will hit $6 anytime soon.

As for living in the cities this will work out great for me. I own almost all of my property in urban areas. I always advocate buying property in the cities to minimize property value drops. I never really figured the price of gas would calculate into my portfolio.

Does ANY of that justify NOT preparing for when the peak arrives, if it hasn't yet? Re-tooling infrastructure will take at least 50 years including research and development.

Absolutely not...not by a long shot. In the past decade, thanks to a wise combination of technology, government support, and favorable economics we've seen wind power alone expand sixfold...there's enough capacity installed right now to power over 60,000,000 homes and we've only started to scratch the surface.

Renewable energy is the cheapest, most abundant, most easily scaled, and least environmentally destructive source of power in the history of human civilization. It is truly the power of the future, and the longer we delay its development, the less benefit we can realize now.

The problem isn't really with dramatically reduced supply but a hugely increased demand. Before now the US was really the only giant consumer of oil but now there are two emerging major world powers, China and India. Converting coal to gas would reduce the American demand for oil and when combined with nuclear power for electrical generation it would provide a very quick avenue toward American energy independence. This would reduce fuel prices for us while reducing oil prices, at least for a while, for the rest of the world. For anyone that is concerned with the potential impact this would have on the environment and more specifically global climate there is a solution and it could have a similar effect on world hunger that the first and second green revolutions (agricultural) have and are having. I am speaking of vertical farming. Hydroponic vertical farming would mean less land getting plowed for food crops, increased food production without soil depletion, and has the potential for active carbon capture because plants grow faster in a high CO2 environment which can be created since everything would be grown inside a building.

Another thing I'd like to see is a nuclear powered catamaran cargo ship.

The problem isn't really with dramatically reduced supply but a hugely increased demand. Before now the US was really the only giant consumer of oil but now there are two emerging major world powers, China and India. Converting coal to gas would reduce the American demand for oil and when combined with nuclear power for electrical generation it would provide a very quick avenue toward American energy independence. This would reduce fuel prices for us while reducing oil prices, at least for a while, for the rest of the world. For anyone that is concerned with the potential impact this would have on the environment and more specifically global climate there is a solution and it could have a similar effect on world hunger that the first and second green revolutions (agricultural) have and are having. I am speaking of vertical farming. Hydroponic vertical farming would mean less land getting plowed for food crops, increased food production without soil depletion, and has the potential for active carbon capture because plants grow faster in a high CO2 environment which can be created since everything would be grown inside a building.

Another thing I'd like to see is a nuclear powered catamaran cargo ship.


I am convinced of the vertical farm concept. I think in the near future it will be an answer to high density cities. However just as a thought I wonder if these vertical farms could be used to produce bio fuel? Would it be economically feasible?

I had it small because it would have ruined the joke, you fool. Not because I'm "too cowardly"....If I was indeed, I wouldn't have written it at all. Though it's nothing to be cowardly about, every civilizaed person knows that mass industralization without checks has the potential to destroy the enviornment and earth we live in/on.


I'm not disregarding climate change..or what? You totally got me wrong. Totally.

As for energy. I have a 5 point plan.

1. Encourage more tax breaks for consumers buying more fuel efficient cars, and to the companies who create them.

2. Drill in ANWAR to increase supply thus through the supply and demand principal, decrease cost.

3. Wean onto Alaskan oil and slowly off Middle Eastern oil.

4. Build more nuclear power pants and use more nuclear power, though this would take a long time to see results, because construction takes forever.

5. Understand that oil is temporary and invest heavily in nuclear and alternate fuels (technology and research for it) that would not dip into the food sources....as we are doing now.:rolleyes:

And do all these more or less at the same time....that is, during the same presidency, of the hypothetical me president.

I appear to have drastically misinterpreted your post. I apologize sincerely and completely. I must be tired.

I appear to have drastically misinterpreted your post. I apologize sincerely and completely. I must be tired.
No problem then dude. Everyone makes mistakes. It's what makes us Godly immortal super beings who can shoot lasers from our eyes and can make women orgasm without even batting an eyelash.

Or is it human? Bah, I always get those two mixed up.:p

Speculation? Peak oil is speculation now? Or are you referring to the fact that people, including oil companies, are waking up to the reality and now there's a "grab em if you can" mentality with regards to remaining oil?
No, I'm referring to the fact that commodities traders have made a lot of money over the past year or so with oil deals that presumed higher prices. That has ultimately carried spot prices with it.

That is purely a matter of using oil as an underlying asset to trade what amounts to derivatives: financial contracts. It's concerned only with the length of the contracts and not beyond that, so they only take short-term factors (ie next US interest rate cut, next attack on an oil rig or pipeline somewhere etc), not long-term ones like peak oil.

I don't see how you can separate supply and demand in this case.
Why not? Peak oil says something about supply, but those figures haven't borne out for the theory just yet. Instead we have seen massive increases in demand, a falling dollar and a flood from debt- and equity markets into commodities, all of which explain why we're seeing such high oil prices.

This isn't just another commodity and we're all chatting about the price.
That is precisely what we're talking about if you want to bring Goldman Sachs and market prices into it.

It's also true that it will run out and has already hit the peak production, at a time when demand is only going up (and will continue to, unless the miracle-alternative tech pops up).
If you wanted to make a thread about peak oil, then talk about this claim that we're already there. That's the meaningful, and disputable, matter at hand.

And for everyone's benefit:

http://www.enigmacurry.com/blog-post-images/change_in_oil_price.png

So there we go. You'll see the same pattern in other graphs, I picked this one because it's most recent.

I am convinced of the vertical farm concept. I think in the near future it will be an answer to high density cities. However just as a thought I wonder if these vertical farms could be used to produce bio fuel? Would it be economically feasible?
When I was first thinking up stuff like this I admit that it was to solve the problem faced by biofuel producers. "U" "C" when I read that America would have to grow something like more than 4 times its corn output I thought that the best way to do that would be in greenhouses where you could control the atmospheric composition, specifically increase the CO2 concentration along with other environmental controls to boost crop yeilds. Then I asked myself why this couldn't be done going up. However, the more I researched the issue the more I came to realize that biofuels were not the answer as their production costs in cash, energy, and materials outstrips the energy yeilded from it and it really was just a very inefficient form of solar energy storage and that tinkering with chemical energy is, or at least should be, a thing of the past by now.

I strongly support expanded nuclear power and even once thought favorably of nuclear powered cars that would have easily swapable drive and power systems so you could keep your car longer and only have to pay a 20 minute visit to a service station every 5,000-10,000 miles. Ford engineers had a similar dream way back when "Atomic" was the buzzword of choice for everything.

Nowadays I just want more plants built and more research into nuclear fusion. Especially IEC fusion and the polywell.

In short, biofuels are a bad thing but sometimes bad things lead to good ideas. Like war. Technology never advances faster than during armed conflict or an arms race.

I had it small because it would have ruined the joke, you fool. Not because I'm "too cowardly"....If I was indeed, I wouldn't have written it at all. Though it's nothing to be cowardly about, every civilizaed person knows that mass industralization without checks has the potential to destroy the enviornment and earth we live in/on.


I'm not disregarding climate change..or what? You totally got me wrong. Totally.

As for energy. I have a 5 point plan.

1. Encourage more tax breaks for consumers buying more fuel efficient cars, and to the companies who create them.

2. Drill in ANWAR to increase supply thus through the supply and demand principal, decrease cost.

3. Wean onto Alaskan oil and slowly off Middle Eastern oil.

4. Build more nuclear power pants and use more nuclear power, though this would take a long time to see results, because construction takes forever.

5. Understand that oil is temporary and invest heavily in nuclear and alternate fuels (technology and research for it) that would not dip into the food sources....as we are doing now.:rolleyes:

And do all these more or less at the same time....that is, during the same presidency, of the hypothetical me president.

All of these are good points, but there is going to be a huge cost with #3: while the US has lots of refieries on the east coast and gulf, there are far fewer on the west coast, and there are NONE (afaik) that can refine heavy alaskan crude at this time, which is why we export it to Japan.

well if your talking the American Dollar then I can understand. Basically because our money is slowly becomeing worthless...as worthless as a fucken paso.

All of these are good points, but there is going to be a huge cost with #3: while the US has lots of refieries on the east coast and gulf, there are far fewer on the west coast, and there are NONE (afaik) that can refine heavy alaskan crude at this time, which is why we export it to Japan.
The Alaskan oil I was talking about was mentioned in point #2, by drill into ANWAR...and it is indeed drillable, if I am reading all this correctly. It's just that the government has been blocking it. Here check this out:

[edit] Estimates of oil reserves
A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5% probability) barrels (0.9 to 2.5 km³) of technically recoverable oil exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area, with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (1.7 km³). In addition, in the entire assessment area, which covers not only land under Federal jurisdiction, but also Native lands and adjacent State waters within three miles (5 km), technically recoverable oil is estimated to be at least 5.7 billion (95%) and as much as 16.0 billion (5%) barrels (0.7 to 1.9 km³), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels (1.2 km³). Economically recoverable oil within the Federal lands assuming a market price of $40/barrel (constant 1996 dollars - the highest price included in the USGS study) is estimated to be between 3.4 billion (95%) and 10.4 billion (5%) barrels (0.5 to 1.7 km³), with a mean value of 6.8 billion barrels (1.1 km³).[3] (current market prices are over $120 and using inflation rate between 1996 to 2007 it comes out to $89 dollars in 1996)

Here, take a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy


And here is a nice little projection.
The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels (3,200,000 m³) daily. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to supply 5% of the U.S. daily consumption -- most is imported from Canada (19%), Mexico (15%), Saudi Arabia (11.5%), Nigeria (10.5%) and Venezuela (10.5%)[11] -- the reserves, using the low figure of 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m³), would last approximately 4300 days, or almost 12 years. Using the high estimate, the reserves would last approximately 11800 days, or 32 years. Total oil independence at 20 million barrels per day (using the before mentioned 10.5 billion barrel mean) would only supply the United States for 525 days (or less than a year and a half, but this complete supporting is impossible). Using the increasing price of oil this supply (with 10.5 billion barrel mean and crude oil at over $120 a barrel) would be worth 1,260,000,000,000.00 ($1.26 trillion). Using this revenue directed back creating wind power and solar power plants could supply more than a quarter of the domestic energy consumption.

I'm not saying don't drill, I'm just pointing out that right now the US has no way to actually refine it.