$100 barrel of oil, here we come….

[Coronita]

Oy Veh. If I only held on to all my shares of ChevronTexaco and VDE spider instead of selling 1/2 a few months ago…..

 

Time to rethink future  car purchases. Goodbye Audi S5/S6…Hello Toyota Prius. Yet, if only the tesla roadster were in my range of affordability 🙁

http://www.teslamotors.com/

Why can't someone build a damn electric car sedan with decent performance and a good price… 

 

—–

 

SINGAPORE (AP) — The price of oil rose to a new record above $96 a barrel Thursday after a surprise drop in U.S. crude stockpiles raised concerns about supplies for coming winter demand. Other energy futures also gained.

The U.S. Federal Reserve's move to cut interest rates by a quarter percentage point also supported prices.

It was the second week in a row the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported a sharp and unexpected drop in oil inventories.

"The decline in U.S. crude oil inventories has been a key driver of oil prices," said David Moore, commodity strategist at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Sydney.

Light, sweet crude for December delivery rose as high as $96.24 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange by late morning in Singapore. Prices later receded to $96.05 a barrel.

Crude prices have reached inflation-adjusted highs set in early 1980. Depending on the how the adjustment is calculated, $38 a barrel then would be worth $96 to more than $101 today.

"We are stepping into an unknown area. Nobody wants to sell (given the fear of a) further rise," broker Ken Hasegawa of Fimat Japan told Dow Jones Newswires.

The December Nymex crude contract rose $4.15 Wednesday to a record settlement price of $94.53 a barrel.

December Brent crude futures also surged to a new trading record of $91.63 a barrel Thursday on the ICE futures exchange in London, up $1 from the previous session.

In its weekly inventory report, the U.S. Energy Department's Energy Information Administration said oil supplies fell by 3.9 million barrels last week. Analysts surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires, on average, had expected an increase of 100,000 barrels.

"The report acted to solidify concerns about the possibility of tightening market conditions ahead of the northern winter," Moore said.

Much of that decline was due to a big drop in crude supplies at a closely watched oil terminal in Cushing, Okla.

Cushing supplies have been under pressure in recent months due to differences in the price between front-month oil contracts and those for delivery in future months. This price difference, or spread, has given storage tank owners a financial incentive to sell their oil, rather than hold it in inventory. Analysts have also blamed falling Cushing supplies, in part, for the rally in which oil prices have jumped 35 percent since August.

The EIA also reported that refinery activity fell by 0.9 percentage point last week to 86.2 percent of capacity. Analysts had expected an increase of 0.5 percentage point.

Supplies of gasoline rose last week by 1.3 million barrels. Analysts expected a 400,000-barrel decrease.

And inventories of distillates, which include heating oil and diesel fuel, rose by 800,000 barrels. Analysts had expected a 1 million barrel decrease.

Also supporting oil futures was the U.S. central bank's move to cut interest rates.

Interest rate cuts generally support oil prices because they tend to send the U.S. dollar downward; the dollar is already at multiple-decade lows against major currencies.

Oil futures have been driven to record levels in recent months partly because they offer a hedge against a weak dollar.

Other energy futures followed oil's lead. Nymex December heating oil rose 2.65 cents to $2.558 a gallon, while December gasoline futures added 2.64 cents to $2.5697 a gallon.

Natural gas futures advanced 7.6 cents to $8.406 per 1,000 cubic feet.

[hipmatt]

100 per barrel could happen this week, and so can 800 per ounce of gold.

I wonder if the commuters of Temecula / Murrieta will be thanking Bernanke for the rate cut once the cost of this high priced oil makes it to the pumps?

[hipmatt]

100 per barrel could happen this week, and so can 800 per ounce of gold.

I wonder if the commuters of Temecula / Murrieta will be thanking Bernanke for the rate cut once the cost of this high priced oil makes it to the pumps?

[hipmatt]

100 per barrel could happen this week, and so can 800 per ounce of gold.

I wonder if the commuters of Temecula / Murrieta will be thanking Bernanke for the rate cut once the cost of this high priced oil makes it to the pumps?

[Arraya]

Bernake is not totally to blame, we are approaching peak…

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

It’s only gonna get worse from here. Energy wars here we come…. Oh, wait we all ready started one.

Here is the Piggington equivalent to the energy market.

http://www.theoildrum.com

[one_muggle]

Though I agree oil/energy is and will continue to be a problem, I take issue with all the peak-oil gloom and doom.

The very simplified “Peak oil” predictions all assume that there is a somewhat fixed amount of oil ready to be pumped, but that is not true. Even ignoring future discoveries, the amount of oil that can be pumped depends on the price of oil. As the value of oil increases, it becomes more feasible to pump out the hard-to-get (and thus more expensive) stuff. Also, it becomes more attractive to refine the high-sulfur petroleum–again, since this stuff is harder to refine, it is more expensive. The available oil in the Hubbert curve assumes that only a fraction of the oil is gettable–OK that is not really a word…
Somewhat perversely, high oil prices makes more oil accessible–not what the greenies had hoped, I expect. Maybe they should spend a little more time in science class and less time reading Chomsky. ;^)
Last I checked, $120 oil makes wind economically practical–don’t recall the number for solar. I think it might be around $75 in the SW and $150 in the NE, but I’m not sure. I do know that a commercial solar concentrator is going on-line soon in the SW (Arizona, I think)–something Junction… that will be interesting.
Either way, it’s sure to kick the crap out of the long distance commuter–probably good for everyone, in the long run. Short run… well that’s gonna suck for them.

-one muggle

[Arraya]

Well you are wrong on many levels.

“The very simplified “Peak oil” predictions all assume that there is a somewhat fixed amount of oil ready to be pumped, but that is not true”

Are you saying that there is an oil factory some place making oil. All the oil in the world was created between 50-60 million years ago. Maybe you should go back to science class.

“Somewhat perversely, high oil prices makes more oil accessible–not what the greenies had hoped, I expect.”

To a point true, but you have to go back to the fact that we live in a finite world.

“Last I checked, $120 oil makes wind economically practical–don’t recall the number for solar. ”

Yes, high oil prices make alternatives more feasable but we still have a huge liquid fuel problem. Try putting a wind turbine on a car.

“Maybe they should spend a little more time in science class and less time reading Chomsky.”

I suggest you go to the oil drum. Mostly scientists of different sorts and many independant oil people. It’s hard to swing a dead cat with out hitting a Phd.

Or perhaps try http://www.aspo-usa.com/ I would assume most of these geophyisists went to science class.

But you are correct it does give the doomers something to cling to.

You also have to remember peak was predicted by Dr. Marion King Hubberd back in 56. He was a shell oil geologist. He predicted that the US would peak in 1970 and he was correct. Though he was laughed out the industry in the 50s. He also predicted the world would peak about 50 years later.

Peak is not disputed in the science world. Only the when…

Oh, but there is this guy that did a prett good job at debunking it..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2696816449890336784&q=peak+oil+debunked&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[4plexowner]

Whether we have used most of the oil in the ground or not is NOT the most immediate issue

I see three significant issues with oil:

1. we have reached peak PRODUCTION – even if there is an unlimited amount of oil in the ground we have been unable to increase production in the last few years even though demand has increased significantly – worldwide production has been in the 84-86 million barrels per day range for the last two years or more (and how many times have the Saudis said they were going to ramp up production for us?)

2. the countries that export oil have growing consumer populations – per capita energy usage in the oil exporting countries is much lower than here BUT INCREASING – as the consumers in these countries use more energy there is less available for export

3. demand for energy is increasing rapidly – there are 3 billion people in Asia who all want to achieve the Western lifestyle – cars, TVs, refrigerators, etc and all of it takes energy to make and to operate – as the consumer population in Asia continues to grow there will be dramatically more demand for oil and energy in general

~

Price of gasoline: I think the pump price for gas will remain below $4 until after the Nov 2008 election – don’t want to upset the sheeple with expensive gas

[4plexowner]

Whether we have used most of the oil in the ground or not is NOT the most immediate issue

I see three significant issues with oil:

1. we have reached peak PRODUCTION – even if there is an unlimited amount of oil in the ground we have been unable to increase production in the last few years even though demand has increased significantly – worldwide production has been in the 84-86 million barrels per day range for the last two years or more (and how many times have the Saudis said they were going to ramp up production for us?)

2. the countries that export oil have growing consumer populations – per capita energy usage in the oil exporting countries is much lower than here BUT INCREASING – as the consumers in these countries use more energy there is less available for export

3. demand for energy is increasing rapidly – there are 3 billion people in Asia who all want to achieve the Western lifestyle – cars, TVs, refrigerators, etc and all of it takes energy to make and to operate – as the consumer population in Asia continues to grow there will be dramatically more demand for oil and energy in general

~

Price of gasoline: I think the pump price for gas will remain below $4 until after the Nov 2008 election – don’t want to upset the sheeple with expensive gas

[4plexowner]

Whether we have used most of the oil in the ground or not is NOT the most immediate issue

I see three significant issues with oil:

1. we have reached peak PRODUCTION – even if there is an unlimited amount of oil in the ground we have been unable to increase production in the last few years even though demand has increased significantly – worldwide production has been in the 84-86 million barrels per day range for the last two years or more (and how many times have the Saudis said they were going to ramp up production for us?)

2. the countries that export oil have growing consumer populations – per capita energy usage in the oil exporting countries is much lower than here BUT INCREASING – as the consumers in these countries use more energy there is less available for export

3. demand for energy is increasing rapidly – there are 3 billion people in Asia who all want to achieve the Western lifestyle – cars, TVs, refrigerators, etc and all of it takes energy to make and to operate – as the consumer population in Asia continues to grow there will be dramatically more demand for oil and energy in general

~

Price of gasoline: I think the pump price for gas will remain below $4 until after the Nov 2008 election – don’t want to upset the sheeple with expensive gas

[Arraya]

Well you are wrong on many levels.

“The very simplified “Peak oil” predictions all assume that there is a somewhat fixed amount of oil ready to be pumped, but that is not true”

Are you saying that there is an oil factory some place making oil. All the oil in the world was created between 50-60 million years ago. Maybe you should go back to science class.

“Somewhat perversely, high oil prices makes more oil accessible–not what the greenies had hoped, I expect.”

To a point true, but you have to go back to the fact that we live in a finite world.

“Last I checked, $120 oil makes wind economically practical–don’t recall the number for solar. ”

Yes, high oil prices make alternatives more feasable but we still have a huge liquid fuel problem. Try putting a wind turbine on a car.

“Maybe they should spend a little more time in science class and less time reading Chomsky.”

I suggest you go to the oil drum. Mostly scientists of different sorts and many independant oil people. It’s hard to swing a dead cat with out hitting a Phd.

Or perhaps try http://www.aspo-usa.com/ I would assume most of these geophyisists went to science class.

But you are correct it does give the doomers something to cling to.

You also have to remember peak was predicted by Dr. Marion King Hubberd back in 56. He was a shell oil geologist. He predicted that the US would peak in 1970 and he was correct. Though he was laughed out the industry in the 50s. He also predicted the world would peak about 50 years later.

Peak is not disputed in the science world. Only the when…

Oh, but there is this guy that did a prett good job at debunking it..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2696816449890336784&q=peak+oil+debunked&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[Arraya]

Well you are wrong on many levels.

“The very simplified “Peak oil” predictions all assume that there is a somewhat fixed amount of oil ready to be pumped, but that is not true”

Are you saying that there is an oil factory some place making oil. All the oil in the world was created between 50-60 million years ago. Maybe you should go back to science class.

“Somewhat perversely, high oil prices makes more oil accessible–not what the greenies had hoped, I expect.”

To a point true, but you have to go back to the fact that we live in a finite world.

“Last I checked, $120 oil makes wind economically practical–don’t recall the number for solar. ”

Yes, high oil prices make alternatives more feasable but we still have a huge liquid fuel problem. Try putting a wind turbine on a car.

“Maybe they should spend a little more time in science class and less time reading Chomsky.”

I suggest you go to the oil drum. Mostly scientists of different sorts and many independant oil people. It’s hard to swing a dead cat with out hitting a Phd.

Or perhaps try http://www.aspo-usa.com/ I would assume most of these geophyisists went to science class.

But you are correct it does give the doomers something to cling to.

You also have to remember peak was predicted by Dr. Marion King Hubberd back in 56. He was a shell oil geologist. He predicted that the US would peak in 1970 and he was correct. Though he was laughed out the industry in the 50s. He also predicted the world would peak about 50 years later.

Peak is not disputed in the science world. Only the when…

Oh, but there is this guy that did a prett good job at debunking it..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2696816449890336784&q=peak+oil+debunked&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[one_muggle]

Though I agree oil/energy is and will continue to be a problem, I take issue with all the peak-oil gloom and doom.

The very simplified “Peak oil” predictions all assume that there is a somewhat fixed amount of oil ready to be pumped, but that is not true. Even ignoring future discoveries, the amount of oil that can be pumped depends on the price of oil. As the value of oil increases, it becomes more feasible to pump out the hard-to-get (and thus more expensive) stuff. Also, it becomes more attractive to refine the high-sulfur petroleum–again, since this stuff is harder to refine, it is more expensive. The available oil in the Hubbert curve assumes that only a fraction of the oil is gettable–OK that is not really a word…
Somewhat perversely, high oil prices makes more oil accessible–not what the greenies had hoped, I expect. Maybe they should spend a little more time in science class and less time reading Chomsky. ;^)
Last I checked, $120 oil makes wind economically practical–don’t recall the number for solar. I think it might be around $75 in the SW and $150 in the NE, but I’m not sure. I do know that a commercial solar concentrator is going on-line soon in the SW (Arizona, I think)–something Junction… that will be interesting.
Either way, it’s sure to kick the crap out of the long distance commuter–probably good for everyone, in the long run. Short run… well that’s gonna suck for them.

-one muggle

[one_muggle]

Though I agree oil/energy is and will continue to be a problem, I take issue with all the peak-oil gloom and doom.

The very simplified “Peak oil” predictions all assume that there is a somewhat fixed amount of oil ready to be pumped, but that is not true. Even ignoring future discoveries, the amount of oil that can be pumped depends on the price of oil. As the value of oil increases, it becomes more feasible to pump out the hard-to-get (and thus more expensive) stuff. Also, it becomes more attractive to refine the high-sulfur petroleum–again, since this stuff is harder to refine, it is more expensive. The available oil in the Hubbert curve assumes that only a fraction of the oil is gettable–OK that is not really a word…
Somewhat perversely, high oil prices makes more oil accessible–not what the greenies had hoped, I expect. Maybe they should spend a little more time in science class and less time reading Chomsky. ;^)
Last I checked, $120 oil makes wind economically practical–don’t recall the number for solar. I think it might be around $75 in the SW and $150 in the NE, but I’m not sure. I do know that a commercial solar concentrator is going on-line soon in the SW (Arizona, I think)–something Junction… that will be interesting.
Either way, it’s sure to kick the crap out of the long distance commuter–probably good for everyone, in the long run. Short run… well that’s gonna suck for them.

-one muggle

[Arraya]

Bernake is not totally to blame, we are approaching peak…

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

It’s only gonna get worse from here. Energy wars here we come…. Oh, wait we all ready started one.

Here is the Piggington equivalent to the energy market.

http://www.theoildrum.com

[Arraya]

Bernake is not totally to blame, we are approaching peak…

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

It’s only gonna get worse from here. Energy wars here we come…. Oh, wait we all ready started one.

Here is the Piggington equivalent to the energy market.

http://www.theoildrum.com

[ucodegen]

Why can’t someone build a decent electric car?

There is no way for a battery to contain the same amount of energy per pound as a gallon of gasoline. The only way electric cars can get close is high efficiency drivetrains.

An alternate would be fuel cell.. but how would we get the energy to reduce water to hydrogen and oxygen? or what would the inputs be for the chemistry to produce the oxygen and hydrogen?

By the way, where and what form does most of our electricity come from? Don’t forget to factor in transmission losses in the overall equation for the cost on the electric car.

There is a reason why the GM electric car disappeared after the test phase (actually 2). One was that GM was destroying the cars to reduce their liability after the test was done, the second and more important was that the cars use of electricity for recharging was underwritten or sponsored so that people would not see the full cost. You want electric bills of well over $1300/month? Get an electric car.

Another way to look at it is: Your refrigerator/freezer is generally the largest energy consumer in the house. To run one on a backup generator requires a generator of at least 5kva in power (or about 7 horsepower). Every time the fridge powers up to keep cool, that is 7 horsepower running. Cars on the freeway require about 15hp @ 60mph (for constant speed). You add electric car charging costs to your electric bill, you will have to electrically pour that 15hp into the battery. By the way, charging a battery is not 100% efficient, it is generally around 80% in and 80% out (conversion when you use it). That means you have to pour in 23.44hp in to get 15hp on demand when driving an electric vehicle (note that I am using constant speed.. so costs due to acceleration and de-acceleration are not even being covered). By the way, I am also not considering the efficiency of the motor (generally around 90%) nor the wiring (depends on type and gauge).. both increase the charging demands.

Now compare the duration of the power usage.. the fridge powers up for about 1 to 2 minutes about 5 to 10 times a day(7hp for 5 to 20 min). Your drive to work is?? about 30 minutes each way? more? (23.44hp for 30min to 60min) Note: Comparing power demand at the electric meter here

Electric cars can be effective, but only if you have your own PV Array (Photo-Voltaic Array). To size one for electric vehicles, you are looking at around a 30KVA array. Some electric companies will have heartburn here.. you are above 10KVA which they like to use as a threshold.

Disclaimer: My calculations are rough here.. and variance depends upon build of electric vehicle, electric control system and type of batteries

BTW: There is a RAV4 electric vehicle you can buy.. but you have to get it used. It was discontinued in 2003. There is also a tzero as well as a ford ranger EV… and some others. More Links.. I could locate more.. but time for me to get some ZZZs before I turn into a pumpkin..

[Anonymous]

ucodegen, you said “There is no way for a battery to contain the same amount of energy per pound as a gallon of gasoline.”

I agree that today’s batteries can’t, but why do you say that there is no way? I don’t see why future batteries, which will keep improving as technology is improved, could hold even more energy than gasoline on a pound per pound comparison. Also, I’ve heard of ultra capacitors possibly being used in electric cars, which could be a significant break through.

In addition, I’ve read that that the “well-to-wheel” efficiency is better using an electric car than a gasoline car. In other words, generating electricity at a remotely located power plant using a gallon of gas (as an example)and using that electricity in an eclectic car, even taking into account the transmission loss, can actually be more efficient use of the gas than when used in a car. This is because the power plant is much more efficient and clean in the power conversion process.

Plus, you add the flexibility of being able to generate electricity by a variety of means, as opposed to being limited to gas. Once the price of solar panels comes down, people can install panels on their roof and possibly drive with only the cost of vehicle maintenance.

I admit we likely do not have the power generation facilities to accommodate a large number of electric cars today, but it is certainly a feasible alternative in the near future.

[kewp]

Also, I’ve heard of ultra capacitors possibly being used in electric cars, which could be a significant break through.

Read the story I linked above. Ultra-capacitors tied to a super high output/efficient diesel fueled turbine.

There are much more efficient engine designs available, its just no one has brought them to market yet. I guess the invisible hand is going to change that shortly.

[drunkle]

heh. i’ve been tossing the idea of a diesel turbine/electric hybrid around for awhile. good to see someone doing it.

an interesting advance in air flow analysis will hopefully produce more efficient turbines to boot.

note, the best solution imo is still a pure electric. as noted by the other poster, electricity is more efficient, has bigger potential, lower costs, better environmental impact…

[drunkle]

heh. i’ve been tossing the idea of a diesel turbine/electric hybrid around for awhile. good to see someone doing it.

an interesting advance in air flow analysis will hopefully produce more efficient turbines to boot.

note, the best solution imo is still a pure electric. as noted by the other poster, electricity is more efficient, has bigger potential, lower costs, better environmental impact…

[drunkle]

heh. i’ve been tossing the idea of a diesel turbine/electric hybrid around for awhile. good to see someone doing it.

an interesting advance in air flow analysis will hopefully produce more efficient turbines to boot.

note, the best solution imo is still a pure electric. as noted by the other poster, electricity is more efficient, has bigger potential, lower costs, better environmental impact…

[drunkle]

heh. i’ve been tossing the idea of a diesel turbine/electric hybrid around for awhile. good to see someone doing it.

an interesting advance in air flow analysis will hopefully produce more efficient turbines to boot.

note, the best solution imo is still a pure electric. as noted by the other poster, electricity is more efficient, has bigger potential, lower costs, better environmental impact…

[Arraya]

You guys are missing the bigger picture. There are a few premises you must first understand.

1: Technology is not energy
2: Basically the earth is a closed loop system and we can neither create nor destroy energy, we merely gather it.

Unfortunately, we gathered all the best stuff first and now we will have to concoct a myriad of ways to gather energy in energy intensive ways. Thusly losing vast amounts of efficiency from our current paradigm of gathering energy.

In a post peak world we will have a mosaic of alternatives that cannot nearly fill the energy VOID if peak happens within the next 5-10 years at current technology levels and thats even with small % declines. Maybe if we have a full scale “Apollo” mission it could be achieved within a decade w/o terrible consequences. But what are the chances of that happing in the next year or two on a global scale.

Currently there seems to be a growing chorus of experts that say it will be between now and 2011. A few say it happened in 06 and if the current production levels persist thru the new year it looks like it could be true, though maybe on purpose(Saudi could be holding back).

My biggest concern is what happens when the world economy does not have unfettered access to cheap energy as it did in the past? Are all the world countries going to act like civilized adults and work it out? I personally think there will be a huge freak out moment when we really find out how it feels to conserve. It’s the human nature aspect that will get us.

Sprinkle a little climate change, eco-system destruction, water shortages and other resource depletion, financial alchemy and overpopulation into the mix and we have the perfect storm. But I’m sure the invisable hand will take care of all that.

All the while Atlanta decides that it would be a good idea to stop watering lawns just a week or two ago when they have only 80 days of water left. Curious to see how that one plays out. Not a good sign of how we are going react on a global level.

I think we could get of this crisis relatively painlessly with a massive, well planned out group effort, but will invariably will pick the more destructive path. Hell, outlawing non-emergeny single car commuters would save us years but I’d bet we would invade another country before that.

“If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.”
— “God’s Utility Function”
Sir Richard Dawkins
Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85

Today on CNBC

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5682267274268907834&q=matt+simmons&total=265&start=0&num=10&so=1&type=search&plindex=1

[Arraya]

You guys are missing the bigger picture. There are a few premises you must first understand.

1: Technology is not energy
2: Basically the earth is a closed loop system and we can neither create nor destroy energy, we merely gather it.

Unfortunately, we gathered all the best stuff first and now we will have to concoct a myriad of ways to gather energy in energy intensive ways. Thusly losing vast amounts of efficiency from our current paradigm of gathering energy.

In a post peak world we will have a mosaic of alternatives that cannot nearly fill the energy VOID if peak happens within the next 5-10 years at current technology levels and thats even with small % declines. Maybe if we have a full scale “Apollo” mission it could be achieved within a decade w/o terrible consequences. But what are the chances of that happing in the next year or two on a global scale.

Currently there seems to be a growing chorus of experts that say it will be between now and 2011. A few say it happened in 06 and if the current production levels persist thru the new year it looks like it could be true, though maybe on purpose(Saudi could be holding back).

My biggest concern is what happens when the world economy does not have unfettered access to cheap energy as it did in the past? Are all the world countries going to act like civilized adults and work it out? I personally think there will be a huge freak out moment when we really find out how it feels to conserve. It’s the human nature aspect that will get us.

Sprinkle a little climate change, eco-system destruction, water shortages and other resource depletion, financial alchemy and overpopulation into the mix and we have the perfect storm. But I’m sure the invisable hand will take care of all that.

All the while Atlanta decides that it would be a good idea to stop watering lawns just a week or two ago when they have only 80 days of water left. Curious to see how that one plays out. Not a good sign of how we are going react on a global level.

I think we could get of this crisis relatively painlessly with a massive, well planned out group effort, but will invariably will pick the more destructive path. Hell, outlawing non-emergeny single car commuters would save us years but I’d bet we would invade another country before that.

“If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.”
— “God’s Utility Function”
Sir Richard Dawkins
Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85

Today on CNBC

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5682267274268907834&q=matt+simmons&total=265&start=0&num=10&so=1&type=search&plindex=1

[Arraya]

You guys are missing the bigger picture. There are a few premises you must first understand.

1: Technology is not energy
2: Basically the earth is a closed loop system and we can neither create nor destroy energy, we merely gather it.

Unfortunately, we gathered all the best stuff first and now we will have to concoct a myriad of ways to gather energy in energy intensive ways. Thusly losing vast amounts of efficiency from our current paradigm of gathering energy.

In a post peak world we will have a mosaic of alternatives that cannot nearly fill the energy VOID if peak happens within the next 5-10 years at current technology levels and thats even with small % declines. Maybe if we have a full scale “Apollo” mission it could be achieved within a decade w/o terrible consequences. But what are the chances of that happing in the next year or two on a global scale.

Currently there seems to be a growing chorus of experts that say it will be between now and 2011. A few say it happened in 06 and if the current production levels persist thru the new year it looks like it could be true, though maybe on purpose(Saudi could be holding back).

My biggest concern is what happens when the world economy does not have unfettered access to cheap energy as it did in the past? Are all the world countries going to act like civilized adults and work it out? I personally think there will be a huge freak out moment when we really find out how it feels to conserve. It’s the human nature aspect that will get us.

Sprinkle a little climate change, eco-system destruction, water shortages and other resource depletion, financial alchemy and overpopulation into the mix and we have the perfect storm. But I’m sure the invisable hand will take care of all that.

All the while Atlanta decides that it would be a good idea to stop watering lawns just a week or two ago when they have only 80 days of water left. Curious to see how that one plays out. Not a good sign of how we are going react on a global level.

I think we could get of this crisis relatively painlessly with a massive, well planned out group effort, but will invariably will pick the more destructive path. Hell, outlawing non-emergeny single car commuters would save us years but I’d bet we would invade another country before that.

“If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.”
— “God’s Utility Function”
Sir Richard Dawkins
Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85

Today on CNBC

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5682267274268907834&q=matt+simmons&total=265&start=0&num=10&so=1&type=search&plindex=1

[Arraya]

You guys are missing the bigger picture. There are a few premises you must first understand.

1: Technology is not energy
2: Basically the earth is a closed loop system and we can neither create nor destroy energy, we merely gather it.

Unfortunately, we gathered all the best stuff first and now we will have to concoct a myriad of ways to gather energy in energy intensive ways. Thusly losing vast amounts of efficiency from our current paradigm of gathering energy.

In a post peak world we will have a mosaic of alternatives that cannot nearly fill the energy VOID if peak happens within the next 5-10 years at current technology levels and thats even with small % declines. Maybe if we have a full scale “Apollo” mission it could be achieved within a decade w/o terrible consequences. But what are the chances of that happing in the next year or two on a global scale.

Currently there seems to be a growing chorus of experts that say it will be between now and 2011. A few say it happened in 06 and if the current production levels persist thru the new year it looks like it could be true, though maybe on purpose(Saudi could be holding back).

My biggest concern is what happens when the world economy does not have unfettered access to cheap energy as it did in the past? Are all the world countries going to act like civilized adults and work it out? I personally think there will be a huge freak out moment when we really find out how it feels to conserve. It’s the human nature aspect that will get us.

Sprinkle a little climate change, eco-system destruction, water shortages and other resource depletion, financial alchemy and overpopulation into the mix and we have the perfect storm. But I’m sure the invisable hand will take care of all that.

All the while Atlanta decides that it would be a good idea to stop watering lawns just a week or two ago when they have only 80 days of water left. Curious to see how that one plays out. Not a good sign of how we are going react on a global level.

I think we could get of this crisis relatively painlessly with a massive, well planned out group effort, but will invariably will pick the more destructive path. Hell, outlawing non-emergeny single car commuters would save us years but I’d bet we would invade another country before that.

“If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.”
— “God’s Utility Function”
Sir Richard Dawkins
Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85

Today on CNBC

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5682267274268907834&q=matt+simmons&total=265&start=0&num=10&so=1&type=search&plindex=1

[kewp]

Also, I’ve heard of ultra capacitors possibly being used in electric cars, which could be a significant break through.

Read the story I linked above. Ultra-capacitors tied to a super high output/efficient diesel fueled turbine.

There are much more efficient engine designs available, its just no one has brought them to market yet. I guess the invisible hand is going to change that shortly.

[kewp]

Also, I’ve heard of ultra capacitors possibly being used in electric cars, which could be a significant break through.

Read the story I linked above. Ultra-capacitors tied to a super high output/efficient diesel fueled turbine.

There are much more efficient engine designs available, its just no one has brought them to market yet. I guess the invisible hand is going to change that shortly.

[kewp]

Also, I’ve heard of ultra capacitors possibly being used in electric cars, which could be a significant break through.

Read the story I linked above. Ultra-capacitors tied to a super high output/efficient diesel fueled turbine.

There are much more efficient engine designs available, its just no one has brought them to market yet. I guess the invisible hand is going to change that shortly.

[ucodegen]

@klar

ucodegen, you said “There is no way for a battery to contain the same amount of energy per pound as a gallon of gasoline.”

I agree that today’s batteries can’t, but why do you say that there is no way?

Because the nature of the chemistry involved. Batteries are capturing the charge that moves in a reaction. The reaction involves few bonds. In the case of gasoline, the reaction involves several bonds and several exothermic reactions. If you notice, the higher capacity batteries are almost (but not quite) like explosive (ie: Lithium Ion batteries) The chemistry in these batteries have to be very reactive to produce the electrical energy. But these batteries end up producing even more energy if they burn (but then they can’t be recharged).

Also, I’ve heard of ultra capacitors possibly being used in electric cars, which could be a significant break through.
Not really. Ultra capacitors will never be able to store the amount of energy in a battery. That is because capacitors (even ultra caps) store energy at a physical structural level(several atoms in size) while a battery stores energy at an atomic level. Ultra caps are useful for storing moderate amounts of energy over a short time (they leak energy) and being able to dump that energy incredibly rapidly. They can be used to flatten peaks in the demand and fill up the valleys.. ie: discharge an ultra cap when acceleration and recharge when de-accelerating. You need very high currents during both of these, but between.. the demand is low.

I’ve read that that the “well-to-wheel” efficiency is better using an electric car than a gasoline car. In other words, generating electricity at a remotely located power plant using a gallon of gas… This is because the power plant is much more efficient and clean in the power conversion process.

Are you taking into account transmission losses (radiated, resistive and inductive coupling)? Step down transformer losses? These loses are quite considerable, and are part of the reason why several companies have resorted to generating their electricity on site (UCSD is an example). If you look at the cost of generating electricity with an engine vs what it costs to produce with your own generator, it can come quite close. This ignores that the electrical generating stations get a break on the cost of fuel (buy in bulk – Costco model, don’t have consumption taxes – no gasoline tax, can sell their waste heat to factories near by). I have read the same.. but using my EE-CE background and running the numbers, it just ain’t so. In fact these losses are so great that power companies try to get the generating station as close to the point of consumption as possible.

Once the price of solar panels comes down, people can install panels on their roof and possibly drive with only the cost of vehicle maintenance.
There are people already doing this. The problem is that you need over 2000sq ft with full sun visibility to have it effective. Using solar panels at the site of consumption(house) is more effective than off in the desert somewhere. You have eliminated the electrical transmission losses. The one problem in “price of solar panels comes down” is that they are already subsidized (through tax offsets). You need large amounts of very pure silicon (same type you make computer chips from) to make solar cells (99+% pure is very expensive) Even then, you are looking at a conversion efficiency under 10% except for expensive exotics. The reason why it is hard to get any higher than this has to do with quantum physics; energy of a photon and electrical breakdown voltage threshold in a semiconductor junction. Each wavelength of light has a different energy in Volts, though each contributes 1 electron of charge at that potential.

I admit we likely do not have the power generation facilities to accommodate a large number of electric cars today, but it is certainly a feasible alternative in the near future.
This will only be feasible of you tax the crap out of gasoline and subsidize electricity. Electrical companies are all for this.

@kewp
There are much more efficient engine designs available, its just no one has brought them to market yet. I guess the invisible hand is going to change that shortly.

Yep there are. It is interesting how it takes only one auto company to prod things into motion. Example: the direct injection gasoline(not diesel) engine that Audi and Mazda are coming out with/using was first being designed back around 1982 (or before. ’82 was when I first heard about it).

@arraya
We don’t panic very easily around here… so don’t bother. There is still an incredible amount of energy around (in one form or another)… so the population will continue to grow…

[Arraya]

Not trying to panic.

The underlying problem is not energy but time scales. And the real problem is will we not only convert to new energy sources but continue to grow our energy usage on a time scale that will prevent major disruptions in our society.

People are concerned about our ability to transition are also suggesting that we take a more balanced approach to energy and energy usage and maintain and increase our standards of living in the happiness and health sense.
It does not have to be measured in energy consumption.

We can probably build enough coal/nuclear and even better renewable resources no matter what to ensure that some small fraction of society can maintain an nice lifestyle. I think the chance of a complete breakdown is very low.

So for me the real underlying problem is who gets technology
this is an issue of how much we create and when.

“so the population will continue to grow…”

Unfortunately it will only to exacebate future problems, but only temporarily.

Do you think that is what they said when the cut down the last tree on Easter Island?

Infinate growth does not work on a finite world. It has its consequences to try and do it. The sad thing is that it is overly obvious yet we act like that it is not true.

[Arraya]

Not trying to panic.

The underlying problem is not energy but time scales. And the real problem is will we not only convert to new energy sources but continue to grow our energy usage on a time scale that will prevent major disruptions in our society.

People are concerned about our ability to transition are also suggesting that we take a more balanced approach to energy and energy usage and maintain and increase our standards of living in the happiness and health sense.
It does not have to be measured in energy consumption.

We can probably build enough coal/nuclear and even better renewable resources no matter what to ensure that some small fraction of society can maintain an nice lifestyle. I think the chance of a complete breakdown is very low.

So for me the real underlying problem is who gets technology
this is an issue of how much we create and when.

“so the population will continue to grow…”

Unfortunately it will only to exacebate future problems, but only temporarily.

Do you think that is what they said when the cut down the last tree on Easter Island?

Infinate growth does not work on a finite world. It has its consequences to try and do it. The sad thing is that it is overly obvious yet we act like that it is not true.

[Arraya]

Not trying to panic.

The underlying problem is not energy but time scales. And the real problem is will we not only convert to new energy sources but continue to grow our energy usage on a time scale that will prevent major disruptions in our society.

People are concerned about our ability to transition are also suggesting that we take a more balanced approach to energy and energy usage and maintain and increase our standards of living in the happiness and health sense.
It does not have to be measured in energy consumption.

We can probably build enough coal/nuclear and even better renewable resources no matter what to ensure that some small fraction of society can maintain an nice lifestyle. I think the chance of a complete breakdown is very low.

So for me the real underlying problem is who gets technology
this is an issue of how much we create and when.

“so the population will continue to grow…”

Unfortunately it will only to exacebate future problems, but only temporarily.

Do you think that is what they said when the cut down the last tree on Easter Island?

Infinate growth does not work on a finite world. It has its consequences to try and do it. The sad thing is that it is overly obvious yet we act like that it is not true.

[Arraya]

Not trying to panic.

The underlying problem is not energy but time scales. And the real problem is will we not only convert to new energy sources but continue to grow our energy usage on a time scale that will prevent major disruptions in our society.

People are concerned about our ability to transition are also suggesting that we take a more balanced approach to energy and energy usage and maintain and increase our standards of living in the happiness and health sense.
It does not have to be measured in energy consumption.

We can probably build enough coal/nuclear and even better renewable resources no matter what to ensure that some small fraction of society can maintain an nice lifestyle. I think the chance of a complete breakdown is very low.

So for me the real underlying problem is who gets technology
this is an issue of how much we create and when.

“so the population will continue to grow…”

Unfortunately it will only to exacebate future problems, but only temporarily.

Do you think that is what they said when the cut down the last tree on Easter Island?

Infinate growth does not work on a finite world. It has its consequences to try and do it. The sad thing is that it is overly obvious yet we act like that it is not true.

[ucodegen]

@klar

ucodegen, you said “There is no way for a battery to contain the same amount of energy per pound as a gallon of gasoline.”

I agree that today’s batteries can’t, but why do you say that there is no way?

Because the nature of the chemistry involved. Batteries are capturing the charge that moves in a reaction. The reaction involves few bonds. In the case of gasoline, the reaction involves several bonds and several exothermic reactions. If you notice, the higher capacity batteries are almost (but not quite) like explosive (ie: Lithium Ion batteries) The chemistry in these batteries have to be very reactive to produce the electrical energy. But these batteries end up producing even more energy if they burn (but then they can’t be recharged).

Also, I’ve heard of ultra capacitors possibly being used in electric cars, which could be a significant break through.
Not really. Ultra capacitors will never be able to store the amount of energy in a battery. That is because capacitors (even ultra caps) store energy at a physical structural level(several atoms in size) while a battery stores energy at an atomic level. Ultra caps are useful for storing moderate amounts of energy over a short time (they leak energy) and being able to dump that energy incredibly rapidly. They can be used to flatten peaks in the demand and fill up the valleys.. ie: discharge an ultra cap when acceleration and recharge when de-accelerating. You need very high currents during both of these, but between.. the demand is low.

I’ve read that that the “well-to-wheel” efficiency is better using an electric car than a gasoline car. In other words, generating electricity at a remotely located power plant using a gallon of gas… This is because the power plant is much more efficient and clean in the power conversion process.

Are you taking into account transmission losses (radiated, resistive and inductive coupling)? Step down transformer losses? These loses are quite considerable, and are part of the reason why several companies have resorted to generating their electricity on site (UCSD is an example). If you look at the cost of generating electricity with an engine vs what it costs to produce with your own generator, it can come quite close. This ignores that the electrical generating stations get a break on the cost of fuel (buy in bulk – Costco model, don’t have consumption taxes – no gasoline tax, can sell their waste heat to factories near by). I have read the same.. but using my EE-CE background and running the numbers, it just ain’t so. In fact these losses are so great that power companies try to get the generating station as close to the point of consumption as possible.

Once the price of solar panels comes down, people can install panels on their roof and possibly drive with only the cost of vehicle maintenance.
There are people already doing this. The problem is that you need over 2000sq ft with full sun visibility to have it effective. Using solar panels at the site of consumption(house) is more effective than off in the desert somewhere. You have eliminated the electrical transmission losses. The one problem in “price of solar panels comes down” is that they are already subsidized (through tax offsets). You need large amounts of very pure silicon (same type you make computer chips from) to make solar cells (99+% pure is very expensive) Even then, you are looking at a conversion efficiency under 10% except for expensive exotics. The reason why it is hard to get any higher than this has to do with quantum physics; energy of a photon and electrical breakdown voltage threshold in a semiconductor junction. Each wavelength of light has a different energy in Volts, though each contributes 1 electron of charge at that potential.

I admit we likely do not have the power generation facilities to accommodate a large number of electric cars today, but it is certainly a feasible alternative in the near future.
This will only be feasible of you tax the crap out of gasoline and subsidize electricity. Electrical companies are all for this.

@kewp
There are much more efficient engine designs available, its just no one has brought them to market yet. I guess the invisible hand is going to change that shortly.

Yep there are. It is interesting how it takes only one auto company to prod things into motion. Example: the direct injection gasoline(not diesel) engine that Audi and Mazda are coming out with/using was first being designed back around 1982 (or before. ’82 was when I first heard about it).

@arraya
We don’t panic very easily around here… so don’t bother. There is still an incredible amount of energy around (in one form or another)… so the population will continue to grow…

[ucodegen]

@klar

ucodegen, you said “There is no way for a battery to contain the same amount of energy per pound as a gallon of gasoline.”

I agree that today’s batteries can’t, but why do you say that there is no way?

Because the nature of the chemistry involved. Batteries are capturing the charge that moves in a reaction. The reaction involves few bonds. In the case of gasoline, the reaction involves several bonds and several exothermic reactions. If you notice, the higher capacity batteries are almost (but not quite) like explosive (ie: Lithium Ion batteries) The chemistry in these batteries have to be very reactive to produce the electrical energy. But these batteries end up producing even more energy if they burn (but then they can’t be recharged).

Also, I’ve heard of ultra capacitors possibly being used in electric cars, which could be a significant break through.
Not really. Ultra capacitors will never be able to store the amount of energy in a battery. That is because capacitors (even ultra caps) store energy at a physical structural level(several atoms in size) while a battery stores energy at an atomic level. Ultra caps are useful for storing moderate amounts of energy over a short time (they leak energy) and being able to dump that energy incredibly rapidly. They can be used to flatten peaks in the demand and fill up the valleys.. ie: discharge an ultra cap when acceleration and recharge when de-accelerating. You need very high currents during both of these, but between.. the demand is low.

I’ve read that that the “well-to-wheel” efficiency is better using an electric car than a gasoline car. In other words, generating electricity at a remotely located power plant using a gallon of gas… This is because the power plant is much more efficient and clean in the power conversion process.

Are you taking into account transmission losses (radiated, resistive and inductive coupling)? Step down transformer losses? These loses are quite considerable, and are part of the reason why several companies have resorted to generating their electricity on site (UCSD is an example). If you look at the cost of generating electricity with an engine vs what it costs to produce with your own generator, it can come quite close. This ignores that the electrical generating stations get a break on the cost of fuel (buy in bulk – Costco model, don’t have consumption taxes – no gasoline tax, can sell their waste heat to factories near by). I have read the same.. but using my EE-CE background and running the numbers, it just ain’t so. In fact these losses are so great that power companies try to get the generating station as close to the point of consumption as possible.

Once the price of solar panels comes down, people can install panels on their roof and possibly drive with only the cost of vehicle maintenance.
There are people already doing this. The problem is that you need over 2000sq ft with full sun visibility to have it effective. Using solar panels at the site of consumption(house) is more effective than off in the desert somewhere. You have eliminated the electrical transmission losses. The one problem in “price of solar panels comes down” is that they are already subsidized (through tax offsets). You need large amounts of very pure silicon (same type you make computer chips from) to make solar cells (99+% pure is very expensive) Even then, you are looking at a conversion efficiency under 10% except for expensive exotics. The reason why it is hard to get any higher than this has to do with quantum physics; energy of a photon and electrical breakdown voltage threshold in a semiconductor junction. Each wavelength of light has a different energy in Volts, though each contributes 1 electron of charge at that potential.

I admit we likely do not have the power generation facilities to accommodate a large number of electric cars today, but it is certainly a feasible alternative in the near future.
This will only be feasible of you tax the crap out of gasoline and subsidize electricity. Electrical companies are all for this.

@kewp
There are much more efficient engine designs available, its just no one has brought them to market yet. I guess the invisible hand is going to change that shortly.

Yep there are. It is interesting how it takes only one auto company to prod things into motion. Example: the direct injection gasoline(not diesel) engine that Audi and Mazda are coming out with/using was first being designed back around 1982 (or before. ’82 was when I first heard about it).

@arraya
We don’t panic very easily around here… so don’t bother. There is still an incredible amount of energy around (in one form or another)… so the population will continue to grow…

[ucodegen]

@klar

ucodegen, you said “There is no way for a battery to contain the same amount of energy per pound as a gallon of gasoline.”

I agree that today’s batteries can’t, but why do you say that there is no way?

Because the nature of the chemistry involved. Batteries are capturing the charge that moves in a reaction. The reaction involves few bonds. In the case of gasoline, the reaction involves several bonds and several exothermic reactions. If you notice, the higher capacity batteries are almost (but not quite) like explosive (ie: Lithium Ion batteries) The chemistry in these batteries have to be very reactive to produce the electrical energy. But these batteries end up producing even more energy if they burn (but then they can’t be recharged).

Also, I’ve heard of ultra capacitors possibly being used in electric cars, which could be a significant break through.
Not really. Ultra capacitors will never be able to store the amount of energy in a battery. That is because capacitors (even ultra caps) store energy at a physical structural level(several atoms in size) while a battery stores energy at an atomic level. Ultra caps are useful for storing moderate amounts of energy over a short time (they leak energy) and being able to dump that energy incredibly rapidly. They can be used to flatten peaks in the demand and fill up the valleys.. ie: discharge an ultra cap when acceleration and recharge when de-accelerating. You need very high currents during both of these, but between.. the demand is low.

I’ve read that that the “well-to-wheel” efficiency is better using an electric car than a gasoline car. In other words, generating electricity at a remotely located power plant using a gallon of gas… This is because the power plant is much more efficient and clean in the power conversion process.

Are you taking into account transmission losses (radiated, resistive and inductive coupling)? Step down transformer losses? These loses are quite considerable, and are part of the reason why several companies have resorted to generating their electricity on site (UCSD is an example). If you look at the cost of generating electricity with an engine vs what it costs to produce with your own generator, it can come quite close. This ignores that the electrical generating stations get a break on the cost of fuel (buy in bulk – Costco model, don’t have consumption taxes – no gasoline tax, can sell their waste heat to factories near by). I have read the same.. but using my EE-CE background and running the numbers, it just ain’t so. In fact these losses are so great that power companies try to get the generating station as close to the point of consumption as possible.

Once the price of solar panels comes down, people can install panels on their roof and possibly drive with only the cost of vehicle maintenance.
There are people already doing this. The problem is that you need over 2000sq ft with full sun visibility to have it effective. Using solar panels at the site of consumption(house) is more effective than off in the desert somewhere. You have eliminated the electrical transmission losses. The one problem in “price of solar panels comes down” is that they are already subsidized (through tax offsets). You need large amounts of very pure silicon (same type you make computer chips from) to make solar cells (99+% pure is very expensive) Even then, you are looking at a conversion efficiency under 10% except for expensive exotics. The reason why it is hard to get any higher than this has to do with quantum physics; energy of a photon and electrical breakdown voltage threshold in a semiconductor junction. Each wavelength of light has a different energy in Volts, though each contributes 1 electron of charge at that potential.

I admit we likely do not have the power generation facilities to accommodate a large number of electric cars today, but it is certainly a feasible alternative in the near future.
This will only be feasible of you tax the crap out of gasoline and subsidize electricity. Electrical companies are all for this.

@kewp
There are much more efficient engine designs available, its just no one has brought them to market yet. I guess the invisible hand is going to change that shortly.

Yep there are. It is interesting how it takes only one auto company to prod things into motion. Example: the direct injection gasoline(not diesel) engine that Audi and Mazda are coming out with/using was first being designed back around 1982 (or before. ’82 was when I first heard about it).

@arraya
We don’t panic very easily around here… so don’t bother. There is still an incredible amount of energy around (in one form or another)… so the population will continue to grow…

[Anonymous]

ucodegen, you said “There is no way for a battery to contain the same amount of energy per pound as a gallon of gasoline.”

I agree that today’s batteries can’t, but why do you say that there is no way? I don’t see why future batteries, which will keep improving as technology is improved, could hold even more energy than gasoline on a pound per pound comparison. Also, I’ve heard of ultra capacitors possibly being used in electric cars, which could be a significant break through.

In addition, I’ve read that that the “well-to-wheel” efficiency is better using an electric car than a gasoline car. In other words, generating electricity at a remotely located power plant using a gallon of gas (as an example)and using that electricity in an eclectic car, even taking into account the transmission loss, can actually be more efficient use of the gas than when used in a car. This is because the power plant is much more efficient and clean in the power conversion process.

Plus, you add the flexibility of being able to generate electricity by a variety of means, as opposed to being limited to gas. Once the price of solar panels comes down, people can install panels on their roof and possibly drive with only the cost of vehicle maintenance.

I admit we likely do not have the power generation facilities to accommodate a large number of electric cars today, but it is certainly a feasible alternative in the near future.

[Anonymous]

ucodegen, you said “There is no way for a battery to contain the same amount of energy per pound as a gallon of gasoline.”

I agree that today’s batteries can’t, but why do you say that there is no way? I don’t see why future batteries, which will keep improving as technology is improved, could hold even more energy than gasoline on a pound per pound comparison. Also, I’ve heard of ultra capacitors possibly being used in electric cars, which could be a significant break through.

In addition, I’ve read that that the “well-to-wheel” efficiency is better using an electric car than a gasoline car. In other words, generating electricity at a remotely located power plant using a gallon of gas (as an example)and using that electricity in an eclectic car, even taking into account the transmission loss, can actually be more efficient use of the gas than when used in a car. This is because the power plant is much more efficient and clean in the power conversion process.

Plus, you add the flexibility of being able to generate electricity by a variety of means, as opposed to being limited to gas. Once the price of solar panels comes down, people can install panels on their roof and possibly drive with only the cost of vehicle maintenance.

I admit we likely do not have the power generation facilities to accommodate a large number of electric cars today, but it is certainly a feasible alternative in the near future.

[Anonymous]

ucodegen, you said “There is no way for a battery to contain the same amount of energy per pound as a gallon of gasoline.”

I agree that today’s batteries can’t, but why do you say that there is no way? I don’t see why future batteries, which will keep improving as technology is improved, could hold even more energy than gasoline on a pound per pound comparison. Also, I’ve heard of ultra capacitors possibly being used in electric cars, which could be a significant break through.

In addition, I’ve read that that the “well-to-wheel” efficiency is better using an electric car than a gasoline car. In other words, generating electricity at a remotely located power plant using a gallon of gas (as an example)and using that electricity in an eclectic car, even taking into account the transmission loss, can actually be more efficient use of the gas than when used in a car. This is because the power plant is much more efficient and clean in the power conversion process.

Plus, you add the flexibility of being able to generate electricity by a variety of means, as opposed to being limited to gas. Once the price of solar panels comes down, people can install panels on their roof and possibly drive with only the cost of vehicle maintenance.

I admit we likely do not have the power generation facilities to accommodate a large number of electric cars today, but it is certainly a feasible alternative in the near future.

[ucodegen]

Why can’t someone build a decent electric car?

There is no way for a battery to contain the same amount of energy per pound as a gallon of gasoline. The only way electric cars can get close is high efficiency drivetrains.

An alternate would be fuel cell.. but how would we get the energy to reduce water to hydrogen and oxygen? or what would the inputs be for the chemistry to produce the oxygen and hydrogen?

By the way, where and what form does most of our electricity come from? Don’t forget to factor in transmission losses in the overall equation for the cost on the electric car.

There is a reason why the GM electric car disappeared after the test phase (actually 2). One was that GM was destroying the cars to reduce their liability after the test was done, the second and more important was that the cars use of electricity for recharging was underwritten or sponsored so that people would not see the full cost. You want electric bills of well over $1300/month? Get an electric car.

Another way to look at it is: Your refrigerator/freezer is generally the largest energy consumer in the house. To run one on a backup generator requires a generator of at least 5kva in power (or about 7 horsepower). Every time the fridge powers up to keep cool, that is 7 horsepower running. Cars on the freeway require about 15hp @ 60mph (for constant speed). You add electric car charging costs to your electric bill, you will have to electrically pour that 15hp into the battery. By the way, charging a battery is not 100% efficient, it is generally around 80% in and 80% out (conversion when you use it). That means you have to pour in 23.44hp in to get 15hp on demand when driving an electric vehicle (note that I am using constant speed.. so costs due to acceleration and de-acceleration are not even being covered). By the way, I am also not considering the efficiency of the motor (generally around 90%) nor the wiring (depends on type and gauge).. both increase the charging demands.

Now compare the duration of the power usage.. the fridge powers up for about 1 to 2 minutes about 5 to 10 times a day(7hp for 5 to 20 min). Your drive to work is?? about 30 minutes each way? more? (23.44hp for 30min to 60min) Note: Comparing power demand at the electric meter here

Electric cars can be effective, but only if you have your own PV Array (Photo-Voltaic Array). To size one for electric vehicles, you are looking at around a 30KVA array. Some electric companies will have heartburn here.. you are above 10KVA which they like to use as a threshold.

Disclaimer: My calculations are rough here.. and variance depends upon build of electric vehicle, electric control system and type of batteries

BTW: There is a RAV4 electric vehicle you can buy.. but you have to get it used. It was discontinued in 2003. There is also a tzero as well as a ford ranger EV… and some others. More Links.. I could locate more.. but time for me to get some ZZZs before I turn into a pumpkin..

[ucodegen]

Why can’t someone build a decent electric car?

There is no way for a battery to contain the same amount of energy per pound as a gallon of gasoline. The only way electric cars can get close is high efficiency drivetrains.

An alternate would be fuel cell.. but how would we get the energy to reduce water to hydrogen and oxygen? or what would the inputs be for the chemistry to produce the oxygen and hydrogen?

By the way, where and what form does most of our electricity come from? Don’t forget to factor in transmission losses in the overall equation for the cost on the electric car.

There is a reason why the GM electric car disappeared after the test phase (actually 2). One was that GM was destroying the cars to reduce their liability after the test was done, the second and more important was that the cars use of electricity for recharging was underwritten or sponsored so that people would not see the full cost. You want electric bills of well over $1300/month? Get an electric car.

Another way to look at it is: Your refrigerator/freezer is generally the largest energy consumer in the house. To run one on a backup generator requires a generator of at least 5kva in power (or about 7 horsepower). Every time the fridge powers up to keep cool, that is 7 horsepower running. Cars on the freeway require about 15hp @ 60mph (for constant speed). You add electric car charging costs to your electric bill, you will have to electrically pour that 15hp into the battery. By the way, charging a battery is not 100% efficient, it is generally around 80% in and 80% out (conversion when you use it). That means you have to pour in 23.44hp in to get 15hp on demand when driving an electric vehicle (note that I am using constant speed.. so costs due to acceleration and de-acceleration are not even being covered). By the way, I am also not considering the efficiency of the motor (generally around 90%) nor the wiring (depends on type and gauge).. both increase the charging demands.

Now compare the duration of the power usage.. the fridge powers up for about 1 to 2 minutes about 5 to 10 times a day(7hp for 5 to 20 min). Your drive to work is?? about 30 minutes each way? more? (23.44hp for 30min to 60min) Note: Comparing power demand at the electric meter here

Electric cars can be effective, but only if you have your own PV Array (Photo-Voltaic Array). To size one for electric vehicles, you are looking at around a 30KVA array. Some electric companies will have heartburn here.. you are above 10KVA which they like to use as a threshold.

Disclaimer: My calculations are rough here.. and variance depends upon build of electric vehicle, electric control system and type of batteries

BTW: There is a RAV4 electric vehicle you can buy.. but you have to get it used. It was discontinued in 2003. There is also a tzero as well as a ford ranger EV… and some others. More Links.. I could locate more.. but time for me to get some ZZZs before I turn into a pumpkin..

[4plexowner]

from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/xx.html

83 million bbl/day (2004 est.)

~

here we are three years later and world production is under 86 million bbl/day

[Tone]

The one thing I’m wondering is this:

Is oil really more expensive in real terms for everyone in the world, or is it just dollar inflation that is making oil more expensive for Americans?

[Tone]

The one thing I’m wondering is this:

Is oil really more expensive in real terms for everyone in the world, or is it just dollar inflation that is making oil more expensive for Americans?

[Tone]

The one thing I’m wondering is this:

Is oil really more expensive in real terms for everyone in the world, or is it just dollar inflation that is making oil more expensive for Americans?

[kewp]

I like this solution:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html

[kewp]

I like this solution:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html

[kewp]

I like this solution:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html

[4plexowner]

from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/xx.html

83 million bbl/day (2004 est.)

~

here we are three years later and world production is under 86 million bbl/day

[4plexowner]

from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/xx.html

83 million bbl/day (2004 est.)

~

here we are three years later and world production is under 86 million bbl/day

[Raybyrnes]

Good time to make lemonade out of lemons. Oil prices going up mean that alrternative energy substitutes will become more economical.

How would this ply out. Think Solar. Polisilica is used to make processing chips for INTEL but they are also used in Solar Panals. One stock I have been following in MEMC stock symbol wfr.

The dollar weakening means that our exports become cheaper. How do I benefit form this. Think shipping industry. DRYS and otehr shippers should do well in this enrirnment.

Oil prices up mean that it is more valuable to drill for oil. How do I benefit . What about looking at a company like RIG.

The way I see the rise in gas and profits of the oil company is that my 401k is up about 18% year to date. Part of that is comprised of energy sectors taht I have been the benefitciary of. The bottome line is that if you can’t beat em join em.

[cr]

10 years ago oil was $10 barrel. The weak dollar is certainly not the only contributor to this 10-fold increase but it’s arguably the largest

Bernanke is on his way to earning title of worst fed chief ever IMO.

Stocks rally 1% after 2 weeks or so of relative stability following yesterday’s 1/4pt cut. Today they drop 2% because oil is at an all time high. Way to go Ben!

The FED and Congress want to keep people in homes who simply can’t afford them, and devalue the dollar to save them $50/month on a mortgage while shifting that “savings” to higher cost food, imports, oil, energy, consumer goods, and just about everything else.

Meanwhile anyone who saves money (who does that these days) loses more and more to inflation everyday, which is supposed to be the FEDs main role.

What a joke.

[cr]

10 years ago oil was $10 barrel. The weak dollar is certainly not the only contributor to this 10-fold increase but it’s arguably the largest

Bernanke is on his way to earning title of worst fed chief ever IMO.

Stocks rally 1% after 2 weeks or so of relative stability following yesterday’s 1/4pt cut. Today they drop 2% because oil is at an all time high. Way to go Ben!

The FED and Congress want to keep people in homes who simply can’t afford them, and devalue the dollar to save them $50/month on a mortgage while shifting that “savings” to higher cost food, imports, oil, energy, consumer goods, and just about everything else.

Meanwhile anyone who saves money (who does that these days) loses more and more to inflation everyday, which is supposed to be the FEDs main role.

What a joke.

[cr]

10 years ago oil was $10 barrel. The weak dollar is certainly not the only contributor to this 10-fold increase but it’s arguably the largest

Bernanke is on his way to earning title of worst fed chief ever IMO.

Stocks rally 1% after 2 weeks or so of relative stability following yesterday’s 1/4pt cut. Today they drop 2% because oil is at an all time high. Way to go Ben!

The FED and Congress want to keep people in homes who simply can’t afford them, and devalue the dollar to save them $50/month on a mortgage while shifting that “savings” to higher cost food, imports, oil, energy, consumer goods, and just about everything else.

Meanwhile anyone who saves money (who does that these days) loses more and more to inflation everyday, which is supposed to be the FEDs main role.

What a joke.

[Arraya]

“Oil prices up mean that it is more valuable to drill for oil”

Looks like exxons explorations are not working out to well.

It’s not that oil is disapearing is getting more and more expensive. Every well goes through a natural peak and decline. That’s just the way it works.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/01/news/companies/exxon_mobil/index.htm?postversion=2007110112

Yes lots of places new places to invest. Follow the advice of T. Boone Pickens (he just bought that 35 million dollar property in del mar). And Matt Simmons former bush energy advisor.

[Arraya]

“Oil prices up mean that it is more valuable to drill for oil”

Looks like exxons explorations are not working out to well.

It’s not that oil is disapearing is getting more and more expensive. Every well goes through a natural peak and decline. That’s just the way it works.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/01/news/companies/exxon_mobil/index.htm?postversion=2007110112

Yes lots of places new places to invest. Follow the advice of T. Boone Pickens (he just bought that 35 million dollar property in del mar). And Matt Simmons former bush energy advisor.

[Arraya]

“Oil prices up mean that it is more valuable to drill for oil”

Looks like exxons explorations are not working out to well.

It’s not that oil is disapearing is getting more and more expensive. Every well goes through a natural peak and decline. That’s just the way it works.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/01/news/companies/exxon_mobil/index.htm?postversion=2007110112

Yes lots of places new places to invest. Follow the advice of T. Boone Pickens (he just bought that 35 million dollar property in del mar). And Matt Simmons former bush energy advisor.

[Raybyrnes]

Good time to make lemonade out of lemons. Oil prices going up mean that alrternative energy substitutes will become more economical.

How would this ply out. Think Solar. Polisilica is used to make processing chips for INTEL but they are also used in Solar Panals. One stock I have been following in MEMC stock symbol wfr.

The dollar weakening means that our exports become cheaper. How do I benefit form this. Think shipping industry. DRYS and otehr shippers should do well in this enrirnment.

Oil prices up mean that it is more valuable to drill for oil. How do I benefit . What about looking at a company like RIG.

The way I see the rise in gas and profits of the oil company is that my 401k is up about 18% year to date. Part of that is comprised of energy sectors taht I have been the benefitciary of. The bottome line is that if you can’t beat em join em.

[Raybyrnes]

Good time to make lemonade out of lemons. Oil prices going up mean that alrternative energy substitutes will become more economical.

How would this ply out. Think Solar. Polisilica is used to make processing chips for INTEL but they are also used in Solar Panals. One stock I have been following in MEMC stock symbol wfr.

The dollar weakening means that our exports become cheaper. How do I benefit form this. Think shipping industry. DRYS and otehr shippers should do well in this enrirnment.

Oil prices up mean that it is more valuable to drill for oil. How do I benefit . What about looking at a company like RIG.

The way I see the rise in gas and profits of the oil company is that my 401k is up about 18% year to date. Part of that is comprised of energy sectors taht I have been the benefitciary of. The bottome line is that if you can’t beat em join em.

[bsrsharma]

$100 oil is very good for the environment; $200 would be much better than any number of Al Gore’s movies – though GM & Ford will go bankrupt and hurt Midwest very badly.

[kewp]

$100 oil is very good for the environment

This is a big reason I don’t crow about inflation as much as I probably should. It’s going to force most Americans to become conservationists.

Salaries aren’t inflating, thats for sure.

[Arraya]

$100 oil is very good for the environment

Hardly… Coal is cheap and dirty now. Plus how long before we open up Anwar..

[DaCounselor]

Crude is a huge commodity play. It’s a high profile commodity with lots of news to provide traction and momentum. Hedgies and major traders are carrying prices. I don’t think anyone disputes that a significant % of price moves are due to speculation. I suspect we’re not far off a short-driven move down.

[Arraya]

“I don’t think anyone disputes that a significant % of price moves are due to speculation. I suspect we’re not far off a short-driven move down.”

Actually Professor Graig Pirrong (Professor of Finance and Energy Markets, University of Houston Disagrees, he says this:

“If anything, the entry of speculators affects the price of energy price risk. That is, it impacts the “drift” in a futures price to an expected future spot price that is based on expectations regarding supply and demand conditions at contract expiration, rather than affecting the price of physical oil. Put differently, derivatives markets are primarily for buying and selling price risks rather than for buying and selling the commodities themselves. The delivery process ensures that futures prices converge to physical spot prices, but the amount of activity in contracts with payoffs tied to a commodity price need bear no relationship to the amount of the physical commodity available, and if speculators (and others) act competitively, the physical spot price will be driven by supply and demand fundamentals regardless of the magnitude of the “side bets” on commodity price risk.”

[one_muggle]

Wow. Sounds like this is a religious issue for some of us.

All I was saying about Hubbert’s Peak is that it is an overly simplistic model and that his estimates were based on the extraction of cheap oil. As price goes up, production will increase because one can now make money on the oil that is more expensive to extract (deep ocean, shale, etc) or more expensive to refine (such as oil with high sulfur).
I liked the suggestion for me to read a science book because I said production follows demand–as if I suggested we could simply manufacture more oil. The fact is, oil wells are not simply straws sucking the fluid from a big bucket of dino-goo.
If you read a book on the subject, you will see that many current oil wells require a relaxation time before pumping can continue since these oil fields are more like sponges. Once you pump out all the oil near the well, it takes time for the oil to percolate depending on the permeability of the substrate, and viscosity if the oil.
Other wells require enormous capital outlay to reach the remaining oil. Many wells only reach 10% extraction ratios–and all this is the oil Hubbert used in his calculation, not the 100% that is there. If we increase the extraction ratio, the date of peak total oil shifts out.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
Critics such as Leonardo Maugeri, vice president for the Italian energy company ENI, argue that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995 [31], based on oil production data available at that time. Maugeri claims that nearly all of these estimates do not take into account non-conventional oil even though the availability of these resources is significant and the costs of extraction and processing, while still very high, are falling due to improved technology. Furthermore, he notes that the recovery rate from existing world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today due to new technology and predicts this trend will continue.

As far as oil/energy being a problem–it is probably the most pressing long term issue of the planet, but for now and in the short term, it is mainly an economic issue.

Anyone interested in a fairly easy paper on advancing extraction methods http://www.ge-at.iastate.edu/Beresnev/beresnev_johnson.pdf

-one muggle

[4plexowner]

So why has production been essentially flat for three years while oil has gone from $30 to $94 (according to you this increase in prices should have caused production to increase)

That’s 0% increase in production

300% increase in price

Seems that your argument is missing something

[one_muggle]

So why has production been essentially flat for three years while oil has gone from $30 to $94 (according to you this increase in prices should have caused production to increase)
That’s 0% increase in production
300% increase in price
Seems that your argument is missing something

Ugh. The price increase makes it more attractive to extract more expensive oil– but the time/cost of new wells is high. For sure, if prices stay high, production will keep increasing–not forever, I never said that, but for now.
BTW, if you want to see the impact of high oil prices, look at exploration companies like Dawson Geo and OYOG, they have been doing quadruple the business of the previous five years.

As far as missing something-I think you are missing something, data:
Daily production (thous. barrel per day)
2002: 74496
2006: 81663

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2007/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/oil_section_2007.pdf

Last time for my original point, before getting bogged down in explaining things I never said–many people throw around the Hubbert Peak to predict the end of oil. It is not, and was never the purpose of the Hubbert Peak. It was based on the ability to extract cheap oil, written by an employee of an oil company, showing that the US was running out of cheap oil, thus encouraging more international exploration. We (the world) will run out of cheap oil way, way, way before we run out of oil that is cheaper to extract than the energy it costs.
Yes, the price will rise, and the economic consequences could be severe, but we are not about to run out of oil–possibly we are on the cusp of running out of cheap oil.

-one muggle

[4plexowner]

You’re sending me to an oil company’s web site to prove your point

How would you feel if I sent you to ReMax or NAR’s website to support a real-estate related point?

[4plexowner]

You’re sending me to an oil company’s web site to prove your point

How would you feel if I sent you to ReMax or NAR’s website to support a real-estate related point?

[4plexowner]

You’re sending me to an oil company’s web site to prove your point

How would you feel if I sent you to ReMax or NAR’s website to support a real-estate related point?

[4plexowner]

You’re sending me to an oil company’s web site to prove your point

How would you feel if I sent you to ReMax or NAR’s website to support a real-estate related point?

[one_muggle]

So why has production been essentially flat for three years while oil has gone from $30 to $94 (according to you this increase in prices should have caused production to increase)
That’s 0% increase in production
300% increase in price
Seems that your argument is missing something

Ugh. The price increase makes it more attractive to extract more expensive oil– but the time/cost of new wells is high. For sure, if prices stay high, production will keep increasing–not forever, I never said that, but for now.
BTW, if you want to see the impact of high oil prices, look at exploration companies like Dawson Geo and OYOG, they have been doing quadruple the business of the previous five years.

As far as missing something-I think you are missing something, data:
Daily production (thous. barrel per day)
2002: 74496
2006: 81663

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2007/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/oil_section_2007.pdf

Last time for my original point, before getting bogged down in explaining things I never said–many people throw around the Hubbert Peak to predict the end of oil. It is not, and was never the purpose of the Hubbert Peak. It was based on the ability to extract cheap oil, written by an employee of an oil company, showing that the US was running out of cheap oil, thus encouraging more international exploration. We (the world) will run out of cheap oil way, way, way before we run out of oil that is cheaper to extract than the energy it costs.
Yes, the price will rise, and the economic consequences could be severe, but we are not about to run out of oil–possibly we are on the cusp of running out of cheap oil.

-one muggle

[one_muggle]

So why has production been essentially flat for three years while oil has gone from $30 to $94 (according to you this increase in prices should have caused production to increase)
That’s 0% increase in production
300% increase in price
Seems that your argument is missing something

Ugh. The price increase makes it more attractive to extract more expensive oil– but the time/cost of new wells is high. For sure, if prices stay high, production will keep increasing–not forever, I never said that, but for now.
BTW, if you want to see the impact of high oil prices, look at exploration companies like Dawson Geo and OYOG, they have been doing quadruple the business of the previous five years.

As far as missing something-I think you are missing something, data:
Daily production (thous. barrel per day)
2002: 74496
2006: 81663

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2007/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/oil_section_2007.pdf

Last time for my original point, before getting bogged down in explaining things I never said–many people throw around the Hubbert Peak to predict the end of oil. It is not, and was never the purpose of the Hubbert Peak. It was based on the ability to extract cheap oil, written by an employee of an oil company, showing that the US was running out of cheap oil, thus encouraging more international exploration. We (the world) will run out of cheap oil way, way, way before we run out of oil that is cheaper to extract than the energy it costs.
Yes, the price will rise, and the economic consequences could be severe, but we are not about to run out of oil–possibly we are on the cusp of running out of cheap oil.

-one muggle

[one_muggle]

So why has production been essentially flat for three years while oil has gone from $30 to $94 (according to you this increase in prices should have caused production to increase)
That’s 0% increase in production
300% increase in price
Seems that your argument is missing something

Ugh. The price increase makes it more attractive to extract more expensive oil– but the time/cost of new wells is high. For sure, if prices stay high, production will keep increasing–not forever, I never said that, but for now.
BTW, if you want to see the impact of high oil prices, look at exploration companies like Dawson Geo and OYOG, they have been doing quadruple the business of the previous five years.

As far as missing something-I think you are missing something, data:
Daily production (thous. barrel per day)
2002: 74496
2006: 81663

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2007/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/oil_section_2007.pdf

Last time for my original point, before getting bogged down in explaining things I never said–many people throw around the Hubbert Peak to predict the end of oil. It is not, and was never the purpose of the Hubbert Peak. It was based on the ability to extract cheap oil, written by an employee of an oil company, showing that the US was running out of cheap oil, thus encouraging more international exploration. We (the world) will run out of cheap oil way, way, way before we run out of oil that is cheaper to extract than the energy it costs.
Yes, the price will rise, and the economic consequences could be severe, but we are not about to run out of oil–possibly we are on the cusp of running out of cheap oil.

-one muggle

[4plexowner]

So why has production been essentially flat for three years while oil has gone from $30 to $94 (according to you this increase in prices should have caused production to increase)

That’s 0% increase in production

300% increase in price

Seems that your argument is missing something

[4plexowner]

So why has production been essentially flat for three years while oil has gone from $30 to $94 (according to you this increase in prices should have caused production to increase)

That’s 0% increase in production

300% increase in price

Seems that your argument is missing something

[4plexowner]

So why has production been essentially flat for three years while oil has gone from $30 to $94 (according to you this increase in prices should have caused production to increase)

That’s 0% increase in production

300% increase in price

Seems that your argument is missing something

[OwnerOfCalifornia]

The essence of the Peak Oil issue is production rate. Once you have gone to secondary and tertiary recovery methods (i.e. ‘technology’), the field is played out and flow rates are forever diminished. Hence, you are post peak. Or if you believe Matt Simmons, you are merely applying a ‘super-straw’ and making the problem worse. Managing the tail in this way solves nothing for a world that demands 86M barrels today and even more tomorrow.

For me, the PO debate plays out very simply:

Pessimists: facts, data, more facts, more data.
Optimists: Golly we’re smart and we’ll figure it out. We have Technology(tm)!
Pessimists: more facts, data, reality.

It’s already been said, but The Oil Drum is the best energy blog in the world.

[OwnerOfCalifornia]

The essence of the Peak Oil issue is production rate. Once you have gone to secondary and tertiary recovery methods (i.e. ‘technology’), the field is played out and flow rates are forever diminished. Hence, you are post peak. Or if you believe Matt Simmons, you are merely applying a ‘super-straw’ and making the problem worse. Managing the tail in this way solves nothing for a world that demands 86M barrels today and even more tomorrow.

For me, the PO debate plays out very simply:

Pessimists: facts, data, more facts, more data.
Optimists: Golly we’re smart and we’ll figure it out. We have Technology(tm)!
Pessimists: more facts, data, reality.

It’s already been said, but The Oil Drum is the best energy blog in the world.

[OwnerOfCalifornia]

The essence of the Peak Oil issue is production rate. Once you have gone to secondary and tertiary recovery methods (i.e. ‘technology’), the field is played out and flow rates are forever diminished. Hence, you are post peak. Or if you believe Matt Simmons, you are merely applying a ‘super-straw’ and making the problem worse. Managing the tail in this way solves nothing for a world that demands 86M barrels today and even more tomorrow.

For me, the PO debate plays out very simply:

Pessimists: facts, data, more facts, more data.
Optimists: Golly we’re smart and we’ll figure it out. We have Technology(tm)!
Pessimists: more facts, data, reality.

It’s already been said, but The Oil Drum is the best energy blog in the world.

[OwnerOfCalifornia]

The essence of the Peak Oil issue is production rate. Once you have gone to secondary and tertiary recovery methods (i.e. ‘technology’), the field is played out and flow rates are forever diminished. Hence, you are post peak. Or if you believe Matt Simmons, you are merely applying a ‘super-straw’ and making the problem worse. Managing the tail in this way solves nothing for a world that demands 86M barrels today and even more tomorrow.

For me, the PO debate plays out very simply:

Pessimists: facts, data, more facts, more data.
Optimists: Golly we’re smart and we’ll figure it out. We have Technology(tm)!
Pessimists: more facts, data, reality.

It’s already been said, but The Oil Drum is the best energy blog in the world.

[Arraya]

I think the Religiousity usually comes in the form of people thinking they have an entitlement to a smooth transition from one energy source to another, therefore not preparing except by the invisable hand of the free market(talk about a religion). Kind of like homeowners always expecting there home to appreciate.

“Two economists find themselves locked in a basement. They’re not sure what time it is, because it’s dark and they can’t read their watches. They think it’s nearly dinner time, cause they’re starting to feel hungry. But they’re not worried; they are not starting to panic – because they know that their demand will create sandwiches for them!”

Yes, wells extract at different rates and there are various facotrs involved in pulling it out of the ground. Still any given region peaks and declines. Us in 1970, Northslope 1999, Cantrell in 2004. That is not in dispute. It is the when that is…

“argue that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995”

I love the “cry Wolf” argument. Wasn’t the wolf real in the end.

As far as the un-conventional oils. EROEI-Energy returned on energy invested. When it takes on barrel of oil to extract one. Not really much good is it.

There are always equal and opposite Phds on both sides of any controversial issue but one side usually makes more sense.

IMO The ills of the 20th century hyper-captialism comsumption orgy are coming to fruition in the form of our geological limits limits and nobody is paying attention. We are like a world of 2 yr olds. It looks like the battle of the “rightness” of our current economic model and geological limits is starting. I’m putting my money on the limits..

Take your blue pill and get back in the matrix everybody…

[Anonymous]

What hasn’t been addressed here, with regard to higher oil prices making oil shale and sands economically feasible, is energy return on investment. Currently, the oil extraction methods waste a heck of a lot of oil and water just to extract the oil from the sands/tar. I don’t know the exact ratio, but I think the energy ROI is something like 1.2:1, and that’s not counting all the water that gets polluted to do this.

Is it really worth extracting the oil if it is not energy efficient to do so? What if we use natural gas to heat up the oil sands, basically burning a clean high-energy resource for a dirtier and less energy-efficient one?

[Anonymous]

What hasn’t been addressed here, with regard to higher oil prices making oil shale and sands economically feasible, is energy return on investment. Currently, the oil extraction methods waste a heck of a lot of oil and water just to extract the oil from the sands/tar. I don’t know the exact ratio, but I think the energy ROI is something like 1.2:1, and that’s not counting all the water that gets polluted to do this.

Is it really worth extracting the oil if it is not energy efficient to do so? What if we use natural gas to heat up the oil sands, basically burning a clean high-energy resource for a dirtier and less energy-efficient one?

[Anonymous]

What hasn’t been addressed here, with regard to higher oil prices making oil shale and sands economically feasible, is energy return on investment. Currently, the oil extraction methods waste a heck of a lot of oil and water just to extract the oil from the sands/tar. I don’t know the exact ratio, but I think the energy ROI is something like 1.2:1, and that’s not counting all the water that gets polluted to do this.

Is it really worth extracting the oil if it is not energy efficient to do so? What if we use natural gas to heat up the oil sands, basically burning a clean high-energy resource for a dirtier and less energy-efficient one?

[Anonymous]

What hasn’t been addressed here, with regard to higher oil prices making oil shale and sands economically feasible, is energy return on investment. Currently, the oil extraction methods waste a heck of a lot of oil and water just to extract the oil from the sands/tar. I don’t know the exact ratio, but I think the energy ROI is something like 1.2:1, and that’s not counting all the water that gets polluted to do this.

Is it really worth extracting the oil if it is not energy efficient to do so? What if we use natural gas to heat up the oil sands, basically burning a clean high-energy resource for a dirtier and less energy-efficient one?

[Arraya]

I think the Religiousity usually comes in the form of people thinking they have an entitlement to a smooth transition from one energy source to another, therefore not preparing except by the invisable hand of the free market(talk about a religion). Kind of like homeowners always expecting there home to appreciate.

“Two economists find themselves locked in a basement. They’re not sure what time it is, because it’s dark and they can’t read their watches. They think it’s nearly dinner time, cause they’re starting to feel hungry. But they’re not worried; they are not starting to panic – because they know that their demand will create sandwiches for them!”

Yes, wells extract at different rates and there are various facotrs involved in pulling it out of the ground. Still any given region peaks and declines. Us in 1970, Northslope 1999, Cantrell in 2004. That is not in dispute. It is the when that is…

“argue that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995”

I love the “cry Wolf” argument. Wasn’t the wolf real in the end.

As far as the un-conventional oils. EROEI-Energy returned on energy invested. When it takes on barrel of oil to extract one. Not really much good is it.

There are always equal and opposite Phds on both sides of any controversial issue but one side usually makes more sense.

IMO The ills of the 20th century hyper-captialism comsumption orgy are coming to fruition in the form of our geological limits limits and nobody is paying attention. We are like a world of 2 yr olds. It looks like the battle of the “rightness” of our current economic model and geological limits is starting. I’m putting my money on the limits..

Take your blue pill and get back in the matrix everybody…

[Arraya]

I think the Religiousity usually comes in the form of people thinking they have an entitlement to a smooth transition from one energy source to another, therefore not preparing except by the invisable hand of the free market(talk about a religion). Kind of like homeowners always expecting there home to appreciate.

“Two economists find themselves locked in a basement. They’re not sure what time it is, because it’s dark and they can’t read their watches. They think it’s nearly dinner time, cause they’re starting to feel hungry. But they’re not worried; they are not starting to panic – because they know that their demand will create sandwiches for them!”

Yes, wells extract at different rates and there are various facotrs involved in pulling it out of the ground. Still any given region peaks and declines. Us in 1970, Northslope 1999, Cantrell in 2004. That is not in dispute. It is the when that is…

“argue that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995”

I love the “cry Wolf” argument. Wasn’t the wolf real in the end.

As far as the un-conventional oils. EROEI-Energy returned on energy invested. When it takes on barrel of oil to extract one. Not really much good is it.

There are always equal and opposite Phds on both sides of any controversial issue but one side usually makes more sense.

IMO The ills of the 20th century hyper-captialism comsumption orgy are coming to fruition in the form of our geological limits limits and nobody is paying attention. We are like a world of 2 yr olds. It looks like the battle of the “rightness” of our current economic model and geological limits is starting. I’m putting my money on the limits..

Take your blue pill and get back in the matrix everybody…

[Arraya]

I think the Religiousity usually comes in the form of people thinking they have an entitlement to a smooth transition from one energy source to another, therefore not preparing except by the invisable hand of the free market(talk about a religion). Kind of like homeowners always expecting there home to appreciate.

“Two economists find themselves locked in a basement. They’re not sure what time it is, because it’s dark and they can’t read their watches. They think it’s nearly dinner time, cause they’re starting to feel hungry. But they’re not worried; they are not starting to panic – because they know that their demand will create sandwiches for them!”

Yes, wells extract at different rates and there are various facotrs involved in pulling it out of the ground. Still any given region peaks and declines. Us in 1970, Northslope 1999, Cantrell in 2004. That is not in dispute. It is the when that is…

“argue that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995”

I love the “cry Wolf” argument. Wasn’t the wolf real in the end.

As far as the un-conventional oils. EROEI-Energy returned on energy invested. When it takes on barrel of oil to extract one. Not really much good is it.

There are always equal and opposite Phds on both sides of any controversial issue but one side usually makes more sense.

IMO The ills of the 20th century hyper-captialism comsumption orgy are coming to fruition in the form of our geological limits limits and nobody is paying attention. We are like a world of 2 yr olds. It looks like the battle of the “rightness” of our current economic model and geological limits is starting. I’m putting my money on the limits..

Take your blue pill and get back in the matrix everybody…

[one_muggle]

Wow. Sounds like this is a religious issue for some of us.

All I was saying about Hubbert’s Peak is that it is an overly simplistic model and that his estimates were based on the extraction of cheap oil. As price goes up, production will increase because one can now make money on the oil that is more expensive to extract (deep ocean, shale, etc) or more expensive to refine (such as oil with high sulfur).
I liked the suggestion for me to read a science book because I said production follows demand–as if I suggested we could simply manufacture more oil. The fact is, oil wells are not simply straws sucking the fluid from a big bucket of dino-goo.
If you read a book on the subject, you will see that many current oil wells require a relaxation time before pumping can continue since these oil fields are more like sponges. Once you pump out all the oil near the well, it takes time for the oil to percolate depending on the permeability of the substrate, and viscosity if the oil.
Other wells require enormous capital outlay to reach the remaining oil. Many wells only reach 10% extraction ratios–and all this is the oil Hubbert used in his calculation, not the 100% that is there. If we increase the extraction ratio, the date of peak total oil shifts out.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
Critics such as Leonardo Maugeri, vice president for the Italian energy company ENI, argue that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995 [31], based on oil production data available at that time. Maugeri claims that nearly all of these estimates do not take into account non-conventional oil even though the availability of these resources is significant and the costs of extraction and processing, while still very high, are falling due to improved technology. Furthermore, he notes that the recovery rate from existing world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today due to new technology and predicts this trend will continue.

As far as oil/energy being a problem–it is probably the most pressing long term issue of the planet, but for now and in the short term, it is mainly an economic issue.

Anyone interested in a fairly easy paper on advancing extraction methods http://www.ge-at.iastate.edu/Beresnev/beresnev_johnson.pdf

-one muggle

[one_muggle]

Wow. Sounds like this is a religious issue for some of us.

All I was saying about Hubbert’s Peak is that it is an overly simplistic model and that his estimates were based on the extraction of cheap oil. As price goes up, production will increase because one can now make money on the oil that is more expensive to extract (deep ocean, shale, etc) or more expensive to refine (such as oil with high sulfur).
I liked the suggestion for me to read a science book because I said production follows demand–as if I suggested we could simply manufacture more oil. The fact is, oil wells are not simply straws sucking the fluid from a big bucket of dino-goo.
If you read a book on the subject, you will see that many current oil wells require a relaxation time before pumping can continue since these oil fields are more like sponges. Once you pump out all the oil near the well, it takes time for the oil to percolate depending on the permeability of the substrate, and viscosity if the oil.
Other wells require enormous capital outlay to reach the remaining oil. Many wells only reach 10% extraction ratios–and all this is the oil Hubbert used in his calculation, not the 100% that is there. If we increase the extraction ratio, the date of peak total oil shifts out.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
Critics such as Leonardo Maugeri, vice president for the Italian energy company ENI, argue that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995 [31], based on oil production data available at that time. Maugeri claims that nearly all of these estimates do not take into account non-conventional oil even though the availability of these resources is significant and the costs of extraction and processing, while still very high, are falling due to improved technology. Furthermore, he notes that the recovery rate from existing world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today due to new technology and predicts this trend will continue.

As far as oil/energy being a problem–it is probably the most pressing long term issue of the planet, but for now and in the short term, it is mainly an economic issue.

Anyone interested in a fairly easy paper on advancing extraction methods http://www.ge-at.iastate.edu/Beresnev/beresnev_johnson.pdf

-one muggle

[one_muggle]

Wow. Sounds like this is a religious issue for some of us.

All I was saying about Hubbert’s Peak is that it is an overly simplistic model and that his estimates were based on the extraction of cheap oil. As price goes up, production will increase because one can now make money on the oil that is more expensive to extract (deep ocean, shale, etc) or more expensive to refine (such as oil with high sulfur).
I liked the suggestion for me to read a science book because I said production follows demand–as if I suggested we could simply manufacture more oil. The fact is, oil wells are not simply straws sucking the fluid from a big bucket of dino-goo.
If you read a book on the subject, you will see that many current oil wells require a relaxation time before pumping can continue since these oil fields are more like sponges. Once you pump out all the oil near the well, it takes time for the oil to percolate depending on the permeability of the substrate, and viscosity if the oil.
Other wells require enormous capital outlay to reach the remaining oil. Many wells only reach 10% extraction ratios–and all this is the oil Hubbert used in his calculation, not the 100% that is there. If we increase the extraction ratio, the date of peak total oil shifts out.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
Critics such as Leonardo Maugeri, vice president for the Italian energy company ENI, argue that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995 [31], based on oil production data available at that time. Maugeri claims that nearly all of these estimates do not take into account non-conventional oil even though the availability of these resources is significant and the costs of extraction and processing, while still very high, are falling due to improved technology. Furthermore, he notes that the recovery rate from existing world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today due to new technology and predicts this trend will continue.

As far as oil/energy being a problem–it is probably the most pressing long term issue of the planet, but for now and in the short term, it is mainly an economic issue.

Anyone interested in a fairly easy paper on advancing extraction methods http://www.ge-at.iastate.edu/Beresnev/beresnev_johnson.pdf

-one muggle

[Arraya]

“I don’t think anyone disputes that a significant % of price moves are due to speculation. I suspect we’re not far off a short-driven move down.”

Actually Professor Graig Pirrong (Professor of Finance and Energy Markets, University of Houston Disagrees, he says this:

“If anything, the entry of speculators affects the price of energy price risk. That is, it impacts the “drift” in a futures price to an expected future spot price that is based on expectations regarding supply and demand conditions at contract expiration, rather than affecting the price of physical oil. Put differently, derivatives markets are primarily for buying and selling price risks rather than for buying and selling the commodities themselves. The delivery process ensures that futures prices converge to physical spot prices, but the amount of activity in contracts with payoffs tied to a commodity price need bear no relationship to the amount of the physical commodity available, and if speculators (and others) act competitively, the physical spot price will be driven by supply and demand fundamentals regardless of the magnitude of the “side bets” on commodity price risk.”

[Arraya]

“I don’t think anyone disputes that a significant % of price moves are due to speculation. I suspect we’re not far off a short-driven move down.”

Actually Professor Graig Pirrong (Professor of Finance and Energy Markets, University of Houston Disagrees, he says this:

“If anything, the entry of speculators affects the price of energy price risk. That is, it impacts the “drift” in a futures price to an expected future spot price that is based on expectations regarding supply and demand conditions at contract expiration, rather than affecting the price of physical oil. Put differently, derivatives markets are primarily for buying and selling price risks rather than for buying and selling the commodities themselves. The delivery process ensures that futures prices converge to physical spot prices, but the amount of activity in contracts with payoffs tied to a commodity price need bear no relationship to the amount of the physical commodity available, and if speculators (and others) act competitively, the physical spot price will be driven by supply and demand fundamentals regardless of the magnitude of the “side bets” on commodity price risk.”

[DaCounselor]

Crude is a huge commodity play. It’s a high profile commodity with lots of news to provide traction and momentum. Hedgies and major traders are carrying prices. I don’t think anyone disputes that a significant % of price moves are due to speculation. I suspect we’re not far off a short-driven move down.

[DaCounselor]

Crude is a huge commodity play. It’s a high profile commodity with lots of news to provide traction and momentum. Hedgies and major traders are carrying prices. I don’t think anyone disputes that a significant % of price moves are due to speculation. I suspect we’re not far off a short-driven move down.

[Arraya]

$100 oil is very good for the environment

Hardly… Coal is cheap and dirty now. Plus how long before we open up Anwar..

[Arraya]

$100 oil is very good for the environment

Hardly… Coal is cheap and dirty now. Plus how long before we open up Anwar..

[kewp]

$100 oil is very good for the environment

This is a big reason I don’t crow about inflation as much as I probably should. It’s going to force most Americans to become conservationists.

Salaries aren’t inflating, thats for sure.

[kewp]

$100 oil is very good for the environment

This is a big reason I don’t crow about inflation as much as I probably should. It’s going to force most Americans to become conservationists.

Salaries aren’t inflating, thats for sure.

[bsrsharma]

$100 oil is very good for the environment; $200 would be much better than any number of Al Gore’s movies – though GM & Ford will go bankrupt and hurt Midwest very badly.

[bsrsharma]

$100 oil is very good for the environment; $200 would be much better than any number of Al Gore’s movies – though GM & Ford will go bankrupt and hurt Midwest very badly.

[DaCounselor]

I’m not sure what Pirrong is trying to say. At the end of the day, the global market sets the price. If investors move the market, they have a hand in setting the price. Bidding up futures contracts will have that effect, regardless of how truly sound or unsound market underpinnings are at the time.

[Arraya]

Still you can’t really think oil should be valued as the cheapest liquid on earth @ $.18 per cup. It should at least be as much as Starbucks @ about $1.50 per cup. That should be about $1000 per barrel. I did take millions upon millions of years to make. Don’t ya think?

It looks like we are seeing at least one if not more regions on the planet forced into purchasing oil at any price or face outright shortages. As each region capitulates and buys it causes a higher price forcing another buyer to attempt to stay on the sidelines using reserves in hopes of lower prices until they are too forced to buy.

Basically we have a mild, rolling oil shortage moving around the planet right now.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihXHMrpUHdtown-KAdgh7Lvu040wD8SL1EGG0

[Anonymous]

I definitely would encourage those interested in finding out more about Peal Oil to read The Oil Drum as has been suggested below. There are some very real facts and tons of data including lots of data on actual decline curves related to the production of most of the major oil fields around the world. With one or two exceptions (china’s production being one), most of the major oil producing countries are in actual decline, meaning they cannot (with or without the drilling of new wells) increase their production rates, including Saudi Arabia.

And while supply is the central tenet in Peak Oil, there is another and IMO a more critical issue at play and that is Demand. And when combined they create an issue which could force us as a Nation to confront Peak Oil in a real sense earlier than if Demand weren’t increasing so rapidly.

The issue for the US is not just the price we pay for the barrel and eventually at the pump (which has not kept up the increase in the price per barrel). It is also the fact that we import so much of our oil (66% in 2006 and much from Non-OPEC countries).

Much of our oil imports come from Canada and Mexico and Mexico is already on a pretty steep decline (14%) on the Cantarell Field (their largest by far at 60% of their total production) we may soon be confronted with what some are calling the “Export Land Model” which is a model to show how internal consumption/demand which is rising and supply which is falling will force most of the major exporters to curtail and eventually cease exporting oil in order to meet internal demand far before the full effect of Peak Oil will come home to roost.

I have seen some analysis which estimates that Mexico may be forced to cease exporting oil within 5-7 years due to the decline at Cantarell.

We as a nation should be looking into every possible avenue to produce energy from alternative sources while focusing on reducing our demand. Let’s hope we did not allow political considerations to have robbed us of our lead time to work this problem before we face the full effects of it. I suspect we may have already done so.

[Anonymous]

I definitely would encourage those interested in finding out more about Peal Oil to read The Oil Drum as has been suggested below. There are some very real facts and tons of data including lots of data on actual decline curves related to the production of most of the major oil fields around the world. With one or two exceptions (china’s production being one), most of the major oil producing countries are in actual decline, meaning they cannot (with or without the drilling of new wells) increase their production rates, including Saudi Arabia.

And while supply is the central tenet in Peak Oil, there is another and IMO a more critical issue at play and that is Demand. And when combined they create an issue which could force us as a Nation to confront Peak Oil in a real sense earlier than if Demand weren’t increasing so rapidly.

The issue for the US is not just the price we pay for the barrel and eventually at the pump (which has not kept up the increase in the price per barrel). It is also the fact that we import so much of our oil (66% in 2006 and much from Non-OPEC countries).

Much of our oil imports come from Canada and Mexico and Mexico is already on a pretty steep decline (14%) on the Cantarell Field (their largest by far at 60% of their total production) we may soon be confronted with what some are calling the “Export Land Model” which is a model to show how internal consumption/demand which is rising and supply which is falling will force most of the major exporters to curtail and eventually cease exporting oil in order to meet internal demand far before the full effect of Peak Oil will come home to roost.

I have seen some analysis which estimates that Mexico may be forced to cease exporting oil within 5-7 years due to the decline at Cantarell.

We as a nation should be looking into every possible avenue to produce energy from alternative sources while focusing on reducing our demand. Let’s hope we did not allow political considerations to have robbed us of our lead time to work this problem before we face the full effects of it. I suspect we may have already done so.

[Anonymous]

I definitely would encourage those interested in finding out more about Peal Oil to read The Oil Drum as has been suggested below. There are some very real facts and tons of data including lots of data on actual decline curves related to the production of most of the major oil fields around the world. With one or two exceptions (china’s production being one), most of the major oil producing countries are in actual decline, meaning they cannot (with or without the drilling of new wells) increase their production rates, including Saudi Arabia.

And while supply is the central tenet in Peak Oil, there is another and IMO a more critical issue at play and that is Demand. And when combined they create an issue which could force us as a Nation to confront Peak Oil in a real sense earlier than if Demand weren’t increasing so rapidly.

The issue for the US is not just the price we pay for the barrel and eventually at the pump (which has not kept up the increase in the price per barrel). It is also the fact that we import so much of our oil (66% in 2006 and much from Non-OPEC countries).

Much of our oil imports come from Canada and Mexico and Mexico is already on a pretty steep decline (14%) on the Cantarell Field (their largest by far at 60% of their total production) we may soon be confronted with what some are calling the “Export Land Model” which is a model to show how internal consumption/demand which is rising and supply which is falling will force most of the major exporters to curtail and eventually cease exporting oil in order to meet internal demand far before the full effect of Peak Oil will come home to roost.

I have seen some analysis which estimates that Mexico may be forced to cease exporting oil within 5-7 years due to the decline at Cantarell.

We as a nation should be looking into every possible avenue to produce energy from alternative sources while focusing on reducing our demand. Let’s hope we did not allow political considerations to have robbed us of our lead time to work this problem before we face the full effects of it. I suspect we may have already done so.

[Anonymous]

I definitely would encourage those interested in finding out more about Peal Oil to read The Oil Drum as has been suggested below. There are some very real facts and tons of data including lots of data on actual decline curves related to the production of most of the major oil fields around the world. With one or two exceptions (china’s production being one), most of the major oil producing countries are in actual decline, meaning they cannot (with or without the drilling of new wells) increase their production rates, including Saudi Arabia.

And while supply is the central tenet in Peak Oil, there is another and IMO a more critical issue at play and that is Demand. And when combined they create an issue which could force us as a Nation to confront Peak Oil in a real sense earlier than if Demand weren’t increasing so rapidly.

The issue for the US is not just the price we pay for the barrel and eventually at the pump (which has not kept up the increase in the price per barrel). It is also the fact that we import so much of our oil (66% in 2006 and much from Non-OPEC countries).

Much of our oil imports come from Canada and Mexico and Mexico is already on a pretty steep decline (14%) on the Cantarell Field (their largest by far at 60% of their total production) we may soon be confronted with what some are calling the “Export Land Model” which is a model to show how internal consumption/demand which is rising and supply which is falling will force most of the major exporters to curtail and eventually cease exporting oil in order to meet internal demand far before the full effect of Peak Oil will come home to roost.

I have seen some analysis which estimates that Mexico may be forced to cease exporting oil within 5-7 years due to the decline at Cantarell.

We as a nation should be looking into every possible avenue to produce energy from alternative sources while focusing on reducing our demand. Let’s hope we did not allow political considerations to have robbed us of our lead time to work this problem before we face the full effects of it. I suspect we may have already done so.

[Arraya]

Still you can’t really think oil should be valued as the cheapest liquid on earth @ $.18 per cup. It should at least be as much as Starbucks @ about $1.50 per cup. That should be about $1000 per barrel. I did take millions upon millions of years to make. Don’t ya think?

It looks like we are seeing at least one if not more regions on the planet forced into purchasing oil at any price or face outright shortages. As each region capitulates and buys it causes a higher price forcing another buyer to attempt to stay on the sidelines using reserves in hopes of lower prices until they are too forced to buy.

Basically we have a mild, rolling oil shortage moving around the planet right now.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihXHMrpUHdtown-KAdgh7Lvu040wD8SL1EGG0

[Arraya]

Still you can’t really think oil should be valued as the cheapest liquid on earth @ $.18 per cup. It should at least be as much as Starbucks @ about $1.50 per cup. That should be about $1000 per barrel. I did take millions upon millions of years to make. Don’t ya think?

It looks like we are seeing at least one if not more regions on the planet forced into purchasing oil at any price or face outright shortages. As each region capitulates and buys it causes a higher price forcing another buyer to attempt to stay on the sidelines using reserves in hopes of lower prices until they are too forced to buy.

Basically we have a mild, rolling oil shortage moving around the planet right now.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihXHMrpUHdtown-KAdgh7Lvu040wD8SL1EGG0

[Arraya]

Still you can’t really think oil should be valued as the cheapest liquid on earth @ $.18 per cup. It should at least be as much as Starbucks @ about $1.50 per cup. That should be about $1000 per barrel. I did take millions upon millions of years to make. Don’t ya think?

It looks like we are seeing at least one if not more regions on the planet forced into purchasing oil at any price or face outright shortages. As each region capitulates and buys it causes a higher price forcing another buyer to attempt to stay on the sidelines using reserves in hopes of lower prices until they are too forced to buy.

Basically we have a mild, rolling oil shortage moving around the planet right now.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihXHMrpUHdtown-KAdgh7Lvu040wD8SL1EGG0

[DaCounselor]

I’m not sure what Pirrong is trying to say. At the end of the day, the global market sets the price. If investors move the market, they have a hand in setting the price. Bidding up futures contracts will have that effect, regardless of how truly sound or unsound market underpinnings are at the time.

[DaCounselor]

I’m not sure what Pirrong is trying to say. At the end of the day, the global market sets the price. If investors move the market, they have a hand in setting the price. Bidding up futures contracts will have that effect, regardless of how truly sound or unsound market underpinnings are at the time.

[DaCounselor]

I’m not sure what Pirrong is trying to say. At the end of the day, the global market sets the price. If investors move the market, they have a hand in setting the price. Bidding up futures contracts will have that effect, regardless of how truly sound or unsound market underpinnings are at the time.

[Author]

Posts