Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Peak oil? Maybe things just got more complicated...

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
ksinger

ksinger

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
5,083
Brazil Oil Finds May End Reliance on Middle East, Zeihan Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aBUoYKhu7PWk&refer=latin_america

Well, oil production may have peaked in the middle east, but looks like things could be heating up in this hemisphere. For all you political junkies out there, just contemplate the power-rearrangement that discoveries of huge oil fields in Brazilian waters, will do to the world. This is probably a REAL biggie in terms of geopolitical shifts.
 
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/16/business/ME-FIN-OPEC-Brazil.php

Brasil and OPEC........

also, i pity Brasil as the US thinks it owns the entire western hemisphere. there was some trade issue some years back that Brasil wasn''t going to go along with and the US sent boats to their coast to convince them to change their mind, and they did. can''t remember if it was in the 1970''s or 1980''s....think it was the 80''s. if i get some time this weekend i''ll see if i can track that article down.

movie zombie
 
can I say I told you so?

Yes easy oil is peaking but there is still a lot of it around that is just slightly harder too get and a little more expensive(15% or so covers the difference not the insane speculation price it is now)
Yes we should develop alternatives but not trash the economy in a false emergency response too a long term problem.
 
Date: 4/25/2008 2:28:59 PM
Author: strmrdr
can I say I told you so?

Yes easy oil is peaking but there is still a lot of it around that is just slightly harder too get and a little more expensive(15% or so covers the difference not the insane speculation price it is now)
Yes we should develop alternatives but not trash the economy in a false emergency response too a long term problem.
Click to expand...

In case you hadn''t noticed, our economy is already in the crapper, and it''s not due primarily to oil, but to basing our economy on inflating debt and the export of nearly all our manufacturing capacity. Oil prices are just a happy little piece of the pie. The attitude you seem to be displaying is one of "Hey! Reprieve!! Whew!"


Saying it''s just slightly harder to get and a little more expensive (and the stuff I''ve read on the Brazilian oil find says it will be VERY expenisve to get out, BTW) puts us, the US and the world, back where we started - in a oil-induced stupor, not to mention it ignores the increasing environmental costs of getting the oil out, let alone burning the stuff. Hey man, false emergency. It''s a long-term problem - translate that as "as long as it doesn''t impact MY lifetime, who gives a S***". Let''s all hop in the Hummer and go somewhere!! Right. And you can bet your sweet bippy, that''s EXACTLY what we''re gonna see. It only took the Bush administration almost 8 years to sorta quit stonewalling and even admit there MIGHT be a problem, and now that they have, their fixation on biofuels is going to end up biting us on the butt. I always wondered, after the gas lines of the 70''s, why we didn''t DO something then - why we didn''t take a longer view. But we didn''t. We went right back to guzzling petroleum like there was no tomorrow and no consequence - because hey! it''s a long-term problem! Let someone ELSE worry about it, later. Right now the oil is too cheap to bother with expensive research or infrastructure. And so we ignored it and the automakers built enormous SUVs and hummers. I now know more of why, and history, our particular culture here in the US, and human nature says it will happen that way again, and therein lies my frustration. At best we get a few more years of pretending we''re never going to run out, or will never have to pay the bill environmentally, as the government whines about how measures to ameliorate the problem are just too expensive right now. The problem is merely put off, not solved. In one article I read, this was said, and it pretty much sums it up:


The UK energy adviser Dieter Helm says the world is not running out of oil; much exists under the now melting ice caps. "Finding oil isn''t the issue - it''s whether we want to find it, burn it and [as global warming increases] all fry," he said.
 
wooo you are assuming a whole lot that I might be thinking that is very very very far from the truth.
The technology to replace it is coming along very quick but it is not here yet.
Doing something stupid like a buck a gallon tax is stupid as there is enough oil too last at reasonable prices until the technology matures!
Trying too force it any faster will do nothing but further destroy the economy.
Yes the US dollar has been mismanaged, yes the dept is stupid, yes letting all the manufacturing jobs go was big time stupid!
Finishing off the economy by overreacting too a long term problem is even more stupid!
 
Date: 4/26/2008 10:10:10 AM
Author: strmrdr
wooo you are assuming a whole lot that I might be thinking that is very very very far from the truth.
The technology to replace it is coming along very quick but it is not here yet.
Doing something stupid like a buck a gallon tax is stupid as there is enough oil too last at reasonable prices until the technology matures!
Trying too force it any faster will do nothing but further destroy the economy.
Yes the US dollar has been mismanaged, yes the dept is stupid, yes letting all the manufacturing jobs go was big time stupid!
Finishing off the economy by overreacting too a long term problem is even more stupid!
Click to expand...
My apologies then for assuming too much, or the wrong thing. But I will say that I do NOT believe this IS a long term problem. What exactly are you calling long term? I really want to know. I mean my personal experience of time tells me the last 25 years of my life have flashed by so fast I have no idea where it went. At 20, 45 seemed a lifetime away, but it wasn''t, and I can assure you I did not accomplish half of what I envisioned. Poor planning I''d wager, and circumstances diverting me from goals.

If we really don''t start acting as if our hair is on fire - if we don''t start actually BELIEVING down to our toenails that there is a genuine impending crisis, and actively MAKING the hard choices we will inevitably have to make - whether forced to by the increasingly undeniable effects of accelerating global warming, or by OPEC finally uncoupling oil from the $, those tough choices wil be thrust on us with no time to make them wisely. No matter what we do, the economy is GOING to contract from rampant consumerism to hopefully, something more sustainable. We can direct it so as to minimize the pain (which I don''t believe we will), but there will be pain - at least for the bottom 99.9% of us who aren''t hedge fund managers or presidents of Citibank. We''ve already wasted 30 years, and actually moved backwards. Honestly, what makes you think we will make those tough choices now, before having them rammed down our collective throats by circumstance? There are many groups out there who have an EXTREMELY vested, greedy interest in making SURE those technologies and research are stifled, delayed, or unfunded for as long as possible. It worked great before, from the 70''s until now. I''m sure the same forces are in play today. In this regard I see the new oil discoveries as bad for the long term. Unless of course our government decides to stop subsidizing and pandering to big oil interests and starts genuinely taxing those people who have enough money to be a small country unto themselves.
 
Date: 4/26/2008 6:17:08 AM
Author: ksinger
It''s a long-term problem - translate that as ''as long as it doesn''t impact MY lifetime, who gives a S***''. Let''s all hop in the Hummer and go somewhere!! Right. And you can bet your sweet bippy, that''s EXACTLY what we''re gonna see.
Click to expand...
Karen, I lerve you. Seriously.

I think much of the problem lies in the self-centered attitude that many Americans have today, which mirrors what you said above - "as long as my personal life is fine, I dont really care what legacy I''m leaving other generations." Personally, I''m baffled as to why we dont make it mandatory to NOT drive gas guzzling SUVs and Hummers. People who buy those vehicles make me ill with their "I dont give a crap about anyone but myself" attitudes. I''d like to see a 100% tax on those vehicles, see if that makes people grow some personal responsibility...because you know, money talks here in the US...and for some, that''s the only incentive they ever are guided by...I see what we''re doing around the world, how far reaching the repercussions are on our stupid ideas, and it''s just beyond sad.
 
I know someone working on the problem and the tech needs 5-10 years before it is ready for mass production, long term I would consider 20-30 years.
That is enough time for the tech too mature and get into the market.
The current solutions are not sustainable and create more problems than they solve.
Making peoples lives miserable now will do nothing too change that!
 
Date: 4/26/2008 5:19:14 PM
Author: strmrdr
I know someone working on the problem and the tech needs 5-10 years before it is ready for mass production, long term I would consider 20-30 years.
That is enough time for the tech too mature and get into the market.
The current solutions are not sustainable and create more problems than they solve.
Making peoples lives miserable now will do nothing too change that!
Click to expand...
What problem exactly are you talking about? (not facetiously asked)

The number one problem I see right now, coming from our government, is since many individuals cannot deal with ambiguity and shades of gray, and the current makeup of said admin is loaded with a disproportionate number of folks just like this, a nuanced discussion of the fact that there will not be a single, easy panecea for our energy problems will not happen. In this regard, yes Strm, I do agree that what is being touted right now is stupid and short-sighted. Bush has mandated (I read and I''ll have to go look this up for details) a ridiculous percentage of our energy from biofuels by 2020? Of course, this mandate has ignored the issues related to this, like diversion of FOOD into NOT food, and the increasing water woes we will likely be experiencing soon if we actually increase the net depletion rate of say, something like the Ogallala aquifer.

Bottom line, I think our government is going to have to get a genuine vision first - and that would necessitate an end to ignoring and/or supressing science and denying any problem exists, and then they must help subsidize the ordinary American into pieces of that vision. It''s been my experience that most people don''t want to think about this. Heck, a lot of people I know just don''t want to think PERIOD. Makes it more difficult for sure. I''m wired - compelled almost, to research issues, and it wears ME out. Information overload at times....
 
The biggest problems with current tech is that the materials used and getting them are very dangerous and a threat too the environment by themselves.
There is really no net savings in cost and environmental impact with current tech.
Also the supply is never likely too grow big enough to replace the current tech for everyone.

TSA just recently limited the amount of the kinds of batteries used in hybrid cars from airline flights because they can be used too create powerful explosives and are a fire hazard in themselves.
Read up on laptop batteries causing fires.
 
I disagree with the title of the thread. The oil discoveries in Brazil will not change the peak oil theory - or results. There have always been two peak oil theories: The simple one, and the more complicated one.

The more complicated one always assumed that their would be more oil found in substantive quantities - such as the Brazil discovery; but also indicated that such discoveries would not have much effect on the peak oil phenomena and overall results - other than shifting things by a few years.

Tripling the Canadian oil sands production is not the answer either (nor that easy as most of that oil is very heavy and needs a substantial quantity of Hydrogen in order to refine it into lighter grades of usable oil: i.e.; you do not make light oils from tar without "cracking" it).

The real solution - that could be implemented with mostly known technology today would be the construction of 300-400 nuclear plants for power and hydrogen production over the next 30 - 40 years. A hydrogen transmission system would have to be built (but we know how to do the main pipelines as the petrochemical industry already has hydrogen pipelines supplying hydrogen to some oil refineries).

We could eliminate about 50% of our use of oil and natural gas by conversion to a mainly nuclear based hydrogen production for transportation economy (air travel would remain hydrocarbon based as jet fuel cannot easily be replaced).

As far as the oil companies are concerned - nuclear is the way to go:

1) The oil companies are proposing to build nuclear plants in Canada to produce the needed energy and hydrogen to increase extraction and utilization of the Canadian tar sands right now (planning has started, and they are talking to the Canadian and Provence governments now).

2) The oil companies have long discussed plans to build nuclear plants in the US to generate hydrogen to supply the oil refineries (current hydrogen production is from natural gas). They have done the studies (I have a copy of the Texas Study finished about 2000) and are only waiting to see what the NRC approval process really will be so that they can properly estimate the cost and time for construction of the nuclear plants and hydrogen production plants.

Finally; a comment for Storm....

Danged if I know why the TSA banned the batteries (actually - all they did was restrict how many and in what configuration you could carry them). The batteries cannot explode (and their are a lot easier things to make explosives from - starting with the sugar in your kitchen); and yes, if they short in the right way they can start a fire. But, most of these battery fires occurred from improperly constructed battery assemblies that contained metal flakes that shorted several cells. I also note, battery fires also could occur with the old style batteries from a decade ago too (and did occasionally occur).

Personally, I think someone at the TSA is on a power trip on this one. I note, that batteries starting a fire is a aircraft safety issue - not a security issue and not properly within the charter of the TSA. I have seen nothing from the FAA - the agencies who are concerned about aircraft safety - and fires on board - about concerns with these batteries starting fires on-board aircraft (although they do restrict how lead-acid batteries are transported). Of course, batteries could be used as part of a detonation device. But the old fashioned batteries work plenty well for that too (and those old fashioned normal batteries are what we use in actual hand held blasting equipment - and a link to the most common blasting "machines" is in the link below - I have personally used several of these and own one of them).

www.idealsupplyinc.com/department/electronic-blasting-machines-10044.cfm


Perry
 
Date: 4/27/2008 7:17:17 PM
Author: perry
I disagree with the title of the thread. The oil discoveries in Brazil will not change the peak oil theory - or results. There have always been two peak oil theories: The simple one, and the more complicated one.

The more complicated one always assumed that their would be more oil found in substantive quantities - such as the Brazil discovery; but also indicated that such discoveries would not have much effect on the peak oil phenomena and overall results - other than shifting things by a few years.

Tripling the Canadian oil sands production is not the answer either (nor that easy as most of that oil is very heavy and needs a substantial quantity of Hydrogen in order to refine it into lighter grades of usable oil: i.e.; you do not make light oils from tar without ''cracking'' it).

The real solution - that could be implemented with mostly known technology today would be the construction of 300-400 nuclear plants for power and hydrogen production over the next 30 - 40 years. A hydrogen transmission system would have to be built (but we know how to do the main pipelines as the petrochemical industry already has hydrogen pipelines supplying hydrogen to some oil refineries).

We could eliminate about 50% of our use of oil and natural gas by conversion to a mainly nuclear based hydrogen production for transportation economy (air travel would remain hydrocarbon based as jet fuel cannot easily be replaced).

As far as the oil companies are concerned - nuclear is the way to go:

1) The oil companies are proposing to build nuclear plants in Canada to produce the needed energy and hydrogen to increase extraction and utilization of the Canadian tar sands right now (planning has started, and they are talking to the Canadian and Provence governments now).

2) The oil companies have long discussed plans to build nuclear plants in the US to generate hydrogen to supply the oil refineries (current hydrogen production is from natural gas). They have done the studies (I have a copy of the Texas Study finished about 2000) and are only waiting to see what the NRC approval process really will be so that they can properly estimate the cost and time for construction of the nuclear plants and hydrogen production plants.

Finally; a comment for Storm....

Danged if I know why the TSA banned the batteries (actually - all they did was restrict how many and in what configuration you could carry them). The batteries cannot explode (and their are a lot easier things to make explosives from - starting with the sugar in your kitchen); and yes, if they short in the right way they can start a fire. But, most of these battery fires occurred from improperly constructed battery assemblies that contained metal flakes that shorted several cells. I also note, battery fires also could occur with the old style batteries from a decade ago too (and did occasionally occur).

Personally, I think someone at the TSA is on a power trip on this one. I note, that batteries starting a fire is a aircraft safety issue - not a security issue and not properly within the charter of the TSA. I have seen nothing from the FAA - the agencies who are concerned about aircraft safety - and fires on board - about concerns with these batteries starting fires on-board aircraft (although they do restrict how lead-acid batteries are transported). Of course, batteries could be used as part of a detonation device. But the old fashioned batteries work plenty well for that too (and those old fashioned normal batteries are what we use in actual hand held blasting equipment - and a link to the most common blasting ''machines'' is in the link below - I have personally used several of these and own one of them).

www.idealsupplyinc.com/department/electronic-blasting-machines-10044.cfm


Perry
Click to expand...
Thanks for chiming in Perry. Although, as far as I can see there is nothing to "disagree" with in the title, since I was actually more interested in the shifting tides of political/economic fortunes. I had mentioned peak oil in another thread and this seemed to contradict that.

I don''t claim to know details about the theory, although I have read enough to know it isn''t just some airy-fairy construct with political overtones, but a real concern of the oil producers, and one that they will pretty much not come out and state directly, but only allude to in unguarded moments. If you''ve the time to enlighten us, since you seem up on this topic, I''d certainly like to have better insights. I know when I read about the Brazilian fields, my first instinct on the find was, so what? We maybe get a few more years, and the cost is still high - both getting it out and environmentally.

Realizing that this will NOT be the be-all-end-all, I was out searching for the current status of thermodepolymerization. I read about it years ago in Discovery Magazine and it seemed to have such potential. I found some stuff, but not as much as I''d hoped... Have you heard anything new on that front?
 
Karen:

Peak Oil - The concept:

The basic argument is along this line:

1) That their really is a fixed amount of relatively easily recoverable petroleum resources in the world. I believe this to be true.

2) That it was possible to project approximately how much oil that was based on the discovered reserves by the early to mid 90''s - as most of the world had been scoured by geologist by then looking for likely locations for major oil deposits. I also believe that this would be a reasonable assessment.

3) That in the recovery of natural resources (of many kinds; that once you have recovered 1/2 of the easily available resources that supply/demand would start increasing the price of the remaining resource; and that in most cases of underground recovery - that recovery of the remaining 1/2 would become increasingly expensive. I also believe that to be reasonable.

Thus, Peak Oil (in the simple form) stated that when the world had extracted X amount of oil... that the prices would start going up and that shortages would start appearing at some time beyond reaching the peak.

The estimates for reaching the "peak oil" point - the 1/2 of easily recoverable oil put us about right now. Some argue for a few years ago, some argue for a few years hence. But, no one is disputing that we are right now within a few years of the simple peak oil theory point. Also, it has been pointed out that the world managed to use about 1/2 of its easily recoverable oil resource in 50 years, thus price and shortage effects should be really apparent within a decade (according to the simple theory).

The more complicated version points out that their will be additional oil field discovered - and that as prices go up more oil will be economical to recover; which should extend the "real" peak oil point by a decade or two (along with other changes in the oil industry).

However, what has really been missing in both the simple and complicated version is that world oil usage continues to climb each year with India, China, and a few other countries are very substantially increasing their use. Thus, people argue (and I think correctly) that the more complicated theory of increasing reserves with increasing pricing will be offset by this increase in demand.

Now as for the price of oil.... One of the reasons that oil is about $120 per barrel right now is due to the low value of the Dollar. Their are many factors that go into a value of a currency - and only a few of them are under the control of the US government.

However, suffice to say that the US government in recent years has not worked to maintain the value of the dollar for several reasons. One of which is that it helps US manufacturing as US goods become relative cheaper in the world - and by comparison other countries goods become more expensive (which actually reduces the export of some jobs overseas).

Of course, if the Dollar falls to low - it hurts the US in other ways; and I believe that we have probably reached that point. However, the dollar will bounce back on its own as well due to those factors we cannot control. (the subprime mortgage mess hurt the dollar badly and in another year or two the effects of that will clear up as well).

One factor it really isn''t is the debt of the US (despite the talk). Debt has to be compared to economic activity: While the US Debt in total is the largest in the world - we also have the largest economy in the world as well. Overall, the US is #51 on Debt per Gross Domestic Product in the world (see link):

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_deb_ext_pergdp-economy-debt-external-per-gdp


Here is the chart on total debt; economic importance, and business efficiency :

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_deb_ext-economy-debt-external

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_imp-economy-economic-importance

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_bus_eff-economy-business-efficiency

If you look at other countries in the world - the US really does not have that much debt at all. If you piece it together; Europe is generally at least twice as much in debt as the US on a per capita and GDP basis; and the Euro is currently very strong. But also note that the European governments have worked hard to have a high value Euro for some years now (it was a stated goal of theirs about 5 years ago to have a very high value Euro). Note also that the vast majority of European countries rate well down on the business efficiency list as well (it takes them more labor and real cost to produce the same product).

It is very much the intangibles that allow a currency to fluctuate up and down that makes it hard to understand. The US is the least in debt on a per capita basis of most of the industrialized countries, is the most productive country in the world, and many other things.... yet, our currency is of low value to other nations right now - and the Euro which represents nations that are in fact in much worse economic shape than the US based on long term trends is riding high....

Long term currency values tend to return to fundamental values. Right now - worldwide the US currency is of low value primarily for worldwide political reasons. Not for economic ones. However, it is a dangerous game that the other countries play in holding the US currency value down - because when the US gets a cold... the rest of the world often follows.

Have fun with www.nationmaster.com

Their is a lot of very good information there on many subjects.

Perry
 
How timely. I was reading the book "Collapse" by Jared Diamond this weekend. I highly recommend it.
 
all my fault...

b/c i bought some shares of DUG = shorting the oil & gas market on Mar 24 when oil was trading at $108.50.

sooo...with my luck oil might hit $130 per barrel soon. seriously, i think the price of oil will drop as our economy slows down.
 
And in things oil-related...
20.gif
. Can you see us actually suing OPEC?? Yeah, I''m sure that will work out well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080520/pl_nm/congress_opec_dc
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top