When on the road before I retired, listening to Rush one day.

[Rockport Zebra]

The consensus was that the world had reached peak oil production and disaster was looming. The call for action to alternative energy was needed. Rush was spouting off about how this was crap and that oil production was just ramping up in America and reserves would soon make the US the largest producer in the world and most likely a net exporter. I thought him mad. I really don't like listening to him because of his elementary style. I must give the guy his due. He was right. What puzzles me is how T Boone Pickens could be so wrong when he stated we would never see oil under $100 again. The president showed his hand this weekend, stating that approval of Keystone would only help feed the use of greenhouse producing CO2.

This post was edited on 12/11 9:41 PM by Rockport Zebra

This post was edited on 12/11 9:46 PM by Rockport Zebra

 

[IU1]

the price of oil

Is controlled by the Federal Reserve and trading laws, not by supply and demand. We could have had gas at $1.50 for the last 8 years if Obama had the first clue about economics and wasn't at the mercy of bad advice from Bernanke. The Federal Reserve has had the tools to limit trading of oil contracts but refused to do it because they're in bed with Wall St. Speculators. Look at consumer spending in November with lower oil prices. Everyone in the world with a shred of common sense knows what caused the 2008 economic collapse and to not change course and put in economic policies to keep natural resource prices low so the American small businessman and consumer had a chance to save and then consume was a waste of 6+ years. The FED really set our recovery back. Cheap gas is something like a $330B stimulus package per day.

 

[mjvcaj]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

For years IU1 has cried about how there is rampant inflation. Buy gold, buy oil!

And yet, here we are and he continues this nonsense. There is no hope for those on this board that literally dismiss reality. IU1 is part of the worst portion of the American population.

This post was edited on 12/11 11:18 PM by mjvcaj

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Rush is destined to be wrong.

I don't know when he'll be wrong, but he'll be wrong. Peak Oil, if it hasn't hit yet, has to hit some day, and it's likely to be sooner than later. Perhaps we can push D-Day back with new technology, but you can't wish more oil into existence. Demand will continue to go up, but total global reserves will not. They are what they are. Even if we discover major reserves we didn't know about, it's still only a temporary fix. Alternative energy has to replace fossil fuels at some point because fossil fuels are simply not renewable.

We should be building more nuclear plants now, and we should be investing heavily in solar/wind/hydro. Teases about potential fusion power are premature, but that's definitely something to keep an eye on.

Eventually, we'll probably be collecting solar power with satellites deploying massive solar sails and beaming the energy back to earth in the form of high-powered microwaves. But we'll never get there if we don't develop a sustainable bridge between oil and that point.

goat

This post was edited on 12/11 11:32 PM by TheOriginalHappyGoat

 

[Rockport Zebra]

I don'r know about that.


But I would bet a dollar this is about the President and Putin. If this decline holds OPEC and the Russians are in deep shit.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

I call bull crap.


The reserves will last 100 years. Plenty of time for development of alternatives.

 

[mjvcaj]

Ugh

I'm not really for or against the Keystone pipeline, but infrastructure that was built without the President's or Democratic support is a significant contributor to the glut of oil supply. On top of that, Saudi Arabia is simply trying to crush its competition (perhaps at the urging of the U.S.?), which isn't a bad thing for foreign policy (Russia, Iran, Venezuela, etc.). Everyone is shocked that OPEC hasn't attempted to cut back supply, but Saudi can pump it for far cheaper than other countries, including the U.S.

I don't doubt T. Boone Pickens understands energy markets far better than anyone on this board, but when you speak with an agenda (e.g. Bill Gross), everything you say is slanted to your benefit. He knows damn well that the U.S. can produce significant oil for less than $80/barrel. He also couldn't fathom oil under $100, despite being involved in developing the infrastructure to extract vast amounts of supply? I simply don't buy it.

Commodity analysts (not traders) aren't perfect either, but at least they aren't speaking with their wallets.

I'm watching the high yield spreads. Quite dangerous. Energy levered up big to conduct E&P operations.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Only if we actually try to develop them.

And, yes, that means government should be involved. Not necessarily directing research, but giving subsidies and special treatment to businesses who are willing to invest in those technologies. Yes, even the ones that end up losing money and/or going out of business. It's the cost of doing business.

100 years is nothing. Plenty of time to develop alternatives? Since they haven't been developed yet, you can't really say that for sure. Maybe we're 101 years away from being able to replace oil, and we never get there because when oil runs out a year too early, civilization collapses.

Our energy future is that important. If we don't replace oil before it's too late, civilization will collapse. Those are the stakes.

goat

 

[mjvcaj]

It's a long list of American (and consequently Saudi) enemies

Russia
Iran
China
Venezuela
Libya
Nigeria
Algeria

I wouldn't consider Brazil an "enemy", but given its trend, it isn't a great ally.

This post was edited on 12/11 11:46 PM by mjvcaj

 

[mjvcaj]

Are we not?

The Government has subsidized (invested) an incredible amount of wind, hydro and solar projects. Several have failed miserably. Others have done quite well.

Agree with you on Nuclear. Security is clearly a huge concern, but it is the best of the best and it isn't close for power supply.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

Civilization collapses.

You sound like my oldest son who I sent to Indiana University to get a liberal arts education. The only outcome so far is he has been converted into a socilist.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What do you think will happen?

If we run out of oil and have no alternatives in place?

Think it will be a small hiccup?

The stakes are phenomenally huge on this.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

Nuclear power.


But the left is opposed.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Not all the left.

And they are wrong to do so. As I already said.

The future is solar. It is the only truly sustainable energy source with virtually no limit. The power we could get from the sun far exceeds what we could get from uranium, once we are truly devoted and technology improves. (I'm talking far future here - really long term.)

But in the meantime, the only intelligent thing to do is to continue to develop nuclear energy as a bridge from fossil fuels to solar.

But you can't just building a nuclear plant in a week. We need to be ahead of the curve. If we aren't ready when the oil crisis hits, we won't be able to get ready. We have to have the parts in place before that happens.

goat

 

[Rockport Zebra]

"if it hasn't hit yet"


It was already reached 10 years ago.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

Well that is special.

Just try and get approval in the permitting process.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

The leverage will be bought.


Big boys always win.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So are you conceding my original point?

Since you've moved to blaming liberals for why my idea won't work, does that mean you can agree that I am, in fact, right?

 

[Rockport Zebra]

Sure.


I am waiting to upgrade my home as long as possible to maximize my solar and wind option to attempt to get off the grid. I look forward to the day where my gauge runs backward.

 

[RBB89]

Is this a serious response?

It's like a parody or something. You didn't even actually respond to anything he said. And this isn't the first time I've seen you make a bizarre comment about a liberal arts education. Do you know what "liberal arts" means?

 

[RBB89]

100 years is really not that long of a period of time. **

.

 

[mjvcaj]

FYI, the IEA cut its forecast again

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-12/iea-cuts-global-oil-demand-forecast-for-4th-time-in-five-months.html

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Prior to and during the Macondo Oil Spill in the Gulf..


there was a tremendous blog called 'The Oil Drum'...it was populated by scientists, petroleum engineers, economists, environmentalists, educators, actuaries and other very smart people. The original theme was based on the theory of 'Peak Oil'..
and the underlying premise that the world had already reached it's peak production, and it was all downhill from there.

The blog is now suspended, but there are lots of materials in archived status. The major contributors have moved on, but still can be found...some of them still preaching the gospel of 'Peak Oil'..

So many hours, time, and earnest work supporting a false premise....

I am reminded of the man-made global warning hoax (?) ....

And that the smartest person in the room often becomes the dumbest, in the end..
This post was edited on 12/12 12:36 PM by Mas-sa-suta

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

A whole lot of that leverage...


is made up of tiny parts held by a lot of private 'investors'.

The players saw this coming a long time ago, and replaced their $ with private 'certified' investor $.

I wasn't one of them....although they called.....often....

I'm about 45% in cash these last three months or so....I actually timed the market correctly for a change...

The rest in index funds...for now...

how 'bout you?

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

..."fossil fuels are simply not renewable"


I don't believe knowledgeable people in the industry are still certain of this claim...

 

[hoot1]

With all the complicated global issues...

...each country must face, the list of allies and enemies will change depending on the issue. Furthermore, within each country, opposition to its country's positions on various issues is subject to change.

What is still unclear is whether democracy (the voice of the people) will someday influence the policy of countries such as China, Iran, or Russia; and just where those countries will stand if this does occur.

This all adds up to a state of flux with any list of enemies and allies.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think you're thinking of man-made hydrocarbons.

By definition, fossil fuels (from the ground) are not renewable*. We now have the technology to manufacture "fuel," but it requires energy to do so. It's really a method of recycling, but it's not a method for creating new energy sources.

goat

* Technically, they are renewable, but on such long time scales as to be useless to us.

 

[Rockfish1]

You get everything wrong

And it's not rational enough to be ideological. You're just a kook.

 

[WisslerIII]

We went from the horse and buggy to landing a man on the moon in 70 years.

I'm pretty sure we could build enough nuclear plants along with solar and wind energy to provide all we need in way less than 100 years.

The only real innovation that needs to happen is in energy storage - batteries.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Rockport Zebra]

I have know idea?

But I have a good idea what is going on in the hallowed halls of IU.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Again, it's not "can we?" It's "will we?"

We have to build our next generation energy infrastructure BEFORE the current one collapses.

Better batteries will be nice but try are no help whatsoever to the problem of energy production. Peak oil is about production, not storage.

 

[WisslerIII]

Calm down. We won't run out. And if reserves really do get low and prices go up

Dramatically, there will be a building of nuclear plants the likes of which the world has ever seen. And no snail darter will stop it.

Besides that, i was replying to the post that 100 years isn't a long time. It is a long time when taken into account technological advancement in the last century.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[mjvcaj]

Are you talking about "buying ownership in productive oil wells"?

People that fall for those TV and Radio ads don't deserve to have money to begin with IMO.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

No, I was definitely thinking of fossil fuels...

and future enhanced recovery techniques, such as fracking, which have provided cost-effective methods to recover existing deposits of fossil fuels which were not cost-effective during recovery techniques prevalant during the earlier periods. One good and local example of this is the current drilling activity in the Southeastern Illinois fields which were the largest producer by volume in the United States in the very early 20th century. Also, some fuel holding strata, and some products which are not cost-effective at this time, may become usable as the 'easier' products are depleted.

As I pointed out, reading the 'Oil Drum' blog was quite helpful in gaining understanding of this situation.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

I sincerely hope that Italy never becomes

our enemy. I just love Italy. I would leave literally as soon as I could find a minder for my dogs if I had the chance to go....

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Ah. I already refered to that.

It's a temporary fix. It provides better access to current reserves, but doesn't create new reserves. That's not sustainability. It's just delaying the inevitable.

 

[Sope Creek]

Stray couple or three thoughts about oil . . .

First, there is no question that more oil has been produced using more technologically advanced techniques - and higher risks of environmental damage - and that has resulted in higher volumes of crude being available for consumption. But that doesn't explain why oil prices are dropping through the floor currently . . . in fact the greater oil production has been going on for several years now, with crude prices just now taking the tumble . . .

Second, prices are dropping because (a) there's less demand for oil (and I've not read why yet, but I'll follow up on mjvcaj's post below and some other research), and (b) Saudi Arabia hasn't reduced its output to accommodate the lower demand for oil, which seems a little odd . . .

Third, I'm wondering whether there've been some behind the scenes negotiations among the US, the Saudis and perhaps some other governments to keep production high in the face of lower demand as a way to reduce a good portion of ISIS's income, which has a by product (or intended effect) of hitting Russia in the economic solar plexus. Weakening ISIS this way makes a lot of sense, and letting Putin know that he can't be as bad a boy on a world stage as he can be within Russia's borders also makes a good bit of sense.

This post was edited on 12/12 5:13 PM by Sope Creek

 

[Ladoga]

Another couple

that might help understand what the Saudi's have to do.

1. Their economy is almost entirely dependent on oil production.
2. Their production cost ranges from $10 to $20 per barrel

Thus they can afford to do what they must do. Keep producing oil at low prices.

 

[Sope Creek]

One more . . . from the link in mjvcaj's post below . . .

Most of the reduction in next year's outlook [for oil demand] is attributable to Russia, where sanctions are hobbling growth . . . .

So the US's sanctions are having the desired effect of depriving Putin of the economic wherewithal to engage in further mischief . . . and are curtailing ISIS's ability to fund its operations. Hmmmm . . . .

 

[Rockport Zebra]

I agree with all of that and might add efficiency.


The US has worked hard as a nation to reduce our increasing demand for energy. Better gas milage, more efficient heating and cooling ect. I have also noticed an increase in pedestrian traffic and the use of bicycles. City bus usage is up. This along with increased production has us in a much better place.