Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Thats a very popular view.

The NYMEX chief on TV in the USA in the course of an interview on Friday reportedly stated to the interviewer “Why can’t you see that it is the fundamentals causing this?”

So not a universal view.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

To be fair, it is a spike. As well as a long-term increase in price.

Oil prices are increasing now as part of a long-term trend which will continue. But the large jump we’ve seen over the last 3 years isn’t justifiable by changes in long-term fundamentals of oil economics. We’re seeing short-term fluctuations – up and down – around a long-term increase in price.

The price of oil will come back down. And then lots of posters and bloggers and columnists will swear that peak oil is a stupid idea. But the price won’t come down to as low as it was before, and then they’ll go up again to even higher highs (and then go down and up and down and up and… trending higher as they go).

And if I could predict any more details than that, I’d be rich.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

gee rodg..!

just a temporary ‘blip’..eh..?..

i didn’t realise you’d joined the ‘happy-clappys’/denialists….

w e are all in very deep doo-doo..

and from here on in..things will just get worse..

the ‘false war’/crisis is over..

to pretend otherwise is to fantasise..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

phil(whoar,co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

1. The US lies about its actual performance. See this:

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data

Not only is the unemployment about 10%, the GDP is -2 and the M3 creation of money is no longer reported. Comparisons with Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe are being bandied about (but it hasn’t gotten that bad… yet).

2. The GDP is a sucky way to measure actual economic progress…

http://www.rprogress.org/sustainability_indicators/genuine_progress_in dicator.htm

So what’s happening in the USA is really pushing hard to get us all over the edge of that cliff. It MAY not push the whole planet into recession, but I’d be playing a real defensive strategy these days.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

International banks trying to offload the massive capital flows arising from the historically high fuel prices, demand destruction occurs in the most fragile and vulnerable oil importing countries, and Saudi Arabia want to keep its market share will massively step up their production, which will mean that the economies of the oil producing countries who have overextended themselves with regards to ‘investments” (Venezuela, Dubai) will face collapse, although perhaps that may not happen this time.

“Saudi Arabia’s Shura council (parliament) will hold a series of meetings over the next two weeks to discuss a controversial proposal by a key member to curb oil production to save reserves for better prices, Saudi media reported.”
http://tinyurl.com/4hng9v

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Extrapolating the 1924-30 trend to see what might have happened without a depression gives (approx.) 1934 = 100 , 1937 = 140.

If my thinking is correct then it’s the reduction relative to the trend that is most relevant to what might happen to the current oil extraction plateau during a depression.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I agree, although it’s because PO will cause economic hardship that we’re worried about it. So, if economic hardship stalls peak, then it’s neither here nor there in the end.

Also, I don’t see the sub-prime crisis causing an extended global recession, but rather a temporary slowing of global economic growth from about 5% per annum to say 1-2% per annum.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

What’s that you say? Oh, all those things have already happened?!

What else could go wrong? Another war in the Middle-East?

What’s that you say? …

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The oil companies are independently audited in the US, and if they’re caught “cooking the books” it’s usually been a case of them over-stating their reserves in order to increase their share price (reserves count as equity).

Most of the non-OPEC countries are now in decline. The International Energy Agency (a very conservative and reputable body) sees production in the non-OPEC block reaching a peak in about 2010. If we aren’t technically at peak oil at that time we will have likely reached an effective peak, because the dictators will want to keep the price of oil as high as possible. So the outlook in the medium term (5-20 years) is very expensive ($150 per barrel) oil in the medium term (OPEC decides to moderately up production) to extremely expensive oil ($200+) (OPEC decides to keep production levels flat).

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

A question I find interesting is: as an individual, are you going to do anything to plan for you and your family’s future in a world with less and more expensive oil? Perhaps all the ideas, no matter how strange, would be helpful to some of us who are worried about what is happening, but don’t know what to do.

Here is my list of things I am going to (try and) do:

1) Use the car less (I can’t afford to upgrade to a more fuel efficient model).
2) Grow as many veges as I can in my rental property’s garden.
3) Reduce electricity and gas consumption in the house as much as possible (I’m not sure I can do much more than I already do, but I’ll try)
4) Eat as cheaply and healthily as possible using as many locally grown foods as I can.
5) Reduce meat and dairy consumption as much as possible (I can easily eat no meat; I’m not sure about the rest of my family).

I’m not sure how much the above items will help prepare my family for a future with less oil, but its all I can think of right now. Other ideas are welcome.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

OPEC controls only 40% of production, but 60% of the reserves. The private oil companies control 60% of production and 40% of reserves.

ANWAR would mean an approximate 0.5% increase in global oil production for some 10 years. It’s negligible.

Oil shale is a non-starter because the production process is so energy and Co2 – intensive. It would mean a massive boost in C02 emissions at time when we’re trying to cut back.

at least 40% of the energy value is consumed in production. A 1984 study estimated the EROEI of the different oil shale deposits to vary between 0.7-13.3. [13] Royal Dutch Shell has reported an EROEI about three to four on its in-situ development, Mahogany Research Project, which uses electric heating of the shale up to 500 °F (260 °C

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

Coal to Liquids fails for similar reasons, though there’s some hope of sequestration technology maturing to the level where it may be useful.

Overall, US production has been steadily declining since 1971, because the several giant oil-fields (where 60% of reserves are held) in Texas went into decline. In the non-OPEC countries many of the giant oil fields are now in decline, and as a result production is stagnating and will soon go into decline. I say this because there is a general rule with oil reserves, where the largest 1% of oil fields will hold about 65% of the reserves – so they therefore tend to dictate production levels.

A giant oil field contains at least 500 million barrels of recoverable oil. Only 507, or 1 % of the total number of fields, are giants. Their contribution is striking: over 60 % of the 2005 production and about 65 % of the global ultimate recoverable reserve (URR).

You can download the PHD at the following URL:

http://publications.uu.se/theses/abstract.xsql?dbid=7625

So now we look to the OPEC dictators for production increases. Don’t hold your breath.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

rightwing rag..!

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

So do we want higher oil prices or not? Would like to get a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ from the environmentalists.

ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid

House Republicans: 97% Supported

House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration

House Republicans: 90% Supported

House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration

House Republicans: 81% Supported

House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity

House Republicans: 97% Supported

House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY

91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.

86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

We’re going to need a LOT more ‘tricity….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)