|
|
Post by trbixler on Aug 23, 2012 11:48:40 GMT
Of course there are those that will say impossible. Of course they are saying that an energy policy by the government is impossible. Why what is needed is more regulation and fewer people. "Romney to declare goal of North American energy independence by 2020" "LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will lay out policies on Thursday aimed at achieving North American energy independence by 2020 by pursuing a sharp increase in production of oil and natural gas on federal lands and off the U.S. coast. Romney is to unveil his plan at a truck and supply business in Hobbs, New Mexico, as he seeks to draw a sharp contrast between his energy policies and those of President Barack Obama and detail in part how he would rekindle job growth in the United States." www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-romneybre87j0p0-20120820,0,2610963.story |
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Sept 14, 2012 20:32:55 GMT
Yes, but using that very same math I should be panicking about my imminent starvation! Yesterday I ate some pancakes for breakfast, my meal totaled only 400 calories. And yet I need to consume about a million calories a year to survive. I'm doomed I tell ya! 400 calories is a VERY small meal... A food "Calorie" (capital C) is actually a thousand physics calories (small c) or a "kilocalorie" or "kcal" for short. |
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Sept 14, 2012 21:01:03 GMT
Hi Pidgey nice to see you back. Yes I remember 'A cold world and no oil' quite well. Although there are some interesting abiogenesis papers around that would seem to suggest that oil is just a byproduct of fission within the Earth's core. As was pointed out Saturn's moon Titan has water and hyrocarbons, but as far as anyone knows had no 'carboniferous forests'. So those hydrocarbons had to come from somewhere. It may be that oil is actually being continually generated within the Earth and percolating to the surface through porous or fractured rock. The only reason that we will run out of energy in the next century would be due to the deliberate act of politicians who have decided for whatever reasons to disallow extraction of the fuel. This may make them less than popular if the 'cold world' does arrive as expected. Hi, Nauti! It has become a VERY busy life and I'm frankly spending a lot more free time in the evenings and weekends out sailing instead of logging onto the computer. I find sailing to be a lot more relaxing... Regarding abiotic oil... I've kinda' come to the conclusion that the genesis of the theory had as a motive getting as far away as possible from the Genesis origin account. In point of fact, we tend to actually find oil in very sedimentary formations that happen to have non-porous capstones as oil WILL leak to the surface and be consumed by bacteria rather rapidly. I tend to view Peak Oil theory as merely a system of mathematical modeling that historically has done a pretty good job of predicting production curves with respect to time given remarkably little data. Hubbert's original method required A LOT OF EFFORT, but he later borrowed some VERY simple algebra from a biological model that's so d@mned easy a fifth-grader can (well... could... they ain't exactly what they used to be... ) do it. In any case, you could draw the conclusion that a peak in production in a certain field, region, country, continent or the whole planet for that matter is akin to a shift from an exothermic to an endothermic reaction. Production eventually gets to the point where the energy out is eaten up by the energy in. One of the dirty little secrets is that providing the "lift" is about a 20% efficient process (like a typical internal combustion engine) so when the net chemical energy out of a well is approximately five times the theoretical energy to make the lift, it's no longer economic to produce. And that still doesn't account for all the energy that it took to drill the hole, transport the product, refine it, pay off some kind of return on the original investment, provide security for the entire endeavor, et-frickin'-cetera... Did I forget to mention lining politicians'/dictators'/potentates' pockets? It's just a far more complicated world out there than we were taught as children! In any case, when one does the simple algebra that charts what HAS BEEN produced to date per unit time, it produces the logistical curve all too easily. And WAY too many regions have already validated that particular method too well to dismiss it summarily, IMHO... All that said, my new-found hobby of sailing is GREEN, DUDE!!! (the water in the lake is kinda' green, too, but that's unrelated) (...and some occasional passengers have turned green, as well, but that's also unrelated) (sorta') |
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Sept 27, 2012 3:41:03 GMT
I listened to an interesting interview with Jeff Rubin author of "The Big Flatline: Oil and the No-Growth Economy" I have not read the book yet but his basic premise is that economic growth up to this point has been fed by cheap oil. Now any increase in worldwide economic growth will meet huge resistance with the price of oil itself. I will admit that any recent increase in the market is met by an increase in the price of crude. One of his biggest concerns was food prices which our highly correlated with the price of crude.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 27, 2012 9:51:17 GMT
I listened to an interesting interview with Jeff Rubin author of "The Big Flatline: Oil and the No-Growth Economy" I have not read the book yet but his basic premise is that economic growth up to this point has been fed by cheap oil. Now any increase in worldwide economic growth will meet huge resistance with the price of oil itself. I will admit that any recent increase in the market is met by an increase in the price of crude. One of his biggest concerns was food prices which our highly correlated with the price of crude. Historically energy can only be cheap if in the future it is relatively expensive so the basic premise of the book is pure guesswork. Energy supply is relatively inelastic. Always has been due to lead times for developing supply. In previous energy induced recessions government was actively promoting energy development with tax benefits. . . .depletion allowances, etc. Today its measured by how much government is standing in the way. . . .gee supply remains steady and hasn't gone down when it should have gone up a great deal simply from the increase in prices. The government is standing in the way big time delaying major pipeline projects, anything they can do to reduce carbon emissions. The fact supply has not gone down is testimony to the effect of demand pricing. Economic recovery is being held back by government and its "world saving" view they are representative of everything but their own citizens. Green energy promotion is so deep in the red it fails under its own weight. Tax credits to consumers would be effective as consumers can earmark discretionary spending to the task and pay whatever the market will bear to add some solar panels to their sunlit footprint, improve insulation, or replace inefficient equipment or supplement electric systems with energy saving gadgets. It would be much more effective if the government promoted energy development, improving the economy, and increasing discretionary spending. But nah!! Instead they are beefing up anti-discretion agencies like the EPA and the EPA is seizing its mandate to even be restricted to explicit democratic controls. They can invent problems to solve in opposition to democratic opinion. There in a nutshell is why things suck and the guys guesswork premise that cheap oil funded economic growth will only then become artificially a reality, not because oil itself was cheap but because government made it expensive. I have been observing this growing "health and safety" concern of government for several decades now. It is being used in a wholesale manner to circumvent democracy via a simple majority delegation of fiat powers to agencies like the EPA which in turn provides cover for the elected representatives selling off discretion/freedom in small increments that are adding up to large increments. Simple majorities might be a problem for endorsement of health and safety issues. For instance the Iraq war won something like an 80% plurality and today it wouldn't poll anywhere near that. Health and safety issues can be emotional issues but if its a real health and safety issue the effect is not flexible. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 27, 2012 14:04:56 GMT
I listened to an interesting interview with Jeff Rubin author of "The Big Flatline: Oil and the No-Growth Economy" I have not read the book yet but his basic premise is that economic growth up to this point has been fed by cheap oil. Now any increase in worldwide economic growth will meet huge resistance with the price of oil itself. I will admit that any recent increase in the market is met by an increase in the price of crude. One of his biggest concerns was food prices which our highly correlated with the price of crude. Considering he predicted oil would be $225 by 2012...... Prophets of doom rarely talk about their failures, but are very good at making excuses for them. |
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Sept 27, 2012 14:50:23 GMT
magellan,
Coming from the king of "economic prophets of doom" I find you're comment kind of ironic.
By the way how has gold and silver done vs the Dow over the last year?
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 27, 2012 17:17:27 GMT
magellan, Coming from the king of "economic prophets of doom" I find you're comment kind of ironic. By the way how has gold and silver done vs the Dow over the last year? The author of your book also thinks Paul Ehrlich is a great guy. U.S. GDP was adjusted down to 1.25% for last quarter. Combine that with real inflation means the economy is contracting. You said the U.S. and world economy would "continue to improve". I said they would tank. Let's go back and review shall we? You would have been the ones scoffing in 2001 at the notion gold and silver would go up 600%. You would have also laughed at the idea in 2006 the housing market would crash and with it the Dow. I removed all my 401k in late 2007. Losses: 0% In your world, losing 40% in 2008, then gaining it back in 2012 is a profit. Here, do the math:  Who gained more by 2012; those left their money in the stock market or bought gold in 2007? Let's see, gold was ~$800 in Sept 2007. Today it is ~$1800. Hmm. The only way you could have come out ahead was to have gotten out of the market completely in 2007 and re-entered in 2009 aggressively. Gold and silver are doing just fine and will go up rapidly once the euphoria of the printing presses wears off, the bond markets realize they're being set up again and the dollar falls. You'll be amongst the lemmings "in it for the long haul" when the market comes crashing down again. The Dow is being propped up by fiat currency pumped up by the Federal Reserve; the U.S. is now officially monetizing the debt. I'm so confident it is phony I'll bet you a one ounce gold coin that by the end of 2013 the Dow will be at least 20% less than the the peak of 2012 and gold will be at least 20% above today's spot price. On December 31, 2013 if both aren't true I'll give you the coin. If both are are true you owe me the spot price of gold on December 31, 2013. If Obama is re-elected I'll double the bet. Are we on? BTW, I bought 10 lbs of silver when it was just under $28 in early August. Today it is $34.70. We can include silver in the bet if you want  |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 27, 2012 18:18:38 GMT
Icefisher,
The interesting / concerning thing for me is that the entire approach appears to be choreographed. In UK they are stymied by 'health and safety' that appears to affect all power generation apart from windfarms. The government is claiming it is reducing spending but is increasing spending (including sending Billions in 'foreign aid' to countries like India and China). The PIIGS - Portugal, Italy, Ireland Greece and Spain are all teetering on the brink of total bankruptcy - only Germany and Norway seem to have escaped the malaise. The chances are that the Euro will crash before Christmas due to the weight of debt. The script seems to be the same in the USA.
Someone is pulling the strings using Agenda21 / Sustainability memes but obviously not meaning it. Who would gain from a total collapse of the first world?
The timing could not be worse as there are now many forecasts including NASA (not GISS !) that the temperatures are likely to drop. Cold, no food, no oil, no western industry to adapt to it. Sounds like a Malthusian utopia.
|
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 27, 2012 19:26:29 GMT
I work in the oil industry and can assure everyone that if oil consumers can convince explorers that the price of oil will hold above $200/bbl there is a wall of oil to find and develop and the good news it will not have sovereign risks.
We can't wait.
As a point it's worth remembering that $200/bbl is only $1.25/litre for the raw fuel, when we pay 2 or 3 dollars per litre it is due in large part to the tax impost.
I know no friends that will crush their cars if fuel were to lift in price by 50c/litre. That ignores the likely shift in fuel efficiency price pressure.
|
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Sept 27, 2012 19:42:12 GMT
magellan,
I will take that bet if you make it Gold's peak price of 2012, after all you are holding me to the Dow's peak of 2012. I think it only fair to hold you to golds peak and not todays spot price which is considerably lower than its peak while the Dow is near its peak for the year.
Are we on?
|
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Sept 27, 2012 19:52:24 GMT
nonentropic, What would 200.00 bbl an oil do to food prices?
|
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 27, 2012 20:13:01 GMT
Upward pressure clearly.
what proportion of the worlds food production is dedicated to silly ethanol or palm oil plantations which have massive negative value.
From memory the wests direct subsidies on agriculture are $250 billion and distortions such as biodiesel mandates and trade restrictions must be larger .
Looking at the folk that walk the world, to much food looks the key issue not to little.
Our garbage disposal eats more food in our house than the people!
I think against a background of low inflation a lift in food costs could do little to social well being.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 27, 2012 20:24:10 GMT
Upward pressure clearly. what proportion of the worlds food production is dedicated to silly ethanol or palm oil plantations which have massive negative value. From memory the wests direct subsidies on agriculture are $250 billion and distortions such as biodiesel mandates and trade restrictions must be larger . Looking at the folk that walk the world, to much food looks the key issue not to little. Our garbage disposal eats more food in our house than the people! I think against a background of low inflation a lift in food costs could do little to social well being. I think that in some parts of the world - where 'insinkerators' have not yet reached, a small rise in food costs or a reduction in supply could lead to civil unrest. This has already happened in places as diverse as Mexico and Egypt. Fuel costs translate directly into supply costs and therefore food costs. Given crop failures that are happening now and increases in fuel prices; there could be significant unrest in some areas of the world. In Europe and the USA where there may be complaints about coffee and chocolate prices - and a small tightening of belts to ensure there is enough food - yes not a considerable problem - although commutes might be reduced at $6 a gallon. In the 3rd world there _will_ be riots. At $200 BBL the tar sands become viable and natural gas from fracking fields extremely attractive. I would expect that oil prices will continue to bounce on a maximum below that level or they lose the market to other suppliers. At the same time the dollar is being deliberately devalued by the USA (as is the pound and the Euro) so it may _appear_ that prices are going up but this is just inflation. |
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 27, 2012 22:39:59 GMT
Sorry if I sounded flippant yes food assumes a larger part of many peoples incomes in other parts of the world.
Interestingly though both Mexico and Egypt I would regard as very large potential food producers if the west would abandon their daft trade restrictions that have imprisoned the poor from free food trade.
The high chocolate and coffee prices have in part flowed back to the less wealthy portion of the world, the only and I repeat only reason these flows exist is because the west has no capability to produce those products themselves otherwise there would also be trade embargoes on those items.
High oil prices are capped by tar sands, GTL plants fed by $25/bbl equivilant shale gas and the general elasticity of supply. Economics at work, just some short run price shocks.
|
|
