TheEEStory.com

evnow wrote:

I'm now reading "Profit from the Peak: The End of Oil and the Greatest Investment Event of the Century".

http://www.amazon.com/Profit-Peak-Greatest-Inve...

Considering even IEA is talking about it - we should look at peak oil as fact. No different than anthropogenic global warming.

Is the book worth its money'
Peak Oil is a fact if not now then soon.
However, this will also mean peak of global warming, sooner or later.

Yorkshire Miner wrote:

So if PO is a reality, why are oil producers - who employ thousands of people to research every single aspect of the energy market - actually increasing capacity?

Dear Trick,

the answer is quiet simple, Peak oil is about the whole market not the individual players that make up the market. Firm A can increase production by 1 Billion barrels a year but it will not affect the supple in a positive way if all the other firms production falls by 2 billion barrels a year total supply goes down.

The theory of peak oil was worked out by an American geologist called Marion King Hubbert in I think 1956, he used it to predict that American oil production would peak in 1970, he was right on the button and all the frantic drilling in the following years made no difference Americas oil production even when they found the massive oil field in Alaska and production began to rise never succeeded the total output from 1970. May I humble suggest that you read up on Peak Oil and factor it into your thinking, it is going to be very important in understanding what happens in the future. This is a good place to start.

http://rpc.blogrolling.com/redirect.php?r=fb415...

Deep regards

yorkshire Miner

Thanks YM, I am familiar with the theory. As mentioned by others above, global production volume is driven not just by availablity of the resource. Producers rarely run at 100% capacity even where supply is plentiful.

There are lots of reasons why PO is too simlistic and in my opinion has not happened yet. I personally do not believe that the min-2008 peak in production in was anything at all to do with actual reserves running out. If anything, it was an effort to bring the value down by oversupply. A value that was hyper-inflated by a greedy market at the top of a boom. As we saw, no-one was actually using the extra oil, and down fell the value by over $100 / barrel.

Take the PO definition of "easy" oil. We have not had "easy" since the original US oil rush days where you could put a straw into the ground and out it came. Over the decades there have been vast upstream improvements which have improved both the quality and the quantity of the product. Increases in market value and the closure of older fields have made it cost effective (i.e. "easy") to start exploiting oil sands, deep sea wells, etc - opening up vast reserves for the future.

This will continue to happen until a viable alternative is found, even if it means using biomass or other fossil fuels.

This is why I do not believe we have seen global PO. When demand outstrips supply even with everyone running at 100% capacity, when even the oil beneath the North Pole has been sucked dry, when the biomass farmers are running at full capacity, and there is no coal left to convert... then and only then will we be looking at "PO" in the rear view.

It is more likely that demand will slowly drop as viable alternatives come onto the market, such as full-range, quick charge EVs; new biomass for plastics, paints, lubricants; etc, etc.

A high oil value promotes alternatives and so in this respect can only be a good thing.

nino45 wrote:

evnow wrote:

I'm now reading "Profit from the Peak: The End of Oil and the Greatest Investment Event of the Century".

http://www.amazon.com/Profit-Peak-Greatest-Inve...

Considering even IEA is talking about it - we should look at peak oil as fact. No different than anthropogenic global warming.

Is the book worth its money'
Peak Oil is a fact if not now then soon.
However, this will also mean peak of global warming, sooner or later.

I got it from the library. Since this is my 1st book on peak oil - don't know whether is the best book around.

nino45 wrote:

Peak Oil is a fact if not now then soon. However, this will also mean peak of global warming, sooner or later.

Only if burning oil is the primary cause of global warming. Since the current global warming trend started back around 1800 to 1850 (depending on which authority you pay attention to), this seems rather unlikely.

This is one of the reasons why believing that humans are the cause of global warming is not only foolish, it's dangerous. Because it gives people the notion that we could *stop* global warming if we tried hard enough. If most of the global warming trend is natural, not man-made-- which seems likely-- then we can't possibly stop it by curbing pollution.

nino45 wrote:

Peak Oil is a fact if not now then soon. However, this will also mean peak of global warming, sooner or later.

Hardly. Two biggest contributors are Oil and Coal.

In anycase, as we say its not the carbon in the ground that matters, but the carbon in the air.

Actually oil is now at $70 because investors (novice) tend to put their money in the at the height of the market, and many are afraid that they are missing the boat (as the DOW approaches 9,500 / S&P 1,000) so they are artificially pushing commodity and stock prices up.... this can be seen as oil is not reponding to basics (last couple months)...
Oil is tied to the dollar, dollar goes up, oil goes up...
dollar goes down oil goes up...
demand goes down oil goes up...
supply goes up oil goes up...

this week has been forcast (by many) to be the height of the current rally.... with August 2007 and September 2008 as guides, we are in for quite a drop.... or at least a ride...

(September and October are historically bad months)

Fibb222 wrote:

Since oil reaching $147 was the cause of this world-wide recession and not the bursting of the housing bubble in the USA, the sooner the EESUs are delivered the better. We can't have stable and sustained economic growth with oil continuing to hold us by the short hairs.

For oil to already be at $70 while we are at the bottom of a major recession shows just how soon demand will again outstrip supply.

PS Saudi Arabia is lying!

Check this IEA worldwide oil production table.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1105.html

It appears that oil production has been relatively flat for the past 4 years. Pretty sad considering the huge run up in demand over the same time period.

Personally, I'm planning on purchasing a natural gas generator for my house once electric cars are common. (within the next 5 years.) I expect there to be local electric shortages and nat. gas is plentiful and cheap in North America. We'll see.

I posted a while back about a natural gas generator that a British utility was considering putting in peoples' homes, it was so efficient. Coupled with an EESU, you could go with a smaller unit, as your peaks could be covered with stored energy. Should reduce size and cost. Add solar and wind. You could be selling to the utility and running your EV car. Nice!

eeinterested wrote:

I posted a while back about a natural gas generator that a British utility was considering putting in peoples' homes, it was so efficient. Coupled with an EESU, you could go with a smaller unit, as your peaks could be covered with stored energy. Should reduce size and cost. Add solar and wind. You could be selling to the utility and running your EV car. Nice!

But now North Sea feilds have peaked Britain has to import gas and oil - so perhaps they may not be quite so anxious.

Lensman wrote:

nino45 wrote:

Peak Oil is a fact if not now then soon. However, this will also mean peak of global warming, sooner or later.

Only if burning oil is the primary cause of global warming. Since the current global warming trend started back around 1800 to 1850 (depending on which authority you pay attention to), this seems rather unlikely.

This is one of the reasons why believing that humans are the cause of global warming is not only foolish, it's dangerous. Because it gives people the notion that we could *stop* global warming if we tried hard enough. If most of the global warming trend is natural, not man-made-- which seems likely-- then we can't possibly stop it by curbing pollution.

ugghh, you are a big disappointment. It's not a natural trend. Here's a massive thread that goes through every possible argument.... If anyone has about a month of spare time they should check it out: http://priuschat.com/forums/environmental-discu...

Lensman wrote:

Only if burning oil is the primary cause of global warming. Since the current global warming trend started back around 1800 to 1850 (depending on which authority you pay attention to), this seems rather unlikely.

This is one of the reasons why believing that humans are the cause of global warming is not only foolish, it's dangerous. Because it gives people the notion that we could *stop* global warming if we tried hard enough. If most of the global warming trend is natural, not man-made-- which seems likely-- then we can't possibly stop it by curbing pollution.

This - and related arguments - is the #1 most used denier talking point.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Let us see - on the one hand I've thousands of scientists including Nobel laureates - on the other hand a handful of oil company funded people. Hmmmmm

evnow wrote:

Lensman wrote:

Only if burning oil is the primary cause of global warming. Since the current global warming trend started back around 1800 to 1850 (depending on which authority you pay attention to), this seems rather unlikely.

This is one of the reasons why believing that humans are the cause of global warming is not only foolish, it's dangerous. Because it gives people the notion that we could *stop* global warming if we tried hard enough. If most of the global warming trend is natural, not man-made-- which seems likely-- then we can't possibly stop it by curbing pollution.

This - and related arguments - is the #1 most used denier talking point.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Let us see - on the one hand I've thousands of scientists including Nobel laureates - on the other hand a handful of oil company funded people. Hmmmmm

Hi evnow,

The main anthropogenic cause of global warming identified in New Zealand is the farting of dairy cows (yes they have a lot of them) and this is 42% of their problem. Steps are under way to find a means of curbing their flatulence. At one point an earlier government attempted to introduce a fart tax on the farmers but were forced to withdraw the proposed legislation amid much hilarity.

One volcanic erruption can cancel out a year's global savings - even assuming everyone can agree. So we seem to have some interesting problems that EVs and EESUs can help with, don't we :-)

energy investor wrote:

The main anthropogenic cause of global warming identified in New Zealand is the farting of dairy cows (yes they have a lot of them) and this is 42% of their problem.

That is no different from bio-diesel. BTW, have you heard of increasing albedo using white sheep ? ;-)

Yorkshire Miner wrote:

yes I did read your post, and yes I do remember when oil plummeted from $147 to $35 a barrel but now all that funny money has been purged from the system with all the financial de-leveraging, but have you noticed that it has creep up to around $71 dollars today and that is without a growing real economy.

Dude, if you've already made up your mind and refuse to be "confused" by the facts, then why come on this forum and ask?

You seem to be stuck in a grade-school level understanding of the economics of the price of gasoline. Supply and demand is only part of the equation. Other factors affecting the price of gas are refinery capacity, the level of national strategic reserves, and speculation in oil futures. Plus, there's that "game" which gas retailers play, raising the pump price on any news that future gas prices will rise, but not lowering the pump price on news that future prices will drop.

You seem to be trying to write off a real-world decrease in demand of only 1%-2% sending the pump price tumbling by over 50% as some sort of aberration. Well, if it's an "aberration" then it's one which will be repeated if the EESU is delivered at the specs given, or even if EESU energy density receives true third-party verification.

Sure, we can't expect the real price of oil to stay depressed by 75% for long after such a tumble, and personally I think it's absurd to think it would *remain* as low as $20 per barrel. With a market price that low, many sources will become unprofitable and will be shut down, decreasing the supply which will drive the price back up.

But the idea that gasoline prices are set *only* by supply and demand... uh-uh.

I would like to second what Fibb is saying. A book "The Long Emergency" by James Howard Kunstler actually forecast the global financial crisis (GFC) based on his knowledge of the oil situation.

I've more theories than you can poke a stick at for why this goes unreported in mainstream media:
1) Does the media have a ban on "peak-oil" articles to protect their automotive advertising revenue?
2) We refuse to acknowledge that the economy has physical limits because that would put at risk the whole "growth is good" thing.
3) Journalists are not thinkers, they are reporters. They report mainstream wishful thinking, not geologists and scientists.
4) Because the price of oil fell alongside the emergence of the GFC symptoms, people failed to add two and two. The assassin was long gone. We are thinking associatively rather than chronologically.
5) People are unaware that oil is simply one form of energy that might be easily replaceable with renewable forms. Without this flexibility of thinking, acknowledging the oil problem is equivalent to "the end is nigh".

evnow wrote:

Let us see - on the one hand I've thousands of scientists including Nobel laureates [talking about anthropic global warming] - on the other hand a handful of oil company funded people. Hmmmmm

Well, since you apparently know everything about the subject, perhaps you can tell me just what year it was that global climate change went from being 100% natural to 100% man-made. Or are you claiming that somehow man-made pollution caused the climate changes in Earth's past indicated by the ice ages and warm periods? Maybe the polluters used time machines to dump their pollution into the past?

And then you can explain to me why astronomers have found indications of global warming on Mars and Jupiter, suggesting that at least *some* of the current global warming trend is due to the sun's activity. Or perhaps you'll claim those astronomers are in the pay of the oil industry, too?

Or, perhaps-- just perhaps-- the science of global climate change is not as settled as you think it is.

Yorkshire Miner wrote:

the Wright brothers public demonstations of controlled flight at Le Mans in France and to the American Army in Washington in 1908 had no effect on the transport market the following day.

Really? That's your argument? Gee whiz, I wonder why those speculators in the transport market in 1908 didn't e-mail their stock brokers and tell them to electronically sell their stock in automotive companies?

What's that? There wasn't any electronic market, nor much in the way of a global economy, as there is today? Nor even any major automotive companies? Nah, surely there must be some *other* explanation...

Lensman wrote:

nino45 wrote:

Peak Oil is a fact if not now then soon. However, this will also mean peak of global warming, sooner or later.

Only if burning oil is the primary cause of global warming. Since the current global warming trend started back around 1800 to 1850 (depending on which authority you pay attention to), this seems rather unlikely.

This is one of the reasons why believing that humans are the cause of global warming is not only foolish, it's dangerous. Because it gives people the notion that we could *stop* global warming if we tried hard enough. If most of the global warming trend is natural, not man-made-- which seems likely-- then we can't possibly stop it by curbing pollution.

your arguments are correct, probably the keeling curve accelerates the global warming but the effect is probably negligible.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve
However it will be good anyway to have less co2 in the air.
the question remains: can we do anything to stabilize the earth temp within acceptable limits?

Lensman wrote:

You seem to be trying to write off a real-world decrease in demand of only 1%-2% sending the pump price tumbling by over 50% as some sort of aberration. Well, if it's an "aberration" then it's one which will be repeated if the EESU is delivered at the specs given, or even if EESU energy density receives true third-party verification.

Lens

it's no use they won't listen....

They think that the EESU will have no impact on the short-term price...shocking that anyone could have this opinion after what happened last year.

All that I can say is lets wait and see, a lot of people are going to be in for a big surprise.

That is, if the EESU is real..=)

The opposite of "foreign oil production" is "domestic oil production". Until we actually start drilling at home, then I think all discussions on "peak oil" are premature.

Freelance

'Domestic oil production' will do nothing to delay the worldwide peak, if your talking about conventional oil drilling.

The US is past peak in conventional oil and whatever production we could add would only slightly delay this event.

Now, if your talking about oil shale, that's a different story...but until a economical technology exists to extract this oil, that aint happening...and hopefully we will have an economical alternative technolgy by then.

Lensman wrote:

evnow wrote:

Let us see - on the one hand I've thousands of scientists including Nobel laureates [talking about anthropic global warming] - on the other hand a handful of oil company funded people. Hmmmmm

Well, since you apparently know everything about the subject, perhaps you can tell me just what year it was that global climate change went from being 100% natural to 100% man-made. Or are you claiming that somehow man-made pollution caused the climate changes in Earth's past indicated by the ice ages and warm periods? Maybe the polluters used time machines to dump their pollution into the past?

And then you can explain to me why astronomers have found indications of global warming on Mars and Jupiter, suggesting that at least *some* of the current global warming trend is due to the sun's activity. Or perhaps you'll claim those astronomers are in the pay of the oil industry, too?

Or, perhaps-- just perhaps-- the science of global climate change is not as settled as you think it is.

i don't think you really believe that the causes for global climate change went from being 100% natural to 100% man-made. since the 1800s the human race has been adding significant levels of C02 that exacerbate the natural climate change cycles that the planet goes through.

nasa worldbook wrote:

The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings.
...
The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.

and

fossil.energy.gov wrote:

During the first half of the 1800s, the Industrial Revolution spread to the United States. Steamships and steam-powered railroads were becoming the chief forms of transportation, and they used coal to fuel their boilers.
In the second half of the 1800s, more uses for coal were found.

...there is also the fact that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there has been for 650,000 years.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

nino45 wrote:

evnow wrote:

I'm now reading "Profit from the Peak: The End of Oil and the Greatest Investment Event of the Century".

http://www.amazon.com/Profit-Peak-Greatest-Inve...

Considering even IEA is talking about it - we should look at peak oil as fact. No different than anthropogenic global warming.

Is the book worth its money'
Peak Oil is a fact if not now then soon.
However, this will also mean peak of global warming, sooner or later.

Nope.

Anthropogenic Climate Change is brought on in large part by the burning of Carbon fuels for energy.

We'll continue to burn coal until the cows come home.

LXicon wrote:

i don't think you really believe that the causes for global climate change went from being 100% natural to 100% man-made.

I guess you failed to understand my point, LXicon. That is precisely the point I was making-- that the natural causes of global climate change have not magically disappeared, and that some of the current global warming *is* natural.

LXicon wrote:

...there is also the fact that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there has been for 650,000 years.

Yes, and if CO2 were really a primary *cause* of global warming, the average temperature would have shot up a heck of a lot more than the measly 1-to-1-1/2 degree which anthropic global warming alarmists claim. I submit claiming a rise in CO2 *causes* global warming is claiming the tail is wagging the dog-- it's reversing cause and effect.

Actually, I doubt we disagree all that much. I suspect we both agree that it's reasonable to believe that the current global warming trend is partly natural, and partly man-made. I suspect we merely disagree on the matter of degree (pun intended) which pollution has affected the situation.

Just to add to the fun, I have sent a prediction to my investment group today, suggesting they beware a further collapse in world economies around October. The Dow to rise to 10,000 and then drop to below 7,000. Although convinced on the probable impact of peak oil myself, I expect WTI oil prices for light sweet crude to continue to USD75/bbl and then plunge over Northern winter to the high USD50's. I think the launch of the EESU will have an effect but it will likely be subsumed into the large summer/winter variations.

I expect peak oil to be on everyone's lips by summer 2011.

If we don't have large scale implementation of EVs and PHEVs by 2012, then the summer of 2012 will be a doozey for oil prices.

Lensman wrote:

LXicon wrote:

i don't think you really believe that the causes for global climate change went from being 100% natural to 100% man-made.

I guess you failed to understand my point, LXicon. That is precisely the point I was making-- that the natural causes of global climate change have not magically disappeared, and that some of the current global warming *is* natural.

LXicon wrote:

...there is also the fact that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there has been for 650,000 years.

Yes, and if CO2 were really a primary *cause* of global warming, the average temperature would have shot up a heck of a lot more than the measly 1-to-1-1/2 degree which anthropic global warming alarmists claim. I submit claiming a rise in CO2 *causes* global warming is claiming the tail is wagging the dog-- it's reversing cause and effect.

Actually, I doubt we disagree all that much. I suspect we both agree that it's reasonable to believe that the current global warming trend is partly natural, and partly man-made. I suspect we merely disagree on the matter of degree (pun intended) which pollution has affected the situation.

Since we're on the topic of unwinable debate, anyone care to discuss religon or politics?

unipres wrote:

Since we're on the topic of unwinable debate, anyone care to discuss religon or politics?

Get Manthan in the chat room, he'll be glad to oblige. (Oops, did I say that out loud?)

P.S.-- Anthropic global warming *is* a political debate.

Um. Is the Arctic melting - or is it not? I find it hard to believe that an ice structure that has existed for 20 million years should suddenly decide to melt from natural causes. Not when, co-incidentally, the level of CO2 has gone through a recent and sudden climb in conjunction with the burning of coal in earnest. If that's coincidence - it's like pulling ticket 66666 from the barrel twice in a row. If we are confusing cause and effect - it's still like pulling it once.

Carlo wrote:

Um. Is the Arctic melting - or is it not? I find it hard to believe that an ice structure that has existed for 20 million years should suddenly decide to melt from natural causes.

Yes, the current global warming trend (which started sometime between 1800 and 1850) is quite real. But where in the world did you get the idea that the Earth's climate is stable? It's not, it hasn't been, it's not gonna be. Perhaps you've bought into the nonsense of global warming alarmists who claim "The earth has never been hotter than this!" That's total B.S., see the chart below. Now, keep in mind we can only estimate temperatures before we started keeping accurate worldwide temperature records, which was only 55 or so years ago, so the temperatures on the chart are estimates.

Last edited Thu, 06 Aug 2009, 8:07am by Lensman

Lensman wrote:

We can only estimate temperatures before we started keeping accurate worldwide temperature records, which was only 55 or so years ago.

We can't keep accurate temperature measures now - see www.surfacestations.org
And if the American network is that lousy, imagine how bad the rest of the world's data must be.