News:

Welcome to the Astral Pulse 2.0!

If you're looking for your Journal, I've created a central sub forum for them here: https://www.astralpulse.com/forums/dream-and-projection-journals/



Future price of crude oil

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Stillwater

QuoteQuote from: Stookie
QuoteBecause you can put gas on credit?


Oh yes, and where would we be without that?

At the gas station next to an empty hummer, unable to ride into battle! :mrgreen:
"The Gardener is but a dream of the Garden."

-Unattributed Zen monastic

Doch

An update: The price of crude is setting new records regarding the strife in the mid-East, over $ 80 a barrel at one stage. Fuel prices around the world will most likely be REALLY high next week.


Stillwater

QuoteAn update: The price of crude is setting new records regarding the strife in the mid-East, over $ 80 a barrel at one stage. Fuel prices around the world will most likely be REALLY high next week.

Eh, I think you have to take these things quarter to quarter at best. Temporary drops or crests that are the result of changing world conditions generally don't really affect the average price over any given interval, so I think if you look at short-term lows, you are just scaring yourself. But I could be wrong! :-P
"The Gardener is but a dream of the Garden."

-Unattributed Zen monastic

Stookie

One thing I've heard (which I can't confirm), is that electric cars would put a huge strain on the power grid. If everyone who owns a car now had to charge it, there wouldn't be enough electricity unless there were more power plants, which still means more fossil fuels or nuclear energy.

Maybe hydrogen is the way to go.

Doch

Hi Infinate bliss.

Those are some good ideas, but I think we fundamentally have to undertake a massive powerdown to avoid a future of pain. There is no avoiding the fact that Industrialized nations are totally dependent on fossil fuels and no combination of alternatives are going to get us out of this mess, although they are certainly going to play a part. Look how world population figures corrospond the discovery and production of fossil fuels:



We are in a massive population overshoot

Doch

Peak Oil is gaining much more focus here in Australia recently.

Our most respected current affairs program ( Four Corners) recently aired a special on Peak Oil, it can be watched if you have broadband connection here:

http://abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20060710/

Respect to hydrogen, even those advocating it just don't seem to think that there will be enough time, once the complete flow on effect from Peak Oil arrives. This is addressed in this video:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13112.htm

Doch

Quote from: Stillwater on July 14, 2006, 06:24:38
Eh, I think you have to take these things quarter to quarter at best. Temporary drops or crests that are the result of changing world conditions generally don't really affect the average price over any given interval, so I think if you look at short-term lows, you are just scaring yourself. But I could be wrong! :-P

Yes, you are right of course. This will most likely just be a temorary blip, but it is pretty clear that the era of cheap oil is over.

Do you keep pace with the 'Oil Drum' Stillwater? Some of their graphs are pretty scary, do you think that we have hitHubbert's curve yet? We are on a plateau of some sort. Alot of people think that this represents the peak, and I think they are right.OPEC seems unable to raise production in the face of rising demand. If this is peak in 2006, then the whole world is in for some serious trouble.






Stillwater

#32
I drop by that site every now and then, but I think many actually may actually watch the issue too closely; what I mean is that speculations from short term trends generally do not have significance in world economics. Economics is a frustrating area of study, as as it deals with a subject that can never be divorced from its place in the real world-there are so many variables, and it is difficult to say which have exactly what effect, as the variables cannot be isolated. And the economy is so dynamic, manifesting new tendancies all the time which old knowledge may or may not explain in any given case- studying the economy is like studying a jellyfish while you are in the water being attacked by it.

Another aspect to keep in mind is the "bias" of a given graph. A person can say that the data does not lie, as it is what it is, but you must keep in mind the inherent implications that displaying the data in one form or another must carry. Fot instance, one of the last graphs you offer shows a distinct plateau, but you have to interpret it too: the graph only starts in 2002, so you cannot compare this current peak to past ones; furhtermore the graph's vertical axis is tapered to start at 75 mill Bar/day, so the peak is also out proportion. Also, the fit-curve graph is smooth, unlike the plotting under it, not reflecting the minor fluctuations that would illustrate that this is a trend, rather than a directly manifested phenomenon. I also like how the page gets darker as you go from left to right, into 2006 lol- spooky!

That said, from what I have read to date, I still think of 2007 as the median date, but think it could be just a little sooner or later. Hubbert's peak would probably not be something that occurred Jan 24 of whatever year; economic changes are protean and dynamic, happening as a process, rather than an event. I think it is more like there will be a two year period which may correspond to a peak transition time, with authorities interpreting it mainly as a temporary slowdown in production and corresponding demand as prices rise, and attempts to fight it may temporarily sway production up, and other counterbalencing effects, like market flooding, would bring production down for a short time again.

For this reason, I think the peak would mainly be obscured on "accurate" graphs, and it would be pretty difficult to pin down exactly when it happened- it would steal in like a thief in the night, siphoning off grain: no one really knows when he comes, but that he was there is apparent. What is so important is not when it is happening, will happen, or has happened, but that the peak exists, and must be addressed.
"The Gardener is but a dream of the Garden."

-Unattributed Zen monastic

Doch

 
QuoteFor this reason, I think the peak would mainly be obscured on "accurate" graphs, and it would be pretty difficult to pin down exactly when it happened- it would steal in like a thief in the night, siphoning off grain: no one really knows when he comes, but that he was there is apparent. What is so important is not when it is happening, will happen, or has happened, but that the peak exists, and must be addressed.

Thanks for that reply Stillwater. I pretty much agree with everything you have said, just one question: do you mean that you actually believe that there will be a definitive peak occurring in 2007 (followed by a decline) or, do you see the peak as an observable prolonged plateau. If you see a long plateau, then the data shaping up in that graph fits in with a 2007 date very nicely ( you couldn't possibly expect production to rise much more if you think peak production occurs in 2007, could you?) I am aware that trends such as the one in the graph have happened before, but this has usually been resolved by a swing producer (Saudi Arabia). However, Saudi Arabia seem unable to raise production to a significant degree this time (at least for conventional light sweet crude).   Also, Have you read the Hirsch report? If so what did you think of it?

http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/the_hirsch_report.pdf

Hirsch says that we need a twenty year crash program to mitigate the worst effects of Peak Oil, to avoid a severe economic crisis. Governments clearly are not planning for this. If Peak Oil is next year, how do you see it being played out on the world economic stage?

Stillwater

#34
Thanks for posting this study- I had heard of it as a reference, but hitherto had not read it. In my estimation, This report is fairly conservative with respect to the economic impact of peak-related shortfalls in supply relative to demand, but otherwise the data offered, the scenarios of attempts at mitigation dependant on peak date, and evaluation of methods of reading the leading economic indices and output data appear fairly reliable.

As for what the peak will "look" like on a production curve of sweet crude equivalent, if it is visible at all I think it will manifest as a best-fit plateau; it may not be clearly visible in the face of current world events blurring its form, and possibly only definitively "readable" in the past tense, regretably allowing us to place a window of a couple years on when it happened a decade after the fact, but not allowing us to "proclaim this is it!" as the peak itself unfolds. For these reasons, there are still those who hold that the peak came and went two whole years ago, and that we are only begining to feel the short term effects.

I posit 2007 + 2 years with about 60% personal surity- I think I can say I am around 80% sure it will happen by 2015, and about 90% by 2020. I make this interpetation by looking at a spread of when particular experts position the peak, the percentages who take each individual view, and the credibility of each group of sources, given econimic and political loyalties. For instance, that Exon and Shell place the peak within a 15 year timeline from now is very telling, so this is one factor in allowing a loose upperbracket of 2020 as a conservative estimate date. I do not find those who posit a peak beyond 2020 as being exceedingly credible, as they rely very heavily on future technological developement, grossly overestimate how much energy resources like the tar sands in Canada can yield, and fail to interpret the accuracy of data provided by OPEC regarding current reserves and predicted future potentials. We must also see that some of the earlier estimates of a peak come from those sources with exceedingly liberal political ties, who may be perhaps a little too prone to attacking the oil industry, however corrupt said body may be.

I certainly agree with Hirsch that we need a 20-year plan in order to offset a colossal depression, and don't believe the current timeline of events will allow us so much time, and that political authorities do not seem to be taking the peak seriously enough to allow even a decade of dedicated countermeasures.

My personal vision of the economic and social effects can probably be summarized as "Gloom&DoomLite tm":

I think we will have 2-8 years of serious preparations at best, and the first salient symptom will be $5/gallon gas prices in the US, a little more in Europe. This however, will be felt in industry before the consumer sector, and prices of food and consumer goods may increase by up to 50% at first, with shortages in some areas like Hawaii, with prices becoming increasingly severe. We will see a reworking of the consumer market, with providers becoming increasingly closer to to the points of dispensal- ie.: you can get an orange in Florida, but in Arkansas they are a luxury good. This scenario will likely worsen with time, with potential starvation in lower-developed regions of the Industrialized countries. We will likely see $8/gallon prices, and corresponding industry suffering before countermeasures put in place post-peak symptoms begin to take effect- and this the short term- the 5 year period after the peak. The long term will likely see a parallel struggle in dealing with the long term reality that we will never have as much crude oil availible ever again, and will necessitate the most intensive energy R&D since the industrial revolution.

That is my story, and I am sticking too it until proven wrong, lol.
"The Gardener is but a dream of the Garden."

-Unattributed Zen monastic

Adrian

Hello everyone,

Keep in mind that fuel is not the onlt commodity produced from oil.

Oil is the basis for almost everything; synthetic materials such as plastics, medicines, chemicals etc..

Also electricity is often produced from diesel oil driven turbines.

If that graph is correct; and I personally believe it is quite possible, the cost of living will increase dramatically as will inflation and therefore interest rates, and therefore loans and mortgages etc..

This however is only one element of what is happening right now; but an observable one nevertheless.

Best regards,

Adrian.

https://ourultimatereality.com/
Vincit Omnia Veritas

Stookie

I work in an industry where we use a lot of plastic to make our products, and the cost of plastic goes up with oil costs, and unfortunately, we have to pass that on to the customer. They don't always understand though...

Doch



Stillwater, If you are not too bored with this subject yet you mind find this article interesting also. Keep in mind that it was written a decade ago :-o but it is one of the best pieces of authorship I've yet seen on PO.

http://fcn.state.fl.us/fdi/edesign/news/9612/joyride.htm

Stillwater

Thanks Doch- this article mainly outlies the premises and principles that those of us who follow the issue at least leisurely are aware of, but it is a great introduction to the field of ideas for those who haven't a clue (I love inclusionist-exclusionist speak-  8-) us and them 8-) ), which is around 98% of the pop., in my guess.
"The Gardener is but a dream of the Garden."

-Unattributed Zen monastic

malganis

Or check this electric car http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=0  :-o

I would enjoy having one.   
"What are you doing here, Nasrudin? his neighbor asks. "I'm looking for a key which I lost
in the wood?" Nasrudin replies. "Why don't you look for it in the wood?" says the neighbor,
wondering at Nasrudin's folly. "Because there is much more light here"

Stillwater

#40
They claim the Tesla Car costs about 1 cent a mile to run- that is over 26 times as cost efficient as gasoline is today. There has to be a catch someplace: it could be in expense of the fuel cell, or the fact that if everyone ran one, it would overload the powergrid, drastically raising electricity costs as energy experts tell us now.

It really is beautifully formed too- it is just too bad that automobiles are so dangerous and destructive.
"The Gardener is but a dream of the Garden."

-Unattributed Zen monastic

Stillwater

http://www.greenmtn.edu/faculty/publications/V2G-PUF-LetendKemp2002.PDF

Here is a link to a PDF explaining the mechanics of V2G.

I must say I was not previously aware of this information, and that it is a potentially useful technology.
"The Gardener is but a dream of the Garden."

-Unattributed Zen monastic

Stillwater

Your ideas are charming, and may come to fruition one day, but something that runs far deeper than many realize is the hate, fear and darkness in men's hearts. We are paradoxically both one of the most well-developed, caring creatures in our awareness, and the most grotesquely repulsive.

Albert Camus, French existentialist:

QuoteWe used to wonder where war lived, what it was that made it so vile. And now we realize that we know where it lives... inside ourselves.

I think we can both agree, as you point out, that in order for our technology to properly progress, we must progress as beings and individuals first. We continue to develop increasingly dangerous and destructive technology, as man seemingly slumps into a depression of the spirit. This trend cannot continue for long. I would that there was a way that masses of people could come to spiritual truth, rather than through dogmantic institutions, as has been tried in the past.

I wish you well, and thanks for keeping us posted  :wink: :wink: :wink:
"The Gardener is but a dream of the Garden."

-Unattributed Zen monastic

WindGod

Quote from: InfiniteBliss on July 23, 2006, 16:10:38
The news today confirm my prediction that we will have non-oil based cars become popular soon:

Horizon Fuel Cell Technologies: http://www.horizonfuelcell.com

Thank you. I just ordered a set. I've wanted to convert my '73 Ford Galaxy (sits in drive-way covered up)  to hydrogen power. Now I can start learning.   :-D
Are weather forcasters psychic?

Stillwater

Do you really think it is best to replace forests with hemp? Part of what maintains the soil in a forest is biodiversity- the soil nutrients are cycled and replaced by different plants- if you have one plant only, then it will use up the soil in a decade or so running out of nitrates and trace minerals, and the land will become barren sand. Furthermore, oxygen is not the only thing a forest is good for- it is the home of a diverse group of animals, and to artificially have only one staple plant, millions of animals lose their home. It is also dangerous to limit plant life, as diversity lends itself to natural adaptivity after an extinction. And also, I believe algae is among the most oxygenating organisms around anyhow. Most of the oxygen in the world comes from algae in the ocean, and what we do on land has only a very minor effect I am afraid.

But your heart is in the right place. World problems will not be solved overnight, and the solutions are rarely simple. Keep at it  :wink: :wink: :wink:
"The Gardener is but a dream of the Garden."

-Unattributed Zen monastic

Stillwater

#45
Hi Bliss  :wink:

I'm glad I merely misunderstood you about the hemp plan- as long as it is not intended as replacement to natural forests, and the plan itself is extensively researched for its effects, it does not sound like a bad deal at all.

And I can back up the information about ten vegans being able to live off the products of the land required to sustain one human omnivore, that has been demonstrated and is biologically supported by trophic-level interactions- about ten percent of the level of energy on any trophic plateau passes to the next in the "food chain". So Herbivores get ten percent of the energy of the plants they ingest, and carnivores ten percent of the herbivores they eat, on up to the top. Bringing people to the herbivore level would have this effect of multiplying the availible food in the world by about ten. I support this lifestyle, but unfortunately not everyone agrees, and that is almost an insurmountable hurdle at this point.

If the Telsa car is powered by Lithium batteries, that is a potential problem, as the trace metals necessary in a lithium battery are very expensive, and are definitely not availible at the levels needed to produce 7,000 for every automobile. I think there must be a push for developing more efficient batteries with less need of trace metals if a plan like this is to be marketable. But perhaps answers may be found to these issues in the near future.

Thanks again :wink:
"The Gardener is but a dream of the Garden."

-Unattributed Zen monastic

Doch

Quote from: RunLola on July 19, 2006, 18:52:28
check out this video from week 1 :

http://www.dhlovelife.com/archive/index1.html



see I knew it was corn oil!  :-P



I liked this video, thanks runlola. Darryl Hannah sure drives a strange car, being such a huge celebrity.

Doch

#47
Infinite Bliss, regarding any hydrogen economy I just don't think it will happen on a larger enough scale to really make a difference to the coming energy crisis. There are, approximately, something like 600 million gasoline powered combustion engines in the world ( I could be wrong there) and these fuel cells just seem so expensive. Bearing in mind that the peak is on our doorstep, turning over the world's current vehicles to alt energy is going to cost trillions of dollars. If such advances we more purposefully pursued 20 years ago, then we might have had a chance...

The last article I linked to offers some good insight into the problems we are running into:



QuoteNow pay attention economists. Here are three dicta that may sound heretical. First is Minter's Little Observation: Neither capital nor labor can create energy. Growing out of this observation is Minter's Little Law of Energy Subsidy: The shortage of a more efficient energy source in an economy will always make the remaining sources of less efficient energy more expensive and even less efficient. Will humanity belatedly begin to use all energy more efficiently when we finally hear those sucking sounds in the petroleum barrel? Of course. We will have to. But such efficiencies will not make us more prosperous (as they do today). By that time they will only slow the rate at which we get poorer. Why? Heed Minter's Little Maxim: A society's transition from a more efficient energy source to a less efficient energy source will always and invariably decrease the wealth, flexibility and options available to that society.
In other words, just when we most need the wealth and flexibility of cheap petroleum energy to make the transition to a less energy-intensive infrastructure, everything is going to cost much, much more. We will be poorer.

Stillwater

QuoteInfinite Bliss, regarding any hydrogen economy I just don't think it will happen on a larger enough scale to really make a difference to the coming energy crisis. There are, approximately, something like 600 million gasoline powered combustion engines in the world ( I could be wrong there) and these fuel cells just seem so expensive. Bearing in mind that the peak is on our doorstep, turning over the world's current vehicles to alt energy is going to cost trillions of dollars. If such advances we more purposefully pursued 20 years ago, then we might have had a chance...

Yeah, unfortunately I must agree; right now our efforts are like trying to hack away a mountain with push-pins- it is too little, too late. We can try to assuage some of the coming problems with an electrical-based fleet (hydrogen has too many drawbacks- fuel cells; third-hand energy step which wastes power at other levels, as it is converted from electricity, which is converted from something else), but the problems of cost and distribution will likely prevent it from being a pre-solution. Electrical cars will probably prolifferate after the economic recessions, and even then, will likely be almost a luxury.

Many economists predict that our energy output as a society (similar to GDP as a measure of net ecomomic output) will be around 1/3 of its present state ten years after peak, and so personalized transportation and unecessary area-heating might almost cease.
"The Gardener is but a dream of the Garden."

-Unattributed Zen monastic

Stillwater

#49
Hi Bliss, thanks for posting these links.

Link 1: Free energy has always been a mixed bag- there are many promising leads, but none have been proven yet in the mainstream. One of the more promising, the Depalmo machine, was actually proven to have been based on supposedly erroneous data. There are others, though, which actually may be what they purport themselves to be. Only time will tell, but I would not bet the farm on this yet. The oil peak predictions are based on the "all things being equal" format, which bars extraordinary new solutions. We very well may be "saved" as a culture by the disclosure of free energy systems, but this is unfortunately still an area of mass uncertainty.

Link 3: I was not previously aware of this community, and I am amazed that they claim they can run their power grid off this "thesatika". It may well be what they claim it to be (it is far from impossible), but I would need more information, which they decline to give, for understandable reasons.

Link 2: This set of links is actually quite interesting. It corresponds with what others have claimed of the "shadow government" very oddly. The provided link to Steve Greer's disclosure project is also noteworthy:

http://netmar.com/~maat/announce/drgreer.htm#rn2

I do not know what to think of it, but it seems quite professional.

Again, Bliss, I do not doubt the existence of Free Energy; I am simply unsure that it may be offered as a solution in time to avert crisis, and if what Steve Greer claims is true, there are those who would keep knowledge like this out of public domain, most pitiably.

Thanks for sharing this- I will post that link elsewhere for others to see- maybe other posters have information on its potential validity.
"The Gardener is but a dream of the Garden."

-Unattributed Zen monastic