Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

[mliu_01]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

Thanks ThePythonicCow for clearfication. At least I am not talking about nonsense here.

Yes it is a response to jpatter666. I have no intention to drift the topic off to polarized area. But it essential to point out what ET's article have not mentioned. As the crisis looming, those I mention are real. How can an article like that not mention the possiblity of USD crash and hyperinflation. As a matter of fact, I did not intend to stir up anything, just want to point out the obvious. I have no idea that why my post deemed worthless and my points are called invalid without any explanation. If my points are so invalid, then nobody will agree with any of it.

One more point I have to make. Peak oil is bad for every country. But no country have build on oil consumption like USA. ET's article has no mention of it(at least I did not see it). The rest of the country aren't this dependent on cheap oil as us. For someone boast know peak oil that good can't miss this. For majority of Chinese people, they can walk or biking to work. In US, we can't do anything without cheap oil. It is not "world can't run without oil". It is "America can't run without oil". That is why the article is totally flawed and biased. World will run without USA.
Article mention miliatary power. Sure. how is iraq worked out for cheap oil? LOL. wake up.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

Thanks ThePythonicCow for clearfication. At least I am not talking about nonsense here.

Yes it is a response to jpatter666. I have no intention to drift the topic off to polarized area.

Oh I don't think you can "take credit" for polarizing this discussion. It was a difficult subject long before you or I entered the discussion.

By the way, when you write ET I suspect you mean EJ. ET stands for ExtraTerrestrial (as in an alien creature from outer space.) EJ stands for Eric Janszen, son of the famous electrostatic speaker designer (though that's not the reason he's best known on this forum .)

[jpatter666]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

Oh I don't think you can "take credit" for polarizing this discussion. It was a difficult subject long before you or I entered the discussion.

By the way, when you write ET I suspect you mean EJ. ET stands for ExtraTerrestrial (as in an alien creature from outer space.) EJ stands for Eric Janszen, son of the famous electrostatic speaker designer (though that's not the reason he's best known on this forum .)

I thought he meant Erik Townsend (the author).

[mliu_01]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

"Sell oil to me cheap becasue I have a bigger gun".

This is probably a few valid points you have made. But I suggest you read the history and see how this kind of logic works. For a country every level of govt are broke, for a country have to print more and more money to keep everything afloat. I guess it will work out well. I am sure Roman are still ruling over the europe. Cause they have bigger swords. Let me tell you something. if we go to the war for cheap oil. It is not going to be cheap oil for you. Right now it is cheap oil with brown skinned people's blood. But maybe one day w will put the cheap oil with the blood of our own in it. Get real. War for cheap oil will never ever work.

[jpatter666]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

Thanks ThePythonicCow for clearfication. At least I am not talking about nonsense here.

Yes it is a response to jpatter666. I have no intention to drift the topic off to polarized area. But it essential to point out what ET's article have not mentioned. As the crisis looming, those I mention are real. How can an article like that not mention the possiblity of USD crash and hyperinflation. As a matter of fact, I did not intend to stir up anything, just want to point out the obvious. I have no idea that why my post deemed worthless and my points are called invalid without any explanation. If my points are so invalid, then nobody will agree with any of it.

One more point I have to make. Peak oil is bad for every country. But no country have build on oil consumption like USA. ET's article has no mention of it(at least I did not see it). The rest of the country aren't this dependent on cheap oil as us. For someone boast know peak oil that good can't miss this. For majority of Chinese people, they can walk or biking to work. In US, we can't do anything without cheap oil. It is not "world can't run without oil". It is "America can't run without oil". That is why the article is totally flawed and biased. World will run without USA.
Article mention miliatary power. Sure. how is iraq worked out for cheap oil? LOL. wake up.

Well:

1 ) The article *did* mention USD crash/hyperinflation possibilities as previously pointed out by jimbergin. Sure oil could get that high in inflated dollars (or whatever) but his point was such a price in 2010 dollars is highly unlikely.
2 ) In your previous posting you commented on how many cars China is buying. Now everyone walks or bikes. Having been to China and seen the vast advances they've made, I'd have to say an oil shock would hit hard (although China seems to know that and is preparing for it far better than the US IMO)
3 ) Yes, America is currently *very* dependent on cheap energy. Which was a point the author brought up as very dangerous for the rest of the world. The world's most advanced military, in the hands of the world's most spoiled people. So far as Iraq was concerned, yes, I hear what you are saying, but Iraq was very much a war of choice for the US. Trying to be "nice" (think about that). Now think about the same country -- the one from WWII which firebombed Europe and Japan, let loose nuclear weaponry and said "God has given us the weapons, let us use them.". THAT one -- the one that nearly got loosed after the towers fell.

Care to guess how it might prosecute a war?

IMHO -- Ruthlessly.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

I thought he meant Erik Townsend (the author).

Aha - you're no doubt correct. Thanks.

[mliu_01]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

Necessity is not luxry, and luxry isn't necessity.
Chinese don't have to have "cars" to run the society. they can get back to public transportation over night under govt's order. that can't be done here. We dont' have infrastructure to accomplish that.

Sure, if everything mliu siad and more won't happen(hyperinflation etc). 500 bucks a barrel will not happen. I agree. Oh I forgot to add, if Saudi Arabia wont increase their domestic consumption from 3% to 8%. 500 bucks will never happen. right?

[Jay]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

Uranium has the same problems that oil does -- see - Start thinking Atomic

Rock depletion is the biggest issue we face in the near future.

Geologists: 'We May Be Slowly Running Out Of Rocks'

May 1, 2010 | ISSUE 46•17

RALEIGH, NC—A coalition of geologists are challenging the way we look at global stone reserves, claiming that, unless smarter methods of preservation are developed, mankind will eventually run out of rocks.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/geo...f-rocks,17341/

[flintlock]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

And it's not really "cheap" oil now is it? Seen the US military budget lately? TANSTAAFL.

[mliu_01]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

exactly, and to suggest the oil will be "cheaper" in terms of totays dollar even if it reached 500+bucks is ludicrous. It will not get any cheaper unless the ocean turns into giant crude oil pool. who knows. gulf mexico is doint exactly that, atm. lol

Another point i have to make is that the "cheap oil" also depend on normalcy of the world. It depend on safe and regular transportation, and production. To suggest that we go out to the world and force people to sell stuff to us cheap will have price under certain level is just crazy. The article basically saying even if the world is in a total mess. gas will not reach 20 bucks a gallon. Yeah right.

[Dr.No]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

I believe I am in complete agreement with this post!

I'm not insulting him. (Hence "This article is stupid") I'm just getting a little sick and tired of these great unqualified assumptions everyone makes without reference to, you know, reality.

Okay "Breathing, Breathing, Breathing", my point IS, if you look at Martenson's work on mine ore grades (and, for that matter, the size declines in oil and gas field discoveries over time) and you can come to a very solid and realistic appraisal of the situation we find ourselves in. A good working title would be "Cheap Peak [insert name of geologically extracted resource here]".

Everything from declining coal ore grades to declining gold ore grades to the shrinking sizes of oil and gas field discoveries show a remarkable trend downward. Second, the extraction of these geologic resources is dependent on Non-"Peak Cheap Oil".

So you have the energy scarcity problem directly interacting with the resource extraction problem. (obviously not now due to our wonderful global financial crisis, global oil demand in the face of the biggest world-wide decline in economic activity since the great depression has luckily or unluckily, masked the effects, which were highly visible in the halcyon days before the crisis).

The Difference this time, (and is IT IS different than anything humankind has ever faced before) is that we have never before faced a situation where we did not have an existing consumable natural resource to turn to. Yes we went from wood to coal to whale oil to fossil oil, but there it is. What comes after fossil fuel and why is it different than EVERYTHING else that we have transitioned to in the past? The answer is THERE ISN'T ANYTHING! We are going to HAVE TO MAKE IT, and we are going to have to DO IT, before the remaining fossil fuels become uneconomic for running a world economy. We need to preserve the resource base that we HAVE so that we can utilize it to build our next energy infrastructure, and must get it done before those resources become unavailable due to the effects of peak cheap oil.

(And yes I know about Uranium, the problem is it is great at producing electricity, not so good at being a liquid transportation fuel). The problem we have is not electrical, it is finding a solution to the liquid transportation fuel problem. And if you think vehicle electrification is the answer (other than for trains, which would be a correct application), you have got some research to do on the amount of materials it would require for full scale implementation (Hint, see resource extraction on Martenson's site). And, it doesn't work for airplanes.

We have a "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles" (And Ships too) problem. We need a "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles" solution to the liquid transportation fuel problem. Nothing else will do.

[Dr.No]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

P.S.

According to a friend of mine, this simple device solves every energy related problem and removes the need for having any large batteries in electric vehicles (the mini-reactor directly powers the electric motor, storage not needed):

http://www.singtech.com/pages/features.html

[flintlock]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

Anything is possible when dealing with a potentially scarce product or resource. And prices don't always act in a linear relationship to the actual scarcity. All this argument is based on the assumption that we don't develop practical alternative fuels. If we can't then $500 bbl oil may seem cheap some day. Haven't you watched Mad Max? Most of us may be riding donkeys in the future but we will still have fancy jet fighter planes flying about. And billionaire bankers will still be skiing behind their mega yachts.

[Rajiv]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

I think we will have to peel the onion one layer at a time to arrive at the solution to depleting the rock!

[jtabeb]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

Yes you are ABSOLUTELY correct!

War means EXPENSIVE OIL, not cheap oil. And if you happen to have brown skin, I resemble that condition myself ;)