$150 per barrel, your opinion of the impact.

[jetflyer]

ATPCliff,

You know a lot about the peak oil problem and more people would be wise to listen to you. I've done research like mad this last month on the problem. It is astonishing that we as a WORLD have let ourselves get into the predicament we're in. The world is in for a lot of changes these next ten years. IT WILL BE A LONG EMERGENCY.

A lot of people have no idea what is about to happen. I too am one of those "NUTS" switching my money to gold, foreign currencies, and energy mutual funds.

Most people will bury their heads in the sand and be in denial for quite a while. You see that from most of the people on here.

You guys refuse to do research, but just DENY that your way of living will change. It's understandable. I don't blame any of you. It's natural.

Eventually the denial won't do you any good though,

Jet
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER---
YOU SHOULD ALL READ THE FOLLOWING WEBSITES and DO YOUR OWN FOLLOWUP RESEARCH:
1)Website once again for introduction:
www.yubanet.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/8/15426
and
2)Website about the problems we face:
www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
3)A recent Associated press article:
http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=news&referrer=welcome&id=20050528/4297ecc0_3421_1334520050528-950973917
4)CHATGROUP devoted to PEAK OIL PROBLEMS:
www.peakoil.com

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

FN FAL:
Thanx 4 showing me how to spell Owlkayduh. I thought I might have misspelled it.

Cliff
HEF

PS-C, U kan eevun lurn speling on the inturnet. My wif thot it was just 4 durty pikturs!

 

[LAXSaabdude]

As long as we've got a government full of rich dudes that own lots of stock in oil companies, alternative energy sources are not going to happen in the US.

99% True. Alternative energy will happen, but only when those same rich dudes ensure that the oil companies they are invested in recieve all of the taxpayer-funded R&D money to develop alternative energy. Exxon ethanol, anyone?

LAXSaabdude.

 

[some_dude]

While you are doing research, here is another website you might want to check out:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html

Oh, and keep in mind that none of these sites (either the peak oil sites or the DOE site) take into account "nontraditional" sources of oil-- oil sands and oil shale. Those sources are vast and are economical at $35/barrel.

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER
YOU SHOULD ALL READ THE FOLLOWING WEBSITES and DO YOUR OWN FOLLOWUP RESEARCH:

 

[Falcon4.0]

Hi!

THere's lots of oil shale and tar sands in Canada. Unfortunately, with current techology, we have to burn a lot of natural gas to get the oil out of those resources, and the supply of natural gas will peak soon after the supplly of oil peaks. I read that we don't have enough natural gas to get the oil out of those resources in Canada.

Cliff
YIP

 

[Cobra]

Thing is, people are freaking out over the 55+/barrel price now. Inflation adjusted, the late 70's, early 80's oil crisis, oil was just around $90/barrel. I'd say that's the point you'd start seeing an impact. Oil prices have increased over 10% the last few weeks, yet gasoline prices have stayed relatively stable. Also, you are paying $90/barrel for gasoline already as is if you use the average US regular price of @2.20 or so. I don't think it will hit 150 anytime soon, and I doubt in 5 years.

The inflationary argument cracks me up. Inflation means little to the average American citizen who rents their residence and lives on middle class income. I think the term is just an excuse to prevent another proposition 13 type revolt/anarchy. In this case, inflation rhetoric via the energy companies that gets passed down from the politicos to the media down to the final audience you and me.

In laymen's terms the mantra goes like this: "See ______ (insert oil company name here), we really aren't gouging you-the consumer because when you compare the inflationary rate with the cost of hydrocarbons back in 1970 blah, blah, blah you are actually paying less than....So you see blah, blah.

Cheers,
G



G

 

[some_dude]

Maybe you could cite a source for this from government or industry?

I will (this is a pdf file), called "Unconventional Oil: Filling the Gap or Flooding the Market" from the DOE:

http://www.firstgov.gov/fgsearch/re...//www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/conf/pdf/lynch.pdf

As the above document points out, the price/barrel of oil derived from tar sands is steadily falling. At the moment, oil shale is not competitive, but in 10 years or so, it could be.

And use a little common sense! If it required more energy to extract the oil from shale or tar sands, no one would do it, would they? The extraction process requires heat, which has to come from somewhere. My understanding is that the mining process releases quite a bit of natural gas as a byproduct, which is then used as a source of heat.

It is true that extracting oil from tar sands and oil shale is not as efficient as pumping liquid oil out of the ground. This is why it is more expensive.

Hi!

THere's lots of oil shale and tar sands in Canada. Unfortunately, with current techology, we have to burn a lot of natural gas to get the oil out of those resources, and the supply of natural gas will peak soon after the supplly of oil peaks. I read that we don't have enough natural gas to get the oil out of those resources in Canada.

Cliff
YIP