Rising Oil/Gasoline prices

[atpcliff]

Hi!

I have studied the peak oil concept for several years now, and I pay a lot of attention to the globabl oil situation.

Based on what I've read, I'd estimate that oil will never be below $45/barrel ever again. By this summer oil could be as high as $65/barrel, and gasoline prices will be between $2.50-$3.00, depending on what happens to supply.

Next year the prices will be higher, with 2007 higher than next year, and 2008 higher than 2007.

The main reason for this is that global oil production is very close to it's peak, and Chinese oil consumption is going through the roof. Some analysts predicted that the increase in Chinese consumption would be less than last year's increase. They were dead wrong, and China's increase in consumption this year is actually more than the increase last year.

India is about 10 years behind China, so there's no end in sight for the demand rise in energy consumption.

I would like to read your opinions and comments about the above.

Cliff Lapp

PS-In case you didn't know, US oil production peaked way back in, I believe, 1974. We currently import about 65% of our oil, up from 40% in 1980.

 

[JohnDoe]

That all seems pretty spot-on to me, although alot of people ( especially in the aviation industry ) seem to live in denial and pretend it's not going to happen.

We are no longer the largest consumer of oil in the world. If we don't pay the price they want, others will.

But hey, as long as every American still gets to exercise their god-given right to drive a gas-guzzling pos suv, it's all good....right?

 

[Crimson03]

www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/030573.html
Sorry I don't know how to make it clicky.
Anyway peak oil is a long running sham.
Of course if we keep burning tremendous amounts of oil there probably won't be any air left worth breathing.

 

[mzaharis]

Hubbert Peak is a rather controversial concept. Here's an interesting sentence from an Economist article on the concept:

"Who is right (referring to supporters and detractors of the Hubbert peak)? In making sense of these wildly opposing views, it is useful to look back at the pitiful history of oil forecasting. "

The Hubbert peak supporters have mis-predicted the global peak (having assigned it in the '90s), and have not allowed for new technology to reduce the cost to extract previously non-econimically extractable oil, without relying on a price increase.

While there may be some merit to Hubbert peak theory, I don't think that's what we're seeing in oil prices right now. I believe that it's more a matter of short-term misalignment between production and consumption, combined with an over-amplified sense of political instability.

If anyone wants a good primer on Hubbert peak, both pros and cons, here's a Wikipedia article on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

The Harvard article refers to the idea of abiotic oil, that is, the theory that oil is NOT created by processes affecting the remains of living organisms.

This idea, that oil is created deep within the earth, and that our supply of oil, therefore, is neverending.

The abiotic oil theory has been widely discredited.

The world oil production peak has not occured, as far as we can tell, although it could've been 2003, or 2004, or it could be this year. It won't be known, for 100% certainty, until several years after it has ocurred.

However, for those who think the idea is without merit, the US oil production peak ocurred in 1974? There is no disputing the fact that US oil production every year after that year has been less. If there was a US oil peak, then obviously there will be a world oil production peak, after which the prices will rapidly and continually rise, until oil isn't used as the main transportation fuel.

CLiff
YIP

 

[Kream926]

wouldnt digging for oil in alsaka lower the price of oil since it isnt being imported? Or is it too wildlife up there to do so

 

[Tina Fey's Scar]

There is not enough oil in Alaska to put a dent in the price. Don't let the talking heads convince you otherwise.

 

[atrdriver]

There is not enough oil in Alaska to put a dent in the price. Don't let the talking heads convince you otherwise.

According to the Dept of the Interior the ANWR area is the largest on-shore oil reserve in the US. It is predicted by them that it could produce in excess of 1.4 million barrels a day, while Texas produces just under 1 million barrels a day. That may not be a lot in your eyes, but it would put a dent in US prices.

 

[mar]

Not only that, but...

There is not enough oil in Alaska to put a dent in the price. Don't let the talking heads convince you otherwise.

The cost of doing business in Alaska is prohibitive.

There are much larger reserves in other countries where it's cheaper to do business. (Sakhalin, Venezuela for two).

I had never heard of the abiotic theory of oil production before. I'm no geologist but that just sounds like a real fantasy. Incredible.

I guess there's still some coal that Bush would like use (doesn't that strike anyone else as, ah, slightly "retro", almost "pre-historic").

Anyway, interesting thread.

 

[414Flyer]

Several of the major fields are actually in decline though. US production has gone down, and some of the Saudi fields are either in decline or will be soon.

Yes I think we should drill ANWR. There were the same doom and gloom scenarios from the left about the pipeline, and north slope oil production.

There is not one single field that will make a big dent, so does that mean we should not drill anywhere unless it takes care of all of our oil needs? Well if you take several of those areas where we supposedly should not go, and those together will make a sizable contribution. Take ANWR, open up some east coast areas, we are going to have to in the future anyways. People are not going to walk and bike around the city as long as there is oil somewhere to be found.