$200 Bbl Oil Soon - Forecast

[1929crash]

Find all the links you can, doesn’t change things.

The 10x figure is a lie.

Would you expect anything else from a site named oilcrash.com??

So what is their vested interest?

[ralphmalph]

Has anybody else thought that the western economies might be engineering high oil prices to inhibit the growth of the Chinese and Indian economies.

Currently we catch fish in Scotland fly it to Thailand for processing and then fly it back to british supermarkets. With high oil prices it negates the low cost of wages in the far east and means the higher salary levels in the west are more than compenstated by the cost of frieght.

I posted a link to an article in the FT that was about globalisation turning into regionalisation for supply chains because 150 dollar oil meant that global single source supply chains were uneconomic and western businesses were closing some factories in China and rebuilding them in Europe and the americas to have source components in all three major economies as opposed to just one.

So my conspracy theory is that Western Govts are driving the cost of oil up to ensure that jobs are created in thier economies when recovery comes.

[1929crash]

Prove it, don’t provide me a link you don’t need one

7 billion people consuming 100 watts each equals what?

If 10j of fuel is required per 1j of food then how much fuel is required to feed that 7 billion people?

And what percentage of the oil/gas produced would that then account to??

Hint.

700 GW

7000GW

Oil = 5000GW

Gas = 4000 GW

So you’re saying food takes up 7000GW of the 9000GW available from oil and gas?

You really think we spend 80% of our oil and gas on food production?

How can you make such an elementary mistake as to confuse watts with joules, energy with power? You really are stupid!

The ostrich on your signature is most apt.

Edited September 6, 2009 by 1929crash

[nohpc]

Oil is so yesterday's news. It may reach 200 dollars per barrel but by that time we will mostlly be using natural gas and other cleaner fuels so demand will be very limidted for oil.

Lets not forget that although oil is currently trading around 70 dollars per barrel this is with vastly reduced supply.

Lets see what happens if they pump the supply back up to 2008 levels.

COI: Long natural gas. Short oil. Long clean energy companies.

[1929crash]

Oil is so yesterday's news. It may reach 200 dollars per barrel but by that time we will mostlly be using natural gas and other cleaner fuels so demand will be very limidted for oil.

Lets not forget that although oil is currently trading around 70 dollars per barrel this is with vastly reduced supply.

Lets see what happens if they pump the supply back up to 2008 levels.

COI: Long natural gas. Short oil. Long clean energy companies.

The supply of natural gas is closely linked to oil, because the two are found in the same geological conditions. Once oil supply begins to decline, that of natural gas cannot be far behind.

[huw]

So my conspracy theory is that Western Govts are driving the cost of oil up to ensure that jobs are created in thier economies when recovery comes.

Conspiracy or not, if the globalised machine relies on a large supply of fuel being available at a particular price point, and that supply is depleting, the machine must eventually slow down.

[ralphmalph]

Conspiracy or not, if the globalised machine relies on a large supply of fuel being available at a particular price point, and that supply is depleting, the machine must eventually slow down.

Does it means it slows down or that the globalised machine grows by more effcient use of a finite resource.

[cells]

How can you make such an elementary mistake as to confuse watts with joules, energy with power? You really are stupid!

The ostrich on your signature is most apt.

Highlight my mistake, there are none as far as I can see.

And I don’t see where I am confusion joules and watts want to point it out comrade?

[bill still]

According to the World Health Organization, current farming can supply adequate food for 12 billion people. All it takes is money.

What do you make of this quote:

"To satisfy the world's sanitation and food requirements would cost only US$13 billion- what the people of the United States and the European Union spend on perfume each year."

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm

Yes, exactly.

We had hit the natural limits of what the earth would produce for us in terms of food. The subsesquent "green revolution" allwed to us to begin to live beyond those natural limitations. All on the back of cheap hydrocarbons to feed this unsustainable system of food production. Without continued access to cheap and easliy available hydrocarbons, this system of food production cannot work. However, our global population has now exploded on the back of it.

We can't go back to pre-"green revolution" farming practices.

And yet we must

[dandare500]

Right... and you say this only happened since 1994? What day did this happen in 1994? Hour?

Since 1994 we have become increasingly used to food being airfreighted straight to our supermarket shelves from distant parts of the globe. There has been no invention that reduces the need for fossil fuel inputs or has reduced the need for non organic fertiliser and pesticides. Use of these has increased.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

The supply of natural gas is closely linked to oil, because the two are found in the same geological conditions. Once oil supply begins to decline, that of natural gas cannot be far behind.

Wrong. Look up clathrate hydrate and coal gasification/coal bed methane.

[cells]

Conspiracy or not, if the globalised machine relies on a large supply of fuel being available at a particular price point, and that supply is depleting, the machine must eventually slow down.

The energy cost of transporting goods is very low.

Via land in HGV you get about 7 tonne miles per kWh.

So you can move 7 tonnes one mile for 1kWh of energy

1kWh of refined oil costs about 3p and gas about 1.5p

London to china is about 5000 miles so to move a tonne of goods would cost 714kWh of energy or about £21 per tonne at todays price using oil.

So if a container has 1 tone of ipods in it or 2000 ipods then each ipod cost about a penny in energy to move from china to the UK.

If oil prices double then it would cost 2 pennies to move something the weight of an ipod from china to the uk.

Even something bulky like a TV (say 50kg) would cost only 35kWh of energy which is £1 to get it from china to the uk.

Even energy at 10x todays price isn’t going to stop most globalisation.

It could have an impact on bulk cheap items though. For example coal or grains etc.

BTW my calculations were a HGV and I guess most trade is via ships/trains which would be more energy efficient.

[1929crash]

Wrong. Look up clathrate hydrate and coal gasification/coal bed methane.

Well, methane clathrates are not really practicable, are they? And once you started releasing them, you might not be able to control them.

My comment was based on conventional natural gas, a term which doesn't include coal gas.

[1929crash]

Right... and you say this only happened since 1994? What day did this happen in 1994? Hour?

I said that however dependent on fossil fuels we were in 1994, we are even more dependent on them now. But obviously you cannot read English.

[Kurt Barlow]

That is not true. If we dedicated 100% of todays oil production and gas production to food it would be just under 13 joules of oil for 1 joule of food. however clearly we don’t use 100% of oil and gas for food production so I don’t know where you got the 16 from.

More likely is a figure below 0.5 joules of oil for 1 joule of food.

On the basis of 6 bn people consuming 2500kcal per day (10.6MJ) then the world production of food equates to just short of 10 million bpd oil in energy terms.

I think the point is that without the aid of fossil fuels we would not be able to produce a fraction of that 10 million bpd equivalent of food.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

Well, methane clathrates are not really practicable, are they? And once you started releasing them, you might not be able to control them.

My comment was based on conventional natural gas, a term which doesn't include coal gas.

Know someone working on the clathrate extraction. The key is to replace the methane with something else. So far his stuff seems to work pretty well in the lab. I was told they are going to attempt a field trial soon.

Natural gas, clathrate, coal gas, it's all methane. Look up natural gas in Wikipedia and see what it comes up with.

I'll let you off on a technicality. Just don't believe that gas is only found where oil is. It's not.

[1929crash]

Know someone working on the clathrate extraction. The key is to replace the methane with something else. So far his stuff seems to work pretty well in the lab. I was told they are going to attempt a field trial soon.

Natural gas, clathrate, coal gas, it's all methane. Look up natural gas in Wikipedia and see what it comes up with.

I'll let you off on a technicality. Just don't believe that gas is only found where oil is. It's not.

I'll accept that clathrates are the same as - if a little more delicate than - natural gas.

However, I thought coal gas was a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, and much less energy dense.

Although I am not being dogmatic.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

I'll accept that clathrates are the same as - if a little more delicate than - natural gas.

However, I thought coal gas was a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, and much less energy dense.

Although I am not being dogmatic.

you are partially right.

There seams to be a lot of definitions for coal derived gases in wikipedia (of course you shouldn't believe everything you read), one of which is coal gas that contains carbon monoxide, hydrogen and methane. I was thinking of coal bed methane, or coalbed gas, which is mainly methane.

Anyway, back to the important point, just because oil runs out doesn't mean gas is going to. There is plenty of gas locked up in other sources apart from the gas caps in oil reservoirs. In fact some claim that using USG (underground coal gasification) that there is 200-400 years of gas available in UK coal reserves. I'm yet to be convinced.

[corevalue]

Elasticity in the price of oil? This is the graph that scares the hell out of me. Production is limited at 75 MMBpd, no matter what the price. Do you not think producers would keep oil off the market if they could gain that high price?

That, friends, is peak oil. From now on, we have to use less, or pay dearly.

[Kurt Barlow]

Elasticity in the price of oil? This is the graph that scares the hell out of me. Production is limited at 75 MMBpd, no matter what the price. Do you not think producers would keep oil off the market if they could gain that high price?

That, friends, is peak oil. From now on, we have to use less, or pay dearly.

I heard Saudi were pumping flat out mid 2008. Had they increased production any further then there would have been the risk of damaging the oilfields

[dandare500]

Sorry Captain Irrelevant, but not everything boils down to your micro argument with yourself. Your evidence was flimsy at best even if you do try to patch it up by ridiculous side arguments. Using old information over a decade old about something changing so quickly should not surely be taken seriously. Not for me anyway. I think you are a bit of a joke. A rude one at that. I think you like it that way arguing with absolutely everyone.

I said that however dependent on fossil fuels we were in 1994, we are even more dependent on them now. But obviously you cannot read English.

[cells]

On the basis of 6 bn people consuming 2500kcal per day (10.6MJ) then the world production of food equates to just short of 10 million bpd oil in energy terms.

I think the point is that without the aid of fossil fuels we would not be able to produce a fraction of that 10 million bpd equivalent of food.

yes but your comrade was saying we use 10x that figure of 100 mbpd oil to make our 10 mbpd food which is definitely wrong.

and yes if we had zero oil and gas we would have less food but oil and gas production isn’t going to drop 90%

[cells]

you are partially right.

There seams to be a lot of definitions for coal derived gases in wikipedia (of course you shouldn't believe everything you read), one of which is coal gas that contains carbon monoxide, hydrogen and methane. I was thinking of coal bed methane, or coalbed gas, which is mainly methane.

Anyway, back to the important point, just because oil runs out doesn't mean gas is going to. There is plenty of gas locked up in other sources apart from the gas caps in oil reservoirs. In fact some claim that using USG (underground coal gasification) that there is 200-400 years of gas available in UK coal reserves. I'm yet to be convinced.

About 25% of the energy of coal is made up of volatile matter or gas if you will.

If you burn the coal underground and release CO then you can get even more energy out.

Its only worth it for coal seams where you cannot mine the coal economically so you just burn it underground to lease the gases and CO.

[cells]

The next hydro boom??

There is supposedly 500GW plus in this technology if they can get it to work commercially.

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

[1929crash]

Sorry Captain Irrelevant, but not everything boils down to your micro argument with yourself. Your evidence was flimsy at best even if you do try to patch it up by ridiculous side arguments. Using old information over a decade old about something changing so quickly should not surely be taken seriously. Not for me anyway. I think you are a bit of a joke. A rude one at that. I think you like it that way arguing with absolutely everyone.

1. The 10+ :1 ratio is all over the printed word and the internet. I may be irrelevant but the facts as revealed by empirical studies are not.

2. I quoted a number of sources, not just the one you refer to.

3. Not once have you put forward a counter-argument that might suggest why we are less dependent on fossil fuels now than in 1994.