Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Prepare For A New Era Of Oil Shocks.


Recommended Posts

FT.com - registration required.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/41ba759a-7730-11e1-baf3-00144feab49a.html

Instability, supply tightness, political instability in price makers, lack of spare capacity, buoyant demand from brics, single points of failure. A reduction in US carbon-intensity our best hope, plenty capacity there!

Can FT articles be posted and not botted with the code tags?

?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, someone wants oil prices to go up again?

</shock horror>

Not me. I'd like advanced western economies to work towards a transport and energy paradigm where the effect of the inevitable oil price shocks referred to in the OP FT link became of much less of a concern than they are today. Stability would be the prize.

Don't you want that too?

Edit, aside.

Oh, and personally, interested in buying property in the NE of Scotland, I actually have an interest in seeing oil prices fall; the current all time-high (in GBP/bbl) is sustaining the all-time-high house prices here. I'd like to see the oil industry collapse into irrelevance. But that's unlikely to happen in car-crazy Britain (and especially excessively car-crazy Scotland, and triply excessively car-crazy Aberdeenshire) no?

Edited by Key Stakeholder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FT.com - registration required.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/41ba759a-7730-11e1-baf3-00144feab49a.html

Instability, supply tightness, political instability in price makers, lack of spare capacity, buoyant demand from brics, single points of failure. A reduction in US carbon-intensity our best hope, plenty capacity there!

Can FT articles be posted and not botted with the code tags?

?

The identical copy in the Toronto Globe and Mail, no registration required: LINK

ED: typo

Edited by yellerkat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Martin Wolf is arguing for is tax on US fuel to encourage them to use it more efficiently and keep those taxes in the domestic economy rather than export the wealth to Middle East etc, as we do in Europe.

Sounds like an excellent idea (but obviously won't appeal to hard of thinking Texans et al)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No were not allowed to post FT articles on pain of death or having our fingernails pulled out with pliers.

I think you're allowed 30 words or something.. but as others have pointed out, you can usually find similar stories elsewhere if the content is worth reading :)

[Edit: To be fair to the FT some people were copying and pasting complete articles which was bound to 'P' them off eventually]

Edited by libspero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Air travel and transportation must be the biggest problem for them (I think on 3/4 of their electrical power comes from fossil fuel, and of that I expect only about a third is imported (they mine their own coal right?) Linky

So the issue will be cutting down on transportation.. air fares and 'gaz' prices.

I expect passenger numbers are probably already dropping.. car usage could be cut considerably with tax breaks for smaller diesel cars as opposed to the large cylinder petrol engines which still seem to dominate the roads over there.

The problem with the US is that they're already so exposed to fuel prices that if you imposed enough tax to make it effective you would effectively guarantee another (or an extension of the) recession.

Political suicide :unsure:

Edited by libspero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or just wait for the wells / fields to fill up again from their underground source? Or just drill deeper to that source and get the oil before it leaks up to the easy to get surface well? Its always just about to run out isnt it? Funny that the price goes up but they just keep finding more.

Edited by Lewis Gordon Pugh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or just wait for the wells / fields to fill up again from their underground source?

How long will that take? To the nearest year.

Funny that the price goes up but they just keep finding more.

They must be hiding it in secret inventories then.

campbell-world-discovery-and-production.jpg

Since the mid-1980s, the world has used more oil than it has found. The world now discovers 10 - 15 billion barrels of new oil a year, but consumes 31 billion barrels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or just wait for the wells / fields to fill up again from their underground source? Or just drill deeper to that source and get the oil before it leaks up to the easy to get surface well? Its always just about to run out isnt it? Funny that the price goes up but they just keep finding more.

Why do you keep posting this when you can't back it up (along with all the Russian promoters..)

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you keep posting this when you can't back it up (along with all the Russian promoters..)

?

I post it for a number of reasons.

1. It makes much more sense that huge mile square reservoirs of hydrocarbons have been formed by the mantle than it does saying they were formed by dead animals. The calculations alone to work out how many animal would need to die to make these fields is enough to discredit the theory. If you work out the energy produced from so far from drilled oil and then work out how many calories equivalent you get from biomass, it seems to me impossible to get one to equal the other. In fact have you worked out how much algae / dinosaur flesh / squirrel juice it would take to power a car for just 400 miles (one tank)? In fact have you ever worked out how many calories there are in just 1 litre of petrol? That's a lot of dinosaur flesh.

2. I don't trust the elites who run the oil industry. They are know liars, murderers, and rapists.

3. I don't see any shortage of oil. All i see is price rises and oil company profits rising.

4. There are hydrocarbons on other planets / moons. Which means they are produced naturally as part of the geological process, or there were trillions of dinosaurs roaming around falling in big holes and turning into oil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I post it for a number of reasons.

1. It makes much more sense that huge mile square reservoirs of hydrocarbons have been formed by the mantle than it does saying they were formed by dead animals. The calculations alone to work out how many animal would need to die to make these fields is enough to discredit the theory. If you work out the energy produced from so far from drilled oil and then work out how many calories equivalent you get from biomass, it seems to me impossible to get one to equal the other. In fact have you worked out how much algae / dinosaur flesh / squirrel juice it would take to power a car for just 400 miles (one tank)? In fact have you ever worked out how many calories there are in just 1 litre of petrol? That's a lot of dinosaur flesh.

2. I don't trust the elites who run the oil industry. They are know liars, murderers, and rapists.

3. I don't see any shortage of oil. All i see is price rises and oil company profits rising.

4. There are hydrocarbons on other planets / moons. Which means they are produced naturally as part of the geological process, or there were trillions of dinosaurs roaming around falling in big holes and turning into oil.

I find this all quite amazing to read. What does the poster think that limestone consists of?

Edited by Key Stakeholder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How long will that take? To the nearest year.

They must be hiding it in secret inventories then.

campbell-world-discovery-and-production.jpg

Since the mid-1980s, the world has used more oil than it has found. The world now discovers 10 - 15 billion barrels of new oil a year, but consumes 31 billion barrels.

We need to adjust demand. Over geological time oil is estimated to have accumulated at about 27 barrels per day (either by biotic processes or abiotic as LGP suggests). The world consumes 75 million so we just need to reduce demand to converge witht he formation of new oil and hey we will never run out ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I post it for a number of reasons.

1. It makes much more sense that huge mile square reservoirs of hydrocarbons have been formed by the mantle than it does saying they were formed by dead animals. The calculations alone to work out how many animal would need to die to make these fields is enough to discredit the theory. If you work out the energy produced from so far from drilled oil and then work out how many calories equivalent you get from biomass, it seems to me impossible to get one to equal the other. In fact have you worked out how much algae / dinosaur flesh / squirrel juice it would take to power a car for just 400 miles (one tank)? In fact have you ever worked out how many calories there are in just 1 litre of petrol? That's a lot of dinosaur flesh.

2. I don't trust the elites who run the oil industry. They are know liars, murderers, and rapists.

3. I don't see any shortage of oil. All i see is price rises and oil company profits rising.

4. There are hydrocarbons on other planets / moons. Which means they are produced naturally as part of the geological process, or there were trillions of dinosaurs roaming around falling in big holes and turning into oil.

Y.A.W.N - dinosaurs falling in holes, outer solar system methane and all the other chestnuts. See my previous post in regard to accumulation of oil over 100's millions of years....

Next you will be telling us the world is 7000 years old :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I post it for a number of reasons.

1. It makes much more sense that huge mile square reservoirs of hydrocarbons have been formed by the mantle than it does saying they were formed by dead animals.

But the only people saying that oil comes from dead animals are the 'abiotic oil' people. As I have said before, this is a particularly stupid strawman argument. Mainstream petroleum systems says that oil comes from source rocks which themselves contain large amounts of organic matter derived from algae - especially, algae which use oil fulled bladders for bouyancy.

Do you understand this? You seem to have problems with comprehension on this point.

The calculations alone to work out how many animal would need to die to make these fields is enough to discredit the theory.

Well, you'd have to show the calculations. Here's mine:

Total biological primary production for the Earth is about 500 billion tonnes carbon.

Assume that just 0.01% ends up in source rocks for oil = 50 million tonnes/year. That's one part in 10 thousand.

Carry on for 10 million years.

Stored fixed carbon = 500 million million tonnes; 500,000 billion tonnes.

(Edit)

Total oil in place for Earth is perhaps 10 billion barrels, or 2 billion tonnes. (0.0004% of the above by my reckoning)

Total oil in place for Earth is perhaps 10 trillion barrels, or 2 trillion tonnes. (0.4% of the above by my reckoning)

you are wrong, and wrong by many orders of magnitude. (even after my getting it wrong by a factor of 1000!)

2. I don't trust the elites who run the oil industry. They are know liars, murderers, and rapists.

Well, I trust them to act in their own financial interests, and I also trust petroleum geologists. Unless you think they they just love those guys who nationalized all their best assets.

3. I don't see any shortage of oil. All i see is price rises and oil company profits rising.

Yes - after all, Economics 101 tells us that if a producer with fixed costs sees demand for their product skyrocket past the amount they can produce, they'll cut prices and profits.

4. There are hydrocarbons on other planets / moons. Which means they are produced naturally as part of the geological process, or there were trillions of dinosaurs roaming around falling in big holes and turning into oil.

Methane is abundant in the outer solar system where is is not quickly broken down by UV from the sun. It is scarce in the inner solar system for this reason; certainly the Earth does not have primordial methane, since it has long since outgassed.

Longer chain hydrocarbons are found on Titan as a result of this UV breakdown process proceeding very slowly.

Now.. would you like to address any of this, or will you go silent, only to pop up again on a different oil related threat, with the same line about 'dead dinosaurs' and 'elites'?

Edited by fluffy666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to adjust demand. Over geological time oil is estimated to have accumulated at about 27 barrels per day (either by biotic processes or abiotic as LGP suggests). The world consumes 75 million so we just need to reduce demand to converge witht he formation of new oil and hey we will never run out ;)

Typo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typo?

Imagine total Oil in place is 10 billion barrels..

25 barrels/day = 100 barrels in 4 days = 10^10 barrels in 4x10^8 days.. assume 400 days in a year and you get 1 million years.

So 27 barrels a day is faster then we need, but not a typo.!

Edited by fluffy666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typo?

No.

It is assumed that the vast majority of oil that remained in place (oil reservoirs) totalled about 2 trillion barrels and was formed over a 250 million year window.

27 x 365 x 250 million = a tad over 2 trillion.

To date mankind has used approximately 1 trillion barrels.

Edited by Kurt Barlow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

It is assumed that the vast majority of oil that remained in place (oil reservoirs) totalled about 2 trillion barrels and was formed over a 250 million year window.

27 x 365 x 250 million = a tad over 2 trillion.

To date mankind has used approximately 1 trillion barrels.

Yes, my above calculation was out by a factor of 1000..

Doesn't change the conclusion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

It is assumed that the vast majority of oil that remained in place (oil reservoirs) totalled about 2 trillion barrels and was formed over a 250 million year window.

27 x 365 x 250 million = a tad over 2 trillion.

To date mankind has used approximately 1 trillion barrels.

Ok. I just skimmed the post. I thought you meant if demand was kerbed some what then new oil being made could meet it. So thought the figure was 27 million per day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.