Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You state that Peak Oil is BS, then you explain and define it as true.
Your post contradicts itself.
That poster is describing a supply side reaction to high prices which reins them in to a lesser price increase.
Peak oil theory takes the extreme position that there will be no meaningful supply side reaction and a rapidly depleted supply drives prices up extremely high in a relatively short period of time.
Let me put it another way, you are in a desert suffering exposure and dehydration and come across a coke machine labeled $50/bottle. 100 yards away is a pepsi machine labeled $5 at bottle. In the peak oil scenario, there is no pepsi machine.
That poster is describing a supply side reaction to high prices which reins them in to a lesser price increase.
Peak oil theory takes the extreme position that there will be no meaningful supply side reaction and a rapidly depleted supply drives prices up extremely high in a relatively short period of time.
Uh, no, it doesn't, as shown by the Wiki article you cite. Peak oil theory takes the position that, all other things being equal, the downside of oil production will pretty much match the upside in a bell curve of production. Supply side reaction is incorporated into that scenario by everyone in the field except those who are selling extreme doom and gloom. The only way we could see a "rapidly depleted supply," as you put it, is in the case of outside influences like widespread war or internal unrest, such as we're currently seeing in Libya. I've mentioned earlier in this thread that I won't be surprised to see increasingly bellicose international confrontations over hydrocarbon supplies that could cause just such a reaction.
Rising prices due to increased demand from, say, an improving global economy, would be reined in by price-related demand destruction once they reached an unacceptable level. It's one of the traps that we're currently facing -- an improving economy raises the demand and thus the price for oil, and the increased financial pressure causes the economy to contract again, or at least expand at a markedly slower rate.
BTW, serious peak oil concerns and research are usually dated to the cover story in the March 1998 Scientific American, "The End of Cheap Oil," by Campbell and Laherrere. The peak oil fears dating from the energy crises of the 1970s usually stem from a misunderstanding that those shortages were political, gather than geological, in nature.
That poster is describing a supply side reaction to high prices which reins them in to a lesser price increase.
Peak oil theory takes the extreme position that there will be no meaningful supply side reaction and a rapidly depleted supply drives prices up extremely high in a relatively short period of time.
Let me put it another way, you are in a desert suffering exposure and dehydration and come across a coke machine labeled $50/bottle. 100 yards away is a pepsi machine labeled $5 at bottle. In the peak oil scenario, there is no pepsi machine.
Easy to harvest crude, that is also easy to process into marketable products; is running out.
As the easy stuff runs out, it will become more costly to harvest and more costly to process. That is Peak Oil.
From what I understand, we get most of our oil from Canada, North Dakota and Norway, very little from the middle east. By 2020, practically tomorrow, NOrth America, the US and Canada will be the first oil-gas producer in the world. Sure, it's going to go up, but in everybody's life time posting here, oil will be in our life.
P.
From what I understand, we get most of our oil from Canada, North Dakota and Norway, very little from the middle east. By 2020, practically tomorrow, NOrth America, the US and Canada will be the first oil-gas producer in the world. Sure, it's going to go up, but in everybody's life time posting here, oil will be in our life.
P.
No question oil will still be around. No one is saying it won't be. But it might well be so expensive that car ownership will be limited to the middle and upper classes.
BTW, the top three sources of our imported oil are Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia, in that order. Norway is way down the list. Inside the U.S., Texas and Alaska produce far more oil than North Dakota. See here.
Uh, no, it doesn't, as shown by the Wiki article you cite. Peak oil theory takes the position that, all other things being equal, the downside of oil production will pretty much match the upside in a bell curve of production. Supply side reaction is incorporated into that scenario by everyone in the field except those who are selling extreme doom and gloom. The only way we could see a "rapidly depleted supply," as you put it, is in the case of outside influences like widespread war or internal unrest, such as we're currently seeing in Libya. I've mentioned earlier in this thread that I won't be surprised to see increasingly bellicose international confrontations over hydrocarbon supplies that could cause just such a reaction.
Rising prices due to increased demand from, say, an improving global economy, would be reined in by price-related demand destruction once they reached an unacceptable level. It's one of the traps that we're currently facing -- an improving economy raises the demand and thus the price for oil, and the increased financial pressure causes the economy to contract again, or at least expand at a markedly slower rate.
BTW, serious peak oil concerns and research are usually dated to the cover story in the March 1998 Scientific American, "The End of Cheap Oil," by Campbell and Laherrere. The peak oil fears dating from the energy crises of the 1970s usually stem from a misunderstanding that those shortages were political, gather than geological, in nature.
I agree with most of your commentary.
Please note that the forum where this thread is nested was why I chose to address the more gloom and doom predictions of peak oil. Those were particularily envogue when oil shot up in price 5 years ago...we had predictions flying around of $800/barrel gas and mad max style apocalyptic living.
DENVER -- DENVER (AP) — Royal Dutch Shell PLC has become the latest company to abandon efforts to turn Western Slope oil-shale into oil, joining a long line of companies in a boom and bust cycle in the region.
The company said energy markets have changed since the project started in 1982, and the company no longer wants to continue efforts to turn oily shale rock into liquid by heating the rock and pumping out the oil.
Chevron stopped its oil-shale research in Rio Blanco County in February 2012.
"We are exiting our Colorado project to focus on other opportunities," Shell spokeswoman Kelly op de Weegh said.
Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief, who also happens to have been the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. for 22 years and who is widely considered the power behind the throne, is threatening a major shift in SA's diplomatic relations with the U.S. over the Obama administration's dithering on Syria and softening stance on Iran. The linked article is only the latest (and most public; the previous reports have been on special interest websites) in a series of articles about Saudi dissatisfaction with the Obama administration's apparently leaderless foreign policy.
Ignore the headline about SA "severs diplomatic ties." That's typical Daily Mail baloney. The article itself is actually quite informative. Please note, Saudi Arabia is the third-largest source of America's imported oil.
Upset at President Barack Obama's policies on Iran and Syria, members of Saudi Arabia's ruling family are threatening a rift with the United States that could take the alliance between Washington and the kingdom to its lowest point in years.
Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief is vowing that the kingdom will make a 'major shift' in relations with the United States to protest perceived American inaction over Syria's civil war as well as recent U.S. overtures to Iran, a source close to Saudi policy said on Tuesday.
Prince Bandar bin Sultan told European diplomats that the United States had failed to act effectively against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was growing closer to Tehran, and had failed to back Saudi support for Bahrain when it crushed an anti-government revolt in 2011, the source said.
More at the link.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
