Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

$100/barrel oil?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    $100/barrel oil?

    Although trying to predict oil prices is a crap shoot, be prepared for gas prices jump again. Production for 2005 was below that of 2004, and it appears we may have passed peak production. Time will tell. If we have, at best there are 5 years before economic collapse. And if we will peak soon, we won't have long after, provided we continue the status quo and allow the oil industry to keep supressing alternatives.

    Add in the consequences of America importing 60% of its oil and the effects its purchase has on supporting terrorists(and creating many new ones due to human rights abuses and support of dictators on part of the oil companies), and it is quite clear that we will be up **** creek without a paddle if this problem remains not only ignored, but with no meaningful action taken.

    $100/barrel would equate to roughly $5/gallon gasoline in the United States. It's a given that oil prices are likely to again reach over $70 this year, maybe reach $85. I'm fairly certain we'll see $3.00/gallon again this summer, or with a major hurricane/supply disruption/ect. maybe $5.00...

    The optimistic Energy Information Administration predicts this year will average $65/barrel. They are usually $20 too optimistic, so given that trend, it would not be unreasonable to expect us to hit $100/barrel in the late summer and average $80-85 this year, either. So far, they've been on target, but oil prices are usually lower in the early part of the year than the year's average...

    http://www.praguepost.com/P03/2006/Art/0330/busi2.php

    Oil prices could reach a dangerous $100 a barrel soon

    Part one: Oil price hike likely

    March 29, 2006
    By James Cusumano

    The world runs on oil. It supplies 40 percent of our global energy and 90 percent of transportation fuels. So isn't it strange that no one in industry or government foresaw a price increase from $24 a barrel in 2003 to $70 a barrel in September of last year?

    The current price hovers around $66 (1,570 Kč) a barrel, but there are good indications it will rise to more than $100 a barrel this year. William Browder, CEO of Hermitage Capital in Moscow, projects potential near-term prices could even exceed $250 a barrel.

    It is becoming apparent that the world's feeding frenzy on oil will have a major economic and environmental impact sooner than most think. And it will hit businesses and consumers where they least like it, in their pocketbooks, and dearly so.

    Nature of the problem

    Some companies, including ExxonMobil, argue that there is plenty of oil in the ground and the issue will soon resolve itself. Other companies, namely BP and ChevronTexaco, think otherwise. David O'Reilly, Chevron's CEO, has placed full-page ads in international publications stating that nearly half the world's exploitable oil has already been extracted. More specifically, he notes, "It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil. We'll use the next trillion in 30."

    Oil prices have escalated sharply in the past, but primarily for geopolitical reasons. However, we are at the first point in history when the demand for oil is essentially equal to its production at full capacity and about to pass this mark.

    This has been caused by increased demand in major markets such as the European Union and the United States, and most particularly by the rapid economic growth of China and India.

    Fearing a global financial collapse that would affect investments, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has vowed to increase its output; however, available data suggests it cannot meet this demand.

    For example, this year the world will burn 85 million barrels a day (MBPD) of oil. A recent projection that assumes limited GDP growth in the world's largest economies to 2010 places global demand at 93 MBPD.

    Most analysts agree the combined output of the former Soviet Union countries and other non-OPEC producers could supply a maximum of 49 MBPD, so OPEC would have to supply the difference of 44 MBPD to meet world demand in 2010.

    Today, OPEC supplies 30 MBPD, and its members are pumping at nearly full capacity. The pertinent question is, can they deliver an additional 14 MBPD? Many who follow the industry say they cannot. There have even been comments from OPEC executives leaked to the press indicating they cannot meet this target.

    The risk is even greater than it would appear because these projections ignore international security. Currently, 65 percent of all oil reserves are in the Middle East, with 20 percent owned by nations known to sponsor terrorism.

    Countries of the West, especially the United States, have become "Petroholics," addicted to cheap oil, and OPEC is our dealer, happy to supply our much-needed fix at ever increasing prices. As a consequence, we are now stuck in what New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman calls the era of "Petrolism" — corrupt antidemocratic practices in which producing nations use oil to buy off their citizens with subsidies, and to intimidate their enemies.

    Russia turning off the gas to Ukraine and to parts of the EU is a perfect example of "Petrolism." Energy has become a weapon of war and terror. Businesses and citizens in the EU should be very concerned.

    Because global oil demand is now essentially equal to supply at full production rates, any of several highly possible geopolitical scenarios involving oil-rich nations could escalate the price of oil overnight to well over $100 a barrel.

    For example, as a consequence of the international dispute over its nuclear program, Iran, with the second largest oil reserves in the world (after Saudi Arabia) could declare an oil embargo. Most serious would be a terrorist attack on Saudi Arabia's Ras Tanura installation, the largest oil terminal in the world.

    Furthermore, Islamic terrorists understand they need not risk travel to western countries to inflict a devastating blow such as Sept. 11. Taking several million barrels of oil production off the global market with a severe attack on installations in the Middle East would cripple businesses and drive Western economies into a tailspin.

    Even if none of these events were to occur, another critical issue haunts the horizon of the world economy. Growing evidence suggests that the global rate of oil production is about to reach its peak and will forever decline thereafter.

    The world currently consumes four barrels of oil for every barrel found. In 2004 global production was 30.5 billion barrels, but we discovered only 7.5 billion barrels of new oil.

    We are not running out of oil, just cheap oil, and we are having a difficult time finding more, even with the most advanced technologies. When an oil reservoir is drained to its 50 percent mark, it is more difficult and costly to remove the remaining oil.

    Thus, the problem is even more challenging than the ChevronTexaco ads state because it will be nearly impossible to extract a significant fraction of the remaining oil in the ground at any reasonable cost.

    All of this means that oil will soon become increasingly more expensive, with per-barrel prices easily rising to triple digits. Continually expanding our use of oil on the assumption that Mother Earth will provide whatever we need is reckless and irresponsible.

    The end result

    Our global economic future does not look nearly as good as political pundits and some industry leaders would have us believe.

    Oil price increases have preceded nine of the world's 10 recessions since World War II. If the emerging energy climate scenario is left unchecked, the world will face a recession and economic collapse unlike any we have ever experienced. And no country, the Czech Republic included, will be immune to the aftermath.

    The developed world runs on oil, and its energy content finds its way into a significant fraction of the cost of most products and services. The prices for fuel, cars, food, clothing, housing and medicines — just about everything you need or can imagine, except your paycheck — will escalate significantly.

    The results will be rapidly increasing inflation and unemployment and lower capital investment. Tax revenues will decline, and budget deficits will increase, driving up interest rates.

    Adding insult to injury, our use of oil is also directly responsible for what a growing number of industry and technical experts are calling the most critical foreign and domestic policy issue of our day — human-induced climate change. This challenge and its impact on business and the consumer are addressed in the second installment of this series.

    There is a viable solution. If the developed world acts quickly, we can avoid the impending crisis by reasonable increases in energy efficiencies and the use of existing lower-cost energy sources that would lead to a cleaner, safer planet. The recipe for one such approach is presented in the third and final part of this series.

    — James A. Cusumano is chairman of Chateau Mcely s.r.o. in Prague and a former research director for Exxon. This series is based on a book Cusumano is currently writing, titled The Prometheus Project — Co-Creating Energy Abundance for a Sustainable Future. He can be reached at jim@chateaumcely.com
    The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder." ~ Thomas Jefferson

    #2
    Re: $100/barrel oil?

    This is depressing. When was the last time we were hit with one of these topics?

    Oh yeah. Gas prices going up is sucky, too. And I bet minimun wage won't be going up to make up for it.
    Last edited by ErikaFuzzbottom; 04-01-2006, 11:40 PM.
    "What if like...there was an exact copy of you somewhere, except they're the opposite gender, like you guys could literally have a freaky friday moment and nothing would change. Imagine the best friendship that could be found there."

    Comment


      #3
      Re: $100/barrel oil?

      On the subject of draygone's post:

      minimum wage was just increased here. its 6.40 now (it was 5.50 for the past 15 or so years), and next year it's going up to around 7.50 or so, and could go up more. They're trying to force businesses to pay based on a "living wage" here.

      and of course, as soon as the pay increase was announced, smaller businesses jacked up their prices for stuff and fired people, despite the raise not taking effect until august. So much for this helping the economy.



      Comment


        #4
        Re: $100/barrel oil?

        Your economy must be a bit better than ours. We in Illinois are dealing with $6.50 minimum wage.
        "What if like...there was an exact copy of you somewhere, except they're the opposite gender, like you guys could literally have a freaky friday moment and nothing would change. Imagine the best friendship that could be found there."

        Comment


          #5
          Re: $100/barrel oil?

          back to oil:

          I've never seen gas get to 3.00 anywhere around here. it's 2.69 right now, it was 2.80 the other day. I'm glad I dont have a car, I couldnt afford to keep the damn thing moving. gas, or car insurance. hmm.



          Comment


            #6
            Re: $100/barrel oil?

            It's horrible for people who work so hard just to survive to be required to pay such exhorbitant prices but history reveals that these oil executives are just the latest incarnation of robber barons.

            I think it's a good thing that we're running out of fossil fuels because we just might take responsibility and find an alternative. I wish there was a better mass transit system in place here. I wish I didn't have to drive. I'd prefer to ride my bike if only I could live closer to work. Besides, insurance (a legalized scam imho), taxes, gas prices, etc. are making it a burden to have a car.
            Looking for the Light

            Comment


              #7
              Re: $100/barrel oil?

              We're ****ed.
              "It's nice to be important... but it's more important to be nice." - ???

              Comment


                #8
                Re: $100/barrel oil?

                And I bet minimun wage won't be going up to make up for it.
                In most places, yes.

                Here in Missouri, minimum wage is $5.15/hour. Hasn't been raised since the early 90s, and an increase was recently fought despite public opinion vastly in favor of raising it.

                minimum wage was just increased here. its 6.40 now (it was 5.50 for the past 15 or so years), and next year it's going up to around 7.50 or so, and could go up more. They're trying to force businesses to pay based on a "living wage" here.

                and of course, as soon as the pay increase was announced, smaller businesses jacked up their prices for stuff and fired people, despite the raise not taking effect until august. So much for this helping the economy.
                Only way it can really work is if it is continuously indexed with inflation, perhaps adjusted every 3 months. There should also be differences between what incorporated entities have to pay, and what small businesses should have to pay. One set can most often afford the increase(and then some), the other cannot.

                I've never seen gas get to 3.00 anywhere around here. it's 2.69 right now, it was 2.80 the other day. I'm glad I dont have a car, I couldnt afford to keep the damn thing moving. gas, or car insurance. hmm.
                That, and the fact that you're color blind.

                Given how little spare income my household has right now, even this small rise in gas prices is crippling. It may not be a large percentage of total income, but it certainly cuts out of a large percentage of income after the necessities are paid for. So much so that if it hits ~$2.80 here, I will have nothing left to put into my electric car I'm building. The irony just kills me...

                It's horrible for people who work so hard just to survive to be required to pay such exhorbitant prices but history reveals that these oil executives are just the latest incarnation of robber barons.
                Even worse, this time the robber barons are in cahoots with the federal government. In the robber baron days of the late 1800s, at least the government appeared to be fighting these interests...

                I think it's a good thing that we're running out of fossil fuels because we just might take responsibility and find an alternative.
                We've had alternatives for years. We aren't using them due to supression by the oil industries, auto industries, and federal governments(not only the U.S.).

                Technology for an affordable 200-300 mile range midsize electric car with fast acceleration has been around since the late 1990s. See this topic:

                http://www.pavilionboards.com/forum/...read.php?t=936

                Only thing is, an electric car is much cheaper to operate, factoring in battery replacement, electricity, everything. No tune ups, no oil changes, no servicing and maintenance for a complex engine, no belts, no pulleys, no emissions systems, no computer bull ****, no need to replace all sorts of parts, and electric motors that last well in excess of 500,000 miles has the auto companies refusing to make them. They will reduce profit margins. The auto industry is not amused at the concept.

                Further, gasoline for automobiles is between 40 and 45% of America's total oil consumption(depending on study cited).

                Add in the fact that the G8 nations make more money on oil tax revenues than OPEC makes in profits.

                From there, do a little research on what these three entities did to stifle the electric car. It is their fault we aren't driving them, and even if gas were $10/gallon(some places in Europe are already hovering there), we still wouldn't have them available. Lots of greed to go around, too much money to be made maintaining the status quo despite the fact that we will suffer for it dearly.

                Small industries would sell them if they could mass produce them to bring prices down, but regulations pushed by the major industries in the 70s shut the small businesses out. They cannot afford multi hundred million dollar crash tests and development costs, and that's how the big industry wants things to stay. Then those stupid rednecks upset at this go and blame Nader!

                Add to this the fact that we can increase the fuel economy of our car fleet by 40% without shrinking the size of the car, without reducing creature comforts, without reducing horsepower, without any new engine technology, and with no additional cost. How? Better aerodynamics. Read here:

                http://www.evworld.com/blogs/index.c...d=87&archive=0

                Better aerodynamics are nothing new. The most aerodynamic car currently available in the U.S., the Toyota Prius hybrid, has a drag coefficient that's bairly better than the 1928 Rumpler. The Prius has a drag coefficient of .26, the Rumpler .27. If you were to remove the hybrid drive from a Prius and replace with a 150 horsepower V6, it would probably get around 40 mpg combined, just from the reduced drag. In reality, comparable hybrid drives only add about 25% to fuel economy. More aerodynamic designs were made over 70 years ago. Like the 1935 Tatra T77a, a full size luxury car with a drag coefficient of .21. A modern car with a similarly aerodynamic body and a modern 150 horsepower diesel engine would be able to seat 5 people, achieve 90 mpg, and top over 140 mph. No mythical 100 mpg carbeurator bull ****, and no costly hybrid drive addition needed.

                Then there's the issue of industrial hemp permits refused to farmers in America(It is technically legal to grow, but the government refuses the permits required, has never granted one since the 30s). This is one of the only ways to make biodiesel with no fertilizer or pesticide input, both which take lots of energy and fossil fuels to make. Hemp is also one of the few crops that requires little energy to grow. It is one of the few crops with a positive energy return of energy invested. Corn based ethanol, soy, and other schemes are actually net energy losers on biofuels, but hemp is not. But hemp happens to be surpessed, also by the oil industry and government. It can make fertilizers, pesticides, plastics, textiles, petrochemical replacements, car bodt panels, and most of the things oil can make but for much cheaper and with reduced profit margins.

                Without wantonly destroying our environment or compromising food production, biofuels from hemp could realistically replace around 20-30% of America's gasoline use. This may not seem like much until you couple that with cars that get 80-100 mpg, doable with a diesel engine without losing size or performance. But again, it comes back to adressing aerodynamic drag to accomplish this fuel efficiency. The remaining family farms wouldn't be going bankrupt anymore, so naturally Monsanto and others are opposed.

                An example of just how large of an affect aero drag can have on fuel economy is the Opel Eco Speedster sportscar. It achieved 97 miles per gallon and topped out at 160 mph on a 112 horsepower diesel engine. It had a drag coefficient of .20 and frontal area of 15.8 feet square. You won't find any car on the market in the U.S. that can top over 160 mph and get even 40 mpg.

                The thing the auto industry has against low drag designs is that they reduce horsepower required to maintain a certain speed, which also reduces engine wear and maintenace. Less money goes to their pocket as a result. Then the auto industry also likes to slowly ration out advancements to maximize profits on each one, instead of immediately offering the best that's available. Too bad for us their want of more profit has resulted in auto technology being 60-70 years behind what we can achieve...

                Even hybrid drives have been in use in diesel locomotives since the 1940s. They're nothing new. But that is the best the industry is willing to offer us today.

                The best technology we actually have available today would allow for affordable plug-in electric cars with 600-800 miles range(look up the Lithium Sulphur battery), and the industry isn't aren't to budge on that one, no matter where gas prices go. The technology 10 years ago allowed 200-300 miles range.

                I wish there was a better mass transit system in place here. I wish I didn't have to drive.
                America used to have the best mass transit system in the world. Then the auto and oil industry bought it out in the 1940s and dismantled it to force car ownership and make more money, with the federal government giving the go so that increased spending would grow the economy.

                My grandmother used to ride the trolleys when she was a teenager. She could hop on a trolley in Belleveille that came every five minutes for free in the daytime(and a small fee at night), and ride it all the way to St. Louis. Trolley stops were literally every 2 or 3 blocks.

                There was only one car for every three people of driving age in the U.S. in the 1930s and 40s, the rest didn't need one because there was extensive mass transit. There was no rational reason to own an expensive to use car when the trolley systems were just as convenient, very widespread, and a lot cheaper. Some argue, even faster.

                When the trolley systems were dismantled, there were actually riots in cities like Los Angeles, Columbus, and Salt Lake City. But the U.S. government wanted to grow the economy, and thus let industry strip the mass transit systems to encourage auto consumption. Enter the car boom of the 1950s, subsidies for suburbs with city dwellers footing the bill, and an interstate highway boondoggle that was loaded with pork, and here we are today, car dependent as ever, paving away our wilderness for more suburbs. The economy grew a lot from that, but ordinary people didn't benefit from it much; it went to top shareholders and government bureaucrats.

                I'd prefer to ride my bike if only I could live closer to work.
                I used to ride a bicycle. Then some ***** in an SUV was speeding, knocked me off my bike with the passenger side mirror, and got the hell away as fast as she could. The bike was ruined. Haven't got another bike since.

                Besides, insurance (a legalized scam imho),
                It is one of the largest scams around. The government forces you to have it if you drive, yet no alternatives outside of the profit-driven corporate sector exist. Much of what you pay in insurance goes directly to profit margins. What we need is a non-profit insurance industry, always breaking even, and charging no higher rates than what is needed to do so. We'd have drastically lower rates, and if it were controlled by the government, it wouldn't need taxes so long as the rates paid to keep it operating. The private industries aren't willing to oblige, nor is a government that seeks to maximize revenue to the private industries willing to oblige.

                taxes, gas prices, etc. are making it a burden to have a car.
                That's why I'm building an electric. Gas prices are by far the largest expense to driving, at least for me. Factoring in batteries, this car will cost about 1/3 to run as my current gas-chugging daily driver.

                Only problem is, as gas prices rise, I have less money to put into the car, further delaying my independence from oil.

                You can read about my project here:

                http://www.pavilionboards.com/forum/...read.php?t=982
                Last edited by The Toecutter; 04-02-2006, 04:41 PM.
                The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder." ~ Thomas Jefferson

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: $100/barrel oil?

                  Where my parents live, in october it was 80.5 cents a litre.

                  Now its 109.7 a litre.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: $100/barrel oil?

                    Originally posted by Draygone
                    Your economy must be a bit better than ours. We in Illinois are dealing with $6.50 minimum wage.
                    Its $5.15 here in Texas.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: $100/barrel oil?

                      The Michigan economy is the worst is the nation.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Re: $100/barrel oil?

                        Here's a little chart I found that analyzes gas price trends and projects them:



                        Without any major hurricanes, supply disruptions, or what have you, we're looking at about $3.10/gallon in 2007, with a lower boundary of $2.70/gallon and upper boundary of $3.60/gallon.

                        So basically, if this hurricane season causes a supply disruption, $4.50-5.00/gallon is inevitable. This hurricane season is projected to be worse than last year's, but we'll see what happens.
                        The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder." ~ Thomas Jefferson

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Re: $100/barrel oil?

                          This is why we need to be independent of foreign oil. Drill in Alaska, kill some caribou, problem solved. At least for a while. I have full confidence in human ingenuity that in the not so distant future we won’t have to bother with gas or oil at all, or if we still will, on a much lower scale than we do today.
                          http://www.brandonMdennis.com

                          "You wrote that the world doesn't need a saviour, but every day I hear people crying for one." - Superman. Superman Returns.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Re: $100/barrel oil?

                            Noooooooo, then Snake can't drive off into the sunset w/ his scientist friend saying, "Caribou..."

                            I remember the good ol days when I'd get pissed when gas rose to just over 2 bucks. Good times.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Re: $100/barrel oil?

                              This is why we need to be independent of foreign oil. Drill in Alaska, kill some caribou, problem solved. At least for a while.
                              ANWR has roughly 3 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves. America consumes 21 million barrels per day. That is 143 days worth of oil.

                              Further, if we were to drill there today, not a drop of that oil would see use for at least 5 years. At its production peak, ANWR could supply 1.9 million barrels per day by the most optimistic estimate, but to do so would cause it to decline much more rapidly.

                              It is not worth destroying that wilderness over. Better solutions exist, most notably, to cut oil consumption altogether.

                              I have full confidence in human ingenuity that in the not so distant future we won’t have to bother with gas or oil at all, or if we still will, on a much lower scale than we do today.
                              We have the technology today, and have had some solutions for years.

                              Affordable battery electric cars with 200-300 mile ranges and high speed capability have been doable since the late 1990s. Our new cars could be getting 40 mpg average without shrinking the engine output, car size, adding new technology, or reducing safety, and this has eben possible since the 1960s, through improved aerodynamics. Fuel for automobiles is 40% of America's oil use.

                              Wind electricity today is now cheaper than coal, and could at minimum replace the 3% of our electricity that is generated by oil(although our grid could reasonably handle 25% wind power).

                              Industrial hemp can be used to make biodiesel with a large net energy return on energy invested, no pesticide inputs, no fertilizer inputs, and little care. This same plant also has uses in replacing oil for plastics, medicines, textiles, tires, various automotive products, glues, ect. This plant has been demonstrated to have cheaply and effectively made all of the items mentioned during the early 20th century.

                              Stronger energy efficiency standards on industry and commercial enterprices could be placed with little additional cost.

                              Mass transit can replace a large portion of car use.

                              High speed electric rail can swiftly carry passengers and for much cheaper than gas-guzzling airplanes, but no such system is available to Americans.

                              All of these things mentioned above have been surpressed and are currently being surpressed as a result of the actions of both our government representatives and through their corporate sponsors who wish for these things to never become reality.

                              Why?

                              Although cheaper to the consumer, they have reduced profit margins and reduced GDP output generated from decreased spending.

                              An electric car for example: no tune ups, no oil changes, 500,000+ mile lifetime for an electric motor, no moving powertrain parts to maintain. The oil and auto industry paid millions in a smear campaign against this technology, lied about its capabilities, and even developed products that it refused to advertise or even sell to willing consumers. The Bush administration even fought California's EV mandate, with Andrew Card, chief of staff, issuing an amicus brief in support of General Motors seeking to sue California's taxpayers and end the mandate.


                              Realistically, we have the technology to cut 60% of America's oil use without any sacrifice on part of your average American, although it would take roughly 20 years to fully implement.
                              The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder." ~ Thomas Jefferson

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X