The price of oil

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Aug 23 2004, 07:07 PM
Personally I had to laugh when I read the peak oil thing. Serioulsy, how big of an insight is it to say that as we produce a finite resource we will at some point have a maximum output level, Wow, that's good sience.

Yes, we will eventually run out of oil but it won't be happening any time soon. As prices go up and technology gets better and cheaper companies are finding was to find and produce oil/gas that they never thought they could ever produce or even find. Sure, at today's levels we may only have 50 years of oil left (not what I think, just a random number), but in 50 years we are going to be finding/developing a lot of resources we can't today.

This is the same type of people who inthe late 70's and early 80's said the earth's output of food would top out at 4 billion people. Well we are on our way to 7 and 8 and it looks like technology is outpacing the poplation boom. China is now a net exporter of food and a big importer of energy.

As technology improves so does the consumption/production ratio.

Just ease of the SUV's for a while!

[northernflame]

Just another article on the never ending obsession with oil prices:


http://www.slate.com/id/2105285/

If you believe this article, then a significant amount of the current price of crude oil is driven by speculation in oil futures.


Sell your cars! Trust me. Once you do you will never have to worry about gas prices again. I have no idea what the price of gasoline at the pump is. Haven't for years. :P

[Lurch]

I also work in the energy business to a degree, and I probably agree with the general belief in this thread that we'll never really run out of oil, it will just come from ever more expensive sources. The larger issue, IMO, is that the environmental damage, already large, will get worse as we use heavier fuel sources like bitumen, coal, etc. So, IMO, as demand for oil rises, pollution will rise at an ever increasing rate b/c the intensity of emissions from oil production and refinery will get larger. People may or may not believe in global warming, Kyoto, etc. but I am a firm believer that too much of anything is probably a bad idea, especially pollution. Maybe this isn't quite the forum for this, but here is a question for those in favor/against Kyoto:

The biggest argument against the Kyoto Accord is that it will cost consumers money and possibly harm the global/Canadian economy. Pretend the likelihood of harm (say 10% decline in the economy, which is much larger than all but the most pessimistic assumptions) is 90%. Now, let's pretend there is some likelihood that the environmentalists are right (even though maybe 80% - my number, but I've read estimates along these lines- of scientists believe global warming is a possibility, let's say there is a 10% chance that the ice caps melt if we continue on our present course. Which choice would you make and why?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Aug 25 2004, 02:50 PM
I also work in the energy business to a degree, and I probably agree with the general belief in this thread that we'll never really run out of oil, it will just come from ever more expensive sources. The larger issue, IMO, is that the environmental damage, already large, will get worse as we use heavier fuel sources like bitumen, coal, etc. So, IMO, as demand for oil rises, pollution will rise at an ever increasing rate b/c the intensity of emissions from oil production and refinery will get larger. People may or may not believe in global warming, Kyoto, etc. but I am a firm believer that too much of anything is probably a bad idea, especially pollution. Maybe this isn't quite the forum for this, but here is a question for those in favor/against Kyoto:

The biggest argument against the Kyoto Accord is that it will cost consumers money and possibly harm the global/Canadian economy. Pretend the likelihood of harm (say 10% decline in the economy, which is much larger than all but the most pessimistic assumptions) is 90%. Now, let's pretend there is some likelihood that the environmentalists are right (even though maybe 80% - my number, but I've read estimates along these lines- of scientists believe global warming is a possibility, let's say there is a 10% chance that the ice caps melt if we continue on our present course. Which choice would you make and why?

The choice is already made. The ice caps ARE melting.

Canada is already pondering what its going to do when the channels through our northern islands are navigable. Do those channels belong to us?

The snows of Kilimanjaro in Africa are virtually gone. The fringes of the Antarctic ice cap have been disintegrating.

Now . . . . that might all be part of a natural process since the world has obviously been hotter than even today in the past.

Secondly, the appalling smog problem overhanging Asia from fossil fuel use plus forest fires seems to be an acceptable tradeoff.

There are about 6.5 billion people on the planet now. The estimates are the population will peak out at 11 billion at some point in the next 100 years, even though populations in Europe and Japan are expected to decline as much as one-third.

Isn't massive environment disruption inevitable even with the Kyoto Accord in place? What changes in their environment will people be willing to endure? Will only the rich have access to places with clean air and fresh water?

Will nuclear power make a big comeback?

Cowperson

[Tiger]

I don't believe in running out of oil and natural gas is much of a problem as people will think it is. One there is still a fair amount of oil out there (the Alberta Tarsands have about as much as the middle east and Venzuala (sp?)). Plus there is also methyl hydrates (or methane Hydrates) which or formed under high pressure deep in the cores usually under seas. but there is more hydrocarbons in these methyl hydrates then there is oil and gas in the world, but the technology is not there yet to obtain them.

another thing to those that mention globall warming. I do think the pollution in a big big problem, but can anyone prove that higher CO2 leads to higher temperature or do higher temperatures lead to higher CO2 in the atmosphere, sceincetist can only assume that CO2 causes temperature to increase. The big problem in my eyes is the acid rain caused by burning hydrocarbons cause by sulfates and nitrates. The sad part is acid rain could be practically eliminated if the government would make a simple law saying all factories etc. have to have scrubbers, cause we have the technology to eliminate that type of pollution

[northernflame]

Yet another article on the price of oil.

A comment by an economist pubished in the Globe & Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...specialComment/

I would tend to agree with much of what the author has to say. At a minimum, it's a bit more balanced piece that what seems to be the norm in the media.

By balanced I mean the author understands that it is the inter-play of supply and demand that determine the price in any market, and that market forces are not static.