Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/2/2006 9:33:04 AM EDT
Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports
BY KEVIN G. HALL
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.

But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are.

The president's State of the Union reference to Mideast oil made headlines nationwide Wednesday because of his assertion that "America is addicted to oil" and his call to "break this addiction."

Bush vowed to fund research into better batteries for hybrid vehicles and more production of the alternative fuel ethanol, setting a lofty goal of replacing "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."

He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

Not exactly, though, it turns out.

"This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.

He said the broad goal was to displace foreign oil imports, from anywhere, with domestic alternatives. He acknowledged that oil is a freely traded commodity bought and sold globally by private firms. Consequently, it would be very difficult to reduce imports from any single region, especially the most oil-rich region on Earth.

Asked why the president used the words "the Middle East" when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that "every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands." The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he feared that his remarks might get him in trouble.

Presidential adviser Dan Bartlett made a similar point in a briefing before the speech. "I think one of the biggest concerns the American people have is oil coming from the Middle East. It is a very volatile region," he said.

--------------------
My remarks: Check the math here. He says he wants to reduce ME oil imports by 75%, when what he actually meant was that he wants to increase them by roughly 300%. OK, I'm following you. My best guess is that this is because there is no alternative. In the article it does say that they assume that technological advances will take care of this, they also say that they're not going to do anything about helping anyone to actually implement this technology. The Market will take care of it, he's not going to do anything.

Rather than reducing imports, it seems to me that the President is talking about Market-driven technological advances that will displace a theoretical 75% of future growth in ME oil imports. Smells like BS to me. Why bother promising anything?
--------------------

Through the first 11 months of 2005, the United States imported nearly 2.2 million barrels per day of oil from the Middle East nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. That's less than 20 percent of the total U.S. daily imports of 10.062 million barrels.

Imports account for about 60 percent of U.S. oil consumption.

Alan Hubbard, the director of the president's National Economic Council, projects that America will import 6 million barrels of oil per day from the Middle East in 2025 without major technological changes in energy consumption.

The Bush administration believes that new technologies could reduce the total daily U.S. oil demand by about 5.26 million barrels through alternatives such as plug-in hybrids with rechargeable batteries, hydrogen-powered cars and new ethanol products.

That means the new technologies could reduce America's oil appetite by the equivalent of what we're expected to import from the Middle East by 2025, Hubbard said.

But we'll still be importing plenty of oil, according to the Energy Department's latest projection.

"In 2025, net petroleum imports, including both crude oil and refined products, are expected to account for 60 percent of demand ... up from 58 percent in 2004," according to the Energy Information Administration's 2006 Annual Energy Outlook.

Some experts think Bush needs to do more to achieve his stated goal.

"We can achieve energy independence from the Middle East, but not with what the president is proposing," said Craig Wolfe, the president of Americans for Energy Independence in Studio City, Calif. "We need to slow the growth in consumption. Our organization believes we need to do something about conservation" and higher auto fuel-efficiency standards.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 9:42:43 AM EDT
Did ya catch this article: www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13980

As if 36 billion in profits for Exxon/Mobil ain't enough..............

Mike

ps - somehow my measely tax break looks quite insignificant next to the ones our president handed energy corps last August.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 9:46:14 AM EDT
So what the article is saying is that Bush pissed off the countries in the middle east by saying he was going to work to get away from their oil, they got upset at that, so he said "I didn't really mean it...it was only an example".

Referencing an earlier thread, this does nothing to restore my confidence in him. In fact it only makes him look like a bigger pussy. Who's running in 2008 because I'm tired of all the double talk and inaction?


Bush to ME oil countries
"I still love you, I was just being dramatic to fool the American people."

Link Posted: 2/2/2006 9:49:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
So what the article is saying is that Bush pissed off the countries in the middle east by saying he was going to work to get away from their oil, they got upset at that, so he said "I didn't really mean it...it was only an example".

Referencing an earlier thread, this does nothing to restore my confidence in him. In fact it only makes him look like a bigger pussy. Who's running in 2008 because I'm tired of all the double talk and inaction?


Bush to ME oil countries
"I still love you, I was just being dramatic to fool the American people."

www.whatwouldbilldo.com/images/BushSaudi2.jpg



Holding hands?

Culture or not, I think I would have trouble walking around holding the hand of a guy in a dress.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 9:50:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/2/2006 9:50:49 AM EDT by macman37]
Where the heck do you get "increase by 300%" from?

Bush wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and all you can do is whine? Talk about looking on the dark side.

Edit: What about this part? "He said the broad goal was to displace foreign oil imports, from anywhere, with domestic alternatives. "
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 9:51:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cypher214:
Holding hands?

Culture or not, I think I would have trouble walking around holding the hand of a guy in a dress.




ha,
to paraphrase one of his campaign speeches, "In Texas, we call that f@gg0try"
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 10:06:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:
Where the heck do you get "increase by 300%" from?

Bush wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and all you can do is whine? Talk about looking on the dark side.

Edit: What about this part? "He said the broad goal was to displace foreign oil imports, from anywhere, with domestic alternatives. "



Through the first 11 months of 2005, the United States imported nearly 2.2 million barrels per day of oil from the Middle East nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. That's less than 20 percent of the total U.S. daily imports of 10.062 million barrels.

Imports account for about 60 percent of U.S. oil consumption.

Alan Hubbard, the director of the president's National Economic Council, projects that America will import 6 million barrels of oil per day from the Middle East in 2025 without major technological changes in energy consumption.

That's pretty much where I got it from. There's all kinds of good things he can do to encourage this, such as subsidizing switchgrass ethanol or building nuclear power plants and building electric cars or light rail or any one of a number of things.

He's assuming the problem away. IMO, what he's saying is that he figures that some unknown technological breakthrough will come along and take care of everything because the Market will... I dunno, do something. Maybe he's right. I would think that replacing the entire fleet of cars in the US over 20 years is a virtual certainty, and if he supported legislation that would encourage the production of electric cars then I imagine we'd be fine.

It's just that he's not doing shit about it. He could do something but chooses inaction over action. I was pumping my fist in the air the night of that speech, I was like Holy Shit! He's gonna DO something! This was pretty disappointing to me.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 10:12:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:

Originally Posted By macman37:
Where the heck do you get "increase by 300%" from?

Bush wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and all you can do is whine? Talk about looking on the dark side.

Edit: What about this part? "He said the broad goal was to displace foreign oil imports, from anywhere, with domestic alternatives. "



Through the first 11 months of 2005, the United States imported nearly 2.2 million barrels per day of oil from the Middle East nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. That's less than 20 percent of the total U.S. daily imports of 10.062 million barrels.

Imports account for about 60 percent of U.S. oil consumption.

Alan Hubbard, the director of the president's National Economic Council, projects that America will import 6 million barrels of oil per day from the Middle East in 2025 without major technological changes in energy consumption.

That's pretty much where I got it from. There's all kinds of good things he can do to encourage this, such as subsidizing switchgrass ethanol or building nuclear power plants and building electric cars or light rail or any one of a number of things.

He's assuming the problem away. IMO, what he's saying is that he figures that some unknown technological breakthrough will come along and take care of everything because the Market will... I dunno, do something. Maybe he's right. I would think that replacing the entire fleet of cars in the US over 20 years is a virtual certainty, and if he supported legislation that would encourage the production of electric cars then I imagine we'd be fine.

It's just that he's not doing shit about it. He could do something but chooses inaction over action. I was pumping my fist in the air the night of that speech, I was like Holy Shit! He's gonna DO something! This was pretty disappointing to me.




Alan Hubbard, the director of the president's National Economic Council, projects that America will import 6 million barrels of oil per day from the Middle East in 2025 without major technological changes in energy consumption


What about that? All you're doing is highlighting what supports your agenda. New technologies are coming on line and are getting cheaper every day.

I'm no optimist and frankly think that no matter what we do, we're delaying the inevitable. But to only highlight that which supports what you've been trying to say is disengenous as well. (you're not the only one guilty of it; the article is skewed horribly too)
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 10:15:40 AM EDT
REally?!? A President lied at a state of the union address?!?! HOLY SHIT! Someone start the impeachment process!

If you beleived ANYTHING he said last night, you are going to be seriously disappointed.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 10:22:21 AM EDT
I know what you mean, I definitely highlighted things that fit my agenda. No doubt about it. It's my position that to assume technological advances without having any evidence of their existence is shady.

Enron got in a lot of trouble booking profits on business that was scheduled to come online years down the road. That's a big part of how the company went down the toilet.

Just because somebody says something is going to happen later... I don't put much weight on that kind of a statement. "I swear to God I'm gonna quit smoking on Friday night right after I finish this pack." Whatever. I like evidence, I like proof, and those statements are just kind of wishy-washy to me. It was a nice soundbite for the Pres to say he's going to cut out dependance on oil but it turns out to be meaningless.

IMO, out economy is predicated on the existence of cheap energy. To assume that it will be there is irresponsible. To actually go and examine the reserves available in the ME is responsible. To subsidize thermal depolymerization plants now while energy is cheap is responsible. To plant the switchgrass and experiment with it is responsible. To assume the problem away is FUCKING RETARDED!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 10:38:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/2/2006 10:39:47 AM EDT by macman37]

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:
I know what you mean, I definitely highlighted things that fit my agenda. No doubt about it. It's my position that to assume technological advances without having any evidence of their existence is shady.

Enron got in a lot of trouble booking profits on business that was scheduled to come online years down the road. That's a big part of how the company went down the toilet.

Just because somebody says something is going to happen later... I don't put much weight on that kind of a statement. "I swear to God I'm gonna quit smoking on Friday night right after I finish this pack." Whatever. I like evidence, I like proof, and those statements are just kind of wishy-washy to me. It was a nice soundbite for the Pres to say he's going to cut out dependance on oil but it turns out to be meaningless.

IMO, out economy is predicated on the existence of cheap energy. To assume that it will be there is irresponsible. To actually go and examine the reserves available in the ME is responsible. To subsidize thermal depolymerization plants now while energy is cheap is responsible. To plant the switchgrass and experiment with it is responsible. To assume the problem away is FUCKING RETARDED!!!!!!!



What about clean coal to fuel our electric plants? And nuclear energy? How about the existence and getting-cheaper-by-the-day prices of hybrid vehicles?

What about the oil locked in sands and shales in the Western US and Canada that technology is being developed for to cheaply extract?

I am not an optimist... But you are ignoring provable, undeniable facts here.

But then we have had this debate before. *shrug*
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 10:58:19 AM EDT
I'm glad they want to do it quickly
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 11:01:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:
I know what you mean, I definitely highlighted things that fit my agenda. No doubt about it. It's my position that to assume technological advances without having any evidence of their existence is shady.

Enron got in a lot of trouble booking profits on business that was scheduled to come online years down the road. That's a big part of how the company went down the toilet.

Just because somebody says something is going to happen later... I don't put much weight on that kind of a statement. "I swear to God I'm gonna quit smoking on Friday night right after I finish this pack." Whatever. I like evidence, I like proof, and those statements are just kind of wishy-washy to me. It was a nice soundbite for the Pres to say he's going to cut out dependance on oil but it turns out to be meaningless.

IMO, out economy is predicated on the existence of cheap energy. To assume that it will be there is irresponsible. To actually go and examine the reserves available in the ME is responsible. To subsidize thermal depolymerization plants now while energy is cheap is responsible. To plant the switchgrass and experiment with it is responsible. To assume the problem away is FUCKING RETARDED!!!!!!!



What about clean coal to fuel our electric plants? And nuclear energy? How about the existence and getting-cheaper-by-the-day prices of hybrid vehicles?

What about the oil locked in sands and shales in the Western US and Canada that technology is being developed for to cheaply extract?

I am not an optimist... But you are ignoring provable, undeniable facts here.

But then we have had this debate before. *shrug*



And its a good thing those nuke plants can fertilize our fields and make our plastics.
As for the shales, they will never have enough production to meet world demand. Its a drop in the bucket. So while its still a usable alternative to ME oil it doesnt even begin to fill the void created by depleting reserves.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 11:06:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:
I know what you mean, I definitely highlighted things that fit my agenda. To subsidize thermal depolymerization plants now while energy is cheap is responsible. To plant the switchgrass and experiment with it is responsible. To assume the problem away is FUCKING RETARDED!!!!!!!



What about clean coal to fuel our electric plants? And nuclear energy? How about the existence and getting-cheaper-by-the-day prices of hybrid vehicles?

Clean coal we could have, hopefully we will build. However. I want to see the plants actually built before I consider the matter accomplished.

What about the oil locked in sands and shales in the Western US and Canada that technology is being developed for to cheaply extract?

Same thing. I'm all for it, I loaded up on SU last year and made a killing. It's all about the flow rate. Frankly, I have more confidence in Shell's shale project than I do in the Canadian tar sands. And let me know when the technology is fully developed and fully deployed, and when we have a measurable flow that will meaningfully impact world oil supply. Keep going fellas, you're doing great, now let's see the results before we assume the problem away.

I am not an optimist... But you are ignoring provable, undeniable facts here.

But then we have had this debate before. *shrug*



I dunno. I guess you just think that because something is possible that it is inevitable. In my mind, the clock is ticking. I think that 2006 may well be the year that global oil supply peaks. I don't think we have any time to waste. We need action, and we need it right now. Now. Now. Now.

If you take a look at the depletion rates in Australia and in Mexico's Cantarell field and Bergen in Kuwait, the evidence is in that oil depletion in the 9-13% per year range is very likely coming very soon to a theater near you. Use the Rule of 72 to discover that the halving time of production is 5.5-8 years. That is just not enough time. Remember Jimmy Carter? Remember stagflation? That was what happened when we lost 5% of the oil supply. This would be an order of magnitude larger.

So.

I would like to see evidence. Some are happy with faith.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 11:08:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Specop_007:

And its a good thing those nuke plants can fertilize our fields and make our plastics.



No, of course not. But if we can cut our oil consumption to a certain level via hybrid vehicles, etc., then we can use the oil JUST for plastics and whatnot.


As for the shales, they will never have enough production to meet world demand. Its a drop in the bucket. So while its still a usable alternative to ME oil it doesnt even begin to fill the void created by depleting reserves.


That's not what I've read in several reputable publications including Wired and Discover.

Look, I don't have all the answers. And I'm preparing myself for SHTF just like you may be and Peak_Oil is. But for us to sit here and fret/complain about this is counterproductive.

Things are happening. Technologies are coming on line and getting cheaper. Calm down, all that stress is going to wreck you.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 11:11:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:

I dunno. I guess you just think that because something is possible that it is inevitable. In my mind, the clock is ticking. I think that 2006 may well be the year that global oil supply peaks. I don't think we have any time to waste. We need action, and we need it right now. Now. Now. Now.

If you take a look at the depletion rates in Australia and in Mexico's Cantarell field and Bergen in Kuwait, the evidence is in that oil depletion in the 9-13% per year range is very likely coming very soon to a theater near you. Use the Rule of 72 to discover that the halving time of production is 5.5-8 years. That is just not enough time. Remember Jimmy Carter? Remember stagflation? That was what happened when we lost 5% of the oil supply. This would be an order of magnitude larger.

So.

I would like to see evidence. Some are happy with faith.



If oil peaks this year... "Now. Now. Now." means NOTHING. You're too late.

Why are you so fretful about this if it's already too late? Move to your fortified survival compound in the hills (which is not an insult, I wish I had one! ) and get ready for the S to HTF.

I guess I'm not following you on this.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 11:15:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By Specop_007:

And its a good thing those nuke plants can fertilize our fields and make our plastics.



No, of course not. But if we can cut our oil consumption to a certain level via hybrid vehicles, etc., then we can use the oil JUST for plastics and whatnot.


As for the shales, they will never have enough production to meet world demand. Its a drop in the bucket. So while its still a usable alternative to ME oil it doesnt even begin to fill the void created by depleting reserves.


That's not what I've read in several reputable publications including Wired and Discover.

Look, I don't have all the answers. And I'm preparing myself for SHTF just like you may be and Peak_Oil is. But for us to sit here and fret/complain about this is counterproductive.

Things are happening. Technologies are coming on line and getting cheaper. Calm down, all that stress is going to wreck you.



Recoverable reserves from Shell's shale, if everything goes well, is in the neighborhood of 600 billion barrels. The US uses about 20MBD right now. 7.3 billion barrels per year. The supply is there to last us quite some time as long as we're smart enough to keep it for ourselves and not sell it to somebody else. And not grow our economy anymore. Frankly I think it's our one great hope. If we get on it, we can do something and salvage quite a bit.

We need nuclear power plants and clean coal plants built there to enable the extraction process to take place. This will take time. That's the problem. If the year of the peak is 2006, and it may well be, and it takes 5 years to build the power plants that would extract the kerogen from the shale, then it's entirely possible that our economy could be totally destroyed by the time those five years have passed. The market collapses, nobody's driving a car anymore, and oil's back to $10 a barrel 'cause nobody wants it anymore.

WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE BUILD A FUCKING COAL PLANT?!?!?!?!
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 11:19:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By Specop_007:

And its a good thing those nuke plants can fertilize our fields and make our plastics.



No, of course not. But if we can cut our oil consumption to a certain level via hybrid vehicles, etc., then we can use the oil JUST for plastics and whatnot.


As for the shales, they will never have enough production to meet world demand. Its a drop in the bucket. So while its still a usable alternative to ME oil it doesnt even begin to fill the void created by depleting reserves.


That's not what I've read in several reputable publications including Wired and Discover.

Look, I don't have all the answers. And I'm preparing myself for SHTF just like you may be and Peak_Oil is. But for us to sit here and fret/complain about this is counterproductive.

Things are happening. Technologies are coming on line and getting cheaper. Calm down, all that stress is going to wreck you.



It doesnt stress me, in fact its kind of the opposite....

As they say...."May you live in interesting times"......Knowing it could all come crashing down at any time, kinda makes me appreciate it all the more. I know I can survive if I have to. Or at least, have a better chance then Joe Neighbor who watches TV all day and goes tot eh gym on the weekend......
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 11:21:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:

I dunno. I guess you just think that because something is possible that it is inevitable. In my mind, the clock is ticking. I think that 2006 may well be the year that global oil supply peaks. I don't think we have any time to waste. We need action, and we need it right now. Now. Now. Now.

If you take a look at the depletion rates in Australia and in Mexico's Cantarell field and Bergen in Kuwait, the evidence is in that oil depletion in the 9-13% per year range is very likely coming very soon to a theater near you. Use the Rule of 72 to discover that the halving time of production is 5.5-8 years. That is just not enough time. Remember Jimmy Carter? Remember stagflation? That was what happened when we lost 5% of the oil supply. This would be an order of magnitude larger.

So.

I would like to see evidence. Some are happy with faith.



If oil peaks this year... "Now. Now. Now." means NOTHING. You're too late.

Why are you so fretful about this if it's already too late? Move to your fortified survival compound in the hills (which is not an insult, I wish I had one! ) and get ready for the S to HTF.

I guess I'm not following you on this.



I don't think it's hopeless. What we need to do is to get going on a solution now before it's too late. There are still projects coming online through 08. Maybe we can hold depletion to a percent or two for a couple years and get the shell project going. Maybe some demand destruction (poverty) will force some out of their cars and we can kind of meander along for a little bit until the new supply starts to hit the refineries.

I'd rather do something than nothing.

This is so weird. When I first started posting about this on arfcom I was all "We're doomed!" Now I think there is actually a solution, but we need to get off our asses and push to get something done. I've been calling my senators, my HR member, the mayor of LA... that was fun. I got to talk to the Deputy Mayor of Energy or something like that. She had never heard of oil depletion. I had to explain it to her. How weird was that.

Well, I guess procrastination will be what brings the mighty Empire to its knees.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 11:24:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:
We need nuclear power plants and clean coal plants built there to enable the extraction process to take place. This will take time. That's the problem. If the year of the peak is 2006, and it may well be, and it takes 5 years to build the power plants that would extract the kerogen from the shale, then it's entirely possible that our economy could be totally destroyed by the time those five years have passed. The market collapses, nobody's driving a car anymore, and oil's back to $10 a barrel 'cause nobody wants it anymore.



Just curious, but when, in your opinion, do you think the price of oil will hit $200 a barrel? And what do you think will be the peak price of oil (in today's dollars)? I'm just trying to get a sense for what it is that you consider a crisis to be.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 11:27:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:

Recoverable reserves from Shell's shale, if everything goes well, is in the neighborhood of 600 billion barrels. The US uses about 20MBD right now. 7.3 billion barrels per year. The supply is there to last us quite some time as long as we're smart enough to keep it for ourselves and not sell it to somebody else. And not grow our economy anymore. Frankly I think it's our one great hope. If we get on it, we can do something and salvage quite a bit.

We need nuclear power plants and clean coal plants built there to enable the extraction process to take place. This will take time. That's the problem. If the year of the peak is 2006, and it may well be, and it takes 5 years to build the power plants that would extract the kerogen from the shale, then it's entirely possible that our economy could be totally destroyed by the time those five years have passed. The market collapses, nobody's driving a car anymore, and oil's back to $10 a barrel 'cause nobody wants it anymore.

WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE BUILD A FUCKING COAL PLANT?!?!?!?!



Somehow I think we would be able to do it in less than 5 years. People are just too used to driving everywhere they want at any time... 6 months of $3 or $4/gallon gas and the sheeple would just be freaking out... The .gov would pour money into those coal plants (and the interesting idea one company came up with to extract oil from the shales: Drill holes, insert heaters, oil bubbles up... That would get the nod immediately!).

Nobody, especially the .gov, wants society to collapse.

You're making ME look like an optimist here. Knock it off!
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 11:34:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:

I don't think it's hopeless. What we need to do is to get going on a solution now before it's too late. There are still projects coming online through 08. Maybe we can hold depletion to a percent or two for a couple years and get the shell project going. Maybe some demand destruction (poverty) will force some out of their cars and we can kind of meander along for a little bit until the new supply starts to hit the refineries.

I'd rather do something than nothing.

This is so weird. When I first started posting about this on arfcom I was all "We're doomed!" Now I think there is actually a solution, but we need to get off our asses and push to get something done. I've been calling my senators, my HR member, the mayor of LA... that was fun. I got to talk to the Deputy Mayor of Energy or something like that. She had never heard of oil depletion. I had to explain it to her. How weird was that.

Well, I guess procrastination will be what brings the mighty Empire to its knees.



Good. I remember when you first started posting too.

What I'm hoping for is oil/gas to stay below $3.50 or so/gal long enough for the other stuff to come online. And I really think that the domestic oil companies would fast-track the development of those shale reserves and hydrogen and various other fuel alternatives to prevent major collapse.

If everything goes to hell while there are still reserves in shale and sand... the oil companies will have been quite remiss I would say.

Thanks for keeping this civil. In all honesty, while "peak oil" (the concept, not you) is always looming... I'm more worried about other SHTF scenarios.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 12:12:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pliftkl:

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:
We need nuclear power plants and clean coal plants built there to enable the extraction process to take place. This will take time. That's the problem. If the year of the peak is 2006, and it may well be, and it takes 5 years to build the power plants that would extract the kerogen from the shale, then it's entirely possible that our economy could be totally destroyed by the time those five years have passed. The market collapses, nobody's driving a car anymore, and oil's back to $10 a barrel 'cause nobody wants it anymore.



Just curious, but when, in your opinion, do you think the price of oil will hit $200 a barrel? And what do you think will be the peak price of oil (in today's dollars)? I'm just trying to get a sense for what it is that you consider a crisis to be.



It's hard to say. There are so many variables, and I have trouble keeping track of them sometimes. IMO, at this time, the dollar is devaluing. See the price of precious metals and real estate. To the extent that commodities all increase in price together, so does the dollar lose its purchasing power.

So are we talking about $200 in 2005 dollars? Matt Simmons said in 2003 I believe that his target was 186/bbl. Is that in 2003 dollars, and who decides what the rate of inflation is? Do we calculate it using energy, food, and housing... or with the current BS inflation rate?

I'm sure that's just skimming the surface. If Iran's oil bourse opens up in the next few months, then the dollar could devalue another 7% overnight. Would that trigger the sale of dollars as a reserve currency by China, Japan, and EU nations? Then what? My crystal ball ain't so crystal clear.

There are so many things happening at the same time I just can't guess. I think that we're headed for a period of hyperinflation joined at the hip by war. I don't understand how so many bad things are crossing over each other these days. It all interconnects, it's just so complex I don't know how to unravel it.

I loaded up on silver and SU and have done handsomely. I have a 100oz silver bar on my desk right now as a coffee cup coaster. It has appreciated in value dramatically, and I expect it to rocket into the 4th dimension some time in the next 2-3 years.

As a wild-ass guess, I would venture to say that gasoline prices here in the states could get above $4 a gallon this summer. I wouldn't be all that surprised. If that happens, many people will be very angry, and they're likely to want Someone to Do Something.

Actually, I'm angry! I want Someone to Do Something! Build me a goddamn coal plant you fuckers!

$200 oil would be a major problem for us. But what is the cause of the price increase? Is it scarcity, is it the devaluation of the dollar? Greedy oil company market rigging? Fear and stockpiling? It could be any number of reasons. Meaning any number of effects.

I think the crisis comes when the hospitals can't reliably deliver service to the local population, either due to economic dislocation or a failure of the power grid and their backup generation. When your schools close their doors, and the grocery stores have guards inside and/or outside of them. When the electricity that pumps water to your home shuts off and you start to stink. When your neighbors start to look around and discover that they are suddenly dirt-poor and all their self esteem was wrapped up in their bank accounts, and it's gone now...
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 12:19:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:

I don't think it's hopeless. What we need to do is to get going on a solution now before it's too late. There are still projects coming online through 08. Maybe we can hold depletion to a percent or two for a couple years and get the shell project going. Maybe some demand destruction (poverty) will force some out of their cars and we can kind of meander along for a little bit until the new supply starts to hit the refineries.

I'd rather do something than nothing.

This is so weird. When I first started posting about this on arfcom I was all "We're doomed!" Now I think there is actually a solution, but we need to get off our asses and push to get something done. I've been calling my senators, my HR member, the mayor of LA... that was fun. I got to talk to the Deputy Mayor of Energy or something like that. She had never heard of oil depletion. I had to explain it to her. How weird was that.

Well, I guess procrastination will be what brings the mighty Empire to its knees.



Good. I remember when you first started posting too.

What I'm hoping for is oil/gas to stay below $3.50 or so/gal long enough for the other stuff to come online. And I really think that the domestic oil companies would fast-track the development of those shale reserves and hydrogen and various other fuel alternatives to prevent major collapse.

If everything goes to hell while there are still reserves in shale and sand... the oil companies will have been quite remiss I would say.

Thanks for keeping this civil. In all honesty, while "peak oil" (the concept, not you) is always looming... I'm more worried about other SHTF scenarios.



There's always the possibility that the powers that be will allow our economy to collapse, and just sell the oil and coal and everything to the Chinese. Then they can have lots of cheap labor here at home, and we don't manufacture anything they want anyway.

We use too much here. China would probably figure out a way to run things more efficiently. You think Dick Cheney gives a shit about your standard of living? Or John Kerry? Or any of them?

If you're interested in alternative fuels, take a long hard look at Brazil. It's very instructive.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 12:21:33 PM EDT
will we be able to reduce ME oil imports by 75%? not until i finish my geology degree and find the next ghawar...
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 12:22:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/2/2006 12:23:21 PM EDT by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:
There's always the possibility that the powers that be will allow our economy to collapse, and just sell the oil and coal and everything to the Chinese. Then they can have lots of cheap labor here at home, and we don't manufacture anything they want anyway.

We use too much here. China would probably figure out a way to run things more efficiently. You think Dick Cheney gives a shit about your standard of living? Or John Kerry? Or any of them?

If you're interested in alternative fuels, take a long hard look at Brazil. It's very instructive.



If you believe what you typed in the first paragraph, you should seek help.

As for Brazil, I travel there often for work. They are NOT a paragon of anything, let alone alternative fuels. Sure, they sell alcohol for vehicle fuel, but it costs about as much as our gas, and cars run like crap on it. Ask me how I know...
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 12:34:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:
There's always the possibility that the powers that be will allow our economy to collapse, and just sell the oil and coal and everything to the Chinese. Then they can have lots of cheap labor here at home, and we don't manufacture anything they want anyway.

We use too much here. China would probably figure out a way to run things more efficiently. You think Dick Cheney gives a shit about your standard of living? Or John Kerry? Or any of them?

If you're interested in alternative fuels, take a long hard look at Brazil. It's very instructive.



If you believe what you typed in the first paragraph, you should seek help.

As for Brazil, I travel there often for work. They are NOT a paragon of anything, let alone alternative fuels. Sure, they sell alcohol for vehicle fuel, but it costs about as much as our gas, and cars run like crap on it. Ask me how I know...



Really. Tell us about it. They have dual-fuel cars for gas/ethanol, right? And I hear they use natural gas in some of their cars. Do you talk with the locals about how this is working out for them? I was under the impression that the fuel injectors or carb needles need to be adjusted when you go from gas to ethanol, I wonder if your car wasn't adjusted properly.

Keep talking.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 12:37:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 12:49:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:
There's always the possibility that the powers that be will allow our economy to collapse, and just sell the oil and coal and everything to the Chinese. Then they can have lots of cheap labor here at home, and we don't manufacture anything they want anyway.

We use too much here. China would probably figure out a way to run things more efficiently. You think Dick Cheney gives a shit about your standard of living? Or John Kerry? Or any of them?

If you're interested in alternative fuels, take a long hard look at Brazil. It's very instructive.



Sorry dude but you lost me with your first paragraph... They don't want society to collapse because even in Hillary Clinton's wettest big-government-will-save-you dream, there is no way the .gov could last after a peak oil scenario. Oil is literally the lifeblood of society.

Nobody wants things to change that drastically.

I agree that we use too much here but that will change too with the way the population is going to adjust itself with Boomers retiring and their parents passing on.

Cheney and Kerry may not care about you and me in a specific sense, but politicians care about staying in power and that means they need something to stay in power of. Requiring money. Which requires people to have access to relatively inexpensive transportation and fuel to work. Which means they want things status quo. It's a big circle.

Will take a look at Brazil's fuel situation when I can, thanks.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 12:53:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:
There's always the possibility that the powers that be will allow our economy to collapse, and just sell the oil and coal and everything to the Chinese. Then they can have lots of cheap labor here at home, and we don't manufacture anything they want anyway.

We use too much here. China would probably figure out a way to run things more efficiently. You think Dick Cheney gives a shit about your standard of living? Or John Kerry? Or any of them?

If you're interested in alternative fuels, take a long hard look at Brazil. It's very instructive.



If you believe what you typed in the first paragraph, you should seek help.

As for Brazil, I travel there often for work. They are NOT a paragon of anything, let alone alternative fuels. Sure, they sell alcohol for vehicle fuel, but it costs about as much as our gas, and cars run like crap on it. Ask me how I know...



Really. Tell us about it. They have dual-fuel cars for gas/ethanol, right? And I hear they use natural gas in some of their cars. Do you talk with the locals about how this is working out for them? I was under the impression that the fuel injectors or carb needles need to be adjusted when you go from gas to ethanol, I wonder if your car wasn't adjusted properly.

Keep talking.



I've spoken to dozens of people in three different states in Brazil. I've been in dozens of cars. They all complain about how dirty their fuel is, how frequently they have to service carbs/injectors, etc. The fuel is pure crap. But hey, at least it's partially renewable...
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 2:44:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:
There's always the possibility that the powers that be will allow our economy to collapse, and just sell the oil and coal and everything to the Chinese. Then they can have lots of cheap labor here at home, and we don't manufacture anything they want anyway.

We use too much here. China would probably figure out a way to run things more efficiently. You think Dick Cheney gives a shit about your standard of living? Or John Kerry? Or any of them?

If you're interested in alternative fuels, take a long hard look at Brazil. It's very instructive.



Say ANWR is drilled and the tar sands are tapped. Who will be doing it, the government or corporations? Will the corporations be ordered by the government to sell only to the USA at a set price?

What I forsee is corporations doing the drilling and tapping of the tar sands and the oil being sold on the world market for whatever the price will bear. So it won't allieviate any of the problems of oil for this country.

Other then that, we have given away industries that have an impact on national security: textiles, steel, tech, auto parts, etc so I don't see your first part as being too far off.

Link Posted: 2/2/2006 2:53:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/2/2006 2:56:19 PM EDT by Peak_Oil]

Originally Posted By Dance:

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:
There's always the possibility that the powers that be will allow our economy to collapse, and just sell the oil and coal and everything to the Chinese. Then they can have lots of cheap labor here at home, and we don't manufacture anything they want anyway.

We use too much here. China would probably figure out a way to run things more efficiently. You think Dick Cheney gives a shit about your standard of living? Or John Kerry? Or any of them?

If you're interested in alternative fuels, take a long hard look at Brazil. It's very instructive.



Say ANWR is drilled and the tar sands are tapped. Who will be doing it, the government or corporations? Will the corporations be ordered by the government to sell only to the USA at a set price?

What I forsee is corporations doing the drilling and tapping of the tar sands and the oil being sold on the world market for whatever the price will bear. So it won't allieviate any of the problems of oil for this country.

Other then that, we have given away industries that have an impact on national security: textiles, steel, tech, auto parts, etc so I don't see your first part as being too far off.



It's just wild speculation. But that's how free markets work, right? The commodities go to the money. If the dollar falls apart, then it goes to the yen and the renmibi and the gold Islamic dinar and the euro. We pressure everybody else to open their markets to our dollars...

I bet the Russians that live in Siberia have children that will freeze to death because the Russians sold off their natural gas to Italy.

I'd assume that corporations would continue with their duty to their shareholders and maximize profits.

This is almost sounding reasonable. Wow. I think this is my very first original thought on the topic. Well, every so often the roots of the Tree of Liberty have to be blah blah blah.

ETA: Also, we are gonna owe a lot of countries a lot of money. Maybe they'll take coal and oil as payment. We used to export a lot of our production back in the day... maybe we will again...
Top Top