backtop

Gadgets 157 MPG Vehicle for only $13,000
Brandon Hill (Blog) - February 27, 2006 5:15 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 219 comment(s) - last by Xenoterranos.. on Mar 9 at 1:47 AM
Loremo AG set to debut 2+2 coupe that gets over 150 MPG

I'm happy when my little hatchback gets 31 MPG on the highway, but German-based Loremo AG is set to debut a 2+2 coupe at the Geneva Auto Show that gets a whopping 157 MPG.

The $13,000 Loremo LS weighs just 992 lbs and features a two cylinder turbo-diesel engine pumping out a hardly earth shattering 20HP. The mid-engine, RWD coupe gets roughly 157 miles per gallon and has a cruising range of 807 miles. It goes 0-60 in 20 seconds and has a top speed of 99 MPH.

A more powerful $17,800 Leromo GT will also be available. It weighs in slightly more at 1,036 lbs and features a 3 cylinder turbo-diesel with 50 HP. It gets 87 miles per gallon, has a cruising range of 497 miles, goes 0-60 in 9 seconds and tops out at 137 MPH.

Both will come standard with airbags, radio and particle filter. Options will include a dashboard computer, A/C, MP3 player, navigation system, and leather.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
This is the future of the automobile folks!
By Heatlesssun on 2/27/2006 5:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
Like it or not, eventually the dinasour guzzeling cars we drive today are going to become dinasours.

It's something that American's don't want to think about. All we want is cheap gas and more roads, but the world is using more and more oil at an almost exponential rate.

China in about 20 years will use more oil than the WHOLE world does now. Oil is just going to keep getting more and more exspensive because we keep using more and more of it. Supply and demand.

Light cars CAN be made safe. We don't have to ride around in tanks for safety.




RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By NFS4 on 2/27/2006 5:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
Light cars can be made safe, but you can't fight the laws of physics. A buddy of mine was coming home late from work one night on a two lane backroad.

He fell asleep and crossed the center line hitting a pickup truck head on with his 2004 Mini Cooper S (at about 50-60MPH I would assume). He died at the scene and the pickup truck driver walked away.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By TSS on 2/27/2006 6:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
you cant change the laws of physics but you can stay awake behind the wheel. no matter what excuse, if you havea chance of falling asleep while driving, either pull over or dont drive at all.

anyways, this is definatly a good car, if it atleast does what it says it does. looks futuristic too. now all thats left is computer driven cars.


By Mr Perfect on 2/28/2006 3:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, the on-board driving computer has crashed. Expect the rest of the car to follow shortly. Have a nice day.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By smitty3268 on 2/27/2006 6:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
At 50-60mph you're going to be lucky to walk away no matter what you're driving. While heavy vehicles like SUV's might be safer in a head on collision, it would be a mistake to assume they are safer overall. Many, many people die in SUV's all the time, and with small cars you don't have to worry about flipping over if you lose control for a moment or two.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 6:34:06 PM , Rating: 4
Err, no thats not how it works. Assume the driver of a 4000lb vehicle doing 60 mph hits one of these head-on. That's equivalent to them hitting an equal-weight vehicle doing only 15 mph...and anyone can survive that.

For the poor sap in this lightweight car, though, its equivalent to their hitting an equal-weight car at 105 mph...an accident that no one is likely to survive.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By smitty3268 on 2/27/2006 6:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
If I were in a 4000lb vehicle I still wouldn't want to smash into another 4000lb vehicle going 15mph if I were going 60. In fact, I wouldn't want to smash into it if it was parked.

That's assuming that both vehicles are going 60, though. If you thought I was talking about 1 going 60 and the other being parked you would be right.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 7:07:28 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry, you still don't understand the physics here. Its not equivalent to hitting another vehicle doing 15 while you're doing 60...but rather to that of BOTH vehicles doing 15 mph. Or equal to you hitting a tree while doing 15 mph.

To summarize. An F150 @ 60MPH head-on with Loremo @ 60 MPH is equal (for the F150 driver) to hitting a tree while doing 15 MPH. For the Loremo driver, its equivalent to hitting a tree while driving 105 MPH.

Big difference.


By smitty3268 on 2/27/2006 7:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
Or equal to you hitting a tree while doing 15 mph.

Hmm, yes you are right. Assuming that both vehicles absorb an equal amount of the collision, of course, which depends on exactly how they collide and the way in which they are designed. In my defense, I don't think there are too many 1000lb vehicles here in the states, but I suppose that was your point.

Nevertheless, I stand by my original statement, which was: small cars may be less safe in a head on collision, but they can be safer in other ways. For example, you don't have nearly the risk of flipping over if you lose control of the vehicle for a second or two. I was just trying to point out that stats show heavy vehicles really aren't any safer than lighter ones most of the time in real world accidents. There will always be some cases where one is obviously better than the other.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By mindless1 on 2/27/2006 8:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
You are randomly making up nonsense.

No it's not like both doing 15 MPH, and no it's not like anything hitting an immobile object like a typical (medium-large) tree.

The tree is far worse, because it's not just a matter of mass, or mobility of the object but also impact zones. BOTH vehicles absorb a great deal of the impact and this completely negates any of your ideas about X MPH- they're simply, completely invalid.

Most significant in such a crash are that most american trucks still have fixed bumpers on a full frame. Second most significant is not the weight of the smaller car, but rather it's smaller passenger compartment and the force exerted on the driver through the front firewall and windshield no matter what the car had weighed. With a small car even a breakaway steering column may be deadly simply due to distance, not (lack of) weight.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 8:53:53 PM , Rating: 4
Look kid, I'm not making anything up. It's a simple problem in physics. Momentum is conserved, therefore assuming one vehicle of mass x and a second of mass x/5, you have initial p(init) = p(final) = 60(x)- (60(x/5)) = 48(x). Therefore, vehicle A (the heavier one) experiences a delta v of 60-(48)/(6/5) = 20mph, whereas Vehicle B (the lighter one) experiences a delta v of (-60)-40 = 100 mph. Assuming the same dT, the occupants of the smaller vehicle therefore experience 100/20 = five TIMES the g forces as do those in the larger vehicle.

Note this does not take into account crumple zones or any other factors influencible through engineering. However, those factors are-- in a head-on collision between two vehicles of significantly dissimilar mass-- trivial .

Weight wins. Period.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By smitty3268 on 2/27/2006 10:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
Your physics are indeed correct, but I believe the poster above was talking about design. Design is a much more important factor than pure weight, but since both vehicles are presumably well designed then this might even out. And yes, a collision with the tree would be worse, because all of the force is being applied to a small area. If a true head on collision were to occur a much larger area of the vehicle would be available to absorb some of the impact.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 10:55:12 PM , Rating: 3
As I've already shown, design is a factor, but in a head-on crash, mass is THE primary factor. If the mass ratio is large enough in your favor, design is totally unimportant...you won't experience enough of deceleration to even notice the crash. Design can only do so much, and it can't circumvent basic laws of physics.

As for a collision with a tree or other small object
"concentrating" force-- here is a situation where design can prevail. The very best case is a occupant cage strong enough to withstand crumpling entirely, and to communicate the force of impact equally across all points. You can't do better than this; the energy has to go somewhere. It is this best-case scenario to which I was comparing collision energies. If you wish, substitute a "fixed, immoval barrier" for the word "tree".


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By smitty3268 on 2/28/2006 1:28:14 AM , Rating: 2
If the mass ratio is large enough in your favor, design is totally unimportant...

Agreed, but a 4-1 mass ratio isn't that large, all things considered. Especially if you allow the car with lower mass to be made of a different material - one that is lighter and stronger, and no doubt more expensive. Not that I'm saying that is the case here (I don't know) but a 4-1 mass ratio can easily be overcome if it needed to be.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2006 9:36:02 AM , Rating: 3
A 4-1 mass ratio is huge, about equivalent to a full-size car colliding with a dump truck. And for the Loremo, a 4-1 ratio isn't the worst case...if it strikes a large SUV or pickup, it can be 6-1 or more.

As for "stronger materials" overcoming this difference, its you're still missing the point. Even assuming infinitely strong materials, the occupants of the lighter vehicle are STILL being subjected to several times the g forces. A much lighter vehicle striking a heavier one gets thrown backwards, violently so. You experience an impulse acceleration of several hundred g's...strong enough to break bones and damage internal organs, even if the occupant cage experiences no failure whatsoever.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By mindless1 on 3/1/2006 3:39:54 AM , Rating: 2
you haven't shown anything, except that you can't wrap your head around more than simplistic concepts. You are the "kid" here.

Fact is, tiny cars are crash-tested into almost immovable dozen ton barriers. That alone makes your simplistic concept completely void. Unlike what a prior poster suggested, having both vehicles designed to absorb shock is not any kind of equalization, on the contrary is a HUGE benefit.

Yes, the smaller vehicle, even the larger one are subjected to very significant forces. Nobody has argued otherwise, only that your ideas about it are completely wrong.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 8:52:04 AM , Rating: 4
> "Fact is, tiny cars are crash-tested into almost immovable dozen ton barriers"
Lol, you still don't get it. The mass of the barrier is irrelevant...the important point is the barrier is immovable . That in itself changes the dynamic totally...and thats the ENTIRE reason crash tests are done against fixed barriers. It removes the mass of the vehicle from the equation. Because the barrier is fixed, its momentum-- both before and after the crash-- is zero. Therefore the only momentum involved is that of the tested vehicle itself.

Against a fixed barrier, a half-ton mini-car can (and usually does) score better than a 10 ton truck. Are you actually naive enough to believe that, should the two collide head-on, that the mini-car would still "win"?

Answer, please.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By Snarfy on 3/7/2006 5:20:44 AM , Rating: 2
Dood, Mindless, i tkinda fits your name. Uhh and Masher, what's wrong with you? The kid obviously doesn't understand his physics, no need to humiliate him... Come to think of it, 90% of this thread has been an intellectual d1c|< measuring contest... What's up with that...


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By mindless1 on 3/7/2006 5:54:40 PM , Rating: 1
Clueless one, here's how it is:

Masher has a simplistic concept of the world. he knows a simple monkey trick, a calculation, but that doesn't mean he knows enough physics to see that one cannot arbitrarily reject everything except a simplistic "mass is everything" argument.

I know to do the calcs if there were applicable. You fail to see it's not intelligence that leads one down a tangent as masher has done, it's inability to grasp the larger picture, that there is not only one variable (mass).

Anyone foolish enough to think there is only one variable is completely ignoring all the engineering that has gone into crash safety over the past few dozen years!


By masher2 (blog) on 3/7/2006 7:24:54 PM , Rating: 3
> "Anyone foolish enough to think there is only one variable..."

I see your reading comprehension is as poor as your understanding of physics. I have stated numerous times that vehicle design and other factors exist, but that mass is, in a head-on collision, the primary factor. Do you know what the word "primary" means? Its usage alone implies the existence of other factors, even had I not troubled to explicitly name some.

The most common type of accident involves only a single vehicle, and in this case, good design is paramount. But in a head-on collision involving vehicles of substantially different mass (note the disclaimer, please), design plays a backseat role. If the best-designed and safest one-ton car collides with a 50-ton truck-- the truck wins. Period. No matter how poorly its designed...even if it lacks so much as a seat belt.

Now, do you finally understand? Somehow I doubt it.



By Scrogneugneu on 2/27/2006 8:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely right, when you crash in a 1000 lbs car while driving a 4000 lbs SUV, you have much better chance to survive, and you're safer.


However, if everyone thinks the same way, then every crash is gonna be 4000 lbs vs 4000 lbs, thus it won't be any safer than any 1000 lbs vs 1000 lbs collision. In fact it would be worst.


So, ultimately... we're all better off driving small cars :)


By smitty3268 on 2/27/2006 10:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's obvious we all need to start driving 20 ton semis and monster trucks...


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By gamara on 2/28/2006 2:30:32 AM , Rating: 2
Your very wrong yourself. If you hit a 1000 LB car that is parked with your F150 at 60, how is that like hitting another F150 at 15? Now put both in motion and your even further off. Its nice to put assumptions of mass and velocity and the energy of the collision being the same, but the reaction of those energies are very different in these 2 cases. I would MUCH rather be in a 15 vs 15 MPH F150 vs F150 accident than a single F150 vs anything 1000 lbs at 60. Every accident is different since you can't accidentally collide exactly the same way every time. So pull your head out of your physics text and realize in the real world you will only make an ass of your self if you assume its perfect.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2006 9:42:34 AM , Rating: 4
> " If you hit a 1000 LB car that is parked with your F150 at 60, how is that like hitting another F150 at 15?"

I explained how, with very simple mathematics. Go back and read it.

> "Every accident is different since you can't accidentally collide exactly the same way every time."

Of course, which is why we compare RELATIVE dangers by assuming a perfect head-on collision. Factors such as like rollover, partially-elastic collisions, oblique impact angles, occupant cage failure, etc don't affect this relative situation. They make some accidents worse, some better...but the primary relationship of mass ratios dominates in a head-on collision.


By Burning Bridges on 3/1/2006 8:53:15 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, most SUVs have very weak body work. However, the chassis is often constructed from heavy steel bars (to support the wieght) these are the real danger as the will peirce right through any car that a SUV might hit.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By tonjohn on 2/27/2006 6:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
You guys need to read this if you think small, light cars are less safe...

Crash Testing: MINI Cooper vs Ford F150
http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINIC...


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 6:56:28 PM , Rating: 2
Um, you just don't understand the context of a "crash test". Its done against a fixed barrier, which NEGATES the weight differential of vehicles. If a Ford F150 head-on's a Mini Cooper at any reasonable speed-- the Cooper loses. Period. The MC driver dies horribly, while F150 driver will (usually) walk away untouched).

A larger vehicle is not inherently "safer", especially when you factor in accidents involving only a single vehicle...but in a multi-car collision, the heaviest man wins.




RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By tonjohn on 2/27/2006 7:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
Most major car accidents involve stationary objects. The MC is a safer car in most cases.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 7:24:26 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, for 2002 at least, the worst 3 vehicles for driver deaths were all subcompacts. Overall, trucks and SUVs will do slightly worse than cars of the same size, simply due to their higher center of gravity.

In a crash test, weight doesn't matter. In the real world, it most certainly does.


By haelduksf on 2/27/2006 7:11:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yes...and you're more likely to be in one of these collisions if you're driving a tugboat like an F-150.

If you look up the "deaths per capita" figures that the US Gov. puts out every year, you'll notice that most of the top 10 are pickups and SUVs.


By xsilver on 3/6/2006 5:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
but if the other driver was also driving a mini -- there would have been a greater chance of survival -- the problem here is that everybody thinks that getting bigger cars will protect them -- it is true, but you may also be putting others at risk


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By clubok on 2/27/2006 10:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Like it or not, eventually the dinasour guzzeling cars we drive today are going to become dinasours.


Not until/unless one of three things change: Family sizes get smaller, US laws regarding child car seats are changed, or child seats are redesigned to take up much less space.

Back in the "old days," you could stick three kids in the back seat of a mid-sized car - no problem, except for the inevitable fights that would ensue when one encroached upon the other's space. (I was the smallest, so I always got to sit on the hump.) Now, a family with three children needs either a large SUV or a minivan - even a mini-SUV won't do. You simply can't fit three car seats there.

This also makes it a lot harder to do carpooling. My neighbor can't give my kid a ride, because their car doesn't have the car seat installed.


By Fricardo on 2/27/2006 11:43:32 PM , Rating: 1
Regardless, this is a ZERO SUM GAME. Yes, having a car more massive than the other guy will help you out in a crash, but it hurts him. If people keep getting bigger and bigger cars just to be bigger than the other guy, there is no net benefit. Concurrently, there is no net problem (simply from a mass perspective) if everyone switched to lighter cars.


By WhipperSnapper on 2/28/2006 7:36:36 AM , Rating: 2

Two words: Peak Oil

It's possible that we might be lucky to have enough gasoline to even drive those cars. I'll leave it at that.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2006 9:43:31 AM , Rating: 2
Peak Oil is a long-discredited fraud. Move along.


By WhipperSnapper on 2/28/2006 1:05:59 PM , Rating: 2

How so? Are you suggesting that we have an almost unlimitted amount of oil or that the oil gets replenished? When you combine the decreasing amount of oil available with population explosion and increased industrialization in the third world, it seems as though the demand for oil will only increase relative to supply.

I'm in this too; I hope you're correct and that I'm wrong. What is your response to the content of this website?

http://www.LifeAfterTheOilCrash.net



RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2006 1:31:29 PM , Rating: 1
You misunderstand what Peak Oil really suggests. Obviously petroleum is a natural resource and will eventually be exhausted. Peak Oil goes much further than this, though, claiming that oil production will be forced down despite increasing demand, and cause a premature crisis long before oil is actually exhausted.

The fallacy is based on a misunderstanding of historical logistic curves. Every resource eventually experiences declining production. Scarcity causes price rises, which both drive down demand, and make other alternatives economic. Eventually, prices drive down demand, and production declines....a pattern repeated historically countless times.

Peak Oil puts the cart before the horse, however. The claim is that production is somehow willy-nilly forced down DESPITE rising demand, simply to fit a curve to past history. However, all past 'peaks' in resource production were driven from the demand side...not production.

Hubbert theory predicted reasonably well the US production decline. However, that was in a period in which lower-cost imports began to dominate. The "peak" came and went without any drop in global production, nor a drop in US demand. No crisis. Hubbert theory applied globally has failed many times, predicting a peak in the late-1990s, again in early 2000s, and the latest somewhere between 2008 and 2012. HT also predicted "peaks" that never came for the former USSR, Saudi Arabia, and many other nations.

With every failure, the Hubbertites go back to their figures, mumble a bit, and come up with a new prediction...along with a bagful of excuses of why THIS time their prediction is accurate. But the basic premise is flawed. Hubbert Theory works ONLY in the absence of any technological advances, new finds, and geopolitical factors. Factors that exist in the real world.

Hubbert Theory applied globally is like looking at Newton's Law of Inertia, and then claiming cars should all get infinite MPG, because once set in motion, they'll never stop. But in modelling car mileage, you can't ignore the friction factors....and in modelling global oil production, you certainly can't ignore all the factors Hubbert Theory does.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 2/28/2006 4:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
Your posting does not accurately represent the danger that peak oil presents. All resources are exhausted and follow a logistics curve. What Hubbert determined is that petroleum production lags the discovery curve in an oil province. The single most important variables is the ultimated recoverable reserves. The most agreed upon number is 2 trillion and we have (as at dec 2005) produced about 1 trillion. This means we are on the peak.

Now peak oil does not mean that there is no more oil, it just means that there is no more cheap oil. In order to get oil we have spend more money and energy to get the oil. What you don't understand is that when you "burn" energy to get energy, you get to a break even point when it no longer pays to extract the oil (I would not use 1 gallon of oil to extract .9 gallon of oil). That is the point - its the energy ratio.

Additionally if oil continues to get more and more expensive, the layers of service that our society is built upon start to break down because they are reliant on a certain cost structure. It also has an inflationary effect.

Now I also saw your posting about cost liquification - thats just a load of bull - we cannot even hope to extract coal from the ground fast enough to match our current oil/energy requirements. Likewise with ethanol, etc, etc.

As car ownership is threatened (by less people being able to afford fuel) so will affordability - its a nasty scenario that is only affected at the margins by high MPG vehicles.

PS Hubbert Theory has correctly predicted the production curves in all major oil provinces. Your example of Russia is wrong - they hit their peak at the time of the FSU breakup and consequent failure of their oil infrastructure - they basically left oil in the ground. The current crowd there is getting this oil but they are still in decline.

Watch Saudi Arabia - when they go into decline then the world is in decline.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2006 5:11:22 PM , Rating: 1
> "This means we are on the peak... "

Lol, which peak? The 'first' global peak, predicted by Hubbert himself, was for 1995-1997. The next "peak"-- predicted when that failed to pass, was 2000-2002. The latest I heard ( from the Leherre crowd) was the 2008-12 timeframe.

> "Your example of Russia is wrong - they hit their peak at the time of the FSU breakup "

The FSU's production declined after the breakup, and continued to decline for almost a decade afterwards. However, its been increasing sharply every year since 1999, and is now almost back up to Soviet-era levels, an effect wholly unexplained by peak oil fanatics.

Here, let me quote something that might give you a bit of historical perspective:

At regularly recurring intervals in the quarter of a century that I have been following the ins and outs of the oil business, there has always arisen the bugaboo of an approaching oil famine, with plenty of individuals ready to prove that the commercial supply of crude oil would become exhausted within a given time — usually only a few years distant...

The source? The Oil Trade Journal. The Date? 1918...nearly ONE HUNDRED YEARS ago.

Since 1965, the world has found five barrels of oil for every three we've consumed. Despite those forty years of rising demand, we now have MORE proven oil reserves than we did then. In fact, in the past five years, exploration has slowed down sharply. Why? Because our reserves are so large, its just not economic to explore for more at this time.

Let's take another example of why Hubbert theory is fatally flawed. In 1942, California's Kern River oilfield was estimated to hold a remaining 54 million barrels of oil. However, over the next 50 years, it produced not 54 million barrels, but 740 million barrels. And, at the end of that period, was THEN estimated to still hold another 970 million barrels!

What changed? Technology. A process that continues today...the past decade alone has seen petroleum advances that have substantially boosted our ability to produce oil from existing fields....essentially creating new oil out of thin air.

Hubbert theory relies on the ability to accurately estimate total reserves. But URR is, even in the absence of new finds, a highly dynamic figure that depends on politics, economics, and of course technological progress.



RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 2/28/2006 6:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
> Lol, which peak?

Global Peak. As for scoffing at Hubberts claim of 1996 as peak - its not too shabby as he made that prediction in the twenty years prior. Also pretty good considering consumption dropoff as a result of 1979/1980 consumption dropoff.

> almost back up to Soviet-era levels

Haha - only you (and madmen) are claiming that FSU is going to exceed their peak production. They are improving their recovery in Samotlor and romashkino but thats it.

> ... Kern River oilfield

How much does it produce today? Oh, you forgot to mention that inconvenient fact.

> What changed? Technology. A process that continues today...

The bigger the straw does not necessarily mean greatly expanded reserves. Notice how the UK is poised to become a net oil importer - all that fancy EOR technology has not stopped the production decline of about 8%. You can bet they are not replacing reserves at that rate.

>exploration has slowed down sharply. Why? Because our reserves are so large, its just not economic to explore for more at this time.

What nonsense - why is BP scratching in the oil shales when there is *SO* much oil out there? Dunno - its all that magical oil just waiting to be found.

No doubt there is oil to be found but at current and expected demand levels, they had better be finding oil provinces the size of the middle east, not some piddling prudhoe bays.

>Hubbert theory relies on the ability to accurately estimate total reserves. But URR is, ...

So in essence you are doing the: The facts are uncertain so lets carry on as before routine - the same nonsense that the current US administration uses to justify doing nothing about AGW. Sorry - thats why we actually need leadership and not a bunch of slimy panderers.



RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/06, Rating: 0
RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 2/28/2006 8:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
> 7.3 MBD to 11.1 MBD

You are talking bull. The Peak of Russian production was 11.1MB (around 1982 - 1990). Current production is around 9. The Soviets raped their super-giants and the break in production clearly reflects this.

http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/44/russia_produc...

> It produces 570,000 barrels

Again - your numbers are bogus. The water cut at Kern is 89.7% (http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200407/0068.html). The production is in steep decline. Great - next example.

> n essence you are saying, "we have no proof, but lets scream

Uh - you might have noticed that there is a great deal of volatility as well as oil incremental price run-ups. This, while not compelling (re. peak oil), is indicative of a supply squeeze. If there is all this oil demand - where is the supply? That is what you fail to address, again and again. Its nice to try and knock holes in my argument but your "evidence" is certainly not compelling. At least I err on the side of caution - you resemble the ostrich and the preverbial hole in the ground.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 10:41:17 AM , Rating: 1
> "You are talking bull. The Peak of Russian production was 11.1MB (around 1982 - 1990). Current production is around 9"

Once again, you're wrong. Soviet high production was 12.053 MBD (source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t41c.xls). Current RUSSIAN production is around 9 MBD/day...but that doesn't include the rest of the FSU such as Kazakstan, Azerbaijan, etc. For the entire FSU, production for all of 2005 averaged 11.6 MBD, and for the last quarter, hit 12 MBD/day. (source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/3tab.html)

My figures are correct. FSU crude production "peaked", and declined sharply...but has now risen back to past levels. An inconvenient fact wholly unexplained by Hubbert theory.

You're wrong. Deal wth it, kid.

> Again - your numbers are bogus...

Lol, my figures aren't bogus. From the Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce:

"Kern County produces 77percent of California’s crude oil, approximately 570,000 barrels of oil per day , and 82 percent of the state’s onshore production. This represents ten percent of the nation’s oil production and one percent of the total world’s production."

(source: http://www.bakersfieldchamber.org/petroleum.asp)

The production is in steep decline. Great - next example.

A 7% annual drop isn't exactly "steep decline", not for a field that was predicted to run out of oil fifty years ago. If all oil fields outperform like Kern has, we have over 20 TIMES as much oil as current reserves indicate, and enough petroleum to last thousands of years.

Great example, I agree. A field originally estimated to contain only 50 million barrels has already produced close to one BILLION barrels...and even after that, is still estimated to hold another 500 million barrels. And, as technology advances, that "fixed" reserve amount will rise still further.



RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 3/1/2006 11:40:52 AM , Rating: 2
A couple of points, granddad!

Since you are changing the subject back (from Russia to FSU) I will look into those numbers. The EIA has the reputation of being rather "optimistic" in its numbers - similar to the blue sky estimates of the USGS.

Why are you obsessing with Kern County oil province? Its below GOM and East Texas! (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/dat...) And, yes, a decline of 7% is huge. Additionally the water cut of 89% means that the field is very mature and that you need to pump in 9l of water to get 1l of oil. Additionally the oil out of this field is heavy and needs steam to get it out. Come on - this is nasty example - why not talk about the East Texas field, or Prudho bay. That Kern field is mature and its dying fast.

Maybe next you will show that the US is about to reverse its overall decline and start increasing production!!

LOL - that will be funny - lots of vigorous arm waving.


By triphop on 3/1/2006 11:52:19 AM , Rating: 2
If you have an open mind, there is a great post on the www.thoildrum.com that lays out the case why we are most likely at peak right now. Obviously there is some doubt like there is about everything. But its an interesting read:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/3/1/3402/6342...


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 12:25:32 PM , Rating: 1
> "Since you are changing the subject back (from Russia to FSU) I will look into those numbers. "

Nice attempt at saving face, but I never "changed the subject" in the first place. My first post and every subsequent one mentioned FSU specifically. Your figures were wrong, plain and simple. And the phenomena of massive increases in FSU oil production-- long AFTER their predicted peak-- is simply not explained by Hubbert Theory. Nor are the many global peaks that failed to show up, nor the US LNG peak that Hubbert predicted for the the 1990s (we now produce 2.4X his "mathematically certain" highest possible level).

Peak Oil is a fraud, based on misapplication of logistics curves and a misnderstanding of basic history.


> "Why are you obsessing with Kern County oil province? "

Easy answer. Because it is just one of the MANY oilfields that far outproduced its stated reserves. And, since Hubbert Theory relies upon reserve figures being accurate, fields like Kern are just another nail in the coffin.

Once again-- if all oilfields perform like Kern, then we have 20 times or more the oil that our URR figures suggest. THAT is why the Kern example is relevant.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 3/1/2006 12:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
Look at the arm waving - "Because we managed to get this one oil field to produce for a long time, we avoid peak oil"

The field is declining as is the whole production of the US. There is nothing we can do to reverse short of finding 2-3 prudhoe bays right now.

Whats next? Abiotic oil? Jeez - you are a joke.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 12:46:52 PM , Rating: 1
Look at the arm waving - "Because we managed to get this one oil field to produce for a long time, we avoid peak oil"

Do you now feel the need to lie and distort to save face? My position is more accurately "Because we have consistently failed to EVER accurately estimate URR values, our current global estimates are similarly unreliable. And therefore, Hubbert Theory, which is based entirely upon URR accuracy, is likewise flawed.

Not that this is the only problem with Hubbert Theory, of course...but its a major one.

BTW, still waiting for your reply on the FSU situation. Your figures were wrong as you've admitted. So how do you explain their massive increases in production? After that, explain why the predicted past global peaks all failed to materialize. Then explain the US LNG peak (still rising 20 years later), and all the other failed predictions of Peak Oil.

Then, if you manage that magic trick, explain why you still believe in this fraud of Peak Oil.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 3/1/2006 1:00:01 PM , Rating: 2
Hubbert linearization, while an approximation, does not rely on URR. It accurately demonstrated US production declines (which you continue to ignore [oddly enough]). Thats while models are called models - they model. Just like climate models, etc. Again you focus on only one set of data (FSU/Russian not sure which one you are switching to this time around)

I do not have the time right now to dig into the numbers but the DOE numbers for FSU 2005 look suspect (and still do not exceed the peak production but are close).

Since you did not comment on the link I provided (odd that? Could it be that it contains inconvenient facts) [

1. There's a very good chance claimed OPEC reserves are exaggerated
2. World production stopped increasing in late 2004.
3. Decline rates of existing production are very high
4. Hubbert Linearization points to peak oil
5. At least one major oil company is warning us
6. The price of oil keeps going up.
7. There is no evidence of Saudi spare capacity
8. There are geopolitical and climatic risks to the existing production level

Not that I expect you address any of this - just keep waving the arms, pointing away into the distance.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 1:14:38 PM , Rating: 1
> "It accurately demonstrated US production declines (which you continue to ignore [oddly enough]). "

Ignore? Learn to read-- I mentioned it in my first post. But, as I pointed out, the US "decline" was not due to any innate shortage, but rather the abundance of cheap imports, from nations without our environmental regulations on exploring and drilling. And this "peak" came and went without any crisis...just like all past historical peaks.

The one ignoring inconvenient facts here is you. You've repeatedly ignored Hubbert Theory's past failed predictions for the FSU, Saudi Arabia, US LNG, and the world as a whole. Why do you keep running from the issue, eh?

> "2. World production stopped increasing in late 2004. "

Once again-- wipe that egg off your face. 2004 production was 83.044 MBD. The average for 2005 was 83.979 MDB.

That's an increase, in case your math skills are as challenged as your reading comprehension.



RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 3/1/2006 1:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
> But, as I pointed out, the US "decline" was not due to any innate shortage

Bull - the only reason we are importing is because we cannot produce enough to supply our needs. WE ARE A DECLINING OIL PROVINCE - accept it.

>wipe that egg off your face. 2004 production was 83.044 MBD. The average for 2005 was 83.979 MDB.

What part about **LATE 2004** do you not understand?


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 1:31:08 PM , Rating: 1
> "What part about **LATE 2004** do you not understand? "

You never tire of embarrassing yourself, do you? Late 2004 was December, with a production of 83.714 MBD. Thats still BELOW the average of 83.979 for 2005, and significantly below the record high hit in May 2005 of 84.642 MBD.

Now, what part about "global oil production did NOT stop increasing in late 2004" do you fail to understand?


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 3/1/2006 1:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
Granted, but looking at the data:

As of right now, production has been flat-but-bumpy since late 2004. The peak month of production is presently May 2005. This is true despite high oil prices giving strong incentives to produce more oil. Lack of refinery capacity is often cited as an alternative explanation for this. If this were true, heavy hard-to-refine oil would be cheap. It isn't.



By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 1:55:14 PM , Rating: 1
Lol, this is just too amusing. In true Hubbert fanatic fashion, just minutes after your "late 2004" peak was disproved, you seize upon "May 2005" as the new figure. What will you say when we beat that figure in a few more months...just as we have dozens of times in the past decade?.

Petroleum production is a cyclic business. The "bumpy" nature you point out has existed since the 1880s. But the overall trend is rising...and has been for just as long. There is no peak coming in the near future. The sky isn't falling. Yes oil production will eventually "peak" (though it'll be our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will likely see it, not us). But that peak will NOT entail any crisis.

And it will happen due to decreased DEMAND, not inavailability of supply. Just as it did countless times in the past, for countless other natural resources.




RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 3/1/2006 2:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
> In true Hubbert fanatic fashion, just minutes after your "late 2004" peak was disproved, you seize upon "May 2005" as the new figure.

Ah, in a world of continuing demand, the production picture does not look good. We have not produced more oil than 1 year ago and you claim there is nothing to worry about?

When do you think we should start worrying? 2 years with now sustained production increase? 3 years?

>But the overall trend is rising...and has been for just as long. There is no peak coming in the near future.

And I am the fanatic? We have cantarell peaking, Indonesia is now a net importer, US sliding down, Iran past peak, the Burgan field peaking. The number of non-declining producers are growing thin indeed.

>But that peak will NOT entail any crisis.

Is that an article of faith? Tell that to numerous civilizations that have experienced resource shortfalls.

When do we start moving aggressively on this? I am not talking about fiddling on the margins. The Hirsch report (http://www.hilltoplancers.org/stories/hirsch0502.p...) quite clearly says that mitigation needs to be started well in advance (15 - 20 years) with the assumption of 2-5% declines.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 2:35:46 PM , Rating: 1
> "Ah, in a world of continuing demand, the production picture does not look good"

Long-term, it certainly doesn't. That still doesn't prove Peak Oil...quite the opposite, in fact.

> "When do you think we should start worrying?"

When we see demand levels above supply for more than a 90 day window.

> "And I am the fanatic?"

Yes, sorry. You're screaming the sky is falling on zero evidence. We have reserves good for another fifty years and-- if history holds true-- those reserves will dramatically expand once the need is there.

> "Tell that to numerous civilizations that have experienced resource shortfalls."

I'm glad you brought this up. The most famous example of this-- and one often errroneously used to "prove" Peak Oil-- is Easter Island. Unfortunately, it dicredits the theory quite soundly. While resource consumption did lead to the downfall of their civilization, production did not follow anything at all resembling a Hubbert curve. Archeological evidence shows massive, increasing production...right up to the very end.

You really need to go back and read what Peak Oil is all about. I think you believe its something its not. Yes, oil production will eventually peak. Obviously. Peak Oil is, however, still a fraud.



RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 3/1/2006 2:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
> Long-term, it certainly doesn't. That still doesn't prove Peak Oil

We cannot sustain production it *IS* peak oil.

> When we see demand levels above supply for more than a 90 day window.

When that happens, it won't a case of worrying - it will be a recession - plain and simple.

> You're screaming the sky is falling on zero evidences

No screaming and you still fail to address the other observations in my prior posting.

> Easter Island.

Easter Island is a good example of a resource shortfall (don't start "quoting" me again). The difference between wood and oil is that oil is hidden below the surface whereas wood is quite plainly there to be seen. But that is not that only example: The Mayans, Sumerians, Greenland vikings all failed due to resource shortfalls.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/2/28/21235/14... is a great article that basically lays out how we are continuing to *NOT* replace our reserves. By a factor of 1:6.5 - not too sustainable.



By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 3:24:20 PM , Rating: 1
> "We cannot sustain production it *IS* peak oil. "

You don't have the slightest idea what Peak Oil really is. It is NOT just claiming oil production will eventually peak and decline. It is claiming that peak is highly predictable based upon just one single factor-- total recoverable reserves. Furthermore, its claiming the peak will occur very near the midpoint of total production, irrespective of technological advances or geopolitical or other factors. Learn about your subject before you try to defend it. You'll do better.

Actually, on second thought, you won't. The more one learns about Peak Oil, the less one is able to support it.

> "Easter Island is a good example of a resource shortfall "

And a good example of why Hubbert Theory doesn't work in the real world. There was no magical "peak" long before the wood was exhausted...they maintained high levels of production, right up to the very end.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 3/1/2006 3:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
>It is NOT just claiming oil production will eventually peak and decline.

And what I said (in mangled English) is that we will know that we are at peak when we cannot sustain our production. As to the rest: its that imaginary conversation again.

>And a good example of why Hubbert Theory doesn't work in the real world.

Uh - no one claimed that it was an example of a Hubbert Peak - remember I was talking about resource shortfalls.

Damn that reading.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 3:58:00 PM , Rating: 1
> Uh - no one claimed [Easter Island] was an example of a Hubbert Peak

Good god man, wake up! Easter Island has been claimed as "proof" by Hubbertites countless times. Look on PeakOil.com and you will find over four HUNDRED references to Easter Island.

Of course, as both you and I realize, Easter Island doesn't prove Hubbert Theory. Its an example of how it doesn't work, in fact.


By triphop on 3/1/2006 4:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
Please provide some references for that. I have only seen where it is provided as an example of a resource shortfall. I have read both of Diamonds works and nowhere does he mention Hubberts peak.


Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By 03Mini on 2/28/2006 8:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
With the weight of the vehicle and bumper ratings I doubt you'll see this here.

Don't forget that the evil oil companies will buy these up so that they don't go out of business. :-) (Black Helicopter moment: OVER)

Masher2 you're a breath of fresh air. He's correct in that it's much easier to blame large vehicles than it is to actually think and analyze the data. Energy use is relative. But I know, thinking is hard.

You show me a 74 Volvo with a "Save Mother Earth" bumper sticker and I'll show you a blue cloud of smoke and a puddle of oil under it.

The Environmentalist movement has very little to do with wanting a clean environment. I hate to make you all grow up with that - but it's true.





RE: Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By mindless1 on 3/1/2006 3:48:29 AM , Rating: 2
It's much easier to draw the correct conclusion about anything, than to make up nonsense. Fact is, we can see every day the vast majority of people driving these large fuel-hungry vehicles are not using them in any conservative way, than no matter what they like to think about themselves, they have chosen to waste gas, increase pollution.

"Think", "analyze data"? You're confused, the data is the MPG rating on the sticker or more accurate real-world measurements. One cannot just claim they drive smart and suddenly it matters since those buying the gas-conserving vehicles are certainly not doing so to wastefully drive.


By triphop on 3/1/2006 9:03:11 AM , Rating: 2
The previous poster was funny:

He first defines environmentalists as being polluters, etc and then he rails against them. High school debating trick really.

People often through out these red herrings to justify their own wasteful behaviour: Hey, look, those "greens" waste so much, therefore it is ok for me to do the same.

meh.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 9:28:50 AM , Rating: 2
> You show me a 74 Volvo with a "Save Mother Earth" bumper sticker and I'll show you a blue cloud of smoke and a puddle of oil under it...

Just so. There are far too many people out there driving their poorly-maintained small cars 500 or even 1000 miles a week, and thinking they're "saving the environment". Many of them the same people responsible for blocking nuclear power generation, thereby ensuring we keep decades-old coal burning plants fouling the atmosphere.




RE: Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By triphop on 3/1/2006 10:08:31 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, come on. Firstly you define them and then you condemn them. And now you conflate them with people who are anti-nuclear. It adds nothing to the conversation and its *very* disingenous.

You need to stop tilting at windmills of your own imagining.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 10:18:15 AM , Rating: 2
> "And now you conflate them with people who are anti-nuclear."

Lol, are you actually trying to claim with a straight face that the environmental movement hasn't been a force blocking nuclear power for the past 30 years? Stop embarrassing yourself.


RE: Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By triphop on 3/1/2006 10:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, a significant number do oppose nuclear power, but many also support it. I refer you to people like James Lovelock and his ilk. Personally I am all for Nuclear power along side a whole range of renewable power sources. Tarring a whole group with such a large brush only damages your vision.

But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of you imaginings.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 11:14:05 AM , Rating: 2
The same James Lovelock that campaigned against nuclear power for almost forty years? Sure he changed his mind about nuclear power a few years ago...but what about the rest of the environmental movement? Let me quote:

[Lovelock's call to embrace nuclear power] will cause huge disquiet for the environmental movement...it has always regarded opposition to nuclear power as an article of faith. Last night the leaders of both Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth rejected his call...

...Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said last night. "he's wrong to think nuclear power is any part of the answer"...

Name ONE major environmental group that supports nuclear power. Greenpeace, WWF, EDC, the Green Party, Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, Earth First, the list goes on. They are ALL againt nuclear power...and have been the primary force blocking it for decades.





RE: Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By triphop on 3/1/2006 11:46:55 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=322

Next? Come on - surely you have heard of google, or do you want an explanation Granddad?

Anyway I am not representing any environmental group just like you are not representing any anti-environment group (are you?).


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 12:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
> "Next? ..."

Whoa, buddy, you can't move to the next until you name the first. Which you haven't done. I ask you again, name one major environmental group that isn't stridently against nuclear power.

Your link names a few radical independents. Lovelock...who I already replied to. Patrick Moore, a man universeally reviled by the environmental movement, from the day he left Greenpeace over 30 years ago. Oh, and Hugh Montefiore, who is not only DEAD at present, but who was forced to resign from the board of Friends of the Earth BECAUSE of his support of nuclear power. Wipe that egg off your face now, will you?

Your attempts to suggest the opinions of these few radicals as being in any way characteristic of the environmental movement as a whole are just plain silly. Every major environmental group, and 99 out of 100 publicly quoted environmentalists are rock solid against nuclear power. Furthermore, they are THE single most important barrier to the spread of nuclear power today. Period.


RE: Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By triphop on 3/1/2006 12:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
Now you want Stridently against Nuclear Power? Do you always change the terms of the discussion? Its very dishonest and its transparent. Remember the discussion - I plainly stated that conflating Nuclear Opposition with Environmentalist is dishonest (but characteristic of your debating style).

Remember that one can be environmentalist and be pro-Nuclear power, just as one can be pro-gun and still not be a drolling idiot.

That was my point before you went off on this tangent - try and stay on target...


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 1:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
> Do you always change the terms of the discussion?...I plainly stated that conflating Nuclear Opposition with Environmentalist is dishonest..

Look, take a deep breath and try to think clearly for once. My pointing out that every major environmental group is against nuclear power IS disproving your point. The environmentalist movement is stridently against nuclear power, and "conflating" them with the Nuclear Opposition is simple, honest truth. Period.

Of course, if you can't even admit you confused Russia with the FSU, you certainly won't admit this obvious truth.


RE: Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By triphop on 3/1/2006 1:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
What you are using is called a logical fallacy:

Every member of an Environmental Organization is an environmentalist

DOES NOT MEAN

Every evironmentalist is a member of an Environmental Organization.

I might need to hold my breath - you need to engage your cranial matter.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 1:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly, its hard to stop laughing long enough to even reply. You need to stop and read what you're actually posting. The environmental movement is against nuclear power, plain and simple. Stridently so, in fact.

And the mere presence of a few radicals doesn't disprove this. In fact, it helps demonstrate it...since those radicals were shut out of the mainsteam movement BECAUSE of their support of nuclear power.

Can you find ONE person in the world, somewhere, who calls themself an environmentalist and who also supports nuclear power. Sure. Does that one counterexample prove anything? No, of course not. It's a fringe example...and such a person would be loudly shouted down in any environmentalist rally anywhere in the world.

I'm sure you can find an 'environmentalist' somewhere in the world who doesn't want endangered species protected. Or one who favors unrestricted polluting by coal-fired plants. Does that mean the MOVEMENT supports these? Not hardly.


RE: Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By triphop on 3/1/2006 1:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
it was you that started talking about the Environmental Movement and no-one else. If you like to argue against strawman position you set-up then go ahead. If you go back and read what I wrote you should have no problem with my position. If, however, you wish to do otherwise - go ahead, but do not ascribe that position to me.

agreed?


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 1:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
> "If you go back and read what I wrote you should have no problem with my position"

I read it. First, you claimed I was "tarring the environmental movement with a large brush" by pointing out their opposition to nuclear power. Then you claimed that my "conflating" environmentalist with nuclear power opposition was a lie.

Now you seem to have realized your error, and have shifted to the fallback position that I'm right, but that I "unfairly changed the subject". It's a bit hard to keep up with all your waffling, however, so if this is incorrect, please let me know.


RE: Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By triphop on 3/1/2006 1:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
Nice quote there - except its not what I wrote - try and read it again.