backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 90 comment(s) - last by FITCamaro.. on Jul 17 at 10:59 AM


Not since the days of oil barons, portrayed here by Daniel Day Lewis in recent epic "There Will Be Blood", has oil been so lucrative.  (Source: Miramax)
Oil companies take 7 of top ten global most profitable spots, tech industry contributors also reap rewards

Imagine someone comes up to you on the street and starts talking about what fortunate economic weather the last few months have brought -- they've been able to buy a fleet of sports cars, a palatial mansion in a tropical paradise, and are sending their children to best schools in the country.  If someone made such claims in today's battered economy, they might sound ready for a trip to the local mental ward.  However for a fortunate few, the atmosphere today certainly is this and more.


Those few are the major oil companies and the companies that do business with big oil.  There are many popular misconceptions about big oil.  One is that the companies aren't profitable.  Fortune released its list of the most profitable companies in the world and 7 of the top 10 were major oil companies, including the top spot.  Of these, 5 out of 7 were companies with major holdings in the U.S.

The myth that oil isn't creating huge profits is a favorable one for these companies, who fear their exclusive elite status in the business world may make them a tax target.  The myth may have some rather skewed basis in reality, in that the profit margins (net income, including tax, over net sales revenue) are not as high as some companies.  However, the fact is that oil companies commodity deal in a commodity that has become worth so much, this they don't have to have a large profit margin to make epic profits -- they simply have to sell.

Getting to the Fortune list, topping it is oil giant Exxon Mobile.  Exxon, also the second largest company in the world made a modest $40B USD in profits.  One figure that jumps out when comparing Exxon to the world's largest company, retailer Wal-Mart, is the number of employees.  Wal-Mart, not in the top ten in profit, needed 2,055,000 employees to capture the top spot in size.  Exxon made many times the profit of Wal-Mart with almost a twentieth of the employees -- with 107,100 employees.

Back to the most profitable list, the No. 2 spot is taken by Royal Dutch Shell ($31B USD), the fourth spot by BP ($20B USD), Gazprom (Russian oil, $19B USD) at five, Chevron ($18B USD) at seventh, Petronas (Malaysian oil, $18B USD) at eight, and Total (French owned, $18B USD) at ninth.  General Electric, the first company that is not primarily oil comes in third ($22B USD).  While some of its revenue was driven by GE's NBC studios unit, much of it was driven by sales of oil infrastructure and transportation related supplies -- like gas turbines, locomotives, and jet engines.

If you want to find a business not intimately connected to big oil, you have to drop to sixth to HSBC holdings, an international banking firm.  Outside of banks and oil, the next major company is Toyota at 12th ($15B USD), however it’s easy to see that oil plays a major factor in the widespread success of Toyota's vehicles, which typically boast high fuel economies for their classes.  Rounding off the top twenty, four others are oil companies -- China National Petroleum, BHP Billiton (also vested in diamonds), Petrobras (Brazilian), and ENI (Italian).

If you look at the record not only are 7 of the top 10 oil companies, 11 of the top 20 are as well.  The trend is also that these companies have huge profits with only a fraction of the employees.  While it is fair to say that infrastructure costs for oil are higher than in some businesses, with pipelines, refineries, and shipping to be considered, a major part of the revenue still goes to giving the companies' executives lucrative pay and stock rewards.  For example, last year Lee Raymond, former CEO of Exxon was given a generous $400M USD severance package.  The current CEO made a more modest, but still strong $16M USD in compensation and stock.

Many misconceptions about oil abound.  One is the myth of peak oil.  While it’s true that oil supplies are finite and somewhat uncertain based on how much of the prospective oil in "hard to get" locations like shales is economically feasible to drill, the fact is oil is not going to run out this week or even ten years from now, even by "worst case" estimates.  The reality, more likely is that oil companies are purposefully keeping supplies tight to keep prices high.  Normally in business, another competitor would come along and offer a competitive product for a lower price, and the other company would be forced to lower their prices and sell more.

However, with big oil, the companies all work so closely together to coordinate prices and have such a tight grip on the resources, that a decidedly unique scenario is formed.  There are no little competitors.  And with the knowledge that supplies, though perhaps numerous are finite, the companies are wisely (though perhaps greedily) concluding -- why sell more, when they can make just as much selling less? 

Another myth is that the Middle East is to blame for the high oil prices.  If you look at production, its true a lot comes from the Middle East, they only typically see part of the profits.  Much of the production also comes from other nations like Russia, Norway (third largest exporter), Nigeria, Venezuela, Mexico, etc.  Much of the anger at the Middle East over oil is fuel by racism -- in reality, while some in the Middle East may be "getting rich off oil", there's far more in the U.S., Europe, and Asia getting rich off its sales.

So if the lion's share of the money is here in the U.S., isn't that a good thing?  Not necessarily; while some believe in a "trickle down" style of economics -- the idea of giving money to a few wealthy in the hopes that their spending financially improves everyone from the middle class to the poor -- the money is showing little signs of trickling down.  It's not trickling down to the non-oil investors -- the stock market has been hit hard this year and last, with June being the worst on record since the Great Depression.  It's pushing some industries, like the airline industry to the brink of financial ruin.  And it does not appear to be trickling down to the citizens either, with record rates of foreclosure.

So why is oil, which some consider a purely economic topic worth writing about to the tech industry.  To some the answer is obvious, but for those of you who it isn't, consider the multi-tier effect on the tech industry.  First there's the direct aspects -- oil relies heavily on high tech mechanics with refining, pipelines, and drilling -- making oil a major tech player. 

Secondly, there's the financial impact oil's success, which some economists blame for the bad economy, may be having on the rest of tech industry by reducing consumer spending in face of soaring prices.  Finally, oil consumption and prices relates intimately to theorized global warming and to the drive to adopt alternative energy.

In the end big oil has a profound influence on the entire economy, through its elite status in it, but especially on the tech industry.  With no relief from prices in sight, the government and the consumer face tough choices. 

Should they spend more money invest in alternative energy in hopes of developing cheaper power sources?  Should the government investigate oil companies and tax them if they are found to be deliberately limiting production at the expense of the consumer?  These are the hard questions facing U.S. citizens as they tackle the unique problem of the exclusivity and record profits of the oil industry.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Or...
By GaryJohnson on 7/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Or...
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Or...
By mdogs444 on 7/14/2008 8:15:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Worldwide the demand is neutral.


China? India? The fact is that demand is not neutral in the large countries like these that subsidize the fuel costs. Its rising at such a fast pace, even with the recent lowering of subsidy amount by the Chinese.


RE: Or...
By voodooboy on 7/14/2008 3:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
China? India? The fact is that demand is not neutral in the large countries like these that subsidize the fuel costs. Its rising at such a fast pace, even with the recent lowering of subsidy amount by the Chinese.


...And yet, with an average annual income of between $600 and $800 (US avg. income being about $45,000), a typical Indian pays a lot more for his fuel than the typical American... *sigh*

Numbers:
Current exchange rate: 1$ = Rs.42.9
Avg. price of Petrol in India as of now (per Litre) : Rs.52 ~ $1.21
Avg. price of Gas in the US as of now (per Gallon) : $4.095
1 Gallon (US) = 3.78 litres.

Therefore Avg. price of Gas in the US as of now (per Litre) : ~ $1.08

And mind you, the price of gas in India has hovered around Rs.45/litre or so since the last 2 years. So while the price/gallon was about $2.something a year ago in the US, it's been about $4.something in India for about 2 years (I think a lil more than that) now.

So while I can understand the hardships Americans are facing because of the rising fuel prices, to say that it's because of India and China is an uninformed comment at best.


RE: Or...
By mholler on 7/14/2008 6:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
Are they the sole cause of increased fuel prices? Absolutely not, however to say that increased demand for oil in China and India has not contributed to increased prices is ridiculous. Oil is a world market and when demand increases in any area and supply remains the same then prices will rise.

It's also not only attributable to current increases in demand, but also to EXPECTED increases in demand. If demand in those countries continue to grow at the current rate over the next few years, then supply will be stretched even thinner than it is today. It is this fear that fuels speculators and is another factor in the high cost of oil.

So, you are correct in that China and India are not to blame for the current situation, but they are definitely a significant factor in the market.


RE: Or...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 8:51:32 AM , Rating: 5
> "The demand in the U.S. is dropping. Worldwide the demand is neutral. Yet prices in the U.S. and the world continue to rise."

Worldwide, the demand is *not* neutral. China alone increased its demand last year by over 16%:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/29/conte...

Furthermore, world production declined in 2006 and again in 2007...a period in which even US demand was rising (our demand didn't begin to fall until this year, and only by a couple percent).

Still further, you see to believe oil companies somehow choose the price their oil is sold at. They do not. Oil is sold at auction on a global futures market. When people bid more, the price rises...when they bid less, it drops.


RE: Or...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/14/2008 9:05:47 AM , Rating: 2
China's demand is only going to rise as they run out of Coal. Good time to buy into the coal market because China should burn through their supply in the next 3-4 years, after that they need to import it or alternative sources of electricity.


RE: Or...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 9:21:36 AM , Rating: 2
China's coal reserves may look low on paper...but those reserves have actually been rising the past decade. They're finding new coal faster than they're burning it.


RE: Or...
By Eri Hyva on 7/14/2008 9:52:23 AM , Rating: 2
Well, even in China cars don't use coal.

http://www.chinacartimes.com/2008/04/08/how-many-d...

Increase in demand of gasoline over 10% per year for many years in a row. And counting .... In 2030 more cars in China than in th US.
And India is more or less doing the same.


RE: Or...
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/15/2008 11:04:40 PM , Rating: 2
Nonsense.
By 2030 India will have less than 1/4 the cars and population it has today...

Where will the other 75% go?
To the graveyard, all killed by car accidents!


RE: Or...
By ajfink on 7/14/2008 2:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
It's a good thing the US has some of the largest coal reserves on Earth.

It's too bad it's essentially ecologically off limits due to regulation or uneconomical (at the moment) to extract.

Nuclear/non-crop biofuels (including hydrogen)/other renewables (wind / solar / water) can provide a lot (if not all) of our energy, it's just too bad the companies with the money to develop it have little incentive to do so.


RE: Or...
By FITCamaro on 7/15/2008 8:13:11 AM , Rating: 2
Plenty of investors would love to open a nuclear plant. The return on investment is quite high and guaranteed. Environmentalists are stopping them, not lack of incentive.

Biofuels are held back by profitability. They aren't profitable without massive government subsidies right now. Solar is relatively useless on a massive scale because so much land is required to produce so little power. And its reliability is around 25% (Sorry no internet today because its been cloudy for a week). Wind isn't feasible everywhere. Hydroelectric power isn't feasible everywhere.


RE: Or...
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/14/2008 9:56:05 AM , Rating: 1
You are using the term "worldwide" in the sense of that somewhere worldwide demand is increasing. Yes, demand worldwide is not neutral. As I said -- in the U.S. it is dropping, in China and to a lesser extent India it is rising. But as a whole demand is relatively unchanged do the various fluctuations worldwide offsetting each other.

Its true oil pricing is heavily controlled by the futures market, but as you mentioned oil companies can control supplies to regulate prices to some extent. Also major traders on the futures market typically work closely with the major oil producers. Its silly to discount these relationships.

Oil companies may be heavily taxed, but even if they were taxed 50 percent on profits, they'd still be making far more profit than most companies which are much larger.

Oil production is indeed declining, which was my point about the prices seeming artificially high. With the massive profits, high prices, and low supplies, oil companies should be expanding their infrastructure aggressively, but are not.

While some modest expansion has been made, it falls short of what is needed, or what they would logically do in a traditional business sense. Sure you can say "environmentalists are to blame", but even if this was somewhat true in the U.S., they could easily add capacity overseas. Albeit at a slightly higher cost due to shipping, etc.


RE: Or...
By mdogs444 on 7/14/2008 10:12:02 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sure you can say "environmentalists are to blame", but even if this was somewhat true in the U.S.

Yes, it is true. It's a plain fact. The number of permits & regulations on anything energy related, and now the regulations on cars, and everything else...yes, it is the environmental movement that is to blame for this in the U.S.

But what good news we have, President Bush has just lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling today, 7/14/2008.


RE: Or...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 10:23:28 AM , Rating: 3
> "President Bush has just lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling today"

Truly good news...but within 6 months, environments will be claiming that its lack of effect on global oil prices 'proves' it was unneccesary, even though most of those new leases will take 5-10 years to come online.


RE: Or...
By mdogs444 on 7/14/2008 10:27:33 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, and they will continue to spout how the drilling will have no effect on oil prices, or something off base like "ANWR will only lower prices $.02 in 10 years". They are not seeing that a barrel of oil does not have a static price, so they cannot justify price decreases of $.02. If we continue to expand and refine, then the bids will continue to be less on the NYMEX. And if certain bidders continue to try and bid up prices, that is if there are corrupt speculators, then it will soon weed them out.

Just a fact of leasing land for huge drilling prospects should start showing immediately via price drops on the NYMEX.


RE: Or...
By mdogs444 on 7/14/2008 10:50:44 AM , Rating: 2
Also - is it not true that if we leased out land in ANWR and more in the Gulf that they would come on line much faster, due to pipelines and infrastructure already being in place, closer to the new drilling sites?


RE: Or...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/14/2008 1:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
Correct. Opening up new drilling sites next to existing infrastructure would make it easier since they just need to connect to existing pipelines. If you put a new one up way out in the middle of nowhere they need to get logistics figured out, which takes time and costs more.


RE: Or...
By Fluxion on 7/14/2008 2:55:01 PM , Rating: 4
Bush's lifting of the Executive Order does not override the ban on offshore drilling. The ban on offshore drilling is a 1981 Federal law, and would require Congress to overturn it. The executive ban that Bush overturned, was a 1990 Executive Order by his father, banning offshore drilling to essentially reinforce the 1981 Federal law (as well as serving to support the criticism of Iraq over opening up Kuwaiti oil rigs and setting them in fire as well as releasing millions of gallons of crude into the Persian Gulf).

Ultimately, Bush's overturning the order was essentially a way to try and point the finger at a Democrat-controlled Congress as being the reason there's no offshore drilling (and I don't feel like getting into an arguement over whose fault exactly it is) beginning, even though in reality, it would take 3-5 years to likely see oil (and I'm not for or against offshore drilling. I think it'd be a short-term solution to a long-term problem, and that gas will be much, much more expensive by the time any new wells produce crude for the market. I do think however, that if we allow it to occur, and any type of major oil spill events happen similar to the coastal spills of the 60s and 70s, that you'll see the ban put back into place very quickly).


RE: Or...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 10:14:50 AM , Rating: 5
> "But as a whole demand is relatively unchanged "

I'm sorry, but this isn't even close to true. Global oil consumption grew by a full 1m bbl/day in 2007 -- it grew even in the US.

2008 data is incomplete, but if every nation experiences consistent demand destruction as the US is seeing, we'll soon see oil prices drop sharply. But Europe (which due to a much higher tax structure, is less effected by oil prices) isn't seeing it, and early reports out of China are that oil prices have only slowed demand growth, but haven't erased it.

> "Its true oil pricing is heavily controlled by the futures market, but as you mentioned oil companies can control supplies to regulate prices "

They've always been able to control supplies. Problem is -- oil companies outside of OPEC-controlled areas aren't reducing supplies. They're increasing them as much as possible. But existing fields eventually run dry, and new ones must be developed...its not their fault the US and much of Europe refuses to allow new field expansion.

> " Also major traders on the futures market typically work closely with the major oil producers"

What nonsense is this? Traders "work" with oil producers only to the extent of closely examining their output and future prospects. An oil trader doesn't make money by raising the price of oil -- he makes money by correctly estimating future supply and demand. Claiming conspiracy here is true tinfoil-hat stuff.

> "Oil production is indeed declining, which was my point about the prices seeming artificially high."

This is your silliest statement yet. You believe production is declining, but don't feel that justifies higher prices? Jason, let me clue you in on something. When demand rises and supply drops, prices must rise. Else the pumps run dry, and we all wind up walking to work.

> "oil companies should be expanding their infrastructure aggressively, but are not."

So why did world oil production rise to its highest level in all history this year? And why are oil companies clamoring for the US to remove the offshore drilling ban, if they're not planning on expanding into those new areas? Companies colluding to restrict supply don't take steps to increase it.


RE: Or...
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/14/2008 10:25:59 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Global oil consumption grew by a full 1m bbl/day in 2007 -- it grew even in the US.


Year to year April to April, there has been a large decline in demand. To not consider the drop in demand in 2008 is kinda silly.

quote:

You believe production is declining, but don't feel that justifies higher prices? Jason, let me clue you in on something. When demand rises and supply drops


Demand is not rising in 2008, it is in fact dropping in 2008 within the U.S. and the world growth is not outpacing this drop. If you have numbers to refute this drop in the US in 2008 please offer them.


RE: Or...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 10:36:59 AM , Rating: 3
> "Year to year April to April, there has been a large decline in demand. "

I don't know how many times one has to tell you you're wrong. Global demand contines to rise:
quote:
World oil consumption of liquid fuels and other petroleum is projected to grow by almost 900,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2008 and by an additional 1.4 million bbl/d in 2009, while U.S. consumption is expected to decline by about 400,000 bbl/d in 2008
http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo

The US is not the sole consumer of world oil. A tiny decline in US consumption does *not* outweigh strong demand growth elsewhere in the world. Demand for Oil in China alone grew an astounding 11% in the first half of 2008 alone, even as the price of oil skyrocketed:

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/China-crude-o...


RE: Or...
By rninneman on 7/14/2008 1:14:56 PM , Rating: 2
Michael, you're confusing Jason with facts. Ecochondriacs don't want to hear facts; they just want the industrialized world to to revert to the third-world.


RE: Or...
By JustTom on 7/17/2008 2:26:09 AM , Rating: 2
And while demand continues to grow, supply remains flat. From the same EIA report

quote:
At the beginning of this year, non-OPEC supply growth was projected to rise by 860,000 bbl/d in 2008 and by over 1.5 million bbl/d in 2009. Production is now expected to rise by only 230,000 bbl/d in 2008 and by 830,000 bbl/d in 2009.


And...

quote:
OPEC crude production in the second quarter of 2008 averaged an estimated 32.3 million bbl/d, up only slightly from 32.2 million bbl/d in the first quarter. Higher production in Iraq and Angola more than offset lower production in Nigeria caused by security problems and worker strikes.


So demand is rising faster than supply, it is not difficult to determine where prices will go in such situations.


RE: Or...
By Ringold on 7/14/2008 6:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you have numbers to refute this drop in the US in 2008 please offer them.


So, you know you can't support your claim that global consumption is falling, and therefore demand US statistics.

In case you weren't aware, the oil market is global . If there was a sufficient price delta between any two regional oil markets, oil tankers would buy it where it was cheap and ship it to where it was dear, for fun and profit. US data alone is irrelevant without the global context, which Masher is trying to provide.


RE: Or...
By danrien on 7/14/2008 7:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
lse the pumps run dry, and we all wind up walking to work.


I ride bike to work, does that count?


RE: Or...
By FITCamaro on 7/17/2008 10:59:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oil companies may be heavily taxed, but even if they were taxed 50 percent on profits, they'd still be making far more profit than most companies which are much larger.


So they should pay taxes not only revenue but profits? You can't tax just one industry that way. Not only is that unfair it's illegal(or it should be).

Do you realize the socialist ideas that you say or are you just completely unaware of them?

This is not the Soviet Union. God willing it never will be. If you love the idea of socialism so much please go somewhere where it already exists.


RE: Or...
By GaryJohnson on 7/14/2008 11:12:33 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter if global demand changes, what matters is the global demand at a certain price point. How much would you pay to keep driving? That's the amount you're paying.

If global consumption is down, but the average price people are willing to pay is up, then the prices will go up, because the demand at the higher price point is up.


RE: Or...
By JustTom on 7/17/2008 2:19:14 AM , Rating: 2
Your link is a bad example for your argument:

quote:
"This revision of the U.S. oil demand for April has certainly put pressure on crude futures. This is demand destruction before our very eyes," said Phil Flynn of Alaron Trading. "This is a huge revision, and it happened when (fuel) prices were still lower, so you can expect that there could be more future downgrades in demand data."


I could also point out the geo-political games Iran has had a tendency of playing whenever it seems petroleum prices have seemed to peak. But that would be racist of me.


A few points
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 8:46:41 AM , Rating: 2
> "There are many popular misconceptions about big oil. One is that the companies aren't profitable.."

Oil is a cyclic business. In the early 1990s -- when gas was $1.50/g or less, most oil companies were either losing money or barely scratching by. Now that oil prices are high, they're making large profits...but those very profits will encourage additional production, which in a few years will help to drive down prices. In 10 years, oil companies will be seeing low prices and losses again.

Also, coupled with the oil companies profits are the massive taxes they pay. The top five US oil companies alone pay more in taxes than the bottom 75% of all US taxpayers combined...an effective rate above 40% of all income gained.

> "Another myth is that the Middle East is to blame for the high oil prices...Much of the production also comes from other nations"

OPEC (which is not entirely Middle Eastern) controls only a bit more than 40% of world oil production. But it almost utterly controls world prices, because it controls nearly all the spare capacity. While other oil-producing nations pump full-out, only OPEC has the spare capacity needed to influence world prices.




RE: A few points
By AlexWade on 7/14/2008 11:34:43 AM , Rating: 3
There is another thing to remember, and this is the reason why Congress or anybody cannot find any wrongdoing, is that oil company keep their profit at a fixed percentage regardless of price. The American president of Shell said as much to CNN about 1 to 2 months ago. Shell said their markup was 7% fixed.

The only reason people are targeting Big Oil is because they don't understand that markup hasn't changed. They just see the bottom line. That is all shareholders see too, and they don't want to see "we cut prices and lowered our profit". That CEO would be voted out soon.

I laugh when I see Obama's plan to tax Big Oil. Shareholders don't want to see "profit is down because of more tax and we did nothing about it". Therefore, a tax on Big Oil is really a tax on us. Brilliant.

Obviously, it hurts. But blaming Big Oil is misplaced. Do I wish they would cut their profit for the good of us consumers? Absolutely. But I understand this isn't communism but capitalism, so I have to take the good with the bad.


RE: A few points
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 11:41:25 AM , Rating: 1
> " Do I wish they would cut their profit for the good of us consumers? Absolutely"

Of course, even if they did that, it would only lower prices at the pump by 28 cents or so...and the resultant price drop would increase demand, raising the price right back where it was.

The only real solution is more oil and less demand.


RE: A few points
By Spivonious on 7/14/2008 12:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
Less demand is already happening as more people are conscious of their fuel use, auto companies are introducing alternative fuels, and public transit use increases.

Drilling for more oil is not a long-term solution.


RE: A few points
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 12:32:23 PM , Rating: 1
As my other posts demonstrate, demand is still rising throughout the world. And as long as world population continues to rise, per-capita energy consumption must also, unless we're willing to lower our standard of living. Personally, I want my children to have an even better life than me

You cannot conserve your way out of an energy crunch. Conservation is always and forever a short-term solution.


RE: A few points
By Spivonious on 7/14/2008 1:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
I meant in the U.S. Demand is of course rising worldwide as more and more Chinese, Indians, Vietnamese, etc. make more money and can afford vehicles.

I'm not going to get into why I think consuming more doesn't lead to a better standard of living. If I leave all of the lights on in my house, am I living better than someone who only has the lights on in the room he is in?


RE: A few points
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 2:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "If I leave all of the lights on in my house, am I living better..."

Turning off unused lights is an easy, short-term step. But what do you do after that? Population continues to grow, and people continually expect a better standard of living. That's why conservation, though helpful, can never be a solution.

Americans can cut fuel consumption by 20-30% by driving a bit slower, switching to smaller cars, and a few other steps. But then what? The demand growth from the rest of the world will eat up those savings in less than five years....and the US itself is still growing population wise. Long term, demand for energy HAS to keep rising.

Public transportation isn't a solution in most areas, and alternative fuels aren't yet ready for prime time. Will they be in five years? Are you really prepared to bet the future of this nation on it?

Even forgetting all the above, one fact cannot be hidden. We're currently sending hundreds billions of dollars a year overseas in oil purchases. We have several trillion dollars of oil here, untapped. We can either use our own oil, or pay to buy someone else's...and then use those trillions for whatever we want. Healthcare...more research on alternative fuels...you name it. But right now, it's not doing anyone any good.


RE: A few points
By Fluxion on 7/14/2008 3:07:22 PM , Rating: 2
The sad thing is, public transportation should be a solution in most areas. I can understand that many rural areas are so far out, public transportation doesn't make sense, and that's just a matter of how it goes.

But there are a lot of large, urban areas in the United States that have horrible public transportation infrastructures. I'm in Phoenix, and we've been stuck with relatively horrible bus service. The city was designed to be spacious for streets, etc., since for most of its history, Phoenix has been a driving community. Thus, no major concern was put for the public transportation system, and we have overstressed freeways and city streets, and a public transportation system entirely dependent upon bus service (until next year, when a very-limited light rail system comes online).

People here complained about not having good mass transportation options, then yelled and moaned in the late 90s concerning a quarter cent tax increase that was voted on (and barely passed) to fund the light rail system. Even then, it was a largely scaled-back project, since it was going to be even more expensive to provide better service, and people couldn't stand it.

I've also lived in Chicago, which is decades ahead in terms of mass transportation. I loved riding the Metra in from the suburbs to the downtown, then taking the El or buses around everywhere. In terms of my own personal freedom, was it as efficient as a car? No, but I enjoyed it a lot more, and in reality, the time it took to fight through traffic, essentially made it so that the mass transit system was just as quickly generally.


RE: A few points
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 3:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
> "In terms of my own personal freedom, was it as efficient as a car? No, but I enjoyed it a lot more"

At a guess, I would say that at the time, you were a young male without family, children, or self-owned home. When you have to carry a small child, a few days groceries, and a replacement door for a kitchen cabinet home on that subway, you won't enjoy public transportation quite so much.

Why do I name those specific items? Because that's exactly what I myself carried one day through a subway, when I lived in Moscow....a city with one of the finest public transportation systems in the world. And yet, people there are turning to private cars by the millions.

Waiting for a bus in the middle of a blizzard or torrential rainstorm isn't much fun either. But the public transportation in Moscow was certainly much better than in my current city, Atlanta, where at least half the few times I've taken MARTA, I've managed to either sit in a pool of vomit, urine, or used condom filth left by a previous occupant.

People prefer private autos for good reason. Instead of pushing impractical public transportation systems, we should be finding ways to ensure private autos remain practical and efficient.


RE: A few points
By Fluxion on 7/14/2008 3:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I was in fact seeing someone who's kid I was helping to raise, and so there were many times when I'd be going in with survey equipment, a stroller, my work bag with various items (Brunton, lunch bag, maps, etc.) and my laptop bag.

Thankfully her daycare was a relatively short distance from Chicago Union station, so I could drop her off and then grab a bus to work, but it was by no-means easy in terms of lugging all of my equipment around (thankfully, plenty of years of field exercises with large, heavy packs and utility belts while in college and afterward helped with that).

There were times I bemoaned it, but having attempted the drive into Chicago each morning (about a 1 hour drive just to reach the city limits), then parking to drop her off, then heading to work and fighting for a parking space, I found public transportation to be the better option.

Oh, and your guess was wrong.


RE: A few points
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 4:36:26 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know that "helping to raise" one child part time is the same situation as owning your own home and having a family of several children. If there were times you "bemoaned" public transportation even in your own very limited case, what would it have been like then?

In any case, we can quote personal experiences all day long, but the fact remains that even in cities with excellent public transportation networks, most people still prefer private cars. And in 15 years, when those private cars will drive and park themselves, the preference will be even more marked.

Personally, I think its possible to design a private transportation system that's even more efficient than public transportation. That should be our goal, rather than shoehorning people into a system they don't want.


RE: A few points
By FITCamaro on 7/16/2008 9:15:17 AM , Rating: 2
I don't want a car that drives itself. That kind of takes the fun away. And sorry, despite being a software engineer, I don't trust code to that kind of degree.


RE: A few points
By Pythias on 7/16/2008 2:59:51 PM , Rating: 2
A BSOD really WOULD be a BSOD. ...or at least a BSO serious frigging injury.

This was really kind of an aside to the point masher was making, though.


RE: A few points
By Fluxion on 7/14/2008 3:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and one question for you masher:

When you say we have several trillion dollars worth of oil wrapped up here, are you talking about current and estimated reserves of actual crude that could be removed?

Or are you talking about both crude and options such as oil shale, etc.? Because if you're including oil shale in with that, I honestly hope you've researched the environmental destruction of exploiting oil shale and such. It's typically not a pretty process. Outside of a major spill, a typical drilling site for crude is largely only noticeable in terms of land subsidence, but the extraction of oil from oil shale, is a very destructive, permanent mark on a lot of scenic areas.


RE: A few points
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 3:49:48 PM , Rating: 1
> "Or are you talking about both crude and options such as oil shale, etc.? "

We have at least five trillion dollars worth of off-limits oil at present, even disregarding oil shale. Counting it, the figure rises much higher.

As far as the processing of shale being a "destructive, permanent mark" , I have to disagree. Technology solves all ills.


RE: A few points
By Fluxion on 7/14/2008 4:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As far as the processing of shale being a "destructive, permanent mark" , I have to disagree. Technology solves all ills.


Have you see the results first-hand of what results from the extraction process? I have, and it's not a very welcoming site. Often, a large excavated crater essentially remains where once a hill or small mountain stood, and located nearby are the waste deposit mounds for leached rock and sediments. Sometimes they'll try and see if they can grow some type of plant life no these mounds, so as to try and make the area look semi-natural, but in reality nothing really grows on it.

Now, you're correct, technology could help, but the reality is that very rarely does society force a corporation to properly clean up its remnant operations. Sure, you can say that there are many examples of corporations cleaning up its operations, but typically that's due more to a large human presence existing in the area, and those users being at risk of some type of chemical or environmental exposure.

Take for example the mining industry. The Federal government has been working to clean up old uranium mining operations, due to the risk it poses for residents located not far away (especially on the Hopi and Navajo reservations).

But, that's a stark contrast to the copper mining industry, where hundreds of unsightly former strip mining operations are still observable, where previously pristine scenery has since led to large open pits and leach compound hills. Could technology solve this issue? Maybe to some extent. But it'll never appear the same as it did. And even then, to simply try and restore it, requires a lot of money, money that corporations such as Phelps Dodge don't want to have to foot the bill on, money the EPA, Federal and State governments don't have, and money that the average American wouldn't want to have to help contribute to, as it's far easier to simply ignore that these areas even exist, as most simply are content with their daily commutes to work, spending most of their time in-doors or in urban park areas, and rarely venturing out to explore the beauty of America's somewhat-wild landscape.

I'm sorry if I seem a bit bitter, but I've seen many unimaginably beautiful areas destroyed with no hopes of being restored to their original manner, and to me, it's a loss for future generations.


RE: A few points
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 5:05:40 PM , Rating: 4
> "Have you see the results first-hand of what results from the extraction process?"

I've toured several sites around the Fort McMurray area, which certainly appears far worse than a tar sands operation in an area like the Orinoco, which due to the non-surface nature of the operation, is far more visually appealing. Here's a picture:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www....

In any case, even the most visually distressing sites are nothing but temporary. The idea of "permanent" harm is sadly mistaken. Smooth the area over, cover it with topsoil, and anything will grow on it. There's nothing in the ground that wasn't already there...all the mining process does is shift it around a bit.

> "But, that's a stark contrast to the copper mining industry..."

Now we shouldn't mine copper either? Is there ANYTHING we're allowed to mine or produce in your mind?


RE: A few points
By FreeTard on 7/15/2008 2:11:00 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I'm at a rig, and if I so much as spill a cup of fluid on the ground, I'm writing freaking reports.

The technology is getting better and better everyday. My company spends literally billions a year on developing tools and equipment for pulling this stuff out of the ground, cheaper, cleaner, and more efficiently. Destroying the earth and making a huge mess, costs a lot more in the long run.

Oil shale today might require "strip" mining, but give it a couple of years.


RE: A few points
By lifeblood on 7/14/2008 3:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
I am still curious as to why oil companies are not drilling domestically where they are allowed too. All I hear is the usual republican/democrat BS about needing to open more lands or not using what they have. Why aren't the oil companies drilling in the areas they are currently allowed to? There has to be a real reason our esteemed politicians are not saying. Is the "easy to pump therefore more profitable oil" off limits while the harder to extract therefore less profitable oil allowed? That is a reason I can accept.

This is not, BTW, an attack on anyone (except maybe politicians), this is an attempt to see and understand the real reasons.

As for conservation vs new production, we are simply going to have to exploit new sources of energy such as nuclear. Solar and wind are excellent as suplemental sources but they are simply insufficient for the majority of our needs.


RE: A few points
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 4:30:53 PM , Rating: 2
> "I am still curious as to why oil companies are not drilling domestically where they are allowed too"

Because an oil lease is just a grid on a map...and not every grid contains oil. When a new area is opened up, a company will generally purchase several leases in a likely area. Once they have obtained rights, they prospect, and then drill on the ones likely to pay off.

Also, remember that oil comes from vast underground reservoirs. If you buy rights to adjacent squares A, B, C, and D, the oil you pump from "A" can very well be under all the remaining squares as well.


RE: A few points
By danrien on 7/14/2008 8:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, remember that oil comes from vast underground reservoirs. If you buy rights to adjacent squares A, B, C, and D, the oil you pump from "A" can very well be under all the remaining squares as well.


quote:
Drainage! Drainage, Eli, you boy. Drained dry. I'm so sorry. Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake!


You are very good at rephrasing movies.


RE: A few points
By MrBungle123 on 7/14/2008 4:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am still curious as to why oil companies are not drilling domestically where they are allowed too. All I hear is the usual republican/democrat BS about needing to open more lands or not using what they have. Why aren't the oil companies drilling in the areas they are currently allowed to? There has to be a real reason our esteemed politicians are not saying.


When the government leases land for oil drilling the oil companies have to sign the lease before they can even explore... The terms of the lease will be for several years and the lease remains open weather there is oil found at the site or not.

So as an example if Exxon leases 10,000 acres for oil exploration they will sign contracts with the government for 5 years. If they go and drill on said land and find nothing, then there is no point in setting up wells so they just leave it. For the next 5 years the government will report that Exxon has 10,000 acres of land leased for oil drilling that Exxon is just letting sit there unused... they leave out the part that there is no oil there for politcal expediancy. It makes no sense that an oil company... a for profit orgaization would pay millions of dollars for a lease and not at least look for oil, which is what the politicians want you to believe.


RE: A few points
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/15/2008 11:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
And even lowering life quality, the increase in population generates an increase in energy demands, unless the cuts to life quality become quite severe.

The starring factors
- steady population growth
- decrease in infant mortality rates
- extension of average life expectancy

And also starring:
- growing technological dependency


RE: A few points
By AlexWade on 7/14/2008 4:54:00 PM , Rating: 3
You are right that drilling isn't a long term solution. But you must remember that viable alternatives, that is to say affordable and practical alternatives, are a very long ways away. The problem is deployment.

If we magically found a way to make electric cars run great distances and cost a decent price, we would have to deal with expanding the nation's electric grid. Solar and wind would be unable to meet that demand. Nuclear could. But, in the best case scenario, how long will it take to build a new nuclear plant? You are looking at least 2 years for one new power plant of any kind.

So forget electric and go hydrogen. California now has about 600 hydrogen cars on the road. How long will it take to build hydrogen refueling stations across this country? Many many years. And they won't be built until there is a mandate by law or there is a demand.

Drilling for oil is a short term solution. But it is the most sensible thing to do until we can deploy the better alternatives. However, Congress, whose approval rating is much worse than the President's, won't allow the sensible short term solution because they are sleeping the irrational environmentalists. Pelosi said as much today. Congress doesn't get it. The will of the people is now to drill, but they ignore the will of the majority to prostitute themselves to the vocal minority.


RE: A few points
By encryptkeeper on 7/17/2008 9:12:34 AM , Rating: 2
Apparently another problem is the cost of turning oil into gasoline. Instead of expanding production facilities or building new refineries, refineries have been simply going full blast for several years and now are on the verge of all breaking down at once. That's why gas prices stay high in the winter, because its the slowest time of the year as far as demand goes and the refineries take sections of their facilities and shut them down for repair. It's just something we're going to have to live with for a long time. The thing that pisses me off is oil companies claiming to invest in new energy producing technologies. What a load of crap. They're telling us they're willing to invest in technology that would make them obsolete? That weak lie alone they should be facing windfall taxes for.


RE: A few points
By Treckin on 7/16/2008 4:10:17 AM , Rating: 2
You're an idiot. Please never post again. Seriously.


RE: A few points
By 4play on 7/16/2008 4:13:16 PM , Rating: 2
can you explain to me how their markup is only 7%? Oil prices have tripled. Which I'm assuming leads to a tripling in revenue. Costs of extracting have not tripled though, so how is it still 7%?


RE: A few points
By JustTom on 7/17/2008 2:04:04 AM , Rating: 2
It depends. Oil companies both own wells and purchase oil from other companies. So for produced oil the profit margin certainly increases along with the price; not so for purchased oil.


Falling Dollar
By gmw1082 on 7/14/2008 9:37:16 AM , Rating: 2
Another thing to consider is the price of oil will keep going up as the value of the dollar continues to decline.




RE: Falling Dollar
By mdogs444 on 7/14/2008 9:45:09 AM , Rating: 2
The value of the dollar has declined roughly 30%, while oil has increased over 300%.


RE: Falling Dollar
By Spivonious on 7/14/2008 12:12:49 PM , Rating: 2
So tell the Fed to stop lowering interest rates.


RE: Falling Dollar
By MrBlastman on 7/14/2008 12:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
Tell Americans to stop spending more money than they earn just to outdo each other or have it because they can. ;)

My two best friends both own 50+ inch 1080p HD TV's while I own a lonely 27 inch Sony trinitron tube tv that is 10+ years old. Am I sad? No, because I did not go into debt just to add another luxury good that really would not add much value to my life as a whole.

Americans were addicted to excess - now we are being forced to change because the home equity lines, credit cards etc. have dried up. Spend what you earn and nothing more.


RE: Falling Dollar
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/14/2008 2:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
I still live quite well just on what I make. Never been in dept.


RE: Falling Dollar
By MrBlastman on 7/14/2008 3:44:34 PM , Rating: 2
I do too.

Out of all the people I know, only one of them actually saves more than they spend with their disposable income. They have positive cash flow.

The rest typically have huge credit card debt, mortgage debt, car payments, etc.

You don't have to spend excessively to enjoy life and live well - but I see so many Americans doing just the opposite in my career - they spend spend spend spend(well they did).


RE: Falling Dollar
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/14/2008 4:28:01 PM , Rating: 2
No argument here, but that has less to do with economics and more to do with people just learning to live within their means and not have everything they want right that second. I usually (like in the case of my new computer) had been planning and setting aside money for it for almost a year now. Could I pay it all using cash or credit? Sure. Would that be wise in the case of something like Car Accident, Fire, or unforseen disaster that might otherwise require me to have a large amount of cash on hand? Hell no. People just never learned to budget and balance properly.

It's abysmal how many people I know that (I crunched the excel pages myself) can live fine on what they make, but are just unable to control their spending for whatever reason. This puts them into debt and the problems that come with it.


RE: Falling Dollar
By MrBlastman on 7/14/2008 4:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
Totally man.

When I say "I'm broke" to most people, they laugh at me and say, you aren't broke! You have thousands of dollars in the bank!

I turn to them and frown and then try to explain the concept of cash flow.

To most people, being broke is having no money at all to spend. To me, that is a nightmare.

When outflows exceed inflows, for all intents and purposes the negative cash flow means you are broke as you are depleting your reserves. It is ok to dip into savings occasionally (depending on which of 3 to 4 places it comes from), but having a chronic problem of negative cash flow is not good at all. If you have positive cash flow, you can't help but to save that up for when you need it. Trying to explain this to most people is nearly impossible as it does not make sense. :( I usually get a "huh?" look from them at first.


RE: Falling Dollar
By iNGEN on 7/16/2008 5:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree with your sentiment for its own sake, the focus is off. Americans have in their possession only about 28% of US currency. Since reserve fractions of domestic debt originators are, with only two exceptions, controlled we can safely say the spending of private citizens is not the motivator of increased liquidity in the money supply.

The big issues are government spending and method of taxation. Until we fix both inflation will outpace GDP. Fluctuations in demographics have an effect as well. So many foreign central banks increasing their reserve holdings of US currency is the major reason we have seen little price effect of inflation throughout the last fifteen years.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 8:55:59 AM , Rating: 3
> "However, with big oil, the companies all work so closely together to coordinate prices"

Oil companies do not set prices. Their oil is sold on the futures market, with price set by auction. Bought by tens of thousands of commodities traders, the price seeks a level that those traders believe will match supply perfectly to demand. If those traders guess right, they make money. If they guess wrong, they lose their shirts...and quickly.

The only indirect control oil producers exert over prices is to increase or reduce supply. But outside of OPEC, this isn't done -- non-OPEC nations pump at max capacity continuously.




By Starcub on 7/14/2008 5:56:55 PM , Rating: 2
Oil companies do set prices, but not in a vacuum; they set them according to the actions of various national governments that establish trade agreements and tarrifs with other nations. Governments also regulate their economies and thus demand by determining interests rates. Any particular bidder/speculator would have to consider these factors (and others) in formulating their bid offer, so different bidders will pay different prices. And even if they were able to, no single bidder would ever be able to purchase the worlds oil supply at his price.

Governments control the price of doing business within their national boundaries and even the right to drill in their territories. Companies that do operate in a particular government's territories are liable to get production subsidies and reduced tax rates and interation trade protections. Even between nations that have 'free trade' pacts, there really is no such thing as free trade. You can bet that non-economic or political/military arrangements factor in to those agreements.

In addition, the same oil companies that drill for the oil also refine it and sell it at the pump through their own distributors for a contracted price; they have internal obligations to meet before they can offer anything in the marketplace. That is one reason why different oil companies advertise the virtues of their company: so people will buy gas from stations that carry their brand.

I don't see how you've come up with the idea of a "world price" for oil, or how you could come up with a world price for any globally traded commodity.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 6:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
> "Oil companies do set prices,...I don't see how you've come up with the idea of a "world price" for oil"

Oil companies do *not* set prices. You've never traded oil. The "world price" exists; it is the price set on the (London) IPE or (NY) NYMEX. These are world markets, which handle the bulk of world oil sales...regardless of where that oil is actually produced or consumed. And that price is set by commodity traders, not "big oil".

Some slight variances in prices exist between various grades (Brent Crude vs. West Texas Intermediate, for instance) but this are very minor.

Oil refiners -- most of which aren't associated with "big oil" firms, by the way-- buy these contracts on the open market, at a rate set by open bidding. The more who bid on a contract, the higher the price goes. The fewer who bid, the lower the price.

When more contracts exist than buyers (an oil surplus), the price drops. When fewer contracts exist than buyers, the price escalates. It's very simple. The price automatically seeks the level to equalize supply and demand. A barrel that might not sell at $147 will sell at $145 -- to a speculator who thinks the price will rise, if not directly to a refiner.

Governments do control the price of doing business within their domains. But that merely sets a minimum price floor at which oil can be economically produced, rather than the actual selling price. That of course doesn't count subsidized oil sold directly by the government in markets such as Venezuela...but again, that doesn't affect the world oil price.

Seriously, learn a little about the commodities market and how oil is bought and sold globally. It's really not that difficult to understand.


By iNGEN on 7/16/2008 5:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well said. I'd add The "Big Oil" companies are not like retailers. Price does not represent their opinion of value.

For those not familiar with commodities markets, they function much the same as a stock market. The price represents the combined valuation opinions of everyone purchasing oil.


So what should we do about big oil?
By Schrag4 on 7/14/2008 10:00:21 AM , Rating: 2
Tax them more? How will that reduce the price at the pump? I don't think that's a 'solution' to, well, what's the problem here? Big oil is profitable? Big oil pays massive amounts in taxes? Big oil discovers, retrieves, and transports crude oil, then refines it, then transports the fuel we all need, at a reasonable price? I don't really see those as 'problems'.

The price of a barrel of oil is what directly affects how much we pay at the pump. And the oil companies don't set that price. Do the math, most of the price of a gallon of gas is the combination of the crude oil that went into it and TAXES.

Why doesn't anyone complain about bottled water companies? Shoot, their product costs more than gasoline in most cases and it's basically tap water.




RE: So what should we do about big oil?
By TheDoc9 on 7/14/2008 12:03:33 PM , Rating: 1
I like the water argument, obviously you work for an oil company. My oil company friend always falls back to that exact argument.

Tap water is often chemically polluted so there's good justification to purchase higher quality product. Also the inferior product is just a tap away, and literally available for free. Perhaps there should be a free oil/gas tap in everyones garage, with designer oil available for purchase if you want the highest quality. The argument of water vs. oil might be valid in such case.


By Schrag4 on 7/14/2008 12:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
The bottled water argument wasn't the purpose of my post. I'm trying to get people to decide whether we should tax someone at a higher rate just because they make more money (ignoring their margin). Bottled water companies have obscene margins, much higher than oil companies. In many areas, bottled water is no 'better' than tap water.

It sounds to me like you just don't like big oil because they make a lot of money. What specifically do you think they're doing that's wrong? Controlling the price? (they're not) Do you think they should somehow lower their margin because they're making too much money? Isn't that sort of the point of being in business? And you can't deny that oil companies deliver a product that we all want and need, and they do it well. If you can do it better and for less then you can make a ton of money undercutting the oil companies, right?

In other words, please be more specific about what you think the root of the problem is (and what that problem even is in the first place) and possible solutions. Discuss. Debate. Otherwise, why even post?

Oh, and tap water isn't 'literally free'. It's just very inexpensive to get to our homes with existing infrastructure so it doesn't cost much. We DO have an infrastructure for oil/gas in place but the oil itself is now around 140 bucks a barrel. Why does it cost that much? Are oil companies setting that price? Please enlighten me.


RE: So what should we do about big oil?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 12:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
"Higher quality" mineral water is obtained free from springs, in nearly unlimited quantity.

The fact that bottled water costs more than gasoline-- made from oil pumped from halfway around the world or from a mile underneath the sea, and refined at high cost in multi-billion dollar installations -- does make a strong point for the amazing effiencies the free market has given us.


By Starcub on 7/14/2008 6:39:59 PM , Rating: 2
High quality water is effectively (unfortunately) a luxury good, not a basic economic driver. 'Free market efficiencies' have nothing to do with the price differential.


We Are Cooked
By cjwirth on 7/14/2008 7:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
Global oil production is now declining, from 85 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time demand will increase 14%. This is like a 45% drop in 7 years. No one can reverse this trend, nor can we conserve our way out of this catastrophe. Because the demand for oil is so high, it will always be higher than production; thus the depletion rate will continue until all recoverable oil is extracted.

Alternatives will not even begin to fill the gap. And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment.

We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel trucks for maintenance of bridges, cleaning culverts to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables, all from far away. With the highways out, there will be no food coming in from "outside," and without the power grid virtually nothing works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated systems.

This is documented in a free 48 page report that can be downloaded, website posted, distributed, and emailed: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html

I used to live in NH, but moved to a safer place. Anyone interested in relocating to a nice, pretty, sustainable area, good climate with much rain and good soil?




RE: We Are Cooked
By Ringold on 7/14/2008 10:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Global oil production is now declining, from 85 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015.


According to who? That link you gave, a group who exists to profit by fearmongering? How about actual experts? If Nigeria is pacified, significantly more oil could start flowing immediately, and Saudi Arabia I think recently said it would push production up 2m bpd by 2010. Brazil also has its recent new discovery that is potentially larger than Saudi Arabia's reserves, if I'm not mistaken.

quote:
Because the demand for oil is so high, it will always be higher than production


That's possibly a misunderstanding about supply and demand. I for one don't understand what people mean when people say "Demand is X barrels, but supply is Y barrels." No. What you're really saying is that in Fantasy Land, people would love to consumer more oil than they do now. You could say the same thing about food, or.. any scarce resource, in fact. This is not new, and not restricted to oil.

quote:
And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment.


No shortage of coal in the world, so at a certain price level (right about here?), coal-to-liquids may be viable. Beyond that, cars seem to clearly be moving towards battery power. Trains don't have to be run on diesel, either. Regardless, technology to make liquid fuels with source material other than human food exists and venture capitalists are pouring money in to commercializing it.

quote:
We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel trucks for maintenance of bridges, cleaning culverts to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, roadbed and surface repair.


I drive nearly 600 miles on highways on a bad week; the rumors of their demise is vastly exaggerated.

quote:
With the highways out, there will be no food coming in from "outside,"


The interstate highway system is a relatively new beast in the United States. If you think vast amounts of international trade didn't exist long before the first highway, you'd be sorely mistaken. Also, don't tell many developing countries out there that they aren't allowed to have the trade they do simply because they have little infrastructure to speak of.

quote:
Anyone interested in relocating to a nice, pretty, sustainable area, good climate with much rain and good soil?


No, but I'll be happy to relieve you of any property in, uh, "unsustainable" areas, whatever that is.

A giant post of FUD. Thanks.


RE: We Are Cooked
By iNGEN on 7/16/2008 5:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
Bingo, Ringold!

Although I the Saudis are on the trailing end of their dominance of the crude oil market. Most of their higher production fields are taking to volume replacement measure to keep output up.

Folks just can't seem to grasp the supply side of economics either. As the price rises, previously undesirable reserves become viable. For this reason prices tend to spike, then settle into equilibrium. Take a look at the price of oil over the last 100 years and you will see it tends to "normalize" in about 20 year periods with about 5-8 year adjustment periods in between.


Oil is bad!
By Polynikes on 7/14/2008 10:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
Let's stop using it! Don't even ride bikes, because they need oil to keep the chain lubricated. Walk! Skateboard! Rollerskate! Who cares, just quit using oil, it's evil!




RE: Oil is bad!
By Polynikes on 7/14/2008 10:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I almost forgot, stop using plastic, too! Gotta have oil to make plastic!


RE: Oil is bad!
By FITCamaro on 7/15/2008 8:07:32 AM , Rating: 2
Skateboards are made of resin which requires oil. Rollerskates typically have bearings and wheels that are made from a product of oil. As are the wheels on a skateboard.


Huh?
By