The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Preparing for $3+ per litre fuel > Comments

Preparing for $3+ per litre fuel : Comments

By Ben Rose, published 14/4/2011

A carbon tax will be the least of our worries as fuel shortages bite and send prices higher on their own.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
The fact that fossil fuels particularly oil will escalate in price means that carbon pricing should be flexible not fixed. It is still necessary to prevent horrors like coal-to-liquids and wean us off carbon before the long term crunch. If liquid fuels are exempted from the carbon tax it defeats the point. Another crossover from stationary power stations to the transport sector is the likely uptake of compressed natural gas CNG by 00,000's of trucks and buses. This will happen as diesel gets over $2/L particularly if the diesel rebate scheme is dropped. It could happen with cars as well with the Honda Civic NGV being rated greener in the US than petrol electric hybrids. 400km range on a tank of CNG beats any affordable battery car. Many outer suburb commuters and night shift workers simply don't have the public transport option.
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 14 April 2011 10:03:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A really informative article thanks. What we HAVE to do is get the climate change and peak oil people talking to one another so that, as Taswegian said, we can avoid such climate horrors as coal-to-liquids. And we also need to stop growing. Any further population growth will only exacerbate these twin problems of climate change and peak oil.
Posted by popnperish, Thursday, 14 April 2011 10:25:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ben, why must you repeat the lies of our worst PM, until Gilliar:” Carbon pollution is the greatest threat human civilization has ever faced and road vehicles are a major source of this pollution”

Carbon is not pollution, it is the basis of all life on Earth. Carbon dioxide is a clear colourless odourless gas, beneficial to life, the benefits of which are seen in plant life, including the crops which feed us, and in the greening of millions of acres of desert. What was previously sand is now productive land. In addition to stimulating growth the increased CO2 reduces the water required for growth.

Peak oil is another myth. You may not have noticed, but the technology in oil extraction is continually improving, to the point where old fields, from which oil was extracted under old technology are now being reworked.

Green activists have been effective in closing off access to huge amounts of oil, so the sustenance of our oil supplies is dependant on counteracting the pernicious watermelons in our own community. The US would not be dependent on Arab oil if the industry had access to the vast reserves locked up on “environmental” grounds in the US..

Electric cars are the cars of the future, and always will be. Initially the electric car was so enthusiastically sold that in 1910, 90% of New York taxis were electric, and 10% were petrol. A few years later, when it was realised that the petrol engines were superior in every respect, particularly economy, the percentages were reversed, and ultimately there were no more electric cabs.

You are a dreamer, Ben. If we took notice of people like you, our lives would become a nightmare
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 14 April 2011 10:48:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As the world economy recovers from the depredations of the US inspired global financial crisis (it is now doing so) demand for oil-based fuels will increase, particularly by developing countries and most notably by India and China. This may well result in pump-prices reaching $2/l. by the end of 2011 and $3/l. by 2012 – and that is without any increase in excise or the effects of a carbon tax.

LNG, even for a country with plentiful supplies of it, such as Australia, is only an interim vehicle fuel and in the not too distant future will have to be replaced by electric vehicles.

Environmentally, it makes sense to encourage EV development and use since by 2020, 20% of our energy needs will come from renewable sources and by 2050 this will increase to over 50%. Public policy is already changing to focus on achieving these targets and encouraging development of technology to make EV’s more efficient and reliable.

A common perception is that EV’s will be exactly the same as present day fossil;-fuelled vehicles but propelled by electricity produced by an on-board generator and/or stored in batteries. That may well be – at the outset – but there are some interesting alternatives which have the potential to provide safe, speedy, computer-controlled transport which needs no roads and travels on a frictionless magnetic field.

For those interested in such concepts, I would suggest reading/listening to the Science Show interview with Trond Andresen at:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2011/3164301.htm or tapping into the wealth of information available by Googling ‘maglev-based personal rapid transit’.
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Thursday, 14 April 2011 11:08:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Leo Lane

About the only thing you got right was that there will be a move back to electric cars. But why do you think that when you reject the evidence on peak oil? You can't have it both ways.

I don't want to be unkind, but your comments on carbon are just plain ignorant. You have to understand that we humans have upset the balance of various planetary cycles, not least nitrogen and carbon, and that is resulting in various problems such as eutrophication of our waterways (nitrogen) and climate disruption (carbon). As for peak oil, look at the production graphs - please. We are on a bumpy plateau at the moment where unconventional sources of oil (deepwater, tar sands etc) are just compensating for the shortfall in conventional oil supplies. But they can only ever produce about 5mbd out of the 85mbd we currently produce. Once conventional supplies decline past a certain point, oil prices will rise and continue to rise. The bottom line is, we have only ever had about 2.1 trillion barrels of oil and we have used up half that. But as demand increases through economic and population growth, demand will exceed supply and that will hasten the decline. If you know about bell curves, we are about to get on the slippery down slope on the right hand side.
Posted by popnperish, Thursday, 14 April 2011 11:41:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ben -
this statement "Governments' policies have reduced fuel taxes far below real costs."

Bbbbwwwwhahahahahahah!

You do realise that about half the price we see at the petrol pumps is tax of one sort or another, most notably the petroleum resources rent tax which has been there all along? The road user levy you cite is little more than a bite on top of all that. In the US taxes are way less, and in Europe a lot more. I sort of see where you're coming from but if you want to be effective, then it would be a good idea to reword your article.

Peak oil. Ben, you really want to google the terms "fracking" and shale and start reading. Gas reserves in particular have gone through the roof in the past couple of years - the gas industry has been completely revolutionised - but there does seem to a spill over (so to speak) into oil.

In any case, please note, none of the original, modern peak oil estimates ever suggested that peak meant the end of the oil as such. All that Campbell et all suggested back in the 1980s was that the switch between easy-lift oil and unconventional oil (oil sands in Canada for example) may result in disruption. A further problem is that the peak oil estimates mostly date from before the pre-salt layer discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico, and off Brazil.

There may well be temporary disruptions. There have been strong suggestions that OPEC has not invested nearly as much as it should have in production facilities to keep pace with demand, but if anyone tries to tell you they know what will happen to the price of oil in the near future ignore them.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 14 April 2011 11:43:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon

Yes, there's a lot of US shale gas, not least in the Marcellus deposits. But don't get carried away. They are not delivering as hoped. In most wells there is an initial burst and then the decline is rapid, making only a few wells economically viable.

As for the pre-salt oil resources in Brazil, yes they're there in large quantities but they're pretty deep and the economics of extraction hasn't been sorted as yet. Don't hold your breath on those.
Posted by popnperish, Thursday, 14 April 2011 12:00:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Even if the scaremongering was half true it is obvious that having a carbon tax is purely wealth distribution. Those who went to school in the seventies have heard it all before many times over. Yawn.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 14 April 2011 12:09:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
$3 or $4 or whatever, doesn't matter does it, since the current government is going to carbon tax us and make us better off than before we were taxed .. isn't that how it works?

So we'll have more money to pay for more expensive fuel, and if they raise the tax on fuel, we'll have even more money .. this is so fantastic .. bring on more tax!

I demand more tax, so I'll be better off .. or something like that /sarc .. what an absurd notion.

I agree with curmudgeon, the Peak Oil "scare" is just that, carefully selected to ignore the reality of life and all the alternative fuels, like biofuels .. now I know there are issues with all those things, but the bottom line is, we will nt run out of vehicle fuel. It may be produced differently, cost differently .. but we will have fuel.

Stop the scare campaigns that we will have "no fuel" .. we will and you don't like that, we get it.
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 14 April 2011 12:16:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amicus

Please enlighten us as to what the alternative vehicle fuels are. Algae can apparently replace 17 per cent of US imported oil. That's a start except we now find it takes huge amounts of fresh water, in the same way that corn ethanol takes land away from food production (and we are close to crisis on that front). Biofuel from sugar has at least a decent EROEI but large scale development in Brazil may wreck valuable ecosystems. Gas? Yes, there's potential there but we may not get the infrastructure in place before oil prices go through the roof.

It's not good enough to just say "we'll be right". You have to be specific so government can at least provide initial financial incentives to get the alternatives in place, otherwise we'll all be in economic meltdown once again.
Posted by popnperish, Thursday, 14 April 2011 12:40:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You have to be specific"

No I don't ..

This is an opinion forum, not a guaranteed solutions forum

popapesh - you're just p*ssy because there are alternatives and you don't like that, you would prefer we all got our comeuppance, yes?

There are biofuels, and I expect with all the land we have in Australia to grow our fuel it's a renewable and might even provide some of those new green jobs

the fact you will find fault with any solution, does not mean they don't exist, with or without difficulties, which can and will be overcome. they may not be ready today, but they don't have to be, we have years to plan and get our act together

suffer baby
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 14 April 2011 12:57:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ben/popnperish - as you've basically agreed to in a previous post, the peak oil scare is dead.. sure the pre-salt stuff is expensive to extract, as you say, but that means it'll be expensive oil. Thre is no actual barrier to extracting it. No the fracking stuff is changing everything, you are concentrating on the failures in the hope that they mean something in the scheme of things. However, to even admit that those reserves exist (only a few wells..) means you agree that peak oil is dead.

In any case, there was a lot of unconventional oil before fracking came along, the real issue is the trade off between oil prices and extraction prices, and OPEC production which has levelled off noticeably. Commentators have attributed that levelling off to the peak in easy-lift oil but, as I pointed out, an alternative explanation is that OPEC members haven't bothered to investing in oil exploration or production facilities. This has to do with the way they set their production quotas.

Whether either explanation is right is neither here nor there now, as far as peak oil is concerned. As a scare story its effectively dead.

The sad part is that although you, popnperish, at least know enough about this to quibble, Ben doesn't seem to know anything at all about these developments.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 14 April 2011 2:05:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author has introduced CO2 emissions into the discussion and these
emissions should for now not be considered.
The IPCC computer models have erroneous data for their inputs of
available fossil fuels. Until they use the more realistic data AGW
should not be a consideration.

Natural gas as an alternative to liquid fuels has real possibilities.
However to scale up the distribution system to equal the present
petrol and diesel system is a cost that we may not be able to bear in
our present financial condition.
However for a moderate number of CNG users there are commercially
available overseas compressors which you can plug into your domestic
gas supply and compress for use in a car gas tank.
However I doubt if the gas supply could cope with everyone coming
home from work and starting up their compressors.

CNG while an option may not be developed fast enough to equal the rate
of depletion of oil supplies. It would however provide a good buffer
and delay the need to find the ultimate solution for transport energy.

Production of gas fields falls very steeply when they start depleting.
Because of this it may not be possible to ever provide a fast enough
increase in production to overcome oil depletion. We will probably be
in a race to the bottom of the barrel (pun intended).

Additionally government could reserve CNG for use in power stations
and ban its use in road transport.
I know that we have very large reserves of gas but after we honor our
contracts with China and Japan, would we be able to supply all our
transport needs and power station demands ?
A related question; how long would we need to use CNG and how much
time before we need to find the permanent alternative ?

All those are questions that our government has never even heard let
alone considered an answer.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 14 April 2011 3:13:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I notice a number of respondents here seem to think that peak oil is
history. Well they are right peak oil according to the International
Energy Authority occurred in 2006 !

Many of the finds mentioned are expensive to produce and will take
something like ten years to get into production. When you see figures
for some of these fields, divide the available reserves by 85,000,000
and you will be surprised at how few days supply there is available.

The cheap fields are depleting and the new fields are expensive.
It can only mean more expensive petrol & diesel.
Expensive fuel will mean that we will stretch out the supply but many
uses are not optional. Food is a good example as the amount of energy
used to produce our food is very high.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 14 April 2011 3:32:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Popnperish. You are not unkind, just mistaken, through poor reading comprehension.

I said electric cars will always be the cars of the future. They will never be the cars of the present. When enough people have been misled into buying them, and realise what they have done, there will cease to be a market for them

As I have asked many on this space before who assert that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate. You assert climate disruption, so please point us to any scientific evidence that this is so.

No one has produced it yet, because it does not exist.

If there were such evidence the IPCC would know about it and the best they can do is say that it is “very likely”.

They predicted that the science to prove it would be the “hotspot” in the troposphere which would be the “signature” for AGW.

There is no hotspot, no signature, and still no apology from the mendacious IPCC for attempting to mislead us.

I am sure you will apologise immediately, popnperish, for asserting this nonsense.

As for your puerile “eutrophication of our waterways”, why don’t you grow up.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 14 April 2011 4:12:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Heard it all before.

Forty years ago, my high school teachers warned us how the world was running out of food, while my science teacher assured my class that we were heading into a new Ice Age.

In 1979 the Arabs put an oil embargo on the west, and "experts" told the public that the world had only 20 years of oil left. Then there was the "Millenium Bug", where all the worlds computers were going to crash along with any airliner flying, which turned out to be the bigest non event since the last Halley's Comet.

Now we are being told that the earth is suffering from a runaway grenhouse efect, the oceans are going to rise, and we are running out of oil again.

Give me a break. I will believe it when I see it.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 14 April 2011 4:20:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz - sorry, but none of that's relevent.

Oil industry analysts would have largely dumped peak oil as a useful concept, even for easy lift oil. The IEA estimate, if they did make it, is probably old. A better, more reliable estimate also pre-dating the salt layer discoveries, by the highly respected consultancy Cambridge Energy Research Association, put a peak at sometime to the 2040s, from memory.

Now even the most pessimistic analysts have admitted that the Brazil and Gulf of Mexico discoveries are collectively huge, and have come on top of recent developments unlocking vast oil shale deposits. (Google "fracking", as noted before.) Oil may become more expensive, but who knows what oil prices will do.

Otherwise, peak oil as a scare story is dead. Best to move on.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 14 April 2011 5:14:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon said;
The IEA estimate, if they did make it, is probably old.

Every year the IEA produces an outlook document.
It was in the 2010 year document which came out about October 2010.
It referred to peak crude oil which is a few years earlier than
crude oil plus all liquids which seems to have been in 2008.

It is no theory, it is a fact that all oil wells and oil fields
experience it as did Australia in 1999. Like all other "huge" finds
compared to daily usage of oil they are all not drought breakers.
I have forgotten what the expected available oil is for the Brazil
finds but it will certainly help but not solve the basic problem.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 14 April 2011 6:35:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On a list of oil consumption per country, Australia comes in at number 20 in the world, with many countries with a much larger population consuming much less.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=as&v=91

The biggest oil shale field in Australia (probably Stuart in QLD at 24 billion barrels of oil) could, at the most, meet Australia’s current rate of oil consumption per day, but the price of petrol from that oil shale is likely to be much higher than at present.

The costs of building and maintaining roads is also huge. I have recently seen 2 excavators, a grader, a roller, 3 trucks and about 10 men needed to repair 50 metres of washed out earthen drain beside a road. This took a day, and they have yet to actually fix the potholes in the bitumen.

Even at the present $1.50 per litre for petrol, Australia cannot afford it, and Australia simply has to reduce its rate of oil consumption.
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 14 April 2011 7:48:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
l dont believe there is an oil shortage nor will there be any shortage within the next 100 years. l think we are being scammed by the Saudis and others. They maniplulate the price as they see fit. They let it climb as high as it will and when it falls thay sit back and wait till it climbs again. They are doing mighty fine and we in the West are suffering. Oil over $120.00 a barrel is a recession trigger - the world cannot afford to pay any more than 120.
What are we going to do about the price? Nothing because we in the West have got appallingly weak and pathetic.
Posted by glomley, Thursday, 14 April 2011 8:44:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Leo Lane. The good old technology will solve all our woes response.

You stated that:

"Peak oil is another myth. You may not have noticed, but the technology in oil extraction is continually improving, to the point where old fields, from which oil was extracted under old technology are now being reworked."

I suggest you read the following article, written by a petroleum engineer. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4307.

Its sub title is "How can you double something and still have ten times less than you started with?"

Yes technology increases the amount that can be extracted but it is highly unlikely that it will be able to beat the geologic factors of depletion nor the above ground factors caused by politics, economics etc.

Technology, and our belief in technology, will in the long run cause far more problems than it solves.
Posted by leckos, Thursday, 14 April 2011 11:12:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz and Leckos - fellas, what I and the other posters are saying is just not penetrating. You've half-responded to a point or two but otherwise you don't seem to have any counter-arguments.

I stand corected on one point, the IEA was stupid enough to make noises about peak oil last year. They have truely flipped. The Cambridge Energy Research Association statement would still trump it, if either were still relevent but they are not. In any case, in their original form the peak oil forecasts were only ever intended for easy-lift oil, not to signal the end of oil itself. No one but activists would dare forecast the end of oil itself. Just look at the huge estimates for unconventional oil for yourself, if you don't want to believe me - and, as I said, read up on "fracking".

In any case, the Brazilian fields alone are big enough that Brazil is wondering what it will do with the money (actually big resource finds are more of a curse than a blessing), and you're overlooking the obvious point that no-one suspected they were there previously. In fact the orignal peak oil forecasts were sure the limit of deep water extraction had already been reached. So why couldn't there be more? the Gulf of Mexico finds were orignally smallsih but they are getting bigger.

And you still have the problem of unconventional oil. Sure that might make oil more expensive but so what? People will pay more. Half the oil price at the pump is tax anyway.

Sorry, fellas, but the arguments have run out, and that's even before I repeated the stuff about OPEC. Peak oil is dead as a scare story. You'll have to live with oil.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 14 April 2011 11:39:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon, the holes in your reasoning are on the same scale as the accuracy of CERAs Daniel Yergin's predictions on future oil prices. Enormous! (see: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3487)

There is no point arguing with you but what I will say is this. When I started studying our peak oil predicament in 2005 virtually no major organisation accepted the validity of the peak oil argument. Since that time however, particularly in the last 2-3 years, dozens of major organisations have changed their view. These organisations range from the US and German militaries, Macquarie Bank, Chatham House, some national governments and even the IEA has changed its position. There are still some organisations that deny/refute the argument but they are becoming fewer and fewer and their arguments less and less convincing (eg. CERA and the Energy Information Administration). Just have a look at the major customers of these organisations however and you could make an educated guess as to why their position hasn't changed.

I suggest that you do some actual research rather than just reading the headlines. For example compare the rosy predictions of production at the Thunder Horse project in the Gulf of Mexico versus actual production. Or look at the relationship between oil price spikes and recession.

Sorry Curmudgeon but your arguments sound to me like someone in serious denial about our predicament.
Posted by leckos, Friday, 15 April 2011 7:02:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm ... try the plural.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 15 April 2011 8:05:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon said:
Sure that might make oil more expensive but so what?

Well the so what is that if the oil gets to be more expensive than we
can afford it might as well not be there.
I keep hearing people say but technology will solve the problems and
gain access to the stranded oil. Unfortunately the techniques that are
usually given as new techniques have been in use for years.
Over the years they have managed to get recoverable oil from about 25% to 35%.

Our biggest problem will be in a world scramble to get supplies, will
we will be elbowed out of the market.
That could happen suddenly and would deny us the gradual transition time.

I have heard stories about there being plenty of oil everywhere.
One was that they have capped wells all over the outback.
At the current prices if there was anything worthwhile down there it
would be pumped up. It is part of the conspiracy theory regime in
company with 9/11 and similar legends.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 15 April 2011 8:30:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to know something of the politics involved in the Rundle oil production, & it's closure.

It was proven economic at A$70 a barrel, but the oil companies theoretically refused to buy it. The fact that it disappeared without even a ripple is surprising to say the least. I wonder if it is being held as a strategic reserve.

What ever the case, there is enough known oil under the Barrier reef at it's southern end to run Oz for 40 years. When the stuff really hits the fan, even our greenies will be screaming to extract it. That is of course, if we still have any say over what happens in our country.

I wonder who funds the Sustainable Transport Coalition? Who ever it is they would do well to make their claims a bit more realistic, if they want anyone other than the fringe to take them seriously.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 15 April 2011 9:30:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you that, Ben Rose.

It is a usefull aid to understanding the grave threat to Australias energy security .
Indeed , motorists must pay more to cover the real costs of their impacts. The reforms you propose will benefit taxpayers by encouraging more efficient transport and to pay for the expansion of bus, train and bicycle networks.( and I suggest electric bicycles and electric scooters)

Some, inacurate comments have been made on this list about peak Oil.

1. the energy watchdog (IEA Oct 1010 ) lifted its forecast for world oil consumption but played down fears that prices will top 100 US dollars a barrel. Global demand was expected to reach 86.9 million barrels a day in 2010 and 88.2 million barrels a day in 2011. The forecast, came with news of record Chinese imports in September 2010 of 5.52 million barrels/day.

2 . recent natural catashropies In Japan reduced their demand for oil . Political chaos in Lybia ended its oil exports and destroyed some oil wells .

3. Add this to Iraqs failure to develop it oil resourcess means that that the price of oil could reach US $ 150 . in Oct 2010 Iraqi oil minister, Hussein al-Shahristani announced an upward revision to the country's known capacity from 2.4 million barrels per day to 12 million bpd in seven years. Disputed by oil executives meeting at the Oil & Money conference in London (Oct 2010 ) as relying on the assumption of Iraqs political stability and well security. Iraqs future oil production in the next decade rests onshore resources which remain largely undeveloped.

4. Saudi Arabian leaders are so worried that demand for oil could peak in the next decade that they have callied for an economy that includes investment in renewable energy.

5 . The Production of much more gas by fracking deep rocks beneath the ground and retrofitting the worlds car fleet to use gas are 10 or more years away. Fracking rocks will contaminates ground water and threatens food production in most Australian states.
Posted by PEST, Friday, 15 April 2011 2:50:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A number of organisations have expressed concern about oil production levels.
The German military think tank.
The US army.
The IEA and EIA.
Total Oil Company
Shell Oil Company
The British government has become nervous about future supply.
A number of others but the latest one is;
The IMF has produced a document World Economic Outlook in part of
which it discusses peak crude oil.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/01/pdf/text.pdf

Most discussion such as we have here however do not take into account
what is known as the Export Land Factor.
The calculations that do, paint a very much worse future picture.
It takes into account that exporting countries will keep using as much
oil, or increasing amounts, eg Saudi Arabia, even while their total
production declines. Because of this their export quantity decreases
faster and faster than their depletion rate.

Yes Hasbeen, if indeed there is oil along the barrier reef I wonder
if there would be enough to make it worthwhile.
Certainly the first time the greenies have to queue for five hours to
get 20 litres of petrol, they will be demonstrating in the streets
with "Drill Baby Drill" signs.
Likewise the first time the power goes out in the middle of cooking
dinner they will be in the streets demanding nuclear power tomorrow !

As the IEA put it crude oil will never again exceed 76 million barrels a day.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 15 April 2011 4:42:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for informed contributions by Bazz, Pest, Taswegian and Popnperish and others. Particularly good information on peak oil. Gives me faith that many (a majority?) are seeing the problems we face with these issues.

I do not have time or energy to argue with 'flat earthers'. I do recognize your right to express your opinion but it would be helpful if you would stick to the subject - the unsustainablity of current transport systems. Though it's off the subject, I will comment, Curmudgeon, on 'fracking'. You do not appear to be aware of the damage this is doing to aquifers in the US - a film was done on it recently - 'Gas Land'. You should see it. Coal seam methane is also a relatively small and short lived resource - nothing like the oil we've consumed in 50 years. Google the ASPO website and get some real information of peak oil / gas. You should also look at NASA, NOAA AND CSIRO websites, with key information such as the 'hockey stick' climate - CO2 graphs.

We have a choice - do we go with the most polluted, congested thrd world countries such as Indonesia, along with USA, Mexico and Canada and subsdize fuel? Or do we look to the enlightened European and other countries who have decreased reliance on cars? They did this by reforming taxation to stop encourging / subidizing destructive transport behaviours. Their fuel taxes cover the real costs (explained in my article) of ineffcient over-use of cars and wastage of motor fuel.

One pertinent question - who funds STCWA ? Nobody - the committee is all voluntary and mainly professionals working on energy, city planning, carbon accounting and peak oil. We all have cars but don't use them much. Some such as myself could in the past have been described as 'fuel heads'. However, on learning the truth I have seen the urgent and imperative need for change.
Posted by Roses1, Saturday, 16 April 2011 12:00:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Rosie, not only misinformed, but by your last post, arrogant with it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 16 April 2011 4:23:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why don't you play the ball, Hasbeen, instead of the (wo)man? Are you so bereft of genuine argument that you are reduced to this?
Posted by popnperish, Saturday, 16 April 2011 6:09:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sticking your ill informed head up again, popnperish, without giving any reference to back up the nonsense which you fabricated and posted earlier?

Hasbeen made a perfectly sensible observation, which is more than you or the rest of those named by Roses 1 have managed to do.

If you post unsubstantiated nonsense, and ignore requests for a basis, it is ridiculous to assert a personal attack when you are brought to account.

Learn how to conduct yourself on a forum and come back with something sensible.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 16 April 2011 7:09:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy