D
Doug50
Guest
Yep and if Al wants to focus on natural gas I can help him out with a focus on shale gas formations right here in the US. The Barnett is in my backyard
http://www.wealthdaily.com/wdtext/images/oilshale_map.gif
- Status
http://www.wealthdaily.com/wdtext/images/oilshale_map.gif
D
Doug50
Guest
BTW, Al, Mitchell Energy applied for and got government grant funds to figure out how to produce the Barnett.
D
Doug50
Guest
A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items)
ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm
ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Great list, Doug. Hey, Doug and Dee Dee, I have a question, although I know you’re not economists by profession: how resilient is the economy? My brother is concerned about living way out in the boondocks with no access to public transportation by rail. He is thinking of moving into town near a rail link. In your view, how much time does he have to make this decision? The cornucopians are convinced that we’ll make a seamless transition to ethanol and biodiesel, but I see no evidence that we will be able to fuel 300 million vehicles in a decade.
That is, assuming we reach Hubbert’s Peak in 2010, how soon after that will gasoline rise to levels unaffordable for average folk? I’m advising him to move into town before his property value plummets.
Petrus
D
Doug50
Guest
Man, Petrus, that tough question. The IEA is looking for an easing in the oil market in 2008 due to some major projects coming on line. That may be what James R. Schlesinger is aluding to during the US Senate Committee Hearing on Peak Oil when he gave an easing in the market for 2010. But even with that 2008 easing the IEA sees an oil “crunch” anywhere from 2010-2012: A Revolutionary Report on the Future of Oil and IEA sees oil supply crunch looming
So what might we expect? Gasoline lines and shortages again? I all depends on what you think will happen by then. How bad could things get over time. In the beginning I think we’ll see a repeat of 1973 oil embargo and the 1979 Iran/Iraq war along with stagflation. In the cities there were long gas lines and, like beefed up road rage, hot tempers in those lines. It was common TV news to hear of people fighting and shooting each other over buying gas. I was glade I lived in the country and not in the city where that didn’t happen. There was gas shortages but no real gas lines.
I live on a farm near a small town and wouldn’t trade for it. During that stagflation era, people redicoverd gardening since food prices rose weekly. Even how-to books were sold like “Square Foot Gardening”
I don’t know if I agree with him but Stephen Leeb, Ph.D, believes land values will keep pace with inflation. I think that depends on where the land is. A lot of farm land is selling at a premium above any real economic farming value. There’s an aesthitic premium on lands close to cities. I think that premium will go away if things get bad enough. Look at the housing market and what’s happening in place around the country due to the subprime loans: Morgage Meltdown If you can’t aford to buy the gas to drive from the suburbs, why would those housing values remain up? A difference we have now that we didn’t have then is the internet. I wonder how many people living in the suburbs could just as easily commute by computer. I think we’ll see a lot more of that. Just to ease road traffic there should be more of that now. I wish I could be more help but think eveyone has to look at their own situation relative to where they live.
Maybe depending on where a person is located light rail is viable but I don’t see much in the way for expanding Amtrack for a while.
I wish I had a cristal ball to see the details but god didn’t give us those.
So what might we expect? Gasoline lines and shortages again? I all depends on what you think will happen by then. How bad could things get over time. In the beginning I think we’ll see a repeat of 1973 oil embargo and the 1979 Iran/Iraq war along with stagflation. In the cities there were long gas lines and, like beefed up road rage, hot tempers in those lines. It was common TV news to hear of people fighting and shooting each other over buying gas. I was glade I lived in the country and not in the city where that didn’t happen. There was gas shortages but no real gas lines.
I live on a farm near a small town and wouldn’t trade for it. During that stagflation era, people redicoverd gardening since food prices rose weekly. Even how-to books were sold like “Square Foot Gardening”
I don’t know if I agree with him but Stephen Leeb, Ph.D, believes land values will keep pace with inflation. I think that depends on where the land is. A lot of farm land is selling at a premium above any real economic farming value. There’s an aesthitic premium on lands close to cities. I think that premium will go away if things get bad enough. Look at the housing market and what’s happening in place around the country due to the subprime loans: Morgage Meltdown If you can’t aford to buy the gas to drive from the suburbs, why would those housing values remain up? A difference we have now that we didn’t have then is the internet. I wonder how many people living in the suburbs could just as easily commute by computer. I think we’ll see a lot more of that. Just to ease road traffic there should be more of that now. I wish I could be more help but think eveyone has to look at their own situation relative to where they live.
Maybe depending on where a person is located light rail is viable but I don’t see much in the way for expanding Amtrack for a while.
I wish I had a cristal ball to see the details but god didn’t give us those.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
When I was a kid, living in the country, there were country stores dotted around so one was never more than around five miles from one. They carried fuel, feed, cloth, basic food and hardware items; the kind of stuff people now drive 15 or 20 miles to pick up, using up a great deal of fuel just to get some small, basic item. They were the “convenience stores” of their time. Those stores were extremely busy during WWII, I’m told, because of the gasoline rationing, but faded, then flickered out when gasoline was so inexpensive that it didn’t matter very much how far one had to drive to do “basic” shopping. It’s a lot more efficient to bring hundreds of gallons of fuel 20 miles to a central location, from zero to five miles away from the users than it is for each user to drive 20 miles to get 15 or 25 gallons.
In those days, country schools were also located where the country stores were located. The kids mostly walked to them since they were so close. The teachers mostly lived in the country too, often within walking distance, and actually delivered a pretty decent education in a far more disciplined environment than is now the case. They were the product of the old “teachers’ colleges” that were actually pretty good. Today, consolidated schools run gas-hog buses hundreds of miles each day in the aggregate, to pick up the kids and then drop them off again at the end of the day.
In the days of the “country stores”, “country schools” and “scarce fuel”, most country folk did not work in the towns, though most now do. However, those who did “car pooled”. There were contervailing benefits. They raised a lot of their own staple foods because, living on the farms, it wasn’t particularly inconvenient to do it. At that time, there were a lot of family-operated slaughterhouses all over the place. So raising one’s own meat wasn’t much of a chore either. I am not persuaded yet that the countryside will necessarily go back to the wilds if fuel gets substantially more rare and expensive. I also recall that during the “fuel crisis” of the 1970s, a lot of country people set up their own ethanol stills (a skill many remembered from less legitimate uses) and ran their vehicles with it. Some of them were quite inventive. People are often much more resourceful and adaptable than they are given credit for.
In those days, country schools were also located where the country stores were located. The kids mostly walked to them since they were so close. The teachers mostly lived in the country too, often within walking distance, and actually delivered a pretty decent education in a far more disciplined environment than is now the case. They were the product of the old “teachers’ colleges” that were actually pretty good. Today, consolidated schools run gas-hog buses hundreds of miles each day in the aggregate, to pick up the kids and then drop them off again at the end of the day.
In the days of the “country stores”, “country schools” and “scarce fuel”, most country folk did not work in the towns, though most now do. However, those who did “car pooled”. There were contervailing benefits. They raised a lot of their own staple foods because, living on the farms, it wasn’t particularly inconvenient to do it. At that time, there were a lot of family-operated slaughterhouses all over the place. So raising one’s own meat wasn’t much of a chore either. I am not persuaded yet that the countryside will necessarily go back to the wilds if fuel gets substantially more rare and expensive. I also recall that during the “fuel crisis” of the 1970s, a lot of country people set up their own ethanol stills (a skill many remembered from less legitimate uses) and ran their vehicles with it. Some of them were quite inventive. People are often much more resourceful and adaptable than they are given credit for.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Excellent points! My mother used to put up a hundred quarts of green beans every winter, and canned jams and jellies and pickles. We had chickens so we had eggs available and fish from a pond. Potatoes and apples were hard to keep from spoiling.
My concern, Ridgerunner, is not that rural people won’t survive, but that there are hundreds of millions living in suburbs or inner cities who have no such access to land, and that a lot of agricultural land is being gobbled up for suburbs. I worry that if push comes to shove, the property rights of people with arable land will disappear before “might makes right.” And how can you blame a father with starving children from trying to take over someone else’s field to grow food for his loved ones?
Petrus
D
Doug50
Guest
Looks like the three of us are thinking somewhat a like. Pre WWII and even into the 1960’s in my area the grocery stores (and there were three in this town of 1,200) that got much of their produce from area farmers. You can still see large chicken barns (100+ feet long) where farms raise and sold fry hens to the local market. Except for locally raised beef going to the local slater that local infrastructure is gone. I could see it being rebuilt. Will that happen? I don’t know, time will tell. Anything is possible. This coming energy crises might just get fixed.
Growing up, I spent a lot of time on my grandparents farm. These old homestead, like theirs, were very self relient. Most of their produce came from the garden, pork, beef, etc. was all raised on the place. It wasn’t such a bad way to live
Growing up, I spent a lot of time on my grandparents farm. These old homestead, like theirs, were very self relient. Most of their produce came from the garden, pork, beef, etc. was all raised on the place. It wasn’t such a bad way to live
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
My post was in response to the one who wondered whether to advise his brother to get out of the boondocks and into the city before a fuel crisis.
With all due respect to city folk, any who tried to take over portions of the countryside wouldn’t last very long; first because most wouldn’t stand a chance in the country against country people, and second because most wouldn’t know how to keep themselves fed if they did grab land.
But I still think city folk are adaptable and resourceful in their own way. It’s not going to be “no more gasoline” overnight. If it starts to get scary, they can, and likely will, build streetcar lines, powered by coal or nuclear-fired generating stations. And that’s even if there are no technological innovations. Those wide city streets have plenty of room for streetcars if you took half the cars off them and laid the tracks. You can even have streetcars with tires instead of tracks. I saw them when I was a kid. The suburbanites could drive to the lines in those itty-bitty electric cars the greenies want us all to drive, or even walk to them. I don’t think the city people are going to curl up and die, at all.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Not bad at all, and it may be our best hope. The problem is, we’ve gone from 75% of the population living on farms to 2%. It would take a substantial transfer to move all that land back from petroleum based agribusiness to family-sized farms. How do you procure our 250 million urbanites and suburbanites their forty acres and a mule?
Perhaps community farming would be an option, like that farm in Illinois where people buy shares in the enterprise, and either put in money or put in an equivalent share of labor in exchange for fresh produce, milk, and eggs.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
I agree, but it will take planning and forethought to avoid a certain degree of chaos and social unrest. Rail takes time and money to build, so we should start now.
And, not to be xenophobic, but I do worry what will happen when the Cantarell field dries up (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantarell_Field)), ethanol-destined corn is too expensive to use for tortillas, and 100 million Mexicans start eyeing what the US has. The world needs to make places like Mexico self-sustaining, if only out of our own self interest.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I agree. The richest man in the world is a Mexican, but ordinary people have difficulty buying corn to grind up and eat; a commodity which, to us, is so cheap we even manufacture fireplaces that burn it like wood.
Mexico is clearly a basket case economically, and for no good reason at all except the stupidity and greed of its ruling elites. It’s even worse than you mentioned. The birth rate has fallen below the replacement rate. All the strong, young people want to move to the U.S. That’s what most of the illegals I see are. Foreign capital investment is mightily discouraged; the very thing that built this country, early on. That country is in a terrible mess, and I don’t know that there’s a thing we can do to change it. In thinking of Mexico, I think of what Ehud Barak (I think it was him) said about the Palestinians: “They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”
D
Doug50
Guest
As biased as James Howard Kunstler is against suburbia I think his thesis makes good points against the suburbian lifestyle in a peak oil economy. He foresee many suburbanites becoming farm laborers.
Who knows he might be right.I didn’t agree with everything he’s predicting in his book “The Long Emergency” (mostly towards the end of the book is where he lost me) but on the broader general thesis of it I tend to agree with.
M
Mr.Bee
Guest
I’m with you Doug. I’m a bit of a fan of James Kunstler. I think he tends to exaggerate the gloom 'n doom, but the message and evidence is pretty clear.As biased as James Howard Kunstler is against suburbia I think his thesis makes good points against the suburbian lifestyle in a peak oil economy. He foresee many suburbanites becoming farm laborers.
I didn’t agree with everything he’s predicting in his book “The Long Emergency” (mostly towards the end of the book is where he lost me) but on the broader general thesis of it I tend to agree with.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Folks interested in this issue may wish to research the work of Robert Zubrin, author of “Energy Victory”. He was on BookTV this weekend.
His suggestion is that the United States (and the world) follow the “Brazilian model” in the sense of mandating that ALL automobiles produced from 2008 onward be equipped for “Flex Fuel”. Flex Fuel cars can burn any form of alcohol … not just ethanol, but also methanol and any mix of those alcohols and gasoline.
The cost would be around $100 or so per car.
Zubrin’s thesis is that Saudi Arabia controls the price of oil and gasoline. They can cut production ever so slightly and cause the price to skyrocket. Any country that goes against Saudi Arabia will be punished by Saudi Arabia increasing production and driving the price down, thereby cutting the revenues to the other countries. Saudi Arabia’s cost of production is around 50 cents a barrel (estimates go as high as $2 or so). Most other countries have costs ranging up to $30 or so, so Saudi Arabia is relatively immune to price fluctuations (and besides they are collecting a couple of hundred billion dollars per year, so they have a lot of money socked away in their war chest).
Brazil has been producing flex-fuel cars and starting in 2008 will no longer produce non-flex-fuel cars.
While ethanol is currently produced from corn or sugar cane/beets, methanol can be produced from almost anything … coal, garbage, wood chips, grass, etc.
The flex fuel car would cost very little and in response, within two years (based on the rapidity with which ethanol production was developed by the private sector), the Saudi Arabian petroleum monopoly on liquid fuels for vehicles would be broken.
The price of oil would probably drop to $30 per barrel with gasoline/alcohol fuels at $2 per gallon (or less). It would allow every farmer on Earth to compete by producing (non-food) vegetation that could be used for fuel. Third and fourth-world countries could grow their own fuel instead of paying money to Saudi Arabia for fuel.
There are a couple of Web sites: www.thenewatlantis.com and www.energyvictory.net
Upcoming Shedule on BookTV (CSPAN2):
Monday, December 31, at 10:00 PM
Set your VCR’s and DVR’s!
His suggestion is that the United States (and the world) follow the “Brazilian model” in the sense of mandating that ALL automobiles produced from 2008 onward be equipped for “Flex Fuel”. Flex Fuel cars can burn any form of alcohol … not just ethanol, but also methanol and any mix of those alcohols and gasoline.
The cost would be around $100 or so per car.
Zubrin’s thesis is that Saudi Arabia controls the price of oil and gasoline. They can cut production ever so slightly and cause the price to skyrocket. Any country that goes against Saudi Arabia will be punished by Saudi Arabia increasing production and driving the price down, thereby cutting the revenues to the other countries. Saudi Arabia’s cost of production is around 50 cents a barrel (estimates go as high as $2 or so). Most other countries have costs ranging up to $30 or so, so Saudi Arabia is relatively immune to price fluctuations (and besides they are collecting a couple of hundred billion dollars per year, so they have a lot of money socked away in their war chest).
Brazil has been producing flex-fuel cars and starting in 2008 will no longer produce non-flex-fuel cars.
While ethanol is currently produced from corn or sugar cane/beets, methanol can be produced from almost anything … coal, garbage, wood chips, grass, etc.
The flex fuel car would cost very little and in response, within two years (based on the rapidity with which ethanol production was developed by the private sector), the Saudi Arabian petroleum monopoly on liquid fuels for vehicles would be broken.
The price of oil would probably drop to $30 per barrel with gasoline/alcohol fuels at $2 per gallon (or less). It would allow every farmer on Earth to compete by producing (non-food) vegetation that could be used for fuel. Third and fourth-world countries could grow their own fuel instead of paying money to Saudi Arabia for fuel.
There are a couple of Web sites: www.thenewatlantis.com and www.energyvictory.net
Upcoming Shedule on BookTV (CSPAN2):
Monday, December 31, at 10:00 PM
Set your VCR’s and DVR’s!
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Ever hear of the “Stena Drillmax”?
In the December 2007 issue of “Maritime Reporter & Engineering News” on page 29, there is an article describing a new ship, the “Stena Drillmax” designed to drill for oil and gas down to depths of 9100 meters. That’s more than 30,000 feet. In other words, whereas the easy petroleum has been drilled for already, companies are now building drill ships that can go after the difficult-to-access oil and gas.
It was built by Samsung Heavy Industries in South Korea.
It’s unfortunate that so much oil is currently sourced from the Middle East, but with diligent effort the rest of the world can find alternate sources of petroleum as well as alternate fuels such as natural gas, coal, and manufactured energy supplies such as methanol [totally different from ethanol] and nuclear.
Personally, I like the idea of developing the methanol market which can be done in six months. Check out Zubrin’s book “Energy Victory”.
amazon.com/Energy-Victory-Winning-Terror-Breaking/dp/1591025915/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199829382&sr=1-1
In the December 2007 issue of “Maritime Reporter & Engineering News” on page 29, there is an article describing a new ship, the “Stena Drillmax” designed to drill for oil and gas down to depths of 9100 meters. That’s more than 30,000 feet. In other words, whereas the easy petroleum has been drilled for already, companies are now building drill ships that can go after the difficult-to-access oil and gas.
It was built by Samsung Heavy Industries in South Korea.
It’s unfortunate that so much oil is currently sourced from the Middle East, but with diligent effort the rest of the world can find alternate sources of petroleum as well as alternate fuels such as natural gas, coal, and manufactured energy supplies such as methanol [totally different from ethanol] and nuclear.
Personally, I like the idea of developing the methanol market which can be done in six months. Check out Zubrin’s book “Energy Victory”.
amazon.com/Energy-Victory-Winning-Terror-Breaking/dp/1591025915/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199829382&sr=1-1
D
Doug50
Guest
abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1683060.htm
JONATHAN HOLMES: The technology is certainly impressive. This is the Noble Therald Martin, one of 62 marine drilling rigs and ships owned by the Noble Corporation of Texas, and deployed all over the world. The Therald Martin is drilling an exploratory well 200km out in the Gulf of Mexico. It looks and feels as solid as an island, but in fact it’s floating on giant submerged pontoons, anchored to the seafloor 3,500ft - or more than a kilometre - below the surface. 10 years ago, drilling in such depths was impossible. By today’s standards, says Noble’s CEO, it’s almost shallow water.
JAMES DAY, CHAIRMAN & CEO NOBLE CORPORATION: Deep water, a decade ago, was 1,000ft. People used to think 1,000ft would never be passed. We drilled a well recently at 9,000ft of water. We’ve got rigs that are designed for 10,000ft of water, which is about 3.2km, something of that nature.
JONATHAN HOLMES: The precision of modern rigs is extraordinary. Starting at the seabed 3km down, the drill bit can be guided through a further 10km of rock, gradually changing direction, until it’s travelling horizontally. It’s aimed at a sweet spot in a reservoir that’s been mapped by three-dimensional seismic surveys. The target may be no more than a couple of metres square. But all this technology comes at a cost.
My guide on the Noble Therald Martin was the man after whom it was named - senior Noble executive and lifelong oilman, Therald Martin. He manages all Noble’s deep-water rigs in the Gulf.
THERALD MARTIN, DEEP WATER DRILLING SUPT., NOBLE CORP: You can take a land rig, the whole land rig total might cost you $10 million. One single piece of equipment on a semi could cost you more than a total land rig can. The cranes that you see on the rig, these cranes are $2 million a piece to operate them.
JONATHAN HOLMES: A rig like the Therald Martin would cost half a billion dollars to build. All this expense is passed on to the oil companies that hire the rigs, and, ultimately, to the customer at the petrol bowser. So what are your customers having to pay per day?
JAMES DAY, CHAIRMAN & CEO NOBLE CORPORATION: Well, they have to pay for - for, our increased investment. Day rates range from $300,000 to $600,000 per day.
JONATHAN HOLMES: So if they drill a dry hole, that’s a very expensive exercise?
JAMES DAY, CHAIRMAN & CEO NOBLE CORPORATION: It is indeed, and that’s why high oil prices will have to stay in place for a while, because of the cost involved in drilling for that product.
JONATHAN HOLMES: **Therald Martin assured me that in the world’s deep waters, he believes there are vast reservoirs of oil waiting to be found. But his boss, James Day, is not so optimistic. **
JAMES DAY, CHAIRMAN & CEO NOBLE CORPORATION: **The people that I trust and believe - geophysicists, geologists - say the days of the big fields are gone. **
JONATHAN HOLMES: Only a tiny proportion of the deep ocean floors are thought to cover substantial reservoirs of oil - mainly on the fringes of the South Atlantic, and in the Gulf of Mexico.
JAMES DAY, CHAIRMAN & CEO NOBLE CORPORATION: **While we can drill off West Africa, and they have significant reserves, or Brazil, or the deepwater US Gulf, they’re just going to be replacing what we’re currently consuming. But that’s just treading water. That assumes that we’re not increasing
consumption. **
JONATHAN HOLMES: The technology is certainly impressive. This is the Noble Therald Martin, one of 62 marine drilling rigs and ships owned by the Noble Corporation of Texas, and deployed all over the world. The Therald Martin is drilling an exploratory well 200km out in the Gulf of Mexico. It looks and feels as solid as an island, but in fact it’s floating on giant submerged pontoons, anchored to the seafloor 3,500ft - or more than a kilometre - below the surface. 10 years ago, drilling in such depths was impossible. By today’s standards, says Noble’s CEO, it’s almost shallow water.
JAMES DAY, CHAIRMAN & CEO NOBLE CORPORATION: Deep water, a decade ago, was 1,000ft. People used to think 1,000ft would never be passed. We drilled a well recently at 9,000ft of water. We’ve got rigs that are designed for 10,000ft of water, which is about 3.2km, something of that nature.
JONATHAN HOLMES: The precision of modern rigs is extraordinary. Starting at the seabed 3km down, the drill bit can be guided through a further 10km of rock, gradually changing direction, until it’s travelling horizontally. It’s aimed at a sweet spot in a reservoir that’s been mapped by three-dimensional seismic surveys. The target may be no more than a couple of metres square. But all this technology comes at a cost.
My guide on the Noble Therald Martin was the man after whom it was named - senior Noble executive and lifelong oilman, Therald Martin. He manages all Noble’s deep-water rigs in the Gulf.
THERALD MARTIN, DEEP WATER DRILLING SUPT., NOBLE CORP: You can take a land rig, the whole land rig total might cost you $10 million. One single piece of equipment on a semi could cost you more than a total land rig can. The cranes that you see on the rig, these cranes are $2 million a piece to operate them.
JONATHAN HOLMES: A rig like the Therald Martin would cost half a billion dollars to build. All this expense is passed on to the oil companies that hire the rigs, and, ultimately, to the customer at the petrol bowser. So what are your customers having to pay per day?
JAMES DAY, CHAIRMAN & CEO NOBLE CORPORATION: Well, they have to pay for - for, our increased investment. Day rates range from $300,000 to $600,000 per day.
JONATHAN HOLMES: So if they drill a dry hole, that’s a very expensive exercise?
JAMES DAY, CHAIRMAN & CEO NOBLE CORPORATION: It is indeed, and that’s why high oil prices will have to stay in place for a while, because of the cost involved in drilling for that product.
JONATHAN HOLMES: **Therald Martin assured me that in the world’s deep waters, he believes there are vast reservoirs of oil waiting to be found. But his boss, James Day, is not so optimistic. **
JAMES DAY, CHAIRMAN & CEO NOBLE CORPORATION: **The people that I trust and believe - geophysicists, geologists - say the days of the big fields are gone. **
JONATHAN HOLMES: Only a tiny proportion of the deep ocean floors are thought to cover substantial reservoirs of oil - mainly on the fringes of the South Atlantic, and in the Gulf of Mexico.
JAMES DAY, CHAIRMAN & CEO NOBLE CORPORATION: **While we can drill off West Africa, and they have significant reserves, or Brazil, or the deepwater US Gulf, they’re just going to be replacing what we’re currently consuming. But that’s just treading water. That assumes that we’re not increasing
consumption. **
D
Doug50
Guest
Just for you, Al 
Reuters: Tough to pump more oil, even at $100
reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL0725705620080109?sp=true
Reuters: Tough to pump more oil, even at $100
reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL0725705620080109?sp=true
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Maybe this just meant that emerging economies will bypass oil and go straight to new energy technologies. And those countries stuck with the oil/gas/combustion engine infrastructure will have to play catch-up. That would keep demand from increasing too much.Just for you, Al
Reuters: Tough to pump more oil, even at $100
reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL0725705620080109?sp=true
D
Doug50
Guest
what new energy technologies, Neil? There are none that can handle the volumes needed. Probably the best, certainly one of the best, lectures I’ve seen explaining the problem is by Prof Rick Smalley. Here it is, take the time to watch it. I’ve had a Phd geophysisits tell me it was an eye opener for him.
the first link is the lecture and the second link (pdf) is to the power point that Prof Smalley is referring to.
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4626573768558163231
smalley.rice.edu/emplibrary/columbia20030923.pdf
americanenergyindependence.com/energychallenge.html
- Status