Comments on: Unsustainable Energy Trends

By: Charles Norville

Charles Norville — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:18:46 +0000

USA has 2 trillion+ barrels of shale oil, that needs a technology push. But I don't know how long the internal combustion engine can maintain its market share, this oil volatility thing is a real hassle. We in Aus need more efficient transport systems for sure, something the Govt can't tax you on. Hmm that's not going to happen is it?

By: Ross

Ross — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:41:25 +0000

I would appreciate reading DR's views on heavy and other non shale oil variations and the general profile & future of the deep sea deposit sector. I have read that only the US refinery crackers can deal with Timor Sea & Venezuelan heavy oil. Are the chinese upgrading refining to take advantage of their investments in AED and does this change the venezuelan paradygm? Does Petrobras gain any technological advantage from any firsts in deep sea exploration and production? I hope this is better than a request for information on demand and that other readers would have similar general interest in these topics.

By: Existensis » Blog Archive » Unsustainable Energy Trends

Existensis » Blog Archive » Unsustainable Energy Trends — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:54:01 +0000

[...] interesting article. Unsustainable Energy Trends By Byron King I’ve been getting a lot of calls and e-mails from people asking about the falling prices for [...]

By: ralph hill

ralph hill — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:41:48 +0000

"You are forgetting human ingenuity and flexibility, eg more fuel efficient cars & planes, Americans substituting other fossil fuels for heating oil, etc etc..."

Please release me from my bonds ! not that silly efficient market crapola again. first off it will take 10 years for the BIG 3 to retool. if they burn thru $25 Billion per quater for 10 years staving off bankruptcy, that's $10 TRILLION.

Are, americans going to get little fuel efficient 3 cylinder electric hybrids, or are they just going to get flacid shrivelled up SUVs ?

If the next stimulus package is for another million miles of roads, the real answer is obvious.

More of the same nonsense that caused this mess in the first place.

By: David

David — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 02:18:34 +0000

We've been hearing scaremongering about oil running out for a while. Reality is that oil is returning to its long term price (adjusted for inflation). 50 American dollars a barrel is still too high.

Those who think demand will continue to increase are off the mark. You are forgetting human ingenuity and flexibility, eg more fuel efficient cars & planes, Americans substituting other fossil fuels for heating oil, etc etc.

By: The Energy Net » Top Nuclear Stories (Nov. 17th - 21st)

The Energy Net » Top Nuclear Stories (Nov. 17th - 21st) — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:55:04 +0000

[...] Unsustainable Energy Trends I’ve been getting a lot of calls and e-mails from people asking about the falling prices for oil in recent weeks. The immediate explanation is that world economic activity is decelerating. Demand is falling. OPEC announced cuts in output. But the markets still believe that economic decline will trump the ability of OPEC to prop up the price of oil. Enjoy it while it lasts. [...]

By: Alternative Fuels Now » DrumBeat: November 19, 2008

Alternative Fuels Now » DrumBeat: November 19, 2008 — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 09:03:54 +0000

[...] Byron King: Unsustainable Energy Trends Just over the horizon, things are about to become dicey. This week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) will release a new report on the future of world energy. In its World Energy Outlook, the IEA will state categorically that “Current global trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable.” [...]

By: Jason, Bondi

Jason, Bondi — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:32:48 +0000

An indication of the upcomming oil supply cliff. This IEA report is a matter that the press should inform the general population. It is something that Obama, "Flash" Gordon of the UK and Kevin "747" Rudd should seriously look at before holding any more G20 summits.
The report however failed to take note of the "portable, dense energy" aspects of oil and the lack of portability and density in alternatives (including tar sands and shale).
The global oil peak will change the demographic trends, economic outputs and political power bases of the planet. These changes have not yet been caculated because they conflict with what the powers-that-be expect the world to be like. Peak oil is a major upset. This is why the IEA watered down the report.
The current price of oil is based on the power of bullshit. The idea of "dwindling demand" when demand for oil will rise due to demographics (all those new mouths need to be fed). Soon the price will whiplash upwards as physical shortages hit. Then when the food supply collapses and the wars start, the population will decline (rapidly). Only then, will there be demand reductions. The price of oil should be $130 per barrel right now. Watch for the following signs-
1. Mexico stopping exports of oil as Canterell declines even further.
2. Physical fuel shortages hitting some 3rd world nations and rural areas of Australia and America.
3. A sudden surge in the oil price at $20 per day, and rising to $100 per day as panic sets in.
4. Slow deliveries from OPEC suppliers, including late deliveries and accompanying excuses.
5. More pulp sci-fi talk of alternatives from our useless politicians.
6. No independant audit of OPEC reserves.
Peak oil has arrived and the IEA has started to realise that somethings wrong with the oil supply picture.

By: Odin469

Odin469 — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:15:40 +0000

At 10% depletion rate it will take over 30 years to go to 0. Don't take my work for it, do the arithemtic yourself:

Total Year
100 1
90 2
81 3
72.9 4
65.61 5
59.05 6
53.14 7
47.83 8
43.05 9
38.74 10
34.87 11
31.38 12
28.24 13
25.42 14
22.88 15
20.59 16
18.53 17
16.68 18
15.01 19
13.51 20
12.16 21
10.94 22
9.85 23
8.86 24
7.98 25
7.18 26
6.46 27
5.81 28
5.23 29
4.71 30

By: Jan Steinman

Jan Steinman — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:11:11 +0000

Peter Carapal seems to believe that since the Club of Rome's study is coming to pass that the passing of time will somehow make things better? Or perhaps I misunderstand what he's trying to say.

Or perhaps he misunderstands the Club of Rome's study. It did not say that civilization was going to crash in the late sixties. In fact, it accurately predicted that the crash would come early this century. A follow up study by the original authors (Meadows, Meadows, and Rander) in 1992 indeed demonstrated that the original study was only marginally inaccurate, and was basically on-track.

I think Curt has a better idea: invest in oil. But only if you believe that the financial system is going to survive this cataclysm. Personally, I say invest in the means of production: in the future, top quality farmland may keep you alive better than stock certificates.