$140+ per barrel - the end of the world as we know it?

End of the world? Hardly? As we know it? Perhaps...

Were it that oil was the only solution available to us that could provide electrical power to run our industry, heat our homes and fuel our cars then I say hey, break out the tin foil hats, raggedy robes and hastily scribbled signs bearing apocalyptic slogans such as "The End is Nigh!"

However the techno geek inside me is gleefully delighted that we now have the catalyst known as 'neccessity' inspiring the Mother of Invention to get off her lazy a$$ and fix us an alternative fuel laden ham sammich. Nuclear power, hydro power, wind power, solar power, hybrid powered cars, hydrogen fuel cells, etc., etc. It is wonderful to see the future back in vogue!

Beyond this skyrocketing fuel prices will force more people to... wait for it... use their own self-generated horsepower for frivolous trips that previously saw people burning dead dinosaurs in the name of small errands and leisure activities (i.e. trips to the local store for a mere loaf of bread, container of milk and a stick of butter and those lovely Sunday drives to nowhere). Maybe this will force Americans and other westerners to dredge up those 'uncool' cost conscious and waste eliminating habits of pre-war generations.

To be honest just moving the country off oil (especially the imported variety) for our electrical needs would be a huge step in the right direction. Relying on nuclear alone to bear the burden (arguably the quickest and most efficient means at our disposal) would have a much more profound impact than if everyone were to trade their conventional car in for a hybrid, electrical or hydrogen fuel cell model. Correct me if i'm wrong but doesn't the US use upwards of 70-75% of the oil it purchases to power its electrical grid... crazy, eh?

It is quite frightening to see things coming to a head as they are... with inflation, the mortgage crisis, oil speculation driving fuel costs sky high and a Mount Everest sized debt looming over us. I honestly don't think we're in for a modest recession this time around. I firmly believe the current trend is leading to something much bigger than anyone cares to admit and that the ride is going to get a helluva lot bumpier. I don't think we're in for a depression sized pit of despair (I'm being cautiously optimistic) but the combined forces of the four factors I mentioned have created one killer pothole that is going to seriously screw up the suspension. We may have to trade this jalopy in for a new model... which is not neccessarily a bad thing.

Even if I'm no expert on the specific subject I recall that right now the major problem is that we don't have the stuff which will deliver us more refined petro up and running. It is excellent that we will be able to deliver more oil in the future for a good period of time, but right now the supply side is pretty limited because cheap oil made expensive investements not profitable. That's why oil became so interesting for investors and speculators - right now people will pay 140$ a barrel, so why shouldn't we make a nice profit of you? :clown:

A little digression.

I see two members mentioning Hydrogen fuel cell powered cars.
That they are environmental friendly is only half the picture. Hydrogen is not a natural resource or a energy source at all if you are strictly technical. Hydrogen is a energy carrier but the energy source is still petroleum (oil and gas). Yes Hydrogen is made by processing hydrocarbons and the waste is CO2. This is the process that produce most of our Hydrogen.

True you can get hydrogen from other sources like electrolysis of water or mixing sink and hydrochloric acid, but they are expensive and not used on an industrial scale.
That hydrogen powered cars emits zero greenhouse gases is true, but making the hydrogen that fuels the electric motor have already emitted plenty of CO2.

I see the oil price as of today is now $142 pr 159 liters (barrel).

Quote:

---

I see two members mentioning Hydrogen fuel cell powered cars.

---

:yes: That is an important point - unless the hydrogen comes from a clean source there's no real environmental benefit, beyond the locality where the car is driven having fewer petrochemical by-products in the air. There's still the CO2 emissions coming from a cracking plant, and there's still the consumption of oil/natural gas.

Here's an interesting graph from BP, relating historical prices to various world events. Note that today's price is now off the scale:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l...Oil_prices.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oleander

we don't have the stuff which will deliver us more refined petro up and running

---

That is the crux of the issue, and is more relevant to the economic effects. Even if we have 500 years reserves, without the refining and distribution capacity to keep pace with actual consumption there will be a shortfall and pricing pressures. Oil prices are notoriously inelastic - it takes a huge rise in price to garner a small reduction in usage. Generally people will go on paying the higher price, largely out of a perceived, or self-imposed, "necessity".

I believe we can currently churn out 80mbd, but if demand rises much further and 90mbd is required, where is that extra 10million barrels coming from in the short term? The fastest mechanism will be demand destruction - either individual curbs or some economic sectors contacting. The US automotive industry is looking terribly vulnerable at present, and this could have severe impacts for employment.

@Spino - well said, though I'm less optimistic about alternatives filling the gap (because we need to spend a lot of oil on them to raise their capacity).

Im sorry but I'm not one of those people who buy the whole carbon emissions, global warming argument at face value. Not that I don't believe there is some truth to it but to what extent is it our fault or simply part of the planet's natural cycle? If we use an 'end justifies the means' approach to reducing carbon emissions then massive deforestation suddenly becomes a sensible solution!

I believe the crux of this thread was not to point out the environmental impact of our dependency on fossil fuels (especially crude oil) but the the economic impact on the countries most dependent on them.

Anyway... If hydrogen needs to come from a clean source then wouldn't the movement of our electrical grid to nuclear, hydro, solar & wind power dramatically cut down the carbon emissions? America relies mainly on oil and coal for its electrical power with the remainder coming from nuclear, hydroelectric and other sources. It seems to me that if it's possible for both our electrical grid and our vehicles (planes & helicopter excepted) to dramatically minimize and/or eliminate their carbon emissions then the existence of carbon emitting hydrogen processing plants really won't really be a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

If we use an 'end justifies the means' approach to reducing carbon emissions then massive deforestation suddenly becomes a sensible solution!

---

Erm, how's that exactly? I've never heard anyone suggest that this would reduce carbon emissions.

The case against speculators being to blame for oil price hikes: Peak Oil: IEA Inches Toward the Pessimists’ Camp (Wall Street journal)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

Anyway... If hydrogen needs to come from a clean source then wouldn't the movement of our electrical grid to nuclear, hydro, solar & wind power dramatically cut down the carbon emissions? America relies mainly on oil and coal for its electrical power with the remainder coming from nuclear, hydroelectric and other sources. It seems to me that if it's possible for both our electrical grid and our vehicles (planes & helicopter excepted) to dramatically minimize and/or eliminate their carbon emissions then the existence of carbon emitting hydrogen processing plants really won't really be a problem.

---

Raises a few points - the nuclear fuel cycle is far from "low carbon" - it is very fossil-fuel dependent, from uranium mining through to the enormous embedded energy of concrete required for reactor domes.

Whilst the sort of changes you suggest are laudible, there is one issue that militates against their effectiveness on a global scale:

Quote:

---

90% of the demand growth over the next five years will come from Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, the IEA said.

---

In the short to medium term at least, western demand reduction will be swamped by demand growth elsewhere, leading to continuing growth on the demand-side whilst supply-side contracts.

All in all I see a big Catch 22 on the whole "Peak Oil" scenario: deny it, do nothing and crash the economy OR admit it, create panic and crash the economy.

Meanwhile, I'm out looking for a comfortable cave to live in for the coming neo-Neolithic future :clown:

As a matter of fact the SUV-craze caused a huge increase in oil demand, mostly in the USA but partly also in Europe. It is rather ironic that big Detroit fought against increased energy efficiency as it would be the devil, saying it would punish "unfairly" the domestic producer. Well, now the market is doing brutally what Detroit could have got gently. :whip:

BRIC states like China and India are facing huge financial pressure because they have artifically kept domestic oil prices low to keep the economy running - they seem to strech this huge rapid increase to lessen the huge impact. Actually India and China will face bigger trouble than Europe and even the USA because they spend a bigger percentage on commodities.

Overall I guess that the oil may face upward pressure until 2010.

P.S: Global warming is happening. It is almost certainly man-made. And even if there is an underlying "natural" warming cycle it would be stupid to accelerate it by blasting ever more Co2 into the atmosphere.

Quote:

---

It is rather ironic that big Detroit fought against increased energy efficiency as it would be the devil, saying it would punish "unfairly" the domestic producer. Well, now the market is doing brutally what Detroit could have got gently.

---

:yes:

America’s carmakers: That shrinking feeling (The Economist)

Quote:

---

P.S: Global warming is happening. It is almost certainly man-made. And even if there is an underlying "natural" warming cycle it would be stupid to accelerate it by blasting ever more Co2 into the atmosphere.

---

:yes::yes:

Climate change denial is generally politically motivated, and all the proposed "natural cycles" or other factors (eg cosmic rays recently!) have been analysed, accounted for, and we still see a major contribution from anthropogenic sources, and disruption of sinks. A congenial climate, like a functioning economy, is an essential pre-condition for continued human existence. Sure, the planet has naturally been through phases of high atmospheric carbon before, but those phases are notable for not supporting any naked, bipedal apes amonst their biodiversity. There's a reason there are (were) billions of tonnes of fossil carbon stashed below the earth's surface -- it was surplus to the needs of the biosphere -- returning it to the biosphere is bound to tilt the homoeostasis beyond a limit where biological cycles can regulate.

So we're now facing a double-whammy - climate chance AND economic collapse. I'm sure the Greeks had a word for it.... I guess it must be hubris.

So now oil is at 122$. I considered also 125$ good enough for buying, but we will see how things will develop in the future...

Here is a question for you - What part will Nuclear Energy play in the future, particularly when Oil begins to run out?

P.S. Bear in mind Nuclear Power has no Co2! Yay!!

Quote:

---

Nuclear Power has no Co2!

---

:no: wrong.

Try mining for minerals (eg uranium) without emitting CO2; try transporting said minerals without emitting CO2; try making concrete for reactor domes (and LOTS of it) without emitting CO2. Nuclear power is far from zero-carbon, and most of the carbon it does require is good old-fashioned oil.

Certainly the British govt is pressing ahead with a new wave of nuclearmania, planning to steamroll planning laws, local opposition and rational consideration along the way. At least EdF have been beaten back for now, so for the time being we get no extra uranium in our rivers and groundwater :clown:

Scaremongers 0 - me 1 ...

sorry for resurrecting this scaremonger... :mellow: