Capital gains.. from where exactly?
- Thread starter duncan_m
- Start date
BTW ... I hear that BP (and others) could drill closer to shore in much shallower and easier/safer conditions. I further hear the only reason they don't and hence are forced to drill deep-sea wells is ...wait for it ...the septics don't want to SEE the oil-rigs from shore. How about that for a nice bit of delusion?
LL
Oil rigs are a common sight on Brazillian beaches, I thought it was quite novel but in the light of the BP disaster, I can see the drawbacks
Hi all,
LL,
'They' didn't change from horses to cars because they ran out of horses. They went from the difficulty of horses, to the ease of cars. The oil for fuel came out of the ground easily, literally by itself in those days, it was seemingly everywhere and unlimited.
Over time we have learned that the crude oil is not everywhere but in certain layers of the ground beneath us.
"Abiotic oil" is still a myth if it does exist. There is no evidence of it anywhere.
If you have come across a reference to it's existence I would be keen to read it.
Then why is Russia's production of oil falling, as in they have reached their peak??
Most of that I believe to be true, except that the timing for all the massive infrastructure build up to replace the falling supply of oil has not been implemented anywhere. Battery powered cars will require massive production of electricity generators, this is not currently happening.
It is not the lack of ingenuity, it is the lack of time and the state of the economy to be able to afford sudden infrastructure change while in the period of decline that is the big issue.
The effect of peak oil on property prices is totally unknown, there could be massive inflation, there could be deflation, there could be anarchy
What is certain is that in the initial part of the decline, prices for all forms of energy will go through the roof as a percentage of total expenditure for everyone.
bye
LL,
'They' didn't change from horses to cars because they ran out of horses. They went from the difficulty of horses, to the ease of cars. The oil for fuel came out of the ground easily, literally by itself in those days, it was seemingly everywhere and unlimited.
Over time we have learned that the crude oil is not everywhere but in certain layers of the ground beneath us.
"Abiotic oil" is still a myth if it does exist. There is no evidence of it anywhere.
If you have come across a reference to it's existence I would be keen to read it.
Then why is Russia's production of oil falling, as in they have reached their peak??
Most of that I believe to be true, except that the timing for all the massive infrastructure build up to replace the falling supply of oil has not been implemented anywhere. Battery powered cars will require massive production of electricity generators, this is not currently happening.
It is not the lack of ingenuity, it is the lack of time and the state of the economy to be able to afford sudden infrastructure change while in the period of decline that is the big issue.
The effect of peak oil on property prices is totally unknown, there could be massive inflation, there could be deflation, there could be anarchy
What is certain is that in the initial part of the decline, prices for all forms of energy will go through the roof as a percentage of total expenditure for everyone.
bye
That was a good post Bill.
I would like to add that you cannot "borrow" energy to build the next generation power source the way you can the money which is needed. You must burn the oil/coal for the energy, crack the crude oil to get the polymers and you must explore for and extract the massive amounts of rare earths and platinum group metals that these new technologies will need and mining needs oil, lots of it.
You don't make wind turbines out of crushed coke cans. Aluminium is "coagulated electricity" anyway and the three metal refineries in Townsville all use electrolytic refining processes. If the "perfect" car went on sale tomorrow, imagine how long and how much energy it would require to replace our fleet of private cars.
The Alberta tar sands need two barrels of oil equivalent (as natural gas) and a lot of water to produce three barrels of heavy crude. Shale oil has even greater environmental problems. One that I remember is that the shattered shale has a higher volume than the mined shale. What do you do with mountains of that if you are going to produce a couple of million barrels/day of oil?
There is no free lunch. The more I read, the more I realise that there is no simple way forward.
I would like to add that you cannot "borrow" energy to build the next generation power source the way you can the money which is needed. You must burn the oil/coal for the energy, crack the crude oil to get the polymers and you must explore for and extract the massive amounts of rare earths and platinum group metals that these new technologies will need and mining needs oil, lots of it.
You don't make wind turbines out of crushed coke cans. Aluminium is "coagulated electricity" anyway and the three metal refineries in Townsville all use electrolytic refining processes. If the "perfect" car went on sale tomorrow, imagine how long and how much energy it would require to replace our fleet of private cars.
The Alberta tar sands need two barrels of oil equivalent (as natural gas) and a lot of water to produce three barrels of heavy crude. Shale oil has even greater environmental problems. One that I remember is that the shattered shale has a higher volume than the mined shale. What do you do with mountains of that if you are going to produce a couple of million barrels/day of oil?
There is no free lunch. The more I read, the more I realise that there is no simple way forward.
Hey SF, I hope you did read my next paragraph.
Technology tends to be incremental and nearly always builds on the previous. What I am trying to express is that the oil companies have not voluntarily left oil in the ground, they simply can't either physically or economically retrieve anymore from those wells. They have tried many different methods to move the oil stuck in the wells to no avail.
Speaking about nuclear
"The Alberta tar sands need two barrels of oil equivalent (as natural gas) and a lot of water to produce three barrels of heavy crude."
I have heard(read) of using nuclear power to generate the necessary heat to allow more effective retrieval but again all the associated 'nuclear' problems and of course the massive lead time to construct.
Cheers
It hasn't been implemented because that's not how it's going to happen. It won't happen overnight. It will be gradual. Oil may (?) get more expensive. When/ if it gets more expensive we find ways to use it more efficiently. Surely you've noted that more cars nowadays are smaller, more fuel efficient ...but life goes on. When the car guys move to lighter materials ( like carbon fibre ( like the airplanes)) there will be another increase in efficiency. The transition to plug-in electric has started. That will reduce the demand for oil as it progresses. I actually think the transition to plug-in electric ( driven by the climate change idiots) could cause an oil glut. Also, We don't need "massive generators" as the electric cars will mainly be charged at night when there's already HEAPS of excess capacity. Does the term "off peak" ring a bell? Life will go on & property will keep on "doing it's thing".
LL
well placed property will continue to do it's thing, near transport and private infrastructure.
those satellite suburbs will tank and become ghost towns, just like they have in AZ.
those satellite suburbs will tank and become ghost towns, just like they have in AZ.
Perhaps property investors will be able to sell the peaks and buy the troughs throughout "peak oil" just like any other time.
"Peak Oil" is a bit of a misnomer me thinks. The tech crash could more likely have been termed "Peak Tech". The GFC could be termed "Peak Cheap Finance". But oil (and also global warming) is too big to have a peak. Its more like a massive surge or a tide, upon which many other peaks and troughs ride.
I'm not saying it wont be hugely significant. However according to some boffins peak oil has happened some time ago. The effects may be gradual but deep, unlike the tech bust.
"Peak Oil" is a bit of a misnomer me thinks. The tech crash could more likely have been termed "Peak Tech". The GFC could be termed "Peak Cheap Finance". But oil (and also global warming) is too big to have a peak. Its more like a massive surge or a tide, upon which many other peaks and troughs ride.
I'm not saying it wont be hugely significant. However according to some boffins peak oil has happened some time ago. The effects may be gradual but deep, unlike the tech bust.
Hi all,
LL,
That is the BAU (Business As Usual) scenario. It is one that many disagree with, including the US military that see a likelyhood of a 10 million Bbl/d shortfall by the year 2015 in supply.
Out of a total of ~85-87 mbbl/day total demand that is something like 15%. Who misses out?? I think we can guarantee the US will take care of themselves, and the Chinese seem to be aggregating allies in Africa, so they will probably make sure they get their share.
The currently exporting countries like Saudi Arabia are increasing their own consumption rapidly, therefore they will have less to export. Australia is growing ever more reliant on imported crude, we reached our peak production a few years ago. If world is short by 15% by 2015, then there is a high probability that the amount that we can import will fall very rapidly, like 20% or 30% of current importation.
That is true for something like the first 100,000-500,000 electric vehicles, but beyond that, we need new power. 100,000 vehicles being charged would use 4,000 Mwh of electricity per night. On hot summer nights now there is not much spare capacity, except for much later in the night. Are you going to bring in a rule of 'no-plug in of vehicles' until 1.00am?? Then perhaps a later start to the following day as the batteries would take 10-15 hours to fully charge on a slow charge (10A).
100,000 electric cars would be about 1% of our vehicles.
We are of course assuming that there are enough rare earths available to make the batteries on a mass scale, without pushing the price too high, plus the fact that there are not the factories set up to do this on a large scale yet. More infrastructure to build in a short period of time.
2012, is when the US military think that demand starts to outstrip supply and all the GFC has done is reduce current demand for oil by a couple of million barrels a day, pushing back the date of peak oil a couple of years from about now.
bye
LL,
That is the BAU (Business As Usual) scenario. It is one that many disagree with, including the US military that see a likelyhood of a 10 million Bbl/d shortfall by the year 2015 in supply.
Out of a total of ~85-87 mbbl/day total demand that is something like 15%. Who misses out?? I think we can guarantee the US will take care of themselves, and the Chinese seem to be aggregating allies in Africa, so they will probably make sure they get their share.
The currently exporting countries like Saudi Arabia are increasing their own consumption rapidly, therefore they will have less to export. Australia is growing ever more reliant on imported crude, we reached our peak production a few years ago. If world is short by 15% by 2015, then there is a high probability that the amount that we can import will fall very rapidly, like 20% or 30% of current importation.
That is true for something like the first 100,000-500,000 electric vehicles, but beyond that, we need new power. 100,000 vehicles being charged would use 4,000 Mwh of electricity per night. On hot summer nights now there is not much spare capacity, except for much later in the night. Are you going to bring in a rule of 'no-plug in of vehicles' until 1.00am?? Then perhaps a later start to the following day as the batteries would take 10-15 hours to fully charge on a slow charge (10A).
100,000 electric cars would be about 1% of our vehicles.
We are of course assuming that there are enough rare earths available to make the batteries on a mass scale, without pushing the price too high, plus the fact that there are not the factories set up to do this on a large scale yet. More infrastructure to build in a short period of time.
2012, is when the US military think that demand starts to outstrip supply and all the GFC has done is reduce current demand for oil by a couple of million barrels a day, pushing back the date of peak oil a couple of years from about now.
bye
Thanks Goeffw for the imput.
The figures were....Bought 1982 total $55k...as the Family home ! not investment.
I added a upstairs extension 3 yrs back for $140000
Methinks the $500000 offer was a attempted con , as more research reveals the market growing and similar properies asking $700000.
Still far short of 10% pa growth. As my wife points out we have not paid rent for 22 years since we 'owned' the house outright .
So I am not too dissapointed, just simply wondering why the powers that be still mention figures over 10% pa for housing capital growth.
Never mind 2015, the world is currently in short supply, why else would the price of oil go up? And over the coming years and decades the price will increase. That doesn't mean the world will implode overnight, these things take time so dont be hasty
You may want to do some "Googling" on how Goldman Sachs drove the price of oil up ...and then down. And made lot's of money both ways. This article is a good start and has never been denied by GS to my knowledge.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64796?RS_show_page=0
LL
I have posted about it here myself a couple of years ago. The idea is to build a nuclear station on top of the tar sands and pump the steam underground in a horizontal drill and sucking the heated oil out of another, lower drill hole. Shell has done a lot of work on this. For reasons I never grasped there are limits to how far you can allow the heat to spread and this mandates other drills on the perimeter of the "mine" that are refrigerated. I don't pretend to know beyond repeating "Nothing is as easy as it seems!"
Ah yeah, heard this arguement before, even participated in it. At the end of the contract it is either delivered or it is worthless, in order to make it viable at the end of the contract it has to be offered at a price thats viable for delivery.
There are plenty of stories about big players manipulating the market through bump and dump type tactics, but it's just like boom & bust, when you bump you will have to dump. So trading in and of itself can only alter price direction temporarily. Yet the price of oil has gone up consistently.
Don't stop me, I'm on a roll.
When oil was cheap ($30/bl?) the ethinol industry said that they were "nearly" competitive with conventional oil. Fast forward to today with oil X3 in cost and ethinol is still "not quite" competitive but with a few million (?) subsidy they will be soon.
This shows the primary i/p cost for ethinol is mineral oil and probably on a 1:1 ratio. So ethinol will always need subsidies even if oil doubles again.
Hint: If bio fuels were viable the farmers would always use them themselves. They avoid them, to the best of my knowledge.
When oil was cheap ($30/bl?) the ethinol industry said that they were "nearly" competitive with conventional oil. Fast forward to today with oil X3 in cost and ethinol is still "not quite" competitive but with a few million (?) subsidy they will be soon.
This shows the primary i/p cost for ethinol is mineral oil and probably on a 1:1 ratio. So ethinol will always need subsidies even if oil doubles again.
Hint: If bio fuels were viable the farmers would always use them themselves. They avoid them, to the best of my knowledge.
Earth. And your link didn't work on my browser.
You believe the US military ?????
Let me get this straight. After Iraq and the WMD that "never were" etc etc you actually put faith in anything the US military says? You just don't think that maybe they might be "setting up the snooker balls" again for a bit of a skirmish somewhere in an oil rich nation? All in the cause of national security of course ( cough, cough ...)
The rest of your post, on matters like battery charging, assumes we won't make any progress ...like working out how to charge batteries quickly. That would not seem an insurmounatble problem.
Have some faith man ! ...but maybe not in US military (mis) information.
LL
Let me get this straight. After Iraq and the WMD that "never were" etc etc you actually put faith in anything the US military says? You just don't think that maybe they might be "setting up the snooker balls" again for a bit of a skirmish somewhere in an oil rich nation? All in the cause of national security of course ( cough, cough ...)
The rest of your post, on matters like battery charging, assumes we won't make any progress ...like working out how to charge batteries
quickly. That would not seem an insurmounatble problem. Have some faith man ! ...but maybe not in US military (mis) information
. LL
Similar threads
