What does $500 brl OIL mean??

There is no excess capacity in any of the rare-earth or metal markets now. Pick your resource and invest in it. If you get lucky you're a millionaire.

You are right about that SF. Lithium to my knowledge is the most efficient material for battery storage currently...though platinum is the main metal used for cathodes and anodes in superior polymer electrolyte cells. However, platinum hasn't got as much potential due to its higher cost/lower availability.

If I was under 40 and had a SMSF, I'd certainly be tucking away some lithium producers like
AU:ADY
NYSE:SQM

Though it's high risk stuff still. ADY burn through around $7m pa and revenues are under $0.5m. And there's political risk associated with Chile and Argentina. Further, price*volume still has to meet the market for e-cars.

OTOH, Bolivia is supposed to have the world's richest reserves of lithium.

Interestingly the US hasn't got a home grown lithium miner, though SQM a Chilean owned company is the big player in their market and their price has moved nicely in the last 18mths.


http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/01/24/lithium/
http://www.anl.gov/
http://www.ucsusa.org/
 
I would have to ask the question of the big gas suppliers, why aren't they doing this??

Hi Bill, They are actually doing it already in Oz, but only for large commercial operations ( delivery fleets etc ) but it's not widely talked about. The "go" for taxis and consumers has been LPG which is a by-product of the oil refining process..( the oil refiners actually get LPG "for FREE" ...in years past they just burnt it ( "flared it off" ) at the refinery !!)

The viability of all this "alternative stuff" depends directly on the price of oil . Up until now, our Oz. petrol has actually been pretty cheap by world standards ( about double what the US pays and roughly half what EU pays) and even the "pay back period" for LPG for the ordinary motorist has meant it only made sense if you did A LOT of k's ...like taxi's.

But now as oil goes up & up, the pandora's box is opening. I doubt oil will fall in price ( beyond normal fluctuations )...the demand from China and India is just huge. 3 billion people want transport !! The US has 300 million folk...so the numbers get real big, real quick when you get to China & India.

LL
 
I expect suburbs to drastically reduce in value and in relative terms, real things like fertile ag land and energy resources etc to drastically increase.

HG ...phew..you cover a lot of ground in one post ! Let me try a curve ball.
FOOD . As all this unfolds and energy costs drive up the cost of food I'm predicting the "return of the vege patch". ( It's also about the most environmentally friendly, low energy, low emmission thing you can do ..take a seed and grow some food in your backyard !!

Very hard to grow food in medium density/ high density dwellings near the city.

Real easy to grow food on "suburban blocks". So I think the suburbs with "good size" plots , that are a reasonable commute will at least "hold their own".

LL
 
One inevitable consequence of higher oil prices will be more expensive airplane travel. ...

Hi HK ... maybe , but maybe not as much as would first appear. As oil goes up, the Boeings etc work out how to get more bums in planes. The engine guys also get more fuel efficient.

Also, the "oil guys" won't give up that easy. As alternatives come along, ( next 10 years) I think they will "temper their pricing" .

For all the D&G .. I understand there's still a trillion buck's worth of "easy" oil in the ground... the "oil machine" will still want to sell it to "somebody".

I think your o/s trips will be "just enough for you to afford".

LL
 
The other reason why NG vehicles may not be taken seriously are the ongoing developments in battery storage.

As Ausrtalia also has coal in buckets, and underutilized power stations at night, it makes a lot of sense for us to go electric. And as the world's car manufacturers are gearing up for electric, maybe NG vehicle production would be quickly leap frogged.

WW ..all accurate observations. The truth is no one technology suits everybody. The "plug-in" still has long re-charge times ..doesn't suit everybody, but certainly would suit most city commuters. The lithium ion batteries are expensive (...and do we have enough lithium??) CNG presently does not have the re-fuelling infrastructure ( except home re-fuelling)etc .etc.

I think the end result will be a mixture. Certainly, if the world is determined to reduce emmissions markedly ( which is not the topic of this thread ) ..but we gotta do something. Transport , in all it's forms makes up about 30% of greenhouse gas emissions.

LL
 
Giday All

CNG?

Logic asks, if a cheap option such as this works....why it is so hidden? Clearly it must be that in theory it is great but in practise ...not so great. Like Solar Water Heating. All the rage when I was a 20 year old home designer in 1988. Payback in 10 years or so they claims were. They failed to point out the units rusted out around 8 to 9 years. End Savings.

I hope Ford is to release a CNG engine but is that the solution? Maybe we all need to think about using less in the first place. Drive a smaller car, eat less, want less new stuff. Recycle instead of buy new. Ebay!

It is all that we have been conditioned to consume. We need more Hippie less Yuppie. My 2.5 litre 4 cylinder Subaru Forester does the same job as Ford Territory 99% of the time on less fuel. Fits 4 ok and 5 tight but how often do I carry 5? Rare. It will tow 1.8tonne. etc...Most I get is loaded box trailer.
Fuel use is ok, depreciation low, safety very high. All you need. Yet many complain thier V8 is costinG $$$ fuel must come down! Maybe is it consumption that needs to come down.

In one way the spike in Oil is good thing as it will force the great greening of our industry like no incentives, warming science charts or melting ice cap will ever do.

Peter

PS excuse for going off topic to some extent.
 
Where Are All the Tankers?

For a few weeks now, observers have noticed that Iran is leasing tankers and storing oil in them. At about $140,000 a week or so, that is expensive storage. At first, conspiracy theorists were wondering if they were preparing for some kind of war or attack. But more conventionally, it may be they are having problems selling their oil. Their oil is not very high-quality, and there are only a few places that can take it and refine it. India, China, and the US are among the countries with refineries that can take Iranian oil. (And yes, George Friedman of Stratfor tells me some of it does end up in the US from time to time.)

India's refiners are telling Iran they no longer want their oil, preferring the higher-quality oil that is readily available in the area. So Iran has to decide whether to send it to China or "repackage" it so that it can end up in the US, while they try to get refiners in India to change their minds. Thus, they are leasing tankers to store the oil they are pumping.

I called George about six this evening and asked him about the Iranian situation, as that is a lot of oil that could come on the market at some point, as well as a possible reason that oil supplies are down. George has analysts on top of this situation.

He told me, "John, it's more interesting than that. It is not just Iran. Today we started checking on how many tankers Iran had, and soon discovered that there is a serious tanker shortage. Lease prices have soared in the past few weeks. It is clear there are a lot of speculators betting that oil is going to rise to $150 or so and are willing to pay very high prices for keeping the oil on the seas waiting for higher prices. It is a speculative boom."

He then told me about flying into New York in the early '80s. Outside the harbor were 30 or so tankers just sitting, waiting for prices to continue to increase as they had been doing for some time. When they did not, they all tried to get into the harbor at the same time, and of course they couldn't. It was the top of the market. Prices dropped, and the owners of the oil had to go to the futures market to hedge what they could. I had heard that story, but George saw it with his own eyes.

Almost everyone (except the stock market) is convinced oil is going higher in the near term. As I noted above, this week's rally was partially due to short covering by large institutions and companies which had sold production far into the future at much lower prices. They finally threw in the towel and took off their hedges.
Is it 1980 All Over Again?

We may be getting ready to stage a very interesting economic experiment. Is Masters right that prices are driven by speculation, or is it supply and demand? Follow me on this one. I am not saying that this will happen, but it is an interesting scenario.

Many developing countries subsidize the price of oil to their citizens, so they do not feel the pain of higher oil prices. But the headline of today's Financial Times is that Asia is finally getting ready to cut their subsidies as oil rises to $135. The awareness that they need to allow market conditions to prevail is finally being acknowledged, as they cannot afford the subsidies. This is going to help drive down demand for oil over time.

As demand starts to fall, let's remember that the storage facilities for oil waiting to be refined are a finite item. If all those tankers end up needing to find a home at the same time, even as demand for oil is going down, you could see the price of oil go down rather quickly in the short term.

If you are leasing tankers to deliver oil that is already hedged in price, you want to get it to port as soon as possible so that your lease payments stop as soon as possible. You only hold it on the high seas if you think the price is going up by more than your carrying costs (the cost of money and leasing the tanker). If you start to lose money, you sell your oil on the futures market and get it to port as fast as you can.

Now, here is where it could get interesting. Oil is the biggest component of the commodity index funds. If oil drops and looks likely to go lower, then the massive buying of these funds we have seen in the past few months could dry up. As Dennis Gartman says, it takes a lot of buying to make the price of something to go up, but it only takes a lack of buying to make it go down. And if there is net selling?

If we see money start to flow out of the index funds (and ETFs) because of momentum selling, that means the funds are not only selling their oil components, but also the grain and metal and meat. If the index funds are the key component in the rise of prices, we should see the price of all commodities go down in tandem and in sympathy. If oil is the only thing going down as index funds go down, then it is a supply-related issue.

But what if index funds continue to grow? If there is an abundance of oil, it will eventually show up in the spot price, as storage will be lacking, no matter what the longer-term futures prices do. The market will soon tell us whether index funds are a major factor. I tend to think that even while index fund buying is bullish, it is not the major factor that is the driver of commodity prices. And even if it is significant in the short term, in the long term fundamentals will drive the true price.

If it is simply index speculation, it will end in tears when the fundamentals catch up.

Let me say that I believe the long-term price of oil is going much higher. I was writing about $100 oil two years ago. $150 and $200 oil is in the cards at some point in the future. If you have not read the Outside the Box from last Monday, you should. My friend David Galland points out that Mexico, which supplies 14% of US oil, is likely to be a net importer of oil by the middle of the next decade, as their internal demand increases and production decreases. Iran will be a net importer within six years for the same reasons. Russia's oil exports are down this year, as are Mexico's. Energy costs are going to rise in the next decade, and maybe much sooner.

You can click on the following link to read the Outside the Box on where oil exports are headed in our future. And Casey Research does some top-notch analysis of energy investments (not just oil) in a very reasonably priced letter, if you are inclined to invest in individual stocks.

As for today, if I was in a long-only commodity index fund, unless my time horizon was very long I would be watching it closely and have some close stops. And I might wait until I saw what the price of oil was going to do. If you have some profits, then you might want to think about taking some off the table. Just a thought.

Gerd
 
Where Are All the Tankers?


You can click on the following link to read the Outside the Box on where oil exports are headed in our future. And Casey Research does some top-notch analysis of energy investments (not just oil) in a very reasonably priced letter, if you are inclined to invest in individual stocks.

Gerd

I cannot see any link? Am I missing something?

Peter
 
I think we would be wasting our time going down the CNG path. Why switch from one finite resource to another one. I think we would be better off making the switch to a totally electric car. With improvement in battery technology occurring the electric car is becoming a lot more viable. Already the Tesla Roadster can achieve 362km when fully charged up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster

I know there are issues with battery life, but I am sure more money and research will eventually solve these problems.

Also think of the reduction in noise, it actually might be a boom for houses on major roads as they won't suffer so much from the current noise levels.

I think public transport will be utilized a lot more.

As mentioned by others, people will need to change their lifestyles. Stop being such wasteful consumers of everything from energy to foods.
The only thing which will force change will be a massive increase in the cost of energy. Unfortunately the increase cost of energy hurts the poorest countries hardest. We are already seeing riots in these poorer countries due to the massive increase costs to staple foods.
Australia is the lucky country and I intend to move back with my family sometime next year.

And finally I think the current economic model is unviable in the long term. It was built on a source of cheap energy (oil). It requires an every expanding money supply, which in turn requires ever more resources. But while money can be produced by the touch of a key pad on a computer screen, resources are finite and cannot be replaced easily.

We live in interesting times anyway.
 
I think we would be wasting our time going down the CNG path. Why switch from one finite resource to another one. I think we would be better off making the switch to a totally electric car. .


Ah? Well, do you mean a coal powered car?...???
That must be what you ment? Coal is the main base load power source.

See ya's.
 
Ah? Well, do you mean a coal powered car?...???
That must be what you ment? Coal is the main base load power source.

See ya's.

Yep thats right. We have plenty of coal and I can't see us making the switch to something else until it becomes economically viable do so. Maybe Geothermal has a lot of potential. Maybe they will crack nuclear fusion or some other alternative. I'm sure there are plenty of smart people working on these things.

I found an interesting article whilst doing some reading. It was first published in march 2006.

http://www.energybulletin.net/14120.html

Here is his conclusion:

Conclusion

I'm sorry to say this. But if we are willing to be realistic in our evaluation of the factors listed above, then the benefits of any energy production process that has a Basic EROEI of 3 or less is suspect, and any process that has an EROEI of 2 or less is probably a waste of time and money.

It's time to stop thinking in terms of pop-culture solutions and government subsidies. Energy is a serious business. We need science based solutions that can be retrofitted into our existing energy chain. We must continually seek to increase the efficiency of converting energy into heat and power. And we must somehow get our respective governments to get serious about a program of international energy research and development.

We have - maybe - 10 to 15 years to play with. After that, oil shortages will decimate our lifestyle. Unfortunately, if the best solution does require the development and deployment of a new technology, that process - best case -will take at least 15 to 20 years.

We don't have much time.

Ronald R. Cooke
The Cultural Economist
Author: Oil, Jihad and Destiny
 
Ah? Well, do you mean a coal powered car?...???
That must be what you ment? Coal is the main base load power source.

See ya's.

BUT Coal Power Stations have the possibility of geosequation of the CO2. recent front page in Australian on VIC options being considered.

CNG burnt in cars is released into the atmosphere so will have a carbon cost to be factored in.

Peter
 
BUT Coal Power Stations have the possibility of geosequation of the CO2. recent front page in Australian on VIC options being considered.

CNG burnt in cars is released into the atmosphere so will have a carbon cost to be factored in.

Peter

On page 63 of the weekend AFR, is an article that questions whether carbon capture and storage will ever be commercially viable. It's all to do with the cost of separating out and capturing 200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, compressing it, pumping it and storing it. The whole process takes 30% of a power plants output to start with. Total costs could be $60 per tonne, when the CO2 permits are likely to start at $20 to $30 per tonne.

I don't quite understand everything, but carbon geosequestration is all just a theory, and never may work commercially by the sounds of it.

John Howard was right all along about nuclear, and this will get clearer to all as we move on.

See ya's.
 
Hi all,

I've always been against the nuclear option because of the 'chernobyl' factor, the what if?

However what I have read about the pebble bed reactors sounds much more interesting and acceptable. They can be dotted around the place, a much more local scale type power plant. There would also be less power loss through the transmission lines.

If some type of electric vehicles become common, and they are powered by plugging into a power point, then a more sustainable local power supply will be needed.

TC, imagine a 200HP ELECTRIC tractor. :eek: I think you would need a bigger transformer, and plug it straight in!! We might need a few more technology advancements before we get there.

bye
 
The first place you see CO2 sequestration is likely to be the oil states of the US. A couple of years ago they put the idea forward to pump the CO2 into decaying oil wells to gain a double benefit, the second being to pressurise the old well to help oil extraction. (The Saudis are doing that with salt water in Gawar).

Until you see that it's fair to assume that the concept has not gone past theory.

In an earlier post someone said that if ROEI was less than 2 then the particular process would not be workable. Corn ethanol has an ROEI of barely 1, possibly less than that and current extraction methods in the Alberta tar sands is just 1.5. Two bls of gas (oil eq) for three of thick, hard to refine oil. Talk about turning a silk purse into a sow's ear. LOL
 
Back
Top