Do you believe oil is a limited resource?

[Underhill]

So we will never run out, but the cost will go up until we can no longer afford it.

How about this idea? The cost will go up until we no longer WANT to afford it. Certainly when I switched over to primary EV transport the cost of oil dropped off my radar screen pretty hard. The same will happen to business, for the same reasons. To get a competitive advantage, a business will one up their competition by finding a way to do it better/cheaper, and that runs right into the teeth of why they will use less as well, and when they do, the price of their product becomes less tied to the cost of crude, and as it increases, they now have a competitive advantage over their peers who are still tied to it.

So the question isn't, 'how much is there' but 'what are we willing to pay before we give up this addiction to oil'.

My breaking point was about $4/gal. Now I don't even pay much attention to those silly little numbers which seem to hold the attention of so many. Freedom from oil! EV!!

My guess is around $6.00 a gallon and the US will start to see a massive shift. Europe is already on that path.

Me too. Now I've got tons more discretionary income to spend on iphones for the kids, a new driveway pavement job, all sorts of goodies! RGR...driving economic activity through the use of LESS oil...pioneering for the masses!!!

All of that sounds good but there are problems. First, there is no option for those in my position, short of a mass exodus to cities which has it's own problems.

I live in the country. I'm about as green as someone in my position can be. But I have to drive 20 miles each way to work, and live in the north, where EV's aren't viable thanks to decreased winter range.

I drive an economical car and grow a lot of my own food, but I don't have a lot of options to get away from gasoline at the moment.

And to be honest, I'm not all that worried about it.

The one thing to remember, when it comes to 'green' energy, is that China will more than compensate for our cut backs. The less we use, the more affordable it is for them. The more affordable it is for them, the more they use. And they are no where near going green. Not even in the most remote sense.

So there is some localized good that comes from going green, but in the long term, when it comes to the global problem, I don't see a lot of change. It may come, but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

 

[RGR]

All of that sounds good but there are problems. First, there is no option for those in my position, short of a mass exodus to cities which has it's own problems.

Cites are basically a paragon of energy efficiency. Those who live rural do have different issues, both pro and con. The mass exodus of which you speak has been going on for quite some time, the young, they leave for opportunity, and they rarely come back. Count me as an example of that one I suppose.

I live in the country. I'm about as green as someone in my position can be. But I have to drive 20 miles each way to work, and live in the north, where EV's aren't viable thanks to decreased winter range.

Then buy one like mine, which happens to have a range extender to get you those last few miles before you get home. But if your roundtrip is 40 miles, you fit right in what it was designed for.

I drive an economical car and grow a lot of my own food, but I don't have a lot of options to get away from gasoline at the moment.

40 miles round trip? Sure you do. But I am also forced to admit that for longer, higher speed commutes, a decent econobox/diesel of some sort or another can be a reasonable substitute.

So there is some localized good that comes from going green, but in the long term, when it comes to the global problem, I don't see a lot of change. It may come, but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

Oh, I think it is already happening, it just isn't obvious unless you go looking for it. Driving through Kansas on I70 brings it right to your attention real quick like though. Energy production is more the key to the human future than individuals growing their own food, which is terribly inefficient in terms of time investment for food returned. Let one kansas farmer do it, and he feeds 200 people. Versus one person feeding themselves, perhaps some family members.

 

[Underhill]

Cites are basically a paragon of energy efficiency. Those who live rural do have different issues, both pro and con. The mass exodus of which you speak has been going on for quite some time, the young, they leave for opportunity, and they rarely come back. Count me as an example of that one I suppose.

Cities are fine for most industries, but for things like heavy manufacturing, they just don't work. We routinely ship products in the 1-2 million pound range all over the country and overseas.

Then buy one like mine, which happens to have a range extender to get you those last few miles before you get home. But if your roundtrip is 40 miles, you fit right in what it was designed for.

40 miles round trip? Sure you do. But I am also forced to admit that for longer, higher speed commutes, a decent econobox/diesel of some sort or another can be a reasonable substitute.

I've looked at the Volt but it's a bit out of my price range. I get close to 34mpg to and from work, the cost is manageable.

After all, what good is it to save money on gas when you are simply making up the difference, and then some, in car payments?

Oh, I think it is already happening, it just isn't obvious unless you go looking for it. Driving through Kansas on I70 brings it right to your attention real quick like though. Energy production is more the key to the human future than individuals growing their own food, which is terribly inefficient in terms of time investment for food returned. Let one kansas farmer do it, and he feeds 200 people. Versus one person feeding themselves, perhaps some family members.

I work in the energy sector and you are right when it comes to American power. The rest of the world, no. China, India, Africa...these places and a dozen more are still building coal and gas fired power plants as quickly as they can. They sometimes have token wind farms, but as a percentage of their power production it barely even shows up on a graph.

As for food, efficiency doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference. I have the space. Space that would not be utilized without me using it. I have the time. Time that would be spent watching TV or on a treadmill if I was stuck in an inner city apartment. So inefficient or not, I am growing food that would not exist without me. Using my own time I prefer to spend doing it.

Think of all the millions of hours wasted in the average city? People running on treadmills and riding stationary bikes when they could be using that time and energy to do useful work that would lead to better health for themselves and their family.

 

[RGR]

Cities are fine for most industries, but for things like heavy manufacturing, they just don't work. We routinely ship products in the 1-2 million pound range all over the country and overseas.

Then you put the industry outside of the city and have the advantage of a large local population from which to draw workers, can depend on the mass transit and heavy transport industries all being in the same vicinity. The rural model just doesn't work very well if the issue is greening energy use.

I've looked at the Volt but it's a bit out of my price range. I get close to 34mpg to and from work, the cost is manageable.

True. But I am sensitive to the those little numbers they post at convenience stores demanding their cut (a goodly chunk of which is shipped offshore) on a weekly basis. Screw that, I want to support domestic energy production and the jobs and economic activity which go with it, so I am a fan of electrical power.

After all, what good is it to save money on gas when you are simply making up the difference, and then some, in car payments?

The answer can be found in the particulars of Capex versus Opex. To some one is critical, to others, not so much.

Think of all the millions of hours wasted in the average city? People running on treadmills and riding stationary bikes when they could be using that time and energy to do useful work that would lead to better health for themselves and their family.

Nothing wrong with exercise of any kind. And with the time which would otherwise be spent commuting, city folk could very well have more of it, those that don't bicycle to work turning their commute into exercise, versus where they get their food. I know that if there is one thing I appreciate since the day I stopped working on drilling rigs, is living close to work, coming home for lunch and to see the wife and kids, to hell with a commute.

 

[Underhill]

Cities are fine for most industries, but for things like heavy manufacturing, they just don't work. We routinely ship products in the 1-2 million pound range all over the country and overseas.

Then you put the industry outside of the city and have the advantage of a large local population from which to draw workers, can depend on the mass transit and heavy transport industries all being in the same vicinity. The rural model just doesn't work very well if the issue is greening energy use.

I've looked at the Volt but it's a bit out of my price range. I get close to 34mpg to and from work, the cost is manageable.

True. But I am sensitive to the those little numbers they post at convenience stores demanding their cut (a goodly chunk of which is shipped offshore) on a weekly basis. Screw that, I want to support domestic energy production and the jobs and economic activity which go with it, so I am a fan of electrical power.

After all, what good is it to save money on gas when you are simply making up the difference, and then some, in car payments?

The answer can be found in the particulars of Capex versus Opex. To some one is critical, to others, not so much.

Think of all the millions of hours wasted in the average city? People running on treadmills and riding stationary bikes when they could be using that time and energy to do useful work that would lead to better health for themselves and their family.

Nothing wrong with exercise of any kind. And with the time which would otherwise be spent commuting, city folk could very well have more of it, those that don't bicycle to work turning their commute into exercise, versus where they get their food. I know that if there is one thing I appreciate since the day I stopped working on drilling rigs, is living close to work, coming home for lunch and to see the wife and kids, to hell with a commute.

I'm not knocking exercise. Only saying that the notion of efficiency is a silly one. How efficient is it to have someone live in an automated society where everything is at arms reach and requires little to no work on their part, only to have the same people run out and pay for a gym membership and walk on a treadmill?

My life means a commute. But it means I live on the edge of a forest. I can look into my yard most mornings and see deer, squirrels, even the occasional skunk. My wife has her flower gardens and a vegetable garden. We raise chickens and ducks. I wouldn't give up all that to live in a box. Sure, you spend a bit more time at home thanks to a short commute. But I have a home I want to come home to.

But that's fine. I'm not dumping completely on people in the cities. There are a lot of positives to that lifestyle. I enjoy it when I visit friends and family in Buffalo or NY. But acting as though it is ideal is also a bit of a stretch. People did not evolve to live in an apartment on the 14th floor of some building.

As for manufacturing, you're right. They could have the factory 30 miles outside the city. In which case many would end up commuting anyway. I could always move closer, but my wife works 15 miles in the other direction.

The point of all this is simple. Everyone cannot live your life. Even if they could, some of us just wouldn't want to. I don't mean that as an insult, only an observation.

edit: One more small quibble upon thinking about this discussion. Remember, my 20 mile commute takes 26 minutes and involves a stop sign and 2 lights. Most of my friends and family who live in the city have a shorter commute that takes as long or longer.

 

[RGR]

I'm not knocking exercise. Only saying that the notion of efficiency is a silly one. How efficient is it to have someone live in an automated society where everything is at arms reach and requires little to no work on their part, only to have the same people run out and pay for a gym membership and walk on a treadmill?

Well, in that case, the efficiency isn't in the exercise, but the means of few people to support a modern infrastructure contained in the cities/industrial areas.

My life means a commute. But it means I live on the edge of a forest. I can look into my yard most mornings and see deer, squirrels, even the occasional skunk. My wife has her flower gardens and a vegetable garden. We raise chickens and ducks. I wouldn't give up all that to live in a box. Sure, you spend a bit more time at home thanks to a short commute. But I have a home I want to come home to.

So do I. And I live in a similar environment (except without growing my own food) but I don't commute daily anymore. Once a month I go to "work". The rest of the time I'm home. The advantage being that once the kids are out of school, I won't be tied to any location. Right now it's the mountains, but the wife is hoping for more beach later. As long as it has broadband and a phone, I can live pretty much anywhere in the lower 48. I have a few peers who's children are growing up in this kind of rootless modern existence, doing their work from Switzerland and Germany and California but being based in Virginia somewhere. Technology has its advantages.

People did not evolve to live in an apartment on the 14th floor of some building.

True. But if that is where opportunity knocks, that is where the young and talented will migrate.

The point of all this is simple. Everyone cannot live your life. Even if they could, some of us just wouldn't want to. I don't mean that as an insult, only an observation.

edit: One more small quibble upon thinking about this discussion. Remember, my 20 mile commute takes 26 minutes and involves a stop sign and 2 lights. Most of my friends and family who live in the city have a shorter commute that takes as long or longer.

When I commuted daily,it required 2 minutes. City commuting does suck, but careful planning counts for much. Living near the Metro in DC for example means most of those city commuting problems just aren't that big of a deal.

 

[Vandalshandle]

We will never run out of oil. We'll just kill some more dinosaurs to replenish the supply.

 

[Mr. H.]

It may be limited, but there's a shit-load of it that hasn't been discovered and still more that will never be discovered.

 

[JiggsCasey]

It may be limited, but there's a shit-load of it that hasn't been discovered and still more that will never be discovered.

cool story.... especially the utterly unfalsifiable claim at the end.

so as always, at what cost? define "shit-load" in this context? link please.

Yawn.

You may have heard this one, but I never saw you respond to it:

I can pretend I've found 10 trillion barrels of sweet light crude behind the moon. Even prove it exists! ... Unfortunately, that says nothing about the logistics of bringing that oil to market, nor the public's ability to afford the price.

Get it yet?

Peak oil is not about reserve totals. It's about flow rates and cost. Always has been, no matter how desperately some people around here want to change the definition to suit their straw men.

 

[RGR]

It may be limited, but there's a shit-load of it that hasn't been discovered and still more that will never be discovered.

cool story.... especially the utterly unfalsifiable claim at the end.

so as always, at what cost? define "shit-load" in this context? link please.

Jesus this is so easy it isn't fair.

IEA, 2008/09 cost curve for global resources.

Want me to read it to you as well Jiggsy? Or can you have a local kindergarden kid do that for you? That 9000 in front of the word BILLIONS, to someone who doesn't have enough fingers and toes to count all the zeros in that number I suppose this is just a waste but you did ask for it.

So there is your cost. And your shit load. Ready to go back into hiding under that rock yet? Where is your religion's cost/supply curve? Come on Jiggsy, post one to refute the IEA, I DARE you.

 

[Mr. H.]

It may be limited, but there's a shit-load of it that hasn't been discovered and still more that will never be discovered.

cool story.... especially the utterly unfalsifiable claim at the end.

so as always, at what cost? define "shit-load" in this context? link please.

Yawn.

You may have heard this one, but I never saw you respond to it:

I can pretend I've found 10 trillion barrels of sweet light crude behind the moon. Even prove it exists! ... Unfortunately, that says nothing about the logistics of bringing that oil to market, nor the public's ability to afford the price.

Get it yet?

Peak oil is not about reserve totals. It's about flow rates and cost. Always has been, no matter how desperately some people around here want to change the definition to suit their straw men.

No, I don't "get it". Just as I've never gotten any of the nonsensical bullshit that you've been spewing around here.

Peak Oil is some far off land that you keep espousing.

Reserve totals, flow rates, and cost are about are about the here and now.

That's where I live in this industry, Juggs Buttly.

 

[akelch]

It may be limited, but there's a shit-load of it that hasn't been discovered and still more that will never be discovered.

cool story.... especially the utterly unfalsifiable claim at the end.

so as always, at what cost? define "shit-load" in this context? link please.

Yawn.

You may have heard this one, but I never saw you respond to it:

I can pretend I've found 10 trillion barrels of sweet light crude behind the moon. Even prove it exists! ... Unfortunately, that says nothing about the logistics of bringing that oil to market, nor the public's ability to afford the price.

Get it yet?

Peak oil is not about reserve totals. It's about flow rates and cost. Always has been, no matter how desperately some people around here want to change the definition to suit their straw men.

Your right.... So why do we make it so costly to drill for oil (federal regulations)?

 

[RGR]

We? You mean, like you object to the price set by the free market in its desire to seek a balance between supply and demand?