Doubts about peak oil?

29 posts / 0 new
Last post
TheSubMainMan's picture
TheSubMainMan
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 30 2008
Posts: 4
Doubts about peak oil?

Hi all,

 I just want to say many thanks for this site and I appreciate everything I have learned from here.

Now I don't know if the following information is true but I would like it discussed or researched further.

 two things seem to have appeared whilst researching opportunities from peak oil.

one is the following video

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147&hl=en

Second is the following battery technology. It appears that while everyone was focused on the US for solutions, It's China that are leading the way. there releasing a full electric car next year.

http://www.byd.com/tech/Etech.asp?show=t1&color=b

I have tryed to find out more about this battery technology. In particular what base elements dose it need. But so far I haven't found that out.

I'm not posting this to be a party pooper or anything like that. But if this is true then it would be good news and bad news.

Bad news: Is the rarerty being simulated for oil? I mean De Beers do it for diamonds. It would make sense from a business point of view, although immoral.

???

 

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 537
Re: Doubts about peak oil?
TheSubMainMan wrote:

Second is the following battery technology. It appears that while everyone was focused on the US for solutions, It's China that are leading the way. there releasing a full electric car next year.

For some reason there is an extra "00000001/!x-usc:http://" in the addresses. Removing it gets you to the link

Battery, same here. Try and buy one off them .....

TheSubMainMan's picture
TheSubMainMan
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 30 2008
Posts: 4
Re: Doubts about peak oil?

 

I'm trying to put that link in again.

But I have to say what this guy is talking about is dynamite... Talk about the last peace of the jigsaw...

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147&hl=en

 

Copy and paste it it this one fails....

 

 

Isis's picture
Isis
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 7 2008
Posts: 8
Re: Doubts about peak oil?

Japan also has electric cars coming on stream next year.  Mitusbishi has one based on it's very popular "i" car and Subaru also has one, the R1e.  These electric cars are presently being tested as fleet cars by Japan's largest electric companies.  I posted about these on my blog here with pics and videos:

http://downdenial.blogspot.com/2008/06/electric-cars-on-way.html

Mitsubishi will market the "MiEv" globally, including the USA.  It will go 100 miles on a charge.

But electric cars are not "the answer".   It takes time (a long time) to change over the fleet of existing vehicles and electric cars must still get their power from somewhere. Right now there is not a huge amount of renewable power sources.  In short, it won't avoid the coming pain from declining fossil fuels.   Only readjusting our way of life to reduce our energy consumption can do that.  And few people are ready to accept  that harsh reality so are looking for some big techno fix to save the day.  Had we heeded the many warnings over the last 40 years, we could have mitigated peak oil's impact.  Now it is too late.  Sorry.  Best we can do is try to keep it from destroying the lives of our progeny. 

As for me - I stopped driving four years ago and now use my feet, my city bike, my hybrid electric bike,  buses and trains to get about. I also travel less in general.  The old realesate saying "location, location, location" can be adopted for our carbon constrained future - "localize, localize, localize".

Best.

 

 

TheSubMainMan's picture
TheSubMainMan
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 30 2008
Posts: 4
Re: Doubts about peak oil?
Isis wrote:

Japan also has electric cars coming on stream next year.  Mitusbishi has one based on it's very popular "i" car and Subaru also has one, the R1e.  These electric cars are presently being tested as fleet cars by Japan's largest electric companies.  I posted about these on my blog here with pics and videos:

http://downdenial.blogspot.com/2008/06/electric-cars-on-way.html

Mitsubishi will market the "MiEv" globally, including the USA.  It will go 100 miles on a charge.

But electric cars are not "the answer".   It takes time (a long time) to change over the fleet of existing vehicles and electric cars must still get their power from somewhere. Right now there is not a huge amount of renewable power sources.  In short, it won't avoid the coming pain from declining fossil fuels.   Only readjusting our way of life to reduce our energy consumption can do that.  And few people are ready to accept  that harsh reality so are looking for some big techno fix to save the day.  Had we heeded the many warnings over the last 40 years, we could have mitigated peak oil's impact.  Now it is too late.  Sorry.  Best we can do is try to keep it from destroying the lives of our progeny. 

As for me - I stopped driving four years ago and now use my feet, my city bike, my hybrid electric bike,  buses and trains to get about. I also travel less in general.  The old realesate saying "location, location, location" can be adopted for our carbon constrained future - "localize, localize, localize".

Best.

Yep, I agree...  have also moved my family to a small town. we can walk everywhere... Also have access to the sea (fish). I'm now looking for a home with a very large garden...

Not to undo the Jap's; The chinese cars go 300km on a single 80% charge. warren Buffett has bought 10% of this company... etc'

But did you listen to the video, please, it's worth the time. The point the speaker is making is there is enougth Oil for the US for 200yrs. So there must be enougth oil to make this transition. He goes on to explain why the oil is not taped. He is a good speaker, and allthough hes views at first seem contradictory to what we beleve about peak oil... They are valid...

maybe some guys from Alaska can find out more about this... I mean is this true or false?

 

 

Isis's picture
Isis
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 7 2008
Posts: 8
Re: Doubts about peak oil?

TheSubMainMan - Um, the word you are looking for is "Japanese" not "Jap's" thank you.

Fe is of course the symbol for Iron on the periodic table.  The "Fe battery" must refer to either NiFe (nickel iron) or LiFe (lithium iron).  Either way, they have their problems and are hardly proven on the scale of a car.  Correct me if I'm wrong about that. "Show me the electrons" as they say.

 As for deBeers, Fe (Iron) is hardly in the category of diamonds in terms of the possibility of monopoly, so I wouldn't worry about that.

 Cheers.

 

 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Doubts about peak oil?

I totally understand the difficulty anyone who first encounters the notion of Peak Oil has getting their head around the issue.  It took me a couple of years (unaided, unlike you!) to work out it is a serious problem.  And as my wife constantly reminds me, I have now had nearly ten years to get used to the idea.....

Almost everyone who starts thinking about PO first starts thinking about their car.  I guess it's to be expected, because it's at the gas station that you encounter oil products in their most obvious form, fuel.  But trust me, PO's impact on your car habit is the least of your problems.....

Here's a short list of things made with oil... Adhesives, air-conditioners, ammonia, anti-histamines, antiseptics, asphalt, aspirin, balloons, bandages, boats, bottles, bras, bubblegum, butane, cameras, candles, car batteries, car bodies, carpet, cassette tapes, caulking, CD/DVDs, computers, chewing gum, combs/brushes, condoms, contact lenses, cortizone, crayons, cream denture adhesives, deodorant, detergents, dice, dishwashing liquid, dryers, electric blankets, electrician’s tape, non-natural fabrics, fertilizers, fishing lures, fishing rods, floor wax, footballs, glycerin, golf balls, guitar strings, hair coloring, hearing aids, heart valves, heating oil, house paint, ice chests, ink, insect repellent, insulation, jet fuel, life jackets, linoleum, lip balm, lipstick, loudspeakers, mascara, medicines, mops, motor oil, motorcycle helmets, movie film, nail polish, oil filters, paddles, paint brushes, paints, parachutes, paraffin, pens, perfumes, petroleum jelly, plastic furniture, plastic wrap, plastics, refrigerators, roller-skate wheels, roofing paper, rubber bands, rubber boots, rubber cement, running shoes, saccharine, seals, shampoo,shoe polish, shoes, shower curtains, solvents, spectacles, stereos, sweaters, table tennis balls, tape recorders, telephones, tennis rackets, thermos, toilet paper, tyres, TV cabinets, umbrellas, upholstery, vaporizers, vitamin capsules, volley balls, water pipes, water skis, wax, wax paper, etc. etc.etc. etc. etc.etc. etc. etc.etc.

Get my drift?  Maybe you should also read this... http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

Nichoman's picture
Nichoman
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 1 2008
Posts: 422
Re: Doubts about peak oil?
Damnthematrix wrote:

I totally understand the difficulty anyone who first encounters the notion of Peak Oil has getting their head around the issue.  It took me a couple of years (unaided, unlike you!) to work out it is a serious problem.  And as my wife constantly reminds me, I have now had nearly ten years to get used to the idea.....

Almost everyone who starts thinking about PO first starts thinking about their car.  I guess it's to be expected, because it's at the gas station that you encounter oil products in their most obvious form, fuel.  But trust me, PO's impact on your car habit is the least of your problems.....

Here's a short list of things made with oil... Adhesives, air-conditioners, ammonia, anti-histamines, antiseptics, asphalt, aspirin, balloons, bandages, boats, bottles, bras, bubblegum, butane, cameras, candles, car batteries, car bodies, carpet, cassette tapes, caulking, CD/DVDs, computers, chewing gum, combs/brushes, condoms, contact lenses, cortizone, crayons, cream denture adhesives, deodorant, detergents, dice, dishwashing liquid, dryers, electric blankets, electrician’s tape, non-natural fabrics, fertilizers, fishing lures, fishing rods, floor wax, footballs, glycerin, golf balls, guitar strings, hair coloring, hearing aids, heart valves, heating oil, house paint, ice chests, ink, insect repellent, insulation, jet fuel, life jackets, linoleum, lip balm, lipstick, loudspeakers, mascara, medicines, mops, motor oil, motorcycle helmets, movie film, nail polish, oil filters, paddles, paint brushes, paints, parachutes, paraffin, pens, perfumes, petroleum jelly, plastic furniture, plastic wrap, plastics, refrigerators, roller-skate wheels, roofing paper, rubber bands, rubber boots, rubber cement, running shoes, saccharine, seals, shampoo,shoe polish, shoes, shower curtains, solvents, spectacles, stereos, sweaters, table tennis balls, tape recorders, telephones, tennis rackets, thermos, toilet paper, tyres, TV cabinets, umbrellas, upholstery, vaporizers, vitamin capsules, volley balls, water pipes, water skis, wax, wax paper, etc. etc.etc. etc. etc.etc. etc. etc.etc.

Get my drift?  Maybe you should also read this... http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

 

Excellent point Damnthematrix and one I try and convey all time how crucial oil is in our lives.  About 35% of oil is used for crucial applications such as you outlined.   From what I've heard and read, most can't be replaced easily...if at all.

Nichoman 

switters's picture
switters
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 19 2008
Posts: 744
Re: Doubts about peak oil?

We really do need a "peak oil FAQ" or something on this site, or at least a collection of other PO resources, that we can't point people towards.  Perhaps I'll get around to doing that sometime. 

Peak oil isn't a theory.  It's a fact.  You must understand that peak oil isnt' about "running out".  The statement that "there's enough oil in the ground" to run civilization for another 200 years may in fact be true.  However, we'll never extract that oil because it costs more to do so than the value of the energy we'd get back.  Simple economics.

Peak oil is about flow rates.  Once the demand for oil is greater than the flow rates of existing fields (most of which are in decline) and projected new discoveries (including nonconventionals), we're at peak.  Some believe we hit that point in July 2008; others think it's coming in the next 2-3 years.  Few believe it's further away than 2015.  

 

tom.'s picture
tom.
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 345
Re: Doubts about peak oil?
switters wrote:

 

Peak oil isn't a theory.  It's a fact.  You must understand that peak oil isnt' about "running out".  The statement that "there's enough oil in the ground" to run civilization for another 200 years may in fact be true. 

 

Also, no one factors in the exponential population growth ...

GR8TFUL's picture
GR8TFUL
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 13 2008
Posts: 79
Re: Doubts about peak oil?

Whenever I begin to research a subject, or want to get a quick unbiased education about something, I usually start at wikipedia.org

 Here's what wikipedia has to say about peak oil:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

mainecooncat's picture
mainecooncat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 7 2008
Posts: 488
Re: Doubts about peak oil?

The statement that there's enough oil in the ground to run civilization for another two hundred years can only be that of a charlatan or someone so deep in the throes of denialist spasms that they've become temporarily insane. No learned or responsible person could ever make such a statement in isolation or as "proof" of something simply because of its breathtaking incompleteness.

For example, first, what's civilization? The entire planet, the industrialized world, industrialized countries to be, etc?

Second, at what rate of consumption (the most important issue in a way)? Anyone who doesn't prominently speak of rates can't be taken seriously. If consumption of oil keeps increasing on the same trajectory it has been, then two hundred years' worth of oil at today's rates may only be half that at tomorrow's.

Third, at what price (another critically important issue)? If no one can afford the oil or oil-like analogs being extracted and processed than it's not going to be harvested in the first place. Not only must there be adequate demand but that demand must be willing to support the extraction cost. In Smithian terms then, the effectual demand must be the metric used, not absolute or theoretical demand -- that type of demand will always be there. What's happened in the US over the last four months has been a drop in effectual demand due to un-affordability, not a drop in absolute demand or a mindset change in Americans that caused them to drive less or conserve fuel.

Fourth, developmental offset. This is another factor very rarely taken into account by happy-talk people. The infrastructural shift required to move away from fossil fuels is so great -- tens of trillions of dollars -- that significant quantities of fossil fuels must (ironically) be used to effect this transition. If we weren't in need of this shift, then all of that energy could simply be used to run our neon signs and such.

If these three things are factored in -- rates, demand, development -- that theoretical two hundred years could drop to fifty. Which, of course, means that the problem is still imminent.

This brings me to the last point here. So many people who make these wild claims regarding centuries' more worth of oil seem to be actually not investigating energy, our relation to it, how much we have left at what rates, and what's a sensible energy policy for our world but instead are engaged in a defense of our consumptive and wasteful lifestyle and apathy in general. The main thrust I get from most of these people is, "Hey, you don't have to do anything. Don't worry. Those doomers and gloomers just hate us and our lifestyle. Go on, Joe and Jane SUV-aburbia, keep consuming, keep wasting, keep sleep walking through existence. Can you believe it, these people actually want us to be responsible for our actions?!"

Kind of sounds like War on Terror rhetoric to me. You know, that others could never possibly have a legitimate grievance with what you're doing. It must be their jealousy and inadequacy.

I think the twenty-first century will largely be about those who are ready to move on and those who will die with their boots on for their fathers' way of doing things. The eternal John Waynes of our culture.

ds's picture
ds
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 13 2008
Posts: 43
Re: Doubts about peak oil?
mainecooncat wrote:

The statement that there's enough oil in the ground to run civilization for another two hundred years can only be that of a charlatan or someone so deep in the throes of denialist spasms that they've become temporarily insane. No learned or responsible person could ever make such a statement...

I get the feeling you didn't watch the video at the link provided by the OP (http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147&hl=en)

ds's picture
ds
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 13 2008
Posts: 43
Re: Doubts about peak oil?
switters wrote:

The statement that "there's enough oil in the ground" to run civilization for another 200 years may in fact be true.  However, we'll never extract that oil because it costs more to do so than the value of the energy we'd get back.   

Lindsey
Williams appears to offer evidence to contradict this. He says there is plenty of oil easily available
  at low extraction cost.

pir8don's picture
pir8don
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 30 2008
Posts: 456
Re: Doubts about peak oil?

Population is the driver of most of our apparent problems. The British were experts at devide and conquer. But conquer is also destroy. I don't know if there is the oil he says but I do know that if we can stop converting carbon to a gas then we are in marginally less trouble.  Fe is the chemical symbol for Iron. Red herrings?

Don

__________________________________________________

Diversity is our greatest strength, complacency our greatest weakness.

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Doubts about peak oil?

Lindsey Williams is a minister of religion.  Faith in unproven ideas is all part of religion.  I'd rather believe OIL GEOLOGISTS....

switters's picture
switters
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 19 2008
Posts: 744
Re: Doubts about peak oil?
ds wrote:
switters wrote:

The statement that "there's enough oil in the ground" to run civilization for another 200 years may in fact be true.  However, we'll never extract that oil because it costs more to do so than the value of the energy we'd get back.   

Lindsey
Williams appears to offer evidence to contradict this. He says there is plenty of oil easily available
  at low extraction cost.

What evidence?  Saying something is true doesn't make it so.

TheSubMainMan's picture
TheSubMainMan
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 30 2008
Posts: 4
Re: Doubts about peak oil?

 

 I guess some one needs to helicopter up to the north slopes of Alaska and have a good look around...

 any volunteers?

    ;-)

 

Woodman's picture
Woodman
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 26 2008
Posts: 1028
Re: Doubts about peak oil?

As Isis noted, I see reducing energy consumption as a much more viable solution than finding alternative sources.  I often have to explain to people who expect a great new technology that that is just wishful thinking.  But then the trouble with saving energy is someone else will take up that excess capacity, until strained again.   

Less energy means a change in living but doesn't have to mean a reduction in living standards in my view.  Keeping things simpler, smaller, closer and owning fewer things can mean less complication and maintenance and more free time.

 

mainecooncat's picture
mainecooncat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 7 2008
Posts: 488
Re: Doubts about peak oil?
TheSubMainMan wrote:

 

 I guess some one needs to helicopter up to the north slopes of Alaska and have a good look around...

 any volunteers?

    ;-)

 

What purpose would this serve?

mainecooncat's picture
mainecooncat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 7 2008
Posts: 488
Re: Doubts about peak oil?

There are a couple of funny things about the Lindsey Williams' conspiracy.

One, even if his story is true, there's still not an energy "non-crisis" because a key part of the conspiracy is that the evil powers are planning on destroying the US anyway by forever (apparently) keeping these oil fields secret and undeveloped. So their existence is a moot point. To say it another way, just for hypothetical purposes: the world will still face the impacts of peak oil on a time frame consistent with the non-existence of these conspiracy fields.

Two, this guy is often brought up by anti-peak oil advocates, even though an analysis of his story supports many of the foundational tenets of the impact peak oil will have on society. He points out how so much in our lives is derived from oil and how important it is for mondern existence and basically says that because of this oil can be used to cripple nations and economies.

joe2baba's picture
joe2baba
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2008
Posts: 807
Re: Doubts about peak oil?

geologists who happen to be on the payroll of major oil companies owned by people like the rockefellers?

just answer one question .......who profits from peak oil?

gregroberts's picture
gregroberts
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 1024
Re: Doubts about peak oil?

The peak oil crisis: Edging towards reality

by Tom Whipple

Last week the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris released their annual report on the state of the world's energy resources -- World Energy Review 2008.

As the world's energy situation becomes more and more confused, with prices gyrating wildly, and with more voices warning of unprecedented problems just ahead, this 569-page report stands as the most authoritative description of what will happen to the world's energy supply. The energy policies of the 28 countries that are members of the IEA in theory hinge on the report's findings - and that is where the trouble comes in.

Until recently, the IEA's forecasts have been based on the premise that there was plenty of oil or equivalent hydrocarbons left to extract. Forecasting future production was simply a function of extrapolating demand. However much oil the world needed and was ready to pay for, the oil industry would provide. This premise of course undercuts the notion of world oil production peaking anytime soon. As long as there is plenty of oil to extract in the foreseeable future, world production should not peak. It was this premise and associated judgments that serve as the basis for most of the world's governments denying or at least avoiding discussing very loudly the idea that world oil production will soon be going into decline.

In recent years however, as world oil production stagnated, and as more attention was focused on rates of oil depletion vs. the likelihood of offsetting new production, the IEA's basic premise became more and more untenable. This year the Agency succumbed to reality and addressed the issue of stagnating oil production head-on with detailed discussions of oil depletion around the world.

It must be kept in mind that the World Energy Review is not an academic search for truth, but a political document that forms the basis for energy policy in many countries and guides the expenditure of billions of dollars. The current travails of General Motors is a case in point. Given the importance of the document, it is naïve to expect a sharp reversal of its key judgments that the world's oil supply will continue to grow for the next 20 years nor that oil prices will not become too burdensome. In this respect the new release does not disappoint, for the Agency continues to forecast in what is called a "reference case" that world oil production will increase by another 20 million barrels a day (b/d) over the next 20 years.

With the "all will be well" formalities out of the way, the Agency, however, breaks much new ground in providing data on world oil depletion and warning that supply problems are just ahead. As it has done for over a year now, the IEA bases its concerns for the future not on geology, but on the lack of sufficient investment to keep up with the steadily rising costs of extracting and processing oil from increasingly difficult places. If you want a mind boggling number, the Agency now says that it will cost $26 trillion (with a "T") over the next 20 or so years to keep energy flowing at its current pace and to provide for some economic growth. If we don't spend this much, then it is our own fault if supplies of oil, coal, natural gas, and electricity run short.

Perhaps the most interesting phenomenon surrounding the release of this year's report is the veritable swarm of critics that descended on release day to dissect all 569 pages, word by word, graph by graph and chart by chart. Dozens if not hundreds are involved in this effort and are already bombarding the report's authors with demands for explanations of the dozens of inconsistencies that have already turned up. While obviously stressful to those involved in producing the report, it is a healthy process for it serves to remind the Agency that its judgments are having a significant impact and that many knowledgeable people are watching and parsing the Agency's every utterance.

For most commentators, the major flaw in the report is the judgment that world oil production will continue to increase steadily for the next 22 years despite increasing rates of oil depletion, as well as growing environmental and fiscal problems. The Agency forecasts that production from currently producing fields will decline to about 50 percent of current production. This decline, they say, will be more than made up for by: developing new already discovered oil fields; finding new fields, using enhanced recovery techniques to get more oil out of existing fields; getting more oil from the Alberta tar sands; doubling natural gas production and extracting the liquids from the gas; and finally increasing the extraction liquids from coal. When, and if, all this happens, the world will be perking along nicely with 106 million b/d of oil vs. the current 86 million b/d.

As one cynic put it, the IEA was given the job of forecasting enough energy production to allow the world's economy to continue to grow for the next 20 years, and then set about constructing a scenario, however implausible, of how this might happen.

After deriding the optimistic forecast, most of the commentary thus far has focused on the new data about rates of oil depletion and what they portend. Rates of oil depletion is a complicated, (for there are hundreds of major oil fields) yet important area of study as it is key to what is going to happen over the next few decades. The new information provided by the IEA, and more importantly the debate over this information, is likely to occupy the time until the next report comes out.

The best feature of this report is that the IEA seems to be responding to its critics and seems willing to engage in a genuine debate over the future of the world's energy supply. It is asking too much of agency that answers to 28 governments to embrace peak oil with the release of one publication. However, if one reads between the lines and uses the data to draw one's own conclusion, the new report simply screams that peak oil and all that it implies is just about here.

Xflies's picture
Xflies
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 19 2008
Posts: 157
Re: Doubts about peak oil?

Here's one thing to keep in mind.  The futures market is the best way to look at what people's views and expectations are.  5 year oil is still trading above $84.  That's the largest contango ever in the history of oil.  It is suggesting that the prices we see today are short lived and are more due to the deleveraging effect that's crushing asset values every where.

capesurvivor's picture
capesurvivor
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 12 2008
Posts: 963
Re: Doubts about peak oil?

Hi Xflies,

 

I was noticing that today as I was thinking about how to add more oil stocks (don't have a futures acct.) to my portfolio. 

It seems to me to be a waste of time to be rehashing peak oil, global warming, etc. I suppose this is a forum and all views are welcome but the gist of Chris's videos is that unsustainable things are colliding and it is time to take action, personal and (if you can) community.

I don't mean to suggest a forum of only true believers; maybe I should just read the forums of people who understand the videos and are moving on from them. 

The rest of you folks can convince the nonbeleivers. On second thought, may be that's the point  of the site, to convince nonbelievers. 

I have enuf hassles trying to convince my wife.

SG

switters's picture
switters
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 19 2008
Posts: 744
Re: Doubts about peak oil?

I've been having similar thoughts lately, SG.  But then I remember the Six Stage of Awareness and try to respect where people are in that process.  I went through it myself, of course, but these days I only really vacillate between Stages 4 and 6.  I never go back to Stage 1 (denial), 2 (anger), or 3 (bargaining, or what I call "wishful thinking").  Generally I don't feel depressed either (Stage 5), but I do sometimes feel scared (Stage 4) - both for myself and for those I love.  The majority of the time, though, I accept what is happening and am busy working to prepare.

I don't have a problem sharing what I've learned with people who are open-minded and honestly willing to question their assumptions and beliefs.  But I have no time to waste arguing back and forth with people who are so identified with a particular belief system that they cannot let it go when new information contradicts it.

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Doubts about peak oil?

geologists who happen to be on the payroll of major oil companies owned by people like the rockefellers?

ACTUALLY......  they're all retired!! 

just answer one question .......who profits from peak oil?

NOBODY. 

switters's picture
switters
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 19 2008
Posts: 744
Re: Doubts about peak oil?

Yes, it's important to understand that the majority of the oil geologists spearheading ASPO and the PO movement are retired and have nothing to gain financially from the "promotion" of PO.  But of course their lifetime of experience in the industry makes them eminently qualifies to forecast and project.

Xflies's picture
Xflies
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 19 2008
Posts: 157
trading oil and gas stocks

Hi Cape,

I try and not put myself into any particular camp, because I think it can warp my sense of objectivity.  I'll leave it to the simple fact that I will never know all of the factors that go towards predicting price behaviour from analysing supply/demand trends.  Instead I rely on the forward curve to dictate my trading not only because it is the best gauge as to where the market is going and that people are putting up real money into those markets, but because I can arbitrage or lock in my assumptions. 

Instead, my suggestion is to find deep discount to Net Asset Value companies and if you have a view on oil or gas, then just be long a basket of these and if you don't know where oil prices are going, go ahead and short a suitable amount of oil futures.  If you don't have a futures account, you can short OIL that's listed on the NYSE.  Deep discount oil and gas stocks are easy to find, in many cases you can just look at the company's filings, presentations or annual report and they should have a resource estimate on a PV10% (present valued at 10%).  Take note of when these estimates were made and either take into account the move in oil and gas prices or just call up the company and ask them for their best estimate on where their NAV is based on today's price deck. 

Another good trade that limits risk is buying the beaten up airline stocks and buying deep discount oil and gas stocks.  For example, I am able to buy oil at basically $25 because I've found cheap discount stocks and I can buy airlines like Air Canada who have been affected by corporate reorg issues.  It's a natural hedge against their largest cost input which is fuel and you are benefiting from the eventual consolidation of the industry and capacity being taken off.  Airlines lost a lot of money when oil was rising and they won't be as quick to lower prices as fuel is dropping.  Also, the unions are in much weaker positions which should bring the gap between legacy and the discount carriers down (as you can tell, I like the legacy carriers because of their international exposure).  There will be exposure to the overal economy and the effect on overall revenue but there are also ways of hedging that exposure out.  Another poster also suggested some income trusts or MLP's and those are also great stocks to look at.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments