• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A scary strategic problem - no oil

I too am optomistic.  As prices rise the users at the margins who gain the least utility value from it will stop or lower their consumption.  Case in point, my car was just totalled, but we still have a van for three kids.  I now walk or ride the bike to work and save about $250 per month.

I'm constantly asked when I'm getting a new car.  I answer "why?"

Most oil companies are publicly traded entities striving to make a profit for their shareholders, so are obligated to sell to the highest bidder.  China can buy all the Canadian oil companies it wants, but if it attempts to sell cheaper oil to itself will go bankrupt.  It won't be north americans that go without because we are filthy rich (as a whole).  It will be the developing and third world that will suffer.
 
The next set of wars/conflicts has already and will continue to be about resources. Oil is a major factor, even if it is Politically Incorrect to mention it. All other arguemen ts aside, the Iraq war has an oil supply component, as does Afghanistan (via Tajikistan pipeline).

I don't want to get into a big flap about all the good reasons...that's not the point here. Governments and companies are more than aware of the coming crisis, and are developing their inroads and areas of protection/development for the past 20 years, and will continue to do so. They just don't advertise it.

This whole scenario has an up side. As long as there was a "glut" of oil, alternative methods or fuels would not be considered seriously. Just look at the development of the hydrogen fuel cell and wind power within the last 5 years will tell you that something is changing.
 
Good post Grunt. The China and India together are using as much oil as the US did 10 year's ago, which is causing pressure on oil prices, then throw in the jitters over Iran's nuclear program and you have +$75 oil.
It may be that the Iranian's are sounding crazy to keep oil prices and their profits high.
 
Worn Out Grunt said:
Most oil companies are publicly traded entities striving to make a profit for their shareholders, so are obligated to sell to the highest bidder.  China can buy all the Canadian oil companies it wants, but if it attempts to sell cheaper oil to itself will go bankrupt.
Unfortunately this isn't true.  The major oil companies (BP, Shell, ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, etc.) are all publicly traded, but they control fewer reserves than major resource holders controlled by national governments in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and elsewhere.  Many of these governments behave less rationally than free markets do, and will throw whatever wrenches they can into the works of alternative energies (whether it's actually in their interest or not).
 
True enough. Venezuela and Saudi Arabia (among others) sell heavily subsidized oil to their home markets, while "letting" us buy it at the market price. This isn't limited to oil or the third world, Ontario's policy of selling electricity to consumers for less than the market price is setting us up for the greatest financial disaster in Canadian history; all our tax money is going to American generating companies [who are using coal fired plants too, no less] to buy our peak power.

One of the interesting common theams of the alternative energy movement is to "create" more resources that are under our control (either "home grown" resources like biodiesel or ways and means to unlock the tar sands or shale oil that exist here in North America).
 
Engines capable of operating from multiple fuels is one component to energy independence. The quasiturbine engine is the future. It can burn diesel,gas,methanol and even hydrogen. The engine does not require oil, which is a huge plus. Burns fuel with far fewer emitions than current engines. Fewer moving parts. I really am excited about this engine.

http://www.quasiturbine.com/

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/quasiturbine4.htm
 
A PDF File for you from this author http://www.oilendgame.com/

See notes on the 60 slide show here
http://www.jhuapl.edu/POW/rethinking/SeminarArchive/022306/022306_LovinsNotes.pdf

Full presentation in PDF http://www.jhuapl.edu/POW/rethinking/SeminarArchive/022306/022306_LovinsPresentation.pdf

Extracts

۞ Symbols link to start of relevant video NOTE - this links to videos of the presentation here ---- look for Feb 23 Speaker: Amory Lovins

See video archive http://www.jhuapl.edu/POW/rethinking/video.cfm
Rethinking the Future Nature of Competitions and Conflict
23 February 2006
Amory Lovins
Director, Rocky Mountain Institute
Winning the Oil Endgame
۞ 1
Mr. Lovins began by describing his work and that of his Rocky Mountain Institute
• Vision: abundance by design (http://www.natcap.org)
• Mission: foster the efficient and restorative use of resources to make the world
secure, just, prosperous, and life-sustaining
• Past security work
o Defense Science Board panel on platform efficiency (1999–2001)
o Studies for SECNAV and COMNAVSEA on ship power and
transformation issues
o Led “greening”-of-Pentagon
o Strategy lectures for NDU, AWC, NWC, NPS, OJCS
o Definitive unclass study of domestic energy vulnerability (1981)
o Extensive unclass nonproliferation syntheses 1970s–80s
o Redefined security in Security Without War (1993)
o Does not consider himself an expert on military affairs
Energy efficiency improvements from RMI work
• From RMI work involving $20B in redesign of over 80 companies
• Retro fits can bring free byproducts
• Redesigns can save capital so that new plants can be located in Texas, not China
• Tremendous savings can be had no matter what the company
o Retrofits usually have 2-3 year paybacks for investments
o New, specially designed facilities can save on capital investments
Major Thesis: The US can get completely off its oil dependency and revise its economy
• All to be lead by business profit motives and decisions
• Can/should be accelerated by DoD’s interest
Context: competition drives strategy and things do change
• Military strategic vectors used to be stealth, speed and precision
o Then network central warfare issues added
۞ 2
o Now need to consider Power as the 5th strategic vector
Electrified warriors keep running out of batteries
Systems also need huge amounts of fuel
o Threats can now be asymmetrical, demassified, elusive, remote, irregular,
techno-savvy
Now need many small units covering large areas
• Power issues are about 50 years behind the other vectors
o So ripe for attacking the problem
• Currently need oil to move military’s heavy equipment
o Ultra light materials could change all that
• A reasonably conservative target would improve fuel use by 3-4 times
Current requirements and acquisition process hugely undervalues fuel efficiency
• Logistics are assumed to be free
• In war games, never deal with fuel issues
• In reality whole divisions tasked with hauling fuel around
o They are very vulnerable
o Cut backs in need for fuel would change tooth to tail ratio big-time
o Could save 10s of B$ per year
Biggest win would be more strategic – won’t need as much oil so won’t need to treat oilproducing
countries differently or fight for oil rights
• See Winning the Oil Endgame
• Partially paid for by Andy Marshal in Net Assessments
• Has been endorsed by a number of military officers and DoD policy-makers
• Push civilian world change so eliminate US oil needs by 2040s
Winning the Oil Endgame is not based on any political strategy but on business logic
• 1/3 of the way through a 3-year program
• Doing business acupuncture to help maintain the flow of business
o Involves tweaking small issues
۞ 3
Things can change quickly:
• In 1850 the biggest US industry was whaling to provide oil for lamps
• Within 6 years 5/6th of the market moved away to fossil fuels
• Whalers did not watch what their competition was doing at the time
No one bothered to add up all the fuel alternatives coming on line
Happening again
We know that major conservation and other efforts can work
• Did after the 1970s oil shocks
• Broke OPEC control for 10 years
• We can save oil faster than the Saudis can stop selling it
• Investment can be one time
• There could be 1 million new jobs available
o Mostly in rural areas that have been losing populations
Key to making changes – vehicles
• Need to make them light and slippery to cut wind resistance
• Includes cars, trucks, planes, etc
• Remarkable new materials will be very important
o Carbon fiber cars and other vehicles
• Use of more exotic (often more expensive) materials is compensated by simpler
manufacturing processes

Where does a car’s fuel energy go?
Only 6% goes into acceleration
Therefore less than 1% actually propels the drivers
Would save a great deal if vehicles were made much lighter

New materials can be highly impact absorbing
• Can be aluminum, light steels or carbon composites
• No longer have to be big and heavy to be safe
o Carbon composite structures can absorb 6-12 times as much energy per kg
as steel does
• Could be simpler and potentially cheaper to manufacture
۞ 4
Need to migrate innovative techniques and materials from military/aerospace industries
to high volume vehicles
• Example: In 1994–96 DARPA/ Integrated Technology for Affordability Skunk
Works® team designed an advanced tactical fighter airframe
o 95% of carbon-fiber composites
o 1/3 lighter than its 72%-metal predecessor
o but 2/3 cheaper because designed to be made from carbon
o Too radical for military customer
• Same players designed a halved-weight SUV

GM et al are obviously re-inventing themselves
 
Further to my last about national oil companies behaving less than rationally:

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=31765

Edit: just noticed that tomahawk6 posted the same article here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42915/post-0.html
 
One thing that isn't thought of often is the time it takes to work new changes in and replace the established capital base (i.e. the "sunk costs" of what is already out there). Here is a link to a somewhat pessemistic article suggesting the changeover could take 50 years. I think a more reasonable extimate would be around 20, splitting the differecen between Amory Lovens and MIT

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16777&ch=biztech

Hydrogen Reality Check

Fuel cells won't significantly dent fuel consumption for 50 years -- we need to look elsewhere.

By Kevin Bullis

High oil prices and concerns about the long-term availability of oil have U.S. government officials singing the praises of hydrogen fuel cells as a solution to our nation's transportation energy problem. But fuel cells, while a promising technology, could take more than 50 years to have a significant impact on gasoline consumption, according to estimates by MIT researchers. On the other hand, improved internal combustion engines and lighter vehicles could offset energy consumption much sooner, especially if consumers have incentives to buy them and manufacturers to make them.

"The potential for hydrogen fuel cells having an impact that you'd notice is a long way away," says John Heywood, professor of mechanical engineering at MIT. The estimates assume that competitive fuel cell vehicles will be available within 15 years, an achievement that will require improvements, for example, in hydrogen storage and production and fuel-cell costs. But even if and when fuel-cell vehicles come with the price and performance that consumers want, it will still take decades more before such new vehicles work their way into widespread use.

One factor slowing the impact of any new vehicle technology -- whether advanced internal combustion engine, hybrid, or fuel cell -- is the average lifespan of a car, which is about 15 years, according to Heywood. Even as people buy cars with new technologies, old ones stay on the roads, continuing to burn fuel and emit carbon dioxide.

follow the link to read the rest
 
Heres a poster with convenient oil statistics and bright colors.

http://www.oilposter.org/posterlarge-x.html
 
Interesting post. Perhaps it should join the thread here as well? http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37017.0.html
 
So, not a solution to the issue of energy, but a technology to increase the efficiency of the existing fossils eh?

John B. Holmes Jr., Syntroleum's president and chief executive officer, said his firm would sell the Air Force its synthetic fuel for testing "at our cost, and we may be losing a little bit."

The main question on my mind is, what's Syntroleum's stock going for these days?
 
Soy biodiesel plants are in the process of being built as we speak. I think that coal liquification should be actively pursued, followed by oil from shale. In Canada the tar sands are already being aggressively developed. I can see a time in the next 5-10 years the US being self sufficient and no longer importing oil. This would help the trade deficit the US has.
 
Both Nazi Germany and South Africa in the 70s had huge coal gassification plants.  If ever there's a conspiracy, this 'secret' technology would take the cake.  We need to stop wasting Hydrocarbons to fuel our vehicles and power plants as they are far more important for plastics and pharmaceuticals.  Perhaps $100/bbl is not such a bad thing.
 
I don't think there is a single "magic wand" solution, so persuing all different options gives us the flexibility to meet all possible contingencies. Coal liquefaction as persued in the 1930's and 1970's was hugely energy intensive, so an improved process needs to be found (maybe even more efficient than the Syntroleum process). More efficient ways of using existing fuel also need to be persued in tandem; I once read that if every vehicle in North America had the tires inflated to the proper pressure, there would be a 10% reduction in transportation fuel usage! (Go get a tune-up and tire check people!)

Here are some links for "Plan B", promising to increase fuel economy by 50%:

http://www.me.berkeley.edu/cal/HCCI/

http://www.llnl.gov/str/Westbrook.html
 
Nice article on Wikipedia, and the links section at the bottom leads you to quite a few similar chemical process to convert coal and other solids into usable liquid fuels

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

Enjoy
 
The market will cause some strange and counterintuitive things to happen. If this article is correct, the conditions favourable for alternative resources (bio-diesel, liquified coal, tar sands, oil shale) will end with the bursting of the "oil bubble", removing the incentive of high prices. Since science is a step wise process, any potential gains made in this round mean investors will start from a more developed technological base when the next oil shock arrives, and perhaps some of these plans will finally reach fruition.

http://article.nationalreview.com/

The Oil Bubble Is Next to Burst
The free market is the ticket for this commodity round trip.

By Thomas E. Nugent

Tune in to any of those financial news networks and you’ll be sure to find a commodity guru still predicting $1,000 an ounce for gold and $100 a barrel for oil. Should the little guy jump on this bandwagon? Or is it too late? Well, the recent plunge in some commodity prices is giving speculators second thoughts about the durability of the commodity bull market.

The price volatility of another well-known commodity, natural gas, can be instructive here. As the world frets about energy shortages, natural gas is suffering from rising inventories and sluggish demand. Last year, the gurus were looking for $20 per million BTUs of natural gas. Recently, that price dropped below $6 per million BTUs. Natural-gas price fluctuations, as represented in the following chart (prepared by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis), indicate the forming of a price bubble, with natural gas prices rising from a low of approximately $6.50 in March 2005 to a peak of $14.50 in December 2005. But once the peak heating season reflected a warmer-than-normal winter, the price of natural gas plummeted back below the low levels of 2005. (Incidentally, many tech stocks charted much the same course between 1998 and 2002.)

One irony here is that little news about the recent natural-gas round trip makes it into the media. Why aren’t raucous politicians singling out gas-company executives — labeling them patriots for sacrificing profitability in the name of helping the country through an energy crisis? The reason for the silence is that energy-company executives do not determine energy prices and the politicians know it. In Washington, good news is no news — so you won’t hear any good news about the fall in natural gas prices.

On the other hand, when it comes to the bad-news rise in oil prices, Washington politicians are not only vocal, they are predictably nearsighted in their proposed solutions: Punish the auto companies by imposing higher CAFÉ requirements! Impose windfall profits taxes on oil-company profits! Prohibit drilling for oil off our coasts and Alaska! Pillory the oil-company execs!

But our experience from the energy-price run-up of the 1970s reminds us that free markets will resolve high energy prices, while politicians will only exacerbate them.

In particular, here are a few reasons why free-market factors will erode the current high price of oil: More windmills and solar power will pop up, the billions of dollars invested to get oil from tar sands will begin paying dividends, nuclear power will reincarnate, a rising number of drilling rigs will begin operating within the U.S., smaller cars with higher fuel mileage will proliferate, substitute fuels such as ethanol and hydrogen will take hold, and on and on.

Efforts to innovate, substitute, or even conserve at the same time the oil supply is expanding will create the perfect environment for an oil-price decline. Back in the early 1970s, and then again in the early 1980s, high oil prices led to lower oil prices. Oil bulls rely on rising global demand, but few of them fear a rise in supply through incremental oil as well as new energy sources that will displace oil as the primary fuel.

When Hertz begins to charge less for big car rentals than small car rentals, as pointed out in a recent Wall Street Journal article, the handwriting, as they say, is on the wall.

From a high price eclipsing $75 per barrel, oil has recently fallen below $68. If the fall in natural-gas prices is a good indicator, oil prices still have a long way to drop.

— Thomas E. Nugent is executive vice president and chief investment officer of PlanMember Advisors, Inc., and principal of Victoria Capital Management, Inc.

 
More counter intuative information. The free market in oil is self correcting, you just need to give it time to react:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGE4M2RlMDM1MmI0OGM1M2ViMGQ4MWUyYzc2YmEyZWU=

Surprise Drop in Oil?
Free markets could soon deliver a much different energy scenario.

By Larry Kudlow

Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the U.S., recently told the United States Energy Association that any U.S. conflict with Iran would threaten the Strait of Hormuz and triple the barrel price of oil. Of course, such language could be an attempt to get President Bush to rule out the military option as Iran pushes to weaponize its uranium-enrichment program. But the administration will not rule anything out as it grapples with this belligerent power.

That said, I’d like to challenge the prince’s assessment of the potential direction of oil prices, and the idea that the Middle East necessarily holds all the cards.

The Energy Department just announced that crude oil supplies rose 1.4 million barrels to 347.1 million for the week ended June 16. Analysts had been expecting a drawdown, so this news caught them by surprise. More, crude oil supplies in the U.S. are now at their highest levels since May 1998, when oil was trading around $15 a barrel. Add in the fact that Canadian oil inventories are fully stocked, and the more imminent reality is of a sizable oil-price decrease — not a huge increase.

Recently I interviewed four oil-tanker executives who control a combined 85 percent of the oil coming into the United States. They confirmed market rumors that the amount of oil being stored on large carriers on the high seas is abnormally high. One of the CEOs even predicted the possibility of $40 to $50 oil in the next 6 to 12 months. In another interview, Chevron CEO David O’Reilly suggested that gasoline and energy demands have flattened in the U.S., and may be showing signs of decline.

Prince Turki can threaten $200 oil all he wants, but we may instead be looking at a downward correction that will have oil prices dropping more than anyone imagines possible. Supplies are at their highest levels in eight years, while demand appears to be falling, or at least leveling off. Should a significant price correction be in the offing, stock markets and the economy will cheer.

The economic principles at work here are very simple: Markets work. Supply and demand works. Higher prices are gradually slowing consumption. At the same time, those high prices continue to stimulate outsized profits and investment returns. So capital is pouring into all the energy sectors, providing a strong foundation for new energy production. Chevron, for example, is reinvesting virtually all its profits in new oil-and-gas exploration and drilling. The drilling industry, meanwhile, has recovered from last year’s Hurricane Katrina shock and is once again producing near peak capacity.

There’s even good news from Washington on the energy front. The House Resources Committee, chaired by California Republican Richard Pombo, has just delivered the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act, which will give coastal states the authority to drill 100 miles or more offshore. This will allow for exploration and production in the deep seas and on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), where kajillions in oil-and-gas reserves are waiting to be siphoned. It also will provide the coastal states with significant oil and gas royalties. Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi opposes this, but the bill has strong bipartisan support.

Finally, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its first license for a major commercial nuclear facility in thirty years. Construction of the $1.5 billion National Enrichment Facility in New Mexico could begin in August, and according to Louisiana Energy Services CEO Jim Ferland, it could be ready to sell enriched uranium (for electricity) by early 2009. Senate Energy chair Pete Domenici calls this a “renaissance of nuclear energy in this country.”

A combination of market forces and government deregulation could be setting us up for a big crack in energy prices, including gas at the pump. And it may happen sooner rather than later. Many years ago, during the 1970s oil crisis, Milton Friedman argued that free markets are more powerful than OPEC, and Ronald Reagan proved the point when prices plunged after he deregulated energy in the early 1980s. Twenty years later, energy-market forces may be poised to assert themselves once more.

Iran and its allies will continue to rattle their sabers in an attempt to boost the value of their only cash crop. And of course, a gunboat battle in the Strait of Hormuz will temporarily boost prices again. But pessimists keep making a one-way bet on sky-high oil prices that will doom the American economy, even though record low tax rates on capital have so far prevented anything like this from happening.

Conventional forecasters understate the economic power of free markets, low marginal tax rates, and energy deregulation. As a supply-side contrarian, I’ll take the other side of that trade. Indeed, as future events unfold, we may be headed for a much different energy and economic scenario.

— Larry Kudlow, NRO’s Economics Editor, is host of CNBC’s Kudlow & Company and author of the daily web blog, Kudlow’s Money Politic$.
 
a_majoor said:
More counter intuative information. The free market in oil is self correcting, you just need to give it time to react:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGE4M2RlMDM1MmI0OGM1M2ViMGQ4MWUyYzc2YmEyZWU=

Hilarious, obviously you've never heard of OPEC.
 
Nemo888 said:
Hilarious, obviously you've never heard of OPEC.

And just as obviously you did not read the article. OPEC is only one group of suppliers, perhaps you have heard of Canada, another, non OPEC supplier or the myriad other nations which make up the global market? Enough said.
 
Back
Top