Alan Greenspan's The Age of Turbulence
#1
Vanned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,244
Bikes: 2006 Motobecane Le Champ SL, 2006 Mercier Kilo TT, 2004 Gary Fisher Tassajara
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Alan Greenspan's The Age of Turbulence
Just finished this book. Greenspan devotes a whole chapter to oil. His view is less dooms-day than most here: He believes that market forces will eventually do away with oil far before it ever disappears from the ground, and his optimism for the amount of oil left in the ground is high. He says at current productions, the there is enough oil to sustain world economic activity up to 130 million barrels a day as projected in 2030, as long as OPEC allows it. He also says that environmental reasons are not enough to disrupt economic activity. The sad reality (and I agree with him) is that serious shifts away from oil as an energy source will only happen when it makes a serious dent on economic activity. So far, $100/barrel oil has not really fazed American, let alone world economic progress.
Anyway, as a self-proclaimed Libertarian-Republican, he seems suggest that market capitalistic forces will eventually solve the world energy crisis, as long as it's allowed to more or less operate freely.
Thoughts?
Anyway, as a self-proclaimed Libertarian-Republican, he seems suggest that market capitalistic forces will eventually solve the world energy crisis, as long as it's allowed to more or less operate freely.
Thoughts?
#2
Third World Layabout
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Costa Rica
Posts: 3,136
Bikes: Cannondale F900 and Tandem
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 397 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 32 Times
in
22 Posts
He is sniffing the glue from his reports. Cheap oil has built our civilization for the last 200 years - and our current replacement is almost nothing. It is like a kid who borrows his dad's car and then notices the tank is getting low - so slaps the solar cell from his calculator on the roof thinking it will make a difference.
For example - currently 85% of the energy consumed by the USA is fossil fuels. Guess what happens as it starts to dry up.
For example - currently 85% of the energy consumed by the USA is fossil fuels. Guess what happens as it starts to dry up.
#3
more ape than man
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nyc
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
i think $100 oil is just starting to really harm our economy. I think there was a "grace period" where people could absorb the costs in creative ways, but as time goes on there is really no hiding from it.
because our dependence on oil affects so much, rapidly rising prices is similar to run away inflation.
because our dependence on oil affects so much, rapidly rising prices is similar to run away inflation.
#4
Immoderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: POS Tennessee
Posts: 7,630
Bikes: Gary Fisher Simple City 8, Litespeed Obed
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Greenspan is an old Ayn Rand groupie, and those people tend to view the Free Market with religious awe, at the same time dismissing ecology as "mysticism," so, he's probably not the one to ask.
I do agree that technology will ultimately find a way to replace fossil fuels, but I doubt the transfer will be as seamless and Star Trekkish as Greenspan makes it sound. On the other hand, I don't think it will be Beyond Thunderdome like James Howard Kunstler predicts, either. But none of us are prophets.
I do agree that technology will ultimately find a way to replace fossil fuels, but I doubt the transfer will be as seamless and Star Trekkish as Greenspan makes it sound. On the other hand, I don't think it will be Beyond Thunderdome like James Howard Kunstler predicts, either. But none of us are prophets.
#5
Ferrous wheel
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 1,388
Bikes: 2004 Gunnar Rock Hound MTB; 1988 Gitane Team Pro road bike; 1986-ish Raleigh USA Grand Prix; mid-'80s Univega Gran Tourismo with Xtracycle Free Radical
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#6
more ape than man
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nyc
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
to give greenspan credit - another chapter in his book talks about how long it takes to implement new technology. he cites the example of farmers using world war II era equipment for a really long time even though better technology exists. he realizes that inventories need to be worn out (old cars, trucks, etc.) before people will invest in something new. in other words, gas powered cars and trucks will still be with us for a long time until they truly run their course.
#7
put our Heads Together
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: southeast pennsylvania
Posts: 3,155
Bikes: a mountain bike with a cargo box on the back and aero bars on the front. an old well-worn dahon folding bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
he realizes that inventories need to be worn out (old cars, trucks, etc.) before people will invest in something new.
Although, who knows, maybe it was greenspan that got them to teach this idea.
So-called stag-flation (inflation without economic growth) could certainly correlate with a tightening of the oil market.
#8
www.chipsea.blogspot.com
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South of Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,026
Bikes: Giant OCR C0 road
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
There remains loads of oil reserves. Production right now is stagnate or declining. Consumption is now equal or greater than production and will inevitably overwhelm production in the next few years- this is why oil is so expensive! Our immediate problem is not how much oil there is, but how fast we can extract it.
In the month of June 2005, world oil production averaged 88 million barrels of oil a day. In no month since then has world oil production averaged such a high rate of flow. In other words, new oil wells have not been able to overcome the natural decline of old wells. (It can take as much as five years to find and bring into production new wells, so the current high price of oil will likely result in new production records.) But now even the CEOs of many big oil companies scoff at the idea of 130 million barrels a day production as being possible. Saudi Arabia has promised for over three years that they will raise their production, but they have not done so. It is widely believed that it is because they cannot raise production, rather than they will not.
It is hard to believe that there are producers out there that are holding back production with oil at these prices.
Meanwhile, the largest single consumer of oil, the USA, is increasing consumption rate at slightly more than 1% each year. Both of the most populated countries in the world (India, China) are increasing their consumption of oil at about 7% a year. The current high price has not yet been high enough to slow the increase in demand. This is the nut of the current bind we are in. The flow of oil can meet current demand, but just barely. Oil flow has not increased from the rate it was in June 2005. Demand for oil seems insatiable. As China and India develop a huge middle class, they are buying cars and refrigerators and computers. So while oil flow may make new production records in the coming years, demand will inevitably continue to rise until actual shortages curtail that growth.
So Greenspan is right that we have lots of oil. He is right that the world in on track to consume 130 million barrels a day. He is wrong to think we can meet that high of daily production.
We have a painful and bumpy road ahead as we turn to other ways of fueling our economy. It will be less painful if government would refrain from picking favorites and squandering time and resources as has been demonstrated by the folly of corn ethanol. Alas, I digress.
For hundreds of years into the future, man will be using oil. It will be used more selectively though. Less for transportation (outside of aviation), less for heating, but more for chemicals. (Plastics etc.) I am optimistic that we have a prosperous future, even though we can't yet see what it will be like.
#9
put our Heads Together
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: southeast pennsylvania
Posts: 3,155
Bikes: a mountain bike with a cargo box on the back and aero bars on the front. an old well-worn dahon folding bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ChipSeal
Less for transportation (outside of aviation), less for heating, but more for chemicals.
#10
Membership Not Required
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: On the road-USA
Posts: 16,855
Bikes: Giant Excursion, Raleigh Sports, Raleigh R.S.W. Compact, Motobecane? and about 20 more! OMG
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times
in
14 Posts
Aaron
__________________
Webshots is bailing out, if you find any of my posts with corrupt picture files and want to see them corrected please let me know. :(
ISO: A late 1980's Giant Iguana MTB frameset (or complete bike) 23" Red with yellow graphics.
"Cycling should be a way of life, not a hobby.
RIDE, YOU FOOL, RIDE!"_Nicodemus
"Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred
Which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?"_krazygluon
Webshots is bailing out, if you find any of my posts with corrupt picture files and want to see them corrected please let me know. :(
ISO: A late 1980's Giant Iguana MTB frameset (or complete bike) 23" Red with yellow graphics.
"Cycling should be a way of life, not a hobby.
RIDE, YOU FOOL, RIDE!"_Nicodemus
"Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred
Which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?"_krazygluon
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: northern Florida, USA
Posts: 778
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Train? What percentage of Americans outside of the NE corridor have ridden anything other than a subway? I love the "rails to trails" stuff as much as any cyclist, but I've always worried that getting rid of the railroad rights-of-way is a big mistake.
#12
www.chipsea.blogspot.com
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South of Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,026
Bikes: Giant OCR C0 road
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yes, the high cost of operating airplanes will reduce it's usage, but there will still be folks and stuff needing to go long distances quickly.
#13
Señor Member
I guess what I was alluding to is that only petroleum can produce a fuel with such a high energy to weight ratio that will allow long distance flight. There are no alternative fuels that could do this.
Yes, the high cost of operating airplanes will reduce it's usage, but there will still be folks and stuff needing to go long distances quickly.
Yes, the high cost of operating airplanes will reduce it's usage, but there will still be folks and stuff needing to go long distances quickly.
Not that I am advocating this, but hydrogen has a fairly low mass density, but the volume density is fairly high. Meaning that you would need substantially larger fuel tanks to carry it. Thus it is likely that if any other fuel source for aircraft could be found, the densities would be sufficiently different that the aircraft design might need to be substantially different. Offhand it isn't obvious to me what other non-petroleum based fuel could be produced in sufficient quantities such that avation will remain viable in the future .
#14
Membership Not Required
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: On the road-USA
Posts: 16,855
Bikes: Giant Excursion, Raleigh Sports, Raleigh R.S.W. Compact, Motobecane? and about 20 more! OMG
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times
in
14 Posts
I guess what I was alluding to is that only petroleum can produce a fuel with such a high energy to weight ratio that will allow long distance flight. There are no alternative fuels that could do this.
Yes, the high cost of operating airplanes will reduce it's usage, but there will still be folks and stuff needing to go long distances quickly.
Yes, the high cost of operating airplanes will reduce it's usage, but there will still be folks and stuff needing to go long distances quickly.
Aaron
__________________
Webshots is bailing out, if you find any of my posts with corrupt picture files and want to see them corrected please let me know. :(
ISO: A late 1980's Giant Iguana MTB frameset (or complete bike) 23" Red with yellow graphics.
"Cycling should be a way of life, not a hobby.
RIDE, YOU FOOL, RIDE!"_Nicodemus
"Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred
Which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?"_krazygluon
Webshots is bailing out, if you find any of my posts with corrupt picture files and want to see them corrected please let me know. :(
ISO: A late 1980's Giant Iguana MTB frameset (or complete bike) 23" Red with yellow graphics.
"Cycling should be a way of life, not a hobby.
RIDE, YOU FOOL, RIDE!"_Nicodemus
"Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred
Which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?"_krazygluon
#15
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ogopogo's shoreline
Posts: 4,082
Bikes: LHT, Kona Smoke
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Just remember:
Whenever an economist talks of how the free market will naturally reduce demand for a skyrocketing commodity - thus stabilizing its price - realize that if the commodity in question is a staple of survival, (such as food - in the case of our petrochemical dependent agro-system) a reduction in demand means death for those priced out of the market.
Whenever an economist talks of how the free market will naturally reduce demand for a skyrocketing commodity - thus stabilizing its price - realize that if the commodity in question is a staple of survival, (such as food - in the case of our petrochemical dependent agro-system) a reduction in demand means death for those priced out of the market.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 261 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times
in
10 Posts
Saudi Arabia has promised for over three years that they will raise their production, but they have not done so. It is widely believed that it is because they cannot raise production, rather than they will not.
It is hard to believe that there are producers out there that are holding back production with oil at these prices.
It is hard to believe that there are producers out there that are holding back production with oil at these prices.
Last edited by Dahon.Steve; 03-01-08 at 09:31 PM.
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 261 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times
in
10 Posts
I was in the library today reading newspapers on microfilm dating back in 1908. Market forces could very well bring back a car free society with trolleys running every two minutes during rush hour and the return of the iron horse. Capitalistic forces could very well mean the end of personal motor transport and the return of public transportation if we cannot find an inexpensive replacement for oil. The market forces will be allocated in other areas like horse and animal power, wood burning stoves and solar fuel cells.
I will say this. After spending four hours reading newspapers dating back 100 years ago, I didn't see much human suffering at all. Yes there were trolley accidents and derailments but it was far less carnage than what is happening on todays roads. Life in my town during the last century was very much like it is today with people getting married, playing sports, buying houses including heavy items like a piano! All without motor transport.
The upcoming energy crisis will not bring about a "Dooms day" like Greenspan said. It may mean the Dooms day for personal motor transport. I can't wait!
#18
Membership Not Required
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: On the road-USA
Posts: 16,855
Bikes: Giant Excursion, Raleigh Sports, Raleigh R.S.W. Compact, Motobecane? and about 20 more! OMG
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times
in
14 Posts
The market forces could very well bankrupt the motor car industry and possibly the entire transportation industry. Greenspan is correct in that market forces will come to the rescue from the upcoming energy crisis and save us from ravages of the automobile by making it cost prohibitive.
I was in the library today reading newspapers on microfilm dating back in 1908. Market forces could very well bring back a car free society with trolleys running every two minutes during rush hour and the return of the iron horse. Capitalistic forces could very well mean the end of personal motor transport and the return of public transportation if we cannot find an inexpensive replacement for oil. The market forces will be allocated in other areas like horse and animal power, wood burning stoves and solar fuel cells.
I will say this. After spending four hours reading newspapers dating back 100 years ago, I didn't see much human suffering at all. Yes there were trolley accidents and derailments but it was far less carnage than what is happening on todays roads. Life in my town during the last century was very much like it is today with people getting married, playing sports, buying houses including heavy items like a piano! All without motor transport.
The upcoming energy crisis will not bring about a "Dooms day" like Greenspan said. It may mean the Dooms day for personal motor transport. I can't wait!
I was in the library today reading newspapers on microfilm dating back in 1908. Market forces could very well bring back a car free society with trolleys running every two minutes during rush hour and the return of the iron horse. Capitalistic forces could very well mean the end of personal motor transport and the return of public transportation if we cannot find an inexpensive replacement for oil. The market forces will be allocated in other areas like horse and animal power, wood burning stoves and solar fuel cells.
I will say this. After spending four hours reading newspapers dating back 100 years ago, I didn't see much human suffering at all. Yes there were trolley accidents and derailments but it was far less carnage than what is happening on todays roads. Life in my town during the last century was very much like it is today with people getting married, playing sports, buying houses including heavy items like a piano! All without motor transport.
The upcoming energy crisis will not bring about a "Dooms day" like Greenspan said. It may mean the Dooms day for personal motor transport. I can't wait!
Aaron
__________________
Webshots is bailing out, if you find any of my posts with corrupt picture files and want to see them corrected please let me know. :(
ISO: A late 1980's Giant Iguana MTB frameset (or complete bike) 23" Red with yellow graphics.
"Cycling should be a way of life, not a hobby.
RIDE, YOU FOOL, RIDE!"_Nicodemus
"Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred
Which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?"_krazygluon
Webshots is bailing out, if you find any of my posts with corrupt picture files and want to see them corrected please let me know. :(
ISO: A late 1980's Giant Iguana MTB frameset (or complete bike) 23" Red with yellow graphics.
"Cycling should be a way of life, not a hobby.
RIDE, YOU FOOL, RIDE!"_Nicodemus
"Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred
Which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?"_krazygluon
#19
www.chipsea.blogspot.com
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South of Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,026
Bikes: Giant OCR C0 road
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
A review of a Citigroup research paper was done recently by "Peak Oil Review", copied in full below.
https://www.energybulletin.net/40521.html (Fourth item)
I believe that Saudi Arabia cannot increase their production beyond 9 million barrels a day, and that they are lying about their ability to produce at a rate of 12 million barrels a day.
If the above Citigroup study is correct, even if the Saudis could raise production to 12 million barrels a day, it would not be enough to meet current rates of rising demand!
$75 to $100 a barrel oil hasn't reduced demand this past year. How expensive will it have to get in order to do so? Stay tuned, we'll get to see soon!
https://www.energybulletin.net/40521.html (Fourth item)
Citibank Contemplates Oil Depletion
A research paper issued by Citigroup Global Markets delves into what is known about oil depletion to a greater extent than is common for Wall Street analysis. Even more unusual is that the authors spent some time with the editor of the Petroleum Review in London, Chris Skrebowski, discussing the growing fears that oil production is depleting at such a rate that new projects will not be sufficient to stave off a decline in overall oil production in the near future.
The study starts out by noting that all liquids production has been essentially flat for the last four years at a time when economic theory says significantly higher prices should have called forth greater production. The authors correctly note that part of the problem was a deliberate production cutback by OPEC during much of 2007 which led to a rapid decline in OECD stockpiles. They also note the widespread belief that the emerging US recession will “chase” worldwide demand growth back to zero.
After looking at the Petroleum Review’s “Megaprojects” analysis, the study notes that 175 new projects are due to come on stream during 2007 and beyond. One hundred forty of these projects are due to have stated production by 2010 and all are to have started by 2012. They also note that very little new production is currently visible for startup in 2013 and beyond.
For 2008 the study concludes that there should be about 1.5 million b/d of new OPEC production and 1.2 million b/d of non-OPEC new production coming on-stream. The authors then move to the more difficult problem of production rates. Skrebowski told the Citigroup authors that some observers believe depletion across all liquids is currently running at 4 percent or 3.4 million b/d a year. If depletion is indeed at this rate then the current visible new projects would only be able to keep production at current levels until 2013. When the Citigroup authors expressed skepticism about decline rates in excess of 3 million b/d per year, they were told that some knowledgeable experts believe that decline rates upwards of 6 percent (5+ million b/d) are more realistic.
Citigroup then discusses the recent Cambridge Energy (CERA) study of depletion. Citigroup says that after assessing 811 producing oil fields and extrapolating the results across all liquids production, CERA concluded that annual decline is only about 1.6 million b/d or about half the rate that Skrebowski’s moderate observers believe is valid. [Editor’s Note: The CERA study concluded that the worldwide rate of decline for crude and condensate is 4.5 percent. When this rate is applied to the current world crude and condensate production of 73-74 million b/d the total an annual decline is about 3.3 million b/d.]
The conclusion as to whether CERA’s depletion rate of 1.6 million b/d or the higher rate of 3.4 million is interesting. Citing the evidence that world oil production has been essentially flat for the last four years, Citigroup says that the burden of proof that the higher rates of depletion are in fact not true has shifted to CERA and the optimists.
A research paper issued by Citigroup Global Markets delves into what is known about oil depletion to a greater extent than is common for Wall Street analysis. Even more unusual is that the authors spent some time with the editor of the Petroleum Review in London, Chris Skrebowski, discussing the growing fears that oil production is depleting at such a rate that new projects will not be sufficient to stave off a decline in overall oil production in the near future.
The study starts out by noting that all liquids production has been essentially flat for the last four years at a time when economic theory says significantly higher prices should have called forth greater production. The authors correctly note that part of the problem was a deliberate production cutback by OPEC during much of 2007 which led to a rapid decline in OECD stockpiles. They also note the widespread belief that the emerging US recession will “chase” worldwide demand growth back to zero.
After looking at the Petroleum Review’s “Megaprojects” analysis, the study notes that 175 new projects are due to come on stream during 2007 and beyond. One hundred forty of these projects are due to have stated production by 2010 and all are to have started by 2012. They also note that very little new production is currently visible for startup in 2013 and beyond.
For 2008 the study concludes that there should be about 1.5 million b/d of new OPEC production and 1.2 million b/d of non-OPEC new production coming on-stream. The authors then move to the more difficult problem of production rates. Skrebowski told the Citigroup authors that some observers believe depletion across all liquids is currently running at 4 percent or 3.4 million b/d a year. If depletion is indeed at this rate then the current visible new projects would only be able to keep production at current levels until 2013. When the Citigroup authors expressed skepticism about decline rates in excess of 3 million b/d per year, they were told that some knowledgeable experts believe that decline rates upwards of 6 percent (5+ million b/d) are more realistic.
Citigroup then discusses the recent Cambridge Energy (CERA) study of depletion. Citigroup says that after assessing 811 producing oil fields and extrapolating the results across all liquids production, CERA concluded that annual decline is only about 1.6 million b/d or about half the rate that Skrebowski’s moderate observers believe is valid. [Editor’s Note: The CERA study concluded that the worldwide rate of decline for crude and condensate is 4.5 percent. When this rate is applied to the current world crude and condensate production of 73-74 million b/d the total an annual decline is about 3.3 million b/d.]
The conclusion as to whether CERA’s depletion rate of 1.6 million b/d or the higher rate of 3.4 million is interesting. Citing the evidence that world oil production has been essentially flat for the last four years, Citigroup says that the burden of proof that the higher rates of depletion are in fact not true has shifted to CERA and the optimists.
If the above Citigroup study is correct, even if the Saudis could raise production to 12 million barrels a day, it would not be enough to meet current rates of rising demand!
$75 to $100 a barrel oil hasn't reduced demand this past year. How expensive will it have to get in order to do so? Stay tuned, we'll get to see soon!
#20
Señor Member
A review of a Citigroup research paper was done recently by "Peak Oil Review", copied in full below.
https://www.energybulletin.net/40521.html (Fourth item)
I believe that Saudi Arabia cannot increase their production beyond 9 million barrels a day, and that they are lying about their ability to produce at a rate of 12 million barrels a day.
If the above Citigroup study is correct, even if the Saudis could raise production to 12 million barrels a day, it would not be enough to meet current rates of rising demand!
$75 to $100 a barrel oil hasn't reduced demand this past year. How expensive will it have to get in order to do so? Stay tuned, we'll get to see soon!
https://www.energybulletin.net/40521.html (Fourth item)
I believe that Saudi Arabia cannot increase their production beyond 9 million barrels a day, and that they are lying about their ability to produce at a rate of 12 million barrels a day.
If the above Citigroup study is correct, even if the Saudis could raise production to 12 million barrels a day, it would not be enough to meet current rates of rising demand!
$75 to $100 a barrel oil hasn't reduced demand this past year. How expensive will it have to get in order to do so? Stay tuned, we'll get to see soon!
What seems more interesting is that the high gas prices have reduced demand for other things. People are cutting back at Starbucks, eating out, and so forth. The choices that people could make that would reduce gasoline demand (new vehicles, or moving closer to the office) are ones that will be harder for people to make (esp with the mortgage meltdown and a possible recession).
In the 1980's gas crisis, demand really did go down for a while
#21
Membership Not Required
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: On the road-USA
Posts: 16,855
Bikes: Giant Excursion, Raleigh Sports, Raleigh R.S.W. Compact, Motobecane? and about 20 more! OMG
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times
in
14 Posts
We hear anecdotal stories about SUV sales falling and all that, but people still drive as much as always. Whatsmore, I heard an analyst on the radio talking about how over half of all car sales are still minivans, SUVs and pickups.
What seems more interesting is that the high gas prices have reduced demand for other things. People are cutting back at Starbucks, eating out, and so forth. The choices that people could make that would reduce gasoline demand (new vehicles, or moving closer to the office) are ones that will be harder for people to make (esp with the mortgage meltdown and a possible recession).
In the 1980's gas crisis, demand really did go down for a while
What seems more interesting is that the high gas prices have reduced demand for other things. People are cutting back at Starbucks, eating out, and so forth. The choices that people could make that would reduce gasoline demand (new vehicles, or moving closer to the office) are ones that will be harder for people to make (esp with the mortgage meltdown and a possible recession).
In the 1980's gas crisis, demand really did go down for a while
Yes higher gas prices are reducing demand for other things. People all have a different toleration point. They can cut back for a while, then they will have a "come to Jesus revelation" (if you will) or at least some of them will, and realize that putting 25%-50%+ of their income into basic transportation is stupid and/or economically unfeasible. Then you will see things start to happen. My company has already made some changes to help reduce fuel usage for us and the employees. Our out of town jobs are now running 9-15 passenger crew vans, foremen no longer drive crewcab monster trucks, etc.
Change is afoot, let's hope it sticks and people learn from it and don't backslide. And that the change occurs without major economic damage, however I can't fathom that happening.
Aaron
__________________
Webshots is bailing out, if you find any of my posts with corrupt picture files and want to see them corrected please let me know. :(
ISO: A late 1980's Giant Iguana MTB frameset (or complete bike) 23" Red with yellow graphics.
"Cycling should be a way of life, not a hobby.
RIDE, YOU FOOL, RIDE!"_Nicodemus
"Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred
Which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?"_krazygluon
Webshots is bailing out, if you find any of my posts with corrupt picture files and want to see them corrected please let me know. :(
ISO: A late 1980's Giant Iguana MTB frameset (or complete bike) 23" Red with yellow graphics.
"Cycling should be a way of life, not a hobby.
RIDE, YOU FOOL, RIDE!"_Nicodemus
"Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred
Which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?"_krazygluon
#22
bragi
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: seattle, WA
Posts: 2,911
Bikes: LHT
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Your description of his position must be confused, because this assertion makes no sense. It is conflating two different concepts, rate of extraction, (Flow) and reserves. (The amount of recoverable oil in the ground.)
There remains loads of oil reserves. Production right now is stagnate or declining. Consumption is now equal or greater than production and will inevitably overwhelm production in the next few years- this is why oil is so expensive! Our immediate problem is not how much oil there is, but how fast we can extract it.
In the month of June 2005, world oil production averaged 88 million barrels of oil a day. In no month since then has world oil production averaged such a high rate of flow. In other words, new oil wells have not been able to overcome the natural decline of old wells. (It can take as much as five years to find and bring into production new wells, so the current high price of oil will likely result in new production records.) But now even the CEOs of many big oil companies scoff at the idea of 130 million barrels a day production as being possible. Saudi Arabia has promised for over three years that they will raise their production, but they have not done so. It is widely believed that it is because they cannot raise production, rather than they will not.
It is hard to believe that there are producers out there that are holding back production with oil at these prices.
Meanwhile, the largest single consumer of oil, the USA, is increasing consumption rate at slightly more than 1% each year. Both of the most populated countries in the world (India, China) are increasing their consumption of oil at about 7% a year. The current high price has not yet been high enough to slow the increase in demand. This is the nut of the current bind we are in. The flow of oil can meet current demand, but just barely. Oil flow has not increased from the rate it was in June 2005. Demand for oil seems insatiable. As China and India develop a huge middle class, they are buying cars and refrigerators and computers. So while oil flow may make new production records in the coming years, demand will inevitably continue to rise until actual shortages curtail that growth.
So Greenspan is right that we have lots of oil. He is right that the world in on track to consume 130 million barrels a day. He is wrong to think we can meet that high of daily production.
We have a painful and bumpy road ahead as we turn to other ways of fueling our economy. It will be less painful if government would refrain from picking favorites and squandering time and resources as has been demonstrated by the folly of corn ethanol. Alas, I digress.
For hundreds of years into the future, man will be using oil. It will be used more selectively though. Less for transportation (outside of aviation), less for heating, but more for chemicals. (Plastics etc.) I am optimistic that we have a prosperous future, even though we can't yet see what it will be like.
There remains loads of oil reserves. Production right now is stagnate or declining. Consumption is now equal or greater than production and will inevitably overwhelm production in the next few years- this is why oil is so expensive! Our immediate problem is not how much oil there is, but how fast we can extract it.
In the month of June 2005, world oil production averaged 88 million barrels of oil a day. In no month since then has world oil production averaged such a high rate of flow. In other words, new oil wells have not been able to overcome the natural decline of old wells. (It can take as much as five years to find and bring into production new wells, so the current high price of oil will likely result in new production records.) But now even the CEOs of many big oil companies scoff at the idea of 130 million barrels a day production as being possible. Saudi Arabia has promised for over three years that they will raise their production, but they have not done so. It is widely believed that it is because they cannot raise production, rather than they will not.
It is hard to believe that there are producers out there that are holding back production with oil at these prices.
Meanwhile, the largest single consumer of oil, the USA, is increasing consumption rate at slightly more than 1% each year. Both of the most populated countries in the world (India, China) are increasing their consumption of oil at about 7% a year. The current high price has not yet been high enough to slow the increase in demand. This is the nut of the current bind we are in. The flow of oil can meet current demand, but just barely. Oil flow has not increased from the rate it was in June 2005. Demand for oil seems insatiable. As China and India develop a huge middle class, they are buying cars and refrigerators and computers. So while oil flow may make new production records in the coming years, demand will inevitably continue to rise until actual shortages curtail that growth.
So Greenspan is right that we have lots of oil. He is right that the world in on track to consume 130 million barrels a day. He is wrong to think we can meet that high of daily production.
We have a painful and bumpy road ahead as we turn to other ways of fueling our economy. It will be less painful if government would refrain from picking favorites and squandering time and resources as has been demonstrated by the folly of corn ethanol. Alas, I digress.
For hundreds of years into the future, man will be using oil. It will be used more selectively though. Less for transportation (outside of aviation), less for heating, but more for chemicals. (Plastics etc.) I am optimistic that we have a prosperous future, even though we can't yet see what it will be like.
And as for the US economy not being signifantly impacted by $100 barrels of oil: a simple trip to the grocery store and a quick look at the business pages of any newspaper should convince anyone that severe economic impacts are already here, especially for the US.
#23
Señor Member
Anecdotal? If the Big Four weren't suffering from anal-cranial inversion, they might not be teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. All of them are hemorrhaging in the US. GM had to suspend operations at 4 of it's SUV /truck plants due to a strike by a vendor, but not an issue they have over a 200 day supply of vehicles available. Chrysler has laid off over 25,000 workers in the past 6 months, Ford is loosing ground daily but hasn't said much. GM is offering 74,000 rank and file workers buy outs.
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 2,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Yes higher gas prices are reducing demand for other things. People all have a different toleration point. They can cut back for a while, then they will have a "come to Jesus revelation" (if you will) or at least some of them will, and realize that putting 25%-50%+ of their income into basic transportation is stupid and/or economically unfeasible. Then you will see things start to happen. My company has already made some changes to help reduce fuel usage for us and the employees. Our out of town jobs are now running 9-15 passenger crew vans, foremen no longer drive crewcab monster trucks, etc.
Change is afoot, let's hope it sticks and people learn from it and don't backslide.
Change is afoot, let's hope it sticks and people learn from it and don't backslide.
But then in the 1980s, when prices dropped, people began to go back to their old habits.
If the prices were to spike again, we might actually have an easier time coping than in the 1970s since we now have a model in place for how to cut back on our fuel consumption. It could happen again.
#25
Membership Not Required
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: On the road-USA
Posts: 16,855
Bikes: Giant Excursion, Raleigh Sports, Raleigh R.S.W. Compact, Motobecane? and about 20 more! OMG
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times
in
14 Posts
A bit off topic, but here is a look at vehicle weight vs carrying capacity, a bit tongue in cheek, but still and interesting view.
Regardless of what anyone drives, the US as a whole could stand to cut back on their driving drastically. I think they would see some fall in fuel prices.
Aaron
__________________
Webshots is bailing out, if you find any of my posts with corrupt picture files and want to see them corrected please let me know. :(
ISO: A late 1980's Giant Iguana MTB frameset (or complete bike) 23" Red with yellow graphics.
"Cycling should be a way of life, not a hobby.
RIDE, YOU FOOL, RIDE!"_Nicodemus
"Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred
Which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?"_krazygluon
Webshots is bailing out, if you find any of my posts with corrupt picture files and want to see them corrected please let me know. :(
ISO: A late 1980's Giant Iguana MTB frameset (or complete bike) 23" Red with yellow graphics.
"Cycling should be a way of life, not a hobby.
RIDE, YOU FOOL, RIDE!"_Nicodemus
"Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred
Which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?"_krazygluon