• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

$114/bbl oil

No, that number is just for the contiguous 48 US States.

And we need to have at least half online in 15 years, and the rest in 30.

Worldwide we would need about 10X that number.
I just noticed you're revising your calculations.

But in the meantime I'll point out that 10,000 500MW plants be 5 TW of generating capacity and current world wide energy consumption from all sources is 15 TW.
 
Remember that synthesizing fuel is very, very inefficient.

Also remember that world demand for energy is growing faster than US demand, which makes sense when you consider how impoverished much of the planet is.
 
We need about 10,000 500 MW nuclear power plants and we need them as quickly as they can be built.

Then we use electricity to provide the energy input to synthesize liquid or gaseous fuels for those vehicles that must be run that way. And we electrify ALL of the railroads except perhaps low traffic branch lines, which we run with the synthesized fuel.

Sadly, I see no political will to make this happen.

And what are you personally doing to see that this gets done?
 
You mean besides considering a return to nuclear plant engineering?

Talking to every politician who will listen to a humble Precinct Committeeman.

I just went back...China has bought some plants and there are about 30 planned for the US. Jobs are very easy to get.

http://www.scana.com/en/news-room/p...hase-of-long-lead-materials-for-new-plant.htm

Capacity is a problem...the Japanese have indicated they won't gear up their shops any more than what they have now and they can only build so many heavy vessels. Korea has some capacity, but they have their own plants to build.

glenn

FYI: capacity factors for Nuke plants are much better now...they are down about 45 days in a year.
 
Last edited:
Is water at a premium where you live? I bought a gallon jug of it from a convenience store (a term not equated with low prices) for $1.29 yesterday. A gallon of gasoline cost almost triple that here in Texas, where prices are about $0.40 lower than most other states (and I'm not even going to mention California). And with oil at $118 a barrel (I'm assuming the average barrel is 55 gallons), that puts it roughly $1.9 for a gallon of oil.

Bottled water isn't more expensive than oil (it's the same water in my gallon jug that's in a 160z/400-something ml bottle at 7-11). Oil is just cheaper than the names Aquafina/Ozarka/Dasani/Poland Springs, etc. And even then, not always.

I was joking, but some people will pay a bunch for bottled water...I think it is really silly especially since the govt. purity requirements for treated public water are more stringent than for bottled water.

glenn
 
This looks rather less alarming across the pond.

Only a handful of years ago the euro and USD were at price parity; now the cost of oil is 118$/bbl, which only comes to 74€/bbl. Also consider the effect of a hefty per-volume fuel tax, a 43 mpg average fuel economy and societies that are on average more centered on cities.
 
Last edited:
My mental math was 3X the right number;

In 2006, the total electric power generated by all fixed plant power stations was 4,064,702,227 MW/hours. Synthesizing most of our liquid fuel and running all the trains with electricity would about double that, so, 8 billion MW/hours, times demand increase of 30% in 30 years and you get about 2500 500 MW plants plants running 24/7/365. Now, all of the nuclear plants I ever worked on were down on average three months out of the year, so about 3125 is the right number for the USA.

Sorry! I do things in my head when I should grab the slide rule...

:)

Source for that total; http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state.xls

How about 1152 plants at 1356 MWe each, makes it easier to swallow.

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

thats just 23 in each state or about 4 sites per state, more for California and Nevada.
 
Now its $118/bbl... And DOUBLE one year ago.
Now it's 113.14 so your thread has failed ;)

oilprice.jpg
 
Something I read recently regarding why the oil prices are climbing, that has nopthing to do with supply and demand. Intresting, but I don't know much about the global market place. Any Truth? (couldn't post the links so I pasted the text.)

If you think prices have become insane, you're right. But insanity rules markets for everything from oil to rice right now. In fact, insanity is the new "normal."

For example, why should oil sell for $119 a barrel, a whopping $55 a barrel, or 86%, higher than it did last April?

It's like the United States is suddenly out of oil, right? March crude oil reserves in the U.S. were actually 2.4 million barrels higher than reserves in February and only a trifling 3.4% lower than reserves in March 2007, according to the Energy Information Administration. An 86% jump in oil prices because reserves fell by 3.4%? I don't think so.

The global picture is similar. Global oil stocks held by developed economies came to 2.58 billion barrels at the end of March -- pretty much the same as at the end of 2007.

Global supply and demand is tight, with the latest projections from the International Energy Agency showing supply at 87.3 million barrels a day and demand at 87.2 million barrels. Tight, but supply is still ahead of demand.

Don't stop with oil prices, though. Look at rice, which recently cracked $1,000 per metric ton. The price of export-quality rice is up 173% in a year, even though global rice stocks will finish 2008 about 1 million metric tons higher than at the end of 2007, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Or copper, which is setting record highs just about every day and has climbed in price by 30% so far this year. Or aluminum -- up 28% this year. Or wheat. Or corn. Or, well, you name it.

Why normal rules don't apply
We've all heard the explanations. Demand for this or that has soared due to growth in developing nations, increasing production of biofuels or whatever, and supply has stumbled due to miners' strikes or an electricity shortage or a drought in Australia.

But lots of folks -- I get e-mail about this every day -- don't buy these stories. They see small production shortfalls, but still substantial stockpiles, and ask how this adds up to a 100% increase in the price of oil or rice or wheat in a year.

More on rising prices:
Gas to hit $1.40 a litre this summer: report
High food prices coming: report
Why oil could hit $180 a barrel
Could we really run out of food?
Don't count on a 'normal' recession
How to profit from rising food prices
Well, it doesn't -- in a normal economy. But the global economy is now playing by different rules, the rules of economic scarcity, and the rules of scarcity say the normal relationship between supply and demand and prices doesn't hold. Yes, prices are insane. But this kind of price insanity is exactly how a scarcity economy works.

The concept of scarcity is central to the economics of normal markets. Most goods, whether bluejeans or peanut butter, don't exist in unlimited supply. The market rations those goods with prices that match supply to demand.

For example, at $3 a pair, consumers might demand 2 million pairs of sneakers, while factories can produce just 1.5 million pairs. At $8 a pair, demand might fall to 1.5 million. Consumers who wanted sneakers at $3, but don't at $8, delay or forgo buying sneakers, or wear sandals instead.

It starts in our heads
And in a normal market, if there isn't enough demand at $3 a pair, the price falls -- either in the short term through discounting or in the long term by companies going out of business -- until demand meets supply, and the market clears.

Scarcity markets play by different rules. In fact, scarcity markets exist because buyers believe the normal rules of supply and demand have broken down. Buyers in a scarcity market don't believe higher prices will depress demand or increase supply enough to allow supply to meet demand. In such a market, prices are driven by fear that there will not be enough supply at any price.

If, for example, companies that need copper to make electrical machinery, wire or pipes bid prices higher because they worry that current prices won't bring supply and demand into alignment anytime soon. They fear they won't be able to buy copper at any price when they need it.

Scarcity markets aren't created overnight. Potential buyers need to be bloodied by repeated experience on both the supply and demand side. Consumers of copper know that for each of the past six years, the copper industry has failed to deliver projected increases in supply.

In 2008 and 2009, according to UBS AG (UBS.N), the industry will fall short again. The bank projects production a shortfall of 800,000 metric tons over those two years.

In the oil industry, major suppliers that were being counted on to increase production have announced production declines. Production fell 1% in Russia for the first quarter, for example. And suppliers who were being counted on to stabilize production have announced even bigger shortfalls. First-quarter production in Mexico dropped almost 8%.

And it helps establish scarcity economics as the rule of the markets if potential buyers become convinced that higher prices won't dampen demand. That happens fastest in markets for goods that buyers especially need. Most Asian consumers of rice, for example, can't choose to eat less without running a real risk of hunger or starvation. And there isn't a ready substitute for high-priced rice. What are they supposed to do, eat even-more-expensive wheat or corn?

A sense of inevitability
But the most profound effect of scarcity economics on prices comes in markets where buyers who were convinced that higher prices would cut demand come to believe that higher prices have little effect on demand. That has happened in the oil market in the past year. Oil at $80 a barrel and gasoline at $3 a gallon (79 cents US a litre) were supposed to cut demand and bring prices back down. But they didn't.

Judging from the futures market, where oil trades above $100 a barrel as far into the future as the eye can see, potential buyers believe today's high prices won't reduce demand anytime soon.

And because demand for oil hasn't declined, oil analysts now worry it will take a run above $175 a barrel from the current $119 before price reduces demand. (See my April 22 column, "Why oil could hit $180 a barrel.")

Once a scarcity market is established, it produces behaviour by buyers that can lead to the very scarcity they fear. Hoarding, for example, can empty shelves. Of course, the emptying shelves themselves create panic buying that just empties the shelves faster.

Security at any price
And by taking supply off the market, hoarding produces shortages. During the gasoline crises of the 1970s, drivers who topped off their tanks daily out of fear there wouldn't be enough gas the next day helped cause those long lines at gas stations and, by moving a substantial part of the gasoline supply from the public market into their private tanks, reduced the available supply.

Scarcity economics also turns the relationship between low- and high-cost producers upside down. In a normal market, a low-cost producer sets prices low enough to sell out all of production and high enough to maximize profit without decreasing demand and endangering sales. In a scarcity market, the high-cost producer sets prices because buyers who fear they won't be able to get the goods they need will pay almost any price to ensure themselves of a supply.

You can see scarcity economics at work in today's fertilizer market, for example. Potash of Saskatchewan (POT.TO) produces potash and nitrogen fertilizers. But with the world short 1.2 million metric tons of potash in 2008 and desperate for nitrogen fertilizer, Potash is seeing its already high margins soar to astounding heights. In announcing its first-quarter earnings, the company projected that margins in 2008 will be roughly 3.5 times as high as in 2007.

Price insanity becoming the norm
Think that's insane? As long as scarcity economics rules the fertilizer market, there's a good chance Potash will get its price, and other fertilizer makers will go along for the ride. The global scarcity has made high-cost, government-subsidized producers in India the price setters in the market: If you've got to have supply, you'll pay any price, right? That price and not Potash's production costs are now setting the market price.

Supply contracts for potash for the second half of 2008 are up for negotiation in Japan and India. Japan paid just $120 a ton for potash in its contract for the first half of 2008. China recently signed a long-term contract for $576 a ton. That was a $456-per-ton price jump. And even with that increase, the Chinese didn't get all the potash they wanted. The country is now looking at a shortfall that some experts peg as high as 40%, just when China is trying to increase food production to cut inflation in domestic food prices.

From 1989 through 2006, potash delivered in Asia sold for $200 a metric ton. According to the company, potash prices could reach $1,000 a ton by the end of this year. That has left Wall Street analysts who recently increased their projections to a range of $700 a metric ton struggling to catch up.

And yes, that all sounds insane. But insanity is "normal" when scarcity economics rules. Remember that when you try to figure out what price to pay for shares of any producer of fertilizer, copper, tin and oil these days.
 
Something I read recently regarding why the oil prices are climbing, that has nopthing to do with supply and demand. Intresting, but I don't know much about the global market place. Any Truth? (couldn't post the links so I pasted the text.)

If you think prices have become insane, you're right. But insanity rules markets for everything from oil to rice right now. In fact, insanity is the new "normal."

For example, why should oil sell for $119 a barrel, a whopping $55 a barrel, or 86%, higher than it did last April?

It's like the United States is suddenly out of oil, right? March crude oil reserves in the U.S. were actually 2.4 million barrels higher than reserves in February and only a trifling 3.4% lower than reserves in March 2007, according to the Energy Information Administration. An 86% jump in oil prices because reserves fell by 3.4%? I don't think so.

The global picture is similar. Global oil stocks held by developed economies came to 2.58 billion barrels at the end of March -- pretty much the same as at the end of 2007.

Global supply and demand is tight, with the latest projections from the International Energy Agency showing supply at 87.3 million barrels a day and demand at 87.2 million barrels. Tight, but supply is still ahead of demand.

Don't stop with oil prices, though. Look at rice, which recently cracked $1,000 per metric ton. The price of export-quality rice is up 173% in a year, even though global rice stocks will finish 2008 about 1 million metric tons higher than at the end of 2007, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Or copper, which is setting record highs just about every day and has climbed in price by 30% so far this year. Or aluminum -- up 28% this year. Or wheat. Or corn. Or, well, you name it.

Why normal rules don't apply
We've all heard the explanations. Demand for this or that has soared due to growth in developing nations, increasing production of biofuels or whatever, and supply has stumbled due to miners' strikes or an electricity shortage or a drought in Australia.

But lots of folks -- I get e-mail about this every day -- don't buy these stories. They see small production shortfalls, but still substantial stockpiles, and ask how this adds up to a 100% increase in the price of oil or rice or wheat in a year.

More on rising prices:
Gas to hit $1.40 a litre this summer: report
High food prices coming: report
Why oil could hit $180 a barrel
Could we really run out of food?
Don't count on a 'normal' recession
How to profit from rising food prices
Well, it doesn't -- in a normal economy. But the global economy is now playing by different rules, the rules of economic scarcity, and the rules of scarcity say the normal relationship between supply and demand and prices doesn't hold. Yes, prices are insane. But this kind of price insanity is exactly how a scarcity economy works.

The concept of scarcity is central to the economics of normal markets. Most goods, whether bluejeans or peanut butter, don't exist in unlimited supply. The market rations those goods with prices that match supply to demand.

For example, at $3 a pair, consumers might demand 2 million pairs of sneakers, while factories can produce just 1.5 million pairs. At $8 a pair, demand might fall to 1.5 million. Consumers who wanted sneakers at $3, but don't at $8, delay or forgo buying sneakers, or wear sandals instead.

It starts in our heads
And in a normal market, if there isn't enough demand at $3 a pair, the price falls -- either in the short term through discounting or in the long term by companies going out of business -- until demand meets supply, and the market clears.

Scarcity markets play by different rules. In fact, scarcity markets exist because buyers believe the normal rules of supply and demand have broken down. Buyers in a scarcity market don't believe higher prices will depress demand or increase supply enough to allow supply to meet demand. In such a market, prices are driven by fear that there will not be enough supply at any price.

If, for example, companies that need copper to make electrical machinery, wire or pipes bid prices higher because they worry that current prices won't bring supply and demand into alignment anytime soon. They fear they won't be able to buy copper at any price when they need it.

Scarcity markets aren't created overnight. Potential buyers need to be bloodied by repeated experience on both the supply and demand side. Consumers of copper know that for each of the past six years, the copper industry has failed to deliver projected increases in supply.

In 2008 and 2009, according to UBS AG (UBS.N), the industry will fall short again. The bank projects production a shortfall of 800,000 metric tons over those two years.

In the oil industry, major suppliers that were being counted on to increase production have announced production declines. Production fell 1% in Russia for the first quarter, for example. And suppliers who were being counted on to stabilize production have announced even bigger shortfalls. First-quarter production in Mexico dropped almost 8%.

And it helps establish scarcity economics as the rule of the markets if potential buyers become convinced that higher prices won't dampen demand. That happens fastest in markets for goods that buyers especially need. Most Asian consumers of rice, for example, can't choose to eat less without running a real risk of hunger or starvation. And there isn't a ready substitute for high-priced rice. What are they supposed to do, eat even-more-expensive wheat or corn?

A sense of inevitability
But the most profound effect of scarcity economics on prices comes in markets where buyers who were convinced that higher prices would cut demand come to believe that higher prices have little effect on demand. That has happened in the oil market in the past year. Oil at $80 a barrel and gasoline at $3 a gallon (79 cents US a litre) were supposed to cut demand and bring prices back down. But they didn't.

Judging from the futures market, where oil trades above $100 a barrel as far into the future as the eye can see, potential buyers believe today's high prices won't reduce demand anytime soon.

And because demand for oil hasn't declined, oil analysts now worry it will take a run above $175 a barrel from the current $119 before price reduces demand. (See my April 22 column, "Why oil could hit $180 a barrel.")

Once a scarcity market is established, it produces behaviour by buyers that can lead to the very scarcity they fear. Hoarding, for example, can empty shelves. Of course, the emptying shelves themselves create panic buying that just empties the shelves faster.

Security at any price
And by taking supply off the market, hoarding produces shortages. During the gasoline crises of the 1970s, drivers who topped off their tanks daily out of fear there wouldn't be enough gas the next day helped cause those long lines at gas stations and, by moving a substantial part of the gasoline supply from the public market into their private tanks, reduced the available supply.

Scarcity economics also turns the relationship between low- and high-cost producers upside down. In a normal market, a low-cost producer sets prices low enough to sell out all of production and high enough to maximize profit without decreasing demand and endangering sales. In a scarcity market, the high-cost producer sets prices because buyers who fear they won't be able to get the goods they need will pay almost any price to ensure themselves of a supply.

You can see scarcity economics at work in today's fertilizer market, for example. Potash of Saskatchewan (POT.TO) produces potash and nitrogen fertilizers. But with the world short 1.2 million metric tons of potash in 2008 and desperate for nitrogen fertilizer, Potash is seeing its already high margins soar to astounding heights. In announcing its first-quarter earnings, the company projected that margins in 2008 will be roughly 3.5 times as high as in 2007.

Price insanity becoming the norm
Think that's insane? As long as scarcity economics rules the fertilizer market, there's a good chance Potash will get its price, and other fertilizer makers will go along for the ride. The global scarcity has made high-cost, government-subsidized producers in India the price setters in the market: If you've got to have supply, you'll pay any price, right? That price and not Potash's production costs are now setting the market price.

Supply contracts for potash for the second half of 2008 are up for negotiation in Japan and India. Japan paid just $120 a ton for potash in its contract for the first half of 2008. China recently signed a long-term contract for $576 a ton. That was a $456-per-ton price jump. And even with that increase, the Chinese didn't get all the potash they wanted. The country is now looking at a shortfall that some experts peg as high as 40%, just when China is trying to increase food production to cut inflation in domestic food prices.

From 1989 through 2006, potash delivered in Asia sold for $200 a metric ton. According to the company, potash prices could reach $1,000 a ton by the end of this year. That has left Wall Street analysts who recently increased their projections to a range of $700 a metric ton struggling to catch up.

And yes, that all sounds insane. But insanity is "normal" when scarcity economics rules. Remember that when you try to figure out what price to pay for shares of any producer of fertilizer, copper, tin and oil these days.

Some of this price increase is due to the weak dollar (oil is priced in dollars), some of it is due to the futures market and people betting on scarce oil with large demand. Also, OPEC was formed to keep oil prices high and they now control enough of the market to get that done.

The problem ultimately stems from growing economies using up a finite resource. China and India have a lot of people and a growing middle class. The US economy is based on cheap oil and demand is difficult to slow up because the infrastructure is based almost completely on oil and natural gas.

Any commodity will follow this track of rising prices if supply doesn't meet demand. Now, any commodity that relies on energy is going to see prices increase. Now, if we have reached peak oil, this means we have pulled about half of the recoverable oil out of the ground. So, it looks like we have lots of oil around, however, it becomes increasingly difficult to produce the 87 million barrels a day because the well start to go into decline. North sea, Norway, Mexico, US, are all on the downside and that will never change unless new discoveries are made.

the changes in inventroy in the US are all noise. When we are using 22 million barrels a day--or 8 billion a year--who cares about a few million...that's where the futures markets push things around.

I would say...in the last few years, the price increase may not totally be driven by supply and demand, however it is the underlying cause and certainly will be in the near future. All the easy to extract oil has been found. I don't think Jubak has all the answers...he doesn't seem to understand how much of the economy is based on energy with oil providing 80% of that energy.

glenn

I am not a moderator, but : you are not supposed to paste full text of copyrighted material...just post the link..and someone will can repost it for you until you get enough posts.


http://articles.moneycentral.msn.co...rnal/WhyWereStuckWithInsanePrices.aspx?page=1
 
Last edited:
Has anyone come up with a refined peak oil theory, a hubbert v2.0? As far as I can see, anyone who has the time and the inclination could probably check if/when we've reached peak in world oil by measuring the last few years oil production compared with oil industry investment $, adjusted for inflation/US$ value. Looks like most people here agree that just using the US$ value per barrel is a crude measure of reality for various reasons.

I'm not an economist, but if we've reached peak oil, wouldn't the major company's investment be climbing along a predictable (hubbert) path to reflect the fact it's harder to get the oil out of the ground, even though production rates are steady...?? e.g. size & cost of new rigs, infrastructure investment for remote drilling, manpower & equipment, etc? It's one thing to speculate but has anyone done the research?

Most of the peak oil sites I can find either repeat hubbert with no elaboration, or are a collection of dire news clippings.
 
Has anyone come up with a refined peak oil theory, a hubbert v2.0? As far as I can see, anyone who has the time and the inclination could probably check if/when we've reached peak in world oil by measuring the last few years oil production compared with oil industry investment $, adjusted for inflation/US$ value. Looks like most people here agree that just using the US$ value per barrel is a crude measure of reality for various reasons.

I'm not an economist, but if we've reached peak oil, wouldn't the major company's investment be climbing along a predictable (hubbert) path to reflect the fact it's harder to get the oil out of the ground, even though production rates are steady...?? e.g. size & cost of new rigs, infrastructure investment for remote drilling, manpower & equipment, etc? It's one thing to speculate but has anyone done the research?

Most of the peak oil sites I can find either repeat hubbert with no elaboration, or are a collection of dire news clippings.

Hubbert did his work back in the 50s and his work has been refined. Take a look at this link. Others have advanced his work. Hubbert refined his own work as well.

http://dieoff.org/page140.htm

Oil companies look at production quite extensively....they have super secret stuff they don't publish as well.

the evidence seems to indicate that the big fields have been discovered since most of our oil comes from fields discovered prior to 1970. However, there could be something out there. Ultimately, peak oil will occur of course--even if it is ten years away, that is too soon since the amount of energy the planet uses is just enormous.

It is only recently that the price of oil made it profitable to drill for oil in the US and in hard to reach places around the world...break even for oil companies was in the 30 dollars a barrel range. That wasn't too long ago.

glenn
 
Last edited:
According to this, it's heading for $200 in a few years.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2238924.htm

PETER RYAN: This is all about the spiralling price of crude oil which is being driven not just by speculators, but unrest in Nigeria and supply shortages in Russia.

Now the global investment bank Goldman Sachs is talking about US$200 a barrel for crude oil within two years, as part of what it calls a "sustained super-spike".

Seasoned commodity strategists like Howard Wheeldon are battening down for a rough ride, powered by the basics of supply and demand.

HOWARD WHEELDON: Two hundred dollars a barrel, and I certainly support that view. I mean, I wouldn't put a time scale on it. But we are heading that way. Laws of straightforward, simple supply and demand tell us that that's the way oil is going.

PETER RYAN: Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer and Co agrees the world is witnessing an unprecedented spiral.

FADEL GHEIT: Once you move through $100 oil, the next stop is $150 and the logical one is $200.

PETER RYAN: He says oil prices of US$60 or even US$100 a barrel are now a fading part of history.

FADEL GHEIT: Before you know it, everybody now is very bullish on oil prices, and it's like, "Oh, $100 is a cakewalk, now we're $120, now we're going to go to $130". So instead of raising oil prices by one or two dollars now we are in the habit of raising oil prices by $10 or $20 at a clip, so again, I think it's a bubble. The question is how high it will go.

PETER RYAN: And the leading economist and Reserve Bank board member, Warwick McKibbin, has weighed in saying the super spike will be a shock like no other.

WARWICK MCKIBBIN: We've seen oil price shocks since the '72-'73 oil price shock. Most people expected those oil price shock were temporary, 'cos the last one went away, the next one will go way, whether it was for the Gulf War in '91 or whatever.

The current oil price shock is looking increasingly more like a permanent shock, and so we're going to start seeing some pretty big energy investment activity going on.
 
Oil has gone up almost 100% in the last year. So $200 a barrel in just over a year's time is nothing but a continuation of current trends.
 
Oil has gone up almost 100% in the last year. So $200 a barrel in just over a year's time is nothing but a continuation of current trends.
Not that "What oil did last year" should be a reliable guide to "What oil will do next year".
 

Back
Top Bottom