PDA

View Full Version : Oil Price



BlasterBates
22nd September 2008, 17:06
wow with knobs on..... (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/500dollaroil_okeefe.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008092210) :eek

Diver
22nd September 2008, 17:16
wow with knobs on..... (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/500dollaroil_okeefe.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008092210) :eek

Doom from the horses mouth.

Time to move to another planet methinks :frown:eyes

DimPrawn
22nd September 2008, 17:46
I've bought £££££££££ of oil at 90 ish $ per barrel.

And Gold at around $800 per oz.

Boomed mate.

:D
:banana:

SandyDown
22nd September 2008, 17:48
wow with knobs on..... (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/500dollaroil_okeefe.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008092210) :eek

What a complete Ar$e Hole - he discovered nowt... oil exploration companies, academics and field geologists have realised this for a long time now ago, for the last decade there has been hundreds of projects find ways to optimise production and increase reservoir recovery value - but ultimately the oil will run out - around 2080 to 2100 ... also in the background hundreds of projects are going on for alternative energy supplies. They didn't need an ar$e hole investment banker to tell them this

NotAllThere
22nd September 2008, 17:53
So oil will be $500 a barrel. When a $ is worth thrupence 'apenney, who cares?

Cyberman
22nd September 2008, 18:10
So oil will be $500 a barrel. When a $ is worth thrupence 'apenney, who cares?


It won't happen. If we had no other fuel alternatives I would agree, but there will be so many other alternatives within the next decade or so, and many are being developed right now. :wink

Liability
22nd September 2008, 18:10
What a complete Ar$e Hole - he discovered nowt... oil exploration companies, academics and field geologists have realised this for a long time now ago, for the last decade there has been hundreds of projects find ways to optimise production and increase reservoir recovery value - but ultimately the oil will run out - around 2080 to 2100 ... also in the background hundreds of projects are going on for alternative energy supplies. They didn't need an ar$e hole investment banker to tell them this

Well said! Lurker here but thought what the hell and respond as I totally agree with you

The fundamental issue with all this oil is

- there is evidence to suggest we will NEVER run out of oil as its a self replenishing source - just ask Russia they allegedly have proved this

- There are NUMEROUS initiatives going on in the background right now to get a replacement or fine tune what we have but havent been exposed to

- We [UK] WILL fast track Nuclear Power Stations - is IS the RIGHT thing to do and those namby pamby geography educated sandle wearers can smoke that in their pipe and plat there beards [women too!]

Just look at shifts and patterns - Has anyone seen the amount of commernce and infrastructure Dubai, Qatar and Abu Dhabhi is building? What for? Anyone thought WHY they are doing this? They know that the USD is limited to them very soon as oil gets too expensive - USA have fast tracked and are funding IMMENSE resources for a replacement as they now know that they cannot rely on Saudi, Iran, Russia and all to hold them Ransom. UK got a smell of "ass ownership" only last month when we tried to tell Russia what to do with there regional conflict - we rely on them partially for Gas! -

I suspect we will all see some very serious acceleration in Coal and Nuclear enegery in this country WITHIN 5-10 years.

But one thing to worth thinking about - within 8 years our energy requirements will actually strip our energy production capabilities - this isnt hear say but FACT - this is serious stuff that will effect us all - which is way with the events of last month have really woken up people! It's now a case of what these people can do!

Another fact - the next nation\company to produce the energy replacement will rule the world for the next 200+ years! Its been USA this period - who will it be next :-)

BrilloPad
22nd September 2008, 18:14
wow with knobs on..... (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/500dollaroil_okeefe.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008092210) :eek

Maybe they should ban the short sellers? :rolleyes:

Liability
22nd September 2008, 18:16
Maybe they should ban the short sellers? :rolleyes:

Already in the pipeline - in the raft of measures being talked about

SandyDown
22nd September 2008, 18:21
- There are NUMEROUS initiatives going on in the background right now to get a replacement or fine tune what we have but havent been exposed to


Yep - actually I am working on such a project now :D
and agree the next energy source is going to be Nuclear.



But one thing to worth thinking about - within 8 years our energy requirements will actually strip our energy production capabilities - this isnt hear say but FACT -

got an evidence on this fact please??

BrilloPad
22nd September 2008, 18:22
Hopefully this means I can drive my SUV round the M25 at full speed without the prols getting in my way.

Liability
22nd September 2008, 18:56
Yep - actually I am working on such a project now :D
and agree the next energy source is going to be Nuclear.




got an evidence on this fact please??

Ill dig it out bit it works on the current UK energy production in the Grid against expectations and rise - ill dig it out tomorrow at work.

Also, have a read of this - with an open mind

http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html

If you or you know anyone of credibilit in the energy industry youd be surprised at how much truth there may be in this

SandyDown
22nd September 2008, 19:06
I haven’t read the article yet, will try to read it with an open mind and let you know what I think.

Oil indeed is self replenishing, however the argument is that we extract oil at a rate that is a lot faster than it can replenish itself, oil creation process can not be hurried, it takes ‘geological’ times (millions of years ) - however the claim is indeed not impossible to believe.

Cyberman
22nd September 2008, 19:08
Yep - actually I am working on such a project now :D
and agree the next energy source is going to be Nuclear.




got an evidence on this fact please??


It's not fact at all. It's a projection, but one that I certainly do not agree with. I would say that our energy usage will actually fall as more efficient systems are introduced, and also as people introduce their own efficiencies and cutbacks in order to manage their limited incomes. :rolleyes:

Liability
22nd September 2008, 19:54
It's not fact at all. It's a projection, but one that I certainly do not agree with. I would say that our energy usage will actually fall as more efficient systems are introduced, and also as people introduce their own efficiencies and cutbacks in order to manage their limited incomes. :rolleyes:

I see where you are coming from - however there is no or limited appetite in the short term to be more efficient - and if we dont address fundamentals now - itll be like what we have seen in the Banking sector these past weeks - except it will be on a scale we just wouldnt want to imagine -

Cyberman
22nd September 2008, 20:06
I see where you are coming from - however there is no or limited appetite in the short term to be more efficient - and if we dont address fundamentals now - itll be like what we have seen in the Banking sector these past weeks - except it will be on a scale we just wouldnt want to imagine -


I think that the appetite is there due to the fact that people will not want to go into debt to pay bills. Thus, the simplest measure is to use less fuel. This will be done for example by eating more cold meals. Cooking at cold times of the day is also an option to utilise that heat most efficiently. People are adopting more efficient methods of driving(coasting down hills in neutral) and also driving less and at slower speeds.

Fitting loft and cavity insulation, perhaps even double-glazing are all efficiences that are now more seriously considered. Wearing warmer clothes is also a sensible option.:D

SandyDown
22nd September 2008, 20:21
Liability – the article claims because there are almost infinite oil supplies deep into the earth crust we will not run out of oil, this may be true, but we will not be able to excavate it, for each regular onshore reservoir there are huge amount of uncertain data and risks associated, every well drilled is a gamble, we can input as much geological/geophysical and geochemical data, and build a model, (not forgetting all the engineering constraints of course), engineers can guess where the best place to drill, but at the end of the day its an educated guess, nothing more!!

The science is trying to reduce uncertainty, but there will always be geological uncertainties and risks associated with each drilling. For deep oil, you can imagine uncertainties would be far greater than oil at regular depths, as for engineering constraints and cost of drilling such a deep well, then having a stable platforms/infrastructure plus all the risks of actually missing the well ??? IMO the costs would outweigh any benefits!!

SandyDown
22nd September 2008, 20:26
I think that the appetite is there due to the fact that people will not want to go into debt to pay bills. Thus, the simplest measure is to use less fuel. This will be done for example by eating more cold meals. Cooking at cold times of the day is also an option to utilise that heat most efficiently. People are adopting more efficient methods of driving(coasting down hills in neutral) and also driving less and at slower speeds.

Fitting loft and cavity insulation, perhaps even double-glazing are all efficiences that are now more seriously considered. Wearing warmer clothes is also a sensible option.:D

I have an automatic car, never costed in neutral and don't think will ever do... improving house insulation is a good idea, but wont save the planet...

I've seen solar panels and power used to heating water in so many countries, but this country doesn't have enough sun!!
But yeh England may be heading towards middle ages again. Mind you they had lots of woodlands for fire places and cooking on fires.

Liability
22nd September 2008, 21:11
Liability – the article claims because there are almost infinite oil supplies deep into the earth crust we will not run out of oil, this may be true, but we will not be able to excavate it, for each regular onshore reservoir there are huge amount of uncertain data and risks associated, every well drilled is a gamble, we can input as much geological/geophysical and geochemical data, and build a model, (not forgetting all the engineering constraints of course), engineers can guess where the best place to drill, but at the end of the day its an educated guess, nothing more!!

The science is trying to reduce uncertainty, but there will always be geological uncertainties and risks associated with each drilling. For deep oil, you can imagine uncertainties would be far greater than oil at regular depths, as for engineering constraints and cost of drilling such a deep well, then having a stable platforms/infrastructure plus all the risks of actually missing the well ??? IMO the costs would outweigh any benefits!!

But do you really think so? If its a large tap of oil and brl charges are at $80-$100 then it makes it all worthwile?

SandyDown
22nd September 2008, 21:30
Nothing is impossible, I am not an engineering expert, but I know they are doing a lot of research and trying to advance all kind of science involved in reservoir development.

SandyDown
22nd September 2008, 21:32
http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/magazine/15-09/mf_jackrig

Francko
22nd September 2008, 21:32
_____ I am not an [INSERT THE TOPIC SUBJECT] expert, but I know _____

That's more like an AtW opening line, are you trying to copy him?

Diver
22nd September 2008, 21:33
http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/magazine/15-09/mf_jackrig

So we're ok for oil til next Tuesday then :rolleyes: Phew!

Liability
22nd September 2008, 21:35
Nothing is impossible, I am not an engineering expert, but I know they are doing a lot of research and trying to advance all kind of science involved in reservoir development.

we need a bigger boat!

SandyDown
22nd September 2008, 21:36
That's more like an AtW opening line, are you trying to copy him?

FYI, I have an undergrad Honurs BSc in Geology :D

SandyDown
22nd September 2008, 21:39
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdcRX35zQx0

Diver
22nd September 2008, 21:42
FYI, I have an undergrad Honurs BSc in Geology :D

From Tyumen State University (Russia)? :wink

SandyDown
22nd September 2008, 21:44
From Tyumen State University (Russia)? :wink

Close - Oxford :D

Francko
22nd September 2008, 21:46
From Tyumen State University (Russia)? :wink

I have three but they costed me 50 euros. :eyes

Diver
22nd September 2008, 21:54
I have three but they costed me 50 euros. :eyes

I have several from the university of Ms Office Templates :wink:D

Diver
22nd September 2008, 21:57
Close - Oxford :D

http://www.angelfire.com/nb/oxfordglobal/

:wink:smokin

SandyDown
22nd September 2008, 22:05
I have three but they costed me 50 euros. :eyes
And they gave you a Russian catalogue bride as a free gift, what more do you want...

London75
23rd September 2008, 07:42
Peak Oil - or maybe not.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/17/richard_pike_rcs_interview/

God damn media scam I tell thee

BrilloPad
23rd September 2008, 07:53
Peak Oil - or maybe not.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/17/richard_pike_rcs_interview/

God damn media scam I tell thee

" Say you throw a dice: The probability of throwing one is one in six. With two dice, you’ll be above one 97 per cent of the time. With three, it’s 99.4 per cent of the time."

this is nonsense surely? with one die the odds of >1 are 83.3%. with two dice the odds of above 1 are 100%! The odds of above 2 are 97.2%.

What I think he is trying to say is that the odds of throwing a 1 with 1 die are 1 in 6 - but the odds of throwing a 1 with 2 dice are 11 in 36.

:confused:

But getting such basic stuff wrong to be colours the rest of the article. maybe I am a tad unfair?

London75
23rd September 2008, 10:00
I think he's effectively saying that the figure for future oil production is on the mega conservative side and only refers to "dead-easy-to-drill-and-pump-and-profit-from" locations.

The thing is, at $125 per barrel, the next 10% of potential sites probably become economically viable.

At $200 per barrel, probably 10 times the cost at which most existing supplies are economically viable I'd imagine the number of locations would be significantly larger.

That's part of the problem, and why I hate the BBC and it's let's make news rather than just report it attitude, stats are being manipulated and the assumptions made never declared, here the assumption with the peak oil theory is that none of the additional resources available will ever become economically viable. I would suggest the dirtiest oil that has to be sucked out of porous rock would become viable before we hit $500 per barrel.

We put men on the moon with not much more than an Acorn Electron controlling the flight systems so I think we have to give much more credit to the human race to engineer it's way out of this problem.

TimberWolf
23rd September 2008, 11:16
I would suggest the dirtiest oil that has to be sucked out of porous rock would become viable before we hit $500 per barrel.

$500 a barrel would have pretty big consequences on oil dependent economies though, i.e. most off them. Even small price rises could mean significant changes and increased cost of living. Reserves will probably never run out, just as our oil North Sea reserves will never run out, but we will stop pumping them out in any quantity at some point in the (near in our case) future. Big painful changes await.



We put men on the moon with not much more than an Acorn Electron controlling the flight systems so I think we have to give much more credit to the human race to engineer it's way out of this problem.

The guidance systems they used were much simpler than an Acorn Electron, but it doesn't actually take much processing power to integrate Newton's equations of motion, just few lines of code at most basic.