Whatever happened to Peak Oil?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by EconProf on January 6, 2015 - 11:24am

Remember Peak Oil? A few years ago we were all told that oil prices, then over $100, would soon double and then double again, as the world's supplies became exhausted.
Then along came fracking. Good old capitalism harnessed technology to again stymie the doomsayers. Now the US will become an energy exporter to the rest of the world. In some previous years we imported about half of our oil. Soon we will produce more energy than Saudi Arabia. Once again the market system comes through.

Submitted by SK in CV on January 8, 2015 - 6:43am.

utcsox wrote:
The supply curve and demand curves for crude oil in short term is very steep. With oil price above $100 per barrel , fracking and oil sand is economically viable to produce crude oil. The softening global economics (China and Europe) has reduced the demand for crude oil globally. Both of these factors have contributed in a sudden sharp fall in crude oil prices in short term. Now, we will see how demand and supply adjust to price changes in long term.

I don't think there's actually been any significant decline in oil consumption or demand. This drop in price has been almost entirely supply driven. The US, along with a few other countries, have upped production. Nobody has cut production, hence too much oil and no place to put it.

Submitted by utcsox on January 8, 2015 - 2:49pm.

As you can see, the current estimate of the world oil demand growth for 3Q2014 is about 800,000 barrels/day below what it was projected in June.

With surge in oil supply from fracking and oil sand, you see a large drop in oil price in the short term.

Submitted by harvey on January 8, 2015 - 3:09pm.

CA renter wrote:

You seem to be missing the point, pri. These speculators are always trying to get in front of the market, going up and down. They are, more often than not, the cause of booms, bubbles, and busts. Totally unproductive, and very damaging.

You're right.

Speculators are a secret club that controls the price of everything.

The actually have a secret lair with a big dial that they turn to raise and lower prices.

All they have to do is turn the dial and prices change.

Most turns of the dial are accompanied by an evil laugh.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on January 8, 2015 - 4:33pm.

2015 back to the future:
In 2015 You can buy a hover board
In 2015 You will be able to buy self lacing Nike shoes

Now in 2015 skunk works plans to demo fusion reactor (Mr Fusion)
OK so it’s not the back of a Delorean, but it fits on the back of a truck.

In the long run Big Oil is doomed IMO.

Submitted by Coronita on January 8, 2015 - 4:50pm.

The-Shoveler wrote:
2015 back to the future:
In 2015 You can buy a hover board
In 2015 You will be able to buy self lacing Nike shoes

Now in 2015 skunk works plans to demo fusion reactor (Mr Fusion)
OK so it’s not the back of a Delorean, but it fits on the back of a truck.

In the long run Big Oil is doomed IMO.

Actually, you can buy a hoverboard if you want to spend $10,000 on it...

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/142...

Submitted by The-Shoveler on January 8, 2015 - 4:53pm.

Well I did not say it was cheap just that it would be available to purchase LOL.

Anyway looks like Doc Brown was not too far off.

Submitted by CA renter on January 9, 2015 - 1:42am.

harvey wrote:
CA renter wrote:

You seem to be missing the point, pri. These speculators are always trying to get in front of the market, going up and down. They are, more often than not, the cause of booms, bubbles, and busts. Totally unproductive, and very damaging.

You're right.

Speculators are a secret club that controls the price of everything.

The actually have a secret lair with a big dial that they turn to raise and lower prices.

All they have to do is turn the dial and prices change.

Most turns of the dial are accompanied by an evil laugh.

You're naive if you think that speculators don't control markets. And some of that does involve conspiring with and against other speculators. That is a fact.

Submitted by harvey on January 9, 2015 - 8:48am.

CA renter wrote:
You're naive if you think that speculators don't control markets. And some of that does involve conspiring with and against other speculators. That is a fact.

Of course you have inside knowledge about how the secret economy works.

You read all about it in Rolling Stone magazine.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 9, 2015 - 1:45pm.

The-Shoveler wrote:
Seriously

If I had to live in a small intercity condo without a car and give up my Costco membership.

Instead of my three car garage McMansion in the burbs I think I would renounce my US citizenship and move to china, the life style would be better LOL.

Just kidding sort of

How about living in a 3-story house in Irvine, on a small lot with a roof top terrace and canopy made of solar panels. Close to Costco, close to work and other attractions.
Maybe you would just need 1 electric car for the household.

BTW, my mom's friend raised 2 kids without a car in a suburban community in Honolulu. Her husband has a car, but, as a housewife, she's relied public transport, taxis and on the kindness of neighbors and friends for transportation.

Throw in a cool car/ride share app into the mix and we can easily cut the total number of miles driven.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on January 9, 2015 - 2:30pm.

OK sure that might work.

But really I would still want my own car.

Call me a throw back but I like going to Costco, loading the back of the car to the Gills then driving home and hitting the clicker to open the three car an unloading the stuff the 15 steps into the kitchen LOL.

Starting the Bar-B-Q in the yard etc...

I love living in the burb's LOL.

to each their own, I just don't like living in a crowded City.
A Honolulu Burb I could take however,

Submitted by The-Shoveler on January 9, 2015 - 3:05pm.

I think Car Tech will have just the opposite effect most think it will,
I think it will enable people to move further and further into the burb’s as the drive will be less congested and a lot faster when the computer takes over the driving, Plus you can do other thinks while the car does the driving like take care of email or take a nap.

Also I think Cars will become so efficient 100MPG will seem low.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 9, 2015 - 3:21pm.

We will see... Let's give it 20 years.

I think that people will want to live near "town centers" like the Irvine Spectrum. There will a remake of the suburbs, some will be successful, some won't.

I see condos and townhouses being incorporated into shopping centers like UTC.

But I don't see the desirability of driving 50 miles one way to work.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on January 9, 2015 - 3:30pm.

I think Most Burbs in Socal within 30 or so miles of the coast will be fine and continue to grow into job centers themselves.

Other states I am not so sure, I don't think I would buy a house in the Oil Patch as long term that is a dead end.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 9, 2015 - 4:02pm.

Talking about the rest of the country, areas like Columbus, Ohio are doing well near Easton Town Center. There's a Costco!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easton_Town...

The suburbs in the rest of the state, not so much.

Submitted by CA renter on January 10, 2015 - 1:12am.

harvey wrote:
CA renter wrote:
You're naive if you think that speculators don't control markets. And some of that does involve conspiring with and against other speculators. That is a fact.

Of course you have inside knowledge about how the secret economy works.

You read all about it in Rolling Stone magazine.

Wrong, once again.

Submitted by CA renter on January 10, 2015 - 1:15am.

The-Shoveler wrote:
OK sure that might work.

But really I would still want my own car.

Call me a throw back but I like going to Costco, loading the back of the car to the Gills then driving home and hitting the clicker to open the three car an unloading the stuff the 15 steps into the kitchen LOL.

Starting the Bar-B-Q in the yard etc...

I love living in the burb's LOL.

to each their own, I just don't like living in a crowded City.
A Honolulu Burb I could take however,

Right there with you, Shoveler.

Submitted by no_such_reality on January 10, 2015 - 12:41pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
We will see... Let's give it 20 years.

I think that people will want to live near "town centers" like the Irvine Spectrum.

The Irvine Spectrum a town center? Irvine is the definition of burbs.

They have jobs, job concentrations in business parks and during commute times it takes close to an hour to go from one side of irvine to the other.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 12, 2015 - 6:33pm.

Yes, Irvine is the definition of the burbs. But it has developed into its own as the most desirable job center of Orange County.

There's an urbanization of the burbs going on. People are seeking town center like, more dense areas, rather than just bedroom communities. Those are perfect locations for ride/car sharing facilitated by apps.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 12, 2015 - 6:37pm.

Here's interesting data on miles traveled.

Remember it's the change in growth rates that affects prices.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...

Submitted by The-Shoveler on January 13, 2015 - 6:32am.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Yes, Irvine is the definition of the burbs. But it has developed into its own as the most desirable job center of Orange County.

There's an urbanization of the burbs going on. People are seeking town center like, more dense areas, rather than just bedroom communities. Those are perfect locations for ride/car sharing facilitated by apps.

Yep that pretty much describes "ALL" Socal Cities.

Start out as far off bedroom Burbs, then develop into Job centers, then large cities on their own.

BUT they almost all start out as far off burb's.

With the possible exception of L.A. and San Fran, and SD.

They started because of their ports.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 13, 2015 - 1:07pm.

Santa Barbara is not a suburb, but, yes, you're right on the development of California.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I see less interest in cars from the younger generations. A friend has fleet of cars, but his kids don't drive. They are off to college and don't want a car.

I predict car/ride sharing to be enabled by technology. Combine that with more efficient cars and that will hold down demand for auto fuel.

Also LED in homes will drastically cut energy usage.

Submitted by spdrun on January 13, 2015 - 1:23pm.

I think people will still want to have their own cars -- having to unload EVERYTHING from a shared car that you'll likely never see again every time you're done with it would be really annoying. A lot of women I know use a car essentially as a second handbag.

Plus Americans are prissy and don't want to share seats that have been sat in by others repeatedly. Rental cars get NASTY after about 30,000 miles.

I wouldn't say that LEDs would cut energy usage drastically. Lighting is only about 10-15% of energy use in the US. LEDs use about 1/5 the power as incandescents, so the cut will be 12% if we're lucky. And that's not taking into account fluorescent fixtures that are already installed as well as increased electric heat usage in winter.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 13, 2015 - 4:22pm.

Sure, we'll still have plenty of cars. But less growth or no growth means less price increases.
Maybe families can have 2 economical cars. They don't need to have that van or truck if they can easily rent one or use an app to share.

LED TVs hardly use any energy compared to the old plasmas.

Less heat from LED will reduce cooling costs.

Plus smart controls in the home will reduce energy even further. I love my Nest thermostat!!

Submitted by spdrun on January 13, 2015 - 4:44pm.

But families could have done so during the height of the SUV boom as well. People didn't need SUVs. They wanted them. Most of the non-farmer world got on just fine without them for 100 years or so. SUVs were about marketing, not utility. Most big furniture and appliances are delivered anyway.

Read about Clotaire Rapaille if you're interested in that sort of thing -- he's the mad shrink who basically convinced US automakers that the American public REALLY wanted SUVs and it was a good idea to market them to the average burb-dweller.

My parents never owned a truck and they renovated a few houses, took long road trips, etc. It wasn't that hard.

Hopefully smart controls without the spyware will become more popular. I want my thermostat to talk directly to my phone or computer, not have data-mining swine like Google as an intermediary. If I get smart controls, I'll go the following route. Kloudkrap optional, not mandatory like in Scroogle Nests.

http://www.networkthermostat.com/

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 13, 2015 - 4:46pm.

But now, we have apps that facilitate many things. The sharing economy is the new thing. It's not the be all, end all, but can create change.

For example in the housing market, it's not total demand that matters, but it's the marginal demand above the supply that cause price increases.

The Nest thermostat is smart and programs itself. You can add smoke detectors that act as occupancy sensors to turn off the HVAC. Works great. For a family with people going in and out, you can't rely on any one person to manually operate the HVAC, even using an app.

That one device can save a lot of money in energy usage. I'm talking about the "average" family here. Some people like you would rather manually control, but most people want to set and leave.

Submitted by spdrun on January 13, 2015 - 5:55pm.

Technically speaking, if they're on the same WiFi subnet, there's no reason why a Nest can't talk to sensors directly without using the Google mothership as an intermediary. It could even auto-discover occupancy sensors on the subnet.

And the self-programming firmware is internal to the Nest. Again, no intermediary needed to spy on users.

As far as sharing, I was the kid who hoarded all the toys in kindergarten :)

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 13, 2015 - 6:31pm.

Spd, of course you are right. But gadget makers want your data and they want to charge subscription fees in the future. Google actually works with utilities companies to allow them to control your thermostat.

I'm willing to sell my soul for cheap products that save me money and provide me convenience.

Submitted by spdrun on January 13, 2015 - 6:37pm.

I on the other hand, will wait till the cheap product is hacked six ways from Sunday to work without Google's dubious help. I'll use it without giving Google a fuckin' thing, and ride off the backs of the sheep who don't know any better.

Same deal as a cheap Android phone running Cyanogen.

Submitted by CA renter on January 13, 2015 - 6:41pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Spd, of course you are right. But gadget makers want your data and they want to charge subscription fees in the future. Google actually works with utilities companies to allow them to control your thermostat.

I'm willing to sell my soul for cheap products that save me money and provide me convenience.

Sometimes, you say some really crazy things, Brian. This one is particularly bad.

It scares me to know there are people out there who have so little regard for privacy rights. This emboldens the spy world to push things further. Too many people have been brainwashed into giving out the most personal of personal data. It's just scary.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 14, 2015 - 1:33pm.

From an average person's point of view is that really crazy?

Do you use gmail or do you run your own server? Do you use use credit cards or online banking?

The average person probably supports anti-terrorism laws. But those same laws are used to track everyone. I've done business wirh people from Syria, Iran, Lebanon... I don't think that anyone is tracking me per se; but through 6 degrees of separation, I'm sure I'm in a database somewhere. The data is there waiting to be mined.

Comment viewing options

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