R-Squared Energy Blog

Pure Energy

Five Reasons Oil is Headed to $250

Any time I write about investing, I always stress the long-term. Short-term fluctuations don’t drive my investment decisions. I try to see 5 or 10 years into the future, and position myself accordingly. This is a big part of why I started to shift money into oil beginning in 2002; I felt like I could see the supply/demand handwriting on the wall.

My long-term strategy is why I don’t get too excited about oil shooting to $147 or correcting back to below $100. The only question for me is “Will oil be higher or lower in 5 years?” At no point since 2002 have I felt like the answer to that question is “Lower.” I can’t see any combination of alternatives making a serious dent in our consumption until prices are much higher. How much higher? Well, in the Netherlands this summer they were paying $10/gallon for gasoline. Sure, that’s mostly taxes, but consumers were still willing to pay over $400/bbl and alternatives didn’t ride in to the rescue.

Don’t get me wrong, I think alternatives can ride to the rescue – just not until much higher prices force people to cut way back on consumption. As I told someone yesterday, I could make the U.S. energy independent in 10 years. It’s just that it would be very painful. I may have to make oil prices rise to north of $500/bbl.

This morning I saw an article that laid out 5 reasons why the author felt like oil is headed toward $250/bbl:

Five Reasons Why the $700 Billion Banking Bailout Will Translate into $250 Oil

Unless I overlooked it, the author doesn’t give a timeframe, but I can see oil at $250 in less than 5 years. Here are the reasons the author provides:

First, global oil demand is still accelerating and, according to the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), will reach more than 115 million barrels per day by 2030 – even with conservation efforts and high prices stunting demand.

Second, daily production has probably peaked right now at nearly 90 million barrels a day, or will peak in a few years at the very latest. While experts once debated the reality of the “Peak Oil” concept, they now accept it and only question when it will take hold.

Third, the world’s fastest growing economies, China and India, are still increasing consumption at double-digit rates, and that more than offsets any conservation efforts that are under way elsewhere around the world. And their governments want to buy oil at any cost – even if that means there’s none left for us.

Fourth, the world will learn one day – probably sooner rather than later – that Saudi Arabia’s vaunted reserves are nowhere near what it claims them to be, and those reserves are certainly not at the levels long held as “gospel” in the oil business. Matthew Simmons, chairman of the Houston-based investment bankSimmons & Co. International and author of the seminal 2005 book, “Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy” has been most vocal about this alleged shortfall, and I respect his work, especially since I’ve spoken behind closed doors with several OPEC figures who privately acknowledged that this may be their worst nightmare. Simmons recently predicted that oil prices would rally to $500 a barrel.

Fifth, Bailout Ben has dropped trillions into the system to stabilize the Wall Street while Paulson has broken out his bazooka which suggests that as much of 95% or more of oil’s price drop can be attributed to nothing more than the dollar’s rise since July. Nothing else has changed.

I put a lot of emphasis on the first two reasons above. As readers know from my ‘peak lite‘ arguments, I think long-term supply will lag demand growth, and it is only a matter of time before supplies start to decline. What we don’t consume in the U.S. is going to be consumed by developing 3rd world countries.

As I told someone last week at the ASPO conference, the future is uncertain. There will be Black Swan. But we have to plan based on best guesses for what lies ahead, and I am still betting on oil headed higher long-term.

Advertisements

October 1, 2008 - Posted by | investing, oil consumption, oil demand, oil prices, Peak Lite

279 Comments

  1. What I am confused about is how what is going on right now not a result of peak oil. I understand that oil is around 100 dollars but if we are not at peak oil, why is oil still trading at 100. Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot? Why then has oil been skyrocketing lately? Doesn’t the price skyrocket when demand exceed supply? I know we are setting supply records but why the rise in price???

    Comment by Anonymous | October 1, 2008

  2. What I am confused about is how what is going on right now not a result of peak oil. I understand that oil is around 100 dollars but if we are not at peak oil, why is oil still trading at 100. Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot? Why then has oil been skyrocketing lately? Doesn’t the price skyrocket when demand exceed supply? I know we are setting supply records but why the rise in price???

    Comment by Anonymous | October 1, 2008

  3. What I am confused about is how what is going on right now not a result of peak oil. I understand that oil is around 100 dollars but if we are not at peak oil, why is oil still trading at 100. Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot? Why then has oil been skyrocketing lately? Doesn’t the price skyrocket when demand exceed supply? I know we are setting supply records but why the rise in price???

    Comment by Anonymous | October 1, 2008

  4. What I am confused about is how what is going on right now not a result of peak oil. I understand that oil is around 100 dollars but if we are not at peak oil, why is oil still trading at 100. Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot? Why then has oil been skyrocketing lately? Doesn’t the price skyrocket when demand exceed supply? I know we are setting supply records but why the rise in price???

    Comment by Anonymous | October 1, 2008

  5. What I am confused about is how what is going on right now not a result of peak oil. I understand that oil is around 100 dollars but if we are not at peak oil, why is oil still trading at 100. Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot? Why then has oil been skyrocketing lately? Doesn’t the price skyrocket when demand exceed supply? I know we are setting supply records but why the rise in price???

    Comment by Anonymous | October 1, 2008

  6. What I am confused about is how what is going on right now not a result of peak oil. I understand that oil is around 100 dollars but if we are not at peak oil, why is oil still trading at 100. Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot? Why then has oil been skyrocketing lately? Doesn’t the price skyrocket when demand exceed supply? I know we are setting supply records but why the rise in price???

    Comment by Anonymous | October 1, 2008

  7. What I am confused about is how what is going on right now not a result of peak oil. I understand that oil is around 100 dollars but if we are not at peak oil, why is oil still trading at 100. Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot? Why then has oil been skyrocketing lately? Doesn’t the price skyrocket when demand exceed supply? I know we are setting supply records but why the rise in price???

    Comment by Anonymous | October 1, 2008

  8. What I am confused about is how what is going on right now not a result of peak oil. I understand that oil is around 100 dollars but if we are not at peak oil, why is oil still trading at 100. Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot? Why then has oil been skyrocketing lately? Doesn’t the price skyrocket when demand exceed supply? I know we are setting supply records but why the rise in price???

    Comment by Anonymous | October 1, 2008

  9. While I agree with you on the long-term direction, RR, let me present the other side of the argument.

    Look at US gas supplies. Only a few years ago, gas price was rocketing up; gas-consuming industry was leaving the US; smart people were investing big bucks building LNG import terminals.

    Now look at the situation today. Gas production is growing at about 8% per year. Gas price has slumped to about 50% of oil on a calorific value basis. Those new LNG import terminals are standing unused — there are even mutterings about rebuilding them as LNG export terminals, to send cheap US gas to the import hogs in the EU.

    What caused this sea-change? Technology. In this case, the ability to recognize & fracture tight gas formations.

    Technological advance is the blackest of black swans. If some new energy technology is developed (or even if the political class get serious about nuclear power), we could see the OPEC nations competing to get their oil to market before demand dries up, and the price may slump for a long period.

    Comment by Kinuachdrach | October 1, 2008

  10. While I agree with you on the long-term direction, RR, let me present the other side of the argument.

    Look at US gas supplies. Only a few years ago, gas price was rocketing up; gas-consuming industry was leaving the US; smart people were investing big bucks building LNG import terminals.

    Now look at the situation today. Gas production is growing at about 8% per year. Gas price has slumped to about 50% of oil on a calorific value basis. Those new LNG import terminals are standing unused — there are even mutterings about rebuilding them as LNG export terminals, to send cheap US gas to the import hogs in the EU.

    What caused this sea-change? Technology. In this case, the ability to recognize & fracture tight gas formations.

    Technological advance is the blackest of black swans. If some new energy technology is developed (or even if the political class get serious about nuclear power), we could see the OPEC nations competing to get their oil to market before demand dries up, and the price may slump for a long period.

    Comment by Kinuachdrach | October 1, 2008

  11. While I agree with you on the long-term direction, RR, let me present the other side of the argument.

    Look at US gas supplies. Only a few years ago, gas price was rocketing up; gas-consuming industry was leaving the US; smart people were investing big bucks building LNG import terminals.

    Now look at the situation today. Gas production is growing at about 8% per year. Gas price has slumped to about 50% of oil on a calorific value basis. Those new LNG import terminals are standing unused — there are even mutterings about rebuilding them as LNG export terminals, to send cheap US gas to the import hogs in the EU.

    What caused this sea-change? Technology. In this case, the ability to recognize & fracture tight gas formations.

    Technological advance is the blackest of black swans. If some new energy technology is developed (or even if the political class get serious about nuclear power), we could see the OPEC nations competing to get their oil to market before demand dries up, and the price may slump for a long period.

    Comment by Kinuachdrach | October 1, 2008

  12. While I agree with you on the long-term direction, RR, let me present the other side of the argument.

    Look at US gas supplies. Only a few years ago, gas price was rocketing up; gas-consuming industry was leaving the US; smart people were investing big bucks building LNG import terminals.

    Now look at the situation today. Gas production is growing at about 8% per year. Gas price has slumped to about 50% of oil on a calorific value basis. Those new LNG import terminals are standing unused — there are even mutterings about rebuilding them as LNG export terminals, to send cheap US gas to the import hogs in the EU.

    What caused this sea-change? Technology. In this case, the ability to recognize & fracture tight gas formations.

    Technological advance is the blackest of black swans. If some new energy technology is developed (or even if the political class get serious about nuclear power), we could see the OPEC nations competing to get their oil to market before demand dries up, and the price may slump for a long period.

    Comment by Kinuachdrach | October 1, 2008

  13. While I agree with you on the long-term direction, RR, let me present the other side of the argument.

    Look at US gas supplies. Only a few years ago, gas price was rocketing up; gas-consuming industry was leaving the US; smart people were investing big bucks building LNG import terminals.

    Now look at the situation today. Gas production is growing at about 8% per year. Gas price has slumped to about 50% of oil on a calorific value basis. Those new LNG import terminals are standing unused — there are even mutterings about rebuilding them as LNG export terminals, to send cheap US gas to the import hogs in the EU.

    What caused this sea-change? Technology. In this case, the ability to recognize & fracture tight gas formations.

    Technological advance is the blackest of black swans. If some new energy technology is developed (or even if the political class get serious about nuclear power), we could see the OPEC nations competing to get their oil to market before demand dries up, and the price may slump for a long period.

    Comment by Kinuachdrach | October 1, 2008

  14. While I agree with you on the long-term direction, RR, let me present the other side of the argument.

    Look at US gas supplies. Only a few years ago, gas price was rocketing up; gas-consuming industry was leaving the US; smart people were investing big bucks building LNG import terminals.

    Now look at the situation today. Gas production is growing at about 8% per year. Gas price has slumped to about 50% of oil on a calorific value basis. Those new LNG import terminals are standing unused — there are even mutterings about rebuilding them as LNG export terminals, to send cheap US gas to the import hogs in the EU.

    What caused this sea-change? Technology. In this case, the ability to recognize & fracture tight gas formations.

    Technological advance is the blackest of black swans. If some new energy technology is developed (or even if the political class get serious about nuclear power), we could see the OPEC nations competing to get their oil to market before demand dries up, and the price may slump for a long period.

    Comment by Kinuachdrach | October 1, 2008

  15. While I agree with you on the long-term direction, RR, let me present the other side of the argument.

    Look at US gas supplies. Only a few years ago, gas price was rocketing up; gas-consuming industry was leaving the US; smart people were investing big bucks building LNG import terminals.

    Now look at the situation today. Gas production is growing at about 8% per year. Gas price has slumped to about 50% of oil on a calorific value basis. Those new LNG import terminals are standing unused — there are even mutterings about rebuilding them as LNG export terminals, to send cheap US gas to the import hogs in the EU.

    What caused this sea-change? Technology. In this case, the ability to recognize & fracture tight gas formations.

    Technological advance is the blackest of black swans. If some new energy technology is developed (or even if the political class get serious about nuclear power), we could see the OPEC nations competing to get their oil to market before demand dries up, and the price may slump for a long period.

    Comment by Kinuachdrach | October 1, 2008

  16. While I agree with you on the long-term direction, RR, let me present the other side of the argument.

    Look at US gas supplies. Only a few years ago, gas price was rocketing up; gas-consuming industry was leaving the US; smart people were investing big bucks building LNG import terminals.

    Now look at the situation today. Gas production is growing at about 8% per year. Gas price has slumped to about 50% of oil on a calorific value basis. Those new LNG import terminals are standing unused — there are even mutterings about rebuilding them as LNG export terminals, to send cheap US gas to the import hogs in the EU.

    What caused this sea-change? Technology. In this case, the ability to recognize & fracture tight gas formations.

    Technological advance is the blackest of black swans. If some new energy technology is developed (or even if the political class get serious about nuclear power), we could see the OPEC nations competing to get their oil to market before demand dries up, and the price may slump for a long period.

    Comment by Kinuachdrach | October 1, 2008

  17. Well, in the Netherlands this summer they were paying $10/gallon for gasoline.

    This is why I argue against those who say a $1/gallon gas tax will solve our foreign oil dependency. Short term demand is very inelastic because our cars lock us into oil.

    Why haven’t high prices pushed europeans to alternatives? This used to puzzle me. But the main alternatives are electricity and natural gas, both of which also tend to be very expensive in Europe. Also, diesel has historically been much cheaper than gas in Europe, and the auto industry focused there. Finally, the average European drives less each year than the average American, which impacts the payback equation.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 1, 2008

  18. Well, in the Netherlands this summer they were paying $10/gallon for gasoline.

    This is why I argue against those who say a $1/gallon gas tax will solve our foreign oil dependency. Short term demand is very inelastic because our cars lock us into oil.

    Why haven’t high prices pushed europeans to alternatives? This used to puzzle me. But the main alternatives are electricity and natural gas, both of which also tend to be very expensive in Europe. Also, diesel has historically been much cheaper than gas in Europe, and the auto industry focused there. Finally, the average European drives less each year than the average American, which impacts the payback equation.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 1, 2008

  19. Well, in the Netherlands this summer they were paying $10/gallon for gasoline.

    This is why I argue against those who say a $1/gallon gas tax will solve our foreign oil dependency. Short term demand is very inelastic because our cars lock us into oil.

    Why haven’t high prices pushed europeans to alternatives? This used to puzzle me. But the main alternatives are electricity and natural gas, both of which also tend to be very expensive in Europe. Also, diesel has historically been much cheaper than gas in Europe, and the auto industry focused there. Finally, the average European drives less each year than the average American, which impacts the payback equation.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 1, 2008

  20. Well, in the Netherlands this summer they were paying $10/gallon for gasoline.

    This is why I argue against those who say a $1/gallon gas tax will solve our foreign oil dependency. Short term demand is very inelastic because our cars lock us into oil.

    Why haven’t high prices pushed europeans to alternatives? This used to puzzle me. But the main alternatives are electricity and natural gas, both of which also tend to be very expensive in Europe. Also, diesel has historically been much cheaper than gas in Europe, and the auto industry focused there. Finally, the average European drives less each year than the average American, which impacts the payback equation.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 1, 2008

  21. Well, in the Netherlands this summer they were paying $10/gallon for gasoline.

    This is why I argue against those who say a $1/gallon gas tax will solve our foreign oil dependency. Short term demand is very inelastic because our cars lock us into oil.

    Why haven’t high prices pushed europeans to alternatives? This used to puzzle me. But the main alternatives are electricity and natural gas, both of which also tend to be very expensive in Europe. Also, diesel has historically been much cheaper than gas in Europe, and the auto industry focused there. Finally, the average European drives less each year than the average American, which impacts the payback equation.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 1, 2008

  22. Well, in the Netherlands this summer they were paying $10/gallon for gasoline.

    This is why I argue against those who say a $1/gallon gas tax will solve our foreign oil dependency. Short term demand is very inelastic because our cars lock us into oil.

    Why haven’t high prices pushed europeans to alternatives? This used to puzzle me. But the main alternatives are electricity and natural gas, both of which also tend to be very expensive in Europe. Also, diesel has historically been much cheaper than gas in Europe, and the auto industry focused there. Finally, the average European drives less each year than the average American, which impacts the payback equation.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 1, 2008

  23. Well, in the Netherlands this summer they were paying $10/gallon for gasoline.

    This is why I argue against those who say a $1/gallon gas tax will solve our foreign oil dependency. Short term demand is very inelastic because our cars lock us into oil.

    Why haven’t high prices pushed europeans to alternatives? This used to puzzle me. But the main alternatives are electricity and natural gas, both of which also tend to be very expensive in Europe. Also, diesel has historically been much cheaper than gas in Europe, and the auto industry focused there. Finally, the average European drives less each year than the average American, which impacts the payback equation.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 1, 2008

  24. Well, in the Netherlands this summer they were paying $10/gallon for gasoline.

    This is why I argue against those who say a $1/gallon gas tax will solve our foreign oil dependency. Short term demand is very inelastic because our cars lock us into oil.

    Why haven’t high prices pushed europeans to alternatives? This used to puzzle me. But the main alternatives are electricity and natural gas, both of which also tend to be very expensive in Europe. Also, diesel has historically been much cheaper than gas in Europe, and the auto industry focused there. Finally, the average European drives less each year than the average American, which impacts the payback equation.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 1, 2008

  25. As to the author's five reasons:

    1. EIA forecasts? C'mon.

    2 & 4. Standard peak oil dogma. Might be right. Might not.

    3. China and India demand growth has slowed dramatically. Might be temporary. Might not.

    5. He got this exactly backward. Price drop cannot be due to Fed/Treasury pumping dollars into the system. More dollars, same number of barrels means higher price per barrel. Oil is dropping as economic slowdown depresses demand. Fed/Treasury are not causing oil to drop — they’re pushing the other direction. One can argue Fed/Treasury will eventually “over-succeed” and create inflation, but what this guy said makes no sense at all.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 1, 2008

  26. As to the author's five reasons:

    1. EIA forecasts? C'mon.

    2 & 4. Standard peak oil dogma. Might be right. Might not.

    3. China and India demand growth has slowed dramatically. Might be temporary. Might not.

    5. He got this exactly backward. Price drop cannot be due to Fed/Treasury pumping dollars into the system. More dollars, same number of barrels means higher price per barrel. Oil is dropping as economic slowdown depresses demand. Fed/Treasury are not causing oil to drop — they’re pushing the other direction. One can argue Fed/Treasury will eventually “over-succeed” and create inflation, but what this guy said makes no sense at all.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 1, 2008

  27. As to the author's five reasons:

    1. EIA forecasts? C'mon.

    2 & 4. Standard peak oil dogma. Might be right. Might not.

    3. China and India demand growth has slowed dramatically. Might be temporary. Might not.

    5. He got this exactly backward. Price drop cannot be due to Fed/Treasury pumping dollars into the system. More dollars, same number of barrels means higher price per barrel. Oil is dropping as economic slowdown depresses demand. Fed/Treasury are not causing oil to drop — they’re pushing the other direction. One can argue Fed/Treasury will eventually “over-succeed” and create inflation, but what this guy said makes no sense at all.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 1, 2008

  28. As to the author's five reasons:

    1. EIA forecasts? C'mon.

    2 & 4. Standard peak oil dogma. Might be right. Might not.

    3. China and India demand growth has slowed dramatically. Might be temporary. Might not.

    5. He got this exactly backward. Price drop cannot be due to Fed/Treasury pumping dollars into the system. More dollars, same number of barrels means higher price per barrel. Oil is dropping as economic slowdown depresses demand. Fed/Treasury are not causing oil to drop — they’re pushing the other direction. One can argue Fed/Treasury will eventually “over-succeed” and create inflation, but what this guy said makes no sense at all.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 1, 2008

  29. As to the author's five reasons:

    1. EIA forecasts? C'mon.

    2 & 4. Standard peak oil dogma. Might be right. Might not.

    3. China and India demand growth has slowed dramatically. Might be temporary. Might not.

    5. He got this exactly backward. Price drop cannot be due to Fed/Treasury pumping dollars into the system. More dollars, same number of barrels means higher price per barrel. Oil is dropping as economic slowdown depresses demand. Fed/Treasury are not causing oil to drop — they’re pushing the other direction. One can argue Fed/Treasury will eventually “over-succeed” and create inflation, but what this guy said makes no sense at all.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 1, 2008

  30. As to the author's five reasons:

    1. EIA forecasts? C'mon.

    2 & 4. Standard peak oil dogma. Might be right. Might not.

    3. China and India demand growth has slowed dramatically. Might be temporary. Might not.

    5. He got this exactly backward. Price drop cannot be due to Fed/Treasury pumping dollars into the system. More dollars, same number of barrels means higher price per barrel. Oil is dropping as economic slowdown depresses demand. Fed/Treasury are not causing oil to drop — they’re pushing the other direction. One can argue Fed/Treasury will eventually “over-succeed” and create inflation, but what this guy said makes no sense at all.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 1, 2008

  31. As to the author's five reasons:

    1. EIA forecasts? C'mon.

    2 & 4. Standard peak oil dogma. Might be right. Might not.

    3. China and India demand growth has slowed dramatically. Might be temporary. Might not.

    5. He got this exactly backward. Price drop cannot be due to Fed/Treasury pumping dollars into the system. More dollars, same number of barrels means higher price per barrel. Oil is dropping as economic slowdown depresses demand. Fed/Treasury are not causing oil to drop — they’re pushing the other direction. One can argue Fed/Treasury will eventually “over-succeed” and create inflation, but what this guy said makes no sense at all.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 1, 2008

  32. As to the author's five reasons:

    1. EIA forecasts? C'mon.

    2 & 4. Standard peak oil dogma. Might be right. Might not.

    3. China and India demand growth has slowed dramatically. Might be temporary. Might not.

    5. He got this exactly backward. Price drop cannot be due to Fed/Treasury pumping dollars into the system. More dollars, same number of barrels means higher price per barrel. Oil is dropping as economic slowdown depresses demand. Fed/Treasury are not causing oil to drop — they’re pushing the other direction. One can argue Fed/Treasury will eventually “over-succeed” and create inflation, but what this guy said makes no sense at all.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 1, 2008

  33. RR-
    I just don’t see crude demand rising muchin the years ahead, unless prices crack. As you know, even at current price levels, crude demand is falling in the U.S.
    And falling even before most consumers and businesses have had a chance to replace equipment (primarily vehicles) with more-efficient equipment.
    Already, global demand is rising barely at all; this year perhaps not at all. Recently we have had years showing global demand increases of less than 1 percent. Remember, world crude demand fell 11 percent following the price spike of the early 1980s, and did not recover for a full 10 years. And then only when oil was cheapo again. If oil had stayed above $40 a barrel (adjusted for inflation), I doubt demand would have recovered.
    This time around? Our technology is so much better. EVs are coming to market! GM, Chrysler, and some sort of Buffett-China combo all say they will have EVs on the market by 2011.
    We may be seeing global Peak Demand for oil now, or maybe it was last year.
    For now, the price of oil is anywhere between $10 and $147 that speculators want to put it. Oil demand is famously inelastic in the short-run, meaning speculators can spook it around whenever they want. Above $147, we started to see immediate demand destruction (elasticity). I would say there is a ceiling at $150, although that ceiling may start to drop in years ahead, due to falling demand and better technology.
    And while you say $10-a-gallon gasoline doesn’t change much, in fact demand for crude from Europe has been falling, and is below 1970s levels. They went through Peak Demand a long time ago — while living standards have improved. The doomer vision is deeply flawed — people can live better, while using less oil.
    The price mechanism, in commodities markets, may work slowly, but in the end it works — demand slacks whenever oil gets too far above $60 a barrel.
    Okay, so you fall back on the Chindia scare story. Insatiable demand, even above $100 a barrel. But what if EVs become standard, and not ICEs? We could see demand from those nations actually go down, not up.
    My rough sense is that above $5 a gallon, EVs make commercial sense. There are onerous upfront costs, but those can be mitigated by financing. You pay more monthly in car payments, but save even more on gasoline. And, we can hope that EV upfront costs decrease, as we learn better how to build such cars. Nissan says they will bring to market a pure EV (no ICE to recharge) with a 200 mile range, and rapid recharge. Mercy!
    If successful, such an invention would crush world oil markets.
    Doomers snivel, “Yeah, how will you drive across country?”
    Easy. You rent a ICE for such a trip. But for 90 percent of your driving, you charge up at night, on 220v.
    Frankly, I think and even hope the day will come when most cities ban ICEs from urban cores. Imagine a city with clean air and quiet streets.
    Of course, as a matter of national security, our federal government might actually put heavy incentives in place for automakers to make EVs. We might actually want to take charge of our future. I know it seems hopeless now, and with Bush in office we believe that any future prezzy will also be feckless, inept, dim-witted and decadent. But maybe the next prezzy will actually try to look ahead.
    There is no way oil can go much above $100 on a sustained basis, let alone $250.
    Kine: I love your natural gas post. The TOD crowd is having a nervous breakdown trying to explain the surge in natural gas production.
    The price mechanism, and never bet against innovation in a free enterprise, well-capitalized society.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  34. RR-
    I just don’t see crude demand rising muchin the years ahead, unless prices crack. As you know, even at current price levels, crude demand is falling in the U.S.
    And falling even before most consumers and businesses have had a chance to replace equipment (primarily vehicles) with more-efficient equipment.
    Already, global demand is rising barely at all; this year perhaps not at all. Recently we have had years showing global demand increases of less than 1 percent. Remember, world crude demand fell 11 percent following the price spike of the early 1980s, and did not recover for a full 10 years. And then only when oil was cheapo again. If oil had stayed above $40 a barrel (adjusted for inflation), I doubt demand would have recovered.
    This time around? Our technology is so much better. EVs are coming to market! GM, Chrysler, and some sort of Buffett-China combo all say they will have EVs on the market by 2011.
    We may be seeing global Peak Demand for oil now, or maybe it was last year.
    For now, the price of oil is anywhere between $10 and $147 that speculators want to put it. Oil demand is famously inelastic in the short-run, meaning speculators can spook it around whenever they want. Above $147, we started to see immediate demand destruction (elasticity). I would say there is a ceiling at $150, although that ceiling may start to drop in years ahead, due to falling demand and better technology.
    And while you say $10-a-gallon gasoline doesn’t change much, in fact demand for crude from Europe has been falling, and is below 1970s levels. They went through Peak Demand a long time ago — while living standards have improved. The doomer vision is deeply flawed — people can live better, while using less oil.
    The price mechanism, in commodities markets, may work slowly, but in the end it works — demand slacks whenever oil gets too far above $60 a barrel.
    Okay, so you fall back on the Chindia scare story. Insatiable demand, even above $100 a barrel. But what if EVs become standard, and not ICEs? We could see demand from those nations actually go down, not up.
    My rough sense is that above $5 a gallon, EVs make commercial sense. There are onerous upfront costs, but those can be mitigated by financing. You pay more monthly in car payments, but save even more on gasoline. And, we can hope that EV upfront costs decrease, as we learn better how to build such cars. Nissan says they will bring to market a pure EV (no ICE to recharge) with a 200 mile range, and rapid recharge. Mercy!
    If successful, such an invention would crush world oil markets.
    Doomers snivel, “Yeah, how will you drive across country?”
    Easy. You rent a ICE for such a trip. But for 90 percent of your driving, you charge up at night, on 220v.
    Frankly, I think and even hope the day will come when most cities ban ICEs from urban cores. Imagine a city with clean air and quiet streets.
    Of course, as a matter of national security, our federal government might actually put heavy incentives in place for automakers to make EVs. We might actually want to take charge of our future. I know it seems hopeless now, and with Bush in office we believe that any future prezzy will also be feckless, inept, dim-witted and decadent. But maybe the next prezzy will actually try to look ahead.
    There is no way oil can go much above $100 on a sustained basis, let alone $250.
    Kine: I love your natural gas post. The TOD crowd is having a nervous breakdown trying to explain the surge in natural gas production.
    The price mechanism, and never bet against innovation in a free enterprise, well-capitalized society.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  35. RR-
    I just don’t see crude demand rising muchin the years ahead, unless prices crack. As you know, even at current price levels, crude demand is falling in the U.S.
    And falling even before most consumers and businesses have had a chance to replace equipment (primarily vehicles) with more-efficient equipment.
    Already, global demand is rising barely at all; this year perhaps not at all. Recently we have had years showing global demand increases of less than 1 percent. Remember, world crude demand fell 11 percent following the price spike of the early 1980s, and did not recover for a full 10 years. And then only when oil was cheapo again. If oil had stayed above $40 a barrel (adjusted for inflation), I doubt demand would have recovered.
    This time around? Our technology is so much better. EVs are coming to market! GM, Chrysler, and some sort of Buffett-China combo all say they will have EVs on the market by 2011.
    We may be seeing global Peak Demand for oil now, or maybe it was last year.
    For now, the price of oil is anywhere between $10 and $147 that speculators want to put it. Oil demand is famously inelastic in the short-run, meaning speculators can spook it around whenever they want. Above $147, we started to see immediate demand destruction (elasticity). I would say there is a ceiling at $150, although that ceiling may start to drop in years ahead, due to falling demand and better technology.
    And while you say $10-a-gallon gasoline doesn’t change much, in fact demand for crude from Europe has been falling, and is below 1970s levels. They went through Peak Demand a long time ago — while living standards have improved. The doomer vision is deeply flawed — people can live better, while using less oil.
    The price mechanism, in commodities markets, may work slowly, but in the end it works — demand slacks whenever oil gets too far above $60 a barrel.
    Okay, so you fall back on the Chindia scare story. Insatiable demand, even above $100 a barrel. But what if EVs become standard, and not ICEs? We could see demand from those nations actually go down, not up.
    My rough sense is that above $5 a gallon, EVs make commercial sense. There are onerous upfront costs, but those can be mitigated by financing. You pay more monthly in car payments, but save even more on gasoline. And, we can hope that EV upfront costs decrease, as we learn better how to build such cars. Nissan says they will bring to market a pure EV (no ICE to recharge) with a 200 mile range, and rapid recharge. Mercy!
    If successful, such an invention would crush world oil markets.
    Doomers snivel, “Yeah, how will you drive across country?”
    Easy. You rent a ICE for such a trip. But for 90 percent of your driving, you charge up at night, on 220v.
    Frankly, I think and even hope the day will come when most cities ban ICEs from urban cores. Imagine a city with clean air and quiet streets.
    Of course, as a matter of national security, our federal government might actually put heavy incentives in place for automakers to make EVs. We might actually want to take charge of our future. I know it seems hopeless now, and with Bush in office we believe that any future prezzy will also be feckless, inept, dim-witted and decadent. But maybe the next prezzy will actually try to look ahead.
    There is no way oil can go much above $100 on a sustained basis, let alone $250.
    Kine: I love your natural gas post. The TOD crowd is having a nervous breakdown trying to explain the surge in natural gas production.
    The price mechanism, and never bet against innovation in a free enterprise, well-capitalized society.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  36. RR-
    I just don’t see crude demand rising muchin the years ahead, unless prices crack. As you know, even at current price levels, crude demand is falling in the U.S.
    And falling even before most consumers and businesses have had a chance to replace equipment (primarily vehicles) with more-efficient equipment.
    Already, global demand is rising barely at all; this year perhaps not at all. Recently we have had years showing global demand increases of less than 1 percent. Remember, world crude demand fell 11 percent following the price spike of the early 1980s, and did not recover for a full 10 years. And then only when oil was cheapo again. If oil had stayed above $40 a barrel (adjusted for inflation), I doubt demand would have recovered.
    This time around? Our technology is so much better. EVs are coming to market! GM, Chrysler, and some sort of Buffett-China combo all say they will have EVs on the market by 2011.
    We may be seeing global Peak Demand for oil now, or maybe it was last year.
    For now, the price of oil is anywhere between $10 and $147 that speculators want to put it. Oil demand is famously inelastic in the short-run, meaning speculators can spook it around whenever they want. Above $147, we started to see immediate demand destruction (elasticity). I would say there is a ceiling at $150, although that ceiling may start to drop in years ahead, due to falling demand and better technology.
    And while you say $10-a-gallon gasoline doesn’t change much, in fact demand for crude from Europe has been falling, and is below 1970s levels. They went through Peak Demand a long time ago — while living standards have improved. The doomer vision is deeply flawed — people can live better, while using less oil.
    The price mechanism, in commodities markets, may work slowly, but in the end it works — demand slacks whenever oil gets too far above $60 a barrel.
    Okay, so you fall back on the Chindia scare story. Insatiable demand, even above $100 a barrel. But what if EVs become standard, and not ICEs? We could see demand from those nations actually go down, not up.
    My rough sense is that above $5 a gallon, EVs make commercial sense. There are onerous upfront costs, but those can be mitigated by financing. You pay more monthly in car payments, but save even more on gasoline. And, we can hope that EV upfront costs decrease, as we learn better how to build such cars. Nissan says they will bring to market a pure EV (no ICE to recharge) with a 200 mile range, and rapid recharge. Mercy!
    If successful, such an invention would crush world oil markets.
    Doomers snivel, “Yeah, how will you drive across country?”
    Easy. You rent a ICE for such a trip. But for 90 percent of your driving, you charge up at night, on 220v.
    Frankly, I think and even hope the day will come when most cities ban ICEs from urban cores. Imagine a city with clean air and quiet streets.
    Of course, as a matter of national security, our federal government might actually put heavy incentives in place for automakers to make EVs. We might actually want to take charge of our future. I know it seems hopeless now, and with Bush in office we believe that any future prezzy will also be feckless, inept, dim-witted and decadent. But maybe the next prezzy will actually try to look ahead.
    There is no way oil can go much above $100 on a sustained basis, let alone $250.
    Kine: I love your natural gas post. The TOD crowd is having a nervous breakdown trying to explain the surge in natural gas production.
    The price mechanism, and never bet against innovation in a free enterprise, well-capitalized society.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  37. RR-
    I just don’t see crude demand rising muchin the years ahead, unless prices crack. As you know, even at current price levels, crude demand is falling in the U.S.
    And falling even before most consumers and businesses have had a chance to replace equipment (primarily vehicles) with more-efficient equipment.
    Already, global demand is rising barely at all; this year perhaps not at all. Recently we have had years showing global demand increases of less than 1 percent. Remember, world crude demand fell 11 percent following the price spike of the early 1980s, and did not recover for a full 10 years. And then only when oil was cheapo again. If oil had stayed above $40 a barrel (adjusted for inflation), I doubt demand would have recovered.
    This time around? Our technology is so much better. EVs are coming to market! GM, Chrysler, and some sort of Buffett-China combo all say they will have EVs on the market by 2011.
    We may be seeing global Peak Demand for oil now, or maybe it was last year.
    For now, the price of oil is anywhere between $10 and $147 that speculators want to put it. Oil demand is famously inelastic in the short-run, meaning speculators can spook it around whenever they want. Above $147, we started to see immediate demand destruction (elasticity). I would say there is a ceiling at $150, although that ceiling may start to drop in years ahead, due to falling demand and better technology.
    And while you say $10-a-gallon gasoline doesn’t change much, in fact demand for crude from Europe has been falling, and is below 1970s levels. They went through Peak Demand a long time ago — while living standards have improved. The doomer vision is deeply flawed — people can live better, while using less oil.
    The price mechanism, in commodities markets, may work slowly, but in the end it works — demand slacks whenever oil gets too far above $60 a barrel.
    Okay, so you fall back on the Chindia scare story. Insatiable demand, even above $100 a barrel. But what if EVs become standard, and not ICEs? We could see demand from those nations actually go down, not up.
    My rough sense is that above $5 a gallon, EVs make commercial sense. There are onerous upfront costs, but those can be mitigated by financing. You pay more monthly in car payments, but save even more on gasoline. And, we can hope that EV upfront costs decrease, as we learn better how to build such cars. Nissan says they will bring to market a pure EV (no ICE to recharge) with a 200 mile range, and rapid recharge. Mercy!
    If successful, such an invention would crush world oil markets.
    Doomers snivel, “Yeah, how will you drive across country?”
    Easy. You rent a ICE for such a trip. But for 90 percent of your driving, you charge up at night, on 220v.
    Frankly, I think and even hope the day will come when most cities ban ICEs from urban cores. Imagine a city with clean air and quiet streets.
    Of course, as a matter of national security, our federal government might actually put heavy incentives in place for automakers to make EVs. We might actually want to take charge of our future. I know it seems hopeless now, and with Bush in office we believe that any future prezzy will also be feckless, inept, dim-witted and decadent. But maybe the next prezzy will actually try to look ahead.
    There is no way oil can go much above $100 on a sustained basis, let alone $250.
    Kine: I love your natural gas post. The TOD crowd is having a nervous breakdown trying to explain the surge in natural gas production.
    The price mechanism, and never bet against innovation in a free enterprise, well-capitalized society.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  38. RR-
    I just don’t see crude demand rising muchin the years ahead, unless prices crack. As you know, even at current price levels, crude demand is falling in the U.S.
    And falling even before most consumers and businesses have had a chance to replace equipment (primarily vehicles) with more-efficient equipment.
    Already, global demand is rising barely at all; this year perhaps not at all. Recently we have had years showing global demand increases of less than 1 percent. Remember, world crude demand fell 11 percent following the price spike of the early 1980s, and did not recover for a full 10 years. And then only when oil was cheapo again. If oil had stayed above $40 a barrel (adjusted for inflation), I doubt demand would have recovered.
    This time around? Our technology is so much better. EVs are coming to market! GM, Chrysler, and some sort of Buffett-China combo all say they will have EVs on the market by 2011.
    We may be seeing global Peak Demand for oil now, or maybe it was last year.
    For now, the price of oil is anywhere between $10 and $147 that speculators want to put it. Oil demand is famously inelastic in the short-run, meaning speculators can spook it around whenever they want. Above $147, we started to see immediate demand destruction (elasticity). I would say there is a ceiling at $150, although that ceiling may start to drop in years ahead, due to falling demand and better technology.
    And while you say $10-a-gallon gasoline doesn’t change much, in fact demand for crude from Europe has been falling, and is below 1970s levels. They went through Peak Demand a long time ago — while living standards have improved. The doomer vision is deeply flawed — people can live better, while using less oil.
    The price mechanism, in commodities markets, may work slowly, but in the end it works — demand slacks whenever oil gets too far above $60 a barrel.
    Okay, so you fall back on the Chindia scare story. Insatiable demand, even above $100 a barrel. But what if EVs become standard, and not ICEs? We could see demand from those nations actually go down, not up.
    My rough sense is that above $5 a gallon, EVs make commercial sense. There are onerous upfront costs, but those can be mitigated by financing. You pay more monthly in car payments, but save even more on gasoline. And, we can hope that EV upfront costs decrease, as we learn better how to build such cars. Nissan says they will bring to market a pure EV (no ICE to recharge) with a 200 mile range, and rapid recharge. Mercy!
    If successful, such an invention would crush world oil markets.
    Doomers snivel, “Yeah, how will you drive across country?”
    Easy. You rent a ICE for such a trip. But for 90 percent of your driving, you charge up at night, on 220v.
    Frankly, I think and even hope the day will come when most cities ban ICEs from urban cores. Imagine a city with clean air and quiet streets.
    Of course, as a matter of national security, our federal government might actually put heavy incentives in place for automakers to make EVs. We might actually want to take charge of our future. I know it seems hopeless now, and with Bush in office we believe that any future prezzy will also be feckless, inept, dim-witted and decadent. But maybe the next prezzy will actually try to look ahead.
    There is no way oil can go much above $100 on a sustained basis, let alone $250.
    Kine: I love your natural gas post. The TOD crowd is having a nervous breakdown trying to explain the surge in natural gas production.
    The price mechanism, and never bet against innovation in a free enterprise, well-capitalized society.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  39. RR-
    I just don’t see crude demand rising muchin the years ahead, unless prices crack. As you know, even at current price levels, crude demand is falling in the U.S.
    And falling even before most consumers and businesses have had a chance to replace equipment (primarily vehicles) with more-efficient equipment.
    Already, global demand is rising barely at all; this year perhaps not at all. Recently we have had years showing global demand increases of less than 1 percent. Remember, world crude demand fell 11 percent following the price spike of the early 1980s, and did not recover for a full 10 years. And then only when oil was cheapo again. If oil had stayed above $40 a barrel (adjusted for inflation), I doubt demand would have recovered.
    This time around? Our technology is so much better. EVs are coming to market! GM, Chrysler, and some sort of Buffett-China combo all say they will have EVs on the market by 2011.
    We may be seeing global Peak Demand for oil now, or maybe it was last year.
    For now, the price of oil is anywhere between $10 and $147 that speculators want to put it. Oil demand is famously inelastic in the short-run, meaning speculators can spook it around whenever they want. Above $147, we started to see immediate demand destruction (elasticity). I would say there is a ceiling at $150, although that ceiling may start to drop in years ahead, due to falling demand and better technology.
    And while you say $10-a-gallon gasoline doesn’t change much, in fact demand for crude from Europe has been falling, and is below 1970s levels. They went through Peak Demand a long time ago — while living standards have improved. The doomer vision is deeply flawed — people can live better, while using less oil.
    The price mechanism, in commodities markets, may work slowly, but in the end it works — demand slacks whenever oil gets too far above $60 a barrel.
    Okay, so you fall back on the Chindia scare story. Insatiable demand, even above $100 a barrel. But what if EVs become standard, and not ICEs? We could see demand from those nations actually go down, not up.
    My rough sense is that above $5 a gallon, EVs make commercial sense. There are onerous upfront costs, but those can be mitigated by financing. You pay more monthly in car payments, but save even more on gasoline. And, we can hope that EV upfront costs decrease, as we learn better how to build such cars. Nissan says they will bring to market a pure EV (no ICE to recharge) with a 200 mile range, and rapid recharge. Mercy!
    If successful, such an invention would crush world oil markets.
    Doomers snivel, “Yeah, how will you drive across country?”
    Easy. You rent a ICE for such a trip. But for 90 percent of your driving, you charge up at night, on 220v.
    Frankly, I think and even hope the day will come when most cities ban ICEs from urban cores. Imagine a city with clean air and quiet streets.
    Of course, as a matter of national security, our federal government might actually put heavy incentives in place for automakers to make EVs. We might actually want to take charge of our future. I know it seems hopeless now, and with Bush in office we believe that any future prezzy will also be feckless, inept, dim-witted and decadent. But maybe the next prezzy will actually try to look ahead.
    There is no way oil can go much above $100 on a sustained basis, let alone $250.
    Kine: I love your natural gas post. The TOD crowd is having a nervous breakdown trying to explain the surge in natural gas production.
    The price mechanism, and never bet against innovation in a free enterprise, well-capitalized society.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  40. RR-
    I just don’t see crude demand rising muchin the years ahead, unless prices crack. As you know, even at current price levels, crude demand is falling in the U.S.
    And falling even before most consumers and businesses have had a chance to replace equipment (primarily vehicles) with more-efficient equipment.
    Already, global demand is rising barely at all; this year perhaps not at all. Recently we have had years showing global demand increases of less than 1 percent. Remember, world crude demand fell 11 percent following the price spike of the early 1980s, and did not recover for a full 10 years. And then only when oil was cheapo again. If oil had stayed above $40 a barrel (adjusted for inflation), I doubt demand would have recovered.
    This time around? Our technology is so much better. EVs are coming to market! GM, Chrysler, and some sort of Buffett-China combo all say they will have EVs on the market by 2011.
    We may be seeing global Peak Demand for oil now, or maybe it was last year.
    For now, the price of oil is anywhere between $10 and $147 that speculators want to put it. Oil demand is famously inelastic in the short-run, meaning speculators can spook it around whenever they want. Above $147, we started to see immediate demand destruction (elasticity). I would say there is a ceiling at $150, although that ceiling may start to drop in years ahead, due to falling demand and better technology.
    And while you say $10-a-gallon gasoline doesn’t change much, in fact demand for crude from Europe has been falling, and is below 1970s levels. They went through Peak Demand a long time ago — while living standards have improved. The doomer vision is deeply flawed — people can live better, while using less oil.
    The price mechanism, in commodities markets, may work slowly, but in the end it works — demand slacks whenever oil gets too far above $60 a barrel.
    Okay, so you fall back on the Chindia scare story. Insatiable demand, even above $100 a barrel. But what if EVs become standard, and not ICEs? We could see demand from those nations actually go down, not up.
    My rough sense is that above $5 a gallon, EVs make commercial sense. There are onerous upfront costs, but those can be mitigated by financing. You pay more monthly in car payments, but save even more on gasoline. And, we can hope that EV upfront costs decrease, as we learn better how to build such cars. Nissan says they will bring to market a pure EV (no ICE to recharge) with a 200 mile range, and rapid recharge. Mercy!
    If successful, such an invention would crush world oil markets.
    Doomers snivel, “Yeah, how will you drive across country?”
    Easy. You rent a ICE for such a trip. But for 90 percent of your driving, you charge up at night, on 220v.
    Frankly, I think and even hope the day will come when most cities ban ICEs from urban cores. Imagine a city with clean air and quiet streets.
    Of course, as a matter of national security, our federal government might actually put heavy incentives in place for automakers to make EVs. We might actually want to take charge of our future. I know it seems hopeless now, and with Bush in office we believe that any future prezzy will also be feckless, inept, dim-witted and decadent. But maybe the next prezzy will actually try to look ahead.
    There is no way oil can go much above $100 on a sustained basis, let alone $250.
    Kine: I love your natural gas post. The TOD crowd is having a nervous breakdown trying to explain the surge in natural gas production.
    The price mechanism, and never bet against innovation in a free enterprise, well-capitalized society.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  41. RR-
    Oil at $250? When demand is cratering?

    Judy Chu, Ph.D., Chair of the California State Board of Equalization (BOE), today released gasoline consumption figures for June and complete figures for the second quarter of 2008. June gasoline consumption declined by 7.5 percent from the same month a year ago.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  42. RR-
    Oil at $250? When demand is cratering?

    Judy Chu, Ph.D., Chair of the California State Board of Equalization (BOE), today released gasoline consumption figures for June and complete figures for the second quarter of 2008. June gasoline consumption declined by 7.5 percent from the same month a year ago.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  43. RR-
    Oil at $250? When demand is cratering?

    Judy Chu, Ph.D., Chair of the California State Board of Equalization (BOE), today released gasoline consumption figures for June and complete figures for the second quarter of 2008. June gasoline consumption declined by 7.5 percent from the same month a year ago.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  44. RR-
    Oil at $250? When demand is cratering?

    Judy Chu, Ph.D., Chair of the California State Board of Equalization (BOE), today released gasoline consumption figures for June and complete figures for the second quarter of 2008. June gasoline consumption declined by 7.5 percent from the same month a year ago.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  45. RR-
    Oil at $250? When demand is cratering?

    Judy Chu, Ph.D., Chair of the California State Board of Equalization (BOE), today released gasoline consumption figures for June and complete figures for the second quarter of 2008. June gasoline consumption declined by 7.5 percent from the same month a year ago.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  46. RR-
    Oil at $250? When demand is cratering?

    Judy Chu, Ph.D., Chair of the California State Board of Equalization (BOE), today released gasoline consumption figures for June and complete figures for the second quarter of 2008. June gasoline consumption declined by 7.5 percent from the same month a year ago.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  47. RR-
    Oil at $250? When demand is cratering?

    Judy Chu, Ph.D., Chair of the California State Board of Equalization (BOE), today released gasoline consumption figures for June and complete figures for the second quarter of 2008. June gasoline consumption declined by 7.5 percent from the same month a year ago.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  48. RR-
    Oil at $250? When demand is cratering?

    Judy Chu, Ph.D., Chair of the California State Board of Equalization (BOE), today released gasoline consumption figures for June and complete figures for the second quarter of 2008. June gasoline consumption declined by 7.5 percent from the same month a year ago.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  49. Really interesting post — highly recommend a new paper by the Wall Street Journal reporter, Neil King, on the national security consequences of peak oil. You can find it at http://www.cnas.org/en/cms/?3385

    Comment by Sharon Burke | October 1, 2008

  50. Really interesting post — highly recommend a new paper by the Wall Street Journal reporter, Neil King, on the national security consequences of peak oil. You can find it at http://www.cnas.org/en/cms/?3385

    Comment by Sharon Burke | October 1, 2008

  51. Really interesting post — highly recommend a new paper by the Wall Street Journal reporter, Neil King, on the national security consequences of peak oil. You can find it at http://www.cnas.org/en/cms/?3385

    Comment by Sharon Burke | October 1, 2008

  52. Really interesting post — highly recommend a new paper by the Wall Street Journal reporter, Neil King, on the national security consequences of peak oil. You can find it at http://www.cnas.org/en/cms/?3385

    Comment by Sharon Burke | October 1, 2008

  53. Really interesting post — highly recommend a new paper by the Wall Street Journal reporter, Neil King, on the national security consequences of peak oil. You can find it at http://www.cnas.org/en/cms/?3385

    Comment by Sharon Burke | October 1, 2008

  54. Really interesting post — highly recommend a new paper by the Wall Street Journal reporter, Neil King, on the national security consequences of peak oil. You can find it at http://www.cnas.org/en/cms/?3385

    Comment by Sharon Burke | October 1, 2008

  55. Really interesting post — highly recommend a new paper by the Wall Street Journal reporter, Neil King, on the national security consequences of peak oil. You can find it at http://www.cnas.org/en/cms/?3385

    Comment by Sharon Burke | October 1, 2008

  56. Really interesting post — highly recommend a new paper by the Wall Street Journal reporter, Neil King, on the national security consequences of peak oil. You can find it at http://www.cnas.org/en/cms/?3385

    Comment by Sharon Burke | October 1, 2008

  57. Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot?

    I don’t think supply and demand have remained roughly even. The whole concept of my peak lite proposal is that demand has been growing faster than supply has been growing, putting upward pressure on prices and mimicking the impacts of peak oil.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  58. Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot?

    I don’t think supply and demand have remained roughly even. The whole concept of my peak lite proposal is that demand has been growing faster than supply has been growing, putting upward pressure on prices and mimicking the impacts of peak oil.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  59. Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot?

    I don’t think supply and demand have remained roughly even. The whole concept of my peak lite proposal is that demand has been growing faster than supply has been growing, putting upward pressure on prices and mimicking the impacts of peak oil.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  60. Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot?

    I don’t think supply and demand have remained roughly even. The whole concept of my peak lite proposal is that demand has been growing faster than supply has been growing, putting upward pressure on prices and mimicking the impacts of peak oil.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  61. Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot?

    I don’t think supply and demand have remained roughly even. The whole concept of my peak lite proposal is that demand has been growing faster than supply has been growing, putting upward pressure on prices and mimicking the impacts of peak oil.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  62. Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot?

    I don’t think supply and demand have remained roughly even. The whole concept of my peak lite proposal is that demand has been growing faster than supply has been growing, putting upward pressure on prices and mimicking the impacts of peak oil.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  63. Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot?

    I don’t think supply and demand have remained roughly even. The whole concept of my peak lite proposal is that demand has been growing faster than supply has been growing, putting upward pressure on prices and mimicking the impacts of peak oil.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  64. Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot?

    I don’t think supply and demand have remained roughly even. The whole concept of my peak lite proposal is that demand has been growing faster than supply has been growing, putting upward pressure on prices and mimicking the impacts of peak oil.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  65. Why haven’t high prices pushed europeans to alternatives?

    It has pushed them to significantly lower per capita consumption. Imagine if the U.S. only used half as much oil as we do.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  66. Why haven’t high prices pushed europeans to alternatives?

    It has pushed them to significantly lower per capita consumption. Imagine if the U.S. only used half as much oil as we do.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  67. Why haven’t high prices pushed europeans to alternatives?

    It has pushed them to significantly lower per capita consumption. Imagine if the U.S. only used half as much oil as we do.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  68. Why haven’t high prices pushed europeans to alternatives?

    It has pushed them to significantly lower per capita consumption. Imagine if the U.S. only used half as much oil as we do.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  69. Why haven’t high prices pushed europeans to alternatives?

    It has pushed them to significantly lower per capita consumption. Imagine if the U.S. only used half as much oil as we do.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  70. Why haven’t high prices pushed europeans to alternatives?

    It has pushed them to significantly lower per capita consumption. Imagine if the U.S. only used half as much oil as we do.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  71. Why haven’t high prices pushed europeans to alternatives?

    It has pushed them to significantly lower per capita consumption. Imagine if the U.S. only used half as much oil as we do.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  72. Why haven’t high prices pushed europeans to alternatives?

    It has pushed them to significantly lower per capita consumption. Imagine if the U.S. only used half as much oil as we do.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  73. Oil at $250? When demand is cratering?

    The U.S. is not the world, Benny. Worldwide demand continues to grow.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  74. Oil at $250? When demand is cratering?

    The U.S. is not the world, Benny. Worldwide demand continues to grow.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  75. Oil at $250? When demand is cratering?

    The U.S. is not the world, Benny. Worldwide demand continues to grow.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  76. Oil at $250? When demand is cratering?

    The U.S. is not the world, Benny. Worldwide demand continues to grow.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  77. Oil at $250? When demand is cratering?

    The U.S. is not the world, Benny. Worldwide demand continues to grow.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  78. Oil at $250? When demand is cratering?

    The U.S. is not the world, Benny. Worldwide demand continues to grow.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  79. Oil at $250? When demand is cratering?

    The U.S. is not the world, Benny. Worldwide demand continues to grow.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  80. Oil at $250? When demand is cratering?

    The U.S. is not the world, Benny. Worldwide demand continues to grow.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  81. Really interesting post — highly recommend a new paper by the Wall Street Journal reporter, Neil King, on the national security consequences of peak oil.

    I actually met Neil at the ASPO conference last week. I had spoken to him previously by phone when he had some ethanol questions. Thanks for the link.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  82. Really interesting post — highly recommend a new paper by the Wall Street Journal reporter, Neil King, on the national security consequences of peak oil.

    I actually met Neil at the ASPO conference last week. I had spoken to him previously by phone when he had some ethanol questions. Thanks for the link.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  83. Really interesting post — highly recommend a new paper by the Wall Street Journal reporter, Neil King, on the national security consequences of peak oil.

    I actually met Neil at the ASPO conference last week. I had spoken to him previously by phone when he had some ethanol questions. Thanks for the link.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  84. Really interesting post — highly recommend a new paper by the Wall Street Journal reporter, Neil King, on the national security consequences of peak oil.

    I actually met Neil at the ASPO conference last week. I had spoken to him previously by phone when he had some ethanol questions. Thanks for the link.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  85. Really interesting post — highly recommend a new paper by the Wall Street Journal reporter, Neil King, on the national security consequences of peak oil.

    I actually met Neil at the ASPO conference last week. I had spoken to him previously by phone when he had some ethanol questions. Thanks for the link.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  86. Really interesting post — highly recommend a new paper by the Wall Street Journal reporter, Neil King, on the national security consequences of peak oil.

    I actually met Neil at the ASPO conference last week. I had spoken to him previously by phone when he had some ethanol questions. Thanks for the link.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  87. Really interesting post — highly recommend a new paper by the Wall Street Journal reporter, Neil King, on the national security consequences of peak oil.

    I actually met Neil at the ASPO conference last week. I had spoken to him previously by phone when he had some ethanol questions. Thanks for the link.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  88. Really interesting post — highly recommend a new paper by the Wall Street Journal reporter, Neil King, on the national security consequences of peak oil.

    I actually met Neil at the ASPO conference last week. I had spoken to him previously by phone when he had some ethanol questions. Thanks for the link.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | October 1, 2008

  89. I used to believe it, but I really can’t see $250 for the near future. The “top 5 reasons” don’t seem so convincing now. The agenda for at least the next 5 years is recession.

    Comment by bc | October 1, 2008

  90. I used to believe it, but I really can’t see $250 for the near future. The “top 5 reasons” don’t seem so convincing now. The agenda for at least the next 5 years is recession.

    Comment by bc | October 1, 2008

  91. I used to believe it, but I really can’t see $250 for the near future. The “top 5 reasons” don’t seem so convincing now. The agenda for at least the next 5 years is recession.

    Comment by bc | October 1, 2008

  92. I used to believe it, but I really can’t see $250 for the near future. The “top 5 reasons” don’t seem so convincing now. The agenda for at least the next 5 years is recession.

    Comment by bc | October 1, 2008

  93. I used to believe it, but I really can’t see $250 for the near future. The “top 5 reasons” don’t seem so convincing now. The agenda for at least the next 5 years is recession.

    Comment by bc | October 1, 2008

  94. I used to believe it, but I really can’t see $250 for the near future. The “top 5 reasons” don’t seem so convincing now. The agenda for at least the next 5 years is recession.

    Comment by bc | October 1, 2008

  95. I used to believe it, but I really can’t see $250 for the near future. The “top 5 reasons” don’t seem so convincing now. The agenda for at least the next 5 years is recession.

    Comment by bc | October 1, 2008

  96. I used to believe it, but I really can’t see $250 for the near future. The “top 5 reasons” don’t seem so convincing now. The agenda for at least the next 5 years is recession.

    Comment by bc | October 1, 2008

  97. RR-
    According to the EIA, world demand will be up 0.8 percent in 2008 (and EIA has been estimating on the high side).
    Only a few years back, world demand was increasing at more than 3.0 percent a year, every year.
    It seems likely that if oil is sustained above $100 a barrel, world demand for fossil crude will slide in negative territory.
    Maybe we will be able to test that hypothesis in 2009 — the problem is, crude prices keep cracking down.
    You are right that Europeans use half the btus we do, per capita.
    Imagine the glut on oil markets if we migrate to Euro standards. Which we can.
    Indeed, with EVs, we can outdo the Europeans, if necessary.
    $250 a barrel is scaremongering, at a time when we could do without it.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  98. RR-
    According to the EIA, world demand will be up 0.8 percent in 2008 (and EIA has been estimating on the high side).
    Only a few years back, world demand was increasing at more than 3.0 percent a year, every year.
    It seems likely that if oil is sustained above $100 a barrel, world demand for fossil crude will slide in negative territory.
    Maybe we will be able to test that hypothesis in 2009 — the problem is, crude prices keep cracking down.
    You are right that Europeans use half the btus we do, per capita.
    Imagine the glut on oil markets if we migrate to Euro standards. Which we can.
    Indeed, with EVs, we can outdo the Europeans, if necessary.
    $250 a barrel is scaremongering, at a time when we could do without it.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  99. RR-
    According to the EIA, world demand will be up 0.8 percent in 2008 (and EIA has been estimating on the high side).
    Only a few years back, world demand was increasing at more than 3.0 percent a year, every year.
    It seems likely that if oil is sustained above $100 a barrel, world demand for fossil crude will slide in negative territory.
    Maybe we will be able to test that hypothesis in 2009 — the problem is, crude prices keep cracking down.
    You are right that Europeans use half the btus we do, per capita.
    Imagine the glut on oil markets if we migrate to Euro standards. Which we can.
    Indeed, with EVs, we can outdo the Europeans, if necessary.
    $250 a barrel is scaremongering, at a time when we could do without it.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  100. RR-
    According to the EIA, world demand will be up 0.8 percent in 2008 (and EIA has been estimating on the high side).
    Only a few years back, world demand was increasing at more than 3.0 percent a year, every year.
    It seems likely that if oil is sustained above $100 a barrel, world demand for fossil crude will slide in negative territory.
    Maybe we will be able to test that hypothesis in 2009 — the problem is, crude prices keep cracking down.
    You are right that Europeans use half the btus we do, per capita.
    Imagine the glut on oil markets if we migrate to Euro standards. Which we can.
    Indeed, with EVs, we can outdo the Europeans, if necessary.
    $250 a barrel is scaremongering, at a time when we could do without it.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  101. RR-
    According to the EIA, world demand will be up 0.8 percent in 2008 (and EIA has been estimating on the high side).
    Only a few years back, world demand was increasing at more than 3.0 percent a year, every year.
    It seems likely that if oil is sustained above $100 a barrel, world demand for fossil crude will slide in negative territory.
    Maybe we will be able to test that hypothesis in 2009 — the problem is, crude prices keep cracking down.
    You are right that Europeans use half the btus we do, per capita.
    Imagine the glut on oil markets if we migrate to Euro standards. Which we can.
    Indeed, with EVs, we can outdo the Europeans, if necessary.
    $250 a barrel is scaremongering, at a time when we could do without it.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  102. RR-
    According to the EIA, world demand will be up 0.8 percent in 2008 (and EIA has been estimating on the high side).
    Only a few years back, world demand was increasing at more than 3.0 percent a year, every year.
    It seems likely that if oil is sustained above $100 a barrel, world demand for fossil crude will slide in negative territory.
    Maybe we will be able to test that hypothesis in 2009 — the problem is, crude prices keep cracking down.
    You are right that Europeans use half the btus we do, per capita.
    Imagine the glut on oil markets if we migrate to Euro standards. Which we can.
    Indeed, with EVs, we can outdo the Europeans, if necessary.
    $250 a barrel is scaremongering, at a time when we could do without it.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  103. RR-
    According to the EIA, world demand will be up 0.8 percent in 2008 (and EIA has been estimating on the high side).
    Only a few years back, world demand was increasing at more than 3.0 percent a year, every year.
    It seems likely that if oil is sustained above $100 a barrel, world demand for fossil crude will slide in negative territory.
    Maybe we will be able to test that hypothesis in 2009 — the problem is, crude prices keep cracking down.
    You are right that Europeans use half the btus we do, per capita.
    Imagine the glut on oil markets if we migrate to Euro standards. Which we can.
    Indeed, with EVs, we can outdo the Europeans, if necessary.
    $250 a barrel is scaremongering, at a time when we could do without it.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  104. RR-
    According to the EIA, world demand will be up 0.8 percent in 2008 (and EIA has been estimating on the high side).
    Only a few years back, world demand was increasing at more than 3.0 percent a year, every year.
    It seems likely that if oil is sustained above $100 a barrel, world demand for fossil crude will slide in negative territory.
    Maybe we will be able to test that hypothesis in 2009 — the problem is, crude prices keep cracking down.
    You are right that Europeans use half the btus we do, per capita.
    Imagine the glut on oil markets if we migrate to Euro standards. Which we can.
    Indeed, with EVs, we can outdo the Europeans, if necessary.
    $250 a barrel is scaremongering, at a time when we could do without it.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 1, 2008

  105. EIA data shows that oil consumption in the first quarter of 2008 is slightly higher in first quarter 2007, so while the forecast was high, we might still end up with increased demand for 2008. Time will tell.

    Comment by clee | October 1, 2008

  106. EIA data shows that oil consumption in the first quarter of 2008 is slightly higher in first quarter 2007, so while the forecast was high, we might still end up with increased demand for 2008. Time will tell.

    Comment by clee | October 1, 2008

  107. EIA data shows that oil consumption in the first quarter of 2008 is slightly higher in first quarter 2007, so while the forecast was high, we might still end up with increased demand for 2008. Time will tell.

    Comment by clee | October 1, 2008

  108. EIA data shows that oil consumption in the first quarter of 2008 is slightly higher in first quarter 2007, so while the forecast was high, we might still end up with increased demand for 2008. Time will tell.

    Comment by clee | October 1, 2008

  109. EIA data shows that oil consumption in the first quarter of 2008 is slightly higher in first quarter 2007, so while the forecast was high, we might still end up with increased demand for 2008. Time will tell.

    Comment by clee | October 1, 2008

  110. EIA data shows that oil consumption in the first quarter of 2008 is slightly higher in first quarter 2007, so while the forecast was high, we might still end up with increased demand for 2008. Time will tell.

    Comment by clee | October 1, 2008

  111. EIA data shows that oil consumption in the first quarter of 2008 is slightly higher in first quarter 2007, so while the forecast was high, we might still end up with increased demand for 2008. Time will tell.

    Comment by clee | October 1, 2008

  112. EIA data shows that oil consumption in the first quarter of 2008 is slightly higher in first quarter 2007, so while the forecast was high, we might still end up with increased demand for 2008. Time will tell.

    Comment by clee | October 1, 2008

  113. We only went to $147 per barrel because of market manipulation. When OPEC added supply,prices dropped. Saudi Arabia claims they’re adding capacity. Whether or not that’s true,Iraq has the potential to be another Saudi Arabia. Their reserves are probably larger than KSA. We could be flirting with peak oil for years to come. In the meantime,companies like LS9 are working on bio-crude. That doesn’t mean we can’t see $250 or $500 crude five years,or even five days from now. We’ll pay whatever OPEC wants us to pay. Or maybe Iran blocks the Straight of Hormuz after Israel bombs their nuclear facilities. A suicide bomber could take out a Saudi port facility. Hell,any number of things could happen. All the more reason to lessen our dependence on the stuff.

    Comment by Maury | October 1, 2008

  114. We only went to $147 per barrel because of market manipulation. When OPEC added supply,prices dropped. Saudi Arabia claims they’re adding capacity. Whether or not that’s true,Iraq has the potential to be another Saudi Arabia. Their reserves are probably larger than KSA. We could be flirting with peak oil for years to come. In the meantime,companies like LS9 are working on bio-crude. That doesn’t mean we can’t see $250 or $500 crude five years,or even five days from now. We’ll pay whatever OPEC wants us to pay. Or maybe Iran blocks the Straight of Hormuz after Israel bombs their nuclear facilities. A suicide bomber could take out a Saudi port facility. Hell,any number of things could happen. All the more reason to lessen our dependence on the stuff.

    Comment by Maury | October 1, 2008

  115. We only went to $147 per barrel because of market manipulation. When OPEC added supply,prices dropped. Saudi Arabia claims they’re adding capacity. Whether or not that’s true,Iraq has the potential to be another Saudi Arabia. Their reserves are probably larger than KSA. We could be flirting with peak oil for years to come. In the meantime,companies like LS9 are working on bio-crude. That doesn’t mean we can’t see $250 or $500 crude five years,or even five days from now. We’ll pay whatever OPEC wants us to pay. Or maybe Iran blocks the Straight of Hormuz after Israel bombs their nuclear facilities. A suicide bomber could take out a Saudi port facility. Hell,any number of things could happen. All the more reason to lessen our dependence on the stuff.

    Comment by Maury | October 1, 2008

  116. We only went to $147 per barrel because of market manipulation. When OPEC added supply,prices dropped. Saudi Arabia claims they’re adding capacity. Whether or not that’s true,Iraq has the potential to be another Saudi Arabia. Their reserves are probably larger than KSA. We could be flirting with peak oil for years to come. In the meantime,companies like LS9 are working on bio-crude. That doesn’t mean we can’t see $250 or $500 crude five years,or even five days from now. We’ll pay whatever OPEC wants us to pay. Or maybe Iran blocks the Straight of Hormuz after Israel bombs their nuclear facilities. A suicide bomber could take out a Saudi port facility. Hell,any number of things could happen. All the more reason to lessen our dependence on the stuff.

    Comment by Maury | October 1, 2008

  117. We only went to $147 per barrel because of market manipulation. When OPEC added supply,prices dropped. Saudi Arabia claims they’re adding capacity. Whether or not that’s true,Iraq has the potential to be another Saudi Arabia. Their reserves are probably larger than KSA. We could be flirting with peak oil for years to come. In the meantime,companies like LS9 are working on bio-crude. That doesn’t mean we can’t see $250 or $500 crude five years,or even five days from now. We’ll pay whatever OPEC wants us to pay. Or maybe Iran blocks the Straight of Hormuz after Israel bombs their nuclear facilities. A suicide bomber could take out a Saudi port facility. Hell,any number of things could happen. All the more reason to lessen our dependence on the stuff.

    Comment by Maury | October 1, 2008

  118. We only went to $147 per barrel because of market manipulation. When OPEC added supply,prices dropped. Saudi Arabia claims they’re adding capacity. Whether or not that’s true,Iraq has the potential to be another Saudi Arabia. Their reserves are probably larger than KSA. We could be flirting with peak oil for years to come. In the meantime,companies like LS9 are working on bio-crude. That doesn’t mean we can’t see $250 or $500 crude five years,or even five days from now. We’ll pay whatever OPEC wants us to pay. Or maybe Iran blocks the Straight of Hormuz after Israel bombs their nuclear facilities. A suicide bomber could take out a Saudi port facility. Hell,any number of things could happen. All the more reason to lessen our dependence on the stuff.

    Comment by Maury | October 1, 2008

  119. We only went to $147 per barrel because of market manipulation. When OPEC added supply,prices dropped. Saudi Arabia claims they’re adding capacity. Whether or not that’s true,Iraq has the potential to be another Saudi Arabia. Their reserves are probably larger than KSA. We could be flirting with peak oil for years to come. In the meantime,companies like LS9 are working on bio-crude. That doesn’t mean we can’t see $250 or $500 crude five years,or even five days from now. We’ll pay whatever OPEC wants us to pay. Or maybe Iran blocks the Straight of Hormuz after Israel bombs their nuclear facilities. A suicide bomber could take out a Saudi port facility. Hell,any number of things could happen. All the more reason to lessen our dependence on the stuff.

    Comment by Maury | October 1, 2008

  120. We only went to $147 per barrel because of market manipulation. When OPEC added supply,prices dropped. Saudi Arabia claims they’re adding capacity. Whether or not that’s true,Iraq has the potential to be another Saudi Arabia. Their reserves are probably larger than KSA. We could be flirting with peak oil for years to come. In the meantime,companies like LS9 are working on bio-crude. That doesn’t mean we can’t see $250 or $500 crude five years,or even five days from now. We’ll pay whatever OPEC wants us to pay. Or maybe Iran blocks the Straight of Hormuz after Israel bombs their nuclear facilities. A suicide bomber could take out a Saudi port facility. Hell,any number of things could happen. All the more reason to lessen our dependence on the stuff.

    Comment by Maury | October 1, 2008

  121. Two years into your 5 year estimate there will be plug-in hybrids and several extended range electric vehicles for sale in large quantities from different suppliers.
    Three years into your 5 year estimate there will be large volume cellulosic ethanol production.
    Do we really even need to talk about years 4 and 5? Oil might spike once or twice but in 5 years it will be much lower than it is now.

    Comment by Keith | October 1, 2008

  122. Two years into your 5 year estimate there will be plug-in hybrids and several extended range electric vehicles for sale in large quantities from different suppliers.
    Three years into your 5 year estimate there will be large volume cellulosic ethanol production.
    Do we really even need to talk about years 4 and 5? Oil might spike once or twice but in 5 years it will be much lower than it is now.

    Comment by Keith | October 1, 2008

  123. Two years into your 5 year estimate there will be plug-in hybrids and several extended range electric vehicles for sale in large quantities from different suppliers.
    Three years into your 5 year estimate there will be large volume cellulosic ethanol production.
    Do we really even need to talk about years 4 and 5? Oil might spike once or twice but in 5 years it will be much lower than it is now.

    Comment by Keith | October 1, 2008

  124. Two years into your 5 year estimate there will be plug-in hybrids and several extended range electric vehicles for sale in large quantities from different suppliers.
    Three years into your 5 year estimate there will be large volume cellulosic ethanol production.
    Do we really even need to talk about years 4 and 5? Oil might spike once or twice but in 5 years it will be much lower than it is now.

    Comment by Keith | October 1, 2008

  125. Two years into your 5 year estimate there will be plug-in hybrids and several extended range electric vehicles for sale in large quantities from different suppliers.
    Three years into your 5 year estimate there will be large volume cellulosic ethanol production.
    Do we really even need to talk about years 4 and 5? Oil might spike once or twice but in 5 years it will be much lower than it is now.

    Comment by Keith | October 1, 2008

  126. Two years into your 5 year estimate there will be plug-in hybrids and several extended range electric vehicles for sale in large quantities from different suppliers.
    Three years into your 5 year estimate there will be large volume cellulosic ethanol production.
    Do we really even need to talk about years 4 and 5? Oil might spike once or twice but in 5 years it will be much lower than it is now.

    Comment by Keith | October 1, 2008

  127. Two years into your 5 year estimate there will be plug-in hybrids and several extended range electric vehicles for sale in large quantities from different suppliers.
    Three years into your 5 year estimate there will be large volume cellulosic ethanol production.
    Do we really even need to talk about years 4 and 5? Oil might spike once or twice but in 5 years it will be much lower than it is now.

    Comment by Keith | October 1, 2008

  128. Two years into your 5 year estimate there will be plug-in hybrids and several extended range electric vehicles for sale in large quantities from different suppliers.
    Three years into your 5 year estimate there will be large volume cellulosic ethanol production.
    Do we really even need to talk about years 4 and 5? Oil might spike once or twice but in 5 years it will be much lower than it is now.

    Comment by Keith | October 1, 2008

  129. We only went to $147 per barrel because of market manipulation.
    Right. And Santa Claus is bringing us more oil this Christmas.

    So where did the speculators go? Wall Street? Hank Paulson’s house?

    In the meantime, companies like LS9 are working on bio-crude.
    That’s about as relevant as saying my cousin is working on a replacement for oil in his garage, during his spare time. Don’t let the buzzwords (enzymes, GM organisms, etc, etc) fool you. This technology has the same chance of succeeding as cellulosic ethanol, with more expensive upfront costs.

    Benny, your faith in the EV to change the course of world history is certainly touching, but desperately out of touch with reality. There is currently not one (count them) commercially available EV. So no matter who says what, we all have to reserve judgment until such time as these things appear on the road.

    Oil prices over the next five years will depend mostly on the strength of the global economy: the stronger the global economy, the higher the prices.

    Y’all will be glad to know that Dubya is going his best to bring you low-low prices ASAP…

    Comment by Optimist | October 1, 2008

  130. We only went to $147 per barrel because of market manipulation.
    Right. And Santa Claus is bringing us more oil this Christmas.

    So where did the speculators go? Wall Street? Hank Paulson’s house?

    In the meantime, companies like LS9 are working on bio-crude.
    That’s about as relevant as saying my cousin is working on a replacement for oil in his garage, during his spare time. Don’t let the buzzwords (enzymes, GM organisms, etc, etc) fool you. This technology has the same chance of succeeding as cellulosic ethanol, with more expensive upfront costs.

    Benny, your faith in the EV to change the course of world history is certainly touching, but desperately out of touch with reality. There is currently not one (count them) commercially available EV. So no matter who says what, we all have to reserve judgment until such time as these things appear on the road.

    Oil prices over the next five years will depend mostly on the strength of the global economy: the stronger the global economy, the higher the prices.

    Y’all will be glad to know that Dubya is going his best to bring you low-low prices ASAP…

    Comment by Optimist | October 1, 2008

  131. We only went to $147 per barrel because of market manipulation.
    Right. And Santa Claus is bringing us more oil this Christmas.

    So where did the speculators go? Wall Street? Hank Paulson’s house?

    In the meantime, companies like LS9 are working on bio-crude.
    That’s about as relevant as saying my cousin is working on a replacement for oil in his garage, during his spare time. Don’t let the buzzwords (enzymes, GM organisms, etc, etc) fool you. This technology has the same chance of succeeding as cellulosic ethanol, with more expensive upfront costs.

    Benny, your faith in the EV to change the course of world history is certainly touching, but desperately out of touch with reality. There is currently not one (count them) commercially available EV. So no matter who says what, we all have to reserve judgment until such time as these things appear on the road.

    Oil prices over the next five years will depend mostly on the strength of the global economy: the stronger the global economy, the higher the prices.

    Y’all will be glad to know that Dubya is going his best to bring you low-low prices ASAP…

    Comment by Optimist | October 1, 2008

  132. We only went to $147 per barrel because of market manipulation.
    Right. And Santa Claus is bringing us more oil this Christmas.

    So where did the speculators go? Wall Street? Hank Paulson’s house?

    In the meantime, companies like LS9 are working on bio-crude.
    That’s about as relevant as saying my cousin is working on a replacement for oil in his garage, during his spare time. Don’t let the buzzwords (enzymes, GM organisms, etc, etc) fool you. This technology has the same chance of succeeding as cellulosic ethanol, with more expensive upfront costs.

    Benny, your faith in the EV to change the course of world history is certainly touching, but desperately out of touch with reality. There is currently not one (count them) commercially available EV. So no matter who says what, we all have to reserve judgment until such time as these things appear on the road.

    Oil prices over the next five years will depend mostly on the strength of the global economy: the stronger the global economy, the higher the prices.

    Y’all will be glad to know that Dubya is going his best to bring you low-low prices ASAP…

    Comment by Optimist | October 1, 2008

  133. We only went to $147 per barrel because of market manipulation.
    Right. And Santa Claus is bringing us more oil this Christmas.

    So where did the speculators go? Wall Street? Hank Paulson’s house?

    In the meantime, companies like LS9 are working on bio-crude.
    That’s about as relevant as saying my cousin is working on a replacement for oil in his garage, during his spare time. Don’t let the buzzwords (enzymes, GM organisms, etc, etc) fool you. This technology has the same chance of succeeding as cellulosic ethanol, with more expensive upfront costs.

    Benny, your faith in the EV to change the course of world history is certainly touching, but desperately out of touch with reality. There is currently not one (count them) commercially available EV. So no matter who says what, we all have to reserve judgment until such time as these things appear on the road.

    Oil prices over the next five years will depend mostly on the strength of the global economy: the stronger the global economy, the higher the prices.

    Y’all will be glad to know that Dubya is going his best to bring you low-low prices ASAP…

    Comment by Optimist | October 1, 2008

  134. We only went to $147 per barrel because of market manipulation.
    Right. And Santa Claus is bringing us more oil this Christmas.

    So where did the speculators go? Wall Street? Hank Paulson’s house?

    In the meantime, companies like LS9 are working on bio-crude.
    That’s about as relevant as saying my cousin is working on a replacement for oil in his garage, during his spare time. Don’t let the buzzwords (enzymes, GM organisms, etc, etc) fool you. This technology has the same chance of succeeding as cellulosic ethanol, with more expensive upfront costs.

    Benny, your faith in the EV to change the course of world history is certainly touching, but desperately out of touch with reality. There is currently not one (count them) commercially available EV. So no matter who says what, we all have to reserve judgment until such time as these things appear on the road.

    Oil prices over the next five years will depend mostly on the strength of the global economy: the stronger the global economy, the higher the prices.

    Y’all will be glad to know that Dubya is going his best to bring you low-low prices ASAP…

    Comment by Optimist | October 1, 2008

  135. We only went to $147 per barrel because of market manipulation.
    Right. And Santa Claus is bringing us more oil this Christmas.

    So where did the speculators go? Wall Street? Hank Paulson’s house?

    In the meantime, companies like LS9 are working on bio-crude.
    That’s about as relevant as saying my cousin is working on a replacement for oil in his garage, during his spare time. Don’t let the buzzwords (enzymes, GM organisms, etc, etc) fool you. This technology has the same chance of succeeding as cellulosic ethanol, with more expensive upfront costs.

    Benny, your faith in the EV to change the course of world history is certainly touching, but desperately out of touch with reality. There is currently not one (count them) commercially available EV. So no matter who says what, we all have to reserve judgment until such time as these things appear on the road.

    Oil prices over the next five years will depend mostly on the strength of the global economy: the stronger the global economy, the higher the prices.

    Y’all will be glad to know that Dubya is going his best to bring you low-low prices ASAP…

    Comment by Optimist | October 1, 2008

  136. We only went to $147 per barrel because of market manipulation.
    Right. And Santa Claus is bringing us more oil this Christmas.

    So where did the speculators go? Wall Street? Hank Paulson’s house?

    In the meantime, companies like LS9 are working on bio-crude.
    That’s about as relevant as saying my cousin is working on a replacement for oil in his garage, during his spare time. Don’t let the buzzwords (enzymes, GM organisms, etc, etc) fool you. This technology has the same chance of succeeding as cellulosic ethanol, with more expensive upfront costs.

    Benny, your faith in the EV to change the course of world history is certainly touching, but desperately out of touch with reality. There is currently not one (count them) commercially available EV. So no matter who says what, we all have to reserve judgment until such time as these things appear on the road.

    Oil prices over the next five years will depend mostly on the strength of the global economy: the stronger the global economy, the higher the prices.

    Y’all will be glad to know that Dubya is going his best to bring you low-low prices ASAP…

    Comment by Optimist | October 1, 2008

  137. If some new energy technology is developed (or even if the political class get serious about nuclear power), we could see the OPEC nations competing to get their oil to market before demand dries up, and the price may slump for a long period.

    I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil? To me, nuclear is only good if we have an electrified infrastructure. Only 3 percent of our electricity if generated from oil anyways I believe so I don’t see the connection. Maybe I’m wrong though.

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  138. If some new energy technology is developed (or even if the political class get serious about nuclear power), we could see the OPEC nations competing to get their oil to market before demand dries up, and the price may slump for a long period.

    I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil? To me, nuclear is only good if we have an electrified infrastructure. Only 3 percent of our electricity if generated from oil anyways I believe so I don’t see the connection. Maybe I’m wrong though.

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  139. If some new energy technology is developed (or even if the political class get serious about nuclear power), we could see the OPEC nations competing to get their oil to market before demand dries up, and the price may slump for a long period.

    I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil? To me, nuclear is only good if we have an electrified infrastructure. Only 3 percent of our electricity if generated from oil anyways I believe so I don’t see the connection. Maybe I’m wrong though.

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  140. If some new energy technology is developed (or even if the political class get serious about nuclear power), we could see the OPEC nations competing to get their oil to market before demand dries up, and the price may slump for a long period.

    I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil? To me, nuclear is only good if we have an electrified infrastructure. Only 3 percent of our electricity if generated from oil anyways I believe so I don’t see the connection. Maybe I’m wrong though.

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  141. If some new energy technology is developed (or even if the political class get serious about nuclear power), we could see the OPEC nations competing to get their oil to market before demand dries up, and the price may slump for a long period.

    I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil? To me, nuclear is only good if we have an electrified infrastructure. Only 3 percent of our electricity if generated from oil anyways I believe so I don’t see the connection. Maybe I’m wrong though.

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  142. If some new energy technology is developed (or even if the political class get serious about nuclear power), we could see the OPEC nations competing to get their oil to market before demand dries up, and the price may slump for a long period.

    I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil? To me, nuclear is only good if we have an electrified infrastructure. Only 3 percent of our electricity if generated from oil anyways I believe so I don’t see the connection. Maybe I’m wrong though.

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  143. If some new energy technology is developed (or even if the political class get serious about nuclear power), we could see the OPEC nations competing to get their oil to market before demand dries up, and the price may slump for a long period.

    I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil? To me, nuclear is only good if we have an electrified infrastructure. Only 3 percent of our electricity if generated from oil anyways I believe so I don’t see the connection. Maybe I’m wrong though.

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  144. If some new energy technology is developed (or even if the political class get serious about nuclear power), we could see the OPEC nations competing to get their oil to market before demand dries up, and the price may slump for a long period.

    I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil? To me, nuclear is only good if we have an electrified infrastructure. Only 3 percent of our electricity if generated from oil anyways I believe so I don’t see the connection. Maybe I’m wrong though.

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  145. “Right. And Santa Claus is bringing us more oil this Christmas.”

    Saudi Arabia added 500,000 bpd and prices started to drop. They could have upped production more,or done it sooner,and prices would be even lower. That’s no fairy tale Optimist. OPEC controls the price of crude.

    “That’s about as relevant as saying my cousin is working on a replacement for oil in his garage, during his spare time.”

    LS9 already demonstrated the ability to make bio-crude. They plan to go commercial in 3 years at a cost of $50 a barrel. I wish I could buy shares in the business.

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  146. “Right. And Santa Claus is bringing us more oil this Christmas.”

    Saudi Arabia added 500,000 bpd and prices started to drop. They could have upped production more,or done it sooner,and prices would be even lower. That’s no fairy tale Optimist. OPEC controls the price of crude.

    “That’s about as relevant as saying my cousin is working on a replacement for oil in his garage, during his spare time.”

    LS9 already demonstrated the ability to make bio-crude. They plan to go commercial in 3 years at a cost of $50 a barrel. I wish I could buy shares in the business.

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  147. “Right. And Santa Claus is bringing us more oil this Christmas.”

    Saudi Arabia added 500,000 bpd and prices started to drop. They could have upped production more,or done it sooner,and prices would be even lower. That’s no fairy tale Optimist. OPEC controls the price of crude.

    “That’s about as relevant as saying my cousin is working on a replacement for oil in his garage, during his spare time.”

    LS9 already demonstrated the ability to make bio-crude. They plan to go commercial in 3 years at a cost of $50 a barrel. I wish I could buy shares in the business.

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  148. “Right. And Santa Claus is bringing us more oil this Christmas.”

    Saudi Arabia added 500,000 bpd and prices started to drop. They could have upped production more,or done it sooner,and prices would be even lower. That’s no fairy tale Optimist. OPEC controls the price of crude.

    “That’s about as relevant as saying my cousin is working on a replacement for oil in his garage, during his spare time.”

    LS9 already demonstrated the ability to make bio-crude. They plan to go commercial in 3 years at a cost of $50 a barrel. I wish I could buy shares in the business.

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  149. “Right. And Santa Claus is bringing us more oil this Christmas.”

    Saudi Arabia added 500,000 bpd and prices started to drop. They could have upped production more,or done it sooner,and prices would be even lower. That’s no fairy tale Optimist. OPEC controls the price of crude.

    “That’s about as relevant as saying my cousin is working on a replacement for oil in his garage, during his spare time.”

    LS9 already demonstrated the ability to make bio-crude. They plan to go commercial in 3 years at a cost of $50 a barrel. I wish I could buy shares in the business.

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  150. “Right. And Santa Claus is bringing us more oil this Christmas.”

    Saudi Arabia added 500,000 bpd and prices started to drop. They could have upped production more,or done it sooner,and prices would be even lower. That’s no fairy tale Optimist. OPEC controls the price of crude.

    “That’s about as relevant as saying my cousin is working on a replacement for oil in his garage, during his spare time.”

    LS9 already demonstrated the ability to make bio-crude. They plan to go commercial in 3 years at a cost of $50 a barrel. I wish I could buy shares in the business.

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  151. “Right. And Santa Claus is bringing us more oil this Christmas.”

    Saudi Arabia added 500,000 bpd and prices started to drop. They could have upped production more,or done it sooner,and prices would be even lower. That’s no fairy tale Optimist. OPEC controls the price of crude.

    “That’s about as relevant as saying my cousin is working on a replacement for oil in his garage, during his spare time.”

    LS9 already demonstrated the ability to make bio-crude. They plan to go commercial in 3 years at a cost of $50 a barrel. I wish I could buy shares in the business.

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  152. “Right. And Santa Claus is bringing us more oil this Christmas.”

    Saudi Arabia added 500,000 bpd and prices started to drop. They could have upped production more,or done it sooner,and prices would be even lower. That’s no fairy tale Optimist. OPEC controls the price of crude.

    “That’s about as relevant as saying my cousin is working on a replacement for oil in his garage, during his spare time.”

    LS9 already demonstrated the ability to make bio-crude. They plan to go commercial in 3 years at a cost of $50 a barrel. I wish I could buy shares in the business.

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  153. Optimist: I do think the EV is a game changer. But forget about me — GM, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, the Buffett-China JV — some very serious players are all bringing EVs to market.
    Sure, they could all be wrong — but something clicked about a year ago. I strongly suspect they got the lithium batteries to work for real. With that hurdle surpassed, the rest is not easy, but is doable.
    Optimist, you have to explain why you think all the engineers in all these car companies are wrong, and that all the people financing those engineers are wrong too. That is possible, but why do you think that?
    Ti be sure, introduction will be slow, and it will take decades for fleets to turn over. But every year, global demand for oil will fall.
    The real problem is that crude oil prices will collapse, undermining the economics that make EVs viable..
    Does that really seem likely?

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 2, 2008

  154. Optimist: I do think the EV is a game changer. But forget about me — GM, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, the Buffett-China JV — some very serious players are all bringing EVs to market.
    Sure, they could all be wrong — but something clicked about a year ago. I strongly suspect they got the lithium batteries to work for real. With that hurdle surpassed, the rest is not easy, but is doable.
    Optimist, you have to explain why you think all the engineers in all these car companies are wrong, and that all the people financing those engineers are wrong too. That is possible, but why do you think that?
    Ti be sure, introduction will be slow, and it will take decades for fleets to turn over. But every year, global demand for oil will fall.
    The real problem is that crude oil prices will collapse, undermining the economics that make EVs viable..
    Does that really seem likely?

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 2, 2008

  155. Optimist: I do think the EV is a game changer. But forget about me — GM, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, the Buffett-China JV — some very serious players are all bringing EVs to market.
    Sure, they could all be wrong — but something clicked about a year ago. I strongly suspect they got the lithium batteries to work for real. With that hurdle surpassed, the rest is not easy, but is doable.
    Optimist, you have to explain why you think all the engineers in all these car companies are wrong, and that all the people financing those engineers are wrong too. That is possible, but why do you think that?
    Ti be sure, introduction will be slow, and it will take decades for fleets to turn over. But every year, global demand for oil will fall.
    The real problem is that crude oil prices will collapse, undermining the economics that make EVs viable..
    Does that really seem likely?

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 2, 2008

  156. Optimist: I do think the EV is a game changer. But forget about me — GM, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, the Buffett-China JV — some very serious players are all bringing EVs to market.
    Sure, they could all be wrong — but something clicked about a year ago. I strongly suspect they got the lithium batteries to work for real. With that hurdle surpassed, the rest is not easy, but is doable.
    Optimist, you have to explain why you think all the engineers in all these car companies are wrong, and that all the people financing those engineers are wrong too. That is possible, but why do you think that?
    Ti be sure, introduction will be slow, and it will take decades for fleets to turn over. But every year, global demand for oil will fall.
    The real problem is that crude oil prices will collapse, undermining the economics that make EVs viable..
    Does that really seem likely?

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 2, 2008

  157. Optimist: I do think the EV is a game changer. But forget about me — GM, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, the Buffett-China JV — some very serious players are all bringing EVs to market.
    Sure, they could all be wrong — but something clicked about a year ago. I strongly suspect they got the lithium batteries to work for real. With that hurdle surpassed, the rest is not easy, but is doable.
    Optimist, you have to explain why you think all the engineers in all these car companies are wrong, and that all the people financing those engineers are wrong too. That is possible, but why do you think that?
    Ti be sure, introduction will be slow, and it will take decades for fleets to turn over. But every year, global demand for oil will fall.
    The real problem is that crude oil prices will collapse, undermining the economics that make EVs viable..
    Does that really seem likely?

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 2, 2008

  158. Optimist: I do think the EV is a game changer. But forget about me — GM, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, the Buffett-China JV — some very serious players are all bringing EVs to market.
    Sure, they could all be wrong — but something clicked about a year ago. I strongly suspect they got the lithium batteries to work for real. With that hurdle surpassed, the rest is not easy, but is doable.
    Optimist, you have to explain why you think all the engineers in all these car companies are wrong, and that all the people financing those engineers are wrong too. That is possible, but why do you think that?
    Ti be sure, introduction will be slow, and it will take decades for fleets to turn over. But every year, global demand for oil will fall.
    The real problem is that crude oil prices will collapse, undermining the economics that make EVs viable..
    Does that really seem likely?

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 2, 2008

  159. Optimist: I do think the EV is a game changer. But forget about me — GM, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, the Buffett-China JV — some very serious players are all bringing EVs to market.
    Sure, they could all be wrong — but something clicked about a year ago. I strongly suspect they got the lithium batteries to work for real. With that hurdle surpassed, the rest is not easy, but is doable.
    Optimist, you have to explain why you think all the engineers in all these car companies are wrong, and that all the people financing those engineers are wrong too. That is possible, but why do you think that?
    Ti be sure, introduction will be slow, and it will take decades for fleets to turn over. But every year, global demand for oil will fall.
    The real problem is that crude oil prices will collapse, undermining the economics that make EVs viable..
    Does that really seem likely?

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 2, 2008

  160. Optimist: I do think the EV is a game changer. But forget about me — GM, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, the Buffett-China JV — some very serious players are all bringing EVs to market.
    Sure, they could all be wrong — but something clicked about a year ago. I strongly suspect they got the lithium batteries to work for real. With that hurdle surpassed, the rest is not easy, but is doable.
    Optimist, you have to explain why you think all the engineers in all these car companies are wrong, and that all the people financing those engineers are wrong too. That is possible, but why do you think that?
    Ti be sure, introduction will be slow, and it will take decades for fleets to turn over. But every year, global demand for oil will fall.
    The real problem is that crude oil prices will collapse, undermining the economics that make EVs viable..
    Does that really seem likely?

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 2, 2008

  161. We need an energy bill that encourages consumption

    GW Bush, Trenton NJ, 23 Sept 2002

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  162. We need an energy bill that encourages consumption

    GW Bush, Trenton NJ, 23 Sept 2002

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  163. We need an energy bill that encourages consumption

    GW Bush, Trenton NJ, 23 Sept 2002

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  164. We need an energy bill that encourages consumption

    GW Bush, Trenton NJ, 23 Sept 2002

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  165. We need an energy bill that encourages consumption

    GW Bush, Trenton NJ, 23 Sept 2002

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  166. We need an energy bill that encourages consumption

    GW Bush, Trenton NJ, 23 Sept 2002

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  167. We need an energy bill that encourages consumption

    GW Bush, Trenton NJ, 23 Sept 2002

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  168. We need an energy bill that encourages consumption

    GW Bush, Trenton NJ, 23 Sept 2002

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  169. I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil?

    Most direct connection comes as we build PHEVs. Of course it’ll take time to have many PHEVs, just as it will to build new nukes.

    Another direct connection is outside the US, especially 3rd world, where oil is still used to generate quite a bit of electricity. Indirect connection would be via a modified Pickens Plan — use nukes to displace NG then built CNG cars. IMHO the direct route makes more sense — use nukes (and wind, coal, etc.) to fuel our cars.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 2, 2008

  170. I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil?

    Most direct connection comes as we build PHEVs. Of course it’ll take time to have many PHEVs, just as it will to build new nukes.

    Another direct connection is outside the US, especially 3rd world, where oil is still used to generate quite a bit of electricity. Indirect connection would be via a modified Pickens Plan — use nukes to displace NG then built CNG cars. IMHO the direct route makes more sense — use nukes (and wind, coal, etc.) to fuel our cars.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 2, 2008

  171. I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil?

    Most direct connection comes as we build PHEVs. Of course it’ll take time to have many PHEVs, just as it will to build new nukes.

    Another direct connection is outside the US, especially 3rd world, where oil is still used to generate quite a bit of electricity. Indirect connection would be via a modified Pickens Plan — use nukes to displace NG then built CNG cars. IMHO the direct route makes more sense — use nukes (and wind, coal, etc.) to fuel our cars.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 2, 2008

  172. I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil?

    Most direct connection comes as we build PHEVs. Of course it’ll take time to have many PHEVs, just as it will to build new nukes.

    Another direct connection is outside the US, especially 3rd world, where oil is still used to generate quite a bit of electricity. Indirect connection would be via a modified Pickens Plan — use nukes to displace NG then built CNG cars. IMHO the direct route makes more sense — use nukes (and wind, coal, etc.) to fuel our cars.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 2, 2008

  173. I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil?

    Most direct connection comes as we build PHEVs. Of course it’ll take time to have many PHEVs, just as it will to build new nukes.

    Another direct connection is outside the US, especially 3rd world, where oil is still used to generate quite a bit of electricity. Indirect connection would be via a modified Pickens Plan — use nukes to displace NG then built CNG cars. IMHO the direct route makes more sense — use nukes (and wind, coal, etc.) to fuel our cars.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 2, 2008

  174. I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil?

    Most direct connection comes as we build PHEVs. Of course it’ll take time to have many PHEVs, just as it will to build new nukes.

    Another direct connection is outside the US, especially 3rd world, where oil is still used to generate quite a bit of electricity. Indirect connection would be via a modified Pickens Plan — use nukes to displace NG then built CNG cars. IMHO the direct route makes more sense — use nukes (and wind, coal, etc.) to fuel our cars.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 2, 2008

  175. I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil?

    Most direct connection comes as we build PHEVs. Of course it’ll take time to have many PHEVs, just as it will to build new nukes.

    Another direct connection is outside the US, especially 3rd world, where oil is still used to generate quite a bit of electricity. Indirect connection would be via a modified Pickens Plan — use nukes to displace NG then built CNG cars. IMHO the direct route makes more sense — use nukes (and wind, coal, etc.) to fuel our cars.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 2, 2008

  176. I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil?

    Most direct connection comes as we build PHEVs. Of course it’ll take time to have many PHEVs, just as it will to build new nukes.

    Another direct connection is outside the US, especially 3rd world, where oil is still used to generate quite a bit of electricity. Indirect connection would be via a modified Pickens Plan — use nukes to displace NG then built CNG cars. IMHO the direct route makes more sense — use nukes (and wind, coal, etc.) to fuel our cars.

    Comment by doggydogworld | October 2, 2008

  177. Gasoline inventories rose 900,000 barrels last week. Not bad,considering refinery utilization is only 72.3%. November gasoline is trading at $2.36 a gallon. We could be seeing sub $3 gas at the pump come election time.

    I’m with you on the EV and PHEV’s Benny. One company even announced a flying PHEV recently.

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  178. Gasoline inventories rose 900,000 barrels last week. Not bad,considering refinery utilization is only 72.3%. November gasoline is trading at $2.36 a gallon. We could be seeing sub $3 gas at the pump come election time.

    I’m with you on the EV and PHEV’s Benny. One company even announced a flying PHEV recently.

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  179. Gasoline inventories rose 900,000 barrels last week. Not bad,considering refinery utilization is only 72.3%. November gasoline is trading at $2.36 a gallon. We could be seeing sub $3 gas at the pump come election time.

    I’m with you on the EV and PHEV’s Benny. One company even announced a flying PHEV recently.

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  180. Gasoline inventories rose 900,000 barrels last week. Not bad,considering refinery utilization is only 72.3%. November gasoline is trading at $2.36 a gallon. We could be seeing sub $3 gas at the pump come election time.

    I’m with you on the EV and PHEV’s Benny. One company even announced a flying PHEV recently.

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  181. Gasoline inventories rose 900,000 barrels last week. Not bad,considering refinery utilization is only 72.3%. November gasoline is trading at $2.36 a gallon. We could be seeing sub $3 gas at the pump come election time.

    I’m with you on the EV and PHEV’s Benny. One company even announced a flying PHEV recently.

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  182. Gasoline inventories rose 900,000 barrels last week. Not bad,considering refinery utilization is only 72.3%. November gasoline is trading at $2.36 a gallon. We could be seeing sub $3 gas at the pump come election time.

    I’m with you on the EV and PHEV’s Benny. One company even announced a flying PHEV recently.

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  183. Gasoline inventories rose 900,000 barrels last week. Not bad,considering refinery utilization is only 72.3%. November gasoline is trading at $2.36 a gallon. We could be seeing sub $3 gas at the pump come election time.

    I’m with you on the EV and PHEV’s Benny. One company even announced a flying PHEV recently.

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  184. Gasoline inventories rose 900,000 barrels last week. Not bad,considering refinery utilization is only 72.3%. November gasoline is trading at $2.36 a gallon. We could be seeing sub $3 gas at the pump come election time.

    I’m with you on the EV and PHEV’s Benny. One company even announced a flying PHEV recently.

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  185. “OPEC controls the price of crude.”
    I think it would be more accurate to say OPEC influences the price of crude. OPEC was around in 1986 and 1998, when oil crashed to $10 or so. If oil went to $147 ONLY because of OPEC manipulation, then why has it dropped $50 from its peak? Why don’t they keep it at $147? Or better yet, why didn’t it go to $183?

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  186. “OPEC controls the price of crude.”
    I think it would be more accurate to say OPEC influences the price of crude. OPEC was around in 1986 and 1998, when oil crashed to $10 or so. If oil went to $147 ONLY because of OPEC manipulation, then why has it dropped $50 from its peak? Why don’t they keep it at $147? Or better yet, why didn’t it go to $183?

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  187. “OPEC controls the price of crude.”
    I think it would be more accurate to say OPEC influences the price of crude. OPEC was around in 1986 and 1998, when oil crashed to $10 or so. If oil went to $147 ONLY because of OPEC manipulation, then why has it dropped $50 from its peak? Why don’t they keep it at $147? Or better yet, why didn’t it go to $183?

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  188. “OPEC controls the price of crude.”
    I think it would be more accurate to say OPEC influences the price of crude. OPEC was around in 1986 and 1998, when oil crashed to $10 or so. If oil went to $147 ONLY because of OPEC manipulation, then why has it dropped $50 from its peak? Why don’t they keep it at $147? Or better yet, why didn’t it go to $183?

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  189. “OPEC controls the price of crude.”
    I think it would be more accurate to say OPEC influences the price of crude. OPEC was around in 1986 and 1998, when oil crashed to $10 or so. If oil went to $147 ONLY because of OPEC manipulation, then why has it dropped $50 from its peak? Why don’t they keep it at $147? Or better yet, why didn’t it go to $183?

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  190. “OPEC controls the price of crude.”
    I think it would be more accurate to say OPEC influences the price of crude. OPEC was around in 1986 and 1998, when oil crashed to $10 or so. If oil went to $147 ONLY because of OPEC manipulation, then why has it dropped $50 from its peak? Why don’t they keep it at $147? Or better yet, why didn’t it go to $183?

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  191. “OPEC controls the price of crude.”
    I think it would be more accurate to say OPEC influences the price of crude. OPEC was around in 1986 and 1998, when oil crashed to $10 or so. If oil went to $147 ONLY because of OPEC manipulation, then why has it dropped $50 from its peak? Why don’t they keep it at $147? Or better yet, why didn’t it go to $183?

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  192. “OPEC controls the price of crude.”
    I think it would be more accurate to say OPEC influences the price of crude. OPEC was around in 1986 and 1998, when oil crashed to $10 or so. If oil went to $147 ONLY because of OPEC manipulation, then why has it dropped $50 from its peak? Why don’t they keep it at $147? Or better yet, why didn’t it go to $183?

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  193. They have more control over prices today armchair. Fewer OPEC countries cheat on quotas. Maybe because fewer have the ability. Would you agree there IS spare capacity available? As long as that’s true,it’ll be possible to raise or lower the price of crude at will. And no,it’s not as quick as flipping a switch. And they can’t keep it at any fixed price. But they can keep it under $100 per barrel,or even under $40 a barrel if they chose. I’m no conspiracy nut. OPEC was formed with the express intent to fix crude prices.

    Benny,a company named Envia is converting F-150’s to PHEV’s that get 43MPG for $15,000. An F-150’s MSRP starts around $18,000. You think maybe Ford can sell a PHEV F-150 for under $50,000 some day?

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  194. They have more control over prices today armchair. Fewer OPEC countries cheat on quotas. Maybe because fewer have the ability. Would you agree there IS spare capacity available? As long as that’s true,it’ll be possible to raise or lower the price of crude at will. And no,it’s not as quick as flipping a switch. And they can’t keep it at any fixed price. But they can keep it under $100 per barrel,or even under $40 a barrel if they chose. I’m no conspiracy nut. OPEC was formed with the express intent to fix crude prices.

    Benny,a company named Envia is converting F-150’s to PHEV’s that get 43MPG for $15,000. An F-150’s MSRP starts around $18,000. You think maybe Ford can sell a PHEV F-150 for under $50,000 some day?

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  195. They have more control over prices today armchair. Fewer OPEC countries cheat on quotas. Maybe because fewer have the ability. Would you agree there IS spare capacity available? As long as that’s true,it’ll be possible to raise or lower the price of crude at will. And no,it’s not as quick as flipping a switch. And they can’t keep it at any fixed price. But they can keep it under $100 per barrel,or even under $40 a barrel if they chose. I’m no conspiracy nut. OPEC was formed with the express intent to fix crude prices.

    Benny,a company named Envia is converting F-150’s to PHEV’s that get 43MPG for $15,000. An F-150’s MSRP starts around $18,000. You think maybe Ford can sell a PHEV F-150 for under $50,000 some day?

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  196. They have more control over prices today armchair. Fewer OPEC countries cheat on quotas. Maybe because fewer have the ability. Would you agree there IS spare capacity available? As long as that’s true,it’ll be possible to raise or lower the price of crude at will. And no,it’s not as quick as flipping a switch. And they can’t keep it at any fixed price. But they can keep it under $100 per barrel,or even under $40 a barrel if they chose. I’m no conspiracy nut. OPEC was formed with the express intent to fix crude prices.

    Benny,a company named Envia is converting F-150’s to PHEV’s that get 43MPG for $15,000. An F-150’s MSRP starts around $18,000. You think maybe Ford can sell a PHEV F-150 for under $50,000 some day?

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  197. They have more control over prices today armchair. Fewer OPEC countries cheat on quotas. Maybe because fewer have the ability. Would you agree there IS spare capacity available? As long as that’s true,it’ll be possible to raise or lower the price of crude at will. And no,it’s not as quick as flipping a switch. And they can’t keep it at any fixed price. But they can keep it under $100 per barrel,or even under $40 a barrel if they chose. I’m no conspiracy nut. OPEC was formed with the express intent to fix crude prices.

    Benny,a company named Envia is converting F-150’s to PHEV’s that get 43MPG for $15,000. An F-150’s MSRP starts around $18,000. You think maybe Ford can sell a PHEV F-150 for under $50,000 some day?

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  198. They have more control over prices today armchair. Fewer OPEC countries cheat on quotas. Maybe because fewer have the ability. Would you agree there IS spare capacity available? As long as that’s true,it’ll be possible to raise or lower the price of crude at will. And no,it’s not as quick as flipping a switch. And they can’t keep it at any fixed price. But they can keep it under $100 per barrel,or even under $40 a barrel if they chose. I’m no conspiracy nut. OPEC was formed with the express intent to fix crude prices.

    Benny,a company named Envia is converting F-150’s to PHEV’s that get 43MPG for $15,000. An F-150’s MSRP starts around $18,000. You think maybe Ford can sell a PHEV F-150 for under $50,000 some day?

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  199. They have more control over prices today armchair. Fewer OPEC countries cheat on quotas. Maybe because fewer have the ability. Would you agree there IS spare capacity available? As long as that’s true,it’ll be possible to raise or lower the price of crude at will. And no,it’s not as quick as flipping a switch. And they can’t keep it at any fixed price. But they can keep it under $100 per barrel,or even under $40 a barrel if they chose. I’m no conspiracy nut. OPEC was formed with the express intent to fix crude prices.

    Benny,a company named Envia is converting F-150’s to PHEV’s that get 43MPG for $15,000. An F-150’s MSRP starts around $18,000. You think maybe Ford can sell a PHEV F-150 for under $50,000 some day?

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  200. They have more control over prices today armchair. Fewer OPEC countries cheat on quotas. Maybe because fewer have the ability. Would you agree there IS spare capacity available? As long as that’s true,it’ll be possible to raise or lower the price of crude at will. And no,it’s not as quick as flipping a switch. And they can’t keep it at any fixed price. But they can keep it under $100 per barrel,or even under $40 a barrel if they chose. I’m no conspiracy nut. OPEC was formed with the express intent to fix crude prices.

    Benny,a company named Envia is converting F-150’s to PHEV’s that get 43MPG for $15,000. An F-150’s MSRP starts around $18,000. You think maybe Ford can sell a PHEV F-150 for under $50,000 some day?

    Comment by Maury | October 2, 2008

  201. Recently an insurance company nearly wind up….

    A bank is nearly bankrupt……

    Who fault?

    The top management of the Public listed company ( belong to “public” ) salary should be tied a portion of it to the shares price ( IPO or ave 5 years )…. so when the shares price drop, it don’t just penalise the investors, but those who don’t take care of the company…..If this rule is pass on, without any need of further regulation, all industries ( as long as it is public listed ) will be self regulated……

    Sign a petition to your favourite president candidate, congress member again and ask for their views to comment on this, and what regulations they are going to raise for implementation…..If you agree on my point, please share with many people as possible….

    http://remindmyselfinstock.blogspot.com/

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  202. Recently an insurance company nearly wind up….

    A bank is nearly bankrupt……

    Who fault?

    The top management of the Public listed company ( belong to “public” ) salary should be tied a portion of it to the shares price ( IPO or ave 5 years )…. so when the shares price drop, it don’t just penalise the investors, but those who don’t take care of the company…..If this rule is pass on, without any need of further regulation, all industries ( as long as it is public listed ) will be self regulated……

    Sign a petition to your favourite president candidate, congress member again and ask for their views to comment on this, and what regulations they are going to raise for implementation…..If you agree on my point, please share with many people as possible….

    http://remindmyselfinstock.blogspot.com/

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  203. Recently an insurance company nearly wind up….

    A bank is nearly bankrupt……

    Who fault?

    The top management of the Public listed company ( belong to “public” ) salary should be tied a portion of it to the shares price ( IPO or ave 5 years )…. so when the shares price drop, it don’t just penalise the investors, but those who don’t take care of the company…..If this rule is pass on, without any need of further regulation, all industries ( as long as it is public listed ) will be self regulated……

    Sign a petition to your favourite president candidate, congress member again and ask for their views to comment on this, and what regulations they are going to raise for implementation…..If you agree on my point, please share with many people as possible….

    http://remindmyselfinstock.blogspot.com/

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  204. Recently an insurance company nearly wind up….

    A bank is nearly bankrupt……

    Who fault?

    The top management of the Public listed company ( belong to “public” ) salary should be tied a portion of it to the shares price ( IPO or ave 5 years )…. so when the shares price drop, it don’t just penalise the investors, but those who don’t take care of the company…..If this rule is pass on, without any need of further regulation, all industries ( as long as it is public listed ) will be self regulated……

    Sign a petition to your favourite president candidate, congress member again and ask for their views to comment on this, and what regulations they are going to raise for implementation…..If you agree on my point, please share with many people as possible….

    http://remindmyselfinstock.blogspot.com/

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  205. Recently an insurance company nearly wind up….

    A bank is nearly bankrupt……

    Who fault?

    The top management of the Public listed company ( belong to “public” ) salary should be tied a portion of it to the shares price ( IPO or ave 5 years )…. so when the shares price drop, it don’t just penalise the investors, but those who don’t take care of the company…..If this rule is pass on, without any need of further regulation, all industries ( as long as it is public listed ) will be self regulated……

    Sign a petition to your favourite president candidate, congress member again and ask for their views to comment on this, and what regulations they are going to raise for implementation…..If you agree on my point, please share with many people as possible….

    http://remindmyselfinstock.blogspot.com/

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  206. Recently an insurance company nearly wind up….

    A bank is nearly bankrupt……

    Who fault?

    The top management of the Public listed company ( belong to “public” ) salary should be tied a portion of it to the shares price ( IPO or ave 5 years )…. so when the shares price drop, it don’t just penalise the investors, but those who don’t take care of the company…..If this rule is pass on, without any need of further regulation, all industries ( as long as it is public listed ) will be self regulated……

    Sign a petition to your favourite president candidate, congress member again and ask for their views to comment on this, and what regulations they are going to raise for implementation…..If you agree on my point, please share with many people as possible….

    http://remindmyselfinstock.blogspot.com/

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  207. Recently an insurance company nearly wind up….

    A bank is nearly bankrupt……

    Who fault?

    The top management of the Public listed company ( belong to “public” ) salary should be tied a portion of it to the shares price ( IPO or ave 5 years )…. so when the shares price drop, it don’t just penalise the investors, but those who don’t take care of the company…..If this rule is pass on, without any need of further regulation, all industries ( as long as it is public listed ) will be self regulated……

    Sign a petition to your favourite president candidate, congress member again and ask for their views to comment on this, and what regulations they are going to raise for implementation…..If you agree on my point, please share with many people as possible….

    http://remindmyselfinstock.blogspot.com/

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  208. Recently an insurance company nearly wind up….

    A bank is nearly bankrupt……

    Who fault?

    The top management of the Public listed company ( belong to “public” ) salary should be tied a portion of it to the shares price ( IPO or ave 5 years )…. so when the shares price drop, it don’t just penalise the investors, but those who don’t take care of the company…..If this rule is pass on, without any need of further regulation, all industries ( as long as it is public listed ) will be self regulated……

    Sign a petition to your favourite president candidate, congress member again and ask for their views to comment on this, and what regulations they are going to raise for implementation…..If you agree on my point, please share with many people as possible….

    http://remindmyselfinstock.blogspot.com/

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  209. Maury-
    If your figs are correct, they could do it for $33,000.

    Actaully, that is where the first real market for EVs will be: Cargo vans and pick-up truckls. Work vehicles that put on a lot of miles.
    These trucks get low mpgs, but have to go to work. An EV makes a lot of sense. I know cabinet-makers getting 12 mpg with their trucks, but they have to drive to wherever they are doing an installtion. And EV-truck makes economic sense.

    The GM Volt I wonder about. For now, a smaller, high mpg care “beats” the GM Volt as an option, moneywise.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 2, 2008

  210. Maury-
    If your figs are correct, they could do it for $33,000.

    Actaully, that is where the first real market for EVs will be: Cargo vans and pick-up truckls. Work vehicles that put on a lot of miles.
    These trucks get low mpgs, but have to go to work. An EV makes a lot of sense. I know cabinet-makers getting 12 mpg with their trucks, but they have to drive to wherever they are doing an installtion. And EV-truck makes economic sense.

    The GM Volt I wonder about. For now, a smaller, high mpg care “beats” the GM Volt as an option, moneywise.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 2, 2008

  211. Maury-
    If your figs are correct, they could do it for $33,000.

    Actaully, that is where the first real market for EVs will be: Cargo vans and pick-up truckls. Work vehicles that put on a lot of miles.
    These trucks get low mpgs, but have to go to work. An EV makes a lot of sense. I know cabinet-makers getting 12 mpg with their trucks, but they have to drive to wherever they are doing an installtion. And EV-truck makes economic sense.

    The GM Volt I wonder about. For now, a smaller, high mpg care “beats” the GM Volt as an option, moneywise.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 2, 2008

  212. Maury-
    If your figs are correct, they could do it for $33,000.

    Actaully, that is where the first real market for EVs will be: Cargo vans and pick-up truckls. Work vehicles that put on a lot of miles.
    These trucks get low mpgs, but have to go to work. An EV makes a lot of sense. I know cabinet-makers getting 12 mpg with their trucks, but they have to drive to wherever they are doing an installtion. And EV-truck makes economic sense.

    The GM Volt I wonder about. For now, a smaller, high mpg care “beats” the GM Volt as an option, moneywise.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 2, 2008

  213. Maury-
    If your figs are correct, they could do it for $33,000.

    Actaully, that is where the first real market for EVs will be: Cargo vans and pick-up truckls. Work vehicles that put on a lot of miles.
    These trucks get low mpgs, but have to go to work. An EV makes a lot of sense. I know cabinet-makers getting 12 mpg with their trucks, but they have to drive to wherever they are doing an installtion. And EV-truck makes economic sense.

    The GM Volt I wonder about. For now, a smaller, high mpg care “beats” the GM Volt as an option, moneywise.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 2, 2008

  214. Maury-
    If your figs are correct, they could do it for $33,000.

    Actaully, that is where the first real market for EVs will be: Cargo vans and pick-up truckls. Work vehicles that put on a lot of miles.
    These trucks get low mpgs, but have to go to work. An EV makes a lot of sense. I know cabinet-makers getting 12 mpg with their trucks, but they have to drive to wherever they are doing an installtion. And EV-truck makes economic sense.

    The GM Volt I wonder about. For now, a smaller, high mpg care “beats” the GM Volt as an option, moneywise.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 2, 2008

  215. Maury-
    If your figs are correct, they could do it for $33,000.

    Actaully, that is where the first real market for EVs will be: Cargo vans and pick-up truckls. Work vehicles that put on a lot of miles.
    These trucks get low mpgs, but have to go to work. An EV makes a lot of sense. I know cabinet-makers getting 12 mpg with their trucks, but they have to drive to wherever they are doing an installtion. And EV-truck makes economic sense.

    The GM Volt I wonder about. For now, a smaller, high mpg care “beats” the GM Volt as an option, moneywise.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 2, 2008

  216. Maury-
    If your figs are correct, they could do it for $33,000.

    Actaully, that is where the first real market for EVs will be: Cargo vans and pick-up truckls. Work vehicles that put on a lot of miles.
    These trucks get low mpgs, but have to go to work. An EV makes a lot of sense. I know cabinet-makers getting 12 mpg with their trucks, but they have to drive to wherever they are doing an installtion. And EV-truck makes economic sense.

    The GM Volt I wonder about. For now, a smaller, high mpg care “beats” the GM Volt as an option, moneywise.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | October 2, 2008

  217. Saudi Arabia added 500,000 bpd and prices started to drop. They could have upped production more,or done it sooner,and prices would be even lower. That’s no fairy tale Optimist. OPEC controls the price of crude.
    That’s a bit of an oversimplification. Let me put it this way: demand sets the price of crude. $15/bbl was a courtesy of the Asian Tiger economies tripping over their tails.

    OPEC likes you to believe that they are in full control, that they can just open a spigot and voila out comes more oil. You may want to study how foolish Dubya has looked for believing the same…

    As the man says, Opec influences the price of oil. But if demand takes off, OPEC has no control over what happens next.

    LS9 already demonstrated the ability to make bio-crude. They plan to go commercial in 3 years at a cost of $50 a barrel. I wish I could buy shares in the business.
    Oh, as RR would point out, companies makes these claims all the time. You may want to review TDP: The Next Big Thing. Making claims about what you have done in the lab is simply premature. There is long (and torturous) path from the lab to reality. Wake me up when they start selling product at what should by then be a very nice profit.

    I do think the EV is a game changer. But forget about me — GM, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, the Buffett-China JV — some very serious players are all bringing EVs to market.
    Doesn’t prove anything. GM, BMW and Honda are making hydrogen cars for crying out loud. This is greenwashing, i.e. showmanship, while you continue to do business as usual. Keep the greens quiet/happy/off your back.

    Sure EVs may take off. What 5% of new vehicle sales by 2020? If you don’t believe me, note that GM says they will be building a mere 200,000 Volts in the first five years. Yeah, 40,000 cars a year will change the world!

    EVs are still too limited to be a practical vehicle for most people. So it will be a third car for currect two car households. How many of those can afford $40,000 for a third car?

    Of course, EVs might eventually change the automotive landscape (“Look grandpa Benny!”). But to hold your breath, or act as if it is inevitable would be extremely foolish. And that includes people favorable to the idea, like RR…

    I’m with you on the EV and PHEV’s Benny. One company even announced a flying PHEV recently.
    Seriously, guys! What with battery weight being what it is? How far can you fly? 100 yards to merge into traffic? I bet you’ll see a flying pig before you’ll see one of those…

    Actaully, that is where the first real market for EVs will be: Cargo vans and pick-up truckls.
    Yeah, right. Until you have to take a load up a steep hill with the battery depleted…

    Comment by Optimist | October 2, 2008

  218. Saudi Arabia added 500,000 bpd and prices started to drop. They could have upped production more,or done it sooner,and prices would be even lower. That’s no fairy tale Optimist. OPEC controls the price of crude.
    That’s a bit of an oversimplification. Let me put it this way: demand sets the price of crude. $15/bbl was a courtesy of the Asian Tiger economies tripping over their tails.

    OPEC likes you to believe that they are in full control, that they can just open a spigot and voila out comes more oil. You may want to study how foolish Dubya has looked for believing the same…

    As the man says, Opec influences the price of oil. But if demand takes off, OPEC has no control over what happens next.

    LS9 already demonstrated the ability to make bio-crude. They plan to go commercial in 3 years at a cost of $50 a barrel. I wish I could buy shares in the business.
    Oh, as RR would point out, companies makes these claims all the time. You may want to review TDP: The Next Big Thing. Making claims about what you have done in the lab is simply premature. There is long (and torturous) path from the lab to reality. Wake me up when they start selling product at what should by then be a very nice profit.

    I do think the EV is a game changer. But forget about me — GM, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, the Buffett-China JV — some very serious players are all bringing EVs to market.
    Doesn’t prove anything. GM, BMW and Honda are making hydrogen cars for crying out loud. This is greenwashing, i.e. showmanship, while you continue to do business as usual. Keep the greens quiet/happy/off your back.

    Sure EVs may take off. What 5% of new vehicle sales by 2020? If you don’t believe me, note that GM says they will be building a mere 200,000 Volts in the first five years. Yeah, 40,000 cars a year will change the world!

    EVs are still too limited to be a practical vehicle for most people. So it will be a third car for currect two car households. How many of those can afford $40,000 for a third car?

    Of course, EVs might eventually change the automotive landscape (“Look grandpa Benny!”). But to hold your breath, or act as if it is inevitable would be extremely foolish. And that includes people favorable to the idea, like RR…

    I’m with you on the EV and PHEV’s Benny. One company even announced a flying PHEV recently.
    Seriously, guys! What with battery weight being what it is? How far can you fly? 100 yards to merge into traffic? I bet you’ll see a flying pig before you’ll see one of those…

    Actaully, that is where the first real market for EVs will be: Cargo vans and pick-up truckls.
    Yeah, right. Until you have to take a load up a steep hill with the battery depleted…

    Comment by Optimist | October 2, 2008

  219. Saudi Arabia added 500,000 bpd and prices started to drop. They could have upped production more,or done it sooner,and prices would be even lower. That’s no fairy tale Optimist. OPEC controls the price of crude.
    That’s a bit of an oversimplification. Let me put it this way: demand sets the price of crude. $15/bbl was a courtesy of the Asian Tiger economies tripping over their tails.

    OPEC likes you to believe that they are in full control, that they can just open a spigot and voila out comes more oil. You may want to study how foolish Dubya has looked for believing the same…

    As the man says, Opec influences the price of oil. But if demand takes off, OPEC has no control over what happens next.

    LS9 already demonstrated the ability to make bio-crude. They plan to go commercial in 3 years at a cost of $50 a barrel. I wish I could buy shares in the business.
    Oh, as RR would point out, companies makes these claims all the time. You may want to review TDP: The Next Big Thing. Making claims about what you have done in the lab is simply premature. There is long (and torturous) path from the lab to reality. Wake me up when they start selling product at what should by then be a very nice profit.

    I do think the EV is a game changer. But forget about me — GM, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, the Buffett-China JV — some very serious players are all bringing EVs to market.
    Doesn’t prove anything. GM, BMW and Honda are making hydrogen cars for crying out loud. This is greenwashing, i.e. showmanship, while you continue to do business as usual. Keep the greens quiet/happy/off your back.

    Sure EVs may take off. What 5% of new vehicle sales by 2020? If you don’t believe me, note that GM says they will be building a mere 200,000 Volts in the first five years. Yeah, 40,000 cars a year will change the world!

    EVs are still too limited to be a practical vehicle for most people. So it will be a third car for currect two car households. How many of those can afford $40,000 for a third car?

    Of course, EVs might eventually change the automotive landscape (“Look grandpa Benny!”). But to hold your breath, or act as if it is inevitable would be extremely foolish. And that includes people favorable to the idea, like RR…

    I’m with you on the EV and PHEV’s Benny. One company even announced a flying PHEV recently.
    Seriously, guys! What with battery weight being what it is? How far can you fly? 100 yards to merge into traffic? I bet you’ll see a flying pig before you’ll see one of those…

    Actaully, that is where the first real market for EVs will be: Cargo vans and pick-up truckls.
    Yeah, right. Until you have to take a load up a steep hill with the battery depleted…

    Comment by Optimist | October 2, 2008

  220. Saudi Arabia added 500,000 bpd and prices started to drop. They could have upped production more,or done it sooner,and prices would be even lower. That’s no fairy tale Optimist. OPEC controls the price of crude.
    That’s a bit of an oversimplification. Let me put it this way: demand sets the price of crude. $15/bbl was a courtesy of the Asian Tiger economies tripping over their tails.

    OPEC likes you to believe that they are in full control, that they can just open a spigot and voila out comes more oil. You may want to study how foolish Dubya has looked for believing the same…

    As the man says, Opec influences the price of oil. But if demand takes off, OPEC has no control over what happens next.

    LS9 already demonstrated the ability to make bio-crude. They plan to go commercial in 3 years at a cost of $50 a barrel. I wish I could buy shares in the business.
    Oh, as RR would point out, companies makes these claims all the time. You may want to review TDP: The Next Big Thing. Making claims about what you have done in the lab is simply premature. There is long (and torturous) path from the lab to reality. Wake me up when they start selling product at what should by then be a very nice profit.

    I do think the EV is a game changer. But forget about me — GM, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, the Buffett-China JV — some very serious players are all bringing EVs to market.
    Doesn’t prove anything. GM, BMW and Honda are making hydrogen cars for crying out loud. This is greenwashing, i.e. showmanship, while you continue to do business as usual. Keep the greens quiet/happy/off your back.

    Sure EVs may take off. What 5% of new vehicle sales by 2020? If you don’t believe me, note that GM says they will be building a mere 200,000 Volts in the first five years. Yeah, 40,000 cars a year will change the world!

    EVs are still too limited to be a practical vehicle for most people. So it will be a third car for currect two car households. How many of those can afford $40,000 for a third car?

    Of course, EVs might eventually change the automotive landscape (“Look grandpa Benny!”). But to hold your breath, or act as if it is inevitable would be extremely foolish. And that includes people favorable to the idea, like RR…

    I’m with you on the EV and PHEV’s Benny. One company even announced a flying PHEV recently.
    Seriously, guys! What with battery weight being what it is? How far can you fly? 100 yards to merge into traffic? I bet you’ll see a flying pig before you’ll see one of those…

    Actaully, that is where the first real market for EVs will be: Cargo vans and pick-up truckls.
    Yeah, right. Until you have to take a load up a steep hill with the battery depleted…

    Comment by Optimist | October 2, 2008

  221. Saudi Arabia added 500,000 bpd and prices started to drop. They could have upped production more,or done it sooner,and prices would be even lower. That’s no fairy tale Optimist. OPEC controls the price of crude.
    That’s a bit of an oversimplification. Let me put it this way: demand sets the price of crude. $15/bbl was a courtesy of the Asian Tiger economies tripping over their tails.

    OPEC likes you to believe that they are in full control, that they can just open a spigot and voila out comes more oil. You may want to study how foolish Dubya has looked for believing the same…

    As the man says, Opec influences the price of oil. But if demand takes off, OPEC has no control over what happens next.

    LS9 already demonstrated the ability to make bio-crude. They plan to go commercial in 3 years at a cost of $50 a barrel. I wish I could buy shares in the business.
    Oh, as RR would point out, companies makes these claims all the time. You may want to review TDP: The Next Big Thing. Making claims about what you have done in the lab is simply premature. There is long (and torturous) path from the lab to reality. Wake me up when they start selling product at what should by then be a very nice profit.

    I do think the EV is a game changer. But forget about me — GM, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, the Buffett-China JV — some very serious players are all bringing EVs to market.
    Doesn’t prove anything. GM, BMW and Honda are making hydrogen cars for crying out loud. This is greenwashing, i.e. showmanship, while you continue to do business as usual. Keep the greens quiet/happy/off your back.

    Sure EVs may take off. What 5% of new vehicle sales by 2020? If you don’t believe me, note that GM says they will be building a mere 200,000 Volts in the first five years. Yeah, 40,000 cars a year will change the world!

    EVs are still too limited to be a practical vehicle for most people. So it will be a third car for currect two car households. How many of those can afford $40,000 for a third car?

    Of course, EVs might eventually change the automotive landscape (“Look grandpa Benny!”). But to hold your breath, or act as if it is inevitable would be extremely foolish. And that includes people favorable to the idea, like RR…

    I’m with you on the EV and PHEV’s Benny. One company even announced a flying PHEV recently.
    Seriously, guys! What with battery weight being what it is? How far can you fly? 100 yards to merge into traffic? I bet you’ll see a flying pig before you’ll see one of those…

    Actaully, that is where the first real market for EVs will be: Cargo vans and pick-up truckls.
    Yeah, right. Until you have to take a load up a steep hill with the battery depleted…

    Comment by Optimist | October 2, 2008

  222. Saudi Arabia added 500,000 bpd and prices started to drop. They could have upped production more,or done it sooner,and prices would be even lower. That’s no fairy tale Optimist. OPEC controls the price of crude.
    That’s a bit of an oversimplification. Let me put it this way: demand sets the price of crude. $15/bbl was a courtesy of the Asian Tiger economies tripping over their tails.

    OPEC likes you to believe that they are in full control, that they can just open a spigot and voila out comes more oil. You may want to study how foolish Dubya has looked for believing the same…

    As the man says, Opec influences the price of oil. But if demand takes off, OPEC has no control over what happens next.

    LS9 already demonstrated the ability to make bio-crude. They plan to go commercial in 3 years at a cost of $50 a barrel. I wish I could buy shares in the business.
    Oh, as RR would point out, companies makes these claims all the time. You may want to review TDP: The Next Big Thing. Making claims about what you have done in the lab is simply premature. There is long (and torturous) path from the lab to reality. Wake me up when they start selling product at what should by then be a very nice profit.

    I do think the EV is a game changer. But forget about me — GM, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, the Buffett-China JV — some very serious players are all bringing EVs to market.
    Doesn’t prove anything. GM, BMW and Honda are making hydrogen cars for crying out loud. This is greenwashing, i.e. showmanship, while you continue to do business as usual. Keep the greens quiet/happy/off your back.

    Sure EVs may take off. What 5% of new vehicle sales by 2020? If you don’t believe me, note that GM says they will be building a mere 200,000 Volts in the first five years. Yeah, 40,000 cars a year will change the world!

    EVs are still too limited to be a practical vehicle for most people. So it will be a third car for currect two car households. How many of those can afford $40,000 for a third car?

    Of course, EVs might eventually change the automotive landscape (“Look grandpa Benny!”). But to hold your breath, or act as if it is inevitable would be extremely foolish. And that includes people favorable to the idea, like RR…

    I’m with you on the EV and PHEV’s Benny. One company even announced a flying PHEV recently.
    Seriously, guys! What with battery weight being what it is? How far can you fly? 100 yards to merge into traffic? I bet you’ll see a flying pig before you’ll see one of those…

    Actaully, that is where the first real market for EVs will be: Cargo vans and pick-up truckls.
    Yeah, right. Until you have to take a load up a steep hill with the battery depleted…

    Comment by Optimist | October 2, 2008

  223. Saudi Arabia added 500,000 bpd and prices started to drop. They could have upped production more,or done it sooner,and prices would be even lower. That’s no fairy tale Optimist. OPEC controls the price of crude.
    That’s a bit of an oversimplification. Let me put it this way: demand sets the price of crude. $15/bbl was a courtesy of the Asian Tiger economies tripping over their tails.

    OPEC likes you to believe that they are in full control, that they can just open a spigot and voila out comes more oil. You may want to study how foolish Dubya has looked for believing the same…

    As the man says, Opec influences the price of oil. But if demand takes off, OPEC has no control over what happens next.

    LS9 already demonstrated the ability to make bio-crude. They plan to go commercial in 3 years at a cost of $50 a barrel. I wish I could buy shares in the business.
    Oh, as RR would point out, companies makes these claims all the time. You may want to review TDP: The Next Big Thing. Making claims about what you have done in the lab is simply premature. There is long (and torturous) path from the lab to reality. Wake me up when they start selling product at what should by then be a very nice profit.

    I do think the EV is a game changer. But forget about me — GM, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, the Buffett-China JV — some very serious players are all bringing EVs to market.
    Doesn’t prove anything. GM, BMW and Honda are making hydrogen cars for crying out loud. This is greenwashing, i.e. showmanship, while you continue to do business as usual. Keep the greens quiet/happy/off your back.

    Sure EVs may take off. What 5% of new vehicle sales by 2020? If you don’t believe me, note that GM says they will be building a mere 200,000 Volts in the first five years. Yeah, 40,000 cars a year will change the world!

    EVs are still too limited to be a practical vehicle for most people. So it will be a third car for currect two car households. How many of those can afford $40,000 for a third car?

    Of course, EVs might eventually change the automotive landscape (“Look grandpa Benny!”). But to hold your breath, or act as if it is inevitable would be extremely foolish. And that includes people favorable to the idea, like RR…

    I’m with you on the EV and PHEV’s Benny. One company even announced a flying PHEV recently.
    Seriously, guys! What with battery weight being what it is? How far can you fly? 100 yards to merge into traffic? I bet you’ll see a flying pig before you’ll see one of those…

    Actaully, that is where the first real market for EVs will be: Cargo vans and pick-up truckls.
    Yeah, right. Until you have to take a load up a steep hill with the battery depleted…

    Comment by Optimist | October 2, 2008

  224. Saudi Arabia added 500,000 bpd and prices started to drop. They could have upped production more,or done it sooner,and prices would be even lower. That’s no fairy tale Optimist. OPEC controls the price of crude.
    That’s a bit of an oversimplification. Let me put it this way: demand sets the price of crude. $15/bbl was a courtesy of the Asian Tiger economies tripping over their tails.

    OPEC likes you to believe that they are in full control, that they can just open a spigot and voila out comes more oil. You may want to study how foolish Dubya has looked for believing the same…

    As the man says, Opec influences the price of oil. But if demand takes off, OPEC has no control over what happens next.

    LS9 already demonstrated the ability to make bio-crude. They plan to go commercial in 3 years at a cost of $50 a barrel. I wish I could buy shares in the business.
    Oh, as RR would point out, companies makes these claims all the time. You may want to review TDP: The Next Big Thing. Making claims about what you have done in the lab is simply premature. There is long (and torturous) path from the lab to reality. Wake me up when they start selling product at what should by then be a very nice profit.

    I do think the EV is a game changer. But forget about me — GM, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, the Buffett-China JV — some very serious players are all bringing EVs to market.
    Doesn’t prove anything. GM, BMW and Honda are making hydrogen cars for crying out loud. This is greenwashing, i.e. showmanship, while you continue to do business as usual. Keep the greens quiet/happy/off your back.

    Sure EVs may take off. What 5% of new vehicle sales by 2020? If you don’t believe me, note that GM says they will be building a mere 200,000 Volts in the first five years. Yeah, 40,000 cars a year will change the world!

    EVs are still too limited to be a practical vehicle for most people. So it will be a third car for currect two car households. How many of those can afford $40,000 for a third car?

    Of course, EVs might eventually change the automotive landscape (“Look grandpa Benny!”). But to hold your breath, or act as if it is inevitable would be extremely foolish. And that includes people favorable to the idea, like RR…

    I’m with you on the EV and PHEV’s Benny. One company even announced a flying PHEV recently.
    Seriously, guys! What with battery weight being what it is? How far can you fly? 100 yards to merge into traffic? I bet you’ll see a flying pig before you’ll see one of those…

    Actaully, that is where the first real market for EVs will be: Cargo vans and pick-up truckls.
    Yeah, right. Until you have to take a load up a steep hill with the battery depleted…

    Comment by Optimist | October 2, 2008

  225. Saudi Arabia added 500,000 bpd and prices started to drop. They could have upped production more,or done it sooner,and prices would be even lower. That’s no fairy tale Optimist. OPEC controls the price of crude.
    That’s a bit of an oversimplification. Let me put it this way: demand sets the price of crude. $15/bbl was a courtesy of the Asian Tiger economies tripping over their tails.

    OPEC likes you to believe that they are in full control, that they can just open a spigot and voila out comes more oil. You may want to study how foolish Dubya has looked for believing the same…

    As the man says, Opec influences the price of oil. But if demand takes off, OPEC has no control over what happens next.

    LS9 already demonstrated the ability to make bio-crude. They plan to go commercial in 3 years at a cost of $50 a barrel. I wish I could buy shares in the business.
    Oh, as RR would point out, companies makes these claims all the time. You may want to review TDP: The Next Big Thing. Making claims about what you have done in the lab is simply premature. There is long (and torturous) path from the lab to reality. Wake me up when they start selling product at what should by then be a very nice profit.

    I do think the EV is a game changer. But forget about me — GM, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, the Buffett-China JV — some very serious players are all bringing EVs to market.
    Doesn’t prove anything. GM, BMW and Honda are making hydrogen cars for crying out loud. This is greenwashing, i.e. showmanship, while you continue to do business as usual. Keep the greens quiet/happy/off your back.

    Sure EVs may take off. What 5% of new vehicle sales by 2020? If you don’t believe me, note that GM says they will be building a mere 200,000 Volts in the first five years. Yeah, 40,000 cars a year will change the world!

    EVs are still too limited to be a practical vehicle for most people. So it will be a third car for currect two car households. How many of those can afford $40,000 for a third car?

    Of course, EVs might eventually change the automotive landscape (“Look grandpa Benny!”). But to hold your breath, or act as if it is inevitable would be extremely foolish. And that includes people favorable to the idea, like RR…

    I’m with you on the EV and PHEV’s Benny. One company even announced a flying PHEV recently.
    Seriously, guys! What with battery weight being what it is? How far can you fly? 100 yards to merge into traffic? I bet you’ll see a flying pig before you’ll see one of those…

    Actaully, that is where the first real market for EVs will be: Cargo vans and pick-up truckls.
    Yeah, right. Until you have to take a load up a steep hill with the battery depleted…

    Comment by Optimist | October 2, 2008

  226. Maury,

    From January to June 2007, OPEC production held steady at about 35 mmbopd. During that period, WTI went from $54 to $67.

    For the next 12 months, OPEC production increased gradually to about 37 mmbopd. During that period, WTI rose from $74 to $134.

    OPEC production increased by 600,000 bopd from October to December, 2007. WTI rose correspondingly from $86 to $92.

    I think the turning point for oil prices was when Bernanke and OPEC both announced a projected fall in demand, in the same week. Price behavior in the past 18 months were all about market psychology and the weak dollar, in my opinion. OPEC took a back seat.

    Additionally, we can look at oil prices from 1986 through 2003, and see that apart from a few bumps price stayed pretty close to $20 for 17 years. Why no manipulation for so long?

    How much spare capacity is available is the $64,000 question. But OPEC has always had spare capacity. What’s different in 2007/2008? Why didn’t they do this in 2004 for example? Or 1993? It seems they coincidentally picked the same period marked by a rapid fall of the dollar and a rapid increase in global demand.

    But yes, I’m sure OPEC could turn on the taps and flood the world with oil, driving prices to the low double digits if they really put their minds to it. In the long run though, is that really a good thing? A nice economic shot in the arm, for the west, but It would greatly increase demand, significantly slow the development of alternative energy, and devastate the western oil industry. In 5-10 years, I wonder what our percentage of imports would be? A case of being careful what you wish for.

    So I think a higher price is ultimately a good thing. Whether that higher price should be $60 or $90 or $140, I don’t know. I think the lower end of that range would probably be sustainable for western production and alternative energy development. We’d probably start seeing some damage as we get below $50. I think OPEC was starting to see damage in the form of demand weakening above $140.

    So I agree with RR on this one. We’re now in a weak-ish period for prices (relatively speaking) stemming from a downturn in the global economy. But business cycles will go back up, and the background rise in demand from the developing world will be with us for a long time. Marginal supply costs will continue to go up.

    Additionally, the US financial crisis and the volume of dollars being thrown about to fix the problem suggests to me that we may be in for a long decline in the dollar’s value.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  227. Maury,

    From January to June 2007, OPEC production held steady at about 35 mmbopd. During that period, WTI went from $54 to $67.

    For the next 12 months, OPEC production increased gradually to about 37 mmbopd. During that period, WTI rose from $74 to $134.

    OPEC production increased by 600,000 bopd from October to December, 2007. WTI rose correspondingly from $86 to $92.

    I think the turning point for oil prices was when Bernanke and OPEC both announced a projected fall in demand, in the same week. Price behavior in the past 18 months were all about market psychology and the weak dollar, in my opinion. OPEC took a back seat.

    Additionally, we can look at oil prices from 1986 through 2003, and see that apart from a few bumps price stayed pretty close to $20 for 17 years. Why no manipulation for so long?

    How much spare capacity is available is the $64,000 question. But OPEC has always had spare capacity. What’s different in 2007/2008? Why didn’t they do this in 2004 for example? Or 1993? It seems they coincidentally picked the same period marked by a rapid fall of the dollar and a rapid increase in global demand.

    But yes, I’m sure OPEC could turn on the taps and flood the world with oil, driving prices to the low double digits if they really put their minds to it. In the long run though, is that really a good thing? A nice economic shot in the arm, for the west, but It would greatly increase demand, significantly slow the development of alternative energy, and devastate the western oil industry. In 5-10 years, I wonder what our percentage of imports would be? A case of being careful what you wish for.

    So I think a higher price is ultimately a good thing. Whether that higher price should be $60 or $90 or $140, I don’t know. I think the lower end of that range would probably be sustainable for western production and alternative energy development. We’d probably start seeing some damage as we get below $50. I think OPEC was starting to see damage in the form of demand weakening above $140.

    So I agree with RR on this one. We’re now in a weak-ish period for prices (relatively speaking) stemming from a downturn in the global economy. But business cycles will go back up, and the background rise in demand from the developing world will be with us for a long time. Marginal supply costs will continue to go up.

    Additionally, the US financial crisis and the volume of dollars being thrown about to fix the problem suggests to me that we may be in for a long decline in the dollar’s value.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  228. Maury,

    From January to June 2007, OPEC production held steady at about 35 mmbopd. During that period, WTI went from $54 to $67.

    For the next 12 months, OPEC production increased gradually to about 37 mmbopd. During that period, WTI rose from $74 to $134.

    OPEC production increased by 600,000 bopd from October to December, 2007. WTI rose correspondingly from $86 to $92.

    I think the turning point for oil prices was when Bernanke and OPEC both announced a projected fall in demand, in the same week. Price behavior in the past 18 months were all about market psychology and the weak dollar, in my opinion. OPEC took a back seat.

    Additionally, we can look at oil prices from 1986 through 2003, and see that apart from a few bumps price stayed pretty close to $20 for 17 years. Why no manipulation for so long?

    How much spare capacity is available is the $64,000 question. But OPEC has always had spare capacity. What’s different in 2007/2008? Why didn’t they do this in 2004 for example? Or 1993? It seems they coincidentally picked the same period marked by a rapid fall of the dollar and a rapid increase in global demand.

    But yes, I’m sure OPEC could turn on the taps and flood the world with oil, driving prices to the low double digits if they really put their minds to it. In the long run though, is that really a good thing? A nice economic shot in the arm, for the west, but It would greatly increase demand, significantly slow the development of alternative energy, and devastate the western oil industry. In 5-10 years, I wonder what our percentage of imports would be? A case of being careful what you wish for.

    So I think a higher price is ultimately a good thing. Whether that higher price should be $60 or $90 or $140, I don’t know. I think the lower end of that range would probably be sustainable for western production and alternative energy development. We’d probably start seeing some damage as we get below $50. I think OPEC was starting to see damage in the form of demand weakening above $140.

    So I agree with RR on this one. We’re now in a weak-ish period for prices (relatively speaking) stemming from a downturn in the global economy. But business cycles will go back up, and the background rise in demand from the developing world will be with us for a long time. Marginal supply costs will continue to go up.

    Additionally, the US financial crisis and the volume of dollars being thrown about to fix the problem suggests to me that we may be in for a long decline in the dollar’s value.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  229. Maury,

    From January to June 2007, OPEC production held steady at about 35 mmbopd. During that period, WTI went from $54 to $67.

    For the next 12 months, OPEC production increased gradually to about 37 mmbopd. During that period, WTI rose from $74 to $134.

    OPEC production increased by 600,000 bopd from October to December, 2007. WTI rose correspondingly from $86 to $92.

    I think the turning point for oil prices was when Bernanke and OPEC both announced a projected fall in demand, in the same week. Price behavior in the past 18 months were all about market psychology and the weak dollar, in my opinion. OPEC took a back seat.

    Additionally, we can look at oil prices from 1986 through 2003, and see that apart from a few bumps price stayed pretty close to $20 for 17 years. Why no manipulation for so long?

    How much spare capacity is available is the $64,000 question. But OPEC has always had spare capacity. What’s different in 2007/2008? Why didn’t they do this in 2004 for example? Or 1993? It seems they coincidentally picked the same period marked by a rapid fall of the dollar and a rapid increase in global demand.

    But yes, I’m sure OPEC could turn on the taps and flood the world with oil, driving prices to the low double digits if they really put their minds to it. In the long run though, is that really a good thing? A nice economic shot in the arm, for the west, but It would greatly increase demand, significantly slow the development of alternative energy, and devastate the western oil industry. In 5-10 years, I wonder what our percentage of imports would be? A case of being careful what you wish for.

    So I think a higher price is ultimately a good thing. Whether that higher price should be $60 or $90 or $140, I don’t know. I think the lower end of that range would probably be sustainable for western production and alternative energy development. We’d probably start seeing some damage as we get below $50. I think OPEC was starting to see damage in the form of demand weakening above $140.

    So I agree with RR on this one. We’re now in a weak-ish period for prices (relatively speaking) stemming from a downturn in the global economy. But business cycles will go back up, and the background rise in demand from the developing world will be with us for a long time. Marginal supply costs will continue to go up.

    Additionally, the US financial crisis and the volume of dollars being thrown about to fix the problem suggests to me that we may be in for a long decline in the dollar’s value.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  230. Maury,

    From January to June 2007, OPEC production held steady at about 35 mmbopd. During that period, WTI went from $54 to $67.

    For the next 12 months, OPEC production increased gradually to about 37 mmbopd. During that period, WTI rose from $74 to $134.

    OPEC production increased by 600,000 bopd from October to December, 2007. WTI rose correspondingly from $86 to $92.

    I think the turning point for oil prices was when Bernanke and OPEC both announced a projected fall in demand, in the same week. Price behavior in the past 18 months were all about market psychology and the weak dollar, in my opinion. OPEC took a back seat.

    Additionally, we can look at oil prices from 1986 through 2003, and see that apart from a few bumps price stayed pretty close to $20 for 17 years. Why no manipulation for so long?

    How much spare capacity is available is the $64,000 question. But OPEC has always had spare capacity. What’s different in 2007/2008? Why didn’t they do this in 2004 for example? Or 1993? It seems they coincidentally picked the same period marked by a rapid fall of the dollar and a rapid increase in global demand.

    But yes, I’m sure OPEC could turn on the taps and flood the world with oil, driving prices to the low double digits if they really put their minds to it. In the long run though, is that really a good thing? A nice economic shot in the arm, for the west, but It would greatly increase demand, significantly slow the development of alternative energy, and devastate the western oil industry. In 5-10 years, I wonder what our percentage of imports would be? A case of being careful what you wish for.

    So I think a higher price is ultimately a good thing. Whether that higher price should be $60 or $90 or $140, I don’t know. I think the lower end of that range would probably be sustainable for western production and alternative energy development. We’d probably start seeing some damage as we get below $50. I think OPEC was starting to see damage in the form of demand weakening above $140.

    So I agree with RR on this one. We’re now in a weak-ish period for prices (relatively speaking) stemming from a downturn in the global economy. But business cycles will go back up, and the background rise in demand from the developing world will be with us for a long time. Marginal supply costs will continue to go up.

    Additionally, the US financial crisis and the volume of dollars being thrown about to fix the problem suggests to me that we may be in for a long decline in the dollar’s value.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  231. Maury,

    From January to June 2007, OPEC production held steady at about 35 mmbopd. During that period, WTI went from $54 to $67.

    For the next 12 months, OPEC production increased gradually to about 37 mmbopd. During that period, WTI rose from $74 to $134.

    OPEC production increased by 600,000 bopd from October to December, 2007. WTI rose correspondingly from $86 to $92.

    I think the turning point for oil prices was when Bernanke and OPEC both announced a projected fall in demand, in the same week. Price behavior in the past 18 months were all about market psychology and the weak dollar, in my opinion. OPEC took a back seat.

    Additionally, we can look at oil prices from 1986 through 2003, and see that apart from a few bumps price stayed pretty close to $20 for 17 years. Why no manipulation for so long?

    How much spare capacity is available is the $64,000 question. But OPEC has always had spare capacity. What’s different in 2007/2008? Why didn’t they do this in 2004 for example? Or 1993? It seems they coincidentally picked the same period marked by a rapid fall of the dollar and a rapid increase in global demand.

    But yes, I’m sure OPEC could turn on the taps and flood the world with oil, driving prices to the low double digits if they really put their minds to it. In the long run though, is that really a good thing? A nice economic shot in the arm, for the west, but It would greatly increase demand, significantly slow the development of alternative energy, and devastate the western oil industry. In 5-10 years, I wonder what our percentage of imports would be? A case of being careful what you wish for.

    So I think a higher price is ultimately a good thing. Whether that higher price should be $60 or $90 or $140, I don’t know. I think the lower end of that range would probably be sustainable for western production and alternative energy development. We’d probably start seeing some damage as we get below $50. I think OPEC was starting to see damage in the form of demand weakening above $140.

    So I agree with RR on this one. We’re now in a weak-ish period for prices (relatively speaking) stemming from a downturn in the global economy. But business cycles will go back up, and the background rise in demand from the developing world will be with us for a long time. Marginal supply costs will continue to go up.

    Additionally, the US financial crisis and the volume of dollars being thrown about to fix the problem suggests to me that we may be in for a long decline in the dollar’s value.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  232. Maury,

    From January to June 2007, OPEC production held steady at about 35 mmbopd. During that period, WTI went from $54 to $67.

    For the next 12 months, OPEC production increased gradually to about 37 mmbopd. During that period, WTI rose from $74 to $134.

    OPEC production increased by 600,000 bopd from October to December, 2007. WTI rose correspondingly from $86 to $92.

    I think the turning point for oil prices was when Bernanke and OPEC both announced a projected fall in demand, in the same week. Price behavior in the past 18 months were all about market psychology and the weak dollar, in my opinion. OPEC took a back seat.

    Additionally, we can look at oil prices from 1986 through 2003, and see that apart from a few bumps price stayed pretty close to $20 for 17 years. Why no manipulation for so long?

    How much spare capacity is available is the $64,000 question. But OPEC has always had spare capacity. What’s different in 2007/2008? Why didn’t they do this in 2004 for example? Or 1993? It seems they coincidentally picked the same period marked by a rapid fall of the dollar and a rapid increase in global demand.

    But yes, I’m sure OPEC could turn on the taps and flood the world with oil, driving prices to the low double digits if they really put their minds to it. In the long run though, is that really a good thing? A nice economic shot in the arm, for the west, but It would greatly increase demand, significantly slow the development of alternative energy, and devastate the western oil industry. In 5-10 years, I wonder what our percentage of imports would be? A case of being careful what you wish for.

    So I think a higher price is ultimately a good thing. Whether that higher price should be $60 or $90 or $140, I don’t know. I think the lower end of that range would probably be sustainable for western production and alternative energy development. We’d probably start seeing some damage as we get below $50. I think OPEC was starting to see damage in the form of demand weakening above $140.

    So I agree with RR on this one. We’re now in a weak-ish period for prices (relatively speaking) stemming from a downturn in the global economy. But business cycles will go back up, and the background rise in demand from the developing world will be with us for a long time. Marginal supply costs will continue to go up.

    Additionally, the US financial crisis and the volume of dollars being thrown about to fix the problem suggests to me that we may be in for a long decline in the dollar’s value.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  233. Maury,

    From January to June 2007, OPEC production held steady at about 35 mmbopd. During that period, WTI went from $54 to $67.

    For the next 12 months, OPEC production increased gradually to about 37 mmbopd. During that period, WTI rose from $74 to $134.

    OPEC production increased by 600,000 bopd from October to December, 2007. WTI rose correspondingly from $86 to $92.

    I think the turning point for oil prices was when Bernanke and OPEC both announced a projected fall in demand, in the same week. Price behavior in the past 18 months were all about market psychology and the weak dollar, in my opinion. OPEC took a back seat.

    Additionally, we can look at oil prices from 1986 through 2003, and see that apart from a few bumps price stayed pretty close to $20 for 17 years. Why no manipulation for so long?

    How much spare capacity is available is the $64,000 question. But OPEC has always had spare capacity. What’s different in 2007/2008? Why didn’t they do this in 2004 for example? Or 1993? It seems they coincidentally picked the same period marked by a rapid fall of the dollar and a rapid increase in global demand.

    But yes, I’m sure OPEC could turn on the taps and flood the world with oil, driving prices to the low double digits if they really put their minds to it. In the long run though, is that really a good thing? A nice economic shot in the arm, for the west, but It would greatly increase demand, significantly slow the development of alternative energy, and devastate the western oil industry. In 5-10 years, I wonder what our percentage of imports would be? A case of being careful what you wish for.

    So I think a higher price is ultimately a good thing. Whether that higher price should be $60 or $90 or $140, I don’t know. I think the lower end of that range would probably be sustainable for western production and alternative energy development. We’d probably start seeing some damage as we get below $50. I think OPEC was starting to see damage in the form of demand weakening above $140.

    So I agree with RR on this one. We’re now in a weak-ish period for prices (relatively speaking) stemming from a downturn in the global economy. But business cycles will go back up, and the background rise in demand from the developing world will be with us for a long time. Marginal supply costs will continue to go up.

    Additionally, the US financial crisis and the volume of dollars being thrown about to fix the problem suggests to me that we may be in for a long decline in the dollar’s value.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  234. Maury,

    From January to June 2007, OPEC production held steady at about 35 mmbopd. During that period, WTI went from $54 to $67.

    For the next 12 months, OPEC production increased gradually to about 37 mmbopd. During that period, WTI rose from $74 to $134.

    OPEC production increased by 600,000 bopd from October to December, 2007. WTI rose correspondingly from $86 to $92.

    I think the turning point for oil prices was when Bernanke and OPEC both announced a projected fall in demand, in the same week. Price behavior in the past 18 months were all about market psychology and the weak dollar, in my opinion. OPEC took a back seat.

    Additionally, we can look at oil prices from 1986 through 2003, and see that apart from a few bumps price stayed pretty close to $20 for 17 years. Why no manipulation for so long?

    How much spare capacity is available is the $64,000 question. But OPEC has always had spare capacity. What’s different in 2007/2008? Why didn’t they do this in 2004 for example? Or 1993? It seems they coincidentally picked the same period marked by a rapid fall of the dollar and a rapid increase in global demand.

    But yes, I’m sure OPEC could turn on the taps and flood the world with oil, driving prices to the low double digits if they really put their minds to it. In the long run though, is that really a good thing? A nice economic shot in the arm, for the west, but It would greatly increase demand, significantly slow the development of alternative energy, and devastate the western oil industry. In 5-10 years, I wonder what our percentage of imports would be? A case of being careful what you wish for.

    So I think a higher price is ultimately a good thing. Whether that higher price should be $60 or $90 or $140, I don’t know. I think the lower end of that range would probably be sustainable for western production and alternative energy development. We’d probably start seeing some damage as we get below $50. I think OPEC was starting to see damage in the form of demand weakening above $140.

    So I agree with RR on this one. We’re now in a weak-ish period for prices (relatively speaking) stemming from a downturn in the global economy. But business cycles will go back up, and the background rise in demand from the developing world will be with us for a long time. Marginal supply costs will continue to go up.

    Additionally, the US financial crisis and the volume of dollars being thrown about to fix the problem suggests to me that we may be in for a long decline in the dollar’s value.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  235. "What caused this sea-change? Technology. In this case, the ability to recognize & fracture tight gas formations."

    Also the sheer volume of conventional gas wells being drilled in the US today, supported by high prices. For example, operators have been drilling targets in the fractional bcf range in the Frio Formation with rates in 100's of mcf per day. There wasn't too much of this going on at $2.50 gas.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  236. "What caused this sea-change? Technology. In this case, the ability to recognize & fracture tight gas formations."

    Also the sheer volume of conventional gas wells being drilled in the US today, supported by high prices. For example, operators have been drilling targets in the fractional bcf range in the Frio Formation with rates in 100's of mcf per day. There wasn't too much of this going on at $2.50 gas.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  237. "What caused this sea-change? Technology. In this case, the ability to recognize & fracture tight gas formations."

    Also the sheer volume of conventional gas wells being drilled in the US today, supported by high prices. For example, operators have been drilling targets in the fractional bcf range in the Frio Formation with rates in 100's of mcf per day. There wasn't too much of this going on at $2.50 gas.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  238. "What caused this sea-change? Technology. In this case, the ability to recognize & fracture tight gas formations."

    Also the sheer volume of conventional gas wells being drilled in the US today, supported by high prices. For example, operators have been drilling targets in the fractional bcf range in the Frio Formation with rates in 100's of mcf per day. There wasn't too much of this going on at $2.50 gas.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  239. "What caused this sea-change? Technology. In this case, the ability to recognize & fracture tight gas formations."

    Also the sheer volume of conventional gas wells being drilled in the US today, supported by high prices. For example, operators have been drilling targets in the fractional bcf range in the Frio Formation with rates in 100's of mcf per day. There wasn't too much of this going on at $2.50 gas.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  240. "What caused this sea-change? Technology. In this case, the ability to recognize & fracture tight gas formations."

    Also the sheer volume of conventional gas wells being drilled in the US today, supported by high prices. For example, operators have been drilling targets in the fractional bcf range in the Frio Formation with rates in 100's of mcf per day. There wasn't too much of this going on at $2.50 gas.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  241. "What caused this sea-change? Technology. In this case, the ability to recognize & fracture tight gas formations."

    Also the sheer volume of conventional gas wells being drilled in the US today, supported by high prices. For example, operators have been drilling targets in the fractional bcf range in the Frio Formation with rates in 100's of mcf per day. There wasn't too much of this going on at $2.50 gas.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  242. "What caused this sea-change? Technology. In this case, the ability to recognize & fracture tight gas formations."

    Also the sheer volume of conventional gas wells being drilled in the US today, supported by high prices. For example, operators have been drilling targets in the fractional bcf range in the Frio Formation with rates in 100's of mcf per day. There wasn't too much of this going on at $2.50 gas.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  243. "What caused this sea-change? Technology. In this case, the ability to recognize & fracture tight gas formations."

    Also the sheer volume of conventional gas wells being drilled in the US today, supported by high prices. For example, operators have been drilling targets in the fractional bcf range in the Frio Formation with rates in 100's of mcf per day. There wasn't too much of this going on at $2.50 gas.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  244. “I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil?”

    Doggy gave a good answer on part of that. There is a broader aspect, though — What if we start to use energy sources such as nuclear to “mine” hydrocarbon fuels for transportation (where they still beat all competition hands down)? After all, no-one expects to extract useful energy by mining copper. This approach could greatly expand the supply/reduce the price of non-conventional hydrocarbons.

    Heat from nuclear power could be used in place of gas for extracting oil from tar sands. Nuclear heat could be used to extract oil from oil shale. Energy from nuclear power plants could even be used to manufacture synthetic hydrocarbons.

    Of course, all of those are very long term developments. But their impact on the market could be much faster. At present, a number of OPEC countries have a deliberate policy of producing their reserves slowly — save something for their grandchildren, and oil in the ground is arguably a better “investment” than money in the bank.

    If key OPEC people start to think that the oil age is coming to an end or that the future price is going to be capped by competition, we may see a rush to get their oil to market. But only if OPEC producers are convinced that the western political class is serious about real large-scale alternative energy — and what is the chance of that??

    Comment by Kinuachdrach | October 2, 2008

  245. “I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil?”

    Doggy gave a good answer on part of that. There is a broader aspect, though — What if we start to use energy sources such as nuclear to “mine” hydrocarbon fuels for transportation (where they still beat all competition hands down)? After all, no-one expects to extract useful energy by mining copper. This approach could greatly expand the supply/reduce the price of non-conventional hydrocarbons.

    Heat from nuclear power could be used in place of gas for extracting oil from tar sands. Nuclear heat could be used to extract oil from oil shale. Energy from nuclear power plants could even be used to manufacture synthetic hydrocarbons.

    Of course, all of those are very long term developments. But their impact on the market could be much faster. At present, a number of OPEC countries have a deliberate policy of producing their reserves slowly — save something for their grandchildren, and oil in the ground is arguably a better “investment” than money in the bank.

    If key OPEC people start to think that the oil age is coming to an end or that the future price is going to be capped by competition, we may see a rush to get their oil to market. But only if OPEC producers are convinced that the western political class is serious about real large-scale alternative energy — and what is the chance of that??

    Comment by Kinuachdrach | October 2, 2008

  246. “I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil?”

    Doggy gave a good answer on part of that. There is a broader aspect, though — What if we start to use energy sources such as nuclear to “mine” hydrocarbon fuels for transportation (where they still beat all competition hands down)? After all, no-one expects to extract useful energy by mining copper. This approach could greatly expand the supply/reduce the price of non-conventional hydrocarbons.

    Heat from nuclear power could be used in place of gas for extracting oil from tar sands. Nuclear heat could be used to extract oil from oil shale. Energy from nuclear power plants could even be used to manufacture synthetic hydrocarbons.

    Of course, all of those are very long term developments. But their impact on the market could be much faster. At present, a number of OPEC countries have a deliberate policy of producing their reserves slowly — save something for their grandchildren, and oil in the ground is arguably a better “investment” than money in the bank.

    If key OPEC people start to think that the oil age is coming to an end or that the future price is going to be capped by competition, we may see a rush to get their oil to market. But only if OPEC producers are convinced that the western political class is serious about real large-scale alternative energy — and what is the chance of that??

    Comment by Kinuachdrach | October 2, 2008

  247. “I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil?”

    Doggy gave a good answer on part of that. There is a broader aspect, though — What if we start to use energy sources such as nuclear to “mine” hydrocarbon fuels for transportation (where they still beat all competition hands down)? After all, no-one expects to extract useful energy by mining copper. This approach could greatly expand the supply/reduce the price of non-conventional hydrocarbons.

    Heat from nuclear power could be used in place of gas for extracting oil from tar sands. Nuclear heat could be used to extract oil from oil shale. Energy from nuclear power plants could even be used to manufacture synthetic hydrocarbons.

    Of course, all of those are very long term developments. But their impact on the market could be much faster. At present, a number of OPEC countries have a deliberate policy of producing their reserves slowly — save something for their grandchildren, and oil in the ground is arguably a better “investment” than money in the bank.

    If key OPEC people start to think that the oil age is coming to an end or that the future price is going to be capped by competition, we may see a rush to get their oil to market. But only if OPEC producers are convinced that the western political class is serious about real large-scale alternative energy — and what is the chance of that??

    Comment by Kinuachdrach | October 2, 2008

  248. “I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil?”

    Doggy gave a good answer on part of that. There is a broader aspect, though — What if we start to use energy sources such as nuclear to “mine” hydrocarbon fuels for transportation (where they still beat all competition hands down)? After all, no-one expects to extract useful energy by mining copper. This approach could greatly expand the supply/reduce the price of non-conventional hydrocarbons.

    Heat from nuclear power could be used in place of gas for extracting oil from tar sands. Nuclear heat could be used to extract oil from oil shale. Energy from nuclear power plants could even be used to manufacture synthetic hydrocarbons.

    Of course, all of those are very long term developments. But their impact on the market could be much faster. At present, a number of OPEC countries have a deliberate policy of producing their reserves slowly — save something for their grandchildren, and oil in the ground is arguably a better “investment” than money in the bank.

    If key OPEC people start to think that the oil age is coming to an end or that the future price is going to be capped by competition, we may see a rush to get their oil to market. But only if OPEC producers are convinced that the western political class is serious about real large-scale alternative energy — and what is the chance of that??

    Comment by Kinuachdrach | October 2, 2008

  249. “I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil?”

    Doggy gave a good answer on part of that. There is a broader aspect, though — What if we start to use energy sources such as nuclear to “mine” hydrocarbon fuels for transportation (where they still beat all competition hands down)? After all, no-one expects to extract useful energy by mining copper. This approach could greatly expand the supply/reduce the price of non-conventional hydrocarbons.

    Heat from nuclear power could be used in place of gas for extracting oil from tar sands. Nuclear heat could be used to extract oil from oil shale. Energy from nuclear power plants could even be used to manufacture synthetic hydrocarbons.

    Of course, all of those are very long term developments. But their impact on the market could be much faster. At present, a number of OPEC countries have a deliberate policy of producing their reserves slowly — save something for their grandchildren, and oil in the ground is arguably a better “investment” than money in the bank.

    If key OPEC people start to think that the oil age is coming to an end or that the future price is going to be capped by competition, we may see a rush to get their oil to market. But only if OPEC producers are convinced that the western political class is serious about real large-scale alternative energy — and what is the chance of that??

    Comment by Kinuachdrach | October 2, 2008

  250. “I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil?”

    Doggy gave a good answer on part of that. There is a broader aspect, though — What if we start to use energy sources such as nuclear to “mine” hydrocarbon fuels for transportation (where they still beat all competition hands down)? After all, no-one expects to extract useful energy by mining copper. This approach could greatly expand the supply/reduce the price of non-conventional hydrocarbons.

    Heat from nuclear power could be used in place of gas for extracting oil from tar sands. Nuclear heat could be used to extract oil from oil shale. Energy from nuclear power plants could even be used to manufacture synthetic hydrocarbons.

    Of course, all of those are very long term developments. But their impact on the market could be much faster. At present, a number of OPEC countries have a deliberate policy of producing their reserves slowly — save something for their grandchildren, and oil in the ground is arguably a better “investment” than money in the bank.

    If key OPEC people start to think that the oil age is coming to an end or that the future price is going to be capped by competition, we may see a rush to get their oil to market. But only if OPEC producers are convinced that the western political class is serious about real large-scale alternative energy — and what is the chance of that??

    Comment by Kinuachdrach | October 2, 2008

  251. “I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil?”

    Doggy gave a good answer on part of that. There is a broader aspect, though — What if we start to use energy sources such as nuclear to “mine” hydrocarbon fuels for transportation (where they still beat all competition hands down)? After all, no-one expects to extract useful energy by mining copper. This approach could greatly expand the supply/reduce the price of non-conventional hydrocarbons.

    Heat from nuclear power could be used in place of gas for extracting oil from tar sands. Nuclear heat could be used to extract oil from oil shale. Energy from nuclear power plants could even be used to manufacture synthetic hydrocarbons.

    Of course, all of those are very long term developments. But their impact on the market could be much faster. At present, a number of OPEC countries have a deliberate policy of producing their reserves slowly — save something for their grandchildren, and oil in the ground is arguably a better “investment” than money in the bank.

    If key OPEC people start to think that the oil age is coming to an end or that the future price is going to be capped by competition, we may see a rush to get their oil to market. But only if OPEC producers are convinced that the western political class is serious about real large-scale alternative energy — and what is the chance of that??

    Comment by Kinuachdrach | October 2, 2008

  252. “I’m confused as to the connection between nuclear and oil?”

    Doggy gave a good answer on part of that. There is a broader aspect, though — What if we start to use energy sources such as nuclear to “mine” hydrocarbon fuels for transportation (where they still beat all competition hands down)? After all, no-one expects to extract useful energy by mining copper. This approach could greatly expand the supply/reduce the price of non-conventional hydrocarbons.

    Heat from nuclear power could be used in place of gas for extracting oil from tar sands. Nuclear heat could be used to extract oil from oil shale. Energy from nuclear power plants could even be used to manufacture synthetic hydrocarbons.

    Of course, all of those are very long term developments. But their impact on the market could be much faster. At present, a number of OPEC countries have a deliberate policy of producing their reserves slowly — save something for their grandchildren, and oil in the ground is arguably a better “investment” than money in the bank.

    If key OPEC people start to think that the oil age is coming to an end or that the future price is going to be capped by competition, we may see a rush to get their oil to market. But only if OPEC producers are convinced that the western political class is serious about real large-scale alternative energy — and what is the chance of that??

    Comment by Kinuachdrach | October 2, 2008

  253. EVs are commercially available, plus conversions of course. You could get one, if you wanted one.

    I do feel the tide has turned in EV. It will take several years before they can be regarded as mainstream of course.

    Comment by bc | October 2, 2008

  254. EVs are commercially available, plus conversions of course. You could get one, if you wanted one.

    I do feel the tide has turned in EV. It will take several years before they can be regarded as mainstream of course.

    Comment by bc | October 2, 2008

  255. EVs are commercially available, plus conversions of course. You could get one, if you wanted one.

    I do feel the tide has turned in EV. It will take several years before they can be regarded as mainstream of course.

    Comment by bc | October 2, 2008

  256. EVs are commercially available, plus conversions of course. You could get one, if you wanted one.

    I do feel the tide has turned in EV. It will take several years before they can be regarded as mainstream of course.

    Comment by bc | October 2, 2008

  257. EVs are commercially available, plus conversions of course. You could get one, if you wanted one.

    I do feel the tide has turned in EV. It will take several years before they can be regarded as mainstream of course.

    Comment by bc | October 2, 2008

  258. EVs are commercially available, plus conversions of course. You could get one, if you wanted one.

    I do feel the tide has turned in EV. It will take several years before they can be regarded as mainstream of course.

    Comment by bc | October 2, 2008

  259. EVs are commercially available, plus conversions of course. You could get one, if you wanted one.

    I do feel the tide has turned in EV. It will take several years before they can be regarded as mainstream of course.

    Comment by bc | October 2, 2008

  260. EVs are commercially available, plus conversions of course. You could get one, if you wanted one.

    I do feel the tide has turned in EV. It will take several years before they can be regarded as mainstream of course.

    Comment by bc | October 2, 2008

  261. EVs are commercially available, plus conversions of course. You could get one, if you wanted one.

    I do feel the tide has turned in EV. It will take several years before they can be regarded as mainstream of course.

    Comment by bc | October 2, 2008

  262. Yeah, being an investor, logically oil could head to $250 soon – but in this market you have to wonder.

    Here is an article that I thought was interesting about speculation, with mention about oil trading.

    http://www.stockhouse.com/Community-News/2008/October/2/No-market-for-old-men

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  263. Yeah, being an investor, logically oil could head to $250 soon – but in this market you have to wonder.

    Here is an article that I thought was interesting about speculation, with mention about oil trading.

    http://www.stockhouse.com/Community-News/2008/October/2/No-market-for-old-men

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  264. Yeah, being an investor, logically oil could head to $250 soon – but in this market you have to wonder.

    Here is an article that I thought was interesting about speculation, with mention about oil trading.

    http://www.stockhouse.com/Community-News/2008/October/2/No-market-for-old-men

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  265. Yeah, being an investor, logically oil could head to $250 soon – but in this market you have to wonder.

    Here is an article that I thought was interesting about speculation, with mention about oil trading.

    http://www.stockhouse.com/Community-News/2008/October/2/No-market-for-old-men

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  266. Yeah, being an investor, logically oil could head to $250 soon – but in this market you have to wonder.

    Here is an article that I thought was interesting about speculation, with mention about oil trading.

    http://www.stockhouse.com/Community-News/2008/October/2/No-market-for-old-men

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  267. Yeah, being an investor, logically oil could head to $250 soon – but in this market you have to wonder.

    Here is an article that I thought was interesting about speculation, with mention about oil trading.

    http://www.stockhouse.com/Community-News/2008/October/2/No-market-for-old-men

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  268. Yeah, being an investor, logically oil could head to $250 soon – but in this market you have to wonder.

    Here is an article that I thought was interesting about speculation, with mention about oil trading.

    http://www.stockhouse.com/Community-News/2008/October/2/No-market-for-old-men

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  269. Yeah, being an investor, logically oil could head to $250 soon – but in this market you have to wonder.

    Here is an article that I thought was interesting about speculation, with mention about oil trading.

    http://www.stockhouse.com/Community-News/2008/October/2/No-market-for-old-men

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  270. Yeah, being an investor, logically oil could head to $250 soon – but in this market you have to wonder.

    Here is an article that I thought was interesting about speculation, with mention about oil trading.

    http://www.stockhouse.com/Community-News/2008/October/2/No-market-for-old-men

    Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008

  271. “Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot?”

    Consider the marginal cost of new supply now versus 20 years ago. The incremental barrel (deep water, tar sand, sub-salt) tends to be much more expensive now than it was in 1988.

    Demand has gone up in that time by about 20 million barrels per day (or about 30%). If price hadn’t gone up, then a lot of those marginal barrels wouldn’t have been added to the supply.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  272. “Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot?”

    Consider the marginal cost of new supply now versus 20 years ago. The incremental barrel (deep water, tar sand, sub-salt) tends to be much more expensive now than it was in 1988.

    Demand has gone up in that time by about 20 million barrels per day (or about 30%). If price hadn’t gone up, then a lot of those marginal barrels wouldn’t have been added to the supply.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  273. “Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot?”

    Consider the marginal cost of new supply now versus 20 years ago. The incremental barrel (deep water, tar sand, sub-salt) tends to be much more expensive now than it was in 1988.

    Demand has gone up in that time by about 20 million barrels per day (or about 30%). If price hadn’t gone up, then a lot of those marginal barrels wouldn’t have been added to the supply.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  274. “Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot?”

    Consider the marginal cost of new supply now versus 20 years ago. The incremental barrel (deep water, tar sand, sub-salt) tends to be much more expensive now than it was in 1988.

    Demand has gone up in that time by about 20 million barrels per day (or about 30%). If price hadn’t gone up, then a lot of those marginal barrels wouldn’t have been added to the supply.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  275. “Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot?”

    Consider the marginal cost of new supply now versus 20 years ago. The incremental barrel (deep water, tar sand, sub-salt) tends to be much more expensive now than it was in 1988.

    Demand has gone up in that time by about 20 million barrels per day (or about 30%). If price hadn’t gone up, then a lot of those marginal barrels wouldn’t have been added to the supply.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  276. “Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot?”

    Consider the marginal cost of new supply now versus 20 years ago. The incremental barrel (deep water, tar sand, sub-salt) tends to be much more expensive now than it was in 1988.

    Demand has gone up in that time by about 20 million barrels per day (or about 30%). If price hadn’t gone up, then a lot of those marginal barrels wouldn’t have been added to the supply.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  277. “Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot?”

    Consider the marginal cost of new supply now versus 20 years ago. The incremental barrel (deep water, tar sand, sub-salt) tends to be much more expensive now than it was in 1988.

    Demand has gone up in that time by about 20 million barrels per day (or about 30%). If price hadn’t gone up, then a lot of those marginal barrels wouldn’t have been added to the supply.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  278. “Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot?”

    Consider the marginal cost of new supply now versus 20 years ago. The incremental barrel (deep water, tar sand, sub-salt) tends to be much more expensive now than it was in 1988.

    Demand has gone up in that time by about 20 million barrels per day (or about 30%). If price hadn’t gone up, then a lot of those marginal barrels wouldn’t have been added to the supply.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008

  279. “Wouldn’t you think if supply and demand remained roughly even for the past 20 years, that the price shouldn’t have gone up a whole lot?”

    Consider the marginal cost of new supply now versus 20 years ago. The incremental barrel (deep water, tar sand, sub-salt) tends to be much more expensive now than it was in 1988.

    Demand has gone up in that time by about 20 million barrels per day (or about 30%). If price hadn’t gone up, then a lot of those marginal barrels wouldn’t have been added to the supply.

    Comment by armchair261 | October 2, 2008


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: