The particular boat I was working on stayed in that one spot for a month and a half waiting room for the product in the shore tanks. This while there were long lines at the gas pumps and stations were constantly running out of gas.
Posted on 08/20/2002 10:37:27 AM PDT by Ahura Mazda
When we get around to a serious look in Khazakstan, western China, offshore Africa, ANWAR, etc., we'll find billions of more barrels. The only thing limiting production is ENVIRONMENTALIST WACKOs.
Some many generations from now, oil will actually be depleted. By which time nuclear will work just fine. Or, my geology friend says there is more coal under one county in Wyoming than all the Oil in Saudi Arabia.
Another dead giveaway of stupidity. Econ 101 correctly teaches that the only way for there to be a "supply and demand imbalance" is if the government imposes price controls. Otherwise, if supplies are low, prices rise and voila! No imbalance.
What dolts.
Is this just another scary scenario being issued in advance of the Sustainable Development jamboree?
LOL. I remember those same lectures. The turn of the century was supposed to signal "the end of life as we know it."
Hardly out of the blue. A growing number of experts in the field are predicting a peak in world wide oil production in the near future, just as U.S. production peaked in 1970 and has declined ever since.
For example, see here
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/aspo/iwood/ASPOpress_2.pdf
Or look at some of the work by Matt Simmons--one of the poeple who advised the Bush administration on energy. For example here:
http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/domino/html/research.nsf/0/35776d8b19ec44ba86256b68006ae823/$FILE/CERI.pdf
The argument that it never happened before so therefore it can't happen now is not very convincing.
The particular boat I was working on stayed in that one spot for a month and a half waiting room for the product in the shore tanks. This while there were long lines at the gas pumps and stations were constantly running out of gas.
This is particularly true of the OPEC countries where production quotas are based on the countres' claims of their proven reserves. Many people are suspicious of these numbers. See here:
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/summary.htm#suspect
It appears that total discovery in 2001 was about 8 Gb including deepwater oil, and NGL. Although there remain the eternal uncertainties about the reliability of the data, it appears that the world’s oil account has been running a deficit since 1981, as it continues to eat into its inheritance from past discovery. This downward discovery trend was evidently not affected by the tax-driven surge of exploration drilling in the early 1980s, underlining that discovery depends on geology not economic incentive. Apart from two sizeable finds, the 8 Gb of 2001 came from some 300 discoveries whose average size must accordingly be approaching the lower limit of viability. It explains the continued fall in exploration drilling, as modern technology allows the companies to accurately map the size of prospects, enabling them to concentrate on the shortening list of viable opportunities. These results from the real world are compatible with the consensus estimate of the size of the endowment, discussed above, and confirm the thoroughly flawed nature of the USGS report of 2000 that has misled so many governments and international agencies. The USGS claimed (as a Mean probability estimate) that 732 Gb would be found between 1995 and 2025, which means an average of 25 Gb a year. In fact, the average has been only 10 Gb during the first seven years of the study period, when discoveries should be above average as the larger fields are normally found first.
source: http://www.hubbertpeak.com/aspo/Newsletter16.doc
Boy.......who ever controls all that oil in iraq and saudi arabia sure is going to clean up in the next 5 years.....
Regarding quantity, the -1% volume gets you +10% price rule of thumb may work well over relatively small changes in supply in today's market. But the math doesn't follow that -10% supply cut gets you +100% price increase because the demand curve is CURVED (not linear). Consumers are unlikely support a doubling of prices before they dramatically curbed their use.
Further, time matters. Over time, coal, natural gas, hydro, better insulation and smaller cars serve as a replacement to pricey oil.
Both of these effects have the Saudis freaked, because they mean demand for their product can be structurally reduced. This is the major reason they have acted as a damper on oil price swings over time. They realize that price shocks cause immediate price sensitivity, and long run structural conservation, thereby decreasing the Net Present Value of their revenue flows. Said another way, using oil as a weapon ruins their access to Bentleys now and later.
And foreign nations who may choose to retain their petroleum resources for their own purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Crude Oil Production |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Petroleum Imports |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since the original Arab Oil Embargo of 30 years ago, Congress has failed miserably in its repeated promise of making America more self-sufficient in energy production. In fact, our dependence on imported oil has INCREASED from 25+% to over 65% during this period. And we've resorted to evermore frequent use of military force to secure this oil supply.
While development of domestic oil resources may provide some benefit, more significant independence may be achieved by reducing our petroleum consumption. The most direct way of achieving this goal would be to construct modern, efficient, electricly-powered mass-transportation systems in our nation's most densely populated regions and urban areas. Nuclear and clean-coal generating technologies could easily supply the vast amount of energy needed to reduce our imported oil dependencey. This would safeguard our nation's sovereignty and security by making us less vulnerable to foreign control of our energy supply.
We don't use force to "secure" the oil supply, wheat supply, chip supply, or car supply. The only action we've taken that might be plausibly related to securing oil supply is Kuwait, which is also quite rationally the defeat of totalitarian expansionism. If we really had intended to secure an oil supply, we would have taken Iraq and Saudi Arabia while we were at it, thrown out their governments, and installed Unocal protectorates. So, the argument that we wage war to "secure" oil is B.S. All we want is free people and free markets be allowed to work.
Just to be clear: I think we should consume as much oil as possible as quickly as possible. It happens to be the least expensive source of energy right now. When it runs out, we'll move on to the next least expensive energy source, whatever that may be. No government dictates, market distortion, or forced busing will be required.
In the old west, people were shot for horse stealing, because the ability to move freely was the essence of freedom and a requirement of life. I wish cars were guarded as jealously.
Nonsense. US takes role in Colombia to new level
Furthermore, you would have to be extremely naive to believe that simply overthrowing Saddam Hussein and "liberating" Iraq is going to magicly defeat "totalitarian expansionism" in the Middle East. The religious/ethnic conflicts in that region date back for millenia. There's no expectation that will ever change in our lifetimes. As long as there is oil in that desert, it will be a focal point for malcontent zealots who utilize terrorist tactics for whatever adgenda thay advocate.
I noticed in today's paper that use of mass transportation is DOWN substantially. People love their cars. When you can repeal human nature, we'll all get on the bus and be forced to smell our neighbors.
Amtrak's Acela Express service is currently experiencing some highly publicized mechanical difficulties, but those are being quickly addressed. Overall, the trend toward greater utilization of mass-transportation continues:
GROWTH IN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION RIDERSHIP
SETS RECORD FOR SIXTH STRAIGHT YEARWashington, D.C., April 17, 2002 – More and more Americans are riding public transportation as public transportation continues to rewrite the history books with new and higher ridership records for the sixth consecutive year. In 2001, nationally, public transportation ridership went up by 2 percent, compared to the previous year, according to statistics released today by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). APTA reports that Americans rode public transportation a record 9.5 billion times in 2001.
Last year, public transportation use grew twice as fast as car use (1 percent). In the past six years, the number of trips taken on public transportation grew by 23 percent, growing faster than the U.S. population (8.4 percent), highway use (14.7 percent), and domestic air travel (12.5 percent, or 19 percent prior to 9-11-01).
"The fact that more people are riding and more American communities are embracing public transportation clearly demonstrates the necessity of continued support and increased investment in our public transportation infrastructure," said William W. Millar, APTA President. "It is truly remarkable to have these ongoing increases in public transportation ridership, considering the sluggish economy and the effects of the September 11 terrorists attacks."
The continued growth in public transportation ridership is attributed to higher levels of investment by federal, state and local sources, expansion of service with new lines and extensions, and enhanced customer services by the nation´s transit systems to meet the needs of today´s traveling public.
American communities are responding to improved infrastructure and investment in public transportation. Examples of the highest ridership gains for multi-modal systems (bus and rail) include the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (15 percent), Denver´s Regional Transportation District (6.7 percent) and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) in Washington, D.C. (5.9 percent). Modes of transportation showing the largest percentage increases in ridership for 2001 were demand response or paratransit, 7.6 percent; light rail, 3.5 percent; commuter rail, 2.3 percent, and bus systems at 2.1 percent.
Examples of ridership gain by mode include – for heavy rail or subways -- Los Angeles MTA, 60 percent; WMATA, 6.8 percent; and the Chicago Transit Authority, 3 percent. For light rail systems: New Jersey Transit, 141 percent; Denver´s RTD, 36 percent; and Los Angeles MTA, 16 percent. Among commuter rail systems: Seattle´s Sound Transit, 535 percent; Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 75 percent; and the Altamont Commuter Express in San Jose, CA, 26 percent. Among the largest bus systems, Los Angeles MTA, 11.7 percent; Phoenix, 11 percent; and Orange County, CA, 9.8 percent. Among smaller bus systems: Corridor Transportation Systems, Laurel, MD, 53 percent; Kankakee, IL, 44 percent; and Bloomington, IN, 41 percent served more riders in 2001. (Both Los Angeles MTA and the city of Phoenix experienced labor disputes that halted service during late 2000, which decreased ridership that year.)
For further information on the benefits of public transportation, visit APTA´s web site – www.apta.com and www.publictransportation.org.
Study Proves Increasing Public Transportation Is the Best -- and possibly only -- Non-Regulatory Strategy for Major Environmental and Energy Gains
WASHINGTON, DC (July 17, 2002) - A new independent study by three top economists demonstrates that increasing public transportation use is the most effective, and possibly the only way to improve air quality and reduce energy consumption without imposing new taxes, government mandates or regulations.
Based on the findings of the new national study, energy and environmental savings have been calculated for more than a dozen major metropolitan areas in the United States.
"Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public Transportation," released today in Washington, DC, concludes that public transportation generates 95 percent less carbon monoxide (CO), 92 percent less in volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and about half as much carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx), per passenger mile, as private vehicles.
The report was authored by: Dr. Robert J. Shapiro, Managing Director of Sonecon, LLC, and non-resident Fellow of the Brookings Institution and the Progressive Policy Institute, Dr. Kevin A. Hassett, Resident Scholar of the American Enterprise Institute; and Dr. Frank S. Arnold, President of Applied Microeconomics, Inc.
In energy conservation, the study shows that public transportation already saves more than 855 million gallons of gasoline or 45 million barrels of oil a year. This number is equivalent to the energy used to heat, cool and operate one-fourth of all American homes annually, or half the energy used to manufacture all computers and electronic equipment in America annually.
"We all know that a rail car or bus carrying 40 people is far more efficient than a car moving just one person. What people may not realize is exactly how much energy is being saved, and how these savings add up to millions of barrels of oil conserved and millions of tons of harmful emissions avoided each year," said Dr. Robert J. Shapiro, co-author of the study. "Increased use of public transportation is an important answer to two national challenges -- greater energy independence and a cleaner environment -- that our nation has been grappling with for decades."
The study also shows that if one in ten Americans used public transportation regularly, U.S. reliance on foreign oil could be cut by more than 40 percent. This is nearly equivalent to the amount of oil we import from Saudi Arabia every year. Environmental benefits would also be significant. Without any new government mandates, regulations or taxes, the United States would be able to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 25 percent of the standard set under the Kyoto Agreement.
Among the study's other major findings:
Even small increases in transit usage would help many of the 16 major U.S. cities, which currently fail to meet EPA air-quality standards for CO or smog, improve air quality.
For every passenger mile traveled, public transportation is twice as fuel efficient as private automobiles, sports utility vehicles (SUVs) and light trucks.
If one in seven Americans used public transportation for their daily travel needs, they would help prevent global warming in the United States by cutting CO2 by the equivalent of nearly 20 percent of the CO2 emitted from fuel burned for residential uses and more than 20 percent of all CO2 emitted by commercial enterprises.
If one in five Americans used public transportation daily, it would help reduce CO pollution by more than all the CO emitted from the entire chemical manufacturing industry and all metal processing plants in the United States.
"This study clearly shows that more energy is used getting people from place to place than in producing all goods or running all the homes in America," said William W. Millar, President of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the non-profit organization that commissioned the study. "We can continue to debate domestic oil exploration, emissions requirements, and the stability of foreign sources of energy, but any serious plan to reduce oil dependency and clean up the air must include ways to increase public transportation use. This is simply our country's greatest opportunity to conserve energy and improve the environment."
"Increasing the use of public transportation needs to be an essential element of our national energy and environmental policies," said Millar. "If we don't make transit a national priority by increasing investment, America's enduring economic and environmental health will be in jeopardy."
Noting that the report is especially timely because of today's designation as a "Code Red" day, Washington Metro Chief Executive Officer Richard A. White said, "Our Washington Metro region is on the verge of reclassification by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a "severe non-attainment area" for air quality. Unless the region can show it can meet federally imposed air quality standards, construction of new transportation projects will be postponed. I believe fervently that the Metro system offers our region the most immediate opportunity to improve our air quality. If we get can get more people out of their cars and onto the Metro system, we will notice a marked improvement in the region's air quality."
To view a full copy of the study please visit www.apta.com or www.publictransportation.org.
Do you believe that Columbia is being fought over oil rather than communism, cocaine, and terrorism?
If you still believe in the superiority of public transportation, come to my house by way of public transport, and we'll discuss it further. It ought to take you about a week.
B.C. - Fargo, North Dakota
Most in U.S. Drive to Work Alone By GENARO C. ARMAS Associated Press Writer The Associated Press 8/20/02
FREDERICK, Md. (AP) _ Americans love to go it alone, at least when it comes to driving to work.
Figures from the 2000 census show about 76 percent of workers 16 and older drive alone to their jobs, up from 64 percent two decades earlier and 73 percent in 1990, even though commutes are taking longer.
For many, a long commute is a necessity, the price for larger and more affordable homes in the suburbs. And it's the result of congested highways choked by the urban sprawl that has turned many suburbs and even rural areas into burgeoning communities and business centers.
Stacy Brown said traffic has gotten worse in the four years since she started driving 25 miles from Frederick, Md., to her job as a receptionist in Rockville, Md., just north of Washington. Still, she prefers driving.
"I'd rather sit in my car alone in air conditioning in traffic than wait for a train on a hot platform," Brown said before pulling away from a gas station where she fueled up for the morning commute.
Alan Pisarski, a former deputy director of planning for the Department of Transportation who researches commuting trends, said as more people own homes, they face longer drives to work.
"There's a trade off with the mortgage and commuting time," he said.
The Census Bureau asked people their "usual" mode of transportation to work. So, for example, someone who drives to a train stop would have to choose one or the other as the primary way to work.
Carpooling was the second-most-popular way to work, with 12 percent of Americans saying they ride with friends. That was down from 20 percent in 1980 and 13 percent in 1990.
Public transportation was used by 5 percent of Americans, about the same as in 1990, while those who walk to work fell from 4 percent to 3 percent. People who work from home went up slightly to 3.3 percent from 3 percent.
Solo driving rates rose in every state in 2000 except Washington and Oregon, which saw small increases in public transit and work-from-home options. And the average one-way commute rose to 25 minutes, about three minutes longer than 1990.
The increase in solo drivers came despite continued government efforts to encourage public transportation, major fluctuations in gas prices and warnings about the harmful effect of car exhaust on the environment.
Michael Marsden, an Eastern Kentucky University professor who teaches a course in the automobile's role in society, said America's love affair with the car means solo drivers always will constitute a large portion of commuters.
"People want to drive their own cars, decide when they want to go, where they want to go," he said. "In some ways, the only time people are in charge are when they are in their cars, not at home or at work. It's a very psychologically satisfying thing."
Small metropolitan areas in the Midwest and South had the highest rates of solo drivers, led by the 87 percent of Ohio residents who commute in the Huntington, W.Va.-Ashland, Ky. metro area. For metro areas that encompass more than one state, the Census Bureau calculated rates for drivers in each state.
Saginaw, Mich., and two Ohio cities _ Youngstown and Canton _ had solo driving rates around 86 percent, the 2000 census found. Pisarski said limited public transit options in those areas force more people to drive alone.
You defeat your own "Oil causes war" argument.
Not to mention, Britain, Russia, Norway, Mexico, Venezuela, Canada, and dozens of other relatively FREE countries are not being invaded by us to "secure" their oil resources.
I'm sure Democrats.com would be a more "secure" place for your Earth In The Balance views.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.