Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (135379)	6/2/2004 5:51:50 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

Duh? Isn't that sort of self-explanatory? Think, girl, think. Did you read the article? Evidently not.

To: Ilaine who wrote (135379)	6/2/2004 6:27:45 PM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Next year, when consumption is even higher, won't production be higher, too?" This assumes that there is more than enough oil to be produced. This is an incorrect assumption. New oil fields are being found at a replacement rate of 25%. Demand is increasing(by 2020 it is predicted that demand will be 65% higher). The book Hubbert's Peak is a good place to start understanding the coming oil situation.

To: Ilaine who wrote (135379)	6/3/2004 6:38:06 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<Unfortunately, peak production is coinciding with peak consumption.> I'm with you CB. I don't get it either. Of course peak production and peak consumption are co-incident, as far as I can tell. It looks like a tautology to me, albeit a subtle one. Apart from the logic of the idea, I doubt that we are near peak production. Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran can produce a lot more oil. Then Orimulsion can kick in. Russia has a lot and so do some other places. I think it'll be a few decades yet before production of fossil hydrocarbons peaks. If the greenhouse effect is actually a problem, which I very much doubt, then production of CO2 doesn't need to stop, it can be liquefied and poured 400 metres under the ocean where it'll remain in liquid phase, other than gradual dissolving into the water. If it's tipped down a deep hole, it'll stay there. That was an idea I had during my BP days and I noticed a few years later than Mitsubishi patented it! Cheeky buggers. I didn't know then that such an obvious idea could be patented. That was about 1987, and Mitsubishi patented it about 1990 so I suppose the patents have just about expired anyway. Consumption of hydrocarbons might actually increase as the CO2 collection and compression process would cost something like 20% of the energy. I still think the seven sisters oil industry is crying crocodile tears about the price of oil - they love it! Their high-cost North Sea and North Slope reserves are super-duper profitable at current crude oil prices. They are making $megabillions. Another idea I had about 1988 was that "the best thing for the oil industry would be to put a bullet through the middle-east". A geopolitical BP colleague and I were pondering what goes on, and what might happen. Hey Presto! A couple of years later and bullets were flying and Saddam was wondering whether sanctions would be lifted if he withdrew from Kuwait. I thought of course they would, but Saddam knew better and I realized then that the bullet through the middle east had been fired and the profits were flooding in. The sanctions continued for a decade. It's all about the oil, Mqurice PS: If you haven't got enough reading, you might like to get "The Prize" which was given to me by some friends from San Diego a few years ago [Y2K]. It's about the geopolitical side of the oil industry over its history. bookfinder.us