June 03, 2007

Got oil?

9 comments:

Grimreapers Inc. said...

Indeed, a fantastic bussiness outlook for the whole industry.

Roccman said...

This documentary just came out...

Well worth the watch.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/

Anonymous said...

This economy is based and is run on oil!
Until something better comes along
just deal with it!

Roccman said...

"Until something better comes along
just deal with it! "

Nothing will takes its place.

Therefore the economy will tank and tank hard.

Oh - did I mention the coming die off?

Anonymous said...

Some subsets---the "crunchy"-granola go back to nature peakoilers---have their own delusions which are almost as unrealistic as your average McMansionized HELOCed suburban futureslumdweller.

They think that a "back to nature" where most of us are doing little-house-on-the-prairie organic agriculture plus some biodiesel is going to be the best option.

They're really wrong.

The problem is that the physical reality of transporting goods in small numbers to diverse outlying areas is going to be even MORE expensive once peak oil hits. The countryside, except for a few ginormous ethanol agribusinesses, will be Kentucky-backwoods poor.

Doing anything other than fucking and getting drunk will cost precious fuel---seeing doctor, getting and selling your food.

Well-designed compact cities (i.e. not Los Angeles or Phoenix or Houston) are significantly more petroleum efficient per person than the countryside. And in the future, your various places will be in range of electric vehicles---not true in the country.

Just go back to the 19th century (horse range == electric car range)---where did the rich live? (center cities) Where did the poor live? (boondocks and slums surrounding cities)

This pattern is already true in 3rd world countries---Africa, poorer Asia and Central/South America.

And globalization won't go away either. The cost of oil per unit value of shipping stuff from Shanghai to Long Beach (LA) is significantly less than the trucks to ship it from the port to the various Wal-Marts in all of suburbia.

Being in the center---near ship or train lines---will be where things are cheap and most jobs will be.

Just like in the 19th century---we had efficient, high volume low cost transportation by rail and ship, powered by coal. If you or your horse could get to the port or station (1 to 5 miles), you were OK.

Otherwise, you were poor.

As it was is as it will be. Laws of physics.

I think burning uranium is a much better idea than coal.

Anonymous said...

Here's another similar film coming.

Radiant City

Roccman said...

"I think burning uranium is a much better idea than coal. "

40 years of teh stuff left at current consumption rates. We would need 10,000 nuc plants to replace coal...won't happen ...EVER.

Otherwise great post ANON.

U R correct...living next to ports and rail lines is the play in this game...no mystery Buffet bought 10% of N. BUrlington last month.

Little House on the Prarie this will not be.

Mad Max it will B.

RJ said...

Anonymous said...
Some subsets---the "crunchy"-granola go back to nature peakoilers---have their own delusions which are almost as unrealistic as your average McMansionized HELOCed suburban futureslumdweller.

Unfortunately, you're correct. We should be investing our remaining resources into light rail systems that connect walkable communities which surround larger urban centers. Living off the land is viable on a fairly small scale, but even the Amish depend upon the larger modern economic structure around them (Although they would fair better than most of us city folk in a general energy melt down).

The reality is that our current economic model is a perpetual debt growth machine which requires ever greater inputs of energy to keep it from imploding. Once the energy (oil, natural gas, uranium, coal) hits maximum production limits the economic system won't be able to grow enough to service the debt upon which it depends. A long, slow deflation will begin until a new equilibrium between energy supply and demand is reached at a lower level of economic activity.

India is running into problems with its economic growth because of insufficient electrical generation plants. An economy can only grow so far as its energy sources will allow.

Guy Daley said...

Egads, there are so many things we could be doing to conserve. In fact that is our biggest untapped gusher right there. But we're too entrenched in doing what we do best and that is consume and waste. IT HELPS OUR ECONOMY, for the moment anyways.

Ironic thing is, government wants the US to have 4, 5, 600 million so that our economy will continue to grow. Our short sighted leaders with "vision". They can never see farther than the next election.