jdiebremse wrote: > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> Do you believe we are near or past peak oil? > > I certainly haven't seen any evidence that we are *past* peak oil, > if indeed, there is such a thing. "Near" is, of course, an > ambiguous term.
I've seen quite a few discussions on the subject over the last 8 - 10 months. No one seems to want to draw definitive conclusions, but seem to feel that leaving the discussion open ended for the time being is a pretty good idea, basically suggesting that it may be that we only have 60 - 80 years of easy to get to oil left. > >>> Because Middle Eastern oil is, roughly, the >>> cheapest oil out there, it will be the last oil to be displaced >>> by consumption shifting to substitute goods. >> >> Which is why I suggested we buy now and save what we can for later. > > Except for the fact that we have to buy Middle Eastern oil at the > global market price... so I don't see what you are driving at here. Well....I don't see conditions that led to the previous oil oversupply repeating themselves soon. And the Nations Stategic Reserve doesn't really amount to all that much in practical terms, we couldn't live off it, it is only good as a supplement. So plainly I am suggesting that we hoard oil as a hedge against peak. But it would not be very practical to do so unless we are invested in renewable energy sources *and* are not wasting oil by burning it. > >>> That would essentially be a bet on the price of oil increasing >>> at a >>> rate faster than other assets you could spend your money on. >>> >> >> True, but there is also the consideration that rather than >> burning oil >> up for fuels and such that we use it to make items with greater >> utility. Oil is used to make a great many things in the chemical >> industry such as plastics and medicines. > > Why is using oil for plastic or medicine of greater utility than > using oil to transport plastic or medicine? Because we absolutely *can* use other methods of powering transport, but that is not really what I am argueing really. Actually I think that burning oil for product transportation should be the last burning of oil that we should give up and only when we absolutely have to. What I would like to see end is the burning of oil for commuter transportation primarily. It is very wasteful and polluting. > > And in any case, the use of oil doesn't change the fact that buying > oil and putting it in a hole in the ground is essentially a decision > to invest in an asset. You'd be betting that oil prices would be > rising at a higher rate than other asset classes available. Its > not a completely unreasonable bet, but given the possibility of a > recession in China or increased oil production in Alberta, it would > also be a bet with plenty of risk. After all, if you had made the > same decision in 1980, you'd be looking pretty silly in 1998. > I think I understand your argument pretty well, heck, you and Dan are both much better informed than I am on the subject, but I'd like to hold some reservations. In 1980 we didn't have India and China competing for energy resources with us to the degree they now are and will be. For us to continue to use the same amount of oil (not even counting for growth) means that even more oil resources will have to be opened to us (and others) or else we will see a shrinking slice of the pie but the same hunger. Once India and China (and others) generate sufficient demand it would be safe for OPEC to embargo us again. Another thing that is different today is the state of international terrorism. Lately quite a few of the targets have been oil related, specifically the situation in Nigeria that has been prodding oil prices up lately. If the trend continues oil prices will remain higher than they otherwise would. xponent Oily Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
