For those of you who work,
1. how long is your commute, in miles/kilometers and in
minutes/hours? do you have to fight through rush hour?
2. do you go by train, auto, or foot?
--
"Did you notice that [Candaq and Gardner] never miss one of my posts and I
never read theirs, I have to wonder just who it is that's envious." -Ed, in
news:<9cn26l$6di6$>.
sam grey wrote:
> For those of you who work,
>
> 1. how long is your commute, in miles/kilometers and in
> minutes/hours? do you have to fight through rush hour?
25 miles one way. 30 min. in a good day.
>
> 2. do you go by train, auto, or foot?
>
> --
>
> "Did you notice that [Candaq and Gardner] never miss one of my posts and I
> never read theirs, I have to wonder just who it is that's envious." -Ed, in
> news:<9cn26l$6di6$>.
"sam grey" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> For those of you who work,
>
> 1. how long is your commute, in miles/kilometers and in
> minutes/hours? do you have to fight through rush hour?
About 6 meters.
>
> 2. do you go by train, auto, or foot?
barefoot.
>
> --
>
> 1. how long is your commute, in miles/kilometers and in
> minutes/hours?
It's about seven miles or so. From the time I leave my apartment to
the moment I reach my office, it's a little over a half-hour.
> do you have to fight through rush hour?
Not unless you count an occasionally crowded train.
> 2. do you go by train, auto, or foot?
I walk to the Metro, which then lets me off across the street from
work.
Darin
My commute is 22 feet, I do it by foot, and usually only wearing a tee
shirt.
And my coffee is delivered to me (unless I get up first).
Arne
"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
news:
>> 1. how long is your commute, in miles/kilometers and in
>> minutes/hours?
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 19:17 -0400, sam grey wrote:
> For those of you who work,
>
> 1. how long is your commute, in miles/kilometers and in
> minutes/hours? do you have to fight through rush hour?
1/2 mile, 10 mins, no
> 2. do you go by train, auto, or foot?
>
bus :) or foot sometimes (15 mins)
"sam grey" <> wrote
> For those of you who work,
>
> 1. how long is your commute, in miles/kilometers and in
> minutes/hours? do you have to fight through rush hour?
Time required and traffic vary but it's ok because I get paid for it.
> 2. do you go by train, auto, or foot?
SUV.
> "Did you notice that [Candaq and Gardner] never miss one of my posts and I
> never read theirs, I have to wonder just who it is that's envious." -Ed
Thanks for thinking of me. If I had a picture of you I'd put it on the
mantel over the fireplace.
That way I could use it for "show and tell" with the children who visit.
It can be less than 50 miles or 2500+ miles plus.
"sam grey" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> For those of you who work,
>
> 1. how long is your commute, in miles/kilometers and in
> minutes/hours? do you have to fight through rush hour?
>
> 2. do you go by train, auto, or foot?
>
> --
>
> "Did you notice that [Candaq and Gardner] never miss one of my posts and I
> never read theirs, I have to wonder just who it is that's envious." -Ed,
> in
> news:<9cn26l$6di6$>.
In article <>,
sam grey <> wrote:
>
>For those of you who work,
>
>1. how long is your commute, in miles/kilometers and in
>minutes/hours? do you have to fight through rush hour?
About five miles one way, about thirty minutes.
>
>2. do you go by train, auto, or foot?
Bicycle.
--
"The average person, during a single day, deposits in his or her underwear
an amount of fecal bacteria equal to the weight of a quarter of a peanut."
-- Dr. Robert Buckman, Human Wildlife, p119.
"Gregory L. Hansen" <> wrote
> "The average person, during a single day, deposits in his or her underwear
> an amount of fecal bacteria equal to the weight of a quarter of a peanut."
Warning, you're going to get Sam all excited.
"sam grey" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> For those of you who work,
>
> 1. how long is your commute, in miles/kilometers and in
> minutes/hours? do you have to fight through rush hour?
15mi/24km
Time depends on mode of transit - see below.
> 2. do you go by train, auto, or foot?
Train (Rail/Shuttle) - 1 hr (add 20 minutes for walk from train outside of
rush hours)
Auto - 20-25 min (~5 minute overhead for middle of rush hour)
Bus - 1.5 hrs (~2hr during off hours)
Foot - 5 hrs :-)
--
Mark Freeland
Ed wrote:
> "sam grey" <> wrote
> > 2. do you go by train, auto, or foot?
>
> SUV.
Thank you for making us more dependent on Saudi oil and helping
al-Qaida.
"Norm De Plume" <> wrote
> Ed wrote:
>> "sam grey" <> wrote
>
>> > 2. do you go by train, auto, or foot?
>>
>> SUV.
>
> Thank you for making us more dependent on Saudi oil and helping
> al-Qaida.
Well, sorry you feel that way. I need a truck and this vehicle gets better
milage than any of the vans that were considered.
If you have found a way to avoid using petroleum products, it's a long list,
and end YOUR support for al-Qaida please enlighten us.
Mark Freeland wrote:
> "sam grey" <> wrote in message
> news:
> >
> > For those of you who work,
> >
> > 1. how long is your commute, in miles/kilometers and in
> > minutes/hours? do you have to fight through rush hour?
>
> 15mi/24km
about 4 miles
>
> Time depends on mode of transit - see below.
>
> > 2. do you go by train, auto, or foot?
>
bus - about 45 minutes on a good day
>
Your numbers I suspect are very similar for most Americans (outside of
NYC) and most Brits (outside of London and a couple of other urban
centres).
Most people drive, and most people would drive if they could. Public
transport doesn't work when cities and jobs are spread out like giant
inkblots. The long run challenge will be to handle the congestion
that that causes, and also the petroleum consumption in an environment
where oil imports are rising inexorably.
More efficient engines (eg high efficiency diesels, which are expected
to be half of European car sales by 2008) do a lot for the latter. My
gut is we could double average fuel economy if we put our minds to it--
the political implications for the domestic US car manufacturers (and
those key electoral votes in Michigan) would not be pretty though.
In big cities we could do more to encourage bicycles. London has the
perfect topography and climate for year round cycling but it is a
hellishly dangerous place.
Very little we can do about the amount people commute though, and the
resulting traffic. Telecommuting for sure (take 1/5 commuters off the
road on any given day ie commuting a 4 day week). High Occupancy
Vehicle Lanes are another American innovation which seems very
successful.
Electronic road tolling has worked in Central London very well but is
politically stalled everywhere else.
But it is coming. I would give traffic another 10-15 years to build
up, and places like Silicon Valley and LA will have to resort to it.
> The long run challenge will be to handle the congestion
> that that causes, and also the petroleum consumption in
> an environment where oil imports are rising inexorably.
Congestion is miserable but only affects maybe a percent of
the earth's surface, so is partly a lifestyle choice / tradeoff.
Some of the flight to cities is not due to lack of rural jobs or
even for higher standard of living (although higher wages).
Commuting is tiresome and harder to avoid but I do. Tempting
to discuss, but I think there is more investing relevance in
challenging the doom and gloom petro scenarios. I hear the
virtually infinite supply of tar sand oil in Canada/Venezuela can
be put onstream for $20/barrel. Only thing that temporarily
holds this up is certain OPEC fields that can undercut that
price for lengthy periods, which would make the big investment
for tar sand equipment a catastrophy.
So some say the best thing that can happen (assuming no
stomach to break up OPEC price control) is for the US and
Chinese to profiligately burn up cheap oil for a few years, so
that the 100 year supply of tar sands can be developed without
fear of OPEC dumping. Too bad Europe can't get onboard,
reduce it's humongous oil taxes, and get it's economy going.
Even gives some peace of mind over absurd US gov't schemes
like corn-ethanol additives which are raising expenses and
complicating distribution. At least there is the advantage that for
every gallon of oil it replaces, farmers have used over a gallon of
oil raising and fertlising that corn. Wasting land and oil, but helping
to get rid of that subversive under-$20-to-drill oil?
There is an interesting new approach of converting abundant natural
gas to liquid (GTL) for diesel; not sure if any investment opportunity.
Diesel and hybrid efficiency is fine, but China is expected to gobble
up that entire oil savings, so must be realistic. There ARE pollution
issues with petro that suggests responsible further use of uranium.
dumbstruck wrote:
> > The long run challenge will be to handle the congestion
> > that that causes, and also the petroleum consumption in
> > an environment where oil imports are rising inexorably.
>
> Congestion is miserable but only affects maybe a percent of
> the earth's surface, so is partly a lifestyle choice / tradeoff.
Agreed.
> Some of the flight to cities is not due to lack of rural jobs or
> even for higher standard of living (although higher wages).
2 career families have a big impact. The most noticeable effect is the
'sprawl' where rural becomes 'ruburbia' and 'edge cities' spring up.
>
> Commuting is tiresome and harder to avoid but I do. Tempting
> to discuss, but I think there is more investing relevance in
> challenging the doom and gloom petro scenarios. I hear the
> virtually infinite supply of tar sand oil in Canada/Venezuela can
> be put onstream for $20/barrel.
Not quite.
The most optimistic Canadian forecasts are for 2-2.5m b/d pace US
imports of 10m b/d and consumption of 18m b/d.
I hold CNR because of the oil sands potential by the way. The Horizon
Oil Sands project to which they own the rights. There are also some
good (producing) income trusts.
Oil Sands is not like producing oil. You need natural gas (lots of it)
and water (lots of it) and you have these 350 foot draglines that cut
through the topsoil. You quasi-liquify the bitumen and pump it 300
miles to a heavy oil refinery. 100k bl/day costs you about $8bn of
capital investment (250k bl/day costs more like $12bn).
What they say is 'there is another Saudi Arabia under Alberta'. Which
is to say 250bn barrels extractible. It will last a very long time,
because the pace of mining is limited: the analogy is more to coal
mining than to oil production: there are only so many sites that can
produce.
But even the greatest optimists think Alberta will just about replace
current (declining) Canadian oil production. But there won't be any
net growth.
Venezuela the problems are similar and there are political and
infrastructural issues. Again 2.5m bl/day is entirely credible, maybe
3.5m bl/day if all the ducks are in a row. But it won't be another
Saudi Arabia.
US conventional oil production has been declining inexorably since
1970, and will continue to do so. The US imports more than half its
oil needs now (including Canada, Mexico, Venezuala) and this will grow.
ANWR will at max be 1m bl/day so less than 5% of consumption by the
time it comes on stream.
Since about 11m of the 18m b/d the US consumes is for transportation, a
10-20% improvement in fuel economy is like discovering another Alberta,
or allowing for another 50% growth in Chinese consumption.
Only thing that temporarily
> holds this up is certain OPEC fields that can undercut that
> price for lengthy periods, which would make the big investment
> for tar sand equipment a catastrophy.
Gawar in Saudi Arabia produces oil for less than 50 cents a barrel.
But Matthew Simmons (who advises Bush on oil policy) thinks Gawar has
reached peak production (see 'Twilight in the Desert'). The largest
oil field ever found, and they are waterflooding it.
>
> So some say the best thing that can happen (assuming no
> stomach to break up OPEC price control)
OPEC has lost pricing power in this market. Or the Saudis would have
brought the price of oil down to $40.
is for the US and
> Chinese to profiligately burn up cheap oil for a few years, so
> that the 100 year supply of tar sands can be developed without
> fear of OPEC dumping. Too bad Europe can't get onboard,
> reduce it's humongous oil taxes, and get it's economy going.
Other way. Europe's gas taxes (we don't tax oil) are a rational
response to the fact that we import nearly 100% of our energy needs.
>
> Even gives some peace of mind over absurd US gov't schemes
> like corn-ethanol additives which are raising expenses and
> complicating distribution. At least there is the advantage that for
> every gallon of oil it replaces, farmers have used over a gallon of
> oil raising and fertlising that corn. Wasting land and oil, but helping
> to get rid of that subversive under-$20-to-drill oil?
>
> There is an interesting new approach of converting abundant natural
> gas to liquid (GTL) for diesel; not sure if any investment opportunity.
Shell is doing it in Qatar. It is (very) big money for the output you
get-- something like $5bn for 40k bl/day. But an interesting
technology.
The problem with gas is that reserves are even more concentrated than
oil. Russia, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are more than half of world
reserves.
> Diesel and hybrid efficiency is fine, but China is expected to gobble
> up that entire oil savings, so must be realistic.
Which is precisely the point. Saving 2-3m bl/day is like saving a
whole new oil producing country. We haven't found a 100bl barrel field
in 40 years.
There ARE pollution
> issues with petro that suggests responsible further use of uranium.
For those of you with some spare time to read about depleting oil
supplies....
Arne
"darkness39" <> wrote in message
news:
>
>
> dumbstruck wrote:
>> > The long run challenge will be to handle the congestion
>> > that that causes, and also the petroleum consumption in
>> > an environment where oil imports are rising inexorably.
>>
>> Congestion is miserable but only affects maybe a percent of
>> the earth's surface, so is partly a lifestyle choice / tradeoff.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Some of the flight to cities is not due to lack of rural jobs or
>> even for higher standard of living (although higher wages).
>
> 2 career families have a big impact. The most noticeable effect is the
> 'sprawl' where rural becomes 'ruburbia' and 'edge cities' spring up.
>
>>
>> Commuting is tiresome and harder to avoid but I do. Tempting
>> to discuss, but I think there is more investing relevance in
>> challenging the doom and gloom petro scenarios. I hear the
>> virtually infinite supply of tar sand oil in Canada/Venezuela can
>> be put onstream for $20/barrel.
>
> Not quite.
>
> The most optimistic Canadian forecasts are for 2-2.5m b/d pace US
> imports of 10m b/d and consumption of 18m b/d.
>
> I hold CNR because of the oil sands potential by the way. The Horizon
> Oil Sands project to which they own the rights. There are also some
> good (producing) income trusts.
>
> Oil Sands is not like producing oil. You need natural gas (lots of it)
> and water (lots of it) and you have these 350 foot draglines that cut
> through the topsoil. You quasi-liquify the bitumen and pump it 300
> miles to a heavy oil refinery. 100k bl/day costs you about $8bn of
> capital investment (250k bl/day costs more like $12bn).
>
> What they say is 'there is another Saudi Arabia under Alberta'. Which
> is to say 250bn barrels extractible. It will last a very long time,
> because the pace of mining is limited: the analogy is more to coal
> mining than to oil production: there are only so many sites that can
> produce.
>
> But even the greatest optimists think Alberta will just about replace
> current (declining) Canadian oil production. But there won't be any
> net growth.
>
> Venezuela the problems are similar and there are political and
> infrastructural issues. Again 2.5m bl/day is entirely credible, maybe
> 3.5m bl/day if all the ducks are in a row. But it won't be another
> Saudi Arabia.
>
> US conventional oil production has been declining inexorably since
> 1970, and will continue to do so. The US imports more than half its
> oil needs now (including Canada, Mexico, Venezuala) and this will grow.
> ANWR will at max be 1m bl/day so less than 5% of consumption by the
> time it comes on stream.
>
> Since about 11m of the 18m b/d the US consumes is for transportation, a
> 10-20% improvement in fuel economy is like discovering another Alberta,
> or allowing for another 50% growth in Chinese consumption.
>
>
>
> Only thing that temporarily
>> holds this up is certain OPEC fields that can undercut that
>> price for lengthy periods, which would make the big investment
>> for tar sand equipment a catastrophy.
>
> Gawar in Saudi Arabia produces oil for less than 50 cents a barrel.
> But Matthew Simmons (who advises Bush on oil policy) thinks Gawar has
> reached peak production (see 'Twilight in the Desert'). The largest
> oil field ever found, and they are waterflooding it.
>
>>
>> So some say the best thing that can happen (assuming no
>> stomach to break up OPEC price control)
>
> OPEC has lost pricing power in this market. Or the Saudis would have
> brought the price of oil down to $40.
>
> is for the US and
>> Chinese to profiligately burn up cheap oil for a few years, so
>> that the 100 year supply of tar sands can be developed without
>> fear of OPEC dumping. Too bad Europe can't get onboard,
>> reduce it's humongous oil taxes, and get it's economy going.
>
> Other way. Europe's gas taxes (we don't tax oil) are a rational
> response to the fact that we import nearly 100% of our energy needs.
>
>>
>> Even gives some peace of mind over absurd US gov't schemes
>> like corn-ethanol additives which are raising expenses and
>> complicating distribution. At least there is the advantage that for
>> every gallon of oil it replaces, farmers have used over a gallon of
>> oil raising and fertlising that corn. Wasting land and oil, but helping
>> to get rid of that subversive under-$20-to-drill oil?
>>
>> There is an interesting new approach of converting abundant natural
>> gas to liquid (GTL) for diesel; not sure if any investment opportunity.
>
> Shell is doing it in Qatar. It is (very) big money for the output you
> get-- something like $5bn for 40k bl/day. But an interesting
> technology.
>
> The problem with gas is that reserves are even more concentrated than
> oil. Russia, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are more than half of world
> reserves.
>
>
>> Diesel and hybrid efficiency is fine, but China is expected to gobble
>> up that entire oil savings, so must be realistic.
>
> Which is precisely the point. Saving 2-3m bl/day is like saving a
> whole new oil producing country. We haven't found a 100bl barrel field
> in 40 years.
>
> There ARE pollution
>> issues with petro that suggests responsible further use of uranium.
>
Arne wrote:
> For those of you with some spare time to read about depleting oil
> supplies....
>
>
That article is a terrible mishmash based on the political agenda you
would expect from it's source, a substandard, shrill Aussie newspaper
feature. OK, my earlier post sinned a bit the same way in including
some provocative assertions from a political think tank.
For a magnificent, centrist evaluation in lucid, point by point detail
see the 14 page Oil special report in Apr 30 issue of Economist mag.
Online you can only read the intro and have to pay for the juicy parts:
See especially "The Bottomless Beer Mug - why the world is not running
out of oil" section, where they show how recent $10 oil has shut down
all kinds of oil recovery technology until $20 can be guaranteed. They
explicitly address the Hubberd's peak nonsense of that Ozzie fluff
piece. There is some uncertainty about reserves of the secretive
national companies, but may have much more with high tech investments.
One issue closer to home and this forum is the dysfuntional SEC which
forces erratic and often under counting of reserves for listed
companies. Hurray for the head guy being recently ejected and the
wonderful candidate now being proposed. SEC forces reserves being
measured at an arbitrary price recovery point, and doesn't allow
certain undersea diagnostics unless in a particular gulf. The SEC has
been so investor unfriendly (esp mutual fund wise) that I hope the new
candidate can straighten things out (PBS wall street tv recently
slammed candidate in disgraceful and ignorant way).
dumbstruck wrote:
> Arne wrote:
> > For those of you with some spare time to read about depleting oil
> > supplies....
> >
> >
>
> That article is a terrible mishmash based on the political agenda you
> would expect from it's source, a substandard, shrill Aussie newspaper
> feature. OK, my earlier post sinned a bit the same way in including
> some provocative assertions from a political think tank.
>
> For a magnificent, centrist evaluation in lucid, point by point detail
> see the 14 page Oil special report in Apr 30 issue of Economist mag.
> Online you can only read the intro and have to pay for the juicy parts:
>
>
> See especially "The Bottomless Beer Mug - why the world is not running
> out of oil" section, where they show how recent $10 oil has shut down
> all kinds of oil recovery technology until $20 can be guaranteed. They
> explicitly address the Hubberd's peak nonsense of that Ozzie fluff
> piece.
Hubbert's Peak is not nonsense. Even the experts disagree about when
but there isn't any disagreement about the reality that any exhaustible
resource eventually exhausts.
I thought the Economist article more or less said it wouldn't happen
(for another couple of decades) but then fell back on the old
explanations of why it won't (enhanced recovery technologies). ie it
wasn't that good a rebuttal.
What Deffyes and Simmons show is that none of these technologies is
exactly new. Simmons also argues they merely speed up production, they
don't increase final production.
Even oil produced in Petrolia, Ontario and in Pennsylvania by electric
pumping is currently profitable at these oil prices. Yet we do not see
big increases in production from these sites (although they continue to
produce).
This flags the limit with all such technologies. If the oil is not
there in extractible quantities, we cannot extract it.
is a good summary of the case.
I don't know when we will hit peak oil, but I am much more optimistic
about the possibilities for conservation than I am about the
possibilities for new production. At the very least, outside of OPEC
we are running out of interesting places to find lots of new oil .
There is some uncertainty about reserves of the secretive
> national companies, but may have much more with high tech investments.
OPEC quotas are set in part by reserves. Which is why reserves took
such a huge hike. The big new news is that Saudi Arabia may not have
as much spare as we thought (Simmons book). Which is very new news.
>
> One issue closer to home and this forum is the dysfuntional SEC which
> forces erratic and often under counting of reserves for listed
> companies. Hurray for the head guy being recently ejected and the
> wonderful candidate now being proposed. SEC forces reserves being
> measured at an arbitrary price recovery point, and doesn't allow
> certain undersea diagnostics unless in a particular gulf. The SEC has
> been so investor unfriendly (esp mutual fund wise) that I hope the new
> candidate can straighten things out (PBS wall street tv recently
> slammed candidate in disgraceful and ignorant way).
darkness39 wrote:
> I thought the Economist article more or less said it wouldn't happen
> (for another couple of decades) but then fell back on the old
> explanations of why it won't (enhanced recovery technologies). ie it
> wasn't that good a rebuttal.
I thought their tech explanations were just examples for a kind of
Moore's Law observation. Oil reserves have kept climbing and climbing
even though on surface you can't see what can continue this. I remember
in electronics they ALWAYS saw a wall a couple years away where the
shrinking of electronics would be slowed due to the wavelength of
light, or whatever... but it kept on and on with only brief pauses.
Similar with proven oil reserves, where they say 1983 had .75 trillion
bbl, 1993 had 1.0, and 2003 saw 1.15 (from BP). Another source says
we have discovered almost twice as much oil as used in last 35 yrs.
And "tapped out" wells have only given up less than half of their oil.
OK, maybe reserve growth is slowing, but a lot of countries have not
been easily surveyable, due to now-melting cold war issues, etc.
> What Deffyes and Simmons show is that none of these technologies is
> exactly new. Simmons also argues they merely speed up production, they
> don't increase final production.
Economist calls that the fatter straw theory (in the same beer mug)
and lines up some experts that claim all evidence is to the contrary,
and the truth is the beer volume continues to grow (for now).
> I don't know when we will hit peak oil, but I am much more optimistic
> about the possibilities for conservation than I am about the
> possibilities for new production. At the very least, outside of OPEC
> we are running out of interesting places to find lots of new oil .
Hard to imagine stamping out the repugnant love affair of SUV's and
empty pick up trucks, which was really born out of reaction against
the conservaton car. Even exceptions like Honda's hybrid and Euro's
smart car seem to rely on faddish coolness that may pass. And rail
can't win much traffic for either passengers or freight since it is
such an easy target for organized labor to wreak havoc - thus cities
are menaced by relentless, thundering, smoking trucks and planes.
But glad you are optimistic. Long term, much energy use may be
migrating to electricity which gives some opportunity to rationalize
things. But what are the chances that even the greenies will let the
NYC metro area switch it's mammoth electricity generation from
archaic, dirty oil to something clean yet practical like nuclear, or?
Well, we should be thinking about the investment implications. I
think Economist warned against the usual big oil companies since
their reserves may be especially subject to shrinking. For alternative
energy, so often the innovators go bankrupt and the copycats
succeed. Maybe the niche players in between... CCJ for uranium,
and what CEO was on Jim Cramer's cnbc show yesterday cackling
about drilling rather than mining in Alberta's oil shale - some
natural gas company starting with an E perhaps?
dumbstruck wrote:
> darkness39 wrote:
> > I thought the Economist article more or less said it wouldn't happen
> > (for another couple of decades) but then fell back on the old
> > explanations of why it won't (enhanced recovery technologies). ie it
> > wasn't that good a rebuttal.
>
> I thought their tech explanations were just examples for a kind of
> Moore's Law observation. Oil reserves have kept climbing and climbing
> even though on surface you can't see what can continue this. I remember
> in electronics they ALWAYS saw a wall a couple years away where the
> shrinking of electronics would be slowed due to the wavelength of
> light, or whatever... but it kept on and on with only brief pauses.
Ironically 0.1 micron *has* proven to be a significant barrier. Intel
has more or less admitted same by going to multiple cores.
>
> Similar with proven oil reserves, where they say 1983 had .75 trillion
> bbl, 1993 had 1.0, and 2003 saw 1.15 (from BP).
Strip out the OPEC induced reserve uplift and it doesn't look like we
found very much oil at all since 1980. In fact, no major oil field (>
100bn barrels) has been discovered since the 1960s.
Another source says
> we have discovered almost twice as much oil as used in last 35 yrs.
The data I have seen says the opposite, consumption growth has been
greater than discovery growth.
> And "tapped out" wells have only given up less than half of their oil.
The tantalising possibility. But see my Pennsylvania point. The oil
may be there but we can't get at it.
> OK, maybe reserve growth is slowing, but a lot of countries have not
> been easily surveyable, due to now-melting cold war issues, etc.
Deffyes makes the opposite point. Places like Iran which one would
think have not been well surveyed have actually been thoroughly
surveyed (even before WWII).
>
> > What Deffyes and Simmons show is that none of these technologies is
> > exactly new. Simmons also argues they merely speed up production, they
> > don't increase final production.
>
> Economist calls that the fatter straw theory (in the same beer mug)
> and lines up some experts that claim all evidence is to the contrary,
> and the truth is the beer volume continues to grow (for now).
Simmons is a lifetime expert. Maybe he is wrong, but if you go through
the powerpoints on the Simmons and Simmons website, there is some quite
scary stuff.
US oil production keeps falling: this tells you what happens in a
mature oil producing country.
>
> > I don't know when we will hit peak oil, but I am much more optimistic
> > about the possibilities for conservation than I am about the
> > possibilities for new production. At the very least, outside of OPEC
> > we are running out of interesting places to find lots of new oil .
>
> Hard to imagine stamping out the repugnant love affair of SUV's and
> empty pick up trucks, which was really born out of reaction against
> the conservaton car.
I doubt your explanation of why. The real reason is gas is cheap in
the USA.
Even exceptions like Honda's hybrid and Euro's
> smart car seem to rely on faddish coolness that may pass.
'ish. Smart works in big cities, but American cities are much more
spread out than Asian or European ones. Hybrids are the technology of
tomorrow, potentially, but there are still big issues to be worked out.
And rail
> can't win much traffic for either passengers or freight since it is
> such an easy target for organized labor to wreak havoc -
No the problem with rail is appropriability. The benefits of using
rail accumulate to the people who have an easier time using the roads,
but a rail user has to pay the full cost of his or her use of rail.
Classic Externality Problem.
thus cities
> are menaced by relentless, thundering, smoking trucks and planes.
The early 20th century city was built around streetcars. Perhaps the
21st century city will be built around another technology, or
telecommuting. Even at USD 5 a gallon, British people still drive
everywhere, so I suspect Americans will too.
>
> But glad you are optimistic. Long term, much energy use may be
> migrating to electricity which gives some opportunity to rationalize
> things.
You can do a lot with natural gas. Both for vehicle propulsion and
other uses.
But what are the chances that even the greenies will let the
> NYC metro area switch it's mammoth electricity generation from
> archaic, dirty oil to something clean yet practical like nuclear, or?
I am not aware that there is significant oil fired power generation in
the US, North East or elsewhere. Do you have a cite?
>
> Well, we should be thinking about the investment implications.
The pure plays. Canadian Natural Resources. Talisman. Nexen. Encana.
Great Canadian Oil Sands. Total in France is interesting amongst the
majors.
I
> think Economist warned against the usual big oil companies since
> their reserves may be especially subject to shrinking. For alternative
> energy, so often the innovators go bankrupt and the copycats
> succeed.
There is too much speculation (so far) in these areas.
Maybe the niche players in between... CCJ for uranium,
Camco is the world's largest uranium producer I believe. Coal is also
interesting.
> and what CEO was on Jim Cramer's cnbc show yesterday cackling
> about drilling rather than mining in Alberta's oil shale - some
> natural gas company starting with an E perhaps?
Oil shale is in the US. Oil Sands are in Canada. Natural gas is a key
component of oil production from oil sands.
darkness39 wrote:
> dumbstruck wrote:
> > > > and what CEO was on Jim Cramer's cnbc show yesterday cackling
> > about drilling rather than mining in Alberta's oil shale - some
> > natural gas company starting with an E perhaps?
>
> Oil shale is in the US. Oil Sands are in Canada. Natural gas is a key
> component of oil production from oil sands.
AFAIK no one has ever produced economic quantities of oil from oil
shale (which is neither oil nor shale according to Deffyes). There
were big subsidies to try to do it in the 80s, but it has never worked
out.
Oil sands, and Venezuelan oil sands, are very real and workable
technologies. But much more akin to mining than drilling, with
corresponding challenges in terms of scaling up, size of investment,
cost of energy and water to sustain production, CO2 release etc. I
think the most likely case is that Canadian and Venezuelan production
will roughly flatline but with the majority of production coming from
these heavy oil sources.
There has been talk about underground oil sands extraction: injecting
steam (or even using small nuclear weapons). Again I don't know of
anyone who has made it work or even proved the concept let alone scaled
it commercially.
It is going to be big draglines at least for the next few years.
Natural gas is pretty clearly the fuel of the future but getting it
from Russia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia to the consumers and power stations of
the developed world is no mean trick. And gas is itself finite
(although less exploited, significant quantities are still flared).