A confident Kremlin is throwing its weight around.

[Bruno]

However, my prediction by 2010 is that most Europeans will be driving Ford Excursions, or the equivalent. 

Not sure... with the actual politic over polution, price of oil... we turn to choice more little car, bio fuel, ... etc...

European car from 2010 will be more like this :

 

 

[jb]

Thank you for the "Oil Pool" Explaination.

There is a common misconception that oil exists in hidden underground pools, even lakes and rivers of the stuff, just waiting for some lucky oil company to uncover these riches, and it all comes in either 10W-30 or straight 40W.   When you used the word "pool, I was afraid I was going to have to do the 5 year course in Geophysicics here in three posts to make a point.  Thank God~!

People have imagined all sorts of "Oil Theories" over the years, but no one has ever been able to explain why you will never find oil in a place that wasn't an ocean 25-50 million years ago, and no one is able to explain away why, when we examine the rock cuttings coming from the bottom of an oil well as we approach TD, all the fossils to be found within the rock.  Hence the term, "Fossil Fuel".  Seeing the "bugs" in the rocks tells us we are getting close to oil every time.

[TigerPaws]

[color="blue"][size="4"]Back on track for this thread:

 If you read Rvrwind's post on possible $100.00 dollar per barrel oil this ties in with the Newsweek article on Russia believeing she can throw here weight around and how in my opinion this is very short sighted.

 As oil prices go up so does just about everything else and sense Russia is making less and less of everything herself these goods are imported. Food and clothing will become far more expensive than they already are and this trend will continue further draining what finical recources could be going into [/size][/color][color="blue"][size="4"]infrastructure. Because Russia has no real [/size][/color][color="#0000ff"][size="4"][color="blue"]infrastructure now the problem will eventually become catastrophic to her people and the country as a whole.[/color]
[/size][/color]

[andrewfi]

TP your view is waaaay too simplistic, possibly why you thought the article you posted was valid for something other than discussion.

Russia is a mid-ranking nation, something like Argentina or Mexico and shares many of the same fundamentals of these econoies and social systems. The first thing the writers of the piece (in common with many Americans) failed to notice was that Russia is not like a funny speaking and poorer United States. The implicit comparisons in the piece erroneously assumed that this was in fact the case.

Is Russian infrastructure failing? Nope, it is being rebuilt, but just as in the UK in the 1980's much that is bad, inefficient or worn out must be done away with. This process takes time and money. We managed in the UK to do much, in just a decade, with the benefit of previous wealth, something the Russians do not have, and of course North Sea oil. With only a single one of these factors, the Russians will and are taking longer. They have to overhaul not just factories and roads, but the real infrastructure of a country. The judiciary, the legislature, the executive, the business environment and property rights. Without these, all one has is just new roads to nowhere and empty new factories. The oil and gas benefits will last for many decades. It is almost impossible for Russia NOT to become rich! It has been estimated that over the next 20 years or so, that Russia will reach standards of living, on average, similar to Finland, today - a far from unenviable position.

With something in the order of 5% of Russia's GDP is derived from agriculture thus they have reached a similar healthy position as European countries - now they simply need to halve the number of people working in agriculture! Russia is not, for the most part an agricultural country, but there are many who are forced to scrape an existance in inhospitable rural areas. It makes no economic or social sense for them to do so, if they do not want to!

Fixed capital investment is growing at more than 10% per annum and incomes, in real terms over 12%. They are building for the future.

When one uses terms like swinging their weight around, a degree of context is required. What seems to be really meant is that Americans and the United States do not relish a newly independent country (Russia) asserting its market position to its best benefit. Perhaps that is a role suited only for one country?

[jb]

There is more to the problem of high oil prices than just the possibility of Iranian oil being taken out of the export loop.  There is also the possible disruption of Venezuela's vast oil fields as well as a new and unstable government in Bolivia.  Hugo Chavez is cuddleing up to Cuba's Castro and making all kinds of anti-US statements, and Evo Morales of Boliva, has already announced intentions of nationalizing that country's resources.  Both countries benefit from OPEC scares even though countries like Venezuela has been awash in Petro-dollars for decades.  Because of political corruption, rife throughout the South American mentality, those petro-dollars never trickel down to the working class people.  Thus the populace is always in turmoil and easily turned against a conjured up enemy like the USA.

Further, Israel has just come out with a thinly veiled threat to take out, by military means, the Iranian nuclear facilities.  All the Arab Muslim countries immediately punish the west with higher petro prices whenever they see the the west, especially the USA, standing on the side of the jews.  The Iranian President announced publically his desire to see Israel wiped off the map, the west condemns such rhetoric and threatened to take the matter before the UN Security Cunsel,,,, and the Arabs raise the price of oil.  It's as predictable as the sunrise.  The Arabs started this method of punishment for the west's support of Israel in 1973 with the Yom Kippur War where we saw gas and oil prices double the first time. And then we saw another doubling of oil prices in 1977-78 as the Arabs expressed their displeasure over the US brokered peace deal between Israel and Egypt with the now famous Camp David Accords.  I think the Arabs would have liked to fight the Jews, throughout history, right down to the last Egyptian, as long as nobody in Saudi had to get their hands dirty.  All of the Russian military hardware used by the arab armies was bought and paid for with mostly US Petro-dollars.

You should know, the oil produced in the Arab Gulf only costs the Arab about 50 cents per barrel to produce, when they sell it for $70 a barrel, this generates huge dollar excesses, which is then easily sidelined into terror groups, such as Hamas, for payments to families of sucide bombers, and more and better equipment bought from France, Germany, and other Europeans to better terrorize the west.  You talk about your vicious circle~!  First we find and produce the oil fields for them, then we buy it from them, and then we pay for the knife they use to cut our own throats.

[Michelangelo]

You should know, the oil produced in the Arab Gulf only costs the Arab about 50 cents per barrel to produce, when they sell it for $70 a barrel, this generates huge dollar excesses, which is then easily sidelined into terror groups, such as Hamas, for payments to families of sucide bombers, and more and better equipment bought from France, Germany, and other Europeans to better terrorize the west. You talk about your vicious circle~! First we find and produce the oil fields for them, then we buy it from them, and then we pay for the knife they use to cut our own throats.

Exactly why the US needs a new energy policy...we are indeed funding the enemy with our energy purchases from them.  We need to declare war on oil, not Iran, and put our research efforts into outcomes that will diminish our need for foreign oil.  A tax of 2 bucks would move us to more energy efficient cars and the money could fund the research. But we have to get big oil out of our governments pants before this process can start...

[TigerPaws]

[color="blue"][size="4"]andrewfin,[/size] [/color][color="blue"]  [/color][color="blue"]  [/color][color="blue"][size="4"]

 Granted I have not been back to  Russia sense last summer, when was the last time you were in Russia?

 Of course I  was being simplistic, this is an extremely complex issue but one that will  divide Russia even more between the have's and have not's. Go 75 kilometers  outside of the large cities and you will see a completely different Russia, have  you (andrewfin) spent any time in rural and if so for how long and when? Moscow,  St. Petersburg and a few of the other large cities are getting minor cosmetic  upgrades but nothing near replacing the decaying infrastructure, your numbers  are seriously flawed as over 1/2 of the funds are being siphoned off by  corruption.[/size] [/color][color="blue"][size="4"] [/size]  [/color][color="blue"][size="4"]

 Rural Russian towns and villages are  becoming ghost towns, Hells Bells even at the height of the old Soviet system  Russia could not feed herself let alone now that the majority of agriculture is  drying up from lack of anyone to do it.[/size][/color] [color="navy"][size="4"] [/size][/color]  [color="#0000ff"][size="4"] [/size][/color][color="#0000ff"][size="4"]

 You said "[color="#000000"][size="3"]When one uses terms  like swinging their weight around, a degree of context is required. What seems  to be really meant is that Americans and the United States do not relish a newly  independent country (Russia) asserting its market position to its best benefit.  Perhaps that is a role suited only for one country?[color="#0000ff"][size="4"]" This is typical European Bull, for the most part America  could care less, it is half baked underdeveloped, lazy socialist countries like  Estonia and much of Europe that perceive a problem with America that does not  exist. These countries and their people are jealous of the freedoms, wealth and  power, they are all to often unwilling and or unable to do in the world what has  to be done so they complain about this only country that has the ability and  will to do what is necessary. [/size][/color][/size][/color][/size][/color][color="#0000ff"][size="4"]I will admit that America needs to do a better job and  should at times keep its collective business to its self but as a whole America  has done more good than bad and in the end that is the bottom line.[/size][/color]     [color="#0000ff"][size="4"]

 America has little to worry about  "Russia asserting its market position", what we have to worry about is some  underpaid disgruntled Russian military officer taking several millions  of Euro's to look the other way while some nut case jihadist carries off a 10  kiloton nuke and detonates it in one of our cities. Face it andrewfin what is  the chance of that happeing in Estona?[/size][/color]

[andrewfi]

Andrew looks up in the vain hope that he might see a herd of pigs flying southward for the winter.

These are 1997 figures for Kilogram oil equivalent use per capita. I think Finland soends a LOT of money upon heating.

KILOGRAMS OF OIL EQUIVILANT ENERGY USED PER CAPITA -- 1997

[align=center]KUWAIT                    8,936[/align]

[align=center] USA                            8,076[/align]

[align=center] CANADA                   7,900[/align]

[align=center] FINLAND                   6,435[/align]

[align=center] SPAIN                         2,729[/align]

[align=center] BRAZIL                       1,051[/align]

[align=center] INDONEISA               693[/align]

[align=center] BANGLADESH          197[/align]
[align=left]If you in the US do not want to use so much energy then you have the choice. Nobody is forcing you to be so inefficient. Over here we have cars, air conditioning, heating. We as in teh US have high temperatures and freezing cold, we commute to work and live in old inefficient homes...[/align]
[align=left]It is not really possible to blame your governemnt and big oil for that which you do every day and which is under your control.[/align]
[align=left] [/align]

[andrewfi]

TP, now you demonstrate your ignorance. If you are going to make a post, try to use facts, not your fantasies. There is no need to deal with the factual inaccuracies that pepper your post above, they are plain to see. The sad/bad thing is that that they colour your perception.

[TigerPaws]

"Exactly why the US needs a new energy policy...we are indeed funding the enemy with our energy purchases from them. We need to declare war on oil, not Iran, and put our research efforts into outcomes that will diminish our need for foreign oil. A tax of 2 bucks would move us to more energy efficient cars and the money could fund the research. But we have to get big oil out of our governments pants before this process can start...?

[color="red"][size="4"]WHAT? [/size][/color][color="red"][size="4"][color="blue"]Are you out of your Fing mind? Do you actually believe a TAX will do anything, that the money will go towards energy research? Damn I did not realize you were such a socialist Michelangelo?  A  TAX like you suggest could easily cripple our economy.

 I agree we need greater energy independence but TAXES are not the way to go about getting it. We have in excess of a 500 year supply of clean coal, all we need to do is begin using it.
[/color][/size][/color]

[TigerPaws]

[size="4"][color="blue"]andrewfin,

 Have you ever been to Russia? Have you ever been to America? You do not know what the Hell you are talking about. You throw energy figures around without placeing them in context, your whole country could fit nicely into some of our larger cities. In most of America you have to drive considerable distances just to go to purchase food let alone see a doctor and other services. What you show it the limited small country European view of the world.[/color]
[/size]

[jb]

Andrew,

While I will allow that the figures you posted above are probably quite  accurate, what your numbers do not show is the productivity per  Kilogram of such energy usage.   It takes energy to run  factories and other businesses, as well as energy to light and heat a  house.  Comparing American energy consumption per capita to that  of a poor country is hardly honest, to say the least.  At first  glance (using your numbers) America looks like a major energy hog, but  a closer look would reveal an entirely different picture.

[Admin]

Guys,

So far this has been a highly-interesting and productive exchange of ideas/thoughts/experiences.

I can sense a building of tensions, so wanted to step in now to remind everyone to discuss the issues, without attacking persons.

To this point, the exchange has been one which is educational and interesting - let's keep it that way.

Good job.

- Dan

[TigerPaws]

[color="blue"][size="4"]LoL,

 No problem, sir.

[/size][/color]

[Bruno]

According to the ITER consortium, fusion power offers the potential of "environmentally benign, widely applicable and essentially inexhaustible" electricity, properties that they believe will be needed as world energy demands increase while simultaneously greenhouses gas emissions must be reduced, justifying the expensive research project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

[/url]

Funding : 50% Europe... 10% USA...

Seem that USA have not so much interest in the development of new energy...

[Michelangelo]

"Exactly why the US needs a new energy policy...we are indeed funding the enemy with our energy purchases from them. We need to declare war on oil, not Iran, and put our research efforts into outcomes that will diminish our need for foreign oil. A tax of 2 bucks would move us to more energy efficient cars and the money could fund the research. But we have to get big oil out of our governments pants before this process can start...?

[color="red"][size="4"]WHAT? [/size][/color][color="red"][size="4"][color="blue"]Are you out of your Fing mind? Do you actually believe a TAX will do anything, that the money will go towards energy research? Damn I did not realize you were such a socialist Michelangelo? A TAX like you suggest could easily cripple our economy.

I agree we need greater energy independence but TAXES are not the way to go about getting it. We have in excess of a 500 year supply of clean coal, all we need to do is begin using it.
[/color][/size][/color]

Cripple?   Hardly.  What cripples us is borrowing billions of dollars from China and paying 400 billiion for a war in Iraq where their army is gone but our troops keep on dying every day.  Had we put this tax in place in the 70s the middle east would not be rich and history would be different now. Clean coal?  I've been to China and I could hardly breathe there..  But hell no, don't give the tax to the government...funnel it directly into research.  Plus, with 4 dollar gas we will reduce the big SUVs on our streets.

The point is that we need solutions, and not the status quo which makes people who hate us stronger....

[jb]

Having spent the better part of the last 25 years "in the biz", I've  been perhaps closer to the internal workings of what it takes to do the  upstream portion of the oil business, i.e., exploration, drilling,  production, and transporting raw feed stocks to the refinery than most  people who casually and calmly drive up to the pump at the gas station  and are shocked at the prices.  I have no experience at the retail  level, nor would I want to.

Fully 33% of what you are paying at the pump is already a tax of some  sort.  Another $2.00 tax, like Michael suggested, (he was not  clear if he wanted to increase tax on a per gallon of gasoline, or on a  per barrel of oil basis), is unnesessary.  Taxes paid at the pump  are already sufficently high to support our US infrastructure, building  new, and repairing existing roads, highways, bridges, etc.,  unfortunately most politicans never met a tax they didn't like.   Much of the energy tax dollars we pay get siphoned off at the local and  state level to support other government entitlement programs and are  not ploughed back into development of a more sane energy policy.   Until we get a grip on other social problems, and also finally decide  to get serious about weaning ourselves off of imported oil will we get  back the control of our own destiny.

Congressional Democrats killed the proposal to drill in the ANWR  (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) the last time around, purely for  partisan political reasons, just because a Republican President  suggested it.  Trust me on this, the raindeer that live there  could care less if there is an oil field up there or not.  They  have about the intellect of a barnyard goat and are quite safe around  any civilization we might bring to the area.  Drilling in the ANWR  is a good idea, an idea whose time has come, and might save the US a  ton of grief in the future.

As it is, 2006 looks to be shaping up as a very turbulent year, and I don't see any relief in sight.

[jb]

Michael worote:

What cripples us is borrowing billions of dollars from China

I wasn't aware we had ever borrowed money from China, (other than the  money the Chinese military gave to Bill Clinton's re-election  campaign).   We have a huge trade deficit with China, costing  billions annually, but that's money flowing the wrong way. 

That's an unusual arguement, Michael.

[Admin]

jb / Michael,

I could be wrong, but I interpreted Michael's comment about the 70's to be a reference to the synthetic fuels campaigns intiated during the Carter administration, and quashed by the Reagan administration.

I wonder what you guys think about the initiation of synthetic fuels programs - and other initiatives (alternative energy) - designed to lessen the US dependence on foreign oil?

Good idea - or bad? Worth taxation, or not?

- Dan

[jb]

Dan, good point, but,,,

We already know how to make synthetic fuels, no need to research too  much on that idea.  It can be extracted from coal or shale  deposits, but it is extremely costly to do so.

BTW, the Germans developed this technology during the second world  war.  Much of the German Luftwaffe aircraft were fueled with  synthetic gas.

We also know how to extract hydrogen from sea water, it's a perfect  fuel, but again, requires huge amounts of energy to get it in useable  quanties.  That's where I'd put my research dollars if it were up  to me.

[ronin308]

Andrew, posting the per capita statistics once again prove that statistics can be made to prove whatever you want.  Interestingly the countries with the lower per capita expenditure of oil lived closer to the equator where there is no real expenditure for heating.  As even you noted, Finland has a high consumption of heating oil which is of course because of it's location.  In addition as others have stated,  comparing us with an economically developing nation isn't good sense.

As to Russia "throwing it's weight around", while I agree that Ukraine should have to pay market costs like everyone else, not withstanding any trade agreements that were in place (remember that one reason for the low gas prices was the negotiated lower price that the Russians were paying for the transit of gas to Europe), the timing of the change is suspect.  In effect it is an attempt to influence elections there which is no different than what the US has done in the past with other developing countries.

I think you missed the main thrust of the article which isn't about specific events but that Russia is economically blooming as you stated which lessens it's dependance on world opinion when they make policy decisions.  Whether the US likes it or not it is happening.

I seriously doubt the US or Europe would stand up to Russia now or in the future.  We simply don't have the balls as our actions in the middle east prove it.  We go after a relatively weak country and while they did have a connection to terrorists, it's a lot weaker than the Saudi's who we won't punish because of our fear of them using oil prices to punish us.

[TigerPaws]

[size="4"][color="blue"]Dan,

 Non oil based fuels are a joke, if you do the math to convert just 1/10 of the U.S. to agro based fuels (which is what we are talking about) would take more land than we have the ability to farm. It is simply not going to happen.

 There are aother possibilities but the people are not ready for them, LNG is a great but very dangerous, pound for pound LNG has the explosive potential of Nitro Glycerin.

 Our best bet is low Sulfur Coal which we have in vast quanities, I am sorry to say that politics is the only thing stopping us for using more.[/color]  
[/size]

[jb]

Ahhhh,,, yes, gasohol.  I had not even considered that  possibility, simply because is has been proven to be economically  unfeasible.  The cost (diesel to run the tractors and combines,  farmer's wages, land taken out of production for food which pays the  farmer more, etc.)  involved in growing a bushel of grain needed  to distill a pint of alcohol, true expense of distilling and extra  equipment needed at the refinery for blending, all make gasohol a very  expensive fuel.

[Admin]

The problem is - we don't know what we don't (yet) know.

Those technologies we know about include; oil shale and tar sands (extraction methodologies), coal to ethanol and/or methanol, conversion of agricultural products to liquid or gaseous fuels - all of this is aimed at replacing the fuels that drive our cars.

But additionally, there are (as jb pointed out) hydrogen-production options, various alternative energy sources such as solar and wind - and one of the most overlooked and yet, potentially, most impactful - and this is the development and use of passively safe nuclear power.

Seems there are a host of possibilities - and others which  will likely emerge if we ever REALLY make the effort and investment to develop the ones we know about.

Just a thought.

- Dan

[jb]

Dan,

My stepson, (the kid who took the picture) spent the summer at our Los  Alamos National Labratory where he was involved in research, (albeit at  a very junior level) on a government sponsored gas dynamics research  project.

Some of our nation's very best and brightest are, as we write these  thoughts, working on exactly these same problems.  There will be  breakthroughs in the future, no doubt, but the question is; will it  happen in a timely fashion?  We can only hope, but I'm of the  opinion that throwing more tax dollars, (typical government solution to  everything) is not the answer to our current situation. 

We are, I think, better off right now establishing a democratic  middle-east, first step was Iraq, and now we see elections taking place  in Egypt and other places, which was unheard of before we changed our  policy of kissing up to the autocrats running things under the old  regimes.   Thus we are in the process of stabilizing a major  source area of energy that the entire world depends on, not just  America.  This is one reason I have never understood most of  Europe's reluctance to help out in Iraq.  It is, after all, in  their own best interest to see a calm mid-east.