[MacG]

Relevant. And scary. He's been touching the infrastructure questions for a couple of years, but now he focus on them.

[ZombieMalthus]

Fun? Either you have a strong stomach or you believe your signiature?

Did you read the piece or are you satisfied with your own flippant response?

huh?

Yeah, I read through it. I showed it to a couple people too. I thought it was a pretty unique look at the problem.

Most people are just worried about whether there's enough oil in the ground, if they're worried at all. Simmons is also pointing out that the infrastructure to get that oil is breaking down. Upkeep is going to be an unignoreable added cost to exploiting energy reserves.

We're trying to build a 21st century civilization off of rusting, decaying 20th century energy infrastructure.

Something is gonna give, sooner or later.

I simply found the pictures of pestilence, death, and aliens the most striking. I could only imagine Simmons showing those slides at a $1000 per seat luncheon.

[RedStateGreen]

Well, something Fredrik touched on is the feedback loop Aaron (?) talked about in another thread. When oil gets pricey enough that it makes sense to redo the infrastructure, it will be too expensive because of all the oil needed to build the infrastructure.

I really think we've messed things up this time.

[alokin]

It makes no sense redoing all the infrastructure while reserves are dwindling. The money would be better invested in renewables and energy saving technology.
It's quite scary, not only of the delivery disruptures but for the environmental damage of each leak, the damaging of soils, drinking water and habitat. I reckon oil companies do not pay for this sort af damage...

[TheDude]

It makes no sense redoing all the infrastructure while reserves are dwindling. The money would be better invested in renewables and energy saving technology.

Yeah. Would like to see a prioritized list of what Matt thinks should be taken care of, instead of knowing that fixing everything will set us back $50 trillion+.

[Twilight]

That was a good presentation.

[Jbone]

Hello,

I am looking for a company or solution, that can help maximize the output of a refinery, that is strategy based, not technical.

Crazy Canuck

[joeltrout]

Hello,

I am looking for a company or solution, that can help maximize the output of a refinery, that is strategy based, not technical.

Crazy Canuck

Good luck. I am looking out my office window at an ExxonMobil refinery and it looks pretty technical to me.

joeltrout

[jackmcmanus21]

strategy based refinery sound refreshing...unfortunately I don't have anything for you. Welcome though!

[Jbone]

Please let me Clarify. I need help in locating Strategic technology based optimization solutions for Independant and Major refineries. Located in USA, Canada, Central and South America.

Hot topic points: Asset Optimization, Carbon trading Strategy, High througput capacity upgrading and biofuel Integration.

Hopefully, the bigger the words I use the better the replies.

crazy canuck

[joeltrout]

This is a pretty mixed forum. 95% or more of the people I have talked to on here are not even in the oil industry.

You should try contacting someone at the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association.

joeltrout

[Jbone]

Thanks joeltrout for the obvious answer. I had thought that this was an industry focussed topic board.

[joeltrout]

I had thought that this was an industry focussed topic board.

No it is the furthest thing from an industry focused topic board. I think it is more in line with people fantasizing about doom and gloom using peak oil as the current source of collapse and how they would survive if it happened.

The forum consists of a handful of oil industry people (myself included), homesteaders, ranchers, professors, wall street gurus, conspiracy theorist, mechanics, marines, and everthing in between.

If you know about the NPRA then why not go to them? What exactly are you trying to do? A research paper or someting?

joeltrout

[Graeme]

US could become net exporter while demand for gasoline falls

The US could become a net exporter of gasoline by 2010, given shifts in demand, biofuel mandates and growth in alternative vehicle technology, according to a report by Booz & Company, the global management consultancy.

Rising prices have already cooled US gasoline demand. The US transportation department said this month that motorists drove 12.2bn fewer miles in June than a year earlier, the eighth straight month that travel declined.

“It has opened up the possibility that the US will become long in gasoline (a net exporter rather than a net importer),’’ Booz says. “This is particularly likely if demand is reduced by an economic slowdown or a recession.” Booz believes gasoline consumption in the US is likely to peak within the next 15 to 20 years.

For US refiners, it looks increasingly likely demand growth will be in Asia. Tata’s new $2,500 car, introduced amid a growing appetite for vehicles driven by steep economic growth in Asia is likely to bolster conventional fuel demand.

FT

[DantesPeak]

This article assumes that the type and amount of oil needed for refining will be available, and that refiners will be able to profitably make and ship gasoine around the world.

I guess some haven't heard of PO yet, and if they did, they didn't factor in the rising costs of making and shipping gasoline around the world.

Otherwise they might be right.

[copious.abundance]

^
2010 is only 2 years from now.

[idiom]

Last week Asia had a suplus of refiners... what happened to them?

Why will India get Gasoline from the US instead of Singapore/Indonesia?

[copious.abundance]

^
Maybe the US will export the gasoline to Europe? Or somewhere else besides Asia?

Either that, or maybe summer US refinery utilization will go down to 75%.