[Lore]

The average american commutes some 30 miles a day? The average american gets some 22 mpg? The average american therefore uses some 6.8 gallons a week of gasoline for a 5 day work week, @$4/gal we're talking $27/week for the average American? Somehow, I think if they give up a single Starbucks run a day, they can EASILY afford $50/week for fuel, or similarly, they can afford the price of gasoline to double to $8/gal, exactly as I have suggested previously.

The average number of cars per household in the U.S. is 2.28. Average income per household is around 46K a year. Take out around 28% for taxes and net take home income is about $3K/mo or $750 a week which needs to be divided up among housing payments, sales and other taxes, food, clothing, utilities, auto payments, etc. Forget a budget on entertainment.

So an increase, just in gas, today over the national average of around $3.50 and proposed to jump to $8, would mean an extra 4.50/gal.

The average American drives their vehicle 12,000 miles a year, which is around 230 miles a week using 10.5 gals. So the increase cost for gas would amount to $47.25 a week per vehicle or a decrease to monthly disposable income of an additional $189/mo. Add half the mileage for car #2 and your taking out an extra $284 a month. I would think that would cut into more than then your Starbuck's budget. And that doesn't even account for all the other necessities of life going through the roof because of the higher cost of fuel.

I'll make a conservative estimate here, but I would venture to guess that such an increase in fuel, as above, would take an additional 20% out of the average monthly income.

[Plantagenet]

It is about time the incentive was laid down to stop this outrageous development of all these other types of fuels. We save the planet from warming, we save the planet from development, we save the planet from everything...and all it requires is getting the average consumer, of any nationality, to get kicked in the privates by the price of crude until they change their behavior.....what price do you think it would take to take 50% out of the average monthly income? Now THAT people will notice!

Don't be such a ninny.



Even someone as obtuse as you should realize that the global economy will collapse again long before rising oil prices are taking 50% of the average income.

[meemoe_uk]

>Sorry, that's on page 59 not 57
So you should be. Between you and the thousands of other POers registered on this forum, it's only taken you 11 days to realise this most trivial or errors.

>Condensates, NGLs and crude have different BTUs per barrel. Hence none of their data specifies amount of energy being produced.
Different grades of crude have different BTUs per barrel. Hence none of their data specifies amount of energy being produced.

So what?, you gonna throw out every piece of infomation ever written on oil, just because different stuff has different BTU? Good for you. Why not write endless emails nagging BP, exxon, the EIA and IEA then?

Instead, I think what you might want to do, to make a worthwhile point along the line of arguement you wre trying, is subtract from the total world supply : biofuels and NGLs, to leave crude supply.
In which case, 2010 (80.2mbpd) doesn't break the all time record. At least 2009 (80.6mbpd average) was higher for conventional crude.
Why not look thru IEA records and apply this method to find the highest year for crude supply according to the IEA? Remember, the further back the record was set, the most certain you can be that that was all-time peak, the more PO hype you can generate, so more kudos to you.

I ain't worried about peak. As I've said before, I've heard enough from industry insiders to be confident the new supplies coming on line from the 2001 middle east oil bonanza will meet world demand for many years to come, and in doing so set new highs, including for IEA classified crude.

Well done for being the only POer who has scrutanised a skeptic's link.
By doing this, I hope you realise you stepping over a line that most peakers refuse to go past. The other peakers are looking at your actions with concern and disdain.

[AirlinePilot]

Well done for being the only POer who has scrutanised a skeptic's link.
By doing this, I hope you realise you stepping over a line that most peakers refuse to go past. The other peakers are looking at your actions with concern and disdain.

As usual with typical PO denial and general corny thought processes, you would be wrong in your above analysis. Most of us die hard PO proponents dont bother anymore with every corny troll that rolls in here. We are tired of rehashing the same old crap. After you have smashed your head against the wall a whole bunch of times you learn it starts to hurt so you avoid doing it as much as possible.

The constant disregard for EROEI and the lack of understanding about why we have an "All Liquids" number now is very old news here. Being corny is a choice you make resulting from one of two things: A very strong normalcy bias, or the inability to accept reasonable facts which do not "fit" the corny outlook.

[Xenophobe]

Most of us die hard PO proponents dont bother anymore with every corny troll that rolls in here. We are tired of rehashing the same old crap.

Well...that translates as "since we've had two peak oils since this website started and we don't like our bad predictions being thrown in our faces as we fantastically manufacturer our next hysterical rapture scenario"....

Some of us still have the same jobs we had before peak oil happened, right Airline? And some of those jobs consist fo furiously conbusting liquid fossil fuels...and there is so much around for us to do this with...we still have jobs!


Yeah..and this makes us realists look bad....peaker's bad rapture scenarios.

[AirlinePilot]

Coming here and implying that all is well with gasoline once again rising towards 4$/gal and jet fuel reaching very costly levels is patently absurd. This will have implications which once again hobble the industry and cause serious economic problems for users of oil products. This includes input prices and compressing margins.

I may still have a job in the airline industry but I can assure you it looks nothing like it did 5-6 years ago. Your implication of little to no impact is disingenuous and factually wrong.

You really need to get off the "All liquids" wagon, it makes you very transparent. That plus the absurd "many peaks" argument really destroys any credibility you might have left here.

[meemoe_uk]

>As usual with typical PO denial and general corny thought processes, you would be wrong in your above analysis.

Well point out where I'm wrong then.

Most of us die hard PO proponents dont bother anymore with every corny troll that rolls in here.

Likewise, Most of us die hard PO skeptics dont bother anymore with every PO troll, like you, that rolls in here.

We are tired of rehashing the same old crap.

I agree, your analysis, if it existed, would be crap.

After you have smashed your head against the wall a whole bunch of times you learn it starts to hurt so you avoid doing it as much as possible.

Skeptics feel the same way about POers.

>The constant disregard for EROEI

You ignored my invitation for you to do analysis surrounding oil energy and EROEI ( Oil is extremely cheap. Until costs go above $10000 a barrel, we don't need to worry about cost. Since you're an airline pilot you can post the maths to show exactly why this is so. )
So it seems you constantly ignore EROEI.

Being POer is a choice you make resulting from one of two things: A very strong normalcy bias, or the inability to accept reasonable facts which do not "fit" the PO outlook.

Coming here and implying that all is well with gasoline once again rising towards 4$/gal and jet fuel reaching very costly levels is patently absurd.

Coming here and implying that all is bad with gasoline once again rising towards 4$/gal and jet fuel reaching very costly levels is patently absurd.
Even at $400 a gallon, it would be economical to employ combustion\jet engines and gasoline over human muscle power and food. If you think otherwise, ask your flight engineers to fit a pedal mechanism to your Boeing 747, you and your passengers can pedal power your flight over the atlantic.
I'm sitting on the analysis I've written which shows this is true. I'd hoped you'd generate your own analysis before I post it, but forget that, now I'm just waiting for you to even acknowledge my invitation for you to do analysis. If you want my analysis, either write your own, or admit you're incapable and you need me to do it. But 1st start by acknowledging I've asked you to try.

I haven't noticed you do any energy analysis in all your 3871 posts. Looks like you are incapable, and your " We are tired of rehashing the same old crap. " is just a BS cover story to hide your incapability. seems you have to block out any posts that usher you into EROEI analysis.
Don't think I haven't noticed.

I can't help but get you started. Here's some hints
The energy density of crude oil is around 44MJ per kg. That's enough to pull it out from about 5000km deep out of the ground, i.e. about the Earth's outer core inner core boundary. The oil humans extract is from the crust, not substancially more than 10km below sea level. 5000km-10 = 4990km. So if we had to lift oil from 10km in the ground, it would take only 0.2% of the oil's energy, which is an EROEI of 500. But in practice most if not all of the lifting energy comes from the Earth's gravity pressuring the oil upwards so even 500 EROEI figure is conservatively low.
This is one factor in the EROEI calculation. Moving to the next.
Your task, work out how much energy it takes to drill through 10km of granite to get to an oil reservoir.

meemoe_uk's guess on AirlinePilot's response : Completely ignore or give some generic POer BS reason for not responding, obviously covering up inability to do EROEI analysis, or at best, do a cut and paste of someone else's work.

[Adelaidewonderer]

[quote="meemoe_uk]
I can't help but get you started. Here's some hints
The energy density of crude oil is around 44MJ per kg. That's enough to pull it out from about 5000km deep out of the ground, i.e. about the Earth's outer core inner core boundary. The oil humans extract is from the crust, not substancially more than 10km below sea level. 5000km-10 = 4990km. So if we had to lift oil from 10km in the ground, it would take only 0.2% of the oil's energy, which is an EROEI of 500. But in practice most if not all of the lifting energy comes from the Earth's gravity pressuring the oil upwards so even 500 EROEI figure is conservatively low.
This is one factor in the EROEI calculation. Moving to the next.
Your task, work out how much energy it takes to drill through 10km of granite to get to an oil reservoir.

meemoe_uk's guess on AirlinePilot's response : Completely ignore or give some generic POer BS reason for not responding, obviously covering up inability to do EROEI analysis.[/quote]

Earths gravity pressuring the oil upwards!!!!!!!! shouldnt the oil then want to go to the earths core instead, instead of its surface???? The saudis have been resorting to water pressure for many decades now.

If your calculations on EROI are right, then oil that comes from 10km under, would not have a positive EROEI if it had to travel over 4990kms to its market (not even counting all the other energy required for conversion to gasoline etc).

[Adelaidewonderer]

meemoe_uk]
I can't help but get you started. Here's some hints
The energy density of crude oil is around 44MJ per kg. That's enough to pull it out from about 5000km deep out of the ground, i.e. about the Earth's outer core inner core boundary. The oil humans extract is from the crust, not substancially more than 10km below sea level. 5000km-10 = 4990km. So if we had to lift oil from 10km in the ground, it would take only 0.2% of the oil's energy, which is an EROEI of 500. But in practice most if not all of the lifting energy comes from the Earth's gravity pressuring the oil upwards so even 500 EROEI figure is conservatively low.
This is one factor in the EROEI calculation. Moving to the next.
Your task, work out how much energy it takes to drill through 10km of granite to get to an oil reservoir.

meemoe_uk's guess on AirlinePilot's response : Completely ignore or give some generic POer BS reason for not responding, obviously covering up inability to do EROEI analysis

Earths gravity pressuring the oil upwards!!!!!!!! shouldnt the oil then want to go to the earths core instead, instead of its surface???? The saudis have been resorting to water pressure for many decades now.

If your calculations on EROI are right, then oil that comes from 10km under, would not have a positive EROEI if it had to travel over 4990kms to its market (not even counting all the other energy required for conversion to gasoline etc).

[Arthur75]

@AirlinePilot

Was wondering how does it feel to be both an airline pilot and "peak oil aware" at the same time ?
Not a "reproach" in any way, but do you sometimes feel strange or "dizzy" in these big fuel burning machines ?
I know it happens to me sometimes riding my scooter in the traffic jams, contemplating the mass of cars and exhausts and feeling "strange" as in "holy shit this is nuts"
Also do some of your colleagues are also aware of the problem, is it talked about ?

[meemoe_uk]

Earths gravity pressuring the oil upwards!!!!!!!! shouldnt the oil then want to go to the earths core instead, instead of its surface???? The saudis have been resorting to water pressure for many decades now.
If your calculations on EROI are right, then oil that comes from 10km under, would not have a positive EROEI if it had to travel over 4990kms to its market (not even counting all the other energy required for conversion to gasoline etc).

What a beautiful example you are of a POer Adelaidewonderer. Your brain perfectly untouched by science, maths or reality. Preserved in a jar of PO hype pickle.
Alternatively, hopefully, you're not 10 years old yet. Assuming this, I will give you a 1st lesson in working against gravity, which will help you understand the error in your 2nd paragraph. The 1st paragraph, involving pressures, is still way out of your undestanding for now.

Ever notice how it's harder to walk directly upwards into the sky than it is to walk along the ground?
That's because when you walk along the ground you're not working against gravity.
A object can travel millions of miles round the Earth over and over, and as long as it stays on the flat, not a single speck of energy need be spent working against gravity.
This is true for everything, including shipments of oil. Workdone against gravity for above ground oil shipments is negliable.

You might want to ask yourself, "but then why does it still take effort to move along the ground?" : Hint : There is another (generalized) force that opposes your motion.

[Adelaidewonderer]

Earths gravity pressuring the oil upwards!!!!!!!! shouldnt the oil then want to go to the earths core instead, instead of its surface???? The saudis have been resorting to water pressure for many decades now.
If your calculations on EROI are right, then oil that comes from 10km under, would not have a positive EROEI if it had to travel over 4990kms to its market (not even counting all the other energy required for conversion to gasoline etc).

... Ever notice how it's harder to walk directly upwards into the sky than it is to walk along the ground?
That's because when you walk along the ground you're not working against gravity. ...

Meemoe, please read your original statement, you didnt say pressure, you said

But in practice most if not all of the lifting energy comes from the Earth's gravity

You have indicated that if someone dug a 10 km deep hole, and sat in it, then gravity would bring them back to the top of the earths crust. I assume Somehow, they would need to overcome gravity to get to the bottom of the hole in the first place.

Ever notice how it's harder to walk directly upwards into the sky than it is to walk along the ground?

Walking upwards is not hard at all, for as long as gravity exists on earth, then it will always push me up (according to you).

I assume you are on the verge of announcing perpetual motion, now that you have discovered a way of negating gravity and friction for sideways movement.

[meemoe_uk]

But in practice most if not all of the lifting energy comes from the Earth's gravity

>You have indicated that if someone dug a 10 km deep hole, and sat in it, then gravity would bring them back to the top of the earths crust.
I'm sure that when POers read the sentance I wrote, they form crazy mental images similar to yours. I'm not responsible for the madness that goes on in POer heads. All I can say, assuming you've left nothing out, is that this is completely wrong, and my statement doesn't assert this at all.

Until you get a grip on gravitional energy only working in an up down direction, don't bother with trying to understand how gravity can lift stuff.
Although, if I'm having to tell you this, you probably are already doomed never to understand either situation.

You might want to see it with your own eyes though, even if you don't understand what you're seeing.
Here's how to see gravity lift something, step my step.
1. Stand up.
2. Walk away from computer.
3. Walk into kitchen
4. Get drink glass.
5. Fill drink glass with water.
6. Drop dense object into glass. e.g. metal spoon
7. Gravity will lift water in glass up, as object falls by gravity to bottom of glass. Without gravity, water would stay in the glass, until you pressed the spoon into the water, expending your own energy doing so.

Seeing this might make your brain spin. But it's a common aspect of reality. Kids are taught about it in there 1st few science lessons. It's exactly this mechanisn that brings oil deep in the ground, to the surface.
Finally, know this. Gravity isn't the only physics involved here, pressure is involved as well.

[Adelaidewonderer]

7. Gravity will lift water in glass up, as object falls by gravity to bottom of glass. Without gravity, water would stay in the glass, until you pressed the spoon into the water, expending your own energy doing so.
Seeing this might make your brain spin. But it's a common aspect of reality. Kids are taught about it in there 1st few science lessons. It's exactly this mechanisn that brings oil deep in the ground, to the surface.
Finally, know this. Gravity isn't the only physics involved here, pressure is involved as well.

Almost a good save, you've almost realised the difference between pressure and gravity, without needing to admit that you muddled them up.

I do see where your coming from tho. I was always confused why Australia didnt have kilometre long metal spoons like they do in the UK. Now i know they are being used in the oil wells. Surely they must be using stainless steel ones in the North Sea.
But I do love this comment-

Without gravity, water would stay in the glass

And to think those NASA people still have to put the liquids in sealed containers. They are so non Meemoe.

[meemoe_uk]

>You lost dude. Now go away.
Or more correctly, you and AW lose. I wasn't able to get AW to understand. You and her are stuck in POer land, full of kilometer long spoons, perpetual motion machines and gravity acting sideways. Enjoy it. Now go away.

[americandream]

At what point would the cost of an energy unit of oil eclipse and overtake an energy unit of labour?

meemoe, anyone?

[AirlinePilot]

Im not even going to go near the 'gravity" stuff. Im laughing too hard! I will ask meemo on what planet he thinks 400$/gal ANYTHING used to move people with will be "cost effective". Sorry my good man you obviously do not understand how that can never happen. At least in any way shape or form approximating our present day or even near future economy.

[AirlinePilot]

Any discussion about EROEI needs to include far more input than just the partial amount of energy used to LIFT oil. Debating the topic with such a myopic view is flawed. I think it was Simmons or Deffeyes who said that back over 100 years ago a barrel of oil expended in the oilpatch resulted in 100 bbls of oil extracted. That ratio is SIGNIFICANTLY worse today. Its a direct measure of how oil has become harder to get and i dont think most knowledgeable experts will deny this.

[AirlinePilot]

@AirlinePilot

Was wondering how does it feel to be both an airline pilot and "peak oil aware" at the same time ?
Not a "reproach" in any way, but do you sometimes feel strange or "dizzy" in these big fuel burning machines ?
I know it happens to me sometimes riding my scooter in the traffic jams, contemplating the mass of cars and exhausts and feeling "strange" as in "holy shit this is nuts"
Also do some of your colleagues are also aware of the problem, is it talked about ?

I dont bring it up unless it can dovetail with something I didnt bring up. Ive enlightened a few folks over the last few years. There are not a lot of dummies in airliner cockpits so grasping the principle isnt hard. its accepting that things may be different than they have thought that gets weird. I lead them to their own conclusions and encourage them to go do some research on thier own.

As to the holy shit thing...yeah i get that. More when flying on a clear night up and down the BOSWASH metroplex. Its unnerving seeing how much energy we use. My realization of Po has come far into my carreer and i basically acknowledge it and just hope for the best, but I can not get away from this job for a while. So, i just keep at it and try to prep for life down the road. I dont feel guilty or anything like that....if thats what your driving at. Im not an idealogue when it comes to this..more a pragmatist.