[WebHubbleTelescope]

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. )

$10,000 a barrel divided by 42 gallons is $238/gallon (a fraction of this used for jet fuel).
If the average is 64 MPG per occupied seat and you took a round-trip flight of 6400 miles, then you used 100 gallons.

So you just paid 100*238 dollars which is $23,800 for a round-trip flight that might not make it back across the Atlantic.

I guess you don't worry about price, huh?
Or what is exactly your point?

[AirlinePilot]

So you just paid 100*238 dollars which is $23,800 for a round-trip flight that might not make it back across the Atlantic.

I guess you don't worry about price, huh?
Or what is exactly your point?

Nice! You just cant make this stuff up!

[meemoe_uk]

>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".
>Nice! You just cant make this stuff up!
You not laughing at my ideas btw. Crude oil prices in the region of $10000 is the kind of stuff Matt Simmons used to say made economic sense on his 'financial sense news hour' interviews, and his maths checked out. I got it off him 1st.
Go on, keep laughing at your own leaders. It's just typical of POers.

>Or what is exactly your point?
Try flying people across the atlantic at 400mph at 30000ft on human muscles power and food. How much would it cost? If the cost is higher than doing it with jetfuel and jet engines, then it's more economic to use jetfuel and jet engines.
It's that simple.
But bear in mind air travel is a poor comparison tool for judging what crude oil is worth economically.
- because it is so needlessly wasteful.
- because it's so power intensive human muscle power hasn't yet achieved 400mph at 30000ft.
we get distracted by AirLinePilots obfuscations. If your interested, you should look at a better economic comparison for working out the real economic value of barrel of oil and thus how high the price can go before it breaks it's own market.
Matt Simmons suggested $4000pb is a sensible price.
My calculations suggest the market would still work up to $16000 a barrel.

[Arthur75]

@memooe_uk

Think I get your point more or less (would be interested in associated calculations), but seems to me two cases have to be considered :
Either you suppose that a "modern" society keeps on going, or there is a break up.
For instance let's take as a criteria for "a modern society keeps on going", that a phone and computer network remains in activity.
In that case whatever oil is available at any price, agree that there would be a market for it (remains to be known exactly how that society works)

If there is a break up and no modern society anymore, there would still probably be a market for whatever oil can be had, but more paid in coconuts or other means, and used as cooking or lighting oil ..

Also maybe, could be argued that a barrel of oil couldn't go much higher than the cost of its equivalent in biofuels (for a given society and state of the planet)

[JohnRM]

Okay, I'm getting into this discussion late, but I thought it was generally considered fact that peak conventional oil was in December 2005 and that all of the growth currently underway is from unconventional sources such as tar sands and shale. I suppose you can celebrate that if you wish, but how long will that continue? I can't imagine either unconventional sources of petroleum or NGLs continuing to close the gap for much longer given what we know about both industries.

[sparky]

.
yes that's why all liquids is a valid watch ,
rather than concentrating on " conventional oil " it give a more complete picture
of energy degradation

[WebHubbleTelescope]

My calculations suggest the market would still work up to $16000 a barrel.

Now he is up to $38,000 for a round trip ticket across the Atlantic.

What is the recommended advice for someone digging themselves a deep hole?

[Adelaidewonderer]

My calculations suggest the market would still work up to $16000 a barrel.

Now he is up to $38,000 for a round trip ticket across the Atlantic.

What is the recommended advice for someone digging themselves a deep hole?

Well according to meemoe's theories, you cant dig yourself into a hole, gravity will push you back up.

$16000 a barrel in theory may work for the actual flight, but all he is talking about is the actual fuel use of the plane. To continue after that flight, would require no oil use by the pilots/ airport staff/ passengers getting to the airport, no use of oil products by the maintenance team, no use of crude products in making the replacement planes in the future etc etc.

Meemoes theories seem to be half mathematics and half black magic

[eXpat]

My calculations suggest the market would still work up to $16000 a barrel.

Now he is up to $38,000 for a round trip ticket across the Atlantic.

What is the recommended advice for someone digging themselves a deep hole?

Well according to meemoe's theories, you cant dig yourself into a hole, gravity will push you back up.

Priceless!!

[sparky]

.
not quite , one must consider the food price for an equivalent unit of work
either animal or human , that's 60w/ h sustained for 8 hours for humans

It's not much of a market mechanism
.....but that's about right energy wise

[mididoctors]

>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".
>Nice! You just cant make this stuff up!
You not laughing at my ideas btw. Crude oil prices in the region of $10000 is the kind of stuff Matt Simmons used to say made economic sense on his 'financial sense news hour' interviews, and his maths checked out. I got it off him 1st.
Go on, keep laughing at your own leaders. It's just typical of POers.

>Or what is exactly your point?
Try flying people across the atlantic at 400mph at 30000ft on human muscles power and food. How much would it cost? If the cost is higher than doing it with jetfuel and jet engines, then it's more economic to use jetfuel and jet engines.
It's that simple.
But bear in mind air travel is a poor comparison tool for judging what crude oil is worth economically.
- because it is so needlessly wasteful.
- because it's so power intensive human muscle power hasn't yet achieved 400mph at 30000ft.
we get distracted by AirLinePilots obfuscations. If your interested, you should look at a better economic comparison for working out the real economic value of barrel of oil and thus how high the price can go before it breaks it's own market.
Matt Simmons suggested $4000pb is a sensible price.
My calculations suggest the market would still work up to $16000 a barrel.

the exclusivity of utility in such a world with $10000+ oil really reinforces the importance of cheap oil.

a feudal world with a handful of aircraft being used by some arcane overloads is not business as usual.

your point is a reinforcement of the doomer position (which I do not hold btw)

[eXpat]

Very good article:

Based upon the monthly import data below from the IEA, it would appear that, to paraphrase Chief Brody in Jaws, we’re going to need more corn. As the Obama administration operates in denial of these simple facts, they will continue to push ethanol and Chevy Volts to save us from dirty oil. We are already diverting 40% of our corn crop to the ethanol boondoggle. I’m sure that has nothing to do with the 98% increase in corn prices in the last year. Maybe tax credits for solar panels on SUVs and rubber band propeller cars will save the day.

We know for a fact that Mexico’s 1.2 million barrels per day will evaporate in the next few years. But, at least we have that solid dependable 2.7 million barrels per day (30% of our daily imports) from those stable bastions of democracy Nigeria, Venezuela, Iraq, Angola, and Algeria. Makes you want to go out and buy a Hummer. The storyline being sold to the American people is that there is no need to worry. Saudi Arabia will step to the plate and make up for any shortfalls throughout the world. Just one problem. Saudi Arabia is lying about their reserves and their ability to increase production. They’d fit in very well in Congress and on Wall Street.
ccording to the cables, which date between 2007-09, Husseini said Saudi Arabia might reach an output of 12m barrels a day in 10 years but before then – possibly as early as 2012 – global oil production would have hit its highest point. This crunch point is known as “peak oil”.

Husseini said that at that point Aramco would not be able to stop the rise of global oil prices because the Saudi energy industry had overstated its recoverable reserves to spur foreign investment. He argued that Aramco had badly underestimated the time needed to bring new oil on tap.

One cable said: “According to al-Husseini, the crux of the issue is twofold. First, it is possible that Saudi reserves are not as bountiful as sometimes described, and the timeline for their production not as unrestrained as Aramco and energy optimists would like to portray.”

The US consul then told Washington: “While al-Husseini fundamentally contradicts the Aramco company line, he is no doomsday theorist. His pedigree, experience and outlook demand that his predictions be thoughtfully considered.”

A fourth cable, in October 2009, claimed that escalating electricity demand by Saudi Arabia may further constrain Saudi oil exports. “Demand [for electricity] is expected to grow 10% a year over the next decade as a result of population and economic growth. As a result it will need to double its generation capacity to 68,000MW in 2018,” it said.

It also reported major project delays and accidents as “evidence that the Saudi Aramco is having to run harder to stay in place – to replace the decline in existing production.” While fears of premature “peak oil” and Saudi production problems had been expressed before, no US official has come close to saying this in public.

The overstatement of reserves by Saudi Arabia and most of the OPEC countries should be abundantly clear to anyone with a smattering of critical thinking skills. This eliminates just about everyone on CNBC or Fox News. Essentially, the self reported, unaudited declared oil reserves from OPEC members are a fraud. Production quotas for each member of OPEC are dependent upon their oil reserve amount. When this was instituted in the early 1980s, shockingly OPEC countries miraculously added nearly 300 billion barrels to proven reserves in a six year period with NO NEW DISCOVERIES of oil. The chart below shows the unexplained jumps in reserves in red. Do you honestly believe any self reported number from Iran or Venezuela? Dr. Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, a former senior expert of the National Iranian Oil Company, has estimated that Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have overstated reserves by a combined 320–390 billion barrels and has said, “As for Iran, the usually accepted official 132 billion barrels is almost one hundred billion over any realistic estimate.”

Using some common sense, someone might ask, “How could Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves remain above 260 million for the last 22 years despite pumping over 60 billion barrels during this time frame, and not making any major new discoveries?” Maybe their statisticians did their training at Goldman Sachs or the Federal Reserve. The monster Saudi oil fields are over 40 years old. They will deplete. Oil is finite. They will not refill abiotically like some crackpots contend. Saudi Arabia’s production peaked in 2005 and it has been unable to reach that level since. The spin sheiks in Riyadh and spin doctors in Washington DC cannot spin oil out of sand. Peak oil is about to choke the American way of life.

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=12268

[virgincrude]

Meemoe, hasn't it ocurred to you that your 'insiders' whispering about the magical 2001 oil bonanza might be as reliably well informed as the guys at Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, The Federal Reserve etc., etc., ...?

[kildred590]

[quote][$10,000 a barrel divided by 42 gallons is $238/gallon (a fraction of this used for jet fuel).
If the average is 64 MPG per occupied seat and you took a round-trip flight of 6400 miles, then you used 100 gallons.
/quote]

But those figures are nonsense.
If you actually look at the statements made :

"According to British Airways, a 747-400 plane cruises [my emphasis] at 576 mph (927
km/h), burns 12,788 liters (3378 US gallons) of fuel per hour, and
carries 409 passengers when full:
http://www.britishairways.com/flights/f ... 7474.shtml

If the plane is 75% full, one passenger is carried 22.2 km for each
liter of fuel burned (52.2 miles for each US gallon of fuel burned).
This fuel efficiency exceeds that of almost all cars, when the driver
is travelling alone."

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=48121

The DoT figures give the fuel consumption when the aircraft is at cruising speed, with no headwinds.
But aircraft use a great deal more fuel to take off and land, and when there are cross- or head-winds.
So actual fuel consumption per passenger is more like 10 MPG.

It reminds me of a segment on Top Gear whne that clowen Clarkson made a claim that railways use twice the fuel of aircraft - makes you wonder why they shift coal on trains !

[meemoe_uk]

>Meemoe, hasn't it ocurred to you that your 'insiders' whispering about the magical 2001 oil bonanza might be as reliably well informed as the guys at Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, The Federal Reserve etc., etc., ...?
Well in this respect, calling when peak oil is, he's part of a group that has a 100% track record of being right, the cornys. You should ask yourself the same questions about the peakoil leaders. Matt simmons was a energy industry banker who was positioned to rake in the cash when oil prices were high. The Fed and goldman are also pretty good at what they do, looting the rest of the economy.

Now he is up to $38,000 for a round trip ticket across the Atlantic. What is the recommended advice for someone digging themselves a deep hole?
Was ignoring your critics your forumula for writing your book? I've already addressed this point for you.

But bear in mind air travel is a poor comparison tool for judging what crude oil is worth economically.
- because it is so needlessly wasteful.
- because it's so power intensive human muscle power hasn't yet achieved 400mph at 30000ft.

Let me put it another way.
If all the airplanes in the world vanished tommorrow, never to return, then it wouldn't be a prob for essential world economy. It would only be a small prob for the 'luxury' economy of the 1st world. Most of international world trade is done by maritime trade, the next most significant methods are rail and trucking.
So it doesn't matter how much a plane ticket costs $100, $38000 , $5bn. It doesn't matter, the world economy doesn't care. The most significant economic effect would be on the anglo-american grip on world narcotics trade. It would be dealt a major blow. They use aviation to outrun all the land\sea trade routes.
In that sense, it would be very good for the domestic ecomony. Banks would be less able to make profit thru drugs, so would be more inclined to invest in industry.
Are you twigging yet? Find a different measure of the health of the world economy other than plane tickets, which is a crap measure. Then you might see why the price of oil can go so high without effecting the economy. Unless of course, like all peakers, you don't want to see, in which case stick with your plane ticket measure, aka your 'hands over eyes to prevent seeing truth' measure.

[eXpat]

he's part of a group that has a 100% track record of being right, the cornys.

[AirlinePilot]

If all the airplanes in the world vanished tommorrow, never to return, then it wouldn't be a prob for essential world economy. It would only be a small prob for the 'luxury' economy of the 1st world. etc etc blah blah blah.....

There is so much wrong with that line of reasoning that it does not warrant a response. You obviously have no idea how air travel is linked with both national and individual state economies. That is one of the most ignorant posts I have witnessed here.

Your credibility doth shrink with such blatant disregards for fact!

[meemoe_uk]

Okay, I'm getting into this discussion late, but I thought it was generally considered fact that peak conventional oil was in December 2005 and that all of the growth currently underway is from unconventional sources such as tar sands and shale. I suppose you can celebrate that if you wish, but how long will that continue? I can't imagine either unconventional sources of petroleum or NGLs continuing to close the gap for much longer given what we know about both industries.

Hi John, the IEA reports I use don't have month resolution. But I think quarterly resolution is better anyway.
http://omrpublic.iea.org/archiveresults ... full+issue
Here's what they say about world conventional crude supply
Year Quarter, Total minus bio and NGL = conventional crude
2005 4th quarter 84.28-4.8 = 79.48mbpd average
2009 4th quarter 86.2-(5.0+1.7) = 79.50mbpd average
2010 4th quarter 88.2-(5.5+1.7) = 81.00mbpd average

Therefore, 2005 4th Quarter, the one with Dec2005 in, isn't peak quarter. That's good enough for me. 2010 is highest conventional supply so far.

On tar sands and shale, is that included in NGLs? I recall the canadian tar sand project uses natural gas in the refining process. I don't know. I'm pretty sure that if tar sands and shale are included in proven oil reserves, then they give something like an extra 200 years proven supply. And that's just the stuff that's been found. The drive to find such oil is much smaller than the drive to find conventional crude. Chances are, if there was a serious effort to find all world shale and tar oil, then there'd be several thousand years supply.
Geologically how can this happen?
Simple.
Conventional crude is attacked by nature. If it gets onto the surface, it evaporates off or is eaten by bacteria. Shale oil and tar sands is the stuff left over. So while world oil crude has been continually lost to nature for millions of years, tar sands etc have been building up.
That the world has, for millions of years, been exposed to large amounts of CO2 from natural oil seeps ( I recall the canadian tar sands is a relic of a natural seep of an estimated 3trillion barrels worth of crude), is a threat to the AGW movement, since today the cumulative total oil consumption is a little over 1trn barrels.
The biosphere is used to bursts of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmos.

Peakers refuse to acknowledge data that's contrary to their beliefs. That the 2005 is conventional crude peak myth is still readily believed 5 years after it was refuted is a measure of how strong the 'peakoil collapse is now!' religion is.

Braticus made a start on looking at the IEA numbers, so I thought he'd be the one telling you.
But seems he's since realised the error in his ways. Maybe he got pm'ed by other peakers warning him not to look at data as that habit is threatening to the religion.

[AirlinePilot]

The EIA does not agree with that assessment. The most important fact to take away from all this production nitpicking, and that is what it is...is that statistically we are on a plateau which has not wavered much above 74.5-75mbpd of CRUDE production. 81 for 2010? I frankly doubt the validity of that after revisions.

I dont buy the IEA's data until it gets revised. Or the EIA's but what this should tell folks who aren't invested in one argument or another is that factually we are on a plateau and struggling to remain there even in the face of some very high prices(traditionally) for crude.

Arguing and playing some childish nyaa, nyaa game over what is statistical noise is just dumb.

[AirlinePilot]

This is a good read...pay particular attention to the "average" oil production chart on the same page. Interesting isnt it?

http://voluntary-exchanges-only.blogspo ... -data.html