[outcast]

JD was waffling on late 2007 about unimpeded economic growth. Where are global markets today? Whats the inflation outlook? Whats the job outlook? Whats the housing market look like?

The economy sucks and it pretty much is because of the federal reserve. We just popped a huge financial bubble and combining that with the FR turning on the printing press at full speed, what do you expect? This isn't because of peak anything, it is because of a couple decades worth of shitty monetary policies.

[vilemerchant]

JD was waffling on late 2007 about unimpeded economic growth. Where are global markets today? Whats the inflation outlook? Whats the job outlook? Whats the housing market look like?

The economy sucks and it pretty much is because of the federal reserve. We just popped a huge financial bubble and combining that with the FR turning on the printing press at full speed, what do you expect? This isn't because of peak anything, it is because of a couple decades worth of shitty monetary policies.

This is true. I'm actually beginning to think that the continuing credit crunch and economic problems could cause so much demand destruction that it might actually put back peak oil for 10 or 20 years. What I mean by peak oil btw is the point where demand outstrips supply. America consumes 25% of the world oil and is in for some serious economic backpeddaling.

[TonyPrep]

This isn't because of peak anything, it is because of a couple decades worth of shitty monetary policies.

There are probably many factors. One could be the steep rise in the cost of oil and all the products that it feeds into (everything?). Rising expenses makes it harder to meet loan payments. Jobs were also being lost as a consequence of rising fuel prices (in the car and air travel industries). Not the whole story, but the failure of oil production to keep up with demand must be a factor, I would have thought.

[davep]

I don't have time to read blogs. When Blume publishes in a peer-reviewed professional journal gives me a ring. Until then I will not waste one minute of time arguing Pimentel. I have discussed his methods, analysis, and results for years now and still await professional criticism. Blume is not that.

Again, from the article:

Pimentel's lack of expertise also explains his continuing choice to
publish with the International Association for Mathematical Geology's
Nonrenewable Resources, now renamed Natural Resources Research, (which
handles "all aspects of non-renewable [author's emphasis] resources, both
metallic and non-metallic... "), [3] not a journal known for
peer-reviewing biological papers or those on renewable energy. His peer
reviewers all missed the same glaring errors mentioned above.

It's hard to get professional criticism when your "peers" are not related to your research.

This is an ad hominem. Pimentel has published in dozens of peer-reviewed agriculture and ecology journals, where in fact he designed ecologic life-cycle analysis. The same principals of net-energy study may be applied to living and man-made systems. So Pimentel's groundbreaking work on organic vs. conventional agriculture energy accounting is timeless and sequed nicely into his work on agriculture fuels.

That fact of is publication in a professional geology journal dealing with larger energy issues is a complement to Pimentel and the wide-ranging applicability of his methods and analysis.

You and Blume are a waste of my time, DaveP

Pstarr, you put a lot of faith in Pimentel's work, yet you refuse to even read criticism of it.

This smacks of dogma, not science. I don't want to have another slanging match here about this, because we just don't reach common ground. Just ask yourself why you need to be so reverential towards his work. Is it because his conclusions form one of the pillars of your doomer beliefs?

[allenwrench]

Doom?

No doom?

Labels do not matter to me

If gas is abundant - I will burn it up.

If gas is not abundant - I will prepare for downfall.

Wherever the truth is that is where I go.

But being stuck in a labeling machine wont feed me.

(...now stickers are another thing!)

[allenwrench]

MattS - Sorry, it's rather late here & this is probably a duh question, but are you saying there are over 100 years of NG reserves right now? Do any links for that? Thanks.

I posted a link which showed, at current consumption rates, that estimates of natural gas run about 60 years. That was somewhere else though. My comment to Rock was more related to how unconventionals have been around a long time, and recently have been "rediscovered" because of economics.
The pure quantities involved in the unconventionals and things like hydrates is simply mind boggling, and most of them aren't counted in that 60 year supply number.

I say drain the earth dry of every last precious drop of energy! My high maintenance lifestyle can't suffer an interruption or by farking god I'll have to kill myself!

Funny thing about crude oil. We say we need to 'save our crude' but If we don't use the crude, it serves no purpose.

Some theories say we need it to keep the earth balanced - but there is no proof about this.

So what good is oil in the ground? Maybe to massage our ego? Hurray we got oil in the ground.

CNBC reported that demand for gas goes right back up when gas goes to the $3 70 a gallon range.

That should be no surprise.

If gas was back to last summers $2.80 gallon level, I'd be headed for Moab for some mountain biking. And when I got back looking to buy a new jet ski...if we don't use the crude, it serves no purpose. But at $4 a gallon, I've changed my habits to fit my budget.

We need to save our crude oil...save it for what?

Maybe petrochemicals so our descendants 'can use' it up?

Maybe national security..to 'gas up' our military and their jets?

But no matter how you slice it crude oil is only good 'to use' and serves no purpose other than what we humans have deemed it worthwhile to use it for.

[allenwrench]

I don't have time to read blogs. When Blume publishes in a peer-reviewed professional journal gives me a ring. Until then I will not waste one minute of time arguing Pimentel. I have discussed his methods, analysis, and results for years now and still await professional criticism. Blume is not that.

Again, from the article:

Pimentel's lack of expertise also explains his continuing choice to
publish with the International Association for Mathematical Geology's
Nonrenewable Resources, now renamed Natural Resources Research, (which
handles "all aspects of non-renewable [author's emphasis] resources, both
metallic and non-metallic... "), [3] not a journal known for
peer-reviewing biological papers or those on renewable energy. His peer
reviewers all missed the same glaring errors mentioned above.

It's hard to get professional criticism when your "peers" are not related to your research.

This is an ad hominem. Pimentel has published in dozens of peer-reviewed agriculture and ecology journals, where in fact he designed ecologic life-cycle analysis. The same principals of net-energy study may be applied to living and man-made systems. So Pimentel's groundbreaking work on organic vs. conventional agriculture energy accounting is timeless and sequed nicely into his work on agriculture fuels.

That fact of is publication in a professional geology journal dealing with larger energy issues is a complement to Pimentel and the wide-ranging applicability of his methods and analysis.

You and Blume are a waste of my time, DaveP

Pstarr, you put a lot of faith in Pimentel's work, yet you refuse to even read criticism of it.

This smacks of dogma, not science. I don't want to have another slanging match here about this, because we just don't reach common ground. Just ask yourself why you need to be so reverential towards his work. Is it because his conclusions form one of the pillars of your doomer beliefs?

I don't care about all this. I go with what is. Gas is not .23 cents a gallon like it was when I first started to drive or even $2.30. My NG bill is going up by 30% and not going down by 50%. Food is skyrocketing - one butternut squash was $7 at Krogers, a tomato was near $3.

If PO critics wish to subscribe to wishful thinking and not prep so be it. But the bottom line is either fossil fuels are endless or they are not. And if not, then it is not a question of if, but of when. And the signposts in our world are pointing to PO knocking at the door.

[TonyPrep]

We need to save our crude oil...save it for what?

It's not really a question of saving it but of stopping using it, since it's limited and using it degrades our environment.

As part of the weaning process, it seems sensible to reserve its use for what may be considered essential services, until those services can be replaced, or we can be weaned off those also. And any reduction in the rate of use will likely help us maintain a liveable environment.

As for your point about balance in the environment, what proof do you need? The environment reaches relatively stable conditions, from time to time, and that balance supports a certain mix of species. It looks like humans might be able to endure a wide variety of environmental balances, though our survival is dependent, to some degree, on how other species react to environmental changes. The present balance seems to be favourable to us, so it seems reasonable that we should avoid being the agents of change of that balance.

[davep]

I don't have time to read blogs. When Blume publishes in a peer-reviewed professional journal gives me a ring. Until then I will not waste one minute of time arguing Pimentel. I have discussed his methods, analysis, and results for years now and still await professional criticism. Blume is not that.

Again, from the article:

Pimentel's lack of expertise also explains his continuing choice to
publish with the International Association for Mathematical Geology's
Nonrenewable Resources, now renamed Natural Resources Research, (which
handles "all aspects of non-renewable [author's emphasis] resources, both
metallic and non-metallic... "), [3] not a journal known for
peer-reviewing biological papers or those on renewable energy. His peer
reviewers all missed the same glaring errors mentioned above.

It's hard to get professional criticism when your "peers" are not related to your research.

This is an ad hominem. Pimentel has published in dozens of peer-reviewed agriculture and ecology journals, where in fact he designed ecologic life-cycle analysis. The same principals of net-energy study may be applied to living and man-made systems. So Pimentel's groundbreaking work on organic vs. conventional agriculture energy accounting is timeless and sequed nicely into his work on agriculture fuels.

That fact of is publication in a professional geology journal dealing with larger energy issues is a complement to Pimentel and the wide-ranging applicability of his methods and analysis.

You and Blume are a waste of my time, DaveP

Pstarr, you put a lot of faith in Pimentel's work, yet you refuse to even read criticism of it.

This smacks of dogma, not science. I don't want to have another slanging match here about this, because we just don't reach common ground. Just ask yourself why you need to be so reverential towards his work. Is it because his conclusions form one of the pillars of your doomer beliefs?

I don't care about all this. I go with what is. Gas is not .23 cents a gallon like it was when I first started to drive or even $2.30. My NG bill is going up by 30% and not going down by 50%. Food is skyrocketing - one butternut squash was $7 at Krogers, a tomato was near $3.

If PO critics wish to subscribe to wishful thinking and not prep so be it. But the bottom line is either fossil fuels are endless or they are not. And if not, then it is not a question of if, but of when. And the signposts in our world are pointing to PO knocking at the door.

You've entirely missed my point there. PStarr and I are just debating the potential EROEI of ethanol, it has nothing to do with being a PO critic or wishful thinking.

I've bought 10 acres in the middle of nowhere, and forced my family to follow. Hoping for the best but preparing for the worst seems a prudent approach.

[TonyPrep]

There's nothing in that story about production rates and what the demand is projected to be. Such claims of longevity are not very practical. Are they expecting 118 years of production at current consumption rates (if that is at all possible) and then nothing?

[skyemoor]

A short term spike of a couple years does not indicate a 'body slam' to me. Which specific Simmon's date did JD refute?

[yesplease]

A short term spike of a couple years does not indicate a 'body slam' to me. Which specific Simmon's date did JD refute?

Strictly speaking, an interview on 8/21/03...

We've had a natural gas summit this year and, as you know, I have been talking for some time about the natural gas cliff we are experiencing.

In the same interviews he states...

Pray for no hurricanes and to stop the erosion of natural gas supplies. Under the best of circumstances, if all prayers are answered there will be no crisis for maybe two years. After that it's a certainty

So on 8/21/03 or around the same date two years later, so 8/21/05. Maybe he just meant a horizontal cliff until 2009/2010?

[skyemoor]

Ok, it looks like that projection by Simmons did not come to fruition.

So what's keeping the price up?

[DarkDawg]

So what's keeping the price up?

This article might explain some of the higher costs of the new plays:
Shale-Gas Producers Face Regulatory Obstacles In Appalachia

...or I guess we could just blame it on speculators

[JustaGirl]

Pickens was on Leno last night and said we have 150 years of NG? I thought we had around 75 best case scenario. I wonder where he got his figures? I'm liking his plan more & more. He specifically stated he wants trucks that transport goods to be converted to NG & all buses that aren't already NG to be converted.

[mefistofeles]

I have some shares in the OIL ETF USO and looking at LNG prices today,and all the LNG powerplant construction that is scheduled to come online in the US, I wonder if LNG is going to appreciate more than crude oil in the future? Any thoughts or advice?

[AAA]

I have some shares in the OIL ETF USO and looking at LNG prices today,and all the LNG powerplant construction that is scheduled to come online in the US, I wonder if LNG is going to appreciate more than crude oil in the future? Any thoughts or advice?

I'm confused by your logic...

If LNG gets introduced into the US in a big way then Natural Gas prices are going to remain low for a very long time.

If LNG does not make a large presence in the US then Natural Gas prices could sky rocket because of the decrease in drilling for unconventional resources. I read in the Oil and Gas Investor today not a single new project in the Rockies is economic.

On the other hand, oil supplies as we know it are very tight world-wide so oil prices will naturally go up in the long-run.

Basically LNG could kill US natural gas prices.

[mefistofeles]

I'm thinking about investing in the Natural Gas ETF UNG because I believe that natural gas has become cheap versus oil.

[AAA]

I'm thinking about investing in the Natural Gas ETF UNG because I believe that natural gas has become cheap versus oil.

There is a reason natural gas has become cheap...lots of supply. Especially if LNG is introduced into the US. Then there will be even more supply.

However if you have done your research then you know best what fits your portfolio. Good luck and let us know how you do.