Current Oil Price

[PS_RalphW]

Vt, the argument is that if we continue to burn carbon, we will trash the climate to the point that six or more billion die from crop failures, flood, storms, heat stroke, disease or drought. Better we don't burn the carbon and then at least the survivors will have a habitable planet. Not a popular view in the us, due to msm being so effective at dissing climate change research. Here in the uk the met office is very close to calling recent weather as reflecting climate change.

[raspberry-blower]

Interesting episode of the Keiser Report yesterday that is highly relevant to this thread:
Second half guest is Chris Cook who was a former energy market regulator (who got fired when he blew the whistle - no surprise there) who has helped with the creation of the Iranian bourse.
http://www.maxkeiser.com/2013/12/kr540- ... s-big-oil/

Sound, well thought out ideas that probably won't come to anything anytime soon.

BTW, if all the "externalities" of all hydrocarbon drilling was actually factored in (i.e. Anthropogenic Climate Change, idiotic imperialistic military adventures, etc)then the ticker price at the bottom would have at least three extra digits..

[emordnilap]

Here in the uk the met office is very close to calling recent weather as reflecting climate change.

We nearly got the Irish met. saying the same thing but not quite. I should rejoice at such an obvious shift in stance but instead it depresses me.

[clv101]

Why of course I'll have to think about that for a minute or two. So we stop burning the black stuff and six billion give or take a billion or two starve to death. Can't see why that won't solve the problem nicely. Bummer if you or I are include in the six billion.

The world isn't binary! We could cut our carbon burning in half, at least, and leave agriculture totally untouched. I've just spent the day with a chap who took 52 flights this year alone - there's a huge amount of 'slack' carbon burning that could be cut without impacting on the really important things.

[vtsnowedin]

Why of course I'll have to think about that for a minute or two. So we stop burning the black stuff and six billion give or take a billion or two starve to death. Can't see why that won't solve the problem nicely. Bummer if you or I are include in the six billion.

The world isn't binary! We could cut our carbon burning in half, at least, and leave agriculture totally untouched. I've just spent the day with a chap who took 52 flights this year alone - there's a huge amount of 'slack' carbon burning that could be cut without impacting on the really important things.

Excellent point but if we just stopped wasting the "Slack" would not the population just double again in twenty years or so? What slack could we cut then?

[woodburner]

I doubt anything significant will be done to cut fossil fuel use. It will be mass extinction time when the atmospheric conditions dictate as a result.

[biffvernon]

$99.32, will our ticker hit the ton by Christmas?

It didn't, but it has now. $100 to see the year out.

[Little John]

Why of course I'll have to think about that for a minute or two. So we stop burning the black stuff and six billion give or take a billion or two starve to death. Can't see why that won't solve the problem nicely. Bummer if you or I are include in the six billion.

The world isn't binary! We could cut our carbon burning in half, at least, and leave agriculture totally untouched. I've just spent the day with a chap who took 52 flights this year alone - there's a huge amount of 'slack' carbon burning that could be cut without impacting on the really important things.

Excellent point but if we just stopped wasting the "Slack" would not the population just double again in twenty years or so? What slack could we cut then?

precisely

[biffvernon]

There's no conceivable way that population could double in 20 years.

[Little John]

There's no conceivable way that population could double in 20 years.

I happen to agree on that specific point. However, that specific point is missing the essential point made by V. That being that if efficiencies in consumption are made in one part of the system right now, then other parts of the system will simply take up the slack provided by those efficiencies. The only way that wall can be avoided in the long run is if there are fewer consumers.

[biffvernon]

Or less available to be consumed. Enforced non-exploitation of fossil fuel.

TEQs would do that, and without people noticing the enforcement bit too much.

However hard it is to introduce TEQs it's got to be easier than introducing 'few consumers'.

[vtsnowedin]

There's no conceivable way that population could double in 20 years.

Probably not but the real rate of growth is trouble enough.
http://sweeneyr.faculty.mjc.edu/Populat ... Nation.pdf

[RevdTess]

Intriguingly, the possibility of the law changing in the US to allow crude exports is now a thing!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... to-change/

Quite a good article this one. It would have quite a big impact on european oil markets if it happened.

[kenneal - lagger]

They got the timing of this article a bit wrong!

[vtsnowedin]

They got the timing of this article a bit wrong!

From the article.

FACT: The 13.3 billion gallons of ethanol in 2012 displaced the need for 465 million barrels of oil, at a savings of $47.2 billion to the U.S. economy. This is roughly the equivalent of 12% of total U.S. crude oil imports.

Anybody else see anything wrong in their math?

[/quote]