« BP and Clipper Windpower Enter Into Strategic Alliance | Main | Syntec Gearing Up to Commercialize its Biomass-to-Ethanol Gasification/Synthesis Process »
Bodman: Oil Suppliers Have Lost Control of the Markets
15 July 2006
Toronto Star. In Canada for a tour of the oil sands, US Energy Secretary Bodman remarked on Friday that the world’s oil suppliers have lost control of the markets, ceding that power to traders and giving rise to greater volatility in crude prices.
After hitting an intraday high of US$78.40, the price of crude for August delivery settled at US$77.03 US a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange Friday.
“This is the first time in my professional lifetime that the suppliers of oil in the world have really lost control of the markets,” Bodman said during a two-day trip to Western Canada where he toured the rapidly developing oil sands region in northern Alberta.
“They are unable to turn the spigot and increase supplies, and therefore are unable to control oil prices.”
Also on Friday, OPEC issued a statement blaming geopolitical factors beyond its control for the recent price volatility.
Geopolitical developments, over which OPEC has no influence, have been behind this sudden rise in volatility, and these have come at a time when the market was already out of line with today’s supply and demand fundamentals, with speculation playing a significant role in driving up prices.
Bodman also said that the current run-up in crude prices is directly related to geopolitical instability in key energy producing countries around the world, adding that he hoped prices would recede once things calmed down.
However, earlier in the week, Dr. Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, who recently retired as a senior advisor for the National Iranian Oil Company in Tehran, warned that the world’s oil industry has started to reach its peak production rate.
In a speech in Sydney, Australia, he said that the oil industry had hit a peak production of 81 million barrels per day, which would decline to 55 million barrels per day up to 2020.
We are consuming, world-wide, 30 billion barrels of oil every year. It is an enormous amount. But what is the industry finding? It is finding something between four and six only. So every year that passes, that we have passed in this century, we had a deficit on consumption versus finds.
I hope that the oil industry will not go into Antarctica but, today I am not so sure, you know, because when the price will be $200 or $300 per barrel, then anything can happen.
—Dr. Bakhtiari
July 15, 2006 in Oil | Permalink | Comments (59) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/5436039
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bodman: Oil Suppliers Have Lost Control of the Markets:
Comments
Paradoxically, this is actually good news. Yes, prices are high and volatile. However, this will encourage countries with high demand to redouble their efforts to get away from oil and the associated political instability, which itself is born of a culture of dependency in the oil producing nations. Things will not improve overnight, indeed they may get worse before they get better.
Due to (the politics of) global warming, natural gas and coal will only be stepping stones toward renewables and nuclear power (itself highly controversial). Though it seems infeasible today, these will make up the vast majority of energy supplies by the latter half of the century, simply because we have no other choice. Engineers, put on your thinking caps.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Jul 15, 2006 7:04:25 AM
Rafael:
you are correct --- $200 or $300 per barrel for crude oil--- will have major impacts, specially on oil gluttons like Canadians and Americans. The price of gas at the pump may be well over $6/gal without a carbon tax.
Unfortunately, many addicted industrial nations may develop the tendency to replace dirty oil with dirty coal derived fuels.
OTOH, very high crude oil prices will generate the impetus required to promote earlier arrival of efficient PHEVs and EVs.
Car companies with significant hybrid head start, like Toyota and Honda, will benefit greatly. The others will have to catch up to survive. Gas Guzzlers' and Dinosaurs' builders like GM, Chrysler and Ford may not.
Alberta will be the next Klondike and a major one at that. Wonder what it will look like 50 years latter.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Jul 15, 2006 7:46:01 AM
This is why I am far more worried about Peak Oil than I am about global warming. Has it already happened? Or will it happen in the next ten years? Experts disagree. But the economic impacts will be frightening.
Posted by: Cervus | Jul 15, 2006 8:32:10 AM
Also in the Toronto Star:
Biofuels research reaches fever pitch.
Posted by: Cervus | Jul 15, 2006 8:56:04 AM
Let's get a 150cc scooter to save gas for our mother earth. (I am going to get a M1/M2 license soon :))
Consider if your car drives 10,000 miles.
and it's 25 mpg.
it eats 10,000/25 = 400 gallons of gas per year
In my area (California), the price of gas is around 3.2 USD per gallon. So that's like 1280 USD
for scooter, it's 100 mpg. that's 4 times more efficient, and that's only 320 USD.
Within 1 year, the gas difference is 960 usd. The insurance is 150 usd. and you need some extra maintanence (50 usd a year, <-tha'ts a lot), so all to gether the saving difference reduces to 960-150-50 = 760 USD.
A typical scooter 150cc maybe around 1000 USD. so after 2 years, you already making $$ out of your scooter. Just consider the ROI, save gas/ save world and most important save $$. :)
Let's fight gas price together!
Posted by: Carson | Jul 15, 2006 8:58:28 AM
Right on, Rafael. My Prius looks sweeter by the minute....
Posted by: Bud Johns | Jul 15, 2006 9:20:06 AM
Carson:
Unless you want to buy a cheap Chinese knockoff, 150cc scooters are hard to find. The best choice in terms of quality is the Kymco People 150. Brand new, this scooter is under $4000 and has a two year warrenty. There's also the Yamaha Riva 125, which is very hard to find because it's in high demand.
Over and above those are models like the Honda Reflex (250cc, single cylender, Yamaha Majesty (400cc single), Yamaha Burgman 400. There are also various models from Vespa and Aprilia that range from 150 all the way to 500cc. Over both of those are the Honda Silverwing (600cc dual-cyelender), and the Burgman 650 (dual).
The single cylenders over 150 all get similar milage. I get 65-72 on my Reflex. A friend of mine gets 60-70 on his Burgman 400. These can retail brand new up to $7500. Still, my friend rides his everywhere and has probably saved hundreds of gallons of gas the past couple years he's owned it.
Posted by: Cervus | Jul 15, 2006 9:20:24 AM
Sounds like Bodman is admitting that we have or are reaching peak oil. It is now official. Bring on the $10 per gallon gas. Personally, I would welcome it. It's too bad, however, that we are not engaging in a planned and controlled transition to that level. Just waiting for the market to do that will cause massive pain for the populus.
Saudi Arabia will not admit, however, that there is a basic supply problem. They would rather blame the consumer, the traders, and geopolitics. They don't want people to believe that we are in for permanent shortages because they fear a truly radical effort to become less dependent upon oil and more dependent upon alternative energy.
Posted by: t | Jul 15, 2006 9:21:38 AM
High prices will indeed have some very good R&D effects (I'm overlooking the volatile and bad effects here). Solar (and wind) is often written off by many as not being big enough producers, but even something so simple as putting a fresnel lense in front of a small solar cell hugely increases the output of the cell, to a limit of course (before it melts!). Consider the SunBall Solar Appliance. Using a quarter of the silicon (or whatever the cell material is made of) greatly reduces the cost, as traditionally the manufacturing of the silicon adds most to cost.
Vertical axis turbines are also coming along nicely too, and they would virtually steal away every excuse for a complaint some of these anti-turbine groups have (killing off the misquitos!!). And they would be cheaper too. Wonder why we don't hear more about them.
Hey Carson, your idea about getting a scooter is real good: they even have them with detachable roofs now to give you a lot more protection from the elements, plus you got lots of trunk space for errands, etc. And they are a lot of fun too. But your price is off: you can barely get a 150cc cheap import scooter off Ebay for a $1000.00 (most are $1500.00 to $2000.00), let alone a descent brand name with a good warranty and reliable parts infrastructure. A Honda Reflex (250cc) is at cheapest about $5500.00 to $6000.00, for comparison's sake. The 20 year old design of the Honda Helix is still going to run you 5 grand new. It's hard to get a *good*, cheap scooter anymore. A shame, that.
Posted by: John W. | Jul 15, 2006 9:47:59 AM
Oops, Cervus you said the same thing I did about the cost of scooters before me. I wouldn't have been redundant if I had known.
Posted by: John W. | Jul 15, 2006 9:51:42 AM
It has been these speculators all this time that have been driving up the oil prices. Because of their actions, this is why we pay higher prices at the pumps.
That said, this is why we need to develop ethanol/butanol, biodiesel, and plug-in electric/plug-in hybrids.
Posted by: Mark R. W. Jr | Jul 15, 2006 10:08:58 AM
http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/billion_ton_vision.pdf
Ethanol is the future. There is enough ethanol in agriculture waste to replace 60% of the current gas consumption.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/12/gm_to_introduce.html
By takeing advantge of the high octane rating you can get more power from 1 gallon of E85 than 1 gallon of gas.
Posted by: J | Jul 15, 2006 12:01:12 PM
the way out is the same as the way in: consume less, much, much less...
Posted by: no more wars | Jul 15, 2006 12:28:10 PM
according to the 'nice' dr.(?), "anything can happen", which is very reassuring, and that certainly includes the destruction of our only home, our planet ... what a bunch of phoney dr.'s these bullies are ! but that's what we are up against ...
Posted by: no more wars | Jul 15, 2006 12:36:24 PM
Sadly, oil consumers have also lost control of the market. Thanx to CARB/EPAs overly stringent NOx specs on light-duty diesels, we have effectivly eliminated a technology that could be stretching fillups 30~50%. While leaving off-road and marine diesel basically unregulated. Its time to consider a rollback to previous levels for NOx emits.
Posted by: fred@dzlsabe.com | Jul 15, 2006 1:00:23 PM
Terror premium, plus instability premium, and tight supplies means high and higher prices. Alot of money also has flooded into the oil futures market. All told, it has added a premium of at least $20 a barrel of light sweet crude.
_
___Additionally, if you look at all those OPEC oil reserves, they are suspect. They might very well have been added to inflate production quatas decades ago. Now it may come back to haunt them, and the world too. The oil may very well exist underground in rock pores/ formations. However, it is likely to be difficult/ expensive (in the $$$ and BTU sense) to get oil out of the ground, sour/contaminated with metals (mercury, etc) and heavy. This may mean a dropoff in production as OPEC scrambles to develope/install these new tech to make this petroleum commercially viable. In the meantime, oil futures goes skyward past the inflation adjusted high of ~$97 a barrel. I would not be surprised if a major disruption caused by Gulf hurricanes in US/Mexican onshore/offshore production pushed it to $150 before coming down due to Strategic Petro/commercial reserves/stocks release. Then there is the question of Al-Qaeda taking out tankers/major oil installation worldwide. If the Suez is blocked by a crippled ship, the European markets will go mad. Similarly, if a pirated ship is sunk in the Straits of Malacca, it would create chaos in the world economy.
Posted by: allen Z | Jul 15, 2006 1:25:16 PM
allen:
I will say one thing in favor of all this speculation.
Prices are high, but we currently do not have a shortage. But as prices have risen the past few years, we've seen furious research into alternative energy. This will be important as we head towards the downslope of oil production. We now have a head start on the peak. Whether it'll be enough... well... that I can't say.
Posted by: Cervus | Jul 15, 2006 1:37:43 PM
Speculators can control prices very little. They win by correctly forecasting a future price and buying or selling accordingly. The lose by being mistaken.
Prices are thus controlled by the balance of all speculations but not speculators individually.
The danger at the moment is mania. If enough people believe oil can only rise because a certain group (speculators) get all the profits then people will become speculators themselves and a mad rise in prices will begin. And a crash will follow that.
Mania and crash would not be very serious in, let us say, Irish potato crop futures this summer. In contrast energy supplies, especially oil, is the crucial element in world industry. So much is at risk.
Posted by: K | Jul 15, 2006 2:14:20 PM
US Energy Secretary Bodman remarked on Friday that the world’s oil suppliers have lost control of the markets, ceding that power to traders and giving rise to greater volatility in crude prices.
A self-serving statement from these people? What a shock. "It's not our fault!"
Whatever.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Jul 15, 2006 4:11:25 PM
To Carson,
I think that using scooters and motorbikes are a good way to reduce fuel consumption, only if they can be made to pollute a lot less. I think that it was on greencarcongress a while back that there was a posting from a study that said that motorcycles typically emit 80-100 times the pollutants (excluding CO2)that a typical car emits. As an asthma sufferer, I constantly find myself having to put on the recirc in my car ('96 Civic) when I drive behind a scooter or motorbike. A lot of them stink and it is the NOx and SOx, particulates and other lung irritants that aggrevate asthma. I believe it is neccessary to reduce carbon dioxide output through reduced fuel consumption, but not at the expense of air quality. My hope is that we will reduce fossil fuel consumption and clean up the air simultaneously.
Posted by: miket1 | Jul 15, 2006 5:17:19 PM
It quickest way to stablilize this is for the U.S. consumers to use less NOW.
Posted by: sjc | Jul 15, 2006 5:59:00 PM
Gas demand in the US has proven to be quite steady regardless of price. High prices are not heavily reducing demand. Prices will continue to rise unless the US consumer starts to conserve in a meaningful way.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Jul 15, 2006 7:07:36 PM
Hampden,
Demand seems to have tapered out with high gas prices the past few years, even though the population is still growing.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mgfupus1m.htm
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Jul 15, 2006 7:14:04 PM
Fred:
1.Recheck your sources of information. Diesel engine of comparable performance increases MPG for 20-30% over gasoline, but because diesel fuel is about 15% denser then gasoline, amount of saved crude oil is only about 10% (and CO2 emission too). Diesel cars never was popular in US, way before oncoming EPA emission regulation, and are minuscule in Canada where EPA limitation does not exist. The reason is very simple: you have to drive twice more to offset higher cost of diesel car (multiplied by higher insurance premiums and prime on purchase loan). Only in market highly distorted by taxes prefentially treating diesel, buyers could realize savings from diesel engine, like it is happening in Europe. Meanwhile, even Japanese with high fuel taxes are currently imposing EPA/CARB like emission restrictions effectively killing diesel car market in Japan.
2. EPA is relentlessly pursuing incredibly tough emission standards for every diesel engine within their reach, including off-road, check for example at dieselnet.com
3. There never were any light transportation diesel engine technology in US/Canada. Nothing to destroy here.
4. Even modern diesel engines is ten times more polluting then current gasoline, especially high canserogenic diesel soot. Europeans have paid dearly for their delusional affair with diesel by millions and millions of premature death in last two decades. Look, for example, for previous post, where mayor of London Livingston claims that excessive pollution from diesel cabs only cost to Londoners 1000 premature death yearly.
Meanwhile, there are number of way more cost effective ways to reduce oil consumption, like hybrid cars, NG and propane cars, maintaining proper tire pressure at least.
Forcing of over expensive, marginally effective, dead-end technology with terrible cost in human health and high death toll is not only immoral, but just plainly stupid.
Posted by: Andrey | Jul 15, 2006 8:17:49 PM
This is interesting...
http://www.iags.org/n0331044.htm
http://www.eapc.co.il/reverse-flow.html
_
This process, and another using CO2 as a supercritical fluid linked below, could make things interesting. IF oil shale kerogen could be had at lower costs, energy and dollar wise, then the energy game changes. It may be possible for Canada to export bitumen for US oil shale kerogen production. Heavy refining products (domestically sourced) may be used as well. The problem is the cost ofupgrading the kerogen to syncrude. It is similar to tar sand bitumen upgrading and will require natural gas as a source of H2. There may be a source of H2 from refineries/upgrading plants if the waste heat is used in high temperature hydrolysis.
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jul2006/gb20060705_516609.htm?campaign_id=alerts
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/05/raytheon_and_pa.html
Posted by: allen Z | Jul 16, 2006 6:13:19 AM
Rafael Seidl wrote:
Engineers, put on your thinking caps.
What do you think some of us have been doing?
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jul 16, 2006 7:33:14 AM
Andrey-
Ill stick with my figures. Diesel technology advances mean smaller displacements, more power, less emissions, less fuel. Diesels are best for constant-use vehicles...I would never suggest theyre for everybody and their mother. Go to any automakers UK website(only place I can find pricing)and one finds that diesels are the same or less money. Additionally they seem to hold their value better(ie last longer) and maintenance is straight-forward. No igntion system...priceless. ULSD and biodiesel with catalytic and DPFs will continue to make this more attractive. The Japanese are diesel proficient and Detroit is also.
I suggest you do recheck dieselnet and dieseltech...there seems to be no lack of enthusiasm for diesels...it moves this planet today and will for the foreseeable future.
Your assertions about carcinogens and "millions"...will need references. I doubt anything meeting Euro3,4,5 is doing the damage you describe. In fact arent euro lifespans among the longest?
I agree that plug-in hybrid technologies, plus auto-stop, less/no idling, electric AC compressors are certainly the future...but again I just dont see diesel disappearing. CNG and propane?? Maybe in fleets.
The only thing "stupid" is to be short-sighted, thinking theres only one "right" way and not be aware of international realities.
Posted by: fred@dzlsabe.com | Jul 16, 2006 3:04:20 PM
A self-serving statement from these people? What a shock. "It's not our fault!"
Bodman is simply acknowledging what the oil producers still cannot bring themselves to say. Saudi Arabia claims they've spare capacity, that in fact they have crude on tankers looking for a buyer. They don't mention that that crude is heavy and sour and difficult to refine. They don't mention that output is down although rigs are way up. They don't mention the increasingly desperate measures taken to keep what output they can going. They won't say "It's not our fault" because they're too busy insisting "We're in control".
Posted by: d | Jul 16, 2006 3:46:57 PM
Gas consumption was actually up over the July 4th travel weekend. Why? Because gas is actually dirt cheap, that's why. It less a percentage of our GDP and personal budgets than it was 25 years ago. With the average car price of over $30,000 and engines getting bigger every year the false outrage over SUV's is actually kinda funny.
Posted by: Richard | Jul 16, 2006 4:32:35 PM
They won't say "It's not our fault" because they're too busy insisting "We're in control".
If they were to claim "we're in control", then they'd be admitting responsibility for high gas prices. Not that party, and certainly not in an election year.
=========
Gas consumption was actually up over the July 4th travel weekend. Why? Because gas is actually dirt cheap, that's why. It less a percentage of our GDP and personal budgets than it was 25 years ago. With the average car price of over $30,000 and engines getting bigger every year the false outrage over SUV's is actually kinda funny.
Do you ever tire of this sill routine of yours?
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Jul 16, 2006 10:47:45 PM
Fred:
OK, time will tell. EPA/CARB do not prohibit diesel cars, they just demand that they should be as clean as current gasoline cars. When Europeans/Japanese will accomplish that, diesel cars/light duty trucks will be highly welcomed here in US/Canada. Some applications, like for towing or hauling, are way better served by diesel engines. For cars - I doubdt diesel will compete with direct injection gasoline with lean-burn catalytic NOx adsorbing converter, especially with hybrid drivetrain, CVT, and Atkinson cycle engine.
But still, ruthlessly forcing of other nations, which choose to breathe clean air, to adopt way dirtier and health damaging technology is immoral and rude.
Posted by: Andrey | Jul 17, 2006 1:43:45 AM
Joseph, sorry to rain on your parade. Please point out where I am wrong.
Posted by: Richard | Jul 17, 2006 4:44:51 AM
“This is the first time in my professional lifetime that the suppliers of oil in the world have really lost control of the markets,”
????? I seem to recall that this has happened before several times, on the up side and the down side. OPEC has never had complete control of the market. I'm sure Bodman is older than I am.
Posted by: Neil | Jul 17, 2006 6:54:35 AM
Andrey-
When your gagging on the soot from the weekly start-up of another Chinese coal plant Ill be all ears on that "choose to breathe clean air" part.
Posted by: fred@dzlsabe.com | Jul 17, 2006 7:04:07 AM
Joseph, sorry to rain on your parade. Please point out where I am wrong.
You don't pull a data point out of thin air and then claim it means something. Trends are what matters, not blips. You specifically referred to 1981, which is when gasoline prices hit the top of a very large run up in prices.
But, even dealing with that data point, the reality is that the average household disposable income has increased 30% (in real terms) since 1981, whereas average real gasoline expenses have risen 27%. And those are the averages, and we've had since the 70s an essential flattening of real income on a good portion of income earners, so even if the average has gone up, it hasn't been a rising tide for all.
So to then call gasoline "dirt cheap" is ridiculous, since if you compared it to times before and after 1981, the numbers are going to be much different. Even compared to peak prices in 1981, we're still about where we were back then -- on average. For many people it's much worse.
Your comment about "false outrage" over SUVs implies that people being upset with a flattening in average fuel efficiency, among many of the bad effects of the changed US vehicle fleet mix, is somehow misguided. If the fleet were more efficient on average, the amount of gasoline consumed would be less, and because of decreased pressure on the demand side, so would fuel prices.
This doesn't even begin to account for the way gasoline prices push through to all sectors of the economy, so it isn't just pump prices for one's car which increase one's costs due to higher fuel prices. Heck, the inflaitonary pressure from stemming from fuel prices is so strong, that much of the Fed response in raising inerest rates is because of that. That raises borrowing costs, lowers household wealth (by decreasing home values), and increases the cost of financing public debt, as well as the push-through effects in an economy because of higher capital borrowing costs.
Leave your cheap talking points for some other forum in the future. People here are a lot more sophisticated than that.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Jul 17, 2006 8:19:56 AM
When your gagging on the soot from the weekly start-up of another Chinese coal plant Ill be all ears on that "choose to breathe clean air" part.
I see - so if one part of the world is very dirty, we should just dirty our air, too.
Brilliant.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Jul 17, 2006 8:22:02 AM
Surprised no one has mentioned the use of Biodiesel fuel to clean up diesel emissions. Diesel is here to stay - already in majority use for transportation needs, and no need to replace when users can go directly fossil-fuel free, and cleaner, by using biodiesel. Plenty of waste fryer oils to make a difference in our fuel supply.
Posted by: B100 | Jul 17, 2006 8:48:37 AM
Plenty of waste fryer oils to make a difference in our fuel supply.
Really? How much is there compared to annual gasoline and diesel consumption?
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Jul 17, 2006 9:08:10 AM
Diesel engine is the least efficient and creates the most pollution for short rides, 5-10 klicks. In North America many people have long commutes, at least 20 klicks and more. For them diesel engine is perfect. Moreover, small displacement engines (less than 1,000cc) need less time to warm up. Combined with the mover to lower weight oil (xW20) these engines can warm up fast and operate at peak efficiency.
As for their pollution, I am not familiar with the details, but I thought the current designs are much cleaner (TDI?).
Posted by: anonymous | Jul 17, 2006 9:35:37 AM
Joseph, so you agree with me that gas is cheaper now than it was 25 years ago. Actually I didn't know the exact data but thanks for digging it up. The false outrage comes from the fact that in general people are buying bigger engines even when not in a SUV. So, Please keep your childish emotions to yourself. I am for the same goals as you I just take an adult way to go about it. I invest in hybrids and solar, you rant about prices, and ?
Posted by: Richard | Jul 17, 2006 10:17:36 AM
Joseph, so you agree with me that gas is cheaper now than it was 25 years ago.
Did you read what I wrote or simply not understand it?
The false outrage comes from the fact that in general people are buying bigger engines even when not in a SUV. So, Please keep your childish emotions to yourself.
And that's enough for me. I thought you were a troll and now it's confirmed.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Jul 17, 2006 11:06:32 AM
Joseph-
Due to prevailing westerlies their air becomes our air. This IS stupidly about NOx emissions(everthing else being able to be met or beaten),my point being that .2 g/mile is reasonable for light-duty diesel with ULSD fuel just starting to show up nationwide. But .05 g/m is overly stringent. And when off-road & marine diesel, aircraft, foreign coal plants are largely given a pass it looks like something youd see on 3 Stooges, ie we are worried about a tiny crack while not noticing the gusher. The consequence being no LD diesel. BTW ALL on-road diesel amounts to less than 10% of total emissions and that number is going down. And whats with gram/mile...even in Canada and Mexico???? Isnt it time to scrap english weights and measures for good.
Posted by: fred@dzlsabe.com | Jul 17, 2006 1:28:32 PM
Fred, you'd need to post some statistics on NOx sources by contributing activity. There's a reason the standards have evolved.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Jul 17, 2006 2:30:42 PM
Try http://www.dieselforum.org/california_files/Sierra_Research.pdf
Oh Im sure there are many reasons standards have "evolved"...but like shooting in the dark sometimes ya get lucky, most times ya dont
Posted by: fred@dzlsabe.com | Jul 17, 2006 3:16:32 PM
Joseph, nice try buddy on the troll comment no actually its very weak. Like I said I'm investing in the companies that are putting out products to make a difference. Certainly your not disputing the average engine size is increasing in sedans and trucks. Or are you?
Posted by: Richard | Jul 17, 2006 4:30:28 PM
Fred:
NOx is precursor for photosmog, which is local pollution. Aircraft, ocean-going diesel M/V (while in open sea), or Chieneese coal-firing plants have nothing to do with photosmog covering big cities and impairing human health. By the way, NOx are formed naturally on quite big scale, for example during lighting storms, and are washed down to provide terrestrial vegetation with fertilizing nitrogen components. The problem is overly NOx concentrations in cities, where most of the people live.
HD diesel engines in US already have stringent regulation, and in couple of years it will be tighten even more, and for big cost, which we are agree to pay. Same with off-road diesel engines, coastal marine vessels, locomotives, etc. Coal and NG firing power plants and industrial users are paying great sums of money to have their NOx pollution reduced and dispersed to levels minuscule to contribute to local air pollution. No less then 30% of coal firing power plant is for emission control equipment, for example. LD diesel engines, as contributing directly to city’s air pollution have to comply with same standards as gasoline cars. This is the people’s choice on this part of the Atlantic.
P.S. I do not even touch diesel soot, really deadly stuff.
Posted by: Andrey | Jul 17, 2006 11:45:25 PM
Joseph, nice try buddy on the troll comment no actually its very weak.
No, what's weak is tossing out poorly-thought bait, then getting a reasoned response to it, then insulting the person repeatedly instead of responding to what they took the time to write.
That, my friend, is the very definition of trolling, and that is the last time we will ever converse.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Jul 18, 2006 1:59:48 AM
Oh Im sure there are many reasons standards have "evolved"...but like shooting in the dark sometimes ya get lucky, most times ya dont
I'm pretty sure a lot of very smart scientists have given their input on the standards. I highly doubt it could be characterized as "shooting in the dark".
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Jul 18, 2006 2:01:25 AM
Average MPG (all) 1980 2004 Diff % change
Passenger cars 16.0 22.4 6.4 40%
Light trucks 12.2 16.2 4.0 33%
New vehicle mpg 1980 2005 Diff % change
Passenger cars 24.3 30.0 5.7 23%
Light trucks 18.5 21.8 3.3 18%
Fuel consumed (million gallons) 1980 2004 Diff % change
Passenger cars 69,982 76,007 6,025 9%
Light trucks 23,796 62,626 38,830 163%
TOTAL 93,778 138,633 44,855 48%
VMTs (millions) 1980 2004 Diff % change
Passenger cars 1,111,596 1,704,982 593,386 53%
Light trucks 290,935 1,014,342 723,407 249%
TOTAL 1,402,531 2,719,324 1,316,793 94%
................................. 1980 2004 Diff % change
Fuel used if all passenger cars 88,165 121,290 33,125 38%
Savings 5,613 17,343 11,730 209%
% savings 6% 13%
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Jul 18, 2006 2:31:49 AM
Barrels of oil savings per year, 2004 889,378,205
per month 74,114,850
monthly imports from Persian Gulf, Apr-06 70,826,000
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Jul 18, 2006 2:38:32 AM
Im sure a lot of very smart scientists have given their input also...its just not reflected in todays regulations. Like theyre tied up and gagged somewhere.
1980-2004? How bout 1980-87-2004?
Cherry-picking, spinmeisterin....U2 are lobbyists?
Posted by: fred@dzlsabe.com | Jul 18, 2006 2:26:43 PM
Richard:
Engine size doesn't much matter over the long term. Improvements in technology have allowed for greater power and efficiency out of engines that are no bigger (and sometimes smaller) than previous engines.
What matters is that average fuel economy rose considerably in the late 1970s and early 1980s in reaction to oil prices and CAFE, and have basically stayed put ever since. Improvements in technology have mainly been spent on increasing power, performance and vehicle weight without suffering economy penalties, and also without experiencing any overall economy improvements.
What matters is that cars remain in the fleet for a good ten year life span, on average, and a car bought several years ago on the unspoken assumption that fuel would remain at a certain price level can no longer be operated affordably.
What matters is that U.S. gasoline prices have basically doubled in the space of about two years, and such unexpected volatility can legitimately cast a clould on anyone's parade.
What also matters is that, in inflation-adjusted terms, gas prices are about as high as they've ever been, and seem to be staying there for longer than usual.
What also matters is that such information is about three mouse-clicks away, yet you claim not to have seen the data. Anyone who doesn't do such simple homework before chiming in with an opinion here should be called lazy, or made to show a very good excuse.
I don't think that our outrage is at $3 gas per se. Our outrage is at being blindsided by a rapid and difficult-to-adjust-to rise in prices. It is at the sinking feeling that we could have collectively prevented the pain and disruption through better policy planning in advance. It is directed at our elected leaders who should have probably used government's unique powers to help create a mechanism to reduce the impact of such a disruption on us, but who didn't. Among others.
Posted by: NBK-Boston | Jul 18, 2006 3:41:31 PM
Nice, 52 comments...At $200-300 a barrel, it becomes extremely lucrative for anyone with a large reliable source of high quality fuel. Perhaps it will finally drive us off fossil energy and onto direct/indirect solar*.
_
*Direct solar turns solar energy into electricity/fuel/ work usually via photovoltaic or thermosolar processies.
Indirect solar energy turns the energy into various forms like hydro, biomass, wind, etc. which can be harnessed.
Posted by: allen Z | Jul 18, 2006 5:24:07 PM
Im sure a lot of very smart scientists have given their input also...its just not reflected in todays regulations. Like theyre tied up and gagged somewhere.1980-2004? How bout 1980-87-2004? Cherry-picking, spinmeisterin....U2 are lobbyists?
That wasn't directed to your comments.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Jul 18, 2006 6:32:45 PM
Let's hear it for the speculators. I already have 4kw of solar panels on the roof. That's plenty to keep the air conditioner running during a power failure, and even put some back on the grid to help keep it from going out in the first place, but not (yet) enough to power transportation to and from work.
Fortunately I also have a brokerage account that I'm not afraid to use. So far this year I've made enough by investing in oil futures to expand that 4kw by 12% at current prices for panels - and the hurricane season has barely even started!
All I need now is a plug-in HEV and a few more panels. Oh, and a little more roof space. :)
Posted by: John | Jul 19, 2006 9:51:03 AM
Please keep in ming that "Diesel engine" we mean compression ignition, not necessarily Diesel fuel.
Posted by: mike | Jul 20, 2006 1:09:04 PM
JW,Andrey-
Ill stick with my figures and thoughts...happy to dbate anytime.
Posted by: fred | Jul 25, 2006 11:33:42 PM
The only big impact I see is Europe and the US falling in the poop.
poop = recession and general badness
The tiger economies will pay any price for the oil. They have trains of stashed trade resources and their renouned slave labour on offer.
And unlike Europe and the US they have no moral boundries. They neither care about their own citizens or the impact to the rest of the world.
And if oil runs out they'll buy all the bio diesel or alcohol from wherever it is available at whatever price.
The rest of the world is not competing on a common playing field here. And although the long debate about the US being the devil is sampunt, at the end of the day the US is just inneficient because it is a cultural thing to live big and wasteful there, and they're quickly learning their lesson. But they don't lack moral responsability. The average US citizen just like the Brit or the French man still ask you if you're alright if you trip over and fall on your face. Not so for the others.
So in conclusion the danger for humanity's future is the moral immaturity from the emerging Tiger economies as they suck up all available resources to accomodate their rapid expansion, and not the US who is learning the hard way what expensive fuel in big vehicles means.
All the wars instigated by the US are just a panick fest because they know they need to buy time to avoid the poop thats quickly flying their way.
Posted by: Adrian | Aug 27, 2006 7:04:04 AM
oil real price is $386 per barrel gasoline $19-20 per gallon
Posted by: | Mar 12, 2008 12:33:00 PM
