Oil prices will never return to $100 a barrel

[Texas Proud]

I am sure there are others, but right now the only thing that I will say for sure is that nobody is going to beat Nolan Ryan's strikeout total.... ever...


As for oil, it will go over $100 per barrel... at some point in time.... inflation will take care of that... in less than 25 years if we have 3% inflation... for sure by 50 years.... and if by some miracle that does not happen... we have 100 years...

 

[cooch96]

I am sure there are others, but right now the only thing that I will say for sure is that nobody is going to beat Nolan Ryan's strikeout total.... ever...


As for oil, it will go over $100 per barrel... at some point in time.... inflation will take care of that... in less than 25 years if we have 3% inflation... for sure by 50 years.... and if by some miracle that does not happen... we have 100 years...

+1. I also expect to never see anyone surpass Emit Smith or Jerry Rice's career records either.

I'd like to add that that 2.5Trillion barrels are whatever are just an estimate of the known sites. Just how much oil exploration has been done in Antarctica or the Urals? There are still plenty of corners of the globe, I reckon.

And there are so many alternatives for fuel: LNG, fission, wind, etc. And you can make plastics from NG and even vegetables. I think it more likely we'll see $100/barrel from fiscal inflation than physical shortage.

 

[Just_Steve]

I am sure there are others, but right now the only thing that I will say for sure is that nobody is going to beat Nolan Ryan's strikeout total.... ever...

The way they treat the pansy pitchers these days with pitch counts I'm sure that record will hold for ever.

 

[Texas Proud]

+1. I also expect to never see anyone surpass Emit Smith or Jerry Rice's career records either.

Decided to take a look... Adrian Peterson could go another 5 or 6 years and catch up... but that is if he plays and does not get hurt or suspended... I would agree that it looks safe, but not 100% safe... he is not so far ahead of 2nd that it looks impossible... however, the run is not the same as it was years ago...

Yes, Jerry Rice looks safe... he is almost 7000 yards over second which if that is all he had would put him at 134th all time!!! Yes, his excess yards are good enough for that... but, the game is going passing more, so there is a possibility one day...



With Ryan, the closest active pitcher is Sabithia... and he has pitched 16 years and if you doubled his strikeouts he would still be short... Randy Johnson and Clemens were the only hope of passing him and we know at least one of them was taking banned substance.... and the game has changed... almost nobody pitches a complete game anymore.... but Ryan had 222 of them... out of 773 starts... or 28.8% of his games... last year the SF Giants had the most CGs by a team with a total of 10... or just over 6%.... that was the LEADER of MLB...

WOW... looking at stats can be interesting... all of MLB had 83 CG out of a total of 4856 starts... or a huge 1.8% of the games!!!

OK... enough of a thread hijack....

 

[Newventurer]

Don't think it's safe to assume that fracking will remain acceptable forever.

Further scientific evidence of the connection to Earthquakes and water contamination in the future could take the US back out of the equation.

If I put my conspiracy theory hat on it is not too hard to imagine the Saudi's coming up with a propaganda war on fracking to throw us off our game.

 

[MrLoco]

As others have said and as I have aged, I must agree with the phrase "never say never." Two recent events come to mind. "Trump will NEVER be elected
President." " The Patriots will NEVER come back from a 25 point deficit."


Remember....NEVER is an incredibly long time.

 

[Music Lover]

If I put my conspiracy theory hat on it is not too hard to imagine the Saudi's coming up with a propaganda war on fracking to throw us off our game.

The propaganda war against fracking has been ongoing for years from special interest groups.

 

[aja8888]

Don't think it's safe to assume that fracking will remain acceptable forever.

Hmmm...drillers have been fracturing formations for as long as oil has been produced. Without fracture technology, we would be burning whale oil in our SUV's.

 

[aja8888]

On oil not reaching $100/BBL anytime soon, just remember who has the most oil and what countries depend on that revenue stream to run those countries.

One thing for sure, offshore drilling is not going to happen at any great frequency unless oil is over $100/BBL for a good bit of time.

 

[Chuckanut]

Haven't heard much about the US emergency oil reserve storage. Anyway, am not loosing any sleep on war fears.

Could it be that with Fracking, the USA doesn't need to stash oil in ancient salt caves any more?

 

[Chuckanut]

On oil not reaching $100/BBL anytime soon, just remember who has the most oil and what countries depend on that revenue stream to run those countries.

One thing for sure, offshore drilling is not going to happen at any great frequency unless oil is over $100/BBL for a good bit of time.

Years ago I worked for a large oil company. I remember the CEO saying at that time that Saudi Arabia's marginal cost for pumping one more barrel of oil out of the ground was 25¢. I doubt if that is still true. So, while there is plenty of oil around, the cheap stuff is long gone.

 

[aja8888]

Could it be that with Fracking, the USA doesn't need to stash oil in ancient salt caves any more?

Could be, and probably a good case study, but we have been fracturing formations for nearly 80 years. What's really brought on per well increases in oil production is the advent of horizontal drilling.

 

[Koolau]

We have seen in the past that oil demand is relatively inelastic. IIRC, world oil usage is in the 80+ million bbl/day. Plus 2 million barrels = glut and - 2 million bbl/day = panic (aka $100+/bbl). So, all it would take would be an incident in the wrong geopolitical spot and we would be at $100/bbl in a few weeks or months. True, the frackers could fire up (again) and reap the prophets they need to do so. Because there is relatively little oil in the pipeline, it doesn't take long to create price pressure. As usual, I've now told you all way more than I know. Still, I suggest that $100/bbl is not at all unlikely at least for some short period of time. YMMV

 

[RISP]

the scientists are finding out just how difficult it is to replace an efficient device like internal combustion engine.

I'm not an engineer, but aren't internal combustion engines incredibly inefficient machines? According to Wikipedia, "of the total heat energy released by the gasoline consumed, about 70-75% is rejected as heat without being turned into useful work".

I believe electrical engines are far superior to that, even if you take into account that the electricity needs to be produced somehow, too. If you do that, say, in a gas turbine, the combined system should still be more efficient than a car engine burning gasoline. But again, I'm just an interested layman, so I may be wrong.

And, as someone in this thread correctly pointed out, the crux is storage technology, i.e. batteries.

 

[Totoro]

What I understand is:

• Fracking is a-plenty and can ramp up fast, within weeks
• Fracking can produce at below $50
• Oil demand will start dropping, being displaced by efficiency, electricity, solar, wind, gas, etc ..
• Regulatory environment is pushing for an end to oil

Which is why I'm not allocating capital to the oil industry. Too risky. If demand drops only 1% - 2% per year, proven reserves will extend much further than 50 years. It's not currently (slow growth), but the trend can easily revert with what's going on technology wise.



Last but not least: yes, oil is not energy efficient compared to gas and electricity. What it has going for it is energy density. In that sense it is the best battery ever devised yet.

 

[skyvue]

A current thread on hybrid cars reminded me of a "click bait" headline I saw a few days ago: Why oil prices will never return to $100 a barrel, in one chart

The bottom line of the article is...



So much for "peak oil" - at least for a generation or two.

I had an "Economics Geography" course in college in the late 80's. One of the key facts I remember from that text book was the prediction that the world would be completely out of oil and coal by like 2030! Similar earlier predictions by other credible sources said the world would not be able to feed itself by now! Obviously they underestimated our ability to innovate and improve through technical innovation!

 

[ERD50]

I'm not an engineer, but aren't internal combustion engines incredibly inefficient machines? According to Wikipedia, "of the total heat energy released by the gasoline consumed, about 70-75% is rejected as heat without being turned into useful work".

I believe electrical engines are far superior to that, even if you take into account that the electricity needs to be produced somehow, too. If you do that, say, in a gas turbine, the combined system should still be more efficient than a car engine burning gasoline. But again, I'm just an interested layman, so I may be wrong.

And, as someone in this thread correctly pointed out, the crux is storage technology, i.e. batteries.

You are correct that an electric motor is far more efficient at turning electrical energy into motion than an ICE is at turning gasoline energy into motion. An electric motor can be +90%.

However, it mostly falls apart when you say "even if you take into account that the electricity needs to be produced somehow, too.". A combined system turbine can be ~ 60% eff, but these are not common, and are somewhat niche products. I think a more common average is maybe 35% (I'd need to look it up, close enough for now).

Even at 40% eff , you lose ~ 8% on average in transmission, you lose maybe 10 % in charging the battery, another 10% discharging, and 10% in the motor. Plus 'vampire losses' when the EV sits unused. I think those are fairly generous numbers, but I'm going from memory.

0.4 ⋅ 0.92 ⋅ 0.9 ⋅ 0.9 ⋅ 0.9 = 0.268272 So ~ 27% overall eff for an EV - right around an ICE.

Also, the EV efficiencies are pretty close to optimal, there isn't much room for efficiency improvement (cost, and size can be improved though). But they are still finding ways to improve the ICE, and I personally think series hybrids will be the future. An ICE, or small turbine, will run at peak efficiency in an on/off cycle just when needed to keep a small battery pack topped off.

edit - found the source I used for some earlier data -

SAS Output

from there, I calculated efficiencies :

NG combined cycle	7667 3412   44.50%
NG/steam	       10354 3412   32.95%
NG/Gas Turbine         11371 3412   30.01%

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

I am looking to rent a car in Europe for the upcoming road trip. Ran across this Peugeot 308 which should be able to haul the 4 of us (with no big luggage). They claim 75mpg, which is probably on the highway. No wonder EVs and hybrids do not sell well in Europe despite the higher cost of gasoline. Their electricity is expensive too.

 

[RISP]

However, it mostly falls apart when you say "even if you take into account that the electricity needs to be produced somehow, too.". A combined system turbine can be ~ 60% eff, but these are not common, and are somewhat niche products. I think a more common average is maybe 35% (I'd need to look it up, close enough for now).

Even at 40% eff , you lose ~ 8% on average in transmission, you lose maybe 10 % in charging the battery, another 10% discharging, and 10% in the motor. Plus 'vampire losses' when the EV sits unused. I think those are fairly generous numbers, but I'm going from memory.

0.4 ⋅ 0.92 ⋅ 0.9 ⋅ 0.9 ⋅ 0.9 = 0.268272 So ~ 27% overall eff for an EV - right around an ICE.

Thanks for your reply, ERD. Your numbers seem to be spot on. At least this 2003 paper claims that Large Gas-Fired Combined Cycle Gas Turbine processes can get "up to 58%", but most methods are significantly lower.

Also, I wasn't aware of the losses in charging/discharging, and transportation.

Assuming the optimum at 58%, we get 0.58 ⋅ 0.92 ⋅ 0.9 ⋅ 0.9 ⋅ 0.9 = 0.38899. That's of course much better than an ICE, but if this is not a commonly used technology, maybe that's a rather academic discussion. OTOH, isn't it so that ICEs are even less efficient when not operating at their point of maximum thermal efficiency? And this is less of a problem in electrical engines? Guess I need to do some more research.

So I guess the only viable long-term solution is developing better batteries, and making electricity from renewable sources.

 

[RISP]

I am looking to rent a car in Europe for the upcoming road trip. Ran across this Peugeot 308 which should be able to haul the 4 of us (with no big luggage). They claim 75mpg, which is probably on the highway.

Not on the highway, but based on a totally unrealistic test cycle. Expect it to use 50% more under real-life conditions. Probably more with four passengers and luggage.

Fuelly claims <40MPG for the 2016 model, based on owner reports.

 

[Tetto]

You are correct that an electric motor is far more efficient at turning electrical energy into motion than an ICE is at turning gasoline energy into motion. An electric motor can be +90%.

However, it mostly falls apart when you say "even if you take into account that the electricity needs to be produced somehow, too.". A combined system turbine can be ~ 60% eff, but these are not common, and are somewhat niche products. I think a more common average is maybe 35% (I'd need to look it up, close enough for now).

Even at 40% eff , you lose ~ 8% on average in transmission, you lose maybe 10 % in charging the battery, another 10% discharging, and 10% in the motor. Plus 'vampire losses' when the EV sits unused. I think those are fairly generous numbers, but I'm going from memory.

0.4 ⋅ 0.92 ⋅ 0.9 ⋅ 0.9 ⋅ 0.9 = 0.268272 So ~ 27% overall eff for an EV - right around an ICE.

Also, the EV efficiencies are pretty close to optimal, there isn't much room for efficiency improvement (cost, and size can be improved though). But they are still finding ways to improve the ICE, and I personally think series hybrids will be the future. An ICE, or small turbine, will run at peak efficiency in an on/off cycle just when needed to keep a small battery pack topped off.

edit - found the source I used for some earlier data -

SAS Output

from there, I calculated efficiencies :

NG combined cycle	7667 3412   44.50%
NG/steam	       10354 3412   32.95%
NG/Gas Turbine         11371 3412   30.01%

-ERD50

This is exactly correct. Electric is the way to go long term once the storage medium has been figured out. But for now, IC is superior in many aspects; range, existing infrastructure for fuel distribution and transport, etc. Right now, most of our electricity is produced using fossil fuel which is sucked from the ground, transported by giant fossil fueled ships, transported from the shipping port by diesel fueled trucks, etc. all of a sudden the overall efficiency plunges, unfortunately. Once battery tech and means to make electricity catch up with the electric motors, then the true revolution will happen. Until then, it's really only a short distance vehicle or a curiosity.

 

[calmloki]

Well, there is this old inventor named Goodenough who may have the answer: A high energy density, noncombustible, fast charging battery made from common material. And he invented the lithium battery, so has some credibility. Good enough Mr. Goodenough.

Hacker News

 

[fosterscik]

I am looking to rent a car in Europe for the upcoming road trip. Ran across this Peugeot 308 which should be able to haul the 4 of us (with no big luggage). They claim 75mpg, which is probably on the highway. No wonder EVs and hybrids do not sell well in Europe despite the higher cost of gasoline. Their electricity is expensive too.

Don't forget that 1 gal in the U.K. Is larger than in the U.S. The extra fuel (~25%) is a big part of it. In mainland Europe it won't be quoted in gallons.

 

[Texas Proud]

Thanks for your reply, ERD. Your numbers seem to be spot on. At least this 2003 paper claims that Large Gas-Fired Combined Cycle Gas Turbine processes can get "up to 58%", but most methods are significantly lower.

Also, I wasn't aware of the losses in charging/discharging, and transportation.

Assuming the optimum at 58%, we get 0.58 ⋅ 0.92 ⋅ 0.9 ⋅ 0.9 ⋅ 0.9 = 0.38899. That's of course much better than an ICE, but if this is not a commonly used technology, maybe that's a rather academic discussion. OTOH, isn't it so that ICEs are even less efficient when not operating at their point of maximum thermal efficiency? And this is less of a problem in electrical engines? Guess I need to do some more research.

So I guess the only viable long-term solution is developing better batteries, and making electricity from renewable sources.

I will say that being at normal operating temp is a big deal.... at least for me...

I have a 2.0 liter engine... it is rated 25/33... but when all I am doing is taking my DD to school and coming home, going to gym or store etc. I can get as low as 22... but, if I put gas in when it is warm and do the same trip I am getting 28 to 30....

 

[NW-Bound]

Don't forget that 1 gal in the U.K. Is larger than in the U.S. The extra fuel (~25%) is a big part of it. In mainland Europe it won't be quoted in gallons.

Their convention is liters burnt per 100 km, but the Web site I saw converted into the familiar mpg for US readers. And indeed a UK gallon is 1.20 US gallon.

That number of 75 mpg applies to a diesel version of the Peugeot 308. I have never driven a diesel car, but that seems awfully good too.