coool article though..^^

I bought gas for $1.95/gal today and I was paying around $4.00/gal when this article was written. Guess one thing isn’t “for sure.”

I call BS.
I was around and buying gas (among other things) in 1973 and can say from experience the cost to income ratio is widely different.

12 1973 US dollars had the purchasing power in 2007 of $56 US, yet the current price of a bbl is approx $115.

You can play with an inflation adjuster here

It’s quite an eye opener.

To do so, try EITHER ONE of these simple experiments, at least one of which you probably performed for yourself as a child more than once (#1 most likely, #2 if your childhood predates the compact audio disc [aka “CD”]):

1. Sit on a merry-go-round, and have someone spin it for you. Try sitting in different places: at the center (or as close as you can if the particular merry-go-round has a central pole), at the edge, hanging off the edge and holding on to the outer bar for dear life, and somewhere in-between. Note the difference in the centrifugal force you experience at each location. At what point do you HAVE to hold on to the bar or other part of the structure to avoid being hurled off?

2. If you’re old enough to remember phonograph records, or still have a phonograph (maybe you’re a DJ?), try placing a tiddly-wink (or coin if the record itself isn’t too valuable and you don’t mind it being scratched) on the record while it’s turning at a constant speed (45RPM for a single, 33.333… RPM for an LP). Try placing the tiddly-wink on the paper label, near the paper label but still on the slipperier vinyl part, and closer to the edge. At what point does the centrifugal force cause the tiddly-wink to fly off? Near the edge, or closer to the center?

So what do we learn from this, boys and girls? Answer: at a given rotational speed (RPMs), centrifugal force INCREASES with distance from the CENTER of rotation!

Now imagine that Mt. Everest up and moved to the Equator, and that you stood at its summit. At the Equator, given the above, the centrifugal force would be greatest, and standing on the highest point on the planet while also at the equator would make it greater still. Would it be enough to overcome gravity and hurl you into space or even into the air a short distance? No. Not even close.

The Earth rotates such that a given point at sea level at the Equator moves at about 1,000MPH. Being on the summit of Mt. Everest would add little to that, as compared to the Earth as a whole, even Mt. Everest is insignificant (if the Earth were the size of a pool cue ball, and all its mountains and ocean trenches were scaled accordingly, it would be much smoother than a brand new cue ball). This rotational velocity does help when launching spacecraft, which is why NASA has its launch facilities near Miami and Houston instead of Bangor, Maine or Pt. Barrow, Alaska — specifically to get as close as possible to the Equator.

Now, if the centrifugal force on MOUNTAINS or at the EQUATOR isn’t enough to hurl people nor objects into the air with NOTHING ABOVE THEM TO STOP THEM *EXCEPT* FOR AIR ITSELF (even the considerably less dense air at high mountain elevations!), do you HONESTLY expect us to believe that THICK CRUDE PETROLEUM formed DEEP BELOW THE CRUST (which we have never managed to drill below), somehow gets hurled AGAINST not only GRAVITY but THROUGH the “pores” of SOLID GRANITE (what the mantle is made of! This ain’t sandstone or shale, let alone pumice, we’re talking about here!), by MUCH WEAKER CENTRIFUGAL FORCE deep INSIDE the Earth, not to mention near the POLES (or else why are so many oil fields in places like NORTHERN ALASKA [ANWR, don'cha know, not to mention Prudhoe Bay] and SIBERIA!?) which would ALSO weaken the centrifugal force!?

So much for THAT hypothesis.

(1) The Greek for “rock” is “petra”, not “petros”. (“Petros” comes from when Jesus made a pun on the word in giving Simon Peter his new name — “petra”/”rock” is feminine; “petros”, the form Jesus invented, is masculine.)

(2) There’s no certainty that Greek fire contained petroleum. There are several other possibilities, and no particular reason to prefer the petroleum hypothesis.

Air conditioners, ammonia, anti-histamines, antiseptics, artificial turf, asphalt, aspirin, balloons, bandages, boats, bottles, bras, bubble gum, butane, cameras, candles, car batteries, car bodies, carpet, cassette tapes, caulking, CDs, chewing gum, cold, combs/brushes, computers, contacts, cortisone, crayons, cream, denture adhesives, deodorant, detergents, dice, dishwashing liquid, dresses, dryers, electric blankets, electrician’s tape, fertilisers, fishing lures, fishing nets, fishing rods, floor wax, footballs, glues, glycerin, golf balls, guitar strings, hair, hair colouring, hair curlers, hearing aids, heart valves, heating oil, house paint, ice chests, ink, insect repellent, insulation, jet fuel, life jackets, linoleum, lip balm, lipstick, loudspeakers, medicines, mops, motor oil, motorcycle helmets, movie film, nail polish, nylons, oil filters, paddles, paint brushes, paints, parachutes, paraffin, pens, perfumes, petroleum jelly, plastic chairs, plastic cups, plastic forks, plastic wrap, plastics, plywood adhesives, refrigerators, roller-skate wheels, roofing paper, rubber bands, rubber boots, rubber cement, rubbish bags, running shoes, saccharine, seals, shirts (non-cotton), shoe polish, shoes, shower curtains, solvents, solvents, spectacles, stereos, sweaters, table tennis balls, tape recorders, telephones, tennis rackets, thermos, tights, toilet seats, toners, toothpaste, transparencies, transparent tape, TV cabinets, typewriter/computer ribbons, tyres, umbrellas, upholstery, vaporisers, vitamin capsules, volleyballs, water pipes, water skis, wax and wax paper.

http://theoildrum.com

The USA gets the majority of it’s oil from Canada… with just under 2000 barrels a day.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/popup?id=1566549

And we get all of our oil from 14 sources or so…

We’re talking about importing 10000 barrels a day… which according to the peak oil graph is less than a 3rd of the worlds petro.

If you look at the source data and date on the graph it’s 2003… if you look at where the decline in petro production occurs… it’s AFTER any STATISTICAL DATA… note the black line… so again… this is just speculation.

And your data is from Wikipedia… which has been wrong more than once.

It is however nice to see that (even though it’s in parenthesis) you note that part of the reason for the insane oil is the declining value of the dollar. As long as our dollar continues to decline or stays low… and even the CANADIAN dollar is worth more… petro and gas will be expensive… any fuel or product we import from outside the country will be expensive.

Xma: The Oil Drum does have some good analysts but the site has become a magnet for a few dozen lunatic-fringe types–the ones who just can’t wait for the U.S. to be brought down by reliance on oil, or who are looking forward to the extinction of mankind. Doesn’t take many folks like that to swamp the good stuff.

Thule’s right about the 20 million barrels per day being *total* U.S. consumption, not imports.

Biogenic versus abiogenic theory of the origin of oil (and gas): Google “Thomas Gold”–he’s summarized the competing arguments quite well. Abiogenic is the clear winner, and this is great news, because it boosts the area of the earth’s surface that’s likely to produce commercial amounts of oil by a factor of 3 or 4. That’s good.

Seomul: While shopping over the internet is definitely convenient, I’m not clear on how you’re getting a physical product shipped to your door without using oil or its derivative, gasoline. Maybe your ISP is using one of those *reeeally* broadband connections I keep hearing about.

Lenore: Got a source for your claim that China’s pollution is 1/5 that of the U.S.? Generally the emerging economies are unburdened by all those pesky EPA regs on emissions of *real* pollution. Or are you in the camp that regards CO2 as a “pollutant”. If so, I guess you could always do your part by holding your breath.

Cheers and good wishes to all. There’s a great deal of information out there that’s not hidden, but most of you have almost certainly never heard it. When you find it, you might ask why no one told you in school.

Dow Chemical, which you mention above, is evidence of that with recent increases of up to 25% in the price of its products. Same for Air Liquide America:

http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=210101875

Oil is the driving force behind most of the adversity we’ve seen lately from the resource war in Iraq to the tensions centered around the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline where Russia and the U.S., by proxy of Georgia, are staring each other down over missile defense shields and tactical nuclear weapons.

A general study of peak oil will bear out these intricancies and more some may never have thought of. Connecting the dots with regard to oil exposes just how vulnerable our existance, based on this finite resource, has become.

But, alas, there are some hopeful things happening in the transition to alternative and renewable energy technologies which will hopefully one day reduce our dependence on oil. Google.org, the philanthropic arm of Google, Inc., in investing $10.25 million in geothermal research and development. Not that large for a company as stout as Google but I’ll take whatever I can get.

http://alternawatt.info/2008/08/20/google-goes-gagga-for-geothermal/

Bush.. Nuff Said.

Interesting point. One minor correction. The United States doesn’t import 20 million barrels of oil a day. It _consumes_ 20 million, but of that, maybe 6 or 7 is produced domestically.

Even if the Earth is producing oil, it’s only doing so at a low rate, and only a small fraction of this oil is actually reachable using our existing technology.

We’ve already pumped the easy to get oil. We’re working on the harder to get oil. Perhaps in a few thousand years, there will be more easy to get oil — but only if we all kill ourselves first.

link: http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html#dollar

I’ve also read that the retail value of a refined barrel of oil is worth >$1000 mainly from the sale of the ‘other products’. In other words, the revenue from the gasoline and other fuel oils is a drop in the bucket compared to the other products. However, I have not been able to find any hard data on this info. Anyone, anyone?

RD
http://www.FireMe.To/udi

In number 7, it is my understanding that prior to this current run-up, when you add-in inflation, we were paying less than 1970′s.

In number 8, I don’t see how their revenues and profits equate to $130/bbl price to $2/bbl cost. If what the oil minister said is true, then it is all the more reason why we need to drill here, drill now. We can also use our coal reserves and nuclear. bio-fuel from algae makes more sense than using a food commodity, which creates shortages in other areas of the economy.

Also, I’m very torn about the NASA whale oil thing. I am currently reading Fluke, and I’m a long-time space exploration buff.

Dave’s right, public oil use isn’t the main problem in China. Sulfur dioxide emissions and industrial co2 emissions are.

Funny thing, China’s pollution is about 1/5 that of the United States. It’s industrial, manufacturing cities (like Beijing) that are having the major pollution problems.

@Dave

It’s true, a lot of the global warming camp’s arguments are starting to lose ground. I’d still like to switch to a different, more quickly renewable source of energy, but oil is still fine by me. Just curious, what do you think of a lot of the other things they’re using (decreased habitat/population of animals- true or not- or global cooling/rising water levels)?

Internal combustion engines is the least of the problems China faces when it comes to pollution.

That’s ambiguous because I forgot to write in the article that even after the 1970s oil shocks were over and done with, gas prices never came down to the pre-crises level. It’s fixed in the article now.

(Did anyone else notice the picture in #5? “Standrad Oil”? Heheheh…)

The current drive in politics is to wean us off petroleum-based energy, and the global warming — or is it global climate change now? — “crisis” is driving that. The peak oil theory — we’re going to run out of oil someday — is being used to reinforce the need to move away from oil. So if the abiogenic petroleum origin hypothesis is true, we’re not going to run out, which removes one of the scare tactics from the global warming crowd’s arsenal.

Lets face it, hydrocarbons are common in the solar system and in space (Titan, anyone?), and earth is no exception. The biotic theory is really quite rediculous the more you look into it.

There is a lot of oil on this planet…but will it be easy to get? That’s a good question. Its a dirty fuel anyway and probably best to move past it, at least for transportation fuel purposes.

I am currently paying $3.52/gallon about 1/4 mile from my home, and yet the gas station 8 miles south of here charges $3.69/gallon. AND, at $3.52, the dealer is making 11 cents/gallon profit.

BOHICA.

It’s even happened in wells in the US, but the theory still gets pooh-poohed by scientists here because they seem to be so sold on the “carbon emissions = death of the planet” thinking.

Just think; if #2 is true, #10 is moot.