Egypt unrest may cause oil prices to rise

I figure that situations like this would bolster the idea and implementation of investment* in clean energy tech. I hoping that the unrest there will boost our opportunities here.


*Investment.... spending.... whatever.

According to the CIA Factbook: Egypt exported 89300 barrels/day in 2009. To put that number into perspective, Saudi Arabia exported 8.728 million barrels/day. While these numbers say nothing about which percentage of those exports go to the US vs. other countries, I think it's safe to say that Egypt doesn't matter as far as oil is concerned. The only possible concern is that Egypt is kind of important for shipping to the Mediterranean. Of course, that affects all kinds of trade equally, as not specific to oil.

So yeah, actually looking at the provided link, perhaps markets are influenced by that - psychology of the markets, and the fear that this may spread to other countries in the region. However, the impact in real terms is so small that I would bet on it not affecting energy policy.

According to the CIA Factbook: Egypt exported 89300 barrels/day in 2009. To put that number into perspective, Saudi Arabia exported 8.728 million barrels/day. While these numbers say nothing about which percentage of those exports go to the US vs. other countries, I think it's safe to say that Egypt doesn't matter as far as oil is concerned. The only possible concern is that Egypt is kind of important for shipping to the Mediterranean.

SHUSH UP NANCY BOY! WE'RE GOING TO WAR!

The largest issue is the Suez Canal, and the amount of through put it allows. A good chunk of crude still gets shipped in non-super tanker ships. The oil doesn't have to come from Egypt itself, but a lot still passes through it.

I think we have to look at much more than just Egypt - there is a lot of civil unrest in that entire area, from Tunisia up into Western Europe and over to the Middle-East.

I really don't have the expertise to determine how this stuff affects the market, but we have a lot of countries in conflict these days. I can't imagine that's any good for oil-markets or markets in general.

I figure that situations like this would bolster the idea and implementation of investment in clean energy tech, but it doesn't...

I mean... over the last century the world population has increased 10 fold, thanks to the cheap abundant energy provided by oil. We've built a global economy that is absolutely powered by oil. Every calorie of food you eat was produced by half a dozen calories of oil power. Each one of us eats the equivalent of a few tonnes of oil each year, not to mention the amount we each require directly as fuel/electricity... Oil is the paramount resource underlying this civilisation... yet... we know it's finite, we know it's running out, and we know that we've hit / are hitting peak production and supply will continue to decline. The engine that powers our civilisation is going to run dry, we can see it happening, and we still can't change directions! Are we fucking retarded? History books in 200 years time sure are likely to make us look that way.

eh, funny. I'm re-reading Tim Power's "The Anubis Gates" right now.

I figure that situations like this would bolster the idea and implementation of investment in clean energy tech, but it doesn't

Peak oil won't have an effect until we hit it. Unfortunate but true.

Though I'm not sold on humanity's use of fossil fuels being the sole or major contributor to global warming, the commotion caused by it will have great effect in dampening the blow that peak oil will have. In some ways it makes me suspicious of whether Al Gore really cares about global warming or just had the foresight to know nobody will give a crap about peak oil until it's too late without some more direct and related threat--the latter would be quite impressive to me.

I figure that situations like this would bolster the idea and implementation of investment in clean energy tech, but it doesn't...

I mean... over the last century the world population has increased 10 fold, thanks to the cheap abundant energy provided by oil. We've built a global economy that is absolutely powered by oil. Every calorie of food you eat was produced by half a dozen calories of oil power. Each one of us eats the equivalent of a few tonnes of oil each year, not to mention the amount we each require directly as fuel/electricity... Oil is the paramount resource underlying this civilisation... yet... we know it's finite, we know it's running out, and we know that we've hit / are hitting peak production and supply will continue to decline. The engine that powers our civilisation is going to run dry, we can see it happening, and we still can't change directions! Are we fucking retarded? History books in 200 years time sure are likely to make us look that way.

Assuming everything you say is true, oil is still f'ing cheap. It makes no sense to switch off of oil for financial reasons when switching off of it costs money. When oil costs more money, then other things will start looking more attractive. For now, I can buy a gallon of something drilled miles below the ocean floor, refined in a plant, transported thousands of miles via sea and pipes, and sold with two markups and taxes for $3 a gallon. Meanwhile the Milk from down the street is $4 a gallon.

But to get to your underlying assumption. Oil is not something that is there one day and gone the next. There is cheap, easily obtainable oil, which we are using today and get closer to eliminating every year, but which there is still plenty of in known and unknown reserves. And then there is a massively amount of more oil in areas that are not as cheap to obtain. When we use the former, we don't run out of oil, it just becomes progressively more expensive. At that time, people will start changing to other forms of energy. The change will not be precipitated by financial reasons or availability though, it will be because of a breakthrough.

There exists a compound which converts natural gas (of which just our domestic supply is practically limitless) to car-ready gasoline. It becomes financially feasible at around $4.30 a gallon. So we should not surpass that mark (adjusted for inflation) for the forseeable future.

The only thing that makes me shake my head is why we don't use natural gas for cars instead of gasoline. Our natural gas supplies are cheaper, domestically available, extremely plentiful, and the infrastructure is already existing. In fact, you can fill up your car at your house already with a connection kit from Honda.

Fuel cells would be the next logical, "clean" alternative, but it doesn't really make sense to use when we are still burning coal to make power for the fuel cells. It's more environmentally friendly to use a combustion engine.

Peak oil won't have an effect until we hit it. Unfortunate but true.

Discovery of reserves peaked in the 60's, the USA's local production peaked in the 70's, Alaska peaked in the 90's, OPEC production peaked last decade. Worldwide production peaked in 2005. We're already hitting it.

The result has been a strong upward trend in prices from the 1970's onwards.

After the peak, it could still be another 200 years until we use up all those reserves completely, but seeing supply is now being capped, it follows that we can't continue to grow the demand. The world economy is going to be completely re-shaped over this period, whether we want it to or not.

Assuming everything you say is true, oil is still f'ing cheap. It makes no sense to switch off of oil for financial reasons when switching off of it costs money. When oil costs more money, then other things will start looking more attractive.

When discussing a fundamental flaw in human economics, it doesn't make much sense to use an argument based on the ideas defined within that flawed economy in order to defend the flawed economy.


Imagine we're on an island, and both have two cows (all four cows are female milk cows). I loan you my two cows so that you can produce milk, but I demand interest that will double my money after one year. In this hypothetical world, the currency is cows, so after one year, I want my two cows back, plus another two.
Next year, we carry out the same deal, but now I own all 4 cows. I lend you all 4, demanding 8 back after a year.
Now, in this monetary system, due to interest, the books show that there is 8 cows worth of assets and liabilities on the books... but obviously the world only contains 4 cows worth of resources, meaning the economy is in no way a reflection of the real state of the world. The economy has just magically invented value and resources out of thin air, meanwhile, there's no ships magically dropping extra cows on our hypothetical island.

Back to the real world, this is exactly what the monetary system does, so any argument based on the equivalence between some sum of money and some volume of oil is completely irrelevant when it comes to managing the planet's resources.
That said, the economy isn't about to fix itself, so such arguments are useful when it comes to predicting the amount of food shortages that are coming

But to get to your underlying assumption. Oil is not something that is there one day and gone the next.[/quote]I didn't make that assumption - I'm talking about the 'peak supply', not the 'depletion of supply'
Oil is another resource like air, land, water... We're using all of them up irregardless of future problems as well, due to the equivalence between the finite (resources) and the infinite immaterial (money)... but it's obviously stupid to think that when we wake tomorrow there will be no empty land, or no breathable air, or no healthy ocean.

The only thing that makes me shake my head is why we don't use natural gas for cars instead of gasoline. Our natural gas supplies are cheaper, domestically available, extremely plentiful, and the infrastructure is already existing.[/quote]It's quite common here in Australia. Most gas stations have natural gas pumps, and the government subsidises the cost of converting a petrol car over to using liquid-gas.