"On the Impending Decline of Saudi Oil Output"

[Rick Nebiolo]

One thing I like about the Realclear Politics political portal (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/)is that, despite a conservative viewpoint, it often links to important articles on the liberal side.

I clicked on a link to this disturbing article in the post subject (http://tinyurl.com/766q7)a few minutes ago. Wonder what you guys make of this.

~ Rick

[Arnfinn Madsen]

The US (according to CIA) has 25,9% of world oil consumption while only has 4,6% of the world population. Since the oil has to be imported this has contributed to external debt and currently its external debt constitutes 70% of all external debt globally making its external debt/capita 15 times higher than average.

Maybe an idea to reduce consumption?

[shots]

The reason the US uses a disspraportionate amount of the worlds oil is that we're a more advanced country then most of the rest of the world. Of course the countries that don't have cars aren't going to use much oil. While conservation is a good thing and hydrogyn cars are a fantastic idea, there's no immediate oil shortage and there won't be in the forseable future.


RIYADH (AFP) - Oil giant Saudi Arabia might manage to add 200 billion barrels of crude reserves to its existing 261 billion barrels, which make up a quarter of the world’s total, Oil Minister Ali al-Nuaimi said the other day.
“There is a possibility that the kingdom will increase its reserves by around 200 billion barrels, either through new finds or by increasing what it produces from existing fields,” Nuaimi was quoted as saying by the official SPA news agency.
That would be in addition to some 261 billion barrels of reserves that are the world’s largest, he told the annual meeting of graduates of the Saudi branch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Riyadh.
“These huge reserves enable the kingdom to remain a major oil producer for between 70 and 100 years, even if it raises its production capacity to 15 million barrels per day (bpd), which may well happen during the next 15 years,” Nuaimi said.
He did not give a timeline for the anticipated increase in Saudi reserves.
Nuaimi said in February that Saudi Arabia, the world’s top crude exporter, planned to hike its oil output capacity to 12.5 million bpd from the current 11 million within four years and has considered the possibility of raising it to 15 million if required.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
While conservation is a good thing and hydrogyn cars are a fantastic idea, there's no immediate oil shortage and there won't be in the forseable future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, the current administration has a huge conflict of interest between helping the oil companies and helping Americans find ways to use less oil. So I'm sure they would happy to read your post.

The fact that there is no immediate oil shortage is not the big issue here. Our dependence on oil and the cost of that dependence are the big issues.

-ptmusic

[shots]

Has there ever been an administration that didn't have a vested intrest in oil companys? I believe it was Clinton that stopped the the constantincrease of fuel economy standerds and then only reinstated them at the end of his second term to make Bush look bad for stopping them again.

I agree that our dependence on oil is a big issue if only we could get some oil from right here instead of overseas we'd be in a much better position but the enviromentalists would never allow that.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason the US uses a disspraportionate amount of the worlds oil is that we're a more advanced country then most of the rest of the world. Of course the countries that don't have cars aren't going to use much oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but among developed and advanced nations we seem to drive the biggest, most gas guzzling autos/SUVs. My guess is that on a per capita basis, we probably use the most gas. Of course gas is only part of oil consuption.

Regarding gas, I wonder (but don't have time to look up) how we compare per capita against other advanced nations, (e.g., France, Germany, Japan, Austrailia and Canada might be fair choices). It's hard to compare oil consuption because contries such as France went largely nuclear for electrical production.

[ QUOTE ]
While conservation is a good thing and hydrogyn cars are a fantastic idea, there's no immediate oil shortage and there won't be in the forseable future.

[/ QUOTE ]

The assertion regarding whether or not there will be oil shortages seems to be more intensely and seriously debated lately.

Note that the statement you quoted comes from the Saudi Oil Ministry. One of the major points of the article was that the Saudi's are often FOS.

~ Rick

[andyfox]

The Senate passed an energy bill today, I believe, which had bipartisan support, calling for 10% of our energy to be generated by renewable resources by x date. The House version is quite different, calling for increased gas and oil production.

That we still rely on foreign oil, especially from Saudi Arabia, as this late date is nothing short of criminal. Given the evidence of the damage to the environment being done by the buring of fossil fuels, that automobiles have been running the same way for over a hundred years now, that reliance on foreign oil, particularly Saudi oil, is dangerous from both a supply and a world peace perspective, getting off the habit would seem to be job one in both the war on terror and to insure a healthy economy.

[shots]

I'm sure we use more gass per capita then all those other countries except maybe Canada In Europe though most people live a lot closer to work due to the size of their countries. I agree that would should try to move away from fossil fuels and I'm very encouraged by the fact that on the road right now are cars driving aroung powered by hydrogen with noth but steam as exaust it's just a matter of time untill the technology becomes affordable and practicall for mass use.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure we use more gass per capita then all those other countries except maybe Canada

[/ QUOTE ].

Agree, that's why I also included Austrailia, which has a similar landscape (in terms of long drives in the enterior to us and Canada.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm very encouraged by the fact that on the road right now are cars driving aroung powered by hydrogen with noth but steam as exaust it's just a matter of time untill the technology becomes affordable and practicall for mass use.

[/ QUOTE ]

But doesn't it take lots of electrical energy to make hydrogen?

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that there is no immediate oil shortage is not the big issue here. Our dependence on oil and the cost of that dependence are the big issues.-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that one of the costs is bourne by the blood of our military.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
That we still rely on foreign oil, especially from Saudi Arabia, as this late date is nothing short of criminal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why which country we import oil from is important. If we start to import oil only from, let's day Venezula (not that they are all that stable), if Saudi Oil production declines and others don't increase output world prices will rise, including that which comes from Venezula.



[ QUOTE ]
Given the evidence of the damage to the environment being done by the buring of fossil fuels, that automobiles have been running the same way for over a hundred years now

[/ QUOTE ]

In fairness to autos, they are a lot cleaner and more efficient than they used to be. Unfortunately, the low gas prices from about 1986 to 2002 stimulated the sale of oversize vehicles. That would have been a great time to add a serious gas tax (as there is in Europe).



[ QUOTE ]
that reliance on foreign oil, particularly Saudi oil, is dangerous from both a supply and a world peace perspective, getting off the habit would seem to be job one in both the war on terror and to insure a healthy economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

We can agree to agree on the above quote.

~ Rick

[andyfox]

I agree that being reliant on imported oil is the key problem. The Saudi regime is just a particularly repugnant one, being FOS, as you put it, being only one in a long list of problems.

While autos indeed may now be cleaner and more efficient, the evidence is clear that global warming is a real problem and that burning fossil fuels is a major contributor. It seems odd that the same basic method of powering automobiles that came into being in the 1890s continues to this day.

We've essentially done nothing since 1977 to wean ourself off the foreign oil habit.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
In Europe though most people live a lot closer to work due to the size of their countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone knows that the bigger your country, the farther away from work you have to live.

[wacki]

I have been involved in these debates more times than I can count. I am also very short on time and tired of fighting trolls.

To save time I will limit my responses to people who I KNOW are reasonable. Andy Fox and Rick Nebiolo are two such people. Nothing against everyone else but I don't have time to do this stuff right now.

Rick this is an excellent source of reliable information.

http://www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/weo2004/TheUppsalaCode.html
http://www.peakoil.net

As with any site the information written varies in quality from author to author. however, the variance on this website isn't too far off from reality.



[ QUOTE ]
One of the major points of the article was that the Saudi's are often FOS.


[/ QUOTE ]

They are FOS. Hydrogen technology is very far away. Hydrogen is created via electrolysis and that requires a ton of electricity and is inefficient. Right now we extract it from natural gas but as we all know that is limited. Platinum is rare and there isn't enough to go around.

[shots]

You don't have to do anything but to deny that this is a common trend in the world is just more of your typical ignorence.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason the US uses a disspraportionate amount of the worlds oil is that we're a more advanced country then most of the rest of the world

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were the case there would be some correlation between other advanced nations. There isn't.

[ QUOTE ]
While conservation is a good thing and hydrogyn cars are a fantastic idea, there's no immediate oil shortage and there won't be in the forseable future

[/ QUOTE ]

While an education is a good thing and research is a fantastic idea, there's no immediate danger that you will aquire any and I doubt ever will in the foreseable or indeed distant future.

[shots]

Good source of information on hydrogen

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/hydrogen.html

But will cars really be able to be made effeciently using hydrogen as a fuel source?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/science/03/16/hydrogen.cars/

[masse75]

One thing I haven't really heard discussed is that the sleeping giant is finally awake...China.

You think a country with over 4 times our population that is just NOW hitting it's industrial revolution isn't going to impact the oil market, or construction materials (anyone pay more for a house because concrete is in high demand lately?)

High prices are on the way, regardless of renewable sources, increasing Saudi output, or domestic drilling. Get used to it.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
High prices are on the way, regardless of renewable sources, increasing Saudi output, or domestic drilling. Get used to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good thing my most recent family car is a Toyota Echo /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

~ Rick

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]

If this were the case there would be some correlation between other advanced nations. There isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorrey I didn't realise the top per-capita users of oil were uncivilized countries in rural Africa please post a link to debunk my wild theory that the level of technology in a country impacts it's fuel consumption.

[ QUOTE ]
While an education is a good thing and research is a fantastic idea, there's no immediate danger that you will aquire any and I doubt ever will in the foreseable or indeed distant future.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really growing tired of people too stupid to debate issues if you want to discuss fuel consumption fine if you want to be a dick then on the ignore list you go.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

A China at US consumption level will demand more oil alone than current worldwide production. That will not happen in a long time though, but the trend might move towards it.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Instead of both sides guessing here are the numbers:

Oil consumption (http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/oil_consumption_2004_0.html)

[shots]

I think the numbers would reflect the accuracy of my statement to an even greater degree if they were per capita.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

If you have time and Excel, feel free /images/graemlins/smile.gif:

Population (http://www.photius.com/rankings/population/population_2004_0.html)

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]

You don't have to do anything but to deny that this is a common trend in the world is just more of your typical ignorence.


[/ QUOTE ]

You make a good point. I don't have to do anything but to deny this a common trend in the world is more of my typical ignorance. Well said!

I hear that there is a trend that the size of your country effects how close to work you are.

I hear that if I had my current job and I lived in Puerto Rico, since the country is so small, I would actually have to live in the copyroom. My commute would walking from the copyroom to my office. That's what's great about living in a small country.

Rumor has it that the average commute to work in Russia is 43 hours each way. Its just a big country.

[jcx]

There are sources of oil, such as shales, that are not profitable to process when oil is $40/barrel but might be @ $70/barrel. Ditto for oil known or believed to exist in the US and other friendly countries but historically not profitable to extract given the effort involved. If oil stays above $60 for long this may change. I'm not worried, there will be enough oil one way or another for the
forseeable future.

While the short term pain will be felt, the increase in price should be welcomed as it will spur more R & D into fuel cells. What seems impossible or extremely expensive today (such as a cheap, environmentally friendly way to mass produce hydrogen) will likely be solved in the not-to-distant future if there is a significant enough profit motive. While cliche, the phrase "Necessity is the Mother of Invention" has been proved countless times in human history.

[shots]

I most definetly do not have the time :P
But I think even a quick glance at the population charts can help explain why some of the less developed countries use so much oil.

[shots]

Yes ignore all the facts and post meaningless idiocy way to prove your point. And anyone with half a brain will understand the meaning of what I said if they read what you said first.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
There are sources of oil, such as shales, that are not profitable to process when oil is $40/barrel but might be @ $70/barrel. Ditto for oil known or believed to exist in the US and other friendly countries but historically not profitable to extract given the effort involved. If oil stays above $60 for long this may change. I'm not worried, there will be enough oil one way or another for the
forseeable future.

While the short term pain will be felt, the increase in price should be welcomed as it will spur more R & D into fuel cells. What seems impossible or extremely expensive today (such as a cheap, environmentally friendly way to mass produce hydrogen) will likely be solved in the not-to-distant future if there is a significant enough profit motive. While cliche, the phrase "Necessity is the Mother of Invention" has been proved countless times in human history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true

[fluff]

I had a few minutes, so:

Nnumbers are population, oil consumption in barrels/year/person. World consumption is 4.34 B/Y/P.

Sorry for formatting.

1 Gibraltar 27,833 550.79
2 Virgin Islands 108,775 221.47
3 Netherlands Antilles 218,126 120.48
4 Singapore 4,353,893 58.68
5 Kuwait 2,257,549 47.37
6 United Arab Emirates 2,523,915 44.83
7 Guam 166,090 43.95
8 Luxembourg 462,690 39.96
9 Faroe Islands 46,662 35.20
10 Aruba 71,218 33.31
11 Saint Pierre and Miquelon 6,995 31.31
12 Nauru 12,809 28.50
13 Bahamas, The 299,697 28.01
14 Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) 2,967 24.60
15 United States 293,027,571 24.48
16 American Samoa 57,902 23.95
17 Greenland 56,384 23.95
18 Bermuda 64,935 22.48
19 Belgium 10,348,276 20.99
20 Saudi Arabia 25,795,938 20.55
21 Cayman Islands 43,103 20.32
22 Iceland 293,966 20.24
23 Netherlands 16,318,199 20.03
24 Antigua and Barbuda 68,320 19.23
25 Canada 32,507,874 19.12
26 Malta 396,851 18.39
27 Seychelles 80,832 18.06
28 Puerto Rico 3,897,960 17.79
29 Bahrain 677,886 16.69
30 Korea, South 48,598,175 16.07
31 Ireland 3,969,558 16.04
32 Taiwan 22,749,838 15.85
33 Montserrat 9,245 15.79
34 Israel 6,199,008 15.31
35 Japan 127,333,002 15.16
36 New Caledonia 213,679 14.95
37 Finland 5,214,512 14.80
38 Denmark 5,413,392 14.70
39 Australia 19,913,144 14.60
40 Barbados 278,289 14.30
41 Switzerland 7,450,867 14.23
42 Libya 5,631,585 14.00
43 Greece 10,647,529 13.91
44 Hong Kong 6,855,125 13.68
45 Norway 4,574,560 13.65
46 Spain 40,280,780 13.56
47 Sweden 8,986,400 13.35
48 Brunei 365,251 12.99
49 Qatar 840,290 12.60
50 Germany 82,424,609 12.46
51 French Guiana 191,309 12.40
52 France 60,424,213 12.24
53 New Zealand 3,993,817 12.13
54 Portugal 10,524,145 11.78
55 Italy 58,057,477 11.73
56 Austria 8,174,762 11.72
57 Martinique 429,510 11.47
58 Guadeloupe 444,515 10.67
59 United Kingdom 60,270,708 10.36
60 Lebanon 3,777,218 10.34
61 Saint Helena 7,415 9.84
62 Slovenia 2,011,473 9.67
63 Macau 445,286 9.17
64 Jamaica 2,713,130 8.88
65 Djibouti 466,900 8.83
66 Reunion 766,153 8.58
67 Suriname 436,935 8.35
68 Belarus 10,310,520 8.14
69 Trinidad and Tobago 1,096,585 7.99
70 Cook Islands 21,200 7.75
71 Venezuela 25,017,387 7.37
72 Lithuania 3,607,899 7.28
73 Croatia 4,496,869 7.22
74 Malaysia 23,522,482 7.14
75 Latvia 2,306,306 6.96

[shots]

So it appears that per capita the united states is not as much of greedy wastefull nation as some would have us believe... interesting.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that there is no immediate oil shortage is not the big issue here. Our dependence on oil and the cost of that dependence are the big issues.-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that one of the costs is bourne by the blood of our military.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely!

-ptmusic

[shots]

While I don't disagree I'd like to hear some practical solutions.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
While I don't disagree I'd like to hear some practical solutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even a small reduction on our dependence each year would be a positive step. Basically, we need to reduce our demand for it. The more we invest in alternative energy sources the better, and frankly, the higher the price of oil the better, even if that means (light your flame torches) huge taxes on gasoline.

I'm encouraged by the lower demand on SUV's and the increased demand of more fuel efficient cars because of the high cost at the gas pump these days. That's a small step in the right direction. We need lots of those small steps.

FULL DISCLOSURE: my uncle is probably going to get a shitload of money from the Unocal deal. So he's probably psyched about the high gas prices these days (I don't know, I don't talk to him much, and I'll never see any of that money). But I'm also psyched about the high price of gas, for different reasons.

-ptmusic

[SpearsBritney]

Man, It's a good thing we went over there to rid Iraq of WMDs. What an exceptionally fortunate coincidence that we are now in place to secure and control massive oil and gas reserves. I guess every cloud has a silver lining.

By the way, what was that world-changing event that woke us up to the eminent threat of terrorism and WMDs? You know, the one that without it, the public would have never supported this whole "war on terrorism" thingy. I forget. Hmmmmmm......

I'm sure whatever it was, our dear President will remind us tonight in his address to the nation.

[kurto]

LOL You are so Jaxmike.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes ignore all the facts

[/ QUOTE ]

What facts? You said, "In Europe though most people live a lot closer to work due to the size of their countries." (I'm curious why the word 'though' is in there) Where has anything been established that the size of your work determines how close to work you live? If that is your belief, then you would understand my joke about Russia and Puerto Rico.

More then likely it went over your head.

Where exactly where these facts I'm ignoring? You posted nothing but an unproven assertion.

Let's REALLY look at some facts, shall we? It may shock you what happens when you actually use them. Below I've listed countries ranked by their size and the average amount of time spent commuting according to a 2003 study.
Countries by size Average Commute Time
2- United States 24.4 min
47 - France 36 minutes
50 - Spain 33 minutes
61 - Germany 44 minutes
69 - Italy 23 minutes
77 - United Kingdom 45 minutes
132 - Netherlands 43 minutes
SOURCE AT BOTTOM.

So you see my illogical friend, you supplied NO FACTS. And the evidence shows you were wrong. As you can see in Netherlands, the smallest country on the list has longer average commuting times then the largest country on the list.

Don't you look foolish again? Too funny.

SOURCE:
“British commuters have the longest journeys to work in Europe with
the average trip taking 45 minutes, according to a study. That is
almost twice as long as the commute faced by Italians and seven
minutes more than the European Union average, the RAC Foundation
said.”

European commutes :

Italy: 23 minutes
Spain: 33 minutes
France: 36 minutes
EU average: 38 minutes
Netherlands: 43 minutes
Germany: 44 minutes
UK: 45 minutes

BBC News: July 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3085647.stm

[shots]

The hole in your argument is so big that even a complete idiot could see it therefore I'm going to assume you already know what it is and have disengenuosly posted this hopeing that no one calls you on it.

[kurto]

LOL Come on, you can't be this dumb.

There is no hole in my argument. The list shows that there is little correlation between the size of a country and how long people commute.

As usual, you point out no hole and make no cogent argument to support your illogical assertions.

Furthermore, once again, I'm the only one who's pointed out anything resembling facts. So, when you say I ignored the facts, YOU NEVER POSTED ANY. I'm not even sure you know what the word means.

I think someone else asked you but you never answered... are you still in highschool? (I hope the answer is yes because it will go a long way in excusing your posts.)

[shots]

First of all I'm not in highschool I run a successfull buisiness.
As for the hole in your argument it baffles me that anyone could be this stupid. You set up a straw-man argument about commute times but time and distance are two different things. One third of all households in great britain don't have cars, not people but households. You don't think that has an impact on the average commute time? Think about it. Part of the reason more people don't have cars is that they live close enough to were they work that they don't neek cars, if they bike to work it may take a lot longer but that doesn't mean they live farther away.

[superleeds]

Are you really that dumb. Please put me on your ignore list.

Belgium was a shock tho.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
One third of all households in great britain don't have cars, not people but households

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd love to see the source for this. (unless, of course, its just in your head).

[shots]

http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/staff/jdargay_wp02.pdf

Go to page 10.

[shots]

I should add that problem with traffic congestion is really bad in the UK as well further contributing to their long commute times and also the car ownership statistics for the UK are amongst the highest in Europe.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Jaxmike

[/ QUOTE ]

Who the hell is Jaxmike?

[ QUOTE ]
Let's REALLY look at some facts, shall we? It may shock you what happens when you actually use them. Below I've listed countries ranked by their size and the average amount of time spent commuting according to a 2003 study.
Countries by size Average Commute Time
2- United States 24.4 min
47 - France 36 minutes
50 - Spain 33 minutes
61 - Germany 44 minutes
69 - Italy 23 minutes
77 - United Kingdom 45 minutes
132 - Netherlands 43 minutes

[/ QUOTE ]

I’d put more credence in this if it broke the times out by auto vs auto and mass transit vs mass transit. Here in D.C. and a lot of countries that I’ve been in it’s always faster to drive than take public busses or trains (cost in another matter) Since most commuters in the countries listed other than the US are train/bus/foot commuters of course they are going to take longer. All this survey talks about the longest commute in terms of time, not distance.

[slamdunkpro]

Wow, only 15th - Honey, time to buy the new Hummer! /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[shots]

I know, I get 12 mpg and there's still 14 countries beating us.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all I'm not in highschool I run a successfull buisiness.


[/ QUOTE ] I think we can safely assume your business doesn't involve any writing skills.

[ QUOTE ]
You set up a straw-man argument

[/ QUOTE ] You keep using this term but I don't think you know what it means.

[ QUOTE ]
You set up a straw-man argument about commute times but time and distance are two different things.

[/ QUOTE ] True. Yet there is also a correlation between time and distance. One can at least make a generalization that people with shorter commute times are likely to be traveling less distance.

On top of that, you've still provided NO facts to support your case. Though our country is larger then many others, nothing about the size of the country shows how far the average person lives from their work. As usual, you've shown NOTHING to support your case. The size of the country has no bearing on far you have to commute. What determines that is nothing more then how far people choose to live from where they work. Furthermore, you implied that this is tied to Gas consumption. Yet this doesn't figure at all since you don't take into consideration how people get into work. Take NYC, one of the most populous cities in the US... the majority of the people who work there take public transportation to work. You have NOTHING to support your illogical assumption that a larger country means people commute further.

Furthermore, if people in the UK ride their bikes to work but people in LA drive their cars to work, but they both live equidistantly from their workplace, the americans would use more fuel yet their commuting distance would be the same.

Furthermore, you didn't take into account that in countries like Europe, they tend to buy smaller more fuel efficient vehicles. So even if they commute further, they may still be burning less fuel.

Most important though is just the ridiculous notion that the size of a country determines how far you have to commute. If the US suddenly split in half... people's commute would not shrink. The distance from my work to my home would not change.

Though I am curious why you think the size of a country determines the distance of one's commute. Watching people try to explain nonsense is always fun.

[kurto]

Jaxmike disappeared a few weeks ago. But he was famously belligerent and fond of making up facts. He would misuse words then debate with dictionary definitions.

[ QUOTE ]
I’d put more credence in this if it broke the times out by auto vs auto and mass transit vs mass transit. Here in D.C. and a lot of countries that I’ve been in it’s always faster to drive than take public busses or trains (cost in another matter) Since most commuters in the countries listed other than the US are train/bus/foot commuters of course they are going to take longer. All this survey talks about the longest commute in terms of time, not distance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I agree that these stats alone aren't enough to give the full picture. I'm just trying to show that the idea that the size of the country you live in determines how far you commute is just ridiculous. A large country where the majority of the people live in cities... the majority of the people are not going to commute that far. The way people in a country are dispersed in relation to where and how most people work would determine who has to commute further.

He was trying to assert that Europeans don't use as much fuel because they don't have to commute as far (because their countries are smaller). This is ridiculous at its face. And furthermore it doesn't address many of the variables which would determine how much oil a country uses: What do they use as their primary source of power (nuclear, dams and other forms of alternative sources of power), the climate, the efficiency of their vehicles, the reliance on public transportation, etc. This would even include cultural differences... for instance, many people in LA drive everywhere. There is little public transportation. (If you saw Steve Martin's LA Story, he made a joke about this when Steve went to visit his neighbor who lived 2 houses down which he got into his car, drove 20 feet and then parked... also, in the movie Swingers where everyone drove their own cars to a party... no carpooling... I know these are movies but they're spoofing the LA car culture). Furthermore, Im betting you don't see a lot of Hummers in Europe. The price of gas has been so much higher there that people don't drive as much as Americans.

I just enjoy his weird unsupported assertions.

[WillMagic]

The price of gas will start going up rapidly. We'll have a few years of inflation as we adjust to this new reality...but demand will soar for alternative energy sources, and the market will find a way to meet that demand. There will be too much money at stake.

2010-2015 might be an expensive five years. Other than that I don't really see what people are getting so worried about. The free market is a lot more powerful than people give it credit for.

Will

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
True. Yet there is also a correlation between time and distance. One can at least make a generalization that people with shorter commute times are likely to be traveling less distance.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just trying to show that the idea that the size of the country you live in determines how far you commute is just ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m combining quotes from a couple of your last posts.

I’m not really sure this is the case. You also have to take in mode of transportation. If someone in say London live a mile away from their office and walks, thatsa 20-25 minute commute. If someone in Germany live 5 miles away and commutes by train and has to wait 15 minutes for their train and walk a quarter mile that’s a 30 minute commute. Contrast that with someone like me who used to drive 15 miles to work and it took me 20 minutes door to door and I have the “shorter” commute based on time.

I’m guessing from our previous posts that you live in Connecticut and work in NYC ? If so do you train in? If so, what is your average wait time, I’m sure this survey (considering who did it) takes that into account. It’s really not an apple-to-apple comparison.

[ QUOTE ]
A large country where the majority of the people live in cities... the majority of the people are not going to commute that far. The way people in a country are dispersed in relation to where and how most people work would determine who has to commute further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again this isn’t always true. Japan has a very high concentration of people in the major cities but they also have some of the longest commutes in terms of distance due to the high price of real estate.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we can safely assume your business doesn't involve any writing skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

I type my posts fast and I don't reread them, you make lots of mistakes too the difference is that I'm not petty enough to dwell on it.

[ QUOTE ]
On top of that, you've still provided NO facts to support your case. Though our country is larger then many others, nothing about the size of the country shows how far the average person lives from their work. As usual, you've shown NOTHING to support your case. The size of the country has no bearing on far you have to commute. What determines that is nothing more then how far people choose to live from where they work. Furthermore, you implied that this is tied to Gas consumption. Yet this doesn't figure at all since you don't take into consideration how people get into work. Take NYC, one of the most populous cities in the US... the majority of the people who work there take public transportation to work. You have NOTHING to support your illogical assumption that a larger country means people commute further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the chart in the link I posted it shows that despite longer commute times in the UK people in the US travel farther. The size of a country usually determines the density of their population, in areas with denser population everything is usually closer including peoples place of work.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, if people in the UK ride their bikes to work but people in LA drive their cars to work, but they both live equidistantly from their workplace, the americans would use more fuel yet their commuting distance would be the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but if more of them take bikes then us it throws off the commute time as an accurate representation of distance. That was my point.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, you didn't take into account that in countries like Europe, they tend to buy smaller more fuel efficient vehicles. So even if they commute further, they may still be burning less fuel.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually a valid point. I knew you'd find one sooner or later.

[ QUOTE ]
Though I am curious why you think the size of a country determines the distance of one's commute. Watching people try to explain nonsense is always fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already explained this most smaller countries have a denser population while this isn't always true it's true as a trend.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
(If you saw Steve Martin's LA Story, he made a joke about this when Steve went to visit his neighbor who lived 2 houses down which he got into his car, drove 20 feet and then parked... also, in the movie Swingers where everyone drove their own cars to a party... no carpooling... I know these are movies but they're spoofing the LA car culture). Furthermore, Im betting you don't see a lot of Hummers in Europe. The price of gas has been so much higher there that people don't drive as much as Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

You’re leaving out Missing Person’s one hit “Walking in LA”

But you’d be surprised how many SUV’s are in France and Germany despite $3/gallon and up.

[shots]

I never said that this was the sole factor of oil consumption by any means.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I’m not really sure this is the case. You also have to take in mode of transportation. If someone in say London live a mile away from their office and walks, thatsa 20-25 minute commute. If someone in Germany live 5 miles away and commutes by train and has to wait 15 minutes for their train and walk a quarter mile that’s a 30 minute commute. Contrast that with someone like me who used to drive 15 miles to work and it took me 20 minutes door to door and I have the “shorter” commute based on time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you and I agree on several points. I agree that there are numerous variables that determine commute time. Furthermore, there are numerous variables which determine how far one must commute. To generalize that the size of a country determines your commuting difference is ridiculous.

As shots points out... density is a factor. A large nation can have the majority of the people in dense areas. While a smaller country can be less dense if the majority of the population is spread out. I point to NYC again.... you have around 10 million inhabitants in the 5 boroughs. A good portion of the residents don't commute far and a good percentage of them rely on public transportation. Furthermore, there are hundreds of thousands of people who live in the surrounding communities who take public transportation into the city.

Many major cities with high population densities are going to have similar situations. Outside the cities, there are still large population densities in the suburbs who work within the community they live.

Meanwhile, one can easily imagine that people are just as likely to commute long distances in a small country.

Take countries like Russia... it is the largest country and great swaths of the country are relatively unpopulated. There's nothing to indicate that Russians commute longer distances then Americans though the size of the country dwarfs the USA.

[ QUOTE ]
Again this isn’t always true. Japan has a very high concentration of people in the major cities but they also have some of the longest commutes in terms of distance due to the high price of real estate.

[/ QUOTE ]

But again... this proves my case that country size alone is unlikely to the factor which determines commuting.

Another example would be Australia... Its an enormous continent with large areas that are undeveloped. If you're going to compute commute lengths by country size, one would have to factor in if there are large areas which are relatively unpopulated.

What about nations in Africa where there deserts populated by tribes? These are large nations who are likely to have a large segment of the population who don't commute to work on a daily basis?

I just don't see how anyone can think that country size would be the primary determinant in commuting distances.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
But you’d be surprised how many SUV’s are in France and Germany despite $3/gallon and up.



[/ QUOTE ]

Does it go that low? I didn't realize how close we were to catching up to their prices.

btw--- I lived South of Los Angeles longer ago then I like to think... I'll vouch that hardly anyone walked anywhere. Certainly not in LA.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
If you saw Steve Martin's LA Story, he made a joke about this when Steve went to visit his neighbor who lived 2 houses down which he got into his car, drove 20 feet and then parked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even better was Tom Wolfe's great book "Bonfire of the Vanities". The Wall Street bond trading Park Avenue living "Master of the Universe" Sherman McCoy couldn't walk with his wife two apartments down the avenue to a party; he had to rent a limo, cause it just wasn't acceptable to walk to a party.



[ QUOTE ]
You’re leaving out Missing Person’s one hit “Walking in LA”

[/ QUOTE ]

To get me in the mood for this thread I'm cranking it now on my music player.

That said, I take long walks in LA, mostly on the beach. Unfortunately, I have to drive to get there /images/graemlins/grin.gif

~ Rick

[Il_Mostro]

You need to look more at extraction rates. I belive the current forecast is something like 5 million barrel of oil per day from canadian tar, in 2030 or so. That is not remotely close to take care of depletion. Let alone to allow for an increase in production.

And that some fancy tech. will save us. Well... I'm not that confident, let's stop at that.

Ohh, and by the way. Exponential growth will get us in the end.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that there are numerous variables that determine commute time. Furthermore, there are numerous variables which determine how far one must commute.

[/ QUOTE ]

So then do you agree (concede) that the survey you posted was meaningless?.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[kurto]

I'm not saying its meaningless. I used it as an 'indicator.'

It was not meaningless because it DID show a large variation in commute times with different countries of different (and similar) sizes.

For instance:
47 - France 36 minutes
50 - Spain 33 minutes

France and Spain are relatively close to each other in ranking for size. And there commute times are similar.

61 - Germany 44 minutes
69 - Italy 23 minutes

While Germany and Italy are significantly different.

As a quick survey, assuming some cultural similaries, one can see that there can be great variations within commuting time completely independent of country size.

There are 3 obvious factors which determine commute time: DISTANCE, DENSITY (traffic) and METHOD OF TRANSPORATION.

All of the examples above are European Nations. All of them have major cities, rural areas, etc. I don't think its completely unreasonable to look at commuting times and draw some preliminary rough estimates.

Worthless, no. Definitive, by no means.

Anyhoo... I think the entire debate about commuting times and the variables that effect that also show that its worthless to assume people living in a larger nation commute longer distances.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Exponential growth will get us in the end.

[/ QUOTE ]

But Mostro, you repeat this alot as if exponential growth will continue indefitiely. It won't precisely because it can't.

Predicting our doom based on the premise of exponential growth is like predicting that New York City will be knee-deep in horse poop by 1929 when you are living in 1860. Sure.. if the exponential growth of horses continues.. but it won't. It's not even a question.

natedogg

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]

Hydrogen technology is very far away. Hydrogen is created via electrolysis and that requires a ton of electricity and is inefficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wacki, I see this detraction commonly but I don't understand why this means we're doomed from peak oil. The grid does not need oil. In fact, the grid does not use oil AT ALL, right?

The grid is powered by natural gas, coal (which is exorbitantly abundant), nuclear, and a small amount of wind and solar (which will obviously grow exponentially).

You can produce hydrogen at home with a small electrolysis device for about $400. You can plug it into your fuelcell and drive to work. Today you can do this. Hell you could panel your roof and produce the hydrogen from your tapwater for free from solar, and never buy gas again.

All this you could do today.

So the only argument against hydrogen is that the grid will be taxed, but the grid is MUCH more solvable problem don't you think?

Oh yeah, they're on it: http://www.thestreet.com/_tscana/funds/jubak/10230041.html

50$ billion in new investments into the grid from power companies. Follow the money. It's usually right.

natedogg

[Il_Mostro]

That is exactly the problem. We have build ourselves a society that needs exponential growth to function. But we can't have it.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
The grid does not need oil. In fact, the grid does not use oil AT ALL, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well. It does, just like pretty much everything we do need oil. But the US does not use oil to generate electricity, if that is what you mean.

[ QUOTE ]
The grid is powered by natural gas, coal (which is exorbitantly abundant)

[/ QUOTE ]
And NG is about to peak (or may have already) in NA. And coal there is quite a lot of. But not all that much if we start using it for all our needs.

[ QUOTE ]

You can produce hydrogen at home with a small electrolysis device for about $400. You can plug it into your fuelcell and drive to work. Today you can do this. Hell you could panel your roof and produce the hydrogen from your tapwater for free from solar, and never buy gas again.

[/ QUOTE ]
And we can all do this?
But if H2 is ever going to work this is the way to go. Local generation.
But there are still many many problems that needs to be solved, some of them in primary science.

[ QUOTE ]

50$ billion in new investments into the grid from power companies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sweet.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
So the only argument against hydrogen is that the grid will be taxed, but the grid is MUCH more solvable problem don't you think?

Oh yeah, they're on it: http://www.thestreet.com/_tscana/funds/jubak/10230041.html

50$ billion in new investments into the grid from power companies. Follow the money. It's usually right.

[/ QUOTE ]


Not really, you do understand that there hasn’t been a new power plant built in this country since Three Mile Island? Many systems especially in the North East are running at or near capacity. This is a problem that no one is addressing. To quote your source

After doing nothing for more than two decades, utility companies are poised to spend $50 billion to build and upgrade the system of wires and towers used to distribute electricity throughout the U.S.

Notice the words power plant are strangely missing.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the only argument against hydrogen is that the grid will be taxed, but the grid is MUCH more solvable problem don't you think?

Oh yeah, they're on it: http://www.thestreet.com/_tscana/funds/jubak/10230041.html

50$ billion in new investments into the grid from power companies. Follow the money. It's usually right.

[/ QUOTE ]


Not really, you do understand that there hasn’t been a new power plant built in this country since Three Mile Island? Many systems especially in the North East are running at or near capacity. This is a problem that no one is addressing. To quote your source

After doing nothing for more than two decades, utility companies are poised to spend $50 billion to build and upgrade the system of wires and towers used to distribute electricity throughout the U.S.

Notice the words power plant are strangely missing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but all we have to do is build some more. I still don't see how peak oil is going to send us back into the stone age, as some "experts" are claiming.

natedogg

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, but all we have to do is build some more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not as easy as it sounds. The Wacko/green/Libs have managed to block every new proposal so far.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, but all we have to do is build some more.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Not as easy as it sounds. The Wacko/green/Libs have managed to block every new proposal so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it's because nobody, Wacko/green/Libs and neo conservatives, in fact everyone, wants a power plant, and especially a nuclear one built in their backyards. And as these things tend to require huge backyards they run into all sorts of killjoys trying to stop them.

[BadBoyBenny]

You are so wrong. We haven't built nuclear plants since 3 mile island but we have been building plenty of power plants

Linky (http://www.energyusernews.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,2584,91293,00.html)

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't see how peak oil is going to send us back into the stone age, as some "experts" are claiming.

[/ QUOTE ]
And you keep on attacking this straw man. Who here are claiming that? Why bring it up? Why not discuss the legitimate concerns there are, the enormous problems we are facing.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still don't see how peak oil is going to send us back into the stone age, as some "experts" are claiming.

[/ QUOTE ]
And you keep on attacking this straw man. Who here are claiming that? Why bring it up? Why not discuss the legitimate concerns there are, the enormous problems we are facing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a strawman. It's a pretty common theme expounded by many peakoil pontificators. Hell, read the peakoil.com message boards, it's full of people asking about blacksmithing and "community farming" and the "end of cars" and crap like that.

natedogg

[Il_Mostro]

Yes, I do read those boards. What does that have to do with the discussions here?

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif..having read the mother jones article; and subscribed to several private financial newsletters about energy demand and world economy ( i am no expert)..all this info is in the current price of oil...the peak is probably 10 years + off....

what about cold fusion, wind, solar, ocean tides....etc.

i think investing in canadien tar fields is the way to go now...

the international oil powers ; both state and corporate (sometimes difficult to differentiate); are going to maximize their take ; i.e. profits; until another key energy source is allowed to surface..

gl
jmho
/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I do read those boards. What does that have to do with the discussions here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh! Hey, I'm not referring to posters here when I say things like "I don't see how peakoil will send us back to teh stoneage". I"m referring to the many, many public voices (such as the ones I mentioned). Sorry if that is confusing, I wasn't talking about you and wacki etc.

natedogg