That was said with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

Going on however, high fuel commodity prices are arguably good for the environment at some levels. Europeans are years and miles ahead in the use of or access to more fuel or environmentally efficient products. It's not that Europeans are more ethical or conscientious than North Americans, merely that high intensity populations and high fuel prices create a demand amongst consumers/voters for solutions which then empowers companies or governments to invest in and provide them. I just put a new high efficiency heating boiler in my house. Of the 5 products I considered, only one was from NA (and it had just been released ) the other 4 were European and all older although most had not been available in NA until recently. I don't like paying more for gas either, and I certainly pay more than most of you. But a nice side benefit might well be that I gain access to many more environmentally beneficial products than I would if energy was dirt cheap. The above comments about solar panels underscores this perfectly.

Definitely arable land is a key to long term survival. But don't underestimate the power of gold. Listen, you can't eat dollars either, but there WILL be some medium of exchange no matter how bad things get and I'm betting that gold will be as good as it has been for the past several thousand years. And I know I own the gold I have in my safe deposit box because I put it there with my own hands.

People who doubt what gold can do should spend a little more time hitting the history books. One of my favorite examples is the escapees from Treblinka death camp in Poland during WWII. Of the few Jews who escaped, the ONLY ones who survived did so because they were able to "steal" some gold from the goldsmith shop before they made their escape (one of the escapees was the camp goldsmith). They were able to elude capture and execution by the Germans because they were able to pay off Polish citizens in gold for food and hiding places. And NO, the Poles didn't help these forlorn folks out of the goodness of their hearts. They helped them for GOLD.

And if gold won't get the job done, then there are my own individual skills and wits, and if that doesn't work, then there's always guns. I have a large enough arsenal (AR15s, shotgun, handguns) and many thousands of rounds of ammunition for it.

Why is it that everyone seeks to find alternative explanations to the high oil prices? We keep hearing it whenever prices go up. It's either a temporary crisis in Sudan, or hostilities in Liberia, or OPEC - in their latest summit - decided to keep production down. Unless it's the latest report on US oil depots, showing low levels. So everyone expects prices to go down soon, this price level is only temporary. Or is it?

Remember the same discussion in 2005, when prices stabilised around 60 USD/barrel. Analysts said prices were going to normalize again, and fall back to 20 or at perhaps 40 USD/barrel. Did they?

Can temporary circumstances around the world make oil prices climb from 60 USD in 2005 and stabilize around 100 USD in 2007? Is OPEC voluntarily keeping production down? They can easily increase production if they only wanted to, can't they? All that's needed is to send Dick Cheney over to talk them into opening the valves.

Honestly, Dick. Save yourself the trouble and embarrassment. And remind me to bump this thread in 2009.

I think one of the issues is that we are at or close to peak oil, saudi arabia has been fiddling its reserve figures for years, it makes no difference if they put more wells in or not, they can't get the oil out any faster and they are already water injecting their wells.
Oil companies also realise they are at or close to peak oil, everybody whines about refining capacity being low so why don't they just build some more refineries? (its not the environmentalists blocking them) The reason they won't build any more is because it takes 10 years to build one and they know in 10 years the oil supply will be less than it is now, so there will be an EXCESS of refining capacity and a shortage of oil.


http://www.iaconoresearch.com/BlogIm...i_reserves.png

It has been reported. Most people just aren't paying any attention. They're too busy watching "American Idol".

Last January president Bush traveled to the Middle East. One of his agenda items was to ask the Saudis for some help with the high oil prices. The King of Saudi Arabia responded that, "World oil prices will be determined by the market now". President Bush's comment after the meeting was that, "We cannot very well expect the Saudis to do something they can't do (increase production)."

One doesn't have to be a genius to read between the lines here. We are Saudi Arabia's most important friend. It is our military might and our service men and women who guarantee the Kingdom's security. The Saudi's virtually always help us out when asked by the President of the United States. They are not turning down our request to increase production because they won't, they are not increasing production because they CAN'T.

Saudi Arabia has lost something on the order of 2 million barrels of daily production capacity. They're pumping around 8.5 million barrels per day, down from their peak production of around 10.5 million barrels per day in the mid 80's. Even if one factors in the possibility (likelihood) that their eighties production represented unsustainable over production, they clearly are no longer in the position they formerly held of being the world's "swing" producer. They no longer have the ability to control prices with their over capacity. Thus the statement last January from the House of Saud.

People who ARE paying attention (oil traders) are beginning to panic. That's why the current bidding war. And it doesn't help one little bit that the Chinese just upped their oil imports by 18% to 3.9 million barrels per day.

Agree 100%, Whiterook.
People have their heads buried in the sand (like an ostrich - NOT looking for more oil ).
Either that, or they are blaming our government for not doing more to control the costs. As if the government can do that (any more).

One thing the government could do, but doesn't seem to be interested in doing, is controlling the "excessive use" of oil, and weaning us off of it altogether.
It WILL work itself out - one way or another. I just fear an ugly way (for us citizens) is what's in store. Increased prices for everything due to much higher energy prices, Middle Eastern countries using oil as a weapon (again), gas rationing (again), stock-market crash, eventual massive shortages (including lack of heat and AC in our homes & businesses), military concerns (not enough fuel), etc.

We need to be making serious changes - now.

Steve

STOP terrorism - Drive a HYBRID

Vehicles:
350 miles a week ------------ 2006 HCH II, Magnetic Pearl, w/NAVI (born on May 25, 2006)
350 miles a month ---------- 2003 Mazda Tribute ES-V6
350 miles a year (for now) - 1986 Mercedes 560SL

Actually if this is peak oil we should've been making serious changes back in the late 1980s. I read somewhere that a 20 year lead time was needed to avert a major slowdown, and a 10 year lead time to avert a catastrophic one.

The military will have enough oil: remember it is going to go to the highest bidder. The military will requisition the funds to remain supplied, you can be assured of that. Its the rest of us that should worry.

I don't think America is prepared for both the housing crisis and $4.50 gas simultaneously.

Oh, I agree with that. The time to WAKE UP was after the 1970s oil embargo. Carter tried to get something started, but it fizzled in the 80s. And has been pretty much a non-issue ever since (by both parties).

Steve

STOP terrorism - Drive a HYBRID

Vehicles:
350 miles a week ------------ 2006 HCH II, Magnetic Pearl, w/NAVI (born on May 25, 2006)
350 miles a month ---------- 2003 Mazda Tribute ES-V6
350 miles a year (for now) - 1986 Mercedes 560SL

Every person can make ethanol. It is easy to do. It is easy to make 190 proof. Uncle Jessie's "Moonshine" or "WhiteLightnig" is easy to make with a backyard still.

You can burn 190 proof in your car today. You can burn 160 proof actually, and you don't need a Flex Fuel "engine". That is a scam I think.
You need a computer chip change, not an engine change. It is a computer chip that rejects ethanol, not the engine itself.

The problem is you and I cannot make 200 proof. You need industrial scale equipment to do that. You need 200 proof to mix with gasoline.

If you do not use gasoline at all, you can use lower proofs!!!

If you drain ( use up ) all the gas in your tank, and add ethanol only, (no E85) you can use any "home-made" proof between 160 and higher.
( It is impossible to make better than 193 proof without extraordinary measures of dehydration, which is a step up and beyond distillation. )

I think once more and more American's start doing this, we will be better off. Just like most people can grow some of thier own food, but not all, americans could make some of thier own fuel, but probably not all.
( Maybe you could run one small commuter car on "home made" ethanol, and use gasoline in the big family SUV? )

BioDiesel is another option. Making gasoline is hard to do ( and where do you get your feedstock? )

Both ethanol and biodiesel are easy to make. A Jr. High or High School student can make both in a science fair project with little $ invested.
And the feedstocks are both countless, and nearly unlimited.

On ethanol as a fuel I was recently reading Richard Heinberg's "The Party's Over" and he had some observations on that. Depending on your assumptions the EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) is between .59 - 1.34. Anything below 1 is a net loss of energy and oil historically has been >4.

There might be some hope in biodiesel, or even in an offshoot I was reading about recently: biopetrol (using bacteria to grow hydrocarbons). Unfortunately the latter isn't yet ready for prime time. In biodiesel's case there isn't a distribution network yet in place.