Topic: Long term OIL - page 20. (Read 91747 times)

Small nations were already trying to restrict the production of oil and wanted to increase the price while Saudi was against it citing different reasons and now they knew if they didnt cut down the production then they will not recover from this mess and so it might be the reason for the change of heart.

During the big fall in prices, OPEC did not reach an agreement on cutting production because it would benefit American shale oil producers. At that point, Saudi Arabia wanted to focus on market share. Things have changed now and OPEC has agreed to restrict production. Whether members will stick to the plan is a different question altogether.

The price of oil could recover by 2017 but never expect for a price we reached during 2012 to 2014 but the decisions of OPEC countries would determine the fate of oil and its price.They did not reduce the production when the price was bombing and so is the reason it failed to recover till this time.

Really hard to understand stuff in context right?

Short-term = currently

Long-term = future

Duh... you are grasping at straws and are sidestepping my arguments.


It is about economic viability not about the method of how to create elementary hydrogen.
If that wouldnt be the case we would have had solarpanels and wind turbines everywhere and on top of that an already working hydrogen infrastructure.

Like i said hydrogen is not per se a energy source but a energy carrier.


Using liquid hydrogen is much easier because you nearly dont have to change the existing infrastructure  (cars and gasoline station) at all.

In the future if we have fusion and better technologies (i.e. more efficient) for renewables hydrogen will play an important role (e.g. liquid hydrogen vs electric batteries).

But 1,200 miles is almost 2,000 kilometers

Is it ever possible for a fuel cell to accomplish? Most likely, they refer to an unloaded truck, i.e. just truck itself without a truck trailer. Regarding using liquid hydrogen, Wiki says that concept vehicles have been built using liquid hydrogen as fuel. I guess this truck is also a sort of concept "art". Maybe, it just hasn't yet made it into Wikipedia...



"Natural gas" itself (as a specific kind of fuel) is a mixture of a few gases, not just methane alone

Why would you need to harvest pure hydrogen when it is so easy to create? By electrolizing water, you strip the oxygen out and are left with pure hydrogen. Whether or not it yields as much energy as it takes to create it is really irrelevant since the purpose of using hydrogen as a fuel source is not to have a net gain of energy, but to reduce the amount of carbon and other pollution in the atmosphere created by burning oil for transportation. By using electricity from solar or wind, you further cut down on the atmospheric effects (and cost) of electrolizing the water to create the hydrogen, which again, is the point of using hydrogen as a fuel source for vehicles in the first place.

Technology has improved to the point where previously inaccessible oil is now being harvested. It's not currently the case that oil availability is decreasing (in fact, it is currently increasing), but we know that there will be a point where availability will decrease, because we know it is finite. The key is to transition away from oil before you have to because there is none left.

I figured it was fuel cells because that's the only way I've ever seen hydrogen referenced as a fuel source for vehicles. (It is a natural gas, but not "natural gas," which itself refers to a specific fuel already.) I suppose the range would be dependent on on many fuel cells they can cram into the vehicle, and also, I'm assuming the motors on each wheel also have electric generators that recapture kinetic energy when the vehicle slows down, which further increases range. All current electric and hybrid vehicles already use this technology, I'm assuming it would be the same for fuel cells too.

It's kinda more interesting to find out why you can't still grasp that we are not talking about short or long terms. Just in case, we are talking about the current situation, and the poster which first said about decreasing availability of crude oil now (i.e. present time) seems to be no longer claiming that (because facts are obviously not confirming that claim). Other than that, you should make up your mind finally what you are claiming yourself, i.e. short vs long term...

But, as I said, your forecasts are out of scope of this discussion, independent of their time horizon or accuracy (or lack thereof)

I forgive you because u just lack the knowlegde.

I am correct and you are wrong.

There is no free hydrogen known so far else we would have already taken it.
The only reason why we dont use hydrogen is that we have to produce it by splitting it up and that cost more energy then it can produce.
There is just no elementary hydrogen we can harvest.

You are right now saying that ice is a liquid dear.

Oil:

If there doesnt exist a abiogenic process of creating oil it is correct what i say.

/edit

I told you what is happening short-term. What didnt you understand?

If I lack the intelligence to understand, you lack the intelligence to read

Since you just don't know how much they found, to begin with. But it is ultimately irrelevant, since it has been known since long ago that there is enough free hydrogen stuck in the Earth crust. There may not be such gigantic gas fields like those containing methane and other natural gases, but there is more than enough molecular hydrogen dissipated in the crust. There are quite a few chemical reactions that produce free hydrogen. Wtf, a natural nuclear reactor has been found in Africa, and now you talk about hydrogen not being a naturally occurring gas


These are mostly meaningless speculations (just like about the Sun going to die one day) since you don't provide any specific dates and terms while I talk about what we have right now. See the difference?

Hydrogen:

I think you just really lack the intelligence to understand.
They found some traces of hydrogen under fast-spreading tectonic plates and made the theory/mathematical model about slow-spreading tectonic plates.
There is no evidence yet that there are huge hydrogen sources under the slow spreading tectonic plates.

Oil:

You wrote this:


When we talk about oil price short-term it is about economical supply and demand. And because right now supply outstrips demand we have lower oil prices.

Long term the oil supply goes down and if the demand stays or increases the price goes up.

And because we dont have and abudance of oil especially easy oil this will become a huge problem in the future.

What else dont you understand?

Oh, really? What about you yourself reading the stuff you link?


You seem to be confusing a lot of things

The fact that there is no more easy oil doesn't in the least mean there is no more oil at large. But this is basically irrelevant to the matter in question. We have (1) increasing oil consumption coupled with (2) prices substantially below their long-term mean values. You have to somehow reconcile these two real world facts with the claim that the availability of crude oil is decreasing (also note that no one talks about abundance of oil except you)

Atleast try to read the stuff you google.

https://nicholas.duke.edu/about/news/oceans-may-be-large-overlooked-source-hydrogen-gas

This is a model. There is no evidence that this is true else we would have already started to get hydrogen from their.
The majority of hydrogen on planet earth is bound (99,99%).
You dont have elementary hydrogen existing as a natural gas.
Until now there is no known process or location where you can find it on earth.
This is the main reason why we dont use hydrogen as a energy source. Fact.

 
Oil:

If we had abudance of oil then there would be no problem finding new cheap oil wells which doesnt happen.
Instead we have to drill offshore in the deep sea or produce shale oil which is up to 600++% more expensive.

Logic...

this now Opec country public policy always reduce produce oil
because oil price is low
i think next year oil price can incraese again

There is no need to go to other planets

Large quantities of free hydrogen are accumulated beneath the seafloor, which is produced through chemical reaction of seawater with rocks composed of serpentine group minerals. So there is absolutely no reason to think of molecular hydrogen H₂ as of some unnatural substance that doesn't exist on or in Earth. Besides, there is also some free hydrogen in atmosphere, specifically in its upper part. It is something about 1/2 part per million, which is a small amount indeed but I guess that will suffice to bring you peace of mind


And so what?

Look how oil gets produced today and 50 years ago.
The percentage of offshore and shale oil increased by a lot. It wouldnt have increased if we had big 1$ wells everywhere like in the middle east and russia.

Just show us a place where you can win natural hydrogen gas lol

Deisik you are just stupid stop telling bs.

Or are you talking about mankind driving to the next proto planetary nebula?

So you are essentially claiming that the price of crude oil is determined by the buyers, i.e. it is a buyers market on the whole, right? But this just means that there is a lot of supply which is in direct contradiction with the claim that the availability of oil is decreasing. In fact, how on Earth it can be decreasing if its supply outstrips demand? Personally, I would rather consider this fact as an evidence that oil becomes more available, and since it is more available while demand for it is increasing as well, we can't claim either that this increase in availability is only relative, not absolute...

What do I miss in my considerations?

Thanks for fixing the formatting... I unwittingly left out some lines I think!

One explanation is that price is really determined by those willing to buy it, and less and less the cartels like OPEC.

1. Now if consumers know for a fact that stockpiles are growing, they can just keep putting quotes for the low prices that can guarantee these stockpiles ship out.
2. Oil has to be cheap to compete with alternative energy... biofuel is increasingly getting cheaper, while oil exploration is increasingly costlier. Oil price has to be attractive to buyers who have growing list of alternative options now.
3. Scarcity plays a factor but only if the commodity retains value. Bitcoin, for example, has a max limit of coins and potentially when all have been mined, each satoshi becomes pricier. But if, and only if, people continue to value bitcoin. Theoretically if DOGE is a better (and limitless) alternative, for example, then bitcoin is not worth its price. In the case of oil, it can no longer be the commodity it once was. It is still highly valuable to developing economies but it is not unforeseeable that in 50 years, the developed world will no longer need oil. Today, already, some economies are planning to completely wean off oil dependency.

This isn't to say oil cannot again hit 100$. It's still fast to produce and there is ready tech to use it quickly and on massive scales. The pattern of history shows that oil must peak again, just not now.