OPEC price fixing?

Break-even fusion was been reported by ITER last year in the journal Nature.

I sincerely hope not, all my observations are second hand at best and I am very interested in your outlook.

OK, since you asked nice.

Actually, no. Read the way it's worded carefully. You need to be able to sort wheat from chaff. Also, it wasn't ITER, it was NIF, which is a completely different technology.

http://www.nature.com/news/laser-fusion-experiment-extracts-net-energy-from-fuel-1.14710

An excerpt from near the bottom: But fusion-energy generation still remains a distant goal, and Hurricane admits he cannot yet estimate a timescale for it. “Our total gain — fusion energy out divided by laser energy in — is only about 1%,” he says.

So, even he says they are at 99:1 in his opinion. Sadly, he's off by orders of magnitude.
 
Last edited:
Hydrogen is the answer. That's why you have not heard from henning. He is conducting experiments at an undisclosed location. Lots of flasks and bunsen burners, etc.
 
A while back, I think it was Bush, we increased our storage supply of oil to protect against this very thing. I don't know what the threshold is, but at some price point/% increase the US government would release some of that to market to control pricing. So, we can play that game, too.


If you're talking about the "Strategic Oil Reserves" that is a tiny drop in the bucket and mostly just a psychological tool when prices go high and doofuses hear on TV that the President "opened the SOR".

Our traders at the oil company I worked for back in the day, would chuckle and short everything for a couple of days and make a mint, and the price would pop right back to where it was in less than a week.

I said a drop in the bucket, but it isn't even that much. Most terminals had more tankage than the entire SOR combined back then. Maybe it's a tiny bit bigger now. Oil isn't something you store for long term, generally.

It's nothing more than a market manipulation tool and the effect is very weak.
 
Actually, no. Read the way it's worded carefully. You need to be able to sort wheat from chaff. Also, it wasn't ITER, it was NIF, which is a completely different technology.

http://www.nature.com/news/laser-fusion-experiment-extracts-net-energy-from-fuel-1.14710

An excerpt from near the bottom: But fusion-energy generation still remains a distant goal, and Hurricane admits he cannot yet estimate a timescale for it. “Our total gain — fusion energy out divided by laser energy in — is only about 1%,” he says.

So, even he says they are at 99:1 in his opinion. Sadly, he's off by orders of magnitude.

I stand corrected on two fronts. That's what I get for just reading headlines. Still, the more recent ventures are trying different tacks, and I am allowed to be hopeful. I fear without fusion energy Peak Oil will come, though I doubt in my lifetime, thankfully.
 
Hmmm, let's set aside the question of which specific Federal lands you want opened up and examine the second statement just a little bit.

"The private wells have saved our bacon over the last 8 years."

Do you know what the economics of the "private wells" were over the past 8 years and what those same wells look like right now in economic terms? Oil companies are always looking for good investments and they are chosing not to drill right now. Why is that? Lack of opportunity or lack of profit?

Now let's get back to the question of which specific Federal lands you want opened. Do any of these lands present attractive drilling opportunities?

All of them, I don't care where they are, there are lands that are closed to drilling, open them up. Let the people who know, the geologists and oil people figure out which ones will produce.

Oil is cheap now because it is abundant. Part of the abundance is the increase of production in the US. The other part is that the Saudi's are tired of being the entity that must take it on the chin and reduce output to maintain high price and has kept the spigots open. The Saudi's also want to take out shale, it won't happen, it will just force them to get more efficient faster.
 
I'm hardly a flaming liberal, but I don't agree that the Government is particularly at fault for consumers buying cheap crap made in China.

(wanting avoid SZ wrt all the parties at fault for the whole illegal aliens debacle)

Bob, the tax climate and regulatory environment sucks in this country, that makes it difficult for US manufacturers to compete. Also notice that the "cheap crap" from China may be crap, but it isn't necessarily cheap.
 
Negative, keep our oil in the ground.

A. Pump THEM dry first, take a 300 year look at it not a 30 year look.

B. Sell them all the rifles, tanks, planes, bullets as they can afford, we get our dollars back, they get hardware that we can defeat easily.

C. Foment and encourage interstate tension in all ME countries, keep them at each others throat(see step B. ).

D. Close the US border to ANY immigration from ME countries due to their horrific human rights policies.

Just to make sure, you understand that oil is dirt-cheap now, right? Why waste our national resources at a time cheap oil is flooding over here? Wouldn't we be better served to wait until we really need it?

This could be the first time you and I have agreed on anything.

The only thing I'd add is that even a 30-year look would be okay, but some folks don't want to plan beyond 30 days.



Oddly enough, I might too.

Guys, I'm with you on this, unfortunately the pump them dry first effort has put us in precarious situations in the past where they have the ability to kill our economy with their greed by squeezing off supply and driving the price up.
 
As far as the solution to using oil for transportation, I still think battery technology will be the answer. I think we are close now, a small break through in battery power density and/or charging speed would tip the scales in favor of batteries pretty quickly.
 
I stand corrected on two fronts. That's what I get for just reading headlines. Still, the more recent ventures are trying different tacks, and I am allowed to be hopeful. I fear without fusion energy Peak Oil will come, though I doubt in my lifetime, thankfully.

Here's the deal with fusion. It can be done, but can't be contained. Why is it so different than fission? Well, here's an abstract, just from me. This is an engineering treatise not a physics primer.

Fission in it's natural state occurs on Earth. In fact, if you own a plane built before ~1956 and it has original instruments in it, you have fission occurring right on your panel. Gak! Yup, fission is simply radio-chemical decay of one element into another element(s). Radium, Plutonium, Uranium are all spontaneously fissile to some degree or another. We can make fissile elements in the lab by using a great deal of megawatts, and forcing various isotopes together to produce stuff like Californium 252, which is nasty, nasty little stuff. But, the fact remains that there is fission going on right now out in the desert of Utah, and in central China, the Urals, and several other places. It's natural, it's happening, and when we make a fission reactor, all we do is use a costly process to gather up those isotopes we want, and put them all in one place - viola! Instant power(well, of course not really).

Fusion - It does not occur naturally on the planet, or within the planet Earth. We know the mantle is hot, and we know it's molten, but I assure you, it is not fusing two(or more) elements together to form a new element. To do that, you need to go - yup, to the Sun. The Sun is a very modest fusion reactor. If you'll notice, it is not artificially contained, it is contained by the natural forces of the gravity, and well obeys the known forces of nature.

Fission - occurs in nature, all we do, like a primitive cro-magnon is gather up the wood(U235 isotopes), and strike a spark(withdrdaw the LiO2 control rods) to light er off. Ugh - fire good, Grob make fire, fire heat meat, Grob eat meat.

Fusion - only occurs in nature in it's uncontained form, principally the Sun, but we have been successful in generating enough heat and pressure to recreate the Sun in microscopic scale with a fusion bomb, but never, ever has it been contained by nature, by man, never, ever in history.

There are a few working theories that a dark star or black hole is a contained fusion reaction, but the densities and temps of that phenomenon have not and cannot(to my limited knowledge) been empirically tested. In other words, aside from inferring a black hole from the event horizon, there is no way to conclusively maintain that the darn thing exists. And here I am at the limit of my physics understanding. However, it should be pointed out that if one is capable of recreating a black hole on, or near Earth, and one is successful in somehow capturing the radiant heat(um, how does the heat 'leave' the black hole?), it appears to me that the casual failure of such a reactor would suck the planet and everything nearby into it, thus defeating the purpose of the reactor to power our steam gen set.;)
 
Negative, keep our oil in the ground.

A. Pump THEM dry first, take a 300 year look at it not a 30 year look.

B. Sell them all the rifles, tanks, planes, bullets as they can afford, we get our dollars back, they get hardware that we can defeat easily.

C. Foment and encourage interstate tension in all ME countries, keep them at each others throat(see step B. ).

.


Yeah, fighting wars for Oil is a helluva thing to do....

We can always get more 18 year olds...

:no: :mad2:
 
In a very simplified form: The people who are importing are not the ones who did the price setting. The various countries in OPEC get together and set a price. Company X buys their oil and then uses it, imports it to the US or perhaps resells it to someone else who uses it, imports it or resells it.


That is not how OPEC works. They don't set prices.

They set production goals for member nations. Each country has a goal of barrels per day.

Then, each country then goes home and produces more than they are allocated, as, they each need the money.

The supply of oil pumped is then dumped on the "market", where, in an efficient market, price is set based upon demand for the supply.

And, as an FYI.....


OPEC member countries produce about 40 percent of the world's crude oil.
 
Yeah, fighting wars for Oil is a helluva thing to do....

We can always get more 18 year olds...

:no: :mad2:

Well, since you're gonna stalk me, I guess you go on ignore with Henning.

Now you get to quote me with any drivel you want!

Buh-bye.
 
Here's the deal with fusion. It can be done, but can't be contained...

I see what you're saying and I won't gainsay any of it. But by your reasoning we shouldn't have electrovoltaic power in the first place. In nature it only occurs uncontained in lightning. Well, that's not entirely true since it can be contained by the odd electric eel, but you see where I'm going.

Just because it occurs uncontained in nature doesn't mean it can't be contained here on terra firma. It may be that the engineering and physical challenges will wind up being too much for efficient power generation. I fear that if this is the case it will be the death knell of our civilization. Without it Peak Oil is coming.
 
All of them, I don't care where they are, there are lands that are closed to drilling, open them up. Let the people who know, the geologists and oil people figure out which ones will produce.

Oil is cheap now because it is abundant. Part of the abundance is the increase of production in the US. The other part is that the Saudi's are tired of being the entity that must take it on the chin and reduce output to maintain high price and has kept the spigots open. The Saudi's also want to take out shale, it won't happen, it will just force them to get more efficient faster.


There is other, more valuable uses of our Federal Lands than drilling the **** out of them.

Let's go drill in the dessert of Saudi and Company.
 
How long do you think oil will stay at $45? I say until the beginning of next summer, next winter at the latest.


If I knew the answer to future Oil prices, I would be a billionaire trading Oil contracts.

If you know the answer, hopefully you are out there trading your account and taking advantage of your unique insights on global oil prices.
 
If I knew the answer to future Oil prices, I would be a billionaire trading Oil contracts.

If you know the answer, hopefully you are out there trading your account and taking advantage of your unique insights on global oil prices.

If you think oil is staying at $45 I have a bridge you can buy.
 
Like what?


Oh...... little things like fresh water.... hunting..... timber.... fishing.... etc....


You go drill your private lands, and we will allow those who manage public lands to manage them for the rest of us.
 
If you think oil is staying at $45 I have a bridge you can buy.


If you know differently, please post the oil trades you are putting on right now that will make you Billions$$$.
 
All of them, I don't care where they are, there are lands that are closed to drilling, open them up. Let the people who know, the geologists and oil people figure out which ones will produce.

Thank you for that description of the state of your knowledge.

There are several drivers behind the current oil supply and price environment. Reduced economic growth in Asia is one large driver. Fundamental supply growth in the Middle East along with returning Iraqi production to the market is also a driver. And when Iranian production (eventually) returns to the world market the supply side will be worse.

Yes, US production growth has also affected prices. That growth has not and will not continue in the current price environment. Opening more Federal lands just isn't going to do much. Check the latest US lease sales numbers to see that for yourself.
 
The expensive, non-profitable at $45 places???

Last I heard from the Bakken this little trick on the part of Saudi's to drive them out of business backfired because they drove down their costs to about $37/bbl which some say is less than the cost to the Saudis.
 
I see what you're saying and I won't gainsay any of it. But by your reasoning we shouldn't have electrovoltaic power in the first place. In nature it only occurs uncontained in lightning. Well, that's not entirely true since it can be contained by the odd electric eel, but you see where I'm going.

Just because it occurs uncontained in nature doesn't mean it can't be contained here on terra firma. It may be that the engineering and physical challenges will wind up being too much for efficient power generation. I fear that if this is the case it will be the death knell of our civilization. Without it Peak Oil is coming.

Nope! Plenty of naturally occurring sources of voltage. As you mentioned, lightning is one aspect of - static electrical charge! Found all over the place with the right valance electrons. Electric eels is another example.

I accept your premise that we may someday be able to do in engineering that which can't be done in nature WRT fusion, but honestly by the time we get it sorted out, how much energy will we have expended toward the goal, and how much will we gain should we achieve it?

The maintenance of a fusion reactor is going to be orders of magnitude greater than the mx of a fission reactor. Funny thing, a low power, low conversion ratio energy station can go a long, long time with minimal service. Higher power conversions lead to higher service intervals. Super high energy conversions like fission lead to super high service levels.

What price fusion service mx? think of running your 320CI aircraft engine at 150HP. Modern engine tech will now put out +450HP from the same displacement with modest service interval. How far along the technology scale do we need go in engineering to have safe, reliable, and clean fusion? It's breaking the intl bank right now, and there is no cost end in sight.
 
Last I heard from the Bakken this little trick on the part of Saudi's to drive them out of business backfired because they drove down their costs to about $37/bbl which some say is less than the cost to the Saudis.

I'll bet on American ingenuity every time.
 
Last I heard from the Bakken this little trick on the part of Saudi's to drive them out of business backfired because they drove down their costs to about $37/bbl which some say is less than the cost to the Saudis.


Don't know if it is true, but I had heard the price in the Bakkan was sub-$30.


From Oct 18, 2015:
The Bakken-Three Forks rig count dropped to 63 rigs running across our coverage area by end of the week on Friday.


From August 8, 2015:
The Bakken-Three Forks rig count remained at 71 rigs running across our coverage area by end of the week on Friday.


ACtually, interesting that the rig count has gone from 189 down to 62....

And, since 2014, more than $32 billion has been lost on shale plays...

Since April, oil production in the major shale plays has decreased sharply, with total production falling by 350,000 barrels and the EIA expects that this trend will continue and for production to decline for most of the key US shales by October.

On September 14th, the EIA reported that the Bakken Shale produced 1.22 MMbpd (million barrels per day) of crude oil in August, 1.40% less than the month before but 5.10% more that a year ago. The Bakken will likely see a fall and is expected to produce 1.18 MMbpd (million barrels per day) of crude oil in October.

And the bad news gets worse. Recent data from FactSet suggests that producers in the shale industry have lost over $32 billion since January 1st and are quickly approaching the deficit of $37.7 billion reported for the whole of 2014.

The Bakken rig count has vacillated between 68-70 since July as producers remain skiddish due t low oil prices. This is a drop of over 50% from last year when the rig count was at 189 drilling rigs in the region.



(Be interesting to know how the "lost over $32 billion" is calculated.)
 
But isn't it corporate entities which are the conveyors of commodities? Therefore they shall be held under anti trust?
Again, that's not how the Sherman and Clayton acts tend to define trusts or anti-competitive activity. The federal government has set prices from everything from air travel (back in the old CAB days) to farm commodity prices. Even when then commodity was provided by individuals or companies, there's no illegal "collusion" if the government sets the standards.

With that in mind, any law or regulation which is not universally enforced shall not present or cause any enforcement against the people of the United States. Agreed?

Eh? No.
 
Last edited:
I accept your premise that we may someday be able to do in engineering that which can't be done in nature WRT fusion, but honestly by the time we get it sorted out, how much energy will we have expended toward the goal, and how much will we gain should we achieve it?

The maintenance of a fusion reactor is going to be orders of magnitude greater than the mx of a fission reactor. Funny thing, a low power, low conversion ratio energy station can go a long, long time with minimal service. Higher power conversions lead to higher service intervals. Super high energy conversions like fission lead to super high service levels.

What price fusion service mx? think of running your 320CI aircraft engine at 150HP. Modern engine tech will now put out +450HP from the same displacement with modest service interval. How far along the technology scale do we need go in engineering to have safe, reliable, and clean fusion? It's breaking the intl bank right now, and there is no cost end in sight.


A very thoughtful analysis. My own response is that it is an economic decision more than a physical one, assuming the process can even be done and contained. But sooner or later oil will run out. It has to, its finite. Uranium will run out, even if we switch to Thorium it will run out. We won't run out of hydrogen.

There may come a time when microbial sources of hydrocarbons can compete in the market along with fossil sources. I believe this is playing out right now with an algal-derived fuel in the running for a 100ll replacement. I just have doubts that we can meet our rather voracious energy needs with it. Fossil fuels have millions of years of photosynthesis imbedded within them. Replacing that quickly and renewably is quite a challenge.

Thank you for a thoughtful discussion.
 
A very thoughtful analysis. My own response is that it is an economic decision more than a physical one, assuming the process can even be done and contained. But sooner or later oil will run out. It has to, its finite. Uranium will run out, even if we switch to Thorium it will run out. We won't run out of hydrogen.

side comment:

Well, technically oil is a renewable source of energy. ;-)

But, yep, running out of hydrogen would probably be a very very bad day.

and now back to the thread...
 
A very thoughtful analysis. My own response is that it is an economic decision more than a physical one, assuming the process can even be done and contained. But sooner or later oil will run out. It has to, its finite. Uranium will run out, even if we switch to Thorium it will run out. We won't run out of hydrogen.

Oops, you're thinking fission = fusion. It's the opposite. Here's the deal. Fission is the decay of radio-chemistry from one element into another element(s). From my recollection, there's subsurface volumes of fissile material enough to power reactors at current usage for something like 2000 years. That's what we've discovered so far, as long as we don't use it up making and delivering nuke bombs. So, we're prolly ok there, although the engineering to gather and refine radioactive isotopes needs plenty of work, it could be done. I won't cover breeding here, but that's another source of fuel.

Now, on to fusion. Just the opposite from fission. Rather than breaking down a complex element in nature, it is the un-natural combining of common elements into a slightly more complex element that releases the energy of the nucleus of the atom. Most people think from history 'splitting the atom' is what does the energy release. In fusion we start with -- water, very pure water, and we split off the H2, and add a ion, then do the same again and make Tritium, and we press these together(not splitting) into an isotope of Helium. Water is plentiful, and the energies theoretically recoverable from fusion would allow the side generation of the actual primary fuels for the reactor itself. It is quite accurately - fully self sustained with the only outside fuel source as clean water, and the exhaust as an isotope of He. That's the theory. We've a long way to go. If we run out of water, we are in deep doodoo.
 
Oops, you're thinking fission = fusion. It's the opposite. Here's the deal. Fission is the decay of radio-chemistry from one element into another element(s). From my recollection, there's subsurface volumes of fissile material enough to power reactors at current usage for something like 2000 years. That's what we've discovered so far, as long as we don't use it up making and delivering nuke bombs. So, we're prolly ok there, although the engineering to gather and refine radioactive isotopes needs plenty of work, it could be done. I won't cover breeding here, but that's another source of fuel.

At our current rate of usage perhaps, but if it becomes the predominant source of electrical energy after fossil fuels run out that is likely to change. Yes, I know what fission is, in addition it is the only viable method of energy generation extend save fossil fuels. Renewables are just not here and are unlikely to be. The estimates I've read for fissile materials and their supply suggests a much shorter half-life before their depletion. And of course we've still no idea what to do with the toxic and highly radioactive waste products except bury them in someone else's back yard.

Now, on to fusion. Just the opposite from fission. Rather than breaking down a complex element in nature, it is the un-natural combining of common elements into a slightly more complex element that releases the energy of the nucleus of the atom. Most people think from history 'splitting the atom' is what does the energy release. In fusion we start with -- water, very pure water, and we split off the H2, and add a ion, then do the same again and make Tritium, and we press these together(not splitting) into an isotope of Helium. Water is plentiful, and the energies theoretically recoverable from fusion would allow the side generation of the actual primary fuels for the reactor itself. It is quite accurately - fully self sustained with the only outside fuel source as clean water, and the exhaust as an isotope of He. That's the theory. We've a long way to go. If we run out of water, we are in deep doodoo.

Agreed. Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. So we have extant energy generation technologies that depend on easily depleted materials, and a theoretical energy generation based on limitless materials.

The real problem is we really know nothing about the strong and weak nuclear forces. Atomic energy is quite literally banging rocks together, and that's our state of the art. I suspect if we knew more we'd have a much easier time establishing things like fusion reactions.
 
With Russia establishing a military base in Syria they now are attempting to influence the fray. We need to get off our addiction to oil - the quicker the better.

We need to get off of our addiction of FOREIGN OIL. We have plenty of domestic oil, and natural gas to last for centuries. We don't need foreign oil.
 
We need to get off of our addiction of FOREIGN OIL. We have plenty of domestic oil, and natural gas to last for centuries. We don't need foreign oil.

Better to use their oil than ours... if you know what I mean.
 
Back
Top