Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 2:54PM ET - U.S. Markets close in 1 hour and 6 minutes.
Earlier, Charles Maxwell, senior energy analyst at Weeden & Co., made the case that "peak oil" theory is real and inevitable, and that $300 oil is coming in the next decade. While a frightening prospect with major societal implications, it's also one with significant potential for profit.
When investing in energy for the long run, it's best to avoid the major oil companies like Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips, Maxwell says. There's a reason these firms are cutting back on exploration even as oil prices and demand are rising: Facing both geological and geopolitical obstacles, they cannot find reserves big enough to move the production needle.
Instead, Maxwell recommends a basket of companies with "long-lived reserves," including Brazil's Petrobras and Canadian tar sands plays such as Encana and Canadian Natural Resources. Unlike the majors, these firms will be able to maintain and even increase production into the next decade, and thus able to take advantage of the expected sharp rise in oil prices.
Plus, if you think oil prices at $115 a barrel are high -- you ain't seen nothing yet. See our earlier Tech Ticker interview with Maxwell.
$300 oil? No way, everyone will go nuclear long before that. Given the current politico-economic situation in the US, it will not take much. Massive inflation followed by a real Depression won't be assuaged with Keynesian pump-priming.
The simplest and cleanest way to produce hydrogen is by electrolysis of water. The actual electrolytic step of splitting water molecules with electricity is very efficient (0 to 90 percent). However, when electricity generation is accounted for, overall thermal efficiency drops to 25 to 45 percent. In general, electrolysis is considered expensive and is only used for small production facilities. Use of new advances in high-efficiency electrolytic cells may significantly reduce costs, making it a viable hydrogen production method when cheap, off-peak electricity can be used. When coupled with a nuclear power plant, electrolysis is an extremely clean method of producing hydrogen.
Also, amethyst 1478, why don't you write a book with all of your baloney in it instead of wasting all of this useful space. But I guess it wouldn't sell. You'd have to starve with all of your superficial stocks.
Growing population. Shrinking morality. Finite resources. Recipte for Utopia?
The carbon footprint and energy requirements of building a nuclear power plant is about the same as the carbon saved energy generated. It's a break-even situation. Coupled with the fact that fissionable material is also a limited resource, it makes sense to invest that money into something renewable, wind or solar energy, perhaps.
There are Tons of crude oil in Alaska and off the coasts of California and Florida. Need to start drilling !!
You can all thank your looney liberal govt who continually ties our hands and chokes our necks when it comes to our energy policies. We are not allowed to look for energy sources and oil in OUR OWN COUNTRY! The Chinese are drilling right off our shores, but we arent allowed to dig there. WTF!!! What kind of sense is that? They keep crying about our dependence on foreign oil, but can even tap into our own sources on American soil. We cant drill offshore, we cant drill in ANWR, we cant build refineries, we cant build more nukes, we can build clean coal plants and they wonder why we have to depend on foreign countries for our energy. They are part of the problem. Energy demand is not going down anytime soon of course prices will continue to soar. Supply and demand people, flood the supply and prices will go down!!!!
As a resource geologist...peak oil is pure BS. The world is currently awash in oil...what is real is the manufactured fear and supply/price manipulation shoved done the throats of captive consumers with few alternatives...the filthy rich only get filthier rich laughing all the way to the bank knowing they have all the power. Aint greed great!
Follow the money....when and only if the rich oil barons and Saudis see their precious money pit drying up will they branch out into alternative energy sources, without so much as a blip on the stock market radar screen for them. They will develop these alternative resources and bring them online just as we are blasting thru our maximum pain threshold....just so they can keep THOSE PRICES intact, also.....don't kid yourself, they are just 'conditioning" us for the future (i.e. numbness so that we will rejoice to pay $6.00 a gallon for whatever they develop).
$300 oil eh? Wow! That cheap? Dollar will be worthless in year 2020. I expect at least 600-700 usd oil back then...
We need electric cars powered by clean coal and nuclear. That would solve most of the problems.
A couple of comments. Amethyst, are you posting a masters thesis or a simple comment? Do you simply like to double post? Furgoson76, are you posting doctoral dissertations or simple comments? I marvel at how little some of you understand what is happening. Even in the face of 115 dollar oil you still contend that there is no oil problem, that Peak Oil is a myth. Amazing. Will it take $600 oil to convince you? No? As to those of you who think oil will last forever, then why are we scrambling around trying to find oil sands in Canada?
you give best food your children's health, but we don't think of how much we are spoiling the environment. By the time a 1 year old kid grow 25, forget about going around and enjoying his life. Can he stepout not to get hot burns. Or can he have enough of oxygen in the environment? We don't think of not to use our car too much. All the economist's think the economy is important. So to keep the economy better they want to see high spendings. Without your knowledge, you will be spending more than 20% of your income on automobile (depreciation, gas, insurance, maintanance). We have to think of improving public transport like electric trains (for distances more than 2 miles) and use bycycles for rest of short distance travel. May be there are better thougts about it.
you give best food your children's health, but we don't think of how much we are spoiling the environment. By the time a 1 year old kid grow 25, forget about going around and enjoying his life. Can he stepout not to get hot burns. Or can he have enough of oxygen in the environment? We don't think of not to use our car too much. All the economist's think the economy is important. So to keep the economy better they want to see high spendings. Without your knowledge, you will be spending more than 20% of your income on automobile (depreciation, gas, insurance, maintanance). We have to think of improving public transport like electric trains (for distances more than 2 miles) and use bycycles for rest of short distance travel. May be there are better thougts about it.
Hydrogen powered cars are about as realistic as taking corn, which is a staple food, and making it into ethanol. Hydrogen is too difficult to manufacture and too expensive. The answer is to stop driving cars 75 miles to work, stop using unlimited electricity in our houses, stop building five bedroom homes for a couple with no kids, stop lighting up cities around the clock, then face the fact that oil is a finite resource and decide what life will be like without it. There is no Plan B!
Hydrogen powered cars are about as realistic as taking corn, which is a staple food, and making it into ethanol. Hydrogen is too difficult to manufacture and too expensive. The answer is to stop driving cars 75 miles to work, stop using unlimited electricity in our houses, stop building five bedroom homes for a couple with no kids, stop lighting up cities around the clock, then face the fact that oil is a finite resource and decide what life will be like without it. There is no Plan B!
Let's bring nuclear back. Everyone remember Three Mile Island, well I live right by there and I am not worried about it. Nuclear will relieve some of our oil demand.
Sapphia1.......... Fissionable material is not necessarily a limited resource as you state. Also, if people think wind and solar is the answer, they are living in a dream world. Fast breeder reactors are another possibility. As opposed to current LWR (light water reactors), which burn the rare isotope of uranium U-235 (producing and burning about an equal amount of plutonium in the process), fast breeder reactors produce much larger amounts of plutonium from common U-238, then fission that to produce electricity and thermal heat. Because there is about 139 times more U-238 than U-235 on Earth, it has been estimated that there is anywhere from 10,000 to 5,000,000,000 years' worth[citation needed](sustainable but not renewable, depending on future technology) of U-238 for use in these power plants, and that they can return a high ratio of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI), and avoid some of the problems of current reactors by being automated, passively safe, and reaching economies of scale via mass production. In addition, wastes produced by these plants are less toxic than those of conventional reactors. There are a few such research projects working on fast breeders. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is currently working on the small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor (SSTAR). Problems arise from the higher levels of heat and radiation produced by this reactor. There are other, more exotic nuclear projects (such as pebble bed reactors), each with their own technical problems.
Quotes and other information supplied by independent providers identified on the Yahoo! Finance partner page. Quotes are updated automatically, but will be turned off after 25 minutes of inactivity. Quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, NYSE and Amex. See also delay times for other exchanges. Real-Time continuous streaming quotes are available through our premium service. You may turn streaming quotes on or off. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Financials data provided by Edgar Online. Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data, daily updates, fund summary, fund performance, dividend data and Morningstar Index data provided by Morningstar, Inc. Analyst estimates data provided by Thomson Financial Network. All data provided by Thomson Financial Network is based solely upon research information provided by third party analysts. Yahoo! has not reviewed, and in no way endorses the validity of such data. Yahoo! and ThomsonFN shall not be liable for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein.
Ian - Wednesday April 16, 2008 02:49PM EDT
I notice Amethyst that your Cornucopian view of technological solutions left out Solar, Wind and Tidal. I also notice that you left out any whiff of problems related to climate change and sundry and varied problems with overpopulation. Malthus was the original eugenics proponent but evil as he was he had a point. That is we can only sustain so many humans on this planet. The space elevator is a nice idea but has yet to be proven viable and any other form of space based mining is simply too energy intensive. I'm all for Space Exploration and even space mining but we have to deal with our issues on the earth before launching into space. As far as I know, no one has figured out how to maintain life off of this planet without regular shipments of life giving food and water from this planet. Look at the multiple failed Bio-sphere projects and I don't mean the Pauly Shore movie. The damage to our watersheds here in north america by refining the tar sands can't be overstated. It takes vast quantities of specifically fresh water to refine tar sands. Our fresh water sources here in the US are already exstremely contaminated and are certainly one of the many environmental pollutants spurring the rise in cancers along with other industrial carcinogens. Forget the spotted owl and polar bears we are poisoning things to the point where even health nuts get cancer. Many cancers especially ones dealing with human sexual organs was simply unheard of prior to the chemical revolution of the 1920's. Plastics degenerate into human sexual hormone mimics that gum up our receptors and initiate cancer cycles as just ONE example of our shortsighted attitude towards technology. When will we learn our best long term outlook for profits must coincide with a reasonable attitude towards the biosphere the "Life Support" system for this spaceship we call "Earth". The greatest profits and the greatest health for our species can both be achieved by intelligent engineering. Expecting us to trash this planet and move on would make us little better then the Aliens from Independence day.