6 Ways to Profit from 'Peak Oil'

Blame GWB and his 'drive oil up' war policies.

Peak oil theory is real. We may not see a $200 dollar price spike in 10yrs but then again, nobody thought we'd be where we are at now. A rising tide lifts all ships, including integrated oil. If your not into integrated oil, you'll miss the ship entirely. Oil Sands are NOT crude, plentiful, but very low in quality. Petrobras, and most large gvt. backed oil companies will definately benefit. However, integrated oil has been doing it for a very long time and they are good at it. Many of these Gvts. will lilely hire out services as Venezuela once did. Now look where they are at with XOM.

$300 oil is asnine it makes more sense to burn leaves. It would be to expensive for people to go to work. Electric and hydrogen alternatives will be available when gas and oil prices get too high.

What about our efforts in the coal industry. We have over 250 years of coal deposits in the U.S.

Is there reason to believe that even as oil prices rise large oil companies like Exxon, Cheveron, Conoco, etc will fall in the next 5-10 yrs? That seems counter intuitive.

You guys all realize we will as a species die out poor AND rich if we don't start supporting alternative energy. And by alternative I mean NON-hydrocarbon. If peak Oil doesn't get us climate change will. Climate change will spread the disease belts which combined with hunger and starvation will spread disease and war eventually even The Hamptons etc. will be in danger. We as capitalists need to charter our economy in a sustainable direction. Not for some foofoo hippie reason but because it's the only way to sustain profits AND survivability. http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080414/wl_time/howhungercouldtoppleregimes http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080414/inflation_squeeze.html http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080414/wl_time/foodriotsleadtohaitianmeltdown lll

BP is increasing it's capacity at it's refinery in Northern IN and spending 4B in the process. They will process the oil in shale in Canada. 17% increase. Why oh why can't we drill in Alaska. Only the environmentalists prevent. Please act Congress.

This is wrong....we have already discovered 400 years worth of oil reserves in such places as Saudi Arabia (and the rest of Middle East), Russia, Canada, Venezuala, North Sea, etc. There is no shortage of oil people!

Whats not being factored in is advances in technology. Hydrogen cars will arrive before 300$ oil. If oil were going to 300$, the big boys would'nt tell you. GW is unloading on you before he leaves power because new tech will arrive.

The Dollar has lost two-thirds of its value in six years. Anything denominated in Dollars is necessarily going to increase in price proportionally. Priced in gold, oil has hardly moved at all -- only as much as can be expected with global growth and a war in the Middle East. I've been invested in energy directly and tangentially since 2001 to take advantage of the bull market, but I'm not so optimistic about the long term growth of oil prices from here (other than to keep up with inflation). I'm not saying that Peak Oil isn't a fact of life, but rather at present prices, light-sweet crude begins to see several viable alternatives that have been waiting in the wings, as is always apt to happen in a free market. Canadian oil sands and Colorado oil shale, as well as similar formations in other parts of the world, are profitable at between $50 and $90 per barrel and represent reserves larger than all of the Middle East combined. Although large-scale production won't happen until the moving average stays in the profitable range for some time, and we could certainly see oil spikes in the double-digit percentages in the cases of particular events, I think the long-term ceiling will be established by such alternative sources. A good speculation on oil sands is Oil Sands Quest (BQI), which I own. I've also read accounts that the Alaskan North Slope resources have been ridiculously under-reported (including a major new discovery doubling earlier calculations), perhaps to keep the price from collapsing. And off-shore exploration continues to find new deep-water wells, which although more expensive to extract, are still going to keep a ceiling over the ultimate price that oil may achieve. Another fossil fuel innovation is coal liquefaction, which creates an oil-equivalent product from coal, of which the United States has enough to last us for at least a century. Pennsylvania, for one, is seriously looking into sponsoring this technology, which can be competitive at current rates. Then you have the constant non-petroleum innovation as well. Ethanol's success won't come from factory-farmed corn ethanol pumped into a centralized distribution network, it will come from moonshiners -- independent farmers turning all kinds of farm waste, cover crops, spoiled storage, etc., into fuel for their own tractors and cars, as well as selling it at the local farmers' market or filling station. It gives farmers a great hedge against low food demand or low prices from over supply -- they can just turn any unsold crops or bumper crops into fuel instead! Another chunk of the automotive sector will turn to plug-in hybrids and fully electric vehicles like the Tesla Roadster, drawing their power from nuclear or coal plants over the electric grid. And many people are still working on building a hydrogen infrastructure as well, with Iceland hoping that H2 (electrolyzed out of water with their nation's massive geothermal resource) will become their major export. Hydrogen can also be produced with a natural gas or propane co-generating unit which produces heat, electricity, and hydrogen in a single efficient appliance. Plugpower and Honda produced a proof-of-concept that they continue developing and refining. The U.S. has enormous natural gas resources to power this kind of infrastructure for a long time (including a potentially massive resource in the Marcellus Shale), and with LNG, short-term imbalances are compensated with imports and exports. I'm sure there are many other technologies on the drawing board as well. The problem with Malthusian arguments leading to a Mad Max type of scenario is that they both discount the power of innovation and also assume that we are bound by the limits of Earth. One interesting innovation on the horizon is fusion of helium-3. As it turns out, the Moon has enough helium-3 on its surface (deposited by the solar wind) to meet Earth's energy requirements for over 10,000 years. Helium-3 is a non-radioactive isotope which fuses with deuterium to produce helium-4 and a high-energy proton that can be magnetically contained and directly converted into electricity. Just three grams of He-3 produces 493 megawatt hours of electricity. That's equivalent to 60 tons of coal. Will it be profitable to mine the Moon and transport it back to Earth? Probably, especially once the infrastructure is built. Particularly if that includes a carbon-nanotube space elevator. And with Virgin Galactic flights starting next year, the private-sector space-race is just getting started. Other minerals which may become rare on Earth can also be found outside of our atmosphere, with just one asteroid possibly supplying us with iron, nickel, zinc, moly, and other metals for decades. Therefore, our growth prospects still remain limitless.

The Dollar has lost two-thirds of its value in six years. Anything denominated in Dollars is necessarily going to increase in price proportionally. Priced in gold, oil has hardly moved at all -- only as much as can be expected with global growth and a war in the Middle East. I've been invested in energy directly and tangentially since 2001 to take advantage of the bull market, but I'm not so optimistic about the long term growth of oil prices from here (other than to keep up with inflation). I'm not saying that Peak Oil isn't a fact of life, but rather at present prices, light-sweet crude begins to see several viable alternatives that have been waiting in the wings, as is always apt to happen in a free market. Canadian oil sands and Colorado oil shale, as well as similar formations in other parts of the world, are profitable at between $50 and $90 per barrel and represent reserves larger than all of the Middle East combined. Although large-scale production won't happen until the moving average stays in the profitable range for some time, and we could certainly see oil spikes in the double-digit percentages in the cases of particular events, I think the long-term ceiling will be established by such alternative sources. A good speculation on oil sands is Oil Sands Quest (BQI), which I own. I've also read accounts that the Alaskan North Slope resources have been ridiculously under-reported (including a major new discovery doubling earlier calculations), perhaps to keep the price from collapsing. And off-shore exploration continues to find new deep-water wells, which although more expensive to extract, are still going to keep a ceiling over the ultimate price that oil may achieve. Another fossil fuel innovation is coal liquefaction, which creates an oil-equivalent product from coal, of which the United States has enough to last us for at least a century. Pennsylvania, for one, is seriously looking into sponsoring this technology, which can be competitive at current rates. Then you have the constant non-petroleum innovation as well. Ethanol's success won't come from factory-farmed corn ethanol pumped into a centralized distribution network, it will come from moonshiners -- independent farmers turning all kinds of farm waste, cover crops, spoiled storage, etc., into fuel for their own tractors and cars, as well as selling it at the local farmers' market or filling station. It gives farmers a great hedge against low food demand or low prices from over supply -- they can just turn any unsold crops or bumper crops into fuel instead! Another chunk of the automotive sector will turn to plug-in hybrids and fully electric vehicles like the Tesla Roadster, drawing their power from nuclear or coal plants over the electric grid. And many people are still working on building a hydrogen infrastructure as well, with Iceland hoping that H2 (electrolyzed out of water with their nation's massive geothermal resource) will become their major export. Hydrogen can also be produced with a natural gas or propane co-generating unit which produces heat, electricity, and hydrogen in a single efficient appliance. Plugpower and Honda produced a proof-of-concept that they continue developing and refining. The U.S. has enormous natural gas resources to power this kind of infrastructure for a long time (including a potentially massive resource in the Marcellus Shale), and with LNG, short-term imbalances are compensated with imports and exports. I'm sure there are many other technologies on the drawing board as well. The problem with Malthusian arguments leading to a Mad Max type of scenario is that they both discount the power of innovation and also assume that we are bound by the limits of Earth. One interesting innovation on the horizon is fusion of helium-3. As it turns out, the Moon has enough helium-3 on its surface (deposited by the solar wind) to meet Earth's energy requirements for over 10,000 years. Helium-3 is a non-radioactive isotope which fuses with deuterium to produce helium-4 and a high-energy proton that can be magnetically contained and directly converted into electricity. Just three grams of He-3 produces 493 megawatt hours of electricity. That's equivalent to 60 tons of coal. Will it be profitable to mine the Moon and transport it back to Earth? Probably, especially once the infrastructure is built. Particularly if that includes a carbon-nanotube space elevator. And with Virgin Galactic flights starting next year, the private-sector space-race is just getting started. Other minerals which may become rare on Earth can also be found outside of our atmosphere, with just one asteroid possibly supplying us with iron, nickel, zinc, moly, and other metals for decades. Therefore, our growth prospects still remain limitless.

When will people eventually come to their senses and realize that the only real solution to our energy problems will be to use Nuclear ? It will come about but not for some time. It will come about when the oil industry implodes. Why do you think all the major oil companies are buying back their own stock? And if you think the satellites are running on solar power, you probably also believe in the tooth fairy. They operate on nuclear engines. A nuclear aircraft carrier can operate for 20 years without refueling and only have total waste smaller that a Volkswagen. Very few people even know these facts.

I wish oil would reach $1,000 a barrel. The sooner the better. The sooner Americans get real angry and want change the better. Outlaw burning crude oil products in cars by 2020 in the U.S. Those two together should convert America to self energy dependence. Then finally we can tell all those oil producing bandits to go home and drink their damn oil because we don't need it anymore (atleast for cars). And tell them we don't care if they drop their prices because oil burning will be outlawed so we have no choice in the matter. We are going to get out from under their grip, NO IF, AND's or BUT's!

why can't we use artificial fuels. The military has for the last 20 years . Seems there is a plan that only a few know about and the little guy is looking in .The people should start networking to find answers , we are smarter then greed .Only greed from our government and corporations will keep us jonesing for oil . Give us the "power !!" back. Make it simple.

$300 oil eh? Wow! All those people walking to work. This will lead to a percentage of the population getting healthier. Healthcare costs might actually drop. Cleaner air. Logistics companies turning to alternative fuels. This is fantastic! Thank you, oil cartel.

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.

BP is already into oil shale and sand in Canada. I guess I will live well for at least 20+ more years with BP, Exxon-Mobil, Conoco Phillips, Chevron and Transocean Offshore no matter what Mr. Maxwell of Weed & Co. claims. I think the major oil companies have the smarts to phase into alternative energy when all of the oil on earth is exhausted. Plus their dividends, not mentioned, are spectacular.

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.

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.

my boat burns 56 gallons / hour - all i use it for is going fast