UNG Forum Topics
- All Comments on UNG
- General Discussion on UNG
- The 'Peak Oil' Myth: New Oil Is Plentiful [view article]
- Q2 ETF Update: Winners & Losers [view article]
- Just How Bad Was June? [view article]
- Will Electric Power Cause the Next Price Shock? [view article]
- Mid-Year Price Changes of Major Commodities [view article]
- Will Wal-Mart Heat Up Chile? Fast Money (6/17/08) [view article]
- EOG Resources: Continue to Buy on Pullbacks [view article]
- Investing In a Resource-Constrained World (Part V) [view article]
- Keeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
- Morgan Stanley Makes Lehmanade - Fast Money Recap (6/30/08) [view article]
- ETF Update: Commodity, Agriculture, and Wind Energy ETFs [view article]
- Commodity ETF Volume [view article]
loading ...Recent UNG Articles
- Q2 ETF Update: Winners & Losers
- Just How Bad Was June?
- Morgan Stanley Makes Lehmanade - Fast Money Recap (6/30/08)
- Will Electric Power Cause the Next Price Shock?
- Mid-Year Price Changes of Major Commodities
- Key ETFs Most Overbought and Oversold
- Bespoke's Commodity Snapshot (6/25/08)
- Keeping Alternate Energy In Perspective
- EOG Resources: Continue to Buy on Pullbacks
- ETF Update: ETFs Up on Higher Fuel Prices, Infrastructure ETFs
- Full List of Articles »
Keeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
Sorry, this is the "time-is-of-the-e... energy chart to examine:static.seekingalpha.co... Reply
Keeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
Nice discussion going. To be clear, I was not addressing any social policy regarding energy, nor was I recommending for or against investing in alternative or traditional energy. My only point was to provide the pie chart for people to have in the back of their minds as one of many facts they consider when they decide where and how to invest. I did predict that right or wrong, good or bad, more money will likely flow through additional investments of one sort of the other in the traditional area as opposed to the alternative area, merely because of the relative size of each -- ergo the pie chart. I express no opinion about which investment will fare better and no moral, political, or social value in presenting the pie chart -- it is pure information without conclusion or affiliation with any particular point of view. ReplyThe 'Peak Oil' Myth: New Oil Is Plentiful [view article]
To AndyMan:Nice "trick." Use a theoretical argument to squeeze "Peak" under the tent flap, like the perverbial camel's nose. Then, once an acknowledgement is given to the theoretical, bulldoze on to your real point: "Peak" is now, sorry charlie, it still doesn't wash.
And you crap in your own nest. You get greedy, which makes this writer look at your original reasoning more closely. And after doing so, it is clear your theoretical argument about "peak" is garbage too.
If oil is regenerating faster than it is being consumed -- "Peak" will NEVER happen.
Now this writer doesn't know if it is or not -- but for you to declare "peak" as a fact based on that fraudulent -- yes, fraudulent reasoning, makes this writer question all your other spin.
So lets look at it.
1) "[T]hey have been [depleting] since the first well ever drilled."
Sorry, but this type of argumentation is as fraudulent as your openning original line of about "theoretical peak."
The rational is false. Were they worried about "Peak" at the time of the first oil well? Actually, they were, as the history of the oil industry is repleat with warnings of "Peak." EACH TIME WRONG!
"Flat or most likely declining" This is PURE speculation on your part.
Your style: distract and then frame argument from your perspective.
But this writer put out the first facts: The continental shelf and margin are unexplored. The total verticle depth is reaching Abiotic oil that "fossil" theory said wasn't even there.
There are plenty of areas to explore and increase "flow rate," also we have no idea if these nationalized oil companies are maxed out on "flow rate" or not. This writer suspects there is a combination of under-investment and wanting to "squeeze" the market.
Oil is oil -- there is "easy" and "hard" oil, but the basic commodity is the same -- it's all Abiotic hydrocarbons.
Which from the very first comment, this writer acknowledged deep offshore oil, is expensive oil: $70 a barrel to "lift."
That has nothing to do with physical "Peak." When oil dipped briefly below $10 in the late 90's, the oil companies quit investing. That has effected the was is happening now. So, while this writer agrees you need to increase oil production, there is a logical reason why there has beed a plateau.
Not a decline like you falsely state.
3) In this aspect, actually, this writer agrees with you. But the new oil fields off shore like that Shell field in the Gulf of Mexico rumored to have 100 BILLION barrels, is a sample of the oil deposits that will be found where "Fossil' theory geologists said there would be NONE.
4) Makes sense from an oil chemistry and Abiotic theory point of view that heavier oil will be at the bottom. Agree with your point.
5) Oil will get more expensive to produce, but that's not physical "Peak", that's an argument for economic "Peak." Two completely different arguments -- even the oil companies acknowledge "economic peak." Which in itself, will have some unknown moderating effect on price in the future.
The last part of your argument is an expansion on the your "replacement"... strain argument. There is replacement oil -- lots of it. No "Peak" now, Again, like before, someday. NOT TODAY.
--------------
To martinpw: The science is there and convincing.
1) The 15,000 "oil window" limit corollary of fossil theory is garbage, oil has been discovered below 20,000 feet deep 20 times over and more.
2) "Source rock" has been debunked.
3) Biomarkers has been debunked
4) Diamonoids prove oil comes from the mantle (hint Diamondoids are diamonds and they are only greated "At Depth" in the mantel.
5) Helium in oil
6) hydrocarbons in 'solfataric' vents -- sulphur like vents.
7) The known association between the world's biggest oil deposits and tectonic faults all over the world.
8) the Brazilian deep finds are way beyond the "oil window," causing stupid oil geologists to make claims about "burial age and maturation," as if 24 million years isn't enough if there is an "oil window," to crack the oil into methane gas. Sorry, martinpw that argument doesn't pass the smell test.
Sorry, martinpw, Russian CEO's don't talk to anybody publically -- remeber that's Putin's world. People keep their mouths shut.
As for the, Westerns like BP, do you really think they are going to come out and say, " guess what, we were wrong all those years, we put out, those cuddly commercials with dinosaurs in them - oil is practically unlimited." This writer doubts that.
Actually, the two rival "schools" of thought have the same scientific burden to prove their "case." Each starts at the same "starting line."
but you putting out that old canard allows people to assess your regard for scientific principles -- it's far more likely you are a shill for "Peak" oil because you are long on oil.
Although, in terms of practical reality, you are right. The science for Abiotic Theory must be flawless -- It is flawless.
Come on over to Oil Is Mastery website and argue any scientific point, martinpw, and this writer will crush your reasoing. That's how good the science is.
Do you got the 'guts' martinpw?
Reply
Keeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
This is the energy chart we should be examining:static.seekingalpha.co...
Here we can see that almost 60% of all that oil, gas, and coal is absolutely waste. That's right, only 40% of the author's beautiful chart actually turns into useable energy.
That being the case, capturing and converting any free solar and wind energy at whatever conversion efficiency looks mighty inviting.
That's right, if today we capture and convert only 20% of the sun's free solar energy as Photovoltaic, it immediately becomes 100% useable with nowhere near the mess and complications of oil, gas, coal, and all their supporting spiderwebed complex industries.
And, if you want to say we are going to lose some 1/5th of that free solar photovoltaic energy in transmission and distribution, fine: that still makes 16% of what we capture 100% useable and free......... duh!!.
I vote for a no-holds-barred, "time-is-of-the-e... Manhattan Project/Moon Program on solar photovoltaic to produce the electricity needed that will essentially eliminate all the hydrocarbon consumption in moving goods and people around the USA; and do it within 10 years - as quickly as we could bring any new oil source to use.
All we need is good leadership and sand for the silicon and glass. That's the supply side.
For the use side, we need to electrify the rails (get rid of the diesel) and electrify the interstate hiways/biways/beltways and push hybrids. Things we are already capable of doing - as simple as building a fence (ya right!!).
Are some of you getting tired of hearing me? Good. I heard enough about the other sides of the arguments for 40 years. Maybe someone with vision and might will hear me and do what I say to make me go away. And then, we all have won.
You know what - I'll bet Obama and some of the Democratic and Republican people could go for this program. The Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the big oil and auto majority certainly have not. Well, if they wanted to, they were just not the little red engine, were they.
Here you go Dems. Run with it. Reply
Keeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
Thank you for the pie chart. Nice to see all that info in one place.There seem to be two concepts that overlap and cause a little confusion when it isn't clear which is being addressed. Balancing energy requirements vs. energy investment opportunities.
I'm not convinced solar PV is economical so I don't follow that industry much. When they get to $1/watt then future build out will be productive. I'm afraid at $5/watt the industry is going backwards as far as adding value to the world. I'm all for subsidized research towards $1/watt but subsidized installation at $5/watt doesn't sit well with me.
Solar heat (hot water, home heating) on the other hand is below $1/watt.
Wind is at or below $1/watt. Current world wind energy output is around 32K equivalent Bbl/day. At an impressive 25% annual increase it is adding additional 8K equivalent bbl/day annually to world energy supply. But the world doesn't even respond to Saudi Arabi offering 200K Bbl/day. I think the ongoing world growth rate of just oil demand is on the order of 1 million Bbl/day/year. For total world energy then, using the pie chart, about 2.5 million equivalent Bbl/day/year increase.
My point is that every little productive contribution is important but as the author suggests, the small parts of the pie can not be improved enough to carry the struggling bigger parts (oil) in the short run. Coal and nuclear are big parts that can be ramped up.
Conservation on the order of 10% would be huge, moving some energy requirements from oil to electric (coal, nuclear) via the transportation sector as suggested is another big low hanging fruit opportunity. Geothermal ground source heat pumps are another productive transfer of energy load from gas/oil to electric.
So bigger growth investment opportunities might be in the fashionable alternative energies but the world's energy balance is going to have to come from higher energy density options with large input supplies (coal, nuclear.) Don't forget that oil as a chemical feedstock is very valuable so burning it all up and then converting to alternative energies isn't an option even it was possible.
The excessivley supportive alternative energy camp needs to realize that while improvements in their camp our valuable, proposing no expansion of coal and nuclear is a death sentance!! Reply
Keeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
Amen. ReplyInvesting In a Resource-Constrained World (Part V) [view article]
Mike Wofsey wrote:“>> Also, transmutations and so on are mainly at surface levels.
What transmutations? What is your evidence for claiming they are on the surface?”
See Iwamura, Miley, Mizuno, Bockris. Depth profiles show the transmutations waning at lower depths.
>> Enyo and some others have found evidence that electrochemical
>> overpotential in certain conditions with 1.5 V can produce 10E47 atm of
>> pressure across areas on the surface. These are atomic-scale areas.
How did they measure 10^47 atmospheres?"
Not by direct measurements. If it happens, it would be on the atomic scale, literally a few molecules across, nearby surface protrusions. I don’t know much about this work. It was described in the Mizuno book that I translated, but I did not read original sources.
“>> Fleischmann thinks it is a bulk effect. (He said some years ago.)
If Fleischmann things it's a bulk effect, why do "most people" think it's a surface effect? What evidence do they have?”
Their evidence is helium in the gas, transmutations, loading mainly at the surface and so on. I would put it the other way around: I do not understand why Martin thinks it is a bulk effect. I don’t know if he still thinks so. I will ask him.
>> Of course they analyze the output gas. They analyze everything. That’s
>> what most of the expense and effort of an experiment goes into.
Ah, excellent. And what is the helium increase on a typical experiment?”
The amount depends upon the excess heat. Sometimes it accumulated for a long time, and sometimes it is a “snapshot” for 20 minutes or 2 hours or what-have you. In every case I know of, after the helium is carefully accounted for and flushed out of nooks and crannies, it comes to the same ratio as plasma fusion: 24 MeV/helium atom.
>> at 10 to 100 times background, occasionally at a million times
>> background, but every single one of these was also mistaken?
There was not a tritium measurement in the paper you sent. Would you please send the link to a paper with the tritium measurement? Please don't tell me to look in the index, I would like to see what you consider to be a good experiment that measured the tritium and/or helium."
Unfortunately some of the best papers in helium and tritium are not in the library because of copyright restrictions. For tritium in the early papers (which is mostly what we have), I think most people would cite Will and Cedzynska, or Bockris et al and the people at BARC. You can look up the indexes as easily as I can. For helium, see Miles (China Lake), McKubre, and the people using the enormous mass spec machine shown here:
lenr-canr.org/Experime...
“I can't say anything without reading the paper.”
True, but many people do, and you had a lot to say previously.
>> this was the most difficult experiment he ever replicated. The difficulties
>> were obvious to these people from the moment they heard about it.
That explains a lot, because at the time, perhaps due to F&P's paper, it was perceived as something fairly easy to do.
“Percieved” by people who knew nothing about the experiment and had no business guessing about it. I have never heard an electrochemist say that.
“Helium is nonreactive, you should just be able to grind the cathode apart and check for an increase. Would you link to a paper that measured the helium from the cathode?”
Mainly they don’t find it. Only a tiny bit. Arata’s latest papers is the exception, but that’s in the powder. My guess is that it comes off the surface of one particle and is trapped by another.
">> How likely is it that cloning mammals is an error, and Dolly the sheep
>> was not actually a clone of her mother?
Off the subject, but I don't understand the allure of cloning. Mother Nature's technique is far more advanced, she gathers together the best aspects of each cell and makes a new one, and with her method, the likelihood of DNA error is so much smaller."
I agree but it was an amazing accomplishment, and even if it has no practical application I am sure it will teach us much about biology.
Back on the subject, how much are you willing to bet that every single cloning experiment has been an experimental error? Do you really think that is possible? And do you seriously, really believe that people cannot measure 100 W with absolute confidence? All this talk about “noboby is ever certain in science” is pure B.S. in my opinion. There is nothing more certain than a replicated experiment. No human knowledge is more solidly based or more certain than what we learn of natural laws & phenomena by experiment. You can bet your life that calorimetry works. You do, in fact, bet your life on such things, every day, in a thousand different ways.
“>> Cold fusion has no significant waste products.
The containment facility is bathed with neutrons and becomes radioactive as surely as any fission plant.”
No, it isn’t. If cold fusion produced neutrons I would be dead, along with several hundred other people. Cold fusion does not produce a measurable level of neutrons. Cold fusion will not require a containment facility. If it works at all, you will be able to use it to power a heart implant. It does not matter what you think or what you predict – the experiments prove that there are no neutrons. Period. Full stop. You can’t argue with experiments.
“>> Of course. But you do not even need a microscope in many cases. You
>> can see with the naked eye why many cathodes fail.
Why? Why do some work and some don't? What is the surface feature that allow some to work but not others?”
The ones that do not work swell up, crack, or disintegrate. Or they are covered in filth. (I saw one with cat hairs galvanized onto the surface, in one memorable example.) See Storms, “How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect.”
>> Who knows why? There is no significant increase, and that’s all there is to
>> it. In my opinion, cold fusion probably produces no neutrons directly,
“Fusion is fusion, plasma or otherwise, it produces neutrons.”
No it doesn’t. You can’t overrule Mother Nature on this.
“Perhaps Cold Fusion is actually a high-level effect but is actually not fusion then.”
It is, because it fuses deuterons to form helium-4 and 24 MeV of heat. Most scientists I know say that makes it fusion. Perhaps you have some other definition.
- Jed
Reply
Keeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
Just the definition of the word renewable tells you it will be 100% of the chart someday.The only variable is time. Do we want to transition gradually in replacing each of the finite sources before they arrive at the "Crisis" stage oil is today, or twiddle our thumbs and hold hearings till we're at crash and burn when the clock runs out on each??.
Reply
Investing In a Resource-Constrained World (Part V) [view article]
Say Ytterbius,I don't know anything about LDK, do they own I.P. on the films they are producing?
By the way, you are 100% right on your analysis, you think clearly, and should consider finishing your physics education. Go for the Ph.D., there will be a lot of opportunity in research for nanophotonics and quantum dots. The efficiencies that we are currently seeing will be dwarfed by the next generation of photovoltaics. When we are able to confine the results of the photoelectric effect to 1 and 2 dimensions, I suspect PV efficiencies will rise above 50%. Reply
Keeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
For those of you too young (...I don't know if you qualify, I hope you do) to know what a serious economic downturn is like, you're now witnessing the beginning of one. I can tell you it's not going to be pretty going on from here.We have the natural resources in this country to begin to work our way out of this mess, thank God. We also have the technological prowess to develop new and alternative sources of energy. We need to do it ALL while there's still time left to save ourselves.
I doubt I'm going to change your mind, though, so do this much. Copy this post and read it again when we're broke because we sent another few trillion dollars of our money overseas and your lights go off.
Reply
Keeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
Now how is petroleum "painful"? This could only be so if you are putting your politics ahead of you common sense. Without oil we could not have built our economy or won two world wars.Let' me tell you what's going to be really painful. The permanent economic downturn and the reduction in our standard of living if we don't find more oil and build nuclear plants.
But you won''t have to wait long, it's already begun. Reply
Kingsdale
Keeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
First, the problem is not where energy comes from. The problem is that we use petroleum to power transportation and we much transition that to electicity.Second, the greatest new source of savings in electricity in the short term is conservation. For example, if we changed out all the light bulbs to CFL's or, better, LED's (which are not quite here yet on a competitive price basis but soon will be), we could save about 15% of all the electricity now used. That is huge.
Third, it's been estimated that we could power some 80% of cars with electricity just by using hybrid efficiencies and, more important, by refueling during nightime off-peak load periods when there is plenty of spare electrical capacity.
The focus on sources of energy is not getting us anywhere. We need to focus on transforming our transportation system to electricity. In my humble opinion, of course. Reply
Keeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
I think you miss the point entirely when considering the amount of energy produced from green sources. While petroleum is by far the largest source of energy today, it is also the most painful, and the one that consumers most desire to avoid. Only those with an extremely short investment horizon, or a very nimble portfolio, invest in oil. The same applies to coal, natural gas, and nuclear -- with the scale of undesirable attributes diminishing in each of those. Solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources offer the (distant) promise of large amounts of energy with a low or diminishing cost, whereas the traditional energy sources all have increasing costs.And the markets have responded accordingly. If one looks at the growth rate in megawatts of installed solar capacity, it is approaching a near-vertical slope, with no shake-out in the markets yet, ANY producer can sell all the product they can make. Wind power has a considerably higher unit cost (for generation units), but that too is being built out at a very rapid clip. One does not need to see T. Boone Pickens plunking down $2B to invest in wind farms to know it is a big deal -- just go out and drive across the country, you cannot avoid seeing huge wind generation installations going up all over. There is still a lot of space that is excellent to install windmills, and we really have not even begun yet to do offshore wind power in this country.
My point is that the very narrow slices of your energy production pie chart is where all the growth is occurring. This is both a good thing (there is great potential for gains) and a bad thing (investment prices have been bid up so high as to raise the risk to nosebleed territory).
At this point, green energy is more of a candidate for Seeking Beta than Seeking Alpha, but (apparently) there's still a lot of "alpha" to be had.
I'm not sure where you were going with the chart of national energy consumption per unit GDP -- perhaps a chart showing the national trends over time (with lines for each nation listed) would indicate growth markets for "conservation memes" or "green memes", but a single point in time perspective (and 2004 may as well be 1904 with the rate of change in the energy sector) shows very little. Too many things can account for the relative ranking of nations in their energy consumption for a single view to make sense of them. Reply
The 'Peak Oil' Myth: New Oil Is Plentiful [view article]
as oil production goes on and we spend more energy on getting the oil....NG is going to have one hell of a ride up. NG is used for oil sands production.....tar sands, bio-diesel refining, ethonal refining, etc.As the EROEI declines....More NG will be used.....you can see that NG inventories are building less slowly than proceeding years.....either from more demand from the public, more from oil companies, or a mixture of both. Should be interesting if we produce vast quantities from oil sands in the future...what effect that will have on NG prices...and the inventory of NG. NG production is declining in the USA....and I am willing to bet Mexico and Canada will start declining soon. LNG prices are higher than $13/MCF....going higher. Reply
The 'Peak Oil' Myth: New Oil Is Plentiful [view article]
The big Brazilian off shore oil field is Tupi - it is under 3 kilometres of ocean, 2 km of rock and 2 km of salt. Drilling it will have to contend with super-boiling oil, super-pressurised oil, salt corrosion of pipes, barometric pressure on pipes, and just deep deep water.These new big fields are not the good ol' Texan or Saudi gushers under ya feet.
There may be more oil - there is no more easy or fast or cheap oil. Reply