• Nov 12th 2010 at 8:06PM
  • 54
Energy analyst Charles Maxwell of Weeden & Co. sat down to discuss peak oil, alternative energy and the future cost of a barrel of crude with Index Universe managing editor Olivier Ludwig recently. Maxwell, a man who has been involved in the oil industry for more than half a century, is pretty sure that peak oil is nearly upon us. Maxwell's vision of a world forever changed by dwindling petroleum supplies is startling, so let's hope it's not entirely accurate.

When Ludwig prodded Maxwell on the question of what his oil price outlook as this whole new world order begins to take shape, Maxwell responded with:
The supply and demand of oil in the world today are pretty close to each other, and there shouldn't be too much deviation in 2010 and 2011. We think prices will stay within a band roughly between $67-$87 a barrel. When it gets up toward $87, it seems to retreat, and when it gets down toward $67, it seems to take off again. That's because supply and demand are in rough balance.

At that stage, prices will break through this $87 boundary-in about 2013, I'm thinking. And by 2015 we'll be up to around $130-$150 a barrel. And then by 2020, when we have 1.5 percent increases in demand each year and 0.5 percent declines on the downside, then we'll really be in a fix. At that time, I'm looking at $300 a barrel in money of the day.

But as the economic recovery continues, as more people use oil because there are more people in the world, and China and India continue to progress with rapid expansion of cars and the roads they are offering their people, demand for oil will continue to climb between 1 and 1.5 percent per year. That, combined with the depletion of these mature oil fields we've talked about, will bring us to a plateau by 2015-2017, where the rising production of newer oil fields will equal the falling production of old fields.

If the thought of $300 barrels of crude elicit a fierce response, then perhaps reading the entire interview with Maxwell will push you over the edge. So be careful out there.

[Source: Index Universe | Image: jkirkhart35 – C.C. License 2.0]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 54 Comments
      • 7 Months Ago
      @David Martin. Good points regarding lag.

      It also takes time to change peoples attitudes and habits from something to another - and it can take a generation before it happens.

      The younger generation (iPod generation) are more adapt to change but with older and longer living baby boomer generation encouraging change for them will probably take more time and effort.

      Unfortunately not everyone can see or they refuse to see, that our current consumption of natural resources is unsustainable particularly as China & India come on line and want to consume like the rest of the developed world.

      As a Generation X I bang on about our current unsustainable living all the time - I talk to others about alternative renewable energies, energy efficient and energy independent housing and the requirement for automotive move to BEV and hybrid vehicles - I know people that when I bang on about EV's they more or less mock me - but they are the ones who are ill informed.

      Regardless of the price of oil we need to get off our habit of consuming it and fast.
        • 7 Months Ago
        Hi AussieEVfan,
        Although of course it has some basis, I find the notion that we are 'running out of finite resources' and we need to move on to supposedly 'renewanble' resources generates more heat than light and confounds issues which are many orders of magnitude different.
        To take a couple of extreme examples, iron in the accesible earth's crust and helium are both ultimately finite resources.
        Iron however is in great abundance, even in relatively high grade ores, and is eminently recyclable, and in many of it's applications is replacable by a host of materials from aluminium to basalt fibre, and so every basalt rock on earth can potentially be used.
        Helium is obtained primarily by the production of natural gas, is vital and near irreplacible in many advanced technological applications, including medical equipment, and due to it's lighness once released rises to the top of the atmosphere and is stripped away by the solar wind forever from the earth, so in spite of it's great abundance in the universe our present waste of this invaluable resource is likely to come back and bite us.

        Many materials boil down to whether you have enough cheap energy to extract them.
        Obvious assumptions such as that the problem is too many people can lead to inappropriate assessments.
        Around 95% of all mining is for coal, and most of the rest for iron,
        so perhaps 99% of the impact from mining comes from just these two resources.
        So if 7 billion of us can move on from coal, and from iron to far lighter basalt fibre etc, then our impact will be far less than a world of 700 million who use them.

        Dear to my heart is the issue of nuclear power, which is continually referred to as 'finite' and 'non-renewable'
        Well, present reactors use abou 1% of the energy in the uranium, and two orders of magnitude make a difference.
        The reason we have not moved on to better reactors is not due to fundamental technological limits, but to uranium being cheap and regulatory obstruction.
        Extracting uranium from the sea can be done, albeit at greater cost than from present resources.
        Building the reactors is the main cost though, the cost of fuel is tiny.
        After the reactor is paid for running the whole darn thing in the US costs around 2 cents/kwh, including everything, decommissioning etc.
        If we went to perhaps 3 cents/kwh then uranium from the sea could provide power, which is continually replenished by continental erosion, so we should be good for a few hundred million years, although of course it will eventually deplete, as will the sun, the source of the supposedly infinite 'renewable' energies.

        So the use of the blanket term 'unsustainable' as opposed to 'renewable' is far too broad a brush.

        Everything is unsustainable eventually. The point is where the limits are in practical terms.
        We should be more concerned than we are about some resources, and far less about others.
        • 7 Months Ago
        AussieEVfan,
        I have no difference with yourself. The comments I made were rather commenting further on the subject in hand, as the discussion frequently confounds widely divergent resources with varying characteristics.
        My later post was therefore by way of a commentary on the general debate rather than a critique of the arguments as presented by yourself.
        Rgds,
        • 7 Months Ago
        @David Martin - as per your previous responses and this one you have read too far into my comments.

        I am sure you would agree that our current consumption of oil - ie. the way we live and consume the resources we use right now and with China & India weighing in is unsustainable on the current path - ie. maybe we have 100 years (I've read as low as 40) maybe its a 1,000 but any case it is nothing in terms of mankind's existence.

        When I talk of unstainability I am talking about our current consumption of oil the topic of discussion - but this can be extended to coal & LPG if you want to take it further.

        Unless we are prepared to wait 100 million years for coal, LPG or oil deposits to reform then I classify these are finite and thus unsustainable to keep using them in the manner and fashion we increasingly using them.

        Further it is not just their use but the pollution it creates from just burning it up these finite oil, coal and LPG resources which is a wasteful exercise in itself.

        I understand that there are other not so rare earth materials that can be instead mined for energy - such as thorium for generation of nuclear energy - but this wasn't my point.

        Anyway hope that clears it up - none the less appreciate your comments you are obviously very knowledgeable.
      harlanx6
      • 7 Months Ago
      Does anyone think that Exxon does not have a 50 year plan to keep everyone buying petroleum products from them? That requires it be available. Oil is demand is getting pretty elastic. There are readily available alternatives. As the price rises we will use less. Democratic governments keep trying to curtail the drilling necessary to keep the supply meeting demand, but the reality of severely damaged economies, greedy totalitarians and modern ingenuity will overcome these artificial restrictions. There will always be enough fuel for those who can afford it. That is the way supply and demand works if you can keep well meaning incompetent governments from screwing it up. Economies will shift to renewable energy sources as technology provides the means. Even though there are many still in denial, "Peak oil" and "human caused global warming have been discredited as political red herrings. Al Gore needs to change the title of his book to "An Inconvenient bunch of lies".
        harlanx6
        • 7 Months Ago
        @harlanx6
        Don't trust my sources, Joe, check it out for yourself, but please keep an open mind while you do it.
        • 7 Months Ago
        @harlanx6
        Global Warming doesn't care if it's been "discredited".
        It still keeps happening.
        What bubble do you live in where you did not see Russia burn up $15,000,000,000 of Wheat?
        Two thousand Russians Died in a Moscow Heat Wave.
        That's Moscow, up NORTH.

        Did you not see Pakistan flooded, and another $15,000,000,000 in damage, and 2000 DEAD.

        Global Warming doesn't give a **** what you think.
        If you don't act you are going to be harmed by it.
        • 7 Months Ago
        @harlanx6
        @Joeviocoe

        Thank you. Finally someone who both understands the reality *and* is able to articulate them clearly and without histrionics.
        harlanx6
        • 7 Months Ago
        @harlanx6
        Global warming has been occurring on and off since the ice ages, but since man only contributes 28 hundreths of one percent of greenhouse gases, blaming man for it is hardly proven.
        • 7 Months Ago
        @harlanx6
        Oil will certainly still be around in 50 years . . . it will just be very expensive. Peak oil is real. We are already experience the effects of near-peak. Specifically, oil has gone up by more than 4X in the last ten years. That is faster than inflation. Why has it gone up? Because demand has gone up faster than supply can be increased and we are accessing increasingly expensive sources of oil (tar sands, heavy oil, enhanced oil recovery, ultra deep water oil, etc.)

        Ignore peak oil at your peril.


        And climate change is real too. But the effects from it are difficult predict and will take decades to be felt.


        But hey, I'm sure it makes you feel better to live in denial about both, so that is what you'll continue to do. People naturally believe in what they want to be true even if there is no evidence for it. Religion is proof of this . . . we don't want to believe we will die and that is the end of ourselves. So instead, we create myths where we get reincarnated or we get to live in happy land forever. Zero evidence for either but they sure make us feel better.
        • 7 Months Ago
        @harlanx6
        Sure, I will look at your sources. Please link them. *no requests for google searches* just actual links

        ---------------------

        The problem with both peak oil and agw arguments is that people exaggerate the claims to absurd proportions.

        As Spec has pointed out, "Peak Oil" has never been about "Running Out"... but about a long term trend of decreasing supply. But deniers build up the straw man by saying "we're not running out of oil".

        The same goes for AGW. The claims made by scientists are NOT the wild accusations that deniers have build up as straw men. It is just a trend of increased warming that has been accelerated by industrial emissions. None of the credible scientists are saying that the world will end in a fireball unless we all start driving EVs. They are just saying that we need to start looking for ways to slow down our GHG emissions. Because although the planet will sort out the atmosphere, sudden changes tend to make species go extinct.

        • 7 Months Ago
        @harlanx6
        To bad science doesn't agree with you Harlanx6

        GHG are measured in PPM (Parts Per Million). So even the smallest percentage can be of enormous consequence.

        This is yet another indictment of the educational system in America. To many people think they can understand real scientific problems (like climatology) with a non-scientific intuition of how they think the world should work.

        There is a reason why the deniers of AGW (Anthropomorphic [man-made] Global Warming) are almost exclusively below a doctorate degree level. And the few deniers out there who do have a doctorate degree, are NOT in a climate related field. (eg. medical doctors, computer science, theology, etc.)

        While the scientific community, by and large, agree that AGW exists and have moved on from the debate. Leaving the debate to only the uneducated masses.
      • 7 Months Ago
      I not quite sure it will goes that high as 300$ a barrel. They can maybe find a way to make crude oil with hydrogen instead.
        • 7 Months Ago
        "Maybe find a way" is, I suppose a good start at finding another work around, to ending up with a negative net return on energy. I'll be on the sidelines on this one waiting for this emerging technology.
      • 7 Months Ago
      @David Martin

      from your first post here "as for renewables, intermittancy in wind" and " we don´t have fundamental technological base to do them at large scale" .
      May I suggest you look at www.ree.es/ingles/operacion/curvas_demandas.asp.
      Here you can see (in English) the real time breakdown of Spain´s electrical production and consumption split into the various generation technologies. At this moment Spain´s installed wind capacity of around 19000 Mw is producing 9700 Mw which is about 30% of consumption. Looking back over the last week wind power has supplied between 20 and 50% of consumption on a continuous basis. How big a contribution do we need before wind power overcomes the large scale barrier?
      Over the last few years Spain´s coal generation capacity and actual output has steadily declined, and has become comparitively more more flexible in adjusting output over the short term whilst wind and other sources including solar has increased steadily, your favorite nuclear has been putting out a steady 7400 Mw for ages. If my interpretation of the Spanish version is correct Spain has the same barriers of investment cost, safety concerns, and long term waste disposal as many other countries serving as disincentives to building more nuclear stations. Study of the various charts show that Spain´s interconnection with it´s neighbours and it´s pumped water storage together with a flexible hydro base are an important part of the mix; however times of high wind production do not result in high exports as some have stated. Although not a perfect situation it seems obvious (to me) that we do have the technological ability to use large amounts of renewables already and that other countries are also doing so.
      Rgds
      Paul
      • 7 Months Ago
      What a simplistic interpretation of the supply demand curve. He admits
      it will take years and then ignores the fact that demand will pursue a
      lower cost supply of energy. The US, Europe and Japan, and possibly
      China, can afford $150 per barrel oil, but even they will be moving
      toward BEV's and EREV's within a couple years of overpriced oil. $200
      a barrel oil means that third world countries will move both back and
      forward at the same time, going back to using pony carts or bicycles for short
      distances while moving forward to using lead
      acid batteries in small cars for daily commuting. Later they will use NiMh or Li-Ion batteries powered by increasingly non-green house gas emitting sources like hydro, nuclear or wind.
      If oil goes to $200 a barrel poor people will use something else, and demand will drop.
      Oddly enough, if demand drops, so will the price of oil.
      Oil prices/gas prices are going up, but the fact is that there are
      alternatives to oil now that cost only slightly more. If oil costs
      more, EREV's and BEV's look better. Oil used to be incredibly cheap,
      which discouraged competition. Now, we all know it is going to get
      more expensive. So the competition that got arbitrarily dismissed is
      going to suddenly be more attractive. Butanol, BEV's, EREV's, Nuclear
      power, wind power, geothermal: it is all good.
        • 7 Months Ago
        Danno F, if you did not like Chubama before Nov. 2, 2010 and the progress they made bringing EV's and infrastructure to the masses, you are much less likly to be impressed with Chubama going forward as the most recent elections here removed the fangs of Chubama and Chubama can not draw as much blood money from the oil economy and those that support it.

        I love you Chubama! Very warm, very fuzzy, like motoring, powered from sunlight!

        The gas tax subject was at least mentioned in the report from Erskine and that other old gaucher that the President appointed to deal with the national deficit. Almost humerus that they talk about cutting social security, cutting unemployment benefits, cutting social services, cutting medical coverage but no one mentions the 800 lb gorilla in the room that contributes the most to our trade deficit thus inhibiting out ability to get national debt under control. Gas tax, it is going to happen one way or a nother. Every time a barrel of oil costs rise, it is a tax on the American economy. Tax it in a controlled manner to get off it, or have the oil economy tax it in a uncontrolled manner and what ever will be will be.
        • 7 Months Ago
        Remember the last spike in oil? Remember why it occurred and how it drove the price of gasoline up to about $5 a gallon? It was caused by the manipulation of information by commodity speculators. What makes you think that won't happen a lot as oil continues it's climb? Or, how about a hurricane in the Gulf? Or, how about a major cut in middle-eastern supply? I see a decided climb in the price of oil with lots of spikes along the way to 2020. Let us hope we can offset our demand for oil along the way to keep it below $300 in 2020. By the way, 2020 is only ten years away.

        My advice is for families to become as independent from fossil fuels as you can: Build homes based on using renewable power and use that power for your BEV(s). And, ride electric trains.
        • 7 Months Ago
        US can't afford $150 a barrel. The economy is not any stronger than it was in summer '08 when the oil price crisis kickstarted the financial crisis. People are making even less money now than in 08 and there is more job insecurity now than then. What this article is describing is the slow strangulation of whats left of the US middle class as India and China overtake us in oil demand.

        "If oil goes to $200 a barrel poor people will use something else, and demand will drop.
        Oddly enough, if demand drops, so will the price of oil."

        Poor people are already using something else. It will be the middle class that gets hit long before we reach $200/barrel. And US demand has been weak (or dropped) along with the economy the last few years, but prices have stuck or rose...because of demand in India and China. By 2020 they will more than make up for even a steep drop in demand in the US.
        • 7 Months Ago
        Remember the last spike in oil? Remember why it occurred and how it drove the price of gasoline up to about $5 a gallon? It was caused by the manipulation of information by commodity speculators. What makes you think that won't happen a lot as oil continues it's climb? Or, how about a hurricane in the Gulf? Or, how about a major cut in middle-eastern supply? I see a decided climb in the price of oil with lots of spikes along the way to 2020. Let us hope we can offset our demand for oil along the way to keep it below $300 in 2020. By the way, 2020 is only ten years away.

        My advice is for families to become as independent from fossil fuels as you can: Build homes based on using renewable power and use that power for your BEV(s). And, ride electric trains.
        • 7 Months Ago
        I would agree except for... Oil is becoming harder to get to and therefore more expensive. I agree that the higher the price of oil more will flock to alternatives and normally dropping the price... except for it being harder and more costly to get. I'm not sure how that will work out.

        It will probably just get so costly that no one will be using it, and therefore cost of it will no longer be an issue.

        • 7 Months Ago
        I agree it is quite simplistic, at least as protrayed to us, but not quite for the reasons you state. yes demand can shift elsewhere, that's true but there is no offer of alternatives currently. the few EVs coming are massively overpriced and don't work from a cost perspective.
        where I think his 'analysis' is critically simplistic is that peak oil is already here (which is why it peaked to 150$ in mid 2008) and it did indeed cause the financial crisis. subprime was just the house of cards it pushed. not the cause. you see, people overextended by mortgage can be toppled by just a bit higher fuel expenditure. same with businesses. oil is so fundamental to a lot of what we do that a huge spike from 35$ to 150$ in 2-3 years will naturally have a substantial impact. and it did. it killed a good economy.
        and what we're seeing now is not supply and demand being coincidentally very close as indication peak oil is imminent. no, they are close because they are balanced by pain threshold of the cost. as the price rises people can only afford to use less. that's why the price if bobbing here at this plateau while maintaining the depression. whenever it speeds up the oil price pushes it down again. so I think we will stay here for a couple of years (assuming no leaders anywhere wake up to this pattern and that's a good assumption because everyone in the world is *extremely intelligent*) until such time that supply starts to even go down, not just preventing the expected growth in the world but turn back at which point things will become increasingly critical. the lead blanket will grow heavier and heavier and the stupid humans are none the wiser. they just blame the president for the continued financial low while they drive their moronic SUVs. which are neither sporty nor utilitarian.
        I used to believe like he that the oil price would basically spike again without moderation and this would ensure quick introduction of electric cars but now I think it will just dampen the economy and noone will catch on. VW will continue to say noone wants EVs.

        then the question is will it turn rapidly critical, are we talking stock crash of 29 when the oil supply drops in 4-10 years. I'd say probably not. could be very painful. could be like the subprime collapse again, maybe worse, but cars will probably still drive. well, at least here in the 'west' where some of us can afford it. poorer countries might totally collapse but who cares about them. wall street? lol
        will the politicians finally realize they have to instantly ensure proper EVs are made available at fair prices? no :)
        politicians waking up? that'll be the day.
        Chubama betrays the world. same with all their equivalents in all the other countries. not one is doing it even close to right. not one. pathetic.

        in case it's not obvious what should be done. they should ensure lean EVs are made and sold at near cost. same with batteries. either through suggesting it to existing companies or starting such companies. an ultimatum to the evil companies that exist now that should be doing the right thing but resist it for no rational reason.

        they could start by informing A123 that it would be best if they didn't refuse to sell their product...
        but Chubama are absentee landlords and you lot aren't helping either...
        • 7 Months Ago
        Time lags are the killer for switching energy supplies. The world fleet of cars is ~ 1 billion vehicles. They last on average around 15 years, and it also takes time to ramp up production of, say, electric vehicles - perhaps 10 years.
        So to really hit energy demand you are talking about a 25 year period.
        Similar considerations apply to freight. In energy terms it costs a fraction as much to shift goods by rail, but you have to build the rails first, relocate supply depots etc.
        In terms of raw energy a nuclear program takes around 10 years to ramp up to full speed, then around 10 years to effectively produce most of your electricity that way, as was done in France and Sweden.
        As for renewables, their intermittency in the case of wind and high cost in the case of solar put the time frame out much further, as we don't have the fundamental technological base to do them at a very large scale at present.
        Totally new technologies like tidal etc are even further out.

        To be clear what is and is not in these sorts of analysis, the cost will be in non-inflated dollars, so the sinking value of the dollar does not come into it.
        The price assumptions, $300/barrel, would be based on the world economy somehow coping with the high price and not totally collapsing.
        Obviously the quick and 'easy' way of coping with very high oil prices is not subsitution, but to go without, so you enter depression and the price of the oil sinks somewhat, so the $300 is a kind of measure of strain, rather than an absolute number.
        To the extent it can't be paid for, the nominal price is less, but only because the economy is trashed and folk still can't afford it.

        In my view the people hardest hit will be in the poorest countries, where kerosene is used for cooking, as trucks for goods delivery.
        I would expect unrest, hunger, and war, and progress in reducing birth rates is likely to stall, as in desperate times instinct leads people to have as many babies as possible in the hope that at least some of them will survive.

        Next hardest hit will be the US, where living patterns are dependent on cheap oil.
        The direct effects on the likes of Europe and Japan should be much less, as dense housing and effective public transport mean that even with, say, half their already much more modest oil consumption they can keep going.
        Indirectly however the depression likely to hit as a result of oil prices would ruin their already parlous public finances.
        • 7 Months Ago
        @ Dan F

        The real problem is that the government doesn't even bother to use a proper subsidy. Demand subsidies drive prices up yet that's exactly what Congress is using to increase production and hopefully drive prices down. It's a bit ridiculous, but it's politically popular to give massive tax credits for hybrids and EVs. If the government used production subsidies (like they do in some ag industries), alternative fuel vehicles would already be viable. Look how much people complain about ag subsidies in the developed world. They are extraordinarily effective at driving down prices. Wonder why we don't use them in the world of hybrids and EVs. Maybe it's b/c the major auto companies don't want lower prices; they want a demand subsidy they can capture quite easily.

        There are I'm sure some international trade issues at play as well, but I still think the US government could get away with producer subsidies for domestic cars when you consider the tactics used in Asia to keep exports high.
      • 7 Months Ago
      By not voting you let these fools run America:

      http://kochindustriesfacts.com/
      • 7 Months Ago
      Bring it!!! You want electric cars and other alternative forms of propulsion? this will be the ultimate kick in the nuts that makes it happen!! Nobody will be complaining about EV or Hydrogen subsidies when they can't keep those cars on the lots.

      I wanna see those SUVs rusting away at used car lots again.
        • 7 Months Ago
        "I wanna see those SUVs rusting away at used car lots again."

        Um....I
        • 7 Months Ago
        Any memory of 2007/2008, emperorkoku? :P
      • 7 Months Ago
      Yet another dart thrown at the wall... "let's see where it lands".
        • 7 Months Ago
        I don't know if Charles Maxell predicted the high prices of 2008 but peak oil expert Chris Skrebowski did. Skrebowski does an 'endgame' analysis that is very different (and more accurate) than the standard Hubbert curve analysis.

        I fully agree that it is impossible to predict exact prices. There is a very random pattern in the market, feedback loops, speculation, etc. However, by carefully forecasting the available supply of oil and forecasting the demand for oil, you can predict approximately when the two will collide thus producing big price changes. Again, there are random elements, feedback loops, and other factors that will throw your forecasts off . . . but you can come to reasonable conclusions that will be reasonably accurate.
        • 7 Months Ago
        Charles Maxwell is known as "The Dean" of energy analysts. He's been doing it for decades. This is not some crank.
        • 7 Months Ago
        Did he predict the oil prices in 2008 and 2009?

        Even Nostradamus wasn't the Nostradamus of predictions.

        You cannot predict a system of chaos.

        *chaos is defined in it's strictest sense meaning the initial conditions are impossible to calculate exactly... AND the economics of future energy is entirely dependent on those initial condition... AND the slightest variation of those initial conditions will lead to wildly diverging outcomes.*

        That is why prediction in this for 10 years out are laughed at.

        2 years might be reasonable... but not 20 years. Too much can happen, and not even John Forbes Nash could determine what the price of oil will be.
      • 7 Months Ago
      But, if you want Real Oil Price Speculation: Vote Republican in 2012.

      And just like Mr. Bush, a Republican President will DISMANTLE the SEC. And you will get REAL Price Swings Like You've Never Seen.

      As a matter of fact, I predict that the Crack Pot Koch brothers will be at it again, along with FOX LIES, and you can expect, no matter the actual vote, a Republican President. With REAL Wall Street and business Fraud like never before.

      If a Republican wins in 2012, you will get $300 Oil. Guaranteed.

      Let me ask here:
      There was, supposedly, a 25% shift in vote by WHITE MEN making $50,000 or less, to vote Republican. Did these men expect a "Republican" to do Anything to get them their JOBS back from China?

      Did White Men vote to Lose their Jobs, and their chance at Social Security?
        • 7 Months Ago
        With oil at $300.00 a barrel in 9 years, countries like Venezuela and Iran and some of the 'stans, will be loading up on all kinds of new high tech military goodies. This should make playing nice around the globe, a business agenda fraught with risk for Big oil / IOC. Hope those Oiligarchs and Powerstokers can hedge their bets with their own private "fixers" to wield influence and opinion on those that don't play along with their agenda of limited liability resource extraction from politically underrepresented indigenous populations. Good times to be had by all willing to get into the mix.
        • 7 Months Ago
        It really doesn't matter who is in the white house.
        • 7 Months Ago
        Sigh..

        Your theories may be plausable but you're sounding like a crazy person when you post, dude.
      • 7 Months Ago
      This is why i daily look at eestor news and Volt /Leaf appears to be the right idea.

      The problem was abundance of oil when automobile industry started. So fuel economy and optimizations for maximum efficiency took back seat to power and styling. Now optimizations for maximum efficiency is managing and "power and styling" works for him.




      • 7 Months Ago
      That is encouraging. But what if electric cars catch up? will cheap gas still drive people to consume (at a slower rate) every last drop?
      • 7 Months Ago
      Oil will not be priced in USD$ in 2020.
        • 7 Months Ago
        $300/bbl oil in 2020 could easily be $60 Euro/bbl oil given our current insane policy of monetization...
        • 7 Months Ago
        The Euro will be long an buried by 2015.
        It was a bad idea, everyone wants out.
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X