4 ms·

No one with any credibility actually believes he can forecast the price of oil. Oil is very inelastic in the short term, which is why small drops in supply lea

No one with any credibility actually believes he can forecast the price of oil. Oil is very inelastic in the short term, which is why small drops in supply lead to massive price increases. The long-term effect of unavailable or expensive oil will be "demand destruction"-- many of those who currently use oil will either move to alternatives or go out of business-- and political fallout with unpredictable results.

Retric 16y ago
You can manufacture oil for around 100$ a barrel from coal. So the chances for inflation adjusted oil above 200$ / barrel lasting for more than a few months within 50 years is tiny. The best way for current suppliers to maximize profit is to occasionally spike prices, and then drop them before alternatives start to diminish demand.
- pw0ncakes 16y ago
  What are the inputs into this manufacturing process? The $100/bbl figure is meaningless, unless we know what the specific inputs are and how stable their prices and availability are. Energy of some sort is obviously a major input, and it's unlikely that oil will spike without having a similar effect on the overall energy market. So the fact that oil could be manufactured from coal at $100/barrel now doesn't mean that we'll be able to do so when we need it most.
  - mkn 16y ago
    "Energy of some sort is obviously a major input,..." Unless, of course, the chemical process that converts coal to oil is exothermic, which is not impossible in principle. In this case, the energy conversion efficiency would be less than one, but it still might cost less than changing the oil-based infrastructure so that it consumes coal directly.
    - CWuestefeld 16y ago
      Whatever happened to that "thermal depolymerization" process, where scrap turkey guts, etc., were being turned into oil and other stuff? Several years ago I think I read that a pilot plant was being built that was (IIRC) technically successful but ran into problems with smelly emissions. Anybody know what has come of that? UPDATE: partial answer to my own question from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization#Status_as_of_February_2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization#Status... "...He says the first generation of depolymerization centers will be up and running in 2005. By then it should be clear whether the technology is as miraculous as its backers claim." However, as of August 2008, the only operational plant listed at the company's website is the initial one in Carthage, Missouri. Changing World Technology applied for an IPO on 12 Aug 2008, hoping to raise $100 million. The unusual Dutch Auction type IPO failed possibly because CWT has lost nearly $20 million with very little revenue. CWT, the parent company of Renewable Energy Solutions, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. No details on plans for the Carthage plant have been released. ...which doesn't tell us as much about the technical aspects as it does the business. It may all be tied up in the break-even point for the process, and the amount of government subsidies they've found.
  - ars 16y ago
    The input is energy, and it costs $100/bbl to do it, and the energy comes from coal. All the catalysts etc needed are reused, so availability is not a serious problem. Of course as the price of oil goes up, the price of coal goes up too, so the dollar amount goes up as well. But if you need oil specifically because it's liquid, then oil's price will go up more than coal, and eventually it will become worth it to use coal. We came close last year - they even started test projects in Pennsylvania. And we have a LOT of coal. Centuries worth. And liquefaction is not even a serious environmental hazard (like burning coal is) because all the heavy metals are refined out.
edj 16y ago
People investing in futures do this every day, and some of them are most certainly credible. Southwest Airlines, e.g., seems to be pretty good at saving a buck with aviation gas futures (though that is a step removed from crude oil).
- pw0ncakes 16y ago
  There's a difference between buying futures (which may or may not pay off) and reliably predicting the price of oil. Also: Southwest buys fuel futures to hedge its exposure, which is different from speculation. People hedge because they don't know what the price will do, and want to be OK regardless of price movements.
- hugh3 16y ago
  People investing in futures do this every day, and some of them are most certainly credible. If it were possible to do significantly better than blind luck in speculation about future prices then there'd be nobody around to take the other side of the contract.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Speculators usually earn a premium over what they would get via blind luck. If they didn't, there would be no speculators. The reason why trades occur at all is that not everyone is a pure trader. Hedgers (e.g. Southwest) trade futures to reduce business risk rather than to make money. They tend to make a net loss on trading but earn back a greater amount of money via their core business.

Retric 16y ago

You can manufacture oil for around 100$ a barrel from coal. So the chances for inflation adjusted oil above 200$ / barrel lasting for more than a few months within 50 years is tiny. The best way for current suppliers to maximize profit is to occasionally spike prices, and then drop them before alternatives start to diminish demand.

pw0ncakes 16y ago
What are the inputs into this manufacturing process? The $100/bbl figure is meaningless, unless we know what the specific inputs are and how stable their prices and availability are. Energy of some sort is obviously a major input, and it's unlikely that oil will spike without having a similar effect on the overall energy market. So the fact that oil could be manufactured from coal at $100/barrel now doesn't mean that we'll be able to do so when we need it most.
- mkn 16y ago
  "Energy of some sort is obviously a major input,..." Unless, of course, the chemical process that converts coal to oil is exothermic, which is not impossible in principle. In this case, the energy conversion efficiency would be less than one, but it still might cost less than changing the oil-based infrastructure so that it consumes coal directly.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    Whatever happened to that "thermal depolymerization" process, where scrap turkey guts, etc., were being turned into oil and other stuff? Several years ago I think I read that a pilot plant was being built that was (IIRC) technically successful but ran into problems with smelly emissions. Anybody know what has come of that? UPDATE: partial answer to my own question from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization#Status_as_of_February_2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization#Status... "...He says the first generation of depolymerization centers will be up and running in 2005. By then it should be clear whether the technology is as miraculous as its backers claim." However, as of August 2008, the only operational plant listed at the company's website is the initial one in Carthage, Missouri. Changing World Technology applied for an IPO on 12 Aug 2008, hoping to raise $100 million. The unusual Dutch Auction type IPO failed possibly because CWT has lost nearly $20 million with very little revenue. CWT, the parent company of Renewable Energy Solutions, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. No details on plans for the Carthage plant have been released. ...which doesn't tell us as much about the technical aspects as it does the business. It may all be tied up in the break-even point for the process, and the amount of government subsidies they've found.
- ars 16y ago
  The input is energy, and it costs $100/bbl to do it, and the energy comes from coal. All the catalysts etc needed are reused, so availability is not a serious problem. Of course as the price of oil goes up, the price of coal goes up too, so the dollar amount goes up as well. But if you need oil specifically because it's liquid, then oil's price will go up more than coal, and eventually it will become worth it to use coal. We came close last year - they even started test projects in Pennsylvania. And we have a LOT of coal. Centuries worth. And liquefaction is not even a serious environmental hazard (like burning coal is) because all the heavy metals are refined out.

edj 16y ago

People investing in futures do this every day, and some of them are most certainly credible. Southwest Airlines, e.g., seems to be pretty good at saving a buck with aviation gas futures (though that is a step removed from crude oil).

pw0ncakes 16y ago
There's a difference between buying futures (which may or may not pay off) and reliably predicting the price of oil. Also: Southwest buys fuel futures to hedge its exposure, which is different from speculation. People hedge because they don't know what the price will do, and want to be OK regardless of price movements.
hugh3 16y ago
People investing in futures do this every day, and some of them are most certainly credible. If it were possible to do significantly better than blind luck in speculation about future prices then there'd be nobody around to take the other side of the contract.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Speculators usually earn a premium over what they would get via blind luck. If they didn't, there would be no speculators. The reason why trades occur at all is that not everyone is a pure trader. Hedgers (e.g. Southwest) trade futures to reduce business risk rather than to make money. They tend to make a net loss on trading but earn back a greater amount of money via their core business.