Tag Archives: Energy

Economist Liam Halligan says crude oil has gone into “bull market” territory!

Received from Douglas (Mick) Field
28 Aug 2016 at 1:00 p.m.

Message: Good summary here on the oil situation. Especially clear opening comment on the dependency on fossil fuels in the foreseeable future. But full article (warning: pay wall) also good on the situation re the economic battle for supply.

oil drums [sputniknews.com][sputniknews.com]

### telegraph.co.uk 27 Aug 2016 • 2:19PM
Why I’m sticking with my forecast of oil rising to $60 a barrel
By Liam Halligan
In the absence of a major financial meltdown, oil will end 2016 north of $60 a barrel,” this column stated at the turn of the year. It was a forecasting flourish possibly fuelled by one Christmas brandy too many. With just four months of 2016 to go, though, I’m sticking to my Yuletide view.
Attempting to predict the oil price is crazy. Yet no decent economist can afford not to. The world economy still revolves around oil –used in everything from transport and electricity generation to the production of plastics, synthetics and so much else. And for all the breathless talk about renewables, and the grim inevitability of growing nuclear dependence, we remain addicted to oil.
As recently as 2005, world crude consumption was just 84.7 million barrels a day. That’s since gone up to 95.1 million daily, a 12pc increase in just 10 years. And that rise came during a decade when global GDP growth was rather sluggish. Had the world economy not endured the 2008 financial crisis, and subsequent stop-start recovery, oil consumption would have grown even more. But still, for all the expansion of wind and solar, and endless hype about a “post-petroleum world”, oil consumption continues to rise relentlessly and that won’t change any time soon.
The oil price has surged this month, up from around $41 a barrel in early August to almost $52 last week, before falling back slightly. This 20pc-plus increase puts crude technically into “bull market” territory. This is striking, not least because from mid-June to the end of July, oil was in “a bear market”, having dropped over 20pc. Despite this summer volatility, though, the direction of travel is clear. Oil has been climbing steadily, if not always in a straight line, from its February low of $28 a barrel. This August rise in oil prices stems from market fundamentals on the one hand, and geopolitical speculation on the other.

Earlier this month, the highly respected International Energy Agency (IEA) published a report suggesting global crude supply will fall short of demand during the third quarter by nearly a million barrels a day. This projected deficit comes despite the fact that the Opec exporters’ cartel continues to pump like billy-o. Having traditionally restricted supply to keep prices high, Opec has over the last two years been doing the reverse, of course – flooding global markets with oil, lowering prices to squeeze high-cost US shale producers out of existence. Amidst record production by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE, total Opec output hit an eight-year high in July, up no less than 840,000 barrels a day on the same month in 2015. This Opec supply surge was more than offset, though, by the dramatic ongoing slump in output from producers outside Opec. Declines in the US, China, Canada and Mexico combined to push non-Opec production down by more than 1.1 million barrels a day compared to July 2015. […] If there is a deal in Algiers, and it binds with Opec holding together, and the Russians staying on board then my end-of year oil prediction, in the absence of a Lehman-style global meltdown, will almost certainly come true. Such geopolitical stargazing has helped push up oil prices this month. During the first week of August, short crude oil positions on the NYMEX, one of the world’s leading commodity exchanges, were at a 10-year high. A large number of traders, in other words, thought oil was set to fall back towards $30. That view has now been thoroughly trounced, with the resulting “short squeeze” helping to drive this latest 20pc oil price rise. Aside from speculation and diplomatic wrangling, though, there’s growing evidence of an emerging supply-demand deficit. Buried in the IEA’’s latest report is the significant observation that it expects a further 900,000-barrel reduction in non-Opec output by the end of this year. This Saudi-driven price war has seen global investment in oil exploration and field development cut by $300bn, some 41pc, since 2014. The “active rig count”–, the number of wells being pumped worldwide, is down 37pc. Before these trends are slowed, let alone reversed, oil will need to spend at least six months, and probably a year, firmly above $60 a barrel, if investors are to be convinced profits can be made, so persuading them to put serious money back into future crude production. Unless global markets crash, I say that year of $60-plus oil will be 2017.

Full article at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/27/why-im-sticking-with-my-forecast-of-oil-rising-to-60-a-barrel/

● Liam Halligan (@LiamHalligan) – Economist/Writer/Broadcaster, Telegraph Columnist, BNE Editor-at-Large, Proud member of http://www.thehooligans.co.uk Locations: London, Saffron Walden, Moscow.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

3 Comments

Filed under Business, Economics, Finance, Geography, Leading edge, Media, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Public interest, Resource management

Energy, a little picture #wow

█ A short chain of correspondence was forwarded this morning. As far as I’m concerned Agenda 21 adherents with (fossilised) climate panic may fall off the Earth as soon as possible to good effect. Elizabeth Head-In-Sand, Site Admin

From: Calvin Oaten
To: Jinty MacTavish
Subject: Energy
Date: 5 April 2015 12:56 pm NZST

Hi Jinty,

I thought you might be interested in reading this article. Eighty four pages, but I suspect the gist of it can be got from reading the last maybe twenty, if time is of the essence.

Jinty, I know your aversion to fossil fuels and can understand the argument. But it seems to me that we desperately need to continue to use energy to ‘sustain’ present needs of food and almost every detail of present day living. That, until technology can replace it is totally reliant on fossil fuels.

To suddenly turn off the taps so to speak, would almost destroy society as we know it. Buying time is the only option as I see it and precipitate action would be counterproductive. This might come as a surprise to you but I do care for the planet as well, but also the people on it. I am just frightened that the current moves, ostensibly to ‘save the planet’, might be premature. It is not as if the perceived disaster of Co2 increase in the atmosphere is a proven model, yet. One of the aspects that have been touted is that of imminent sea rise and runaway warming. It seems at present that neither have come to pass according to projections. That they might is still based on theories that while they could become valid (who am I to know) have yet to do so. We must wait.

Another claim is that we will be subjected to more and more ‘climatic events’ of disastrous moment like cyclone/hurricanes of increasing intensity due to this inherent warming. That I question as I have done some research into the history of ‘events’ past.

In no particular order this is what I found.

● 1900 Galveston Texas. Deadliest hurricane in US history, 8,000 killed, 145mph (233kph) winds.

● 1928 Okeechebee. 4,000 killed, category 5 160mph (260kph) winds.

● 1974 Darwin. Tracy, 240kmh winds, tremendous destruction.

● 1998 North American Ice Storm. Huge destruction.

● 1780 Great Hurricane of the Antilles. 20,000 – 22,000 deaths, winds probably exceeding 200mph (320kph). It ran from 10-16 October. Six continuous days! There were two other deadly events in that 1780 season.

Now for what it is worth in 1780 the industrial revolution had not started, coal as an industry was in its infancy and oil far in the future.
Further, 1780 was firmly in the Little Ice Age.

Oil was just found around 1900 when Galveston was hit. 1928 was still pre intense fossil fuel exploitation.

Jinty, I only want to make the point that just maybe we are jumping the gun here in the demonising of fossil fuels relative to our way of life. Which is it to be, destroy, or buy time till viable alternatives become feasible? A serious choice which ought not be made on whims or unsubstantiated theories.

Here is the attachment as suggested.*
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf

Cheers,
Calvin

*‘Perfect Storm: Energy, finance and the end of growth’ by Tim Morgan, Head of Global Research, Tullett Prebon. -Eds

—————

On 5/04/2015, at 10:39 pm, Jinty MacTavish wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/09/10-myths-about-fossil-fuel-divestment-put-to-the-sword

—————

On 5/04/2015, at 11:19 pm, “Calvin Oaten” wrote:

Hi Jinty,
Love the informality of your intro.

Read it, Bill McKibben is firstly not a scientist, he is a lobbyist or rabble rouser. That’s OK and I believe his heart is in what he espouses.
That doesn’t make it right or wrong, just his opinions. As I maintain all along it’s a matter of reason not emotion.

Notice of course there is absolutely no mention or consideration of the ramifications on society if his dreams were to come true even over the longer term. That is my worry, the “What now”, when the taps are turned down not off. First comes the shortages, next comes the cost increases, then comes the hardships for the poor and middle classes struggling to meet their power bills and put food on their tables. That, Jinty is what I am alluding to.

All before there has been shown a glimpse of truth in the speculations of disaster. That you as a public leader, will wantonly subscribe to these policies on the strength of your emotions without considering the effects on your constituents in real time disturbs me as does the whole pressure thing as manifested. It is developing into a sort of ‘mob cult’ movement and I see needless hardship down the track as the one-per-centers perversely destroy the lower and middle class life styles. In fact, one could be excused for thinking it was a type of conspiracy centred on the United Nations plans for world government. Dismiss that as madness if you like but if you study the implications of the “Agenda 21” manifesto you might have cause to ponder just a little.

You not care to comment on my findings re weather events?

Cheers,
Calvin

—————

From: Jinty MacTavish
To: Calvin Oaten
Subject: Re: Energy
Date: 6 April 2015 8:48:45 am NZST

Dear Mr. Oaten,
As I have previously commented, I do not wish to engage with you in correspondence on this matter. The reason being, we have previously explored the topic in detail, over a number of emails, with our differences coming down to the fact that I believe it immoral to sit on our hands whilst over 97% of climate scientists, all but a handful of the world’s governments, and international bodies like the United Nations, agree we urgently need to do something about the matter (and that if we don’t, we are consigning future generations to untold misery). You, on the other hand, prefer to believe the UN is running a conspiracy and that Agenda 21 is some kind of giant plot for it take over the planet, and hold onto the words of the very small minority of (generally fossil-fuel funded) scientists who continue to deny action is required. And then you tell me it is a matter of “reason not emotion”? Wow.
As such, as I have previously stated, I think our positions irreconcilable, and I do not think it worth my time or yours to continue to email back and forwards on the matter.
Best,
Jinty

[ends]

Links added.-Eds

J MacTavish [youtube.com]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WofRG0Pb5wQ

Related Post and Comments:
14.7.15 DCC strategies needed like a hole in the head

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

40 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Economics, Geography, Hot air, Name, New Zealand, Offshore drilling, People, Politics, What stadium

Audacious idea: New Zealand X-Prize Environmental and Energy

Kea “New Zealand, New Thinking” event, New York

### stuff.co.nz Last updated 05:00 22/05/2011
$1b prize plan for NZ’s future
By Rob O’Neill – Sunday Star Times
The Government is being urged to invest in new strategies to lift the country out of the economic mire, with one successful entrepreneur suggesting it invest $1 billion in future energy technologies through an audacious prize.
New Zealand needs to build a country around the promises of tomorrow, not the legacies of yesterday, Hyperfactory founder Derek Handley told expatriate Kiwis in New York last week as the government announced the partial sale of many state-owned energy assets.

Handley said $1b is less than a tenth of what the current government has committed to infrastructure projects in the next few years and about the same amount spent bailing out South Canterbury Finance investors. It is also “about twice as much as the amount we hope to lose by hosting the Rugby World Cup”, he said and about the same as our bill for six weeks of imported oil.

Read more

Post by Elizabeth Kerr

18 Comments

Filed under Design, Economics, Geography, Inspiration, People, Politics, Project management

Left hand, right hand…

The climate change adaptation project plan, to be implemented over three years at a cost of $67,500 a year, was approved at a finance, strategy and development committee meeting in late November.

### ODT Online Wed, 5 Jan 2011
DCC plans for climate change
By David Loughrey
The Dunedin City Council is set to spend the next three years developing a wide-ranging response to the problem of climate change, after some alarming warnings about what the future holds. The response will include a major study on the future of South Dunedin, and four other ”hot spots” identified as the most vulnerable areas of the city.
Read more

****

”There are a lot of good reasons why we could be the open air laboratory that tests the green technologies that could benefit communities everywhere.”

### ODT Online Wed, 5 Jan 2011
Waitati eyed as energy trial zone
By Stu Oldham
Blueskin Bay could be poised to become New Zealand’s first open air new technology energy laboratory, Waitati Energy Project co-ordinator Scott Willis says. National and international companies were interested in a ”community-size trial zone” for their green technologies, Mr Willis said yesterday.
Read more

****

Powerhouse Wind director Bill Currie confirmed company representatives met those of some ”quite big” Indian companies during a Dunedin City Council-supported trip.

### ODT Online Wed, 5 Jan 2011
Future in wind, but cash needed
By Stu Oldham
A Dunedin company is looking for $700,000 to start building wind turbines for burgeoning and potentially lucrative markets overseas.

Powerhouse Wind wants to start low-volume production of its single-blade turbine to supply domestic customers and send demonstration machines overseas.

Post by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

Filed under Architecture, Construction, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Politics, Project management, Town planning, Urban design

Tell us we misheard it…

Updated

ODT’s Barry Stewart on Channel 9 News highlighted stories appearing in Tuesday’s newspaper. First mention before we fainted was… No, we really must have misheard it.

Dunedin City Council has voted to [defer?????!!!!!] work on the second stage of the Tahuna Wastewater Treatment Plant.

We ran the DVD back, it did sound like THAT word.
WHY. It can’t be true.

### ODT Online Tue, 24 Nov 2009
DCC may defer Tahuna work
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council looks set to delay part of the planned $74.3 million stage two upgrade to the Tahuna wastewater treatment plant. Council staff have recommended aspects of the plant’s upgrade associated with the processing of solid materials be deferred for two years, while wastewater treatment upgrades proceed as planned.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

30 Comments

Filed under Construction, Economics, Politics, Project management