[VMarcHart]

By Barry K. Worthington, Executive Director, U.S. Energy Association

"Meeting the world's energy needs over the next several decades represents incredibly complex challenges on many fronts. These include access to the resource base for fossil fuels; availability of an adequate workforce, specifically engineers and skilled tradesmen; siting every variety of energy facility; dealing with climate change challenges; stability and predictability of regulation; and attracting $22 trillion ($22,000,000,000,000) into the sector. Never before, on a global basis, has the energy industry been expected to site, finance and manage the construction of infrastructure on this scale. It is doubtful that any other industry has ever been compelled to deal with this level of capital investment."

Did you bring your check book?

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('VMarcHart', 'B')y Barry K. Worthington, Executive Director, U.S. Energy Association

"Meeting the world's energy needs over the next several decades represents incredibly complex challenges on many fronts. These include access to the resource base for fossil fuels; availability of an adequate workforce, specifically engineers and skilled tradesmen; siting every variety of energy facility; dealing with climate change challenges; stability and predictability of regulation; and attracting $22 trillion ($22,000,000,000,000) into the sector. Never before, on a global basis, has the energy industry been expected to site, finance and manage the construction of infrastructure on this scale. It is doubtful that any other industry has ever been compelled to deal with this level of capital investment."

Did you bring your check book?

[outcast]

Can you link to the full article?

[VMarcHart]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('outcast', 'C')an you link to the full article?

[seahorse2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('VMarcHart', 'B')y Barry K. Worthington, Executive Director, U.S. Energy Association

"Meeting the world's energy needs over the next several decades represents incredibly complex challenges on many fronts. These include access to the resource base for fossil fuels; availability of an adequate workforce, specifically engineers and skilled tradesmen; siting every variety of energy facility; dealing with climate change challenges; stability and predictability of regulation; and attracting $22 trillion ($22,000,000,000,000) into the sector. Never before, on a global basis, has the energy industry been expected to site, finance and manage the construction of infrastructure on this scale. It is doubtful that any other industry has ever been compelled to deal with this level of capital investment."

Did you bring your check book?

[outcast]

The article was reposted on redorbit, anyway here's my take:

The author said it would take $22 trillion over the next 25 years to meet the world's daily requirement. Wow, some big numbers there. But lets put that into perspective:

$22 trillion/25 years = $880 billion each year world wide.

Suddenly that doesn't seem like such a big number. Does anyone have any statistics on how much is currently being invested per year?

[seahorse2]

This view that the world will hold hands and solve their energy problems peacefully is a pipe dream.

To drill home the pipe dream of energy cooperation, again, the US can't cooperate enough to solve a much easier problem on paper, that of social security. If the people of a democracy can't even solve a simple math problem like social security, what makes you think that the many different countries of the world will suddenly come together and solve their collective energy problems??? Keep in mind the real problems with thinking this will happen. Most in the US don't even believe we have an energy problem. They think they are being gouged by greedy oil companies and infidel arabs, who, likewise, think we are infidels.

Assuming religion somehow quits affecting world politics, why would Opec want to invest any of its money in overseas projects? What makes you think they would allow us in to help them develop theirs when they nationalized their energy years ago and kicked the west out. The Russians are kicking out western oil companies as we speak, and Mexico still won't allow foreign investment despite Cantarell peaking; Venezuela kicked out everyone, and you think anyone is going to cooperate to the tune of $800+ billion a year to work together?

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou think the world could ever come together and jointly appropriate $22 trillion dollars on anything? Hell, the US won't even pay its dues to the United Nations. You think the already bankrupt US taxpayers would agree to this?

Then, the next big assumption, assuming the world gov'ts miraculously come together and appropriate the money, how will they ever agree on how and where the money will be spent? Which private companies on which private projects will get the funding?

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('outcast', 'T')he article was reposted on redorbit, anyway here's my take:

The author said it would take $22 trillion over the next 25 years to meet the world's daily requirement. Wow, some big numbers there. But lets put that into perspective:

$22 trillion/25 years = $880 billion each year world wide.

Suddenly that doesn't seem like such a big number. Does anyone have any statistics on how much is currently being invested per year?

[seahorse2]

Tyler,

Where to begin with you? Energy companies will just borrow from private industry? First, do you realize the US is not building any new coal plants until at least 2010 bc the Federal Gov't is not backstopping all those private industry loans? Go read the Olduvai thread for the links on that.

Further, if private industry is going to ride to the rescue, why aren't they increasing their exploration budgets?

Oil Companies not increasing exploration budgets

[seahorse2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou realize that Exxon, Allegheny Energy, Duke Energy, Xcel, and the rest are private enterprises, right?

Not only are they private, but they are very profitable.

[TheDude]

The balance could swing back towards more government sponsorship/coordination if things run down. The Grand Coulee Dam was built by a consortium of contractors supervised by the Bureau of Rec, who operate it, for instance. Neither fish nor fowl, as seahorse says. Other GD projects like the Rural Electrification Administration were implemented wholly as government enterprises - with private sector opposition the chief incentive. This has worked before and could work again; certainly it would give idle hands something to do, which well may be an issue before long.

[seahorse2]

My point is this - Its easy to say the world needs to spend $22 trillion over the next generation, but the devil is always in the details of making that happen.

[Tyler_JC]

Exxon increases budget for oil exploration

Marathon Announces $8 Billion Capital, Investment and Exploration Budget for 2008
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Marathon Oil Corporation
(NYSE: MRO) today announced an $8 billion capital, investment and exploration budget for 2008, which represents a 67 percent increase over 2007 spending of $4.8 billion.

[seahorse2]

Tyler,

The headline on the Exxon increasing its exploration budget is misleading. This is from the article:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he capital budget is to be increased about 5.5 percent over the $19.9 billion that the company spent last year on exploration and construction

[Tyler_JC]

It's not an optimistic scenario to react after disaster, it's human nature.

We only respond when a crisis becomes obvious.

DDT, ozone layer hole, deforestation, American Buffalo over-harvesting, massive flooding along the Mississippi.

When the situation gets bad enough, people do their very best to fix it. They don't always succeed, but they make a concerted effort. The current opposition to energy development (waning rapidly as gas prices hit $4/gallon) will drop off even further after our first real blackout.

I also think if we consume even a third of today's energy in 40 years, we'd still be living pretty decently. The infinite material growth mentality is not sustainable and I don't believe it is necessary.

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '
')
That's why we have alternatives rushing to fill as much of the void as they can:



Clean energy investment is already at 10% of the $800 billion/year level that is necessary according to that report.

Almost a third of America's new electrical generating capacity is coming from renewable sources. EIA

[outcast]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse2', 'T')yler,

The headline on the Exxon increasing its exploration budget is misleading. This is from the article:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he capital budget is to be increased about 5.5 percent over the $19.9 billion that the company spent last year on exploration and construction

[seahorse]

I hope everyone realizes that Tyler's graph does not show what percentage of energy will be provided by alternatives, but is showing percentage growth of alternatives. Although it appears impressive, alternatives are not predicted to provide much, percentage wise, to the world energy production even in 2025.

IEA gaph on future energy sources/production

So, everyone thinks it will take some type of disaster or calamity to get people moving and that's a good thing?

Now, outcast, you don't read my posts very well do you. I have consistently said that the world will not come together, hold hands, and cooperatively invest $22 trillion in energy production and given several examples that fly in the face of that notion - like Russia, Venezuela, etc.

Tyler then suggested we are already spending that amount today, and nothing suggest we are. Even with the western oil majors, the articles linked show that exploration budgets are essentially flat, meaning, not enough to make up for any increase in demand.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f we will enter a depression it is because our financial system is collapsing, not because of PO (or peak anything). Oil will probably peak in 10 years, and that is a long time to wait.

[VMarcHart]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse2', '.')..you realize the US is not building any new coal plants until at least 2010...