Is It the Beginning of the End for Suburbia

[Anonymous]

People will find ways to cope. Carpooling, metro, telework. Actually I think it would be great for the environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well it s tough to know where to start. Recovery technologies are a stopgap and in many cases there s someone looking for a subsidy who will gladly take your country's money. Don't get me wrong, there are successes like Venezuela with heavy oil or tar sands. But oil shale is one of those canards from the 70's and it will die one way or another. But better exploration / drilling technology is the bigger deal.

The reason why has to do with the other poster's comment that oil peaked as thou it is on an inevitable decline. Oil is in the ground. We just need to find it. To this day oil exploration wells run a 30-50% success rate. It is true that Saudi Arabia is on the decline and that makes for great uncertainty but it does not mean the oil is gone. When prices rise exploration rises. The future of oil is finding large fields like Tupi. I am not saying that oil will last forever but the doom and gloom poster is taking a few facts mostly about Saudi and predicting the end of oil.

Slowing our rate of consumption is serious business, but you can't talk like an oil expert having read a few articles in the economist.

It's facile to say that "the future of oil is to find large finds like Tupi". Hoping that there are an unlimited number of mega-fields is childish.

"If one tries to put Tupi - a genuinely large find - into context of world consumption, we see what kind of problems face a world at, or approaching, a peak in world oil consumption. Tupi has 5 billion to 8 billion barrels of recoverable oil, but it will not reach a fraction of that in terms of production until around 2011 to 2012 when it may, and we repeat may, reach 100,000 barrels per day of output.

That is a mere fraction of what it will take to cover the natural decline of maturing provinces. It is a drop in the ocean of what will never be recovered from the terribly badly damaged fields in Iraq - Kirkuk will never reach 1 million barrels per day - or the drop in production from the UK and Norwegian north sea.

But even if we took a wildly optimistic stance and said Tupi would hit 300,000 barrels per day by 2015, which is most unlikely, then we face the prospect that the oil produced from Tupi will end up…in Brazil. Brazil itself is a giant country, it will only be self-sufficient in hydrocarbons for around a decade, and Petrobras has already said if it has anything to export from Tupi it will be gasoline or other products."

Well my family has been in oil exploration since the 70's so it is not facile. Btw we are not now so this is not cheerleading either.

Second the point is not that Tupi saves the world. The point is that oil is out there. Geologically that is a very sound statement. Like I said exploration rigs hit oil 30-50% of the time. Tupi is an anecdote. You can easily google your way to a list of oil and gas discoveries.

Third it does not matter whether Brazil keeps or sells it. Oil is a global market. This is also why it makes no sense for Republicans to keep pushing domestic oil as a cure for high prices. It is silly because the market is global.

Lastly it does take time for oil to come online. It will disrupt supply. No doubt about that. But even though I am a Prius driving liberal I think it is not accurate to say that we have reached the end for oil output. We are on a consumption path that is dangerous but those are two different things.

[Anonymous]

oil is a global supply, but more domestic oil increases the overall supply and keeps it at home. so sure the cost will go up with middle east tensions, but the transport and access would not be an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People will find ways to cope. Carpooling, metro, telework. Actually I think it would be great for the environment.

I'm a PP who has said something similar. People adapt. They just do. And that's also what government planners are for -- call them urban planners or whatever. More likely this whole region (Baltimore/Washington/and eventually beyond) will become a huge megalopolis. The nation's population is supposed to expand by at least 100 million in the next 40 years. Where are all these people going to go? Right into existing cities? I don't think that's really possible.

Most likely suburbs will just change and become more urban in nature. Urban planners in MoCo have been making dense, walkable, self-sufficient communities for at least 20 years. And they've specifically tried to lure health and tech companies to the 270 "tech sector" to bring local jobs. I'm not familiar with other suburban locations, but I'm sure many are doing similar things.

I have no doubt many suburbs will suffer dramatically over the next 50 years. But I think the ones around DC will adapt and be OK. We've got a nice mix of rural, suburban, and urban. We're located near water, airports, and rail. We have local governments that work together collaboratively to plan out things like public transportation.

The biggest change "I" see is food. I think food prices will skyrocket as fuel prices do, and being close to locally grown food will be a huge benefit in 50 years. Gone will be the days of getting strawberries from California as fuel costs rise dramatically (and good riddance). Being close to rural areas gives us better access to local produce and meat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:oil is a global supply, but more domestic oil increases the overall supply and keeps it at home. so sure the cost will go up with middle east tensions, but the transport and access would not be an issue.

Keeping it at home is only valuable in a global political crisis where trade stops. But since we don't produce what we consume, it only makes that scenario somewhat less painful.

[Anonymous]

I think it is not accurate to say that we have reached the end for oil output. We are on a consumption path that is dangerous but those are two different things.

No one made the claim that we've "reached the end for oil output." The post- peak-oil claim is that we've entered a phase of declining production. The claim that "the oil is out there" doesn't really mean much--the question isn't whether we're out of oil, it's whether new production can meet ever-increasing demand. The only thing that prevented a continuation of oil shortages and price shocks from the 70s into the 80s was the discovery of Prudhoe Bay and the North Sea fields. Now we're back on pace.

Running out of oil is not going to happen. Oil shortages and price increases that are going to make the 70s look like a walk in the park will be. It's funny that a lot of folks in suburbia talk about how they don't care if gas goes to $10 / gallon. How about gas at $7 per gallon, but you can only buy 5 gallons? And only on Tuesdays and Fridays?

[Anonymous]

Where are all these people going to go? Right into existing cities? I don't think that's really possible.

Most likely suburbs will just change and become more urban in nature. Urban planners in MoCo have been making dense, walkable, self-sufficient communities for at least 20 years.

One other point: it's pretty clear that some places will have to change--to become more urban. But it's a little glib to say they'll "just change". They can do it gracefully, or poorly. They can do it now, or they can do it in the midst of a major crisis.

Sure they're going to change "in the long run", but we all know what Keynes said about the long run.

[Anonymous]

An interesting--and pretty balanced--look at the oil debate:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2409

[Anonymous]

Walkable retail has little if nothing to do with oil consumption. People drive to school and work and their kids activities, few of which are just down the block in any part of dc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think it is not accurate to say that we have reached the end for oil output. We are on a consumption path that is dangerous but those are two different things.

No one made the claim that we've "reached the end for oil output." The post- peak-oil claim is that we've entered a phase of declining production. The claim that "the oil is out there" doesn't really mean much--the question isn't whether we're out of oil, it's whether new production can meet ever-increasing demand. The only thing that prevented a continuation of oil shortages and price shocks from the 70s into the 80s was the discovery of Prudhoe Bay and the North Sea fields. Now we're back on pace.

Running out of oil is not going to happen. Oil shortages and price increases that are going to make the 70s look like a walk in the park will be. It's funny that a lot of folks in suburbia talk about how they don't care if gas goes to $10 / gallon. How about gas at $7 per gallon, but you can only buy 5 gallons? And only on Tuesdays and Fridays?

So since your crystal ball is so good I guess you have very heavy options positions on oil, right?

No I didn't think so.

[Anonymous]

Rationing happens when prices are controlled. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Since DC is not really urban then an end to suburbia would mean an end to DC along with the entire Metro area. I just don't see the whole world competing to live in a few truly urban areas with young professionals and aging hipsters.

Seriously, gas prices do have an affect on newly developed outlying communities. However, since state and county revenue is so directly tied to real estate and income taxes you see other policy changes when there is a housing and income decline from loss of commuters. You will see more business concessions to attract companies to loacte closer. Companies choose locations for various reasons. A lobbyist firm is going to be located in the city but other commercial firms are going to where a labor pool exists, better more affordable housing to attract employees, employment laws favoring the employer, low lease costs, and tax incentives. Most of the job growth is toward suburbia not established urban centers. You will also see state and county officials looking at rail and public transport extension options to attract more commuters.

When gas prices go up, teleworking goes up. It becomes more reasonable for companies to consider this to retain and attract competitive staff. It also becomes a more meaningful benefit.

[Anonymous]

Most people I know in dc with older kids have either 1 or 2 cars depending on whether work is near a metro, and they put plenty of miles on those cars. Walking to restaurants five nights a week is not an environmental savings when the rest of the world eats at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:



So why is gas about 80 cents a gallon more expensive in DC than it is in Rockville? Is that all DC gas taxes?

Property values and a slight cartel force some stations in DC to charge higher prices. Fact is, gas is about as expensive on Rt. 28 near QO as it is in NW DC.

[Anonymous]

The stations at the corner of 28 and QO are high. Try the shell station over past FAlls road. There is an iPhone app called gas to go which is great. You can find stations and compare prices.