There is no question in my mind but that oil will rise to at least $100 a barrel within the next year. It is easy to see a scenario of $125 a barrel price in the same time frame. The triple digit price of oil will become the norm. Recently it has been trading in the $80-90 range, and as it approached the upper end of that range the media began again covering the story with “sky is falling” concern about what this might mean for the economy. This reminded me of the comment that James Schlesinger, the first U.S. Secretary of Energy made about the country’s approach to energy: “We have only two modes – complacency and panic”.

At the beginning of this year, when oil was trading in the $50-60 price range, I was on a television program and predicted that the price would be up dramatically in 2007 and could easily top $80. That statement came not from any expertise about an ability to correctly predict commodity prices but from the fact that, as a futurist, I look at the long term, at overarching trends and patterns. The price of oil is on a long term up trend and will continue that way for years into the future.

Some historical perspective will be helpful. The price of oil from 1900 to the early 1970s was single digit. Then the OPEC oil embargo quickly quadrupled the price of oil. The price of oil hit a then all-time high of $41/barrel …

There were three reported news stories last week that taken together point to clear trend lines.  In a court ruling, the state of Vermont won the right to set auto emissions and MPG standards that are stricter than those of the Federal government.  The dollar reached an all time low against the Euro and oil crossed over the $80 a barrel price barrier.  

Vermont is one of twelve states where the state government is going to court to gain the right to institute lower emission standards.  Most of these initiatives are patterned after a policy already signed in California. This points to the continued lack of any leadership whatsoever regarding energy in Washington D.C.  The states are where the leadership is to do what is necessary regarding energy.  Neither the Federal government nor the auto makers are leading the way toward lower emissions in any meaningful way.  This case precedent will most likely affect the court battles in the other states.  [Note: since the Vermont decision, there was a court decision in California where a suit blaming automakers over emissions and requesting damages was thrown out.  In that case, the judge ruled that it was not a proper task for the courts to rule in this area, therefore sending it back to the other two branches of state government to institute laws regarding damages due to greenhouse gas emissions].

The long term trend in oil prices is up.  In early 2006 and again at the beginning of 2007 I predicted that …

Last Friday, June 15, 2007, a 1957 Plymouth Belvedere was lifted out of its’ underground vault near Tulsa Oklahoma.  It had been buried on June 15, 1957 to both commemorate the 50th anniversary of Oklahoma becoming a state, and to serve as a time capsule for the  100th anniversary in 2007.  This led me to immediately think about what might be put into the ground today that would be unearthed in 2057.

First however, some interesting facts about the unearthed Plymouth. The car had been buried in a structure that was built to withstand a nuclear blast.  When the car was unearthed, it was discovered that this structure was no barrier to ground water, which had seeped in and converted the dirt around the car into mud, making it look like a victim of a flood.  This of course made me think about all the nuclear fall-out shelters that were being built in the late 1950s and early 1960s when a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was a real perceived threat. An ever present threat far greater in scope than the terrorist events we are fearful of today. Well, since radiation moves quickly into water, it looks like the shelters that were going to save the survivors of a nuclear holocaust wouldn’t have done much good.  This suggests that our general perception of our ability to protect against bad events can be woefully over confident.

The time capsule aspect of the Plymouth was of obvious interest.  The car had been buried …

This column begins a new feature for this blog.  Every week, for the near future, I plan to have an interview with a well respected scientist or thinker on the subject of energy.  Regular readers of this blog know that I believe that facing and solving the multiple issues concerning energy is the single most pressing problem that we face as a species.  There is a lot of media coverage about energy, alternative energy and global warming, but what has been missing is the knowledge and point of view of scientists, at least in the main stream media.  What do the best and brightest think about energy and the future?  Please continue to come to www.evolutionshift.com and find out.

This series is launched with an interview with Dennis M. Bushnell.  Dennis is Chief Scientist, NASA, Langley Research Center.  I had the good fortune to meet and listen to Dennis at the recent Energy conference hosted by the Foundation for the Future.  Then, and here, Dennis has clear, firm and well researched positions on energy.  Enjoy.

1. Evolutionshift.com:  Thank you for this interview.  Dennis, your title is ” Chief Scientist, NASA, Langley Research Center”  That sounds impressive.  What is it that you do in general, and how much of your job relates to energy issues?

 Bushnell: In General - Technical oversight and advanced program formulation of/for the NASA Langley Research Center, which conducts research in the areas of Aeronautics, Earth and Planetary Atmospheric Science and Space Exploration.  Energy-related tasks include Aircraft Emissions reduction, …