CPL.Luke Posted March 28, 2007 Posted March 28, 2007 hm the other thread on this subject got far to heated for any meaningful information to be gleaned from the thread. However the thread also had some interesting ideas in it which I think are worth a closer look at. Just to reiterate some of the points from theprevious thread which seemed to have gotten garballed. Peakoilman stated that Geologists had predicted the peak of American oil production in the 1970's, this prediction came true. Also he stated that a number of oil companies/geologists are predicting that oil, and coal are about to peak and or hve peaked in the majority of the world. I am very interested in 2 things happening in this thread. 1st I think some sources from both sides would be a nice addition to the threads that have been poted here numerous times. 2nd I would like to see if the side for I would like to see if anybody who has opposed peakoilman's viewpoints can pause and analyze the science/logic of Peakoilman's viewpoint.
jackson33 Posted March 28, 2007 Posted March 28, 2007 the idea US oil production peaked in the 70's is based on actual pumping of the product, not the availability. even in this period it was simply cheaper to get the crude and ship to the US refiners, than go through the process to drill new holes. google, *Colorado oil sands* and get a look from an investment viewpoint on just what potential there is on this one 1500 sq. mile plot in Northern Utah and Southern Wyoming. estimate although questionable run up to 2 trillion barrels of availability. this alone is more than the US has used in the history of consumption. finds in the US and not developed are numerous. again depending on viewpoints, Alaska still holds much, as the Gulf of Mexico and many land services on the mainland. many places, including the Gulf exploration by geologist are not allowed, much less any drilling activity. peak oil man, or the views expressed are not new. he apparently believes in the views of many that are opposed to industry, capitalism, the wealthy and in general attacks his views through GW, which is in big part fossil fuel usage. additionally i think it was a long time geologist or at least oil related worker that proposed the prediction and said happening. both however are giving a viewpoint which i personally disagree with. more so for the distasteful interruption of the world communities growing standards than for the use of alternatives. my thought is the market place will determine these alternative energy sources and DEPENDENCY, the reality culprit will slowly go away.
CPL.Luke Posted March 28, 2007 Author Posted March 28, 2007 I remember hearing a statistic a while ago that stated that even the new giant oil field in the gulf would only sustain america for an extra couple of months a our present rate of consumption. I agree with your viewpoint that market forces will take care of this problem on their own. However we now burn 5 times more fuel than we discover or there abouts, and I would say that its a dream that its not going to run low sometime in the nex 20-50 years. Also considering the threat that running ou of energy poses to our ay of life, it seems silly not to put some government money down on the alternatives and for the government to try and push the market along a little bit. ^(I also mean a very little bit) say a 5 cent fuel hike every year, and maybe increased thresholds for fuel efficiency and emissions. This would have the dual purpose of allowing american auto manufacturers to compete in europe and japan.
jackson33 Posted March 28, 2007 Posted March 28, 2007 the US Government, subsidizes many alternative fuel activities, through the Military or EPA, today. as do private investment groups and the individual. the four major solar companies which i watch with interest make a total of about -10.00 per invested dollar and kept in this range with government programs.(otherwise -25.00). wind power as been pretty much dropped for lack on interest. ethanol you should already know of and battery power, primarily for storage are big things. Nanotech, needs consideration as they too work on energy or at minimal the use of less to perform more... i remind you governments obligations in the US, are not to influence any business. there interest is based on dependency from unfriendly nations (security) or those that could be for the available supply of crude. even here the interest overlaps world treaties and interest, since the US would be hurt the least if OPEC, shut off supplies today. i suggested a visit to the oil sands in UT and WY, but this near untapped world wide source dwarfs any usage of mankind. in Canada, where the practice is well underway, half of there power is from the oil sands today. in turn they ship sweet oil around the world. also i have suggested in the US it is not economical to fight regulations imposed by the society that opposes big business in general. it is simply far cheaper to import 100 tankers of crude, than to receive permission to drill one new hole. if you get into refineries, there is no comparison. its by far cheaper to build elsewhere and import the product. to the American ego, "not in my backyard" extends to the limits of their control. since this goes to GW in most cases, i might suggest to alter, slow or in some way hamper the current worldwide trends, for the sake of Al Gore or his types makes little sense. India and China, (near 3 billion people) are advancing at rates unknown even in the US. many other nations as well are increasing in GDP, which allows for advancements is social and political advancements. to me this is the future of mankind, not what a few in my country or other old industrialized nations feel is a problem. these nations are already beyond industry and cannot return, but rely on the rest for many of the goods thought needed.
geoguy Posted March 28, 2007 Posted March 28, 2007 My wife and I are both geologists in Alberta. I'm not in the energy sector but my wife is involved in the energy industry. Many of our friends are geologists, etc. Peak oil? no friggin clue. anyone who claims to have some magic numbers ,etc. is doing hocus pocus. Google Alien abduction or Sasquach and you'll also get thousands of 'experts' with indisputable facts. Google 'Peak Oil'...the same. Re: government involvement. It's a tough one but the government gets sidetracked into politically correct projects and pork barrels that don't amount to a hill of beans....windpower, solar...biodiesel and so on. These are pinpricks and don't address the issue. the USa needs a couple trillion dollar efort on the scale of an Vietnam or Iraqinam invasion. What surprises me is that in the USA (are you American?) is that the government hasn't made 'greater' energy self-sufficiency the number one priority over the last couple decades. Numero Uno. With countries like Venezuela, Iran and the Arabs with the hands on the oil spigot they have you by the privates if push comes to shove. Mexico and especially Canada are reliable sources strategically but our oil and natural gas are going to be VERY expensive is supplies from elsewhere tighten. A nickel a gallon? Try $2/gallon. That's what I'd suggest adding to a gallon for energy research. It's going to be an exta $2 soon and it's best to put that $2 into research and development within the USA now than into the pockets of Venezuelans, Iranians (and Albertans) a couple years from now.....and still not have any self-sufficiency. We're rolling in the dough up here. Billions coming into our province from oil and natural gas sales into the USA. No skin off our nose if the USA keeps down the same path with blinkers on regardless if Peak Oil or not is around the corner.
jackson33 Posted March 28, 2007 Posted March 28, 2007 in short i think you'll recall we agree on the "peak" issue. all i do is supply some information from the business point of view.... also as stated, the US government is restricted to some degree on the influence of business activity. not saying they do not, but as an entity there is no power to influence. the market or people, do so in their purchase of products. available today are cars, fuel systems along with many products that are oil based free for this public to purchase. most of our gas/diesel tax, goes to the states we purchase the product. the trucking industry from Canada and every state additionally pays large amounts of money to drive each mile in any one state, which also goes to the states. the average truck to travel the 6-700 miles thought NM and AZ will pay two to 300.00 each way. additionally this industry pays about 40% more at the pump for a product (diesel) which cost little by comparison to produce. i won't go into what the Canadian and US truckers pay for updated equipment, to perform the act of driving an economy... i also agree that DEPENDENCY is a security issue. however its being addressed on a daily basis as such. i get off this band wagon for any current global warming issue, remaining with my above and previous statements on the issue. my fear is just what going on today, when my congress is more concerned with Spinach Farmers, or self glorification then our troops protecting the very issue at hand. with your help, they would have no problem in a 10 fold increase in taxes, the purpose of no concern. private industry and the power of supply and demand, will be of more value in practical terms then any efforts of any government...
CPL.Luke Posted March 28, 2007 Author Posted March 28, 2007 yes however it is clear that in today's legal structure corporations have been very slow to adapt in the face of new obstacles (just look at Ford continuing to release giant SUV's that don't sell). Sometimes planning and direction are a necessary part of an economy. Look at what France did immediatly prior to WW2 where they had growth rates of pu to 7% per year. The government did real research into various economic endeavors and then forwarded the information to the proper people. They also offered up a large number of lucrative contracts that would be profitable for all involved in order to get the ball rolling. There isn't a free market solution to everything.
geoguy Posted March 28, 2007 Posted March 28, 2007 "There isn't a free market solution to everything." Not national security or foreign policy. Iraq. The despised image of the USA, hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of dead and wounded American troops are the result of dependence of oil dependency from the Middle East. When the American government weighs an attack on Iran (forget the right or wrong of it) a major variable is disruption of oil supplies and its impact on western economies. One would hope that western democracies, despite the boondoggle of Iraq, are making those decisions based on security and moral issues and not the impact on the price of a gallon of gas at the pump. We keep hearing some variation on American news of 'we can't afford to attack Iran'. This is not a good way to determine the security of the country.
jackson33 Posted March 28, 2007 Posted March 28, 2007 the free market concept, allows people in the system to dictate the future of any company. your mention of Ford and I'll add GM are two good examples of this idea. while Toyota and others were generating sales beyond their ability to satisfy the markets, those two giants held fast to cheap energy, of course losing their market shares. additionally there are hundreds of companies that have failed or achieved on proper expectations from the public. by the way Toyota is now building, think its ninths US plant, yet still needs to import product to meet the demand. Ford may not make it and GM has some profitable areas which will let them come out of this in second place, no longer the run a way leader. i might also add, labor contracts, that were not government mandated had effects on these corporations. you mentioned a governments action. this is not free market to start with, however after the rebuilding of Europe after WWII which in some ways is ongoing, the labor trend or socialism took hold of this free market principle. the US government, lets contracts for government work or needs, establishes guidelines for minimals (very low) and tries to encourage. the free market, as said, has now many of the products which conform to tree-hugger demands. acceptance is still in the hands of these market forces and will dictate the futures of human behavior....by choice not mandate and this my entire point.
jackson33 Posted March 28, 2007 Posted March 28, 2007 "There isn't a free market solution to everything." Not national security or foreign policy. Iraq. The despised image of the USA, hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of dead and wounded American troops are the result of dependence of oil dependency from the Middle East. When the American government weighs an attack on Iran (forget the right or wrong of it) a major variable is disruption of oil supplies and its impact on western economies. One would hope that western democracies, despite the boondoggle of Iraq, are making those decisions based on security and moral issues and not the impact on the price of a gallon of gas at the pump. We keep hearing some variation on American news of 'we can't afford to attack Iran'. This is not a good way to determine the security of the country. were off track, but the antonym to free market is socialism. this will never fly in the US, i hope. its not my objective to argue US government policy. i will tell you in my opinion the correct responses to 9-11, Afghanistan and that of UN defiance, Iraq were justified decisions. if Iraq becomes a viable, democracy in the mid-east, the US, Canada and all the UN Members will benefit. as to Iran, the issue gets to the ideology of the Clerical and National leaders. personally i feel the people of Iran are already to far along the freedom trail to turn back the clock to 1400 or whatever, nor do i think these people feel the end times are here. if wrong and any attacks by Iran are made on any Nation the US is in treaty with, i assure you affording will not be the issue.
geoguy Posted March 28, 2007 Posted March 28, 2007 were off track, but the antonym to free market is socialism. this will never fly in the US, i hope. its not my objective to argue US government policy. i will tell you in my opinion the correct responses to 9-11, Afghanistan and that of UN defiance, Iraq were justified decisions. if Iraq becomes a viable, democracy in the mid-east, the US, Canada and all the UN Members will benefit. as to Iran, the issue gets to the ideology of the Clerical and National leaders. personally i feel the people of Iran are already to far along the freedom trail to turn back the clock to 1400 or whatever, nor do i think these people feel the end times are here. if wrong and any attacks by Iran are made on any Nation the US is in treaty with, i assure you affording will not be the issue. You wanted Iraq. All yours. Enjoy. Have Iran for dessert. Enjoy. That's if you're not too filled up on Freedom Fries and Yellow Cake.
CPL.Luke Posted March 28, 2007 Author Posted March 28, 2007 the example in france I was talking about was not yet socialism, socialism didn't find a strong hold in france until the 1960's. The planned economy I was mentioning was that of De'gaul about as much of a capitalist as you can come by.
1veedo Posted March 28, 2007 Posted March 28, 2007 Hubbert's Peak is real, this is not something you can argue against. The "debate" usually revolves around when it's going to happen and what we should do about it. It will happen eventually for conventional cheap oil. "It's not a matter of if or how, but when." Tar sands and the like may get cheaper or they may not. We don't know. But the fact that Hubbert's Peak is happening for the world's oil supply is apparent when you look at production growth. According to wikipedia, "World oil production growth trends, in the short term, have been flat over the last 18 months." You can read all about tar sands, oil shell, ethanol (which is the biggest loser out of all of them), etc, in Beyond Oil: A View From Hubbert's peak by Kenneth S. Deffeys. We had a good thread about this recently, which you'd probably like, CPL.Luke. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=317507 I'm not sure about coal. I always heard it would last a long time, but PeakOilMan has some information that claims otherwise, so I don't know. There's a really interesting documentary called The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream (download w/ bt). It's actually a rather informative documentary but it is a video, not a book, so take what you like from it. I don't agree with absolutely everything it says but what would be interesting in this film to any of you who are "doubting" the idea that peak oil is real, is the geologists meetings and what the actual scientists are saying. Around 33:15. "Peaking is not the equivalent of ruining out. Everyone in this room knows this. But the lack of the people outside of this room understanding that is a problem." And it is a problem. It's bad that many people go uninformed, especially people who are currently living in "suburbia." The video interviews a lot of authors, and the first time I watched it I wrote them all down, so here are some sources you can weed through. I've only read a couple of these books so I can't recommend them all. Not all of them are about the science itself, either. The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of Amerca's Man-Madecape The next American metropolis Resource Wars: The new Landscape of Global Conflict The Part's Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies Powerdown: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World High Noon for Natural Gas Crossing the Rubicon: America's Descent into Fascism at the end of the age of oil Home from Nowhere: Remaking our Everyday Workd for the 21st Century Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage (good book, by Deffeys) Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict The Coming oil Crisis edit to add--In post #7 of the thread I linked, I sadi " I'm pretty sure the area under the curve would be qtotal but I havn't found anybody to claim that. It probably is though nevertheless." If you take the integral of the function, you do indeed get the total amount of oil under the function, so it is a true statement.
geoguy Posted March 28, 2007 Posted March 28, 2007 The cult of Peak Oil. One recognizes groupies by 'the debate is closed'. All hail absolutism.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 Ad hominem. Being a cult doesn't make it wrong. Try to make a more meaningful argument.
jackson33 Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 market forces, the desires of the customer in my opinion drive what will be. many of the things that eliminate or reduce oil as the base, are available and in some manner in use today. as said, peak oil whether estimated in the 50's or yesterday and even more so peak coal are not determinable. also the mention of a trillion or two barrel availability of untapped reserves, said to exist in oil sands, nullifies any peak concept. cost to retrieve a barrel as done in Canada is about 27.00 per barrel and dropping. if the US, Asia and some others would encourage, opposed to discourage this source, the cost could drop much more. price and this the common denominator of hysteria, is based more on the attempted control of OPEC, an individuals statement, the natural climate conditions and the lack of refinery capacity. I'll add trading of oil as a commodity on all the open markets, has not helped, since these people in general will never take delivery of one gallon of crude.
1veedo Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 Now we've successfully found where the "debate" is that I was talking about above. Posting nonsense about peak oil not being real doesn't get you anywhere. Posting that maybe the peak of conventional oil won't be a bad thing (because the economy will wisen up or because we'll be able to use tar sands) is something that you can talk about. But be careful that you actually understand what's going on first before you go on about tar sands "nullifying" any peak. It might be able to nullify the effects of the peak, but it's not going to nullify the peak itself. availability of untapped reserves, said to exist in oil sands, nullifies any peak concept. The problem with tar sands is that it's expensive to extract. Because oil prices are so high right now, some companies have been able to make a profit off tar sands, but the vast majority of these "trillions of barrels" are still too expensive to tap. As oil prices go up, so will the utilization of tar sands. But how high do we want prices to go? Unless there's going to be some sort of technological breakthrough that's going to allow us to get to these trillions of barrels of oil, the existence of this oil doesn't do us much good. A lot of people don't understand that the problem isn't that we're going to run out of oil. People like to quote estimates of oil in tar/shell thinking "wow, that's a lot," but then they fail to overlook the 1 trillion barrels of conventional oil, as well as another 2 or so (not sure how much) that is found further north and in hard to reach places. Running out of oil isn't the problem. We have plenty of the stuff. A lot of it, however, is expensive to get to. The problem then lies in the fact that we've already used up the majority of the cheap stuff. Companies found the cheap stuff first, cause if they didn't (obviously), another company would have. So because tar is so expensive to produce, companies have left it alone. But now oil is getting harder and harder to produce so we're moving up on the price of production. And we're just going to keep going up. What we really need to do is just abandon oil and gas completely (gas in north America is peaking as well, which is actually a bigger problem then oil). If we run our electric grid off nuclear and whatever else, instead of gas, we can use this energy to run our "hydrogen vehicles." Personally, I don't think anyone's going to do anything. And if nobody does anything, our economy is going to head nowhere but down. Maybe market incentives will lead to change, but by the time people start noticing the problem, it's going to be too late. We're already feeling the problems right now, so if we're going to utilize tar sands or move to hydrogen, then we need to start now.
jackson33 Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 on US oil sands, pls google *Colorado Oil Sands*. the 1500 square mile area is thought to hold what suggested in some form. you will find dis-agreements to your post. i know little of the recovery methods and cannot argue the technology. Canadian reserves as well are in much better shape than your suggesting. as to what remains in the rest of the world or even undiscovered. here i can only refer you to the 20 publicly owned companies which deal in the project or if you want my opinion, Shell Canada, which is the driving force. with the provision, oil prices remain above forty, they will supply Canada 100% of their oil needs and be able to export more in a short time. additionally on the topic (deposits in ground), finds in side the arctic circle are expected to increase as exploration is now underway. since i do not oppose alternative energy on the grounds of dependency on unfriendly national interest and am interested in anything to relieve this tension, it would seem the US should approach both the alternative and natural products, where relations are good. the cost/effective, not the idea of peak, are then my personal enemy to the problem...peak then in my opinion is a way to bring in other issues, none of which should be considered in the business aspects of an industry. certainly not in some form of scare tactic mode...
geoguy Posted April 2, 2007 Posted April 2, 2007 Yawn. Reminds me of the Bible thumpers who quote 'whatever' to prove some point and not to promote science. Anyone can run around the Internet and go crazy with the copy button. How about some original thoughts?
MolotovCocktail Posted April 2, 2007 Posted April 2, 2007 You wanted Iraq. All yours. Enjoy. Have Iran for dessert. Enjoy. That's if you're not too filled up on Freedom Fries and Yellow Cake. Don't forget to gulp it down with Victory Beer!!! But yeah, I think our dependence on oil has gone on long enough. Did you guys know that we had battery powered cars, and even vegetable oil powered cars, over a hundred years ago? We only switched over to gasoline because some guy created the modern starter, which made gasoline powered cars safer and more reliable to use. I once watched a show once about the dangers of staying dependent on oil for about 20 years down the road, and it isn't pretty. Fuel crises, long lines, not enough fuel to even transport basic needs, etc. But the point is, we are going to move away from our dependence, whether by choice or by force.
jackson33 Posted April 2, 2007 Posted April 2, 2007 oil sands, is generally used in business, however when googled i have noted it pops up sands as well. shale may be, but sand from what i google any referance then sands. yes, the way they do it, would seem complicated and does require effort, cost and energy. i would think the current and projected bpd, would justify and since its gone cost/effective, also profitable. this alludes to my mention of just importing or pumping which is a fraction of cost per or why more such product is not currently being pursued. it would seem your efforts resemble some crusade rather than a discussion on peak oil-coal and the future of energy. the worlds not going to end, we are not likely to ever run out of the substance oil (no need for long before gone) and there is certainly no need for governments or people to panic... refineries, transporting or political problems may cause problems and those lines could form. your talking about a product that drives, heats, even cools the worlds people. if you think of the infrastructure and responsibilities of those involved, it should surprise you that there are not more problems. then the cost for the actual product is so small compared to any other liquid it confounds me why there are questions. the folks in many places have no apparent problem in paying two three and four times the actual cost, in taxes just to drive their car and in the US we pay dearly for the cost to get products to us. there is reason to question the apathy of the US people, for neglect or not willing to question certain groups in regards to scenic values or political stances to justify a particular view. it certainly would or should seem this desire to have these finished products just available w/o responsibility for all that is involved to make this possible, done elsewhere is getting a little carried away. somebodies back yard is going to get dirty and the continued insistence its some one else's, won't last long.
CPL.Luke Posted April 2, 2007 Author Posted April 2, 2007 it appears clear that there will be some form of conventional crude oil peak in the coming years. This will increase energy prices which will hurt any economy and as such the economy's that begin to switch now will be the most succesful over the next half century. Luckily we have many ways of producing energy, and as long as there is proper planning involved the economy won't suffer. it should also be noted that Energy production hasn't been handled on a purely free market basis for the past hundred years, and if you don't believe me ask yourself who comissions power plants. There is also nothing inherently wrong with producing fuel on a negative energy return provided that you have alternative means of generating the energy in the first place. An example of this would be to use a nuclear power plant to produce energy that would then be used to make oil, as the oil infrastructure is there already it makes sense to provide fuel in this manner rather than hydrogen, as oil is a better fuel than hydrogen and any hydrogen production would follow the same general principal of using more energy to make the fuel than you get out of burning the fuel. I personally believe that battery power is the way to go, however battery technology isn't exactly what would be required to provide effective transportation (however there may be better battery technology out there, anybody have any links?). I'm curious as to how efficent coal gasiffication would be at producing oil, as thats been the tactic of many countries that have been cut off from there oil supplies in past wars, and its a critical component of modern clean coal technology. The moral of the story however is that planning is a necessity , as the government can help raise prices now in order to increase efficencies and avoid possible shortages in the future. one of the dangers of not properly planning for a future peak is that its difficult to tell how fast the oil will run out in comparison to other sources being scaled up. fuel shortages could literally bring the economy to a screaching halt if not handled correctly.
blike Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 Yawn. Reminds me of the Bible thumpers who quote 'whatever' to prove some point and not to promote science. Anyone can run around the Internet and go crazy with the copy button. How about some original thoughts? OK Geoguy' date=' how about the Hirsch report?The GAO report? The Australian Senate committee? The Australian Broadcasting Corporation's 4 Corners? The Australian Broadcasting Corporation's science show Catalyst? Sorry mate, but even government Senators and the ABC are buying into these "tub - thumping" scientific reports and concerns. If you read their reports in detail and without any prior prejudices , it would help advance the scientific discussion on this BB.[/quote']Why did you respond to his call for original thought and less copy & paste with more copy and paste? Listen, you guys can argue over this all you want. But good discussions and arguments require novel thought on the part of both parties -- if only to tailor the response to the particular objector. Indeed we all use information and resources to aid our judgment, but it is the unique synthesis of these ideas that each person presents which makes the argument interesting and worthwhile. So why don't we all start using references to support our own arguments, rather than letting the documents argue for themselves.
blike Posted April 11, 2007 Posted April 11, 2007 One of my frustrations in discussing this subject is that my opinion doesn't matter diddly squat. I am quite open about not being a trained scientist, and am also quite open about the fact that I have just read quite a few executive summaries of various energy reports. So if I argue something in my own right, I am attacked as a illiterate dummy, but if I argue something based on the authority of government reports and inquiries, or serious analysis of the figures, I am a tub-thumping bible basher (because I quote some science reports?)Your opinion is what we are interested in. Facts rarely speak for themselves. If they did, nobody would argue over anything. Supplement opinion with said documents, reports, studies, etc. Recognize opinion as such and be careful not to speak for reports you did not write. Lord knows how many times I've done that.
Recommended Posts