America has all the oil it needs

[ardillacid]

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050831/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_study_1"]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a..._ge/oil_study_1[/url]

wow thats crazy, more oil here than the whole middle east? what are we waiting for?

[matt_in_ohio]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='Sep 8 2005, 12:14 AM'][url="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050831/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_study_1"]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a..._ge/oil_study_1[/url]

wow thats crazy, more oil here than the whole middle east? what are we waiting for?
[right][snapback]714997[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That is interesting. Thanks for that.

Personally, I'd still rather see us develop more hybrid technology. Or make better use of solar power and water engines.

I saw today where BMW was joining a group formed by GM and Chrysler to develop better hybrid technology. In the long run, I think that will be better for ourselves and the environment...

[philothea]

Oh, what a can of worms...

Some talk about oil:

In the middle east the crude oil squirts out of the ground all on its own. It's like water is here. Other places you have to build a big drilling platform or rig, and pump it, but still, the crude oil comes out pretty easily.

Worldwide, over the last decade or so, demand for oil has increased, largely because of China's industrialization. So, the price of crude oil has slowly crept up. This is not really indicative of the supply, though, because oil producers (the ones who get it out of the ground) are careful to not pump out [i]too[/i] much crude. Because that would drop the price. That's what OPEC does -- they get together and decide how much each nation is going to produce, and how much they'll charge. (In the USA this kind of business practice is illegal! But we have no real power over them. Fortunately oil does come from other places than the Middle East or we'd really be in trouble.)

Now, oil shale is rock that has little bits of crude oil throughout it. It looks like ordinary darkish-looking rock, if I remember correctly. It needs to be mined, pulverized, and heated to get the oil out, and then you have a bunch of icky pulverized rock to dispose of, and a big hole in the ground. This is whole process is expensive, difficult, and takes a lot of time to get set up.

What do you think happens if we set up some massive oil shale processing facilities? The guys at OPEC and elsewhere just pump a little bit more crude out of the ground (costing them nothing) to drop the price of oil so that oil shale refining is no longer economical.

This is the same problem with using corn to get ethanol, or natural gas to get methanol. Those are inherently expensive processes... while crude oil just squirts out of the ground.

While I'm babbling, one more issue. The current hike in gas prices is not really because of the cost of crude oil -- though it is higher, it's not [i]that[/i] high. Gasoline is expensive in this country because inventory is low. Refineries have not been keeping up with demand, thanks to so many people purchasing so many vehicles with poor gas mileage. Supply goes down, price goes up: simple capitalism. Of course, the gasoline companies don't have all that much motivation to build more refineries, as they are making billions of dollars off the inflated prices...

Hurricane Katrina took down (IIRC) eight more refineries, and two oil platforms. I don't know how many refineries are currently in operation, but I gather that was a significant number, and all of them weren't keeping up with demand anyway. So, up goes the price again.

[Old_Joe]

Very true. They also can get oil from oil shale by drilling holes into the rock and inserting microwave rods to heat the rock. Of course like you said this is very impractical, time consuming, and expensive.

[argent_paladin]

"Colorado Operations Manager Ken Brown said Shell estimates its process would be profitable with oil prices at $25 to $30 a barrel, if the technology works out."
[url="http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2005/04/08/news/c36c2e8a5148219e87256fdd005ac7b1.txt"]http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/...fdd005ac7b1.txt[/url]
If true, not even OPEC could pump enough oil to keep the price below $25 indefinitely, especially with the growing demand in China.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

In our backyard? Canada?












:

[Didacus]

This oil-shale thing remains a shot in the dark as far as I am concerned. Don't expect any impact soon, or impacts at all!


[quote]The RAND researchers estimate the federal, state and local governments would rake in about $10 billion a year from lease payments, royalties and taxes if the industry produced 3 million barrels a day.

Production would also likely cause oil prices to fall by as much as 5 percent, saving American oil consumers up to $20 billion a year and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.[/quote]

3 million barrels a day, to add to current 85 million barrels world wide? This in the coming 3-5 years , is going to be just a drop in the bucket I'm afraid.(if everything works out, and guess what, it would be nothing less than an amazing feat to produce 3 million barrels within 5 years)

In five years from now, the US thirst for oil + its decline in oil production will surpass that 3 million mark. The US oil production peaked in the 70s, and has been dropping ever since.

The world's oil thirst is increasing by nearly 1 to 1.5 million barrels per year!

All the giant oil fields in the world have peaked, Ghawar the mother of all giants peaked some years back (impossible to tell precisely when because the house of Saud is very secretive), and Cantarell is set for major decline in the coming years (Cantarell was used by the Mexicans as the main 'piggy bank' of the nation).


In the end, the oil shales, even if the hype from that article is just every bit what it is claimed to be, will have the impact of a simple 'mitigating' factor in the grand scheme of things. That is to say, it might, might, drop prices at the pump by 1%.

The arcticle said the ol shales would drop prices possibly by 5%. this might be true, if oil shales produced 3 million barrels today, not if it produces 3 million barrels in 5 years. Besides, 5%!? you'll be paying 3$ per gallon instead of 3.15$? Big deal.

And five years from now, what will oil prices be then? Instead of paying 10.50$ per gallon, you'll be paying 10$!? Who cares... still too expensive for the majority of people to lead a comfortable life.





Hold on to your horses, things will get worse long before they get any better.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Sep 8 2005, 07:21 AM']In our backyard?  Canada?
    :
[right][snapback]715275[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

cute...

[toledo_jesus]

what about Alaska? Eskimos need jobs too. I know we want to preserve the [color=gray][b]frozen wasteland[/b][/color] for the wandering whatever, but I'd like cheap gas.

[Didacus]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Sep 8 2005, 07:44 AM']what about Alaska?  Eskimos need jobs too.  I know we want to preserve the [color=gray][b]frozen wasteland[/b][/color] for the wandering whatever, but I'd like cheap gas.
[right][snapback]715295[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I read an article a few months back how the Alaska fishing industry was going to transform fish residue into petroleum because it is less expensive produce fuel from fish than it is to transport it to those remote regions.


And the Alaskan reserves are not all that great either.

But there is that one national park htat has been open for development last year. It was suppose to be an 'emergency national reserve', mainly in the case a war broke out.

The US, any you look at it, is on its last few drops of cheap oil, and the rest of the world (especially the Arab world, go figure) is gong to try and bleed the US dry by selling it oil at the most expensive cost possible.

Pop quiz.... which nation is the biggest producer of oil since 2004?!?!?





any guesses?








any guesses now?









Russia has surpassed Saudi Arabia as the biggest oil producer in the world as of 2004. Furthermore, the russian goverment is leading the way in trying to sell their oil in the open market in Euros rather than US$. This is one of the major causes of the US$' fall in the last couple of years. Just with a few announcements from the Russian goverment pertaining to their oil strategy caused nations like Japan to 'dump' billion of US$ they had previously held in their reserves.

This is also another reason why it was so important to the Bush admin. to enter Iraq... Saddam H. was one of the only players as far as oil production who made oil available on the world market in Euros rather than US$. Now the US and the Brits are in Iraq... Iraq magically sells oil in US$ now! Coincidence?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Sep 8 2005, 08:31 AM']cute...
[right][snapback]715285[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[philothea]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Sep 8 2005, 07:44 AM']what about Alaska?  Eskimos need jobs too.  I know we want to preserve the [color=gray][b]frozen wasteland[/b][/color] for the wandering whatever, but I'd like cheap gas.
[right][snapback]715295[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
All the oil in Alaska wouldn't make a penny's difference at the pump.

It would, however, increase revenues for locals, and increase the profits for oil refineries.

[Old_Joe]

Suffice it to say, that we don't know how much oil is in Alaska. There is a wide range of reports.

[ViolaPower3000]

Yeah it's crazy! isn't texas supposed to have Oil right here? I don't know what they are talking about getting it from a differnt country and them uping the prices.

[crusader1234]

I don't get why people are still on the hunt for fossil fuels when there are other - more economically and environmentally friendly - options to explore. Ethanol, Biodiesel, & Biomass are all renewable sources of fuel which have net CO2 emissions at a grand total of zero or even less. Beyond that, hybrid technologies are advancing rapidly. Seeing as how processing oil shale is so expensive, wouldn't that money be better invested into making the renewable energy sources more viable? If people (Governments, especially) would invest more money into exploring these options instead of running around looking for crude we'd all be better off.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Sep 8 2005, 07:30 AM']Hold on to your horses, things will get worse long before they get any better.
[right][snapback]715284[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Horses.... now there's an idea....

[philothea]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Sep 8 2005, 11:19 AM']I don't get why people are still on the hunt for fossil fuels when there are other - more economically and environmentally friendly - options to explore.  Ethanol, Biodiesel, & Biomass are all renewable sources of fuel which have net CO2 emissions at a grand total of zero or even less.  Beyond that, hybrid technologies are advancing rapidly.  Seeing as how processing oil shale is so expensive, wouldn't that money be better invested into making the renewable energy sources more viable?  If people (Governments, especially) would invest more money into exploring these options instead of running around looking for crude we'd all be better off.
[right][snapback]715643[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Ethanol comes from corn and biodiesel comes from soybeans, right? Both of those are expensive and difficult to produce, and they're also the foundation of our food supply. I don't have actual numbers, but suspect that [i]if[/i] the USA could produce enough crop-based fuel to supply the demand, there would be none left for food. And you have to convince the buyers to switch to ethanol or biodiesel while gasoline is still (for now) cheaper.

Biomass certainly is a good idea too, but that produces methane, right? That's a little harder to use in cars, and you need a whole lotta biomass to get to work every day.

It's just chemistry. Crude oil is hundreds of thousands of years of concentrated organic energy. Corn is one year of organic energy. Our society is set up so that nearly everyone uses cars powered by these dreadfully inefficient, fairly primitive engines ALL THE TIME.

Hybrid cars are definitely a good step, but it may be too late. All the hybrids do is increase efficency -- they still need gasoline. How many people can and will buy one? We should have been striving for efficiency and looking for alternatives 30 years ago. Time to move to the city and get a bicycle...

[crusader1234]

Ethanol actually produces 3/4 as much energy as crude... and I didn't say everyone should just switch over, just that we need to put money into exploring alternative energy sources. If we're just going to dismiss all possibilities because its not presently viable, then we might as well go back to watching movies on Beta, listening to our 8-Tracks, and taking ships across the ocean.

[Didacus]

Please allow me to elaborate and bring a few corrections:

[quote name='philothea' date='Sep 8 2005, 11:53 AM']Ethanol comes from corn and biodiesel comes from soybeans, right?  Both of those are expensive and difficult to produce, and they're also the foundation of our food supply.  I don't have actual numbers, but suspect that [i]if[/i] the USA could produce enough crop-based fuel to supply the demand, there would be none left for food.  And you have to convince the buyers to switch to ethanol or biodiesel while gasoline is still (for now) cheaper.
[/quote]

You are correct on account that crops producing fuel do not produce food and this is problematic.

Two main reasons why this does not materialize:
1. These crops are aided in their growth by pesticides and fertilizers. The main source of both these items are: oil. Gasoline is actually only one of countless products that comes from oil. Thus, as oil prices rise, so does the price of ethanol and other crops.

2. Most farming is done with the aid of machinery that require oil. You might say that the machinery can technically run on ethanol in order to produce ethanol, but this fuel is simply harder to produce than oil. Thus as oil prices increase, so does the price of crops in general. And if you switch to ethanol to run your machinery, your EROI (energy return on energy invested) takes a hit, making the final product even less competive.


[quote name='philothea' date='Sep 8 2005, 11:53 AM']
Biomass certainly is a good idea too, but that produces methane, right?  That's a little harder to use in cars, and you need a whole lotta biomass to get to work every day.

It's just chemistry.  Crude oil is hundreds of thousands of years of concentrated organic energy.  Corn is one year of organic energy.  Our society is set up so that nearly everyone uses cars powered by these dreadfully inefficient, fairly primitive engines ALL THE TIME. 
[/quote]

Methane is the product from biomass that is the 'fuel' of biomass. Though this is a fairly good fuel (like natural gas, just not as good), the harvesting, transportation and consumption of this product is harder than oil, for the reasons expressed in the quote above.

[quote name='philothea' date='Sep 8 2005, 11:53 AM']
Hybrid cars are definitely a good step, but it may be too late.  All the hybrids do is increase efficency -- they still need gasoline.  How many people can and will buy one?  We should have been striving for efficiency and looking for alternatives 30 years ago.  Time to move to the city and get a bicycle...
[right][snapback]715697[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The fallout of hybrid cars is mainly due to your source of electricity.

POP question:

Why is an electric car in Ontario a bigger polluter than the gasoline engine, whereas the same electric car in Quebec is a far lesser polluter?

Because Quebec produces electricity from HydroDams, which barely cause pollution. Ontario produces the majority of its electricity by burning coal, which is one of the worst polluters in the world as far as energy sources are concerned.

Take a look when you have the chance at how much electricity in the US is actually produced by burning oil. Consider that this electrical production would have to be replaced as well as gasoline into engines if the flow of oil should stop. Then ponder a while if you will the sheer size and magnitude of the industrial machine of the US, and you might get an idea of just how dramatic the problem really is.




On a final note:

[quote]I don't get why people are still on the hunt for fossil fuels when there are other - more economically and environmentally friendly - options to explore.  Ethanol, Biodiesel, & Biomass are all renewable sources of fuel which have net CO2 emissions at a grand total of zero or even less.[/quote]

This is incorrect. Biodiesel, ethanol and biomass produce almost as much CO2 as contemporary fossil fuels, it is in the other sources of pollution, such as NOx (nitrates released in the air) and others that these fuels are considered 'cleaner'.

Of corse one can argue that producing these alternate fuels 'consumes' as much CO2 thus the net addition is nothing to the environment. However, this would occur weather the crops prodcued ethanol, or wheat, or simply was used to grow trees. No extra effort required. Thus this argument is empty.


Never thought Id use this smiley around here... lol

[Old_Joe]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Sep 8 2005, 07:21 AM']In our backyard?  Canada?
    :
[right][snapback]715275[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, Mexico! didn't you read the article?