Notices
Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: We are not addicted to oil

  1. #1 We are not addicted to oil 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    317
    We are not addicted to oil. We are addicted to taking our kids to school, driving our parents to their doctors and transporting food from farms to cities. When crude exceeds $75 a barrel, it becomes increasingly expensive to perform these tasks. We need to exhaust all options. We need to conserve, make optimum use of our resources. We need to continue to import foreign oil while expanding off-shore drilling at home. We need to drill in Alaska. We need an ongoing effort to develop alternative fuels for the future.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore CaveatLector's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Turn left at the second light, three houses down on the right. You can't miss it.
    Posts
    152
    And the choir sends a resounding, Amen.

    The US has some of the largest unused oil reserves in the world. As long as the environmental lobby has its say in Washington, we will continue to sporadically, and dutifully, shoot ourselves in the foot.


    .
    .
    .
    Cogito, ergo doleo.

    There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
    Oscar Levant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by CaveatLector
    The US has some of the largest unused oil reserves in the world. As long as the environmental lobby has its say in Washington, we will continue to sporadically, and dutifully, shoot ourselves in the foot.
    Of all of the lobbyists to challenge, you pick the environmentalist lobby. Do you also believe in the government borrowing its way to riches?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore CaveatLector's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Turn left at the second light, three houses down on the right. You can't miss it.
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by CaveatLector
    The US has some of the largest unused oil reserves in the world. As long as the environmental lobby has its say in Washington, we will continue to sporadically, and dutifully, shoot ourselves in the foot.
    Of all of the lobbyists to challenge, you pick the environmentalist lobby.
    What on God's green earth are you talking about?
    Are you telling me you don't understand the significance of the environmental lobby restricting our ability to drill for oil domestically or increase refining capacities? Are you unaware that this increases the United State's dependence on foreign oil?
    I assume you'd prefer me to single out the Cracker Jack lobby instead?

    Do you also believe in the government borrowing its way to riches?
    This makes absolutely no sense.
    .
    .
    .
    Cogito, ergo doleo.

    There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
    Oscar Levant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    In the US at least it would help greatly if people would stop driving vehicles that get far less gas mileage then other vehicles that would do the same job. For example the person that drives the largest SUV that money can buy to and from work each day when the only person in the vehicle is the driver. To me this should be taxed heavily.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by CaveatLector
    What on God's green earth are you talking about?
    Not for long, if you would have your way.

    Are you telling me you don't understand the significance of the environmental lobby restricting our ability to drill for oil domestically or increase refining capacities?
    Of course I understand. However, it seems that what I understand is very different from what you understand.

    Are you unaware that this increases the United State's dependence on foreign oil?
    I am not unaware of this. I just do not accept your opinion that this is the root of the problem or the best way to go about alleviating the problem.

    I assume you'd prefer me to single out the Cracker Jack lobby instead?
    I believe you. I believe that you are sincere when you claim that you have zero understanding of why anyone would not jump onto your bandwagon as the only way to go. Do you really have no idea why some people might not think your solution is as wonderful as you do? With the types of assumptions that you make, both thinking that your solution is the only reasonable one and the quote that I cited above, I suggest that you read the news every once in a while for some exposure to other opinions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore CaveatLector's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Turn left at the second light, three houses down on the right. You can't miss it.
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    In the US at least it would help greatly if people would stop driving vehicles that get far less gas mileage then other vehicles that would do the same job. For example the person that drives the largest SUV that money can buy to and from work each day when the only person in the vehicle is the driver. To me this should be taxed heavily.
    While I generally disagree with levying taxes to impede personal choices, this is the first thing that needs to be done. I bought a new car last month that increased my MPG by 22.
    Building refineries and exploring for new reserves takes time. The only way to reduce the cost of oil immediately is to decrease demand.
    .
    .
    .
    Cogito, ergo doleo.

    There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
    Oscar Levant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by CaveatLector
    While I generally disagree with levying taxes to impede personal choices, this is the first thing that needs to be done. I bought a new car last month that increased my MPG by 22.
    Building refineries and exploring for new reserves takes time. The only way to reduce the cost of oil immediately is to decrease demand.
    The VW I drive gets about 29 mpg, I guess 22 is not terrible, but it's not great. Yes, I agree with you that personal choice should not be tampered with, but lets face it, most people are too stupid to make the wise choices in life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman CLaShiNgtAco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    22
    We are adicted to oil. No one walks or rides a bike anymore. People don't use public transportation or carpool as much as they should. People in suburban areas drive Hummers to the supermarket. If they have the money for a Hummer I think they could afford a more fuel efficient car. I'm not saying everyone should run out and by Hybrids or walk everywhere they go, but it wouldn't hurt to put a bit more thought into what kind of car you're driving and how often you're driving it.

    Drilling more oil is a tempory solution to the problem. Eventually we will run out of oil. And even if that isn't soon, it'll become more expensive to pump oil out of wells which will make it more expensive for us to use. We should focus more on finding other sources for energy rather then finding more places to drill.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by CLaShiNgtAco
    We are adicted to oil. No one walks or rides a bike anymore. People don't use public transportation or carpool as much as they should. People in suburban areas drive Hummers to the supermarket. If they have the money for a Hummer I think they could afford a more fuel efficient car. I'm not saying everyone should run out and by Hybrids or walk everywhere they go, but it wouldn't hurt to put a bit more thought into what kind of car you're driving and how often you're driving it.

    Drilling more oil is a tempory solution to the problem. Eventually we will run out of oil. And even if that isn't soon, it'll become more expensive to pump oil out of wells which will make it more expensive for us to use. We should focus more on finding other sources for energy rather then finding more places to drill.
    Well said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    309
    i feel guilty. my 40-year old RV gets 8 mpg highway, 5 mpg city. shoot me.
    I don't suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it

    the road to succes is never paved or clearly marked
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by chamilton333
    i feel guilty. my 40-year old RV gets 8 mpg highway, 5 mpg city. shoot me.
    You represent a minute fraction of the problem, hardly worth worrying about.

    Let's face it, people drive what they feel safe in. Many drive big trucks and SUV's because they don't want to die. They in turn end up killing many others that can't afford such lavish vehicles. Some people with large families have somewhat of an excuse, but their are other smarter options. Like minivans.

    Gas prices need to go up to about $7/gallon US in order to make people risk death in order to save money. In turn less people will die. People just have a hard time seeing this.

    If a Honda civic runs in to an SUV, the Civic will be destroyed. If and SUV hits another SUV both will get messed up (I've seen this). If however a Civic hits another Civic, people walk away. It's mass vs mass. The less of it the better the odds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore CaveatLector's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Turn left at the second light, three houses down on the right. You can't miss it.
    Posts
    152
    Drilling more oil is a tempory solution to the problem. Eventually we will run out of oil. And even if that isn't soon, it'll become more expensive to pump oil out of wells which will make it more expensive for us to use. We should focus more on finding other sources for energy rather then finding more places to drill
    This is incredibly narrow-minded. Oil is the lifeblood of the world's economy. It's easy to demonize oil and drink the kool-aid together while we chant the most current anti-big-business hackneyed quips. Pretending is always fun.
    Of course it's commendable and imperative that we should research and develop alternative energy sources. Currently, I find this to be already a exciting, popular, and progressive field. The fact is, alternative energy sources are being developed as we speak. You seem to imply that we don't have a viable and active alternative energy foundation existing in this country, and that's just not true. Screaming "FOCUS ON ALTERNATIVE ENEGY" sure makes for a handy catchphrase though.

    I'm not sure how this...
    "it'll become more expensive to pump oil out of wells which will make it more expensive for us to use"
    passes as a coherent sentence.
    For starters, it demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of the current problems with oil. Drilling is hardly the issue. Drilling is easy. The real crux of the situation resides in the refinement process of crude oil. [/b] It has been some twenty years (thank you environmental lobby) since a new refinery has been built in the United States.[b] In fact, some of our own oil is sent to neighboring countries to be refined and shipped back to us.
    Regardless of these problems, technology should be focuses on increasing the capabilities of refining heavy sour crude, which is amazingly abundant in the US. Light sweet crude reserves will undoubtedly become rare in the future.
    .
    .
    .
    Cogito, ergo doleo.

    There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
    Oscar Levant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore CaveatLector's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Turn left at the second light, three houses down on the right. You can't miss it.
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Quote Originally Posted by CaveatLector
    While I generally disagree with levying taxes to impede personal choices, this is the first thing that needs to be done. I bought a new car last month that increased my MPG by 22.
    Building refineries and exploring for new reserves takes time. The only way to reduce the cost of oil immediately is to decrease demand.
    The VW I drive gets about 29 mpg, I guess 22 is not terrible, but it's not great. Yes, I agree with you that personal choice should not be tampered with, but lets face it, most people are too stupid to make the wise choices in life.
    No, no, no....22 more, not just 22.
    About 38 highway.

    but lets face it, most people are too stupid to make the wise choices in life.
    A true, but very dangerous, statement.
    Please use caution.
    .
    .
    .
    Cogito, ergo doleo.

    There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
    Oscar Levant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    38, nice. Much better. Hat's off.

    As to pissing off stupid people, hmm...I started a forum called "The Science Forum", not "Gathering of the morons forum"

    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman CLaShiNgtAco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    22
    CaveatLector, I'm not saying that the only thing we should do is try to find other energy sources, I just believe that saying "just drill for more oil!" isn't a very good idea. If you think my statement is narrow minded why don't you believe that the answer to our oil problems is simply to drill for more oil is narrow minded?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've learned is that as the level of oil in the well decreases there is eventually not enough pressure to force it up and it has to be pumped up using methods such as beam pumps and electrical submersible pumps. This is an expensive process and is only done when oil costs enough to make it profitable.
    This is what I meant by "it'll become more expensive to pump oil out of wells which will make it more expensive for us to use"


    I do believe we should continue drilling, but I also think more regulations should be made to conserve. Cars that get 10 MPG shouldn't be sold, people should have better insulated houses, more energy efficient appliances, etc.

    I don't believe we should be drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Wildlife refuges are made to protect wildlife...not to make us look like we care about the envoirnment only until we can make a profit off of it.

    I may not know everything about this topic but I'm sharing my opinion on what I do know. I don't know much about the refinment process so I didn't say anything positive or negative about it. I never said the points I was making were the most important. I don't think I should be attacked for that.

    Also, "You seem to imply that we don't have a viable and active alternative energy foundation existing in this country, and that's just not true"
    Maybe you shouldn't assume things. I never said we didn't. I just believe that some people seem more interested in finding more oil than finding another way to make energy and it shouldn't be this way. I don't know what's going on in the government right now so I may be totally wrong but I've only read about oil, not alternative energy sources. So even if the government is working on other energy sources, it isn't publicised, and it should be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore CaveatLector's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Turn left at the second light, three houses down on the right. You can't miss it.
    Posts
    152
    I just believe that saying "just drill for more oil!" isn't a very good idea. If you think my statement is narrow minded why don't you believe that the answer to our oil problems is simply to drill for more oil is narrow minded?
    Well it's good to know you don't actually read the posts you respond to. Drilling is a minor part of the problem. New refining techniques are where attention needs to be paid. There is enough oil shale in small parts of the Rockies estimated to contain well over the current reserves in the Middle East. Refining it is the issue, not extracting it.

    ANWR is a necessary endeavor, and, borrowing some major catastrophe, won't cause major problems for the wildlife in the area. Regulations are VERY strict.
    The same doom-and-gloom surrounded the Alaskan pipeline when it went under construction. They said "Oh, we simply must think about the poor lonely Caribou. Their population will surely cease to exist when the pipes carrying the black demon are built." Turns out that the Caribou love the pipeline’s warmth it provides in the winter and has actually helped increase local populations.
    ANWR is a barren wasteland 8 months out of the year. Just about the entire state of Alaska, which is enormous, is a wildlife refuge. A thousand acres or so will simply not be missed. It's about perspective, not knee-jerk emotional responses.

    Drilling off of the coast of Florida is also necessary. Currently it's held up by, not just environmentalists, but a strong, wealthy group of folks who refuse to have residents of multi-million dollar condos look out their windows and see offshore oil rigs. Coastal real estate is big, big business in Florida.

    I don't know what's going on in the government right now so I may be totally wrong but I've only read about oil, not alternative energy sources. So even if the government is working on other energy sources, it isn't publicised, and it should be.
    Um, okay. I'd suggest paying more attention.

    Conservation is absolutely necessary, so we agree there at least.


    ...not to make us look like we care about the envoirnment only until we can make a profit off of it.
    Good grief.
    Are you not aware that there are more NATURAL resources other than oil?
    .
    .
    .
    Cogito, ergo doleo.

    There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
    Oscar Levant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman CLaShiNgtAco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    22
    It's not that easy to pay attention to the news when you don't have TV and you're not old enough to subscribe to a newspaper. I'm rarely online but when I am on I try to catch up.

    My first post here wasn't meant to directly respond to anything except that I think we are adicted to oil. Regardless of the problem with oil we are addicted to it and it will eventually become very expensive (whether it's the refining or extracting that's the expensive part.) The mentality that we should just drill for more oil to solve the problem is dangerous. I don't believe that the only energy source we should use should be renewable but we can't continue to rely on oil like we do now. We use 19.6 million barrels per day (I may be wrong, this is just what I read) and ANWR has an estimated 10-27 billion barrels of oil we can collect. So unless I'm doing my math wrong, drilling in Alaska won't help us for long.

    I don't see the point in making something a refuge if we're going to interfere with it anyway. I'm not totally against drilling in Alaska I just don't see why we should make something a refuge then have a nationwide debate on whether we should drill in it or not. I think it could be helpful to drill there, but it won't solve the problem.

    Oil in shale is much more expensive to extract than ground oil. Companies won't even mine it unless the price of oil is above $40 a barrel. So even if we do use shale oil it's going to be expensive. 40% of the energy value of oil shale is consumed making it.
    It also makes a carcinogen.

    It isn't the cost of processing oil that's increasing the price, it's supply and demand. So even if there was a less expensive way to refine oil I doubt the price would drop by much.

    And I am aware that there are other natural sources of energy other than oil but that's not what this thread is about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Gas prices need to go up to about $7/gallon US in order to make people risk death in order to save money. In turn less people will die. People just have a hard time seeing this.
    We actually pay close to $7/gallon if I calculate it correctly (it's about 1.52 euro/litre at the moment). Maybe this explains why quite a lot of people use public transport here, besides the fact that public transport connections are simply better and more extensive. Nearly everyone is able to get where s/he wants to with public transport here, so it's only a matter of choice.

    And yes, SUV's should be banned! :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore CaveatLector's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Turn left at the second light, three houses down on the right. You can't miss it.
    Posts
    152
    It's not that easy to pay attention to the news when you don't have TV and you're not old enough to subscribe to a newspaper. I'm rarely online but when I am on I try to catch up.
    That's respectable. But why then have an opinion on something you haven't researched at all?


    I don't see the point in making something a refuge if we're going to interfere with it anyway.
    It is a very small part of the overall refuge. Oil was not known to exist there in such quantities until later anyway. Land rezoning is very common.

    Oil in shale is much more expensive to extract than ground oil. Companies won't even mine it unless the price of oil is above $40 a barrel. So even if we do use shale oil it's going to be expensive. 40% of the energy value of oil shale is consumed making it.
    It also makes a carcinogen.
    This is the first good point you've made. Obviously, you've done some research. Bravo.

    A few points.
    1. Oil is currently over $75 per barrel.
    2. I would cast serious doubt on the notion that oil will be reduced to $40 a barrel in the future.
    3. Technology will inevitably provide more efficient ways to extract shale oil, reducing production costs, as it has done for "ground oil."


    It isn't the cost of processing oil that's increasing the price, it's supply and demand.
    What?

    Production directly regulates supply. Obviously the only way to reduce oil costs significantly and immediately is to reduce demand, as I said a few posts back.



    What folks like you fail to comprehend are the immense and daunting tasks of actually getting the WORLD'S economies off of oil. The logistics are virtually incomprehensible. It will take decades upon decades.
    So while investigating alternative energy sources is absolutely necessary and should be thoroughly funded, oil will continue to be the lifeblood of the economy for years and years to come no matter how much folks kick and scream, demonize, and exaggerate about oil/companies and their evil, vile, putrid profits. And it will continue to make me sick.
    So we both lose.
    .
    .
    .
    Cogito, ergo doleo.

    There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
    Oscar Levant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman CLaShiNgtAco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    22
    I didn't say I lived in a cave. I've heard some news, but I'm not a scholar on the subject. The point of me saying shale oil was $40 a barrel was simply to show that it's more expensive. And even if it would last us 400 years (which I doubt since the US is getting so fat) it'll still probably be pretty expensive to buy.

    I'm not saying we should just stop using oil. I never said that. I doubt demand is going to go down though. Oil companies would have to generate a lot of oil for that to happen and I just don't see that happening.

    I said we should stop depending on oil. I didn't say anything from a world view because the first post was that people are adicted to oil, not the world's economies. That doesn't mean I don't think the world's economies need to be less dependent on oil. You assume a lot.

    And honestly, I don't see why you feel the need to attack everything I say. If have different opinions, so what? I'm not trying to change your mind. So why are you trying to change mine? If you think I'm uneducated, fine. Why are you arguing with someone who you think is so dumb compared to you? Do you really think you're going to make me see any differently?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore CaveatLector's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Turn left at the second light, three houses down on the right. You can't miss it.
    Posts
    152
    The point of me saying shale oil was $40 a barrel was simply to show that it's more expensive.
    I don't understand.
    Is it more expensive at $40/barrel or is it that oil shale is not economical to produce until prices are over $40/barrel?


    I didn't say anything from a world view because the first post was that people are adicted to oil, not the world's economies.
    The economy is made up of people, doing things, and using oil.
    .
    .
    .
    Cogito, ergo doleo.

    There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
    Oscar Levant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman CLaShiNgtAco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    22
    Oil shale isn't economical to produce unless oil is over $40 per barrel.

    What folks like you fail to comprehend are the immense and daunting tasks of actually getting the WORLD'S economies off of oil

    Why did you bother saying that? How is it that I don't comprehend that, when in your last post you seem to be saying the same thing I did. People should stop using oil...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore CaveatLector's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Turn left at the second light, three houses down on the right. You can't miss it.
    Posts
    152
    Why did you bother saying that? How is it that I don't comprehend that, when in your last post you seem to be saying the same thing I did. People should stop using oil...
    What I said earlier had to do with decreasing demand to lower prices.

    What the statement in question means is that it will take years upon years to slowly wean the world from our comfortable, reliable black milk bottle. The logistics are immensely complicated. While success for alternative energy can be seen progressing on a local scale, the time it will take it to trickle down to the rest of the world is daunting to say the least.
    Like it or not, we are stuck with using oil for quite a while. We should stop demonizing the industry, and the product, and put as much energy as possible into solving our short-term goals (refineries, shale, etc...) as we do our long-term.
    In other words, lose the red tape and lobby ill-will and focus on finding some real, economically sound, environmentally cautious solutions.
    .
    .
    .
    Cogito, ergo doleo.

    There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
    Oscar Levant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman Robert M. Blevins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle, Washington State, USA
    Posts
    25
    In the novel 'Say Goodbye To The Sun,' the original version was written in 1982, and then re-released in 2002. The story takes place in 2049.

    One of the main characters, an astronaut named Dave Jennings, lives on a small ranch in Oregon, when he is not 'working.' It is mentioned in the book that gasoline costs over ten dollars a gallon now...and that he converted his two motorcycles and a jeep to run on alcohol.

    This is very likely to happen more and more as time goes on. Oil will not just 'run out' suddenly. Demand will rise steadily, prices will rise, and the market will force alternate energy sources to be used or created to move our butts around the planet.

    Some type of economic collapse is bound to happen. Call it a transition period. There will be adjustments in lifestyles and other things during this time. The market will eventually recover. Hopefully, we won't burn up the planet in the meantime or render it uninhabitable.

    On a side note, 'Say Goodbye' predicted 3-D imaging using laser holograms, and a host of other things we take for granted today. 8)
    'Don't give up reaching for the stars...
    just build yourself a bigger ladder.'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    the Canadian oil sands currently produce over 50% of the oil used in that nation and Canada is one of the US largest suppliers. we probably use more than most think. the cost is about 40.00 per but is dropping fast as the technology improves. these reserves and those in the western US are thought to have about 100 year supply (total world daily consumption) and the calculation assumes an increase. that is if we cut increase to zero, we have a 2-300 year supply from that source. keep in mind this is US dollar 35 and much of the cost per barrel includes much research and purchase of additional equipment. this is also thick oil and is refined in Canada. the US has only one thick oil company refining (Valero) and primarily concern themselves with Blacktop road material, greases and very little for fuels. sweet oil is refined in the US for gas-jet fuel or heating oil.

    50.00 oil is probably the current bottom, or at least this is what the traders in the commodity feel. this or oil at 75.00 is not expected to alter activity or the overall economy of any nation. if it were to go higher, some alternative energy would come into play and hold that price close to 75.00. fuels for modified equipment are not new and used by many large firms, such as Fed Ex, US Postal and some larger taxi cab business. the problems with a mass change over are infrastructure, not manufacturing of vehicles. that is the autos could be produced, but to get fuel would be near impossible and this has much to do with environmental groups as economics. the process will be slow but Ford Motor Company is building fuel stations to accommodate future productions of some of there alternative fuel cars along certain routes.

    ethanol, much talked about is not cost affective but is self creating a system to handle many fuels other than gasoline. pipelines and older filling station holding tanks were not built to handle that chemical combination and would cause massive leakage if used to facilitate. new tanks and pipelines will be built with materials to handle even 100% ethanol or most any conceivable oil alternative. electric and battery operated vehicle have much the same problems and in time you can pull into a station getting your battery changed (not charged) in less time it takes to fill up. for now you best get home to recharge.

    i understand this thread is "environmental issues", but there is so much mis understanding on "fuel issues", i have to post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman Robert M. Blevins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle, Washington State, USA
    Posts
    25
    Problem:

    If we were really silly enough to continue to burn fossil fuels for another one hundred years to move our vehicles around the planet, well...

    It probably won't matter after that time if we run out of fuel. We may as well move to Venus. Conditions would soon be about the same as Earth. 8)
    'Don't give up reaching for the stars...
    just build yourself a bigger ladder.'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert M. Blevins
    Problem:

    If we were really silly enough to continue to burn fossil fuels for another one hundred years to move our vehicles around the planet, well...

    It probably won't matter after that time if we run out of fuel. We may as well move to Venus. Conditions would soon be about the same as Earth. 8)
    we will be burning fossil fuels in a hundred years, maybe 200 years and co2 emissions will be no more than they are now or less. the process over to other forms of energy will not stop overnight, especially with the expected increase in the Asian economy. on top of that and to make your day the world population will be between 12 and 20 billion people, with all what it takes to support that population.

    the animal drawn carts prevalent around Asia, India and most of Africa will be eliminated in total and currently do more environmental damage than any auto today (per unit), not getting into medical or hygiene issues.
    there will be plenty of oil still around when we do stop using.

    what i don't know is what nature has in store. in 200 years if i am correct temperatures will have peaked or close to it and will head back down in the next 2-500 years. if the people that should know are correct, we are peaking and temperatures will start decreasing in the next 50 years. all in all not much off what they have been the past 100 years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman Robert M. Blevins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle, Washington State, USA
    Posts
    25
    Time to look around...
    Time to do some research... 8)

    You can't pump 700 million tons of CO-2 into the atmosphere each year, while cutting down trees at the same time...

    It is bound to have some negative results on the planet.

    Jackson 33 says:
    I inserted my comments in red on this post.

    "we will be burning fossil fuels in a hundred years, maybe 200 years and co2 emissions will be no more than they are now or less. (DOUBTFUL. FOSSIL FUELS WILL DECLINE FAR BEFORE THESE DATES) the process over to other forms of energy will not stop overnight, especially with the expected increase in the Asian economy. on top of that and to make your day the world population will be between 12 and 20 billion people, with all what it takes to support that population. (DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING, FAMINE, AND OTHER FACTORS, THE PLANET IS UNABLE TO COMPLETELY SUPPORT THE HUMAN LIFE IT HAS NOW. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK WE CAN SUPPORT THREE TIMES OUR PRESENT NUMBER?)

    the animal drawn carts prevalent around Asia, India and most of Africa will be eliminated in total and currently do more environmental damage than any auto today (per unit), not getting into medical or hygiene issues. (AUTOS AND MANUFACTURING DO PLENTY OF DAMAGE. ANIMAL AND HORSE DRAWN CARTS HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, AND HAVE BEEN RELETIVELY HARMLESS, NOR ARE THEY A GLOBAL-SCALE FACTOR.)
    there will be plenty of oil still around when we do stop using. (THIS IS REVERSE THINKING. WE WILL STOP USING OIL WHEN IT RUNS OUT...)

    what i don't know is what nature has in store. (NOT GOOD. IT'S NOT NICE TO FOOL MOTHER NATURE...LOL)in 200 years if i am correct temperatures will have peaked or close to it and will head back down in the next 2-500 years. (YOU DON'T KNOW THIS) if the people that should know are correct, we are peaking and temperatures will start decreasing in the next 50 years. all in all not much off what they have been the past 100 years.(ANOTHER THEORY, ONLY. NOT SUPPORTED BY THE PRESENTLY KNOWN FACTS.)
    Contribute to the Global Warming Book.
    http://www.adventurebooksofseattle.c...armingbook.htm
    'Don't give up reaching for the stars...
    just build yourself a bigger ladder.'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman kristian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by CaveatLector
    And the choir sends a resounding, Amen.

    The US has some of the largest unused oil reserves in the world. As long as the environmental lobby has its say in Washington, we will continue to sporadically, and dutifully, shoot ourselves in the foot.
    US oil production peaked in the 70s, at about 10 million barrels a day. Current production is about 5,2 million barrels a day.

    Are you saying that increased drilling in Alaska will help you regain those lost 5 million barrels a day?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman kristian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by CaveatLector
    The US has some of the largest unused oil reserves in the world.
    BTW, the estimated US reserves are about 20 billion barrels. Saudia Arabia claims to have 250, Iran 132, Iraq 115, Kuwait 99, Venezuela 78, etc. (Source: wikipedia)

    So US reserves aren't really that big.

    PS: And of course I know that the above mentioned reserves probably are exaggerated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    oil reserves are in ground, known and drillable. in the past three days, over 5 billion barrels were added, from Indonesia and Vietnam. Shell has recently bought rights in the Arctic. gulf of Mexico finds and many others are not called known reserves. exploration continues and new found oil reserves are common.

    yes, not including National stored reserves the US has about 21 BB. the big picture however shows in all estimates over a trillion barrels in known reserve and some go to 1.4 trillion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    yes, not including National stored reserves the US has about 21 BB. the big picture however shows in all estimates over a trillion barrels in known reserve and some go to 1.4 trillion.
    One day I would love to visit the planet you live on Jackson, just to see what it is like there. :?
    Would you be good enough to quote a source on this interesting statistic. Please. Pretty please, with blue ribbons on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    yes, not including National stored reserves the US has about 21 BB. the big picture however shows in all estimates over a trillion barrels in known reserve and some go to 1.4 trillion.
    One day I would love to visit the planet you live on Jackson, just to see what it is like there. :?
    Would you be good enough to quote a source on this interesting statistic. Please. Pretty please, with blue ribbons on.
    the day i wrote that i googled, world oil reserves. my thought was the US was seriously underestimated. did check two or three sources, but was wrong, on US. you object to my presence, but assume your questioning the trillion which was noted as 1,400 billion and top estimate of WR. the new finds were also in one of the articles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    since its second nature for you to ask for a source, it has occurred to me you may not know how to find your own. i do use google, since it will direct you to a site in the intended subject. that is if i go to info.com, i will need to follow to what i want. google an issue and then info, i am where wanted.

    with your rather violent, though predictable response i rechecked the area and reached the same conclusions. the medium is at infoplease.com, and shows over 1.2 trillion barrels held in proved reserves. there are several good articles as well, which may interest you, since i recall this being your professional field. including the purchase of drilling rights in the Artic by Shell USA, not Shell Canada and many current projects which some feel will add...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by kristian
    Quote Originally Posted by CaveatLector
    The US has some of the largest unused oil reserves in the world.
    BTW, the estimated US reserves are about 20 billion barrels. Saudia Arabia claims to have 250, Iran 132, Iraq 115, Kuwait 99, Venezuela 78, etc. (Source: wikipedia)

    So US reserves aren't really that big.

    PS: And of course I know that the above mentioned reserves probably are exaggerated.
    i didn't address your "exaggerated" comment. no this is not likely as much oil in many places are know, but not available to the markets. shale or oil sands in the US alone would triple or more the known reserves. likewise the oils known in places where we cannot drill off our coast and in Alaska. my guess is our known (not available) reserves would blow your mind as well as the oil markets. 1.00 gas would serve no purpose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •