Fantasy, a what if (about oil)

[jeninflorida]

What if we leave Iraq, civil war breaks out and a new power takes control. Next, Iran and the new Iraq make a pack with China. That means, no oil for the U.S., and then of course, Venezuela joins them. So, then what will the u.s. do?

In many ways, the west has been very greedy with oil. I think the u.s. alone consumes 50% a year of this resource (I’m sure that I’m off on this stat, think its higher). As China grows, and every person purchases an automobile, don’t they have the right for more gas to fuel all these car’s?

My thought, I think Russia will become the largest oil producing nation in five years. Can the u.s. wait that long? How long can we go with out oil from the Middle East? Should we pump a billion dollars into creating a new fuel source (what ever this might be, maybe solar cars)?

I’m not one for new taxes, as its like cancer. Once you have it, it’s so hard to remove it. Let’s face it, once the government finds a revenue source, they never want to let go!

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

They're working on alternative fuels, just not fast enough. More can be done. To me, it's less an issue of being greedy as being shortsighted. If the more advanced went for a more advanced fuel, then we wouldn't need oil, oil would have less power in our politics (an end to oilmen in the White House), and the developing countries could pick up the slack in fossil fuels, at least until the alternative fuels become cheap enough to stop polluting the atmosphere. Just my take on it. But don't count on that with our incumbent President.

 

[BlackShanglan]

You know, I'm glad I'm not the only one who sometimes sees a moral dimension to this. I do tend to feel that we've been fairly greedy with oil and resources. I'm not keen to suffer a sharp reduction in my standard of living, but I can't really claim with any conviction that we have a right to keep consuming oil at the rate we are. I'm hoping that alternative energies will help provide a solution; I imagine that they're going to have to one way or another, however inefficient or expensive they may be, as the oil will ultimately run out.

 

[rgraham666]

You know when we'll get solar energy? When Exxon figures out a way to bring it to us in a truck.

I don't think the U.S. and Canada will make the turn on converting to alternate energy sources. It's too big a risk for corporations to really take a stab at, the energy companies have our governments by the nuts and our lifestyle is predicated on abundantly available oil. A lifestyle most of us are unwilling to change.

Shrugs. All great societies fall sooner or later. Pity I'm around to see ours go.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

You know when we'll get solar energy? When Exxon figures out a way to bring it to us in a truck.

I don't think the U.S. and Canada will make the turn on converting to alternate energy sources. It's too big a risk for corporations to really take a stab at, the energy companies have our governments by the nuts and our lifestyle is predicated on abundantly available oil. A lifestyle most of us are unwilling to change.

Shrugs. All great societies fall sooner or later. Pity I'm around to see ours go.

If oil brings us down, it will make our story change from an epic to a farce. How did Eliot put it? Not with a bang but with a whmper. That seems to sum up the North American powers (well, unless one or both of our countries can manage to get its act together somehow). The superpower is dead, long live the superpower. Something tells me to bet on Europe and China. Not a happy thought for an American patriot.

 

[amicus]

Good lord! One can overlook the musings of the working girl in Florida...but, sighs, the rest of you know better and she doesn't know you are putting her and anyone else silly enough to listen on the dumb list.

There are sufficient fossil fuel reserves in the continental US, the continental shelf and in Canada and Alaska already discovered and a quantum leap in what has not yet been explored to keep American energy independent for the next 500 years. And surely by that time, economic alternative sources will long be competing.

Coal in the US...reserves of 500 years. Natural Gas in Canada, 500 years, offshore oil on both the east and west coasts 250 years at the present rates of consumption.

China and Russia as possible world powers? You must be joking, both those sad nations are on the verge of degenerating into a squabble of adjacent warlords and when communism crumples in China, as it inevitably will, there will be a centuries long internal struggle between opposing little war like states, if they can find enough spears and longbows, as the technology they will be left with is capable of nothing more sophisticated...


amicus...

 

[rgraham666]

I'll quibble about one thing, jenin.

It will be a long time before everyone in China can afford a car.

Also, it might be unnecessary for them to do so, considering how urbanised they are.

On top of that, they may not have the space for the roads required for that many cars.

And finally, I'm not sure the local ecology could handle that much pollution. They're already suffering badly in some places. I understand the air in Shanghai is often nearly unbreathable.

We should worry about the pollution as well. Pollution doesn't respect national borders and contributes to climate change.

 

[TheEarl]

There are sufficient fossil fuel reserves in the continental US, the continental shelf and in Canada and Alaska already discovered and a quantum leap in what has not yet been explored to keep American energy independent for the next 500 years. And surely by that time, economic alternative sources will long be competing.

Coal in the US...reserves of 500 years. Natural Gas in Canada, 500 years, offshore oil on both the east and west coasts 250 years at the present rates of consumption.

amicus...

Have you backup for these figures? I'd be interested to read, as I've never heard any projections that optimistic before.

The Earl

 

[rgraham666]

Have you backup for these figures? I'd be interested to read, as I've never heard any projections that optimistic before.

The Earl

Are you questioning our friend's statements?

You morally relativist liberal!

 

[amicus]

Earl...the information came from Senate hearings this spring and last fall about the oil industry and the 'energy crisis' in general. There were also several programs on the science channel and national geographics channel, I think that confirmed what I had heard during the investigations.

The amount of coal reserves in the continental US surprised me, as did the natural gas reserves in Canada.

If you can't find confirming data online, I will search some more and see what I can come up with for you...and others...who apparently have not learned how to google yet...maybe try Ask.com...yahoo is challenging google as a search engine it seems...

amicus...

 

[R. Richard]

In order to understand the oil situation, you must first understand that there are two opposing views on the source of oil. The first is that oil is the remnants of long ago swamps and the critters that lived in the swamps. The other view is that oil is a mineral produced by chemical forces inside the earth. They have just struck oil at some ungodly depth under the Gulf of Mexico. If the latest strike is any indication, oil is a mineral produced by chemical forces inside the earth. If oil is a mineral produced by chemical forces inside the earth there are going to be a lot of OPEC nations looking for new ways to earn a living.

Much of what is now done with oil/natural gas can be done with coal, although not as conveniently. The USA has the bulk of the world reserves of coal.

The USA can greatly reduce our dependance on foreign oil by using the available resources we now have. The oil companies are not allowed to drill for oil/gas in most places off the coast because of opposition by certain politicians. There is a lot of oil in Alaska which is not available, again because of political pressures.

China is a major military power. The idea that some area of China could just declare themselves independent is not realistic. China will continue to grow into a major economic power with severe effects on the economies of the nations of the world. One thing that those who think that the middle East will automatically go with China and cut the USA off might consider is a map of the world. It is possible to walk or ride from China to Iran. Ghengis Khan did it.

 

[TheEarl]

Earl...the information came from Senate hearings this spring and last fall about the oil industry and the 'energy crisis' in general. There were also several programs on the science channel and national geographics channel, I think that confirmed what I had heard during the investigations.

The amount of coal reserves in the continental US surprised me, as did the natural gas reserves in Canada.

If you can't find confirming data online, I will search some more and see what I can come up with for you...and others...who apparently have not learned how to google yet...maybe try Ask.com...yahoo is challenging google as a search engine it seems...

amicus...

I'm on dialup, so I can't research myself.

They're interesting figures; I had no idea there was that much still within US borders. Although it does raise the question of just how expensive they would be to utilise. If it is cheaper for the US to buy North Sea and Middle Eastern energy, then they must be in some damned inaccessible places.

The Earl

 

[rgraham666]

Much of the stuff our friend is talking about is not that accessible.

For example, here in Canada we have the Alberta Tar Sands. Which is somewhat accessible being on the surface. But hard to process as the oil first has to be extracted from the sand. It also requires a lot of energy to obtain. Rather than small discrete wells, it's essentially strip mining.

So technically there is a lot of oil. In reality, it expensive to obtain and rather less profitable than oil pumped from the ground.

 

[TheEarl]

In order to understand the oil situation, you must first understand that there are two opposing views on the source of oil. The first is that oil is the remnants of long ago swamps and the critters that lived in the swamps. The other view is that oil is a mineral produced by chemical forces inside the earth. They have just struck oil at some ungodly depth under the Gulf of Mexico. If the latest strike is any indication, oil is a mineral produced by chemical forces inside the earth. If oil is a mineral produced by chemical forces inside the earth there are going to be a lot of OPEC nations looking for new ways to earn a living.

Wow. New facts all around. I had no idea about the second theory; I'd always thought the first was gospel.

The Earl

 

[rgraham666]

Even if oil is a replenishable resource I still don't believe it's wise to use it for creating energy.

The waste products are too damaging to the atmosphere in the quantities we currently pour them out.

 

[jeninflorida]

Good lord! One can overlook the musings of the working girl in Florida...but, sighs, the rest of you know better and she doesn't know you are putting her and anyone else silly enough to listen on the dumb list.

There are sufficient fossil fuel reserves in the continental US, the continental shelf and in Canada and Alaska already discovered and a quantum leap in what has not yet been explored to keep American energy independent for the next 500 years. And surely by that time, economic alternative sources will long be competing.

Coal in the US...reserves of 500 years. Natural Gas in Canada, 500 years, offshore oil on both the east and west coasts 250 years at the present rates of consumption.

China and Russia as possible world powers? You must be joking, both those sad nations are on the verge of degenerating into a squabble of adjacent warlords and when communism crumples in China, as it inevitably will, there will be a centuries long internal struggle between opposing little war like states, if they can find enough spears and longbows, as the technology they will be left with is capable of nothing more sophisticated...


amicus...

No, I said that Russia will become the #1 oil producing country in the next five years

 

[jeninflorida]

Even if oil is a replenishable resource I still don't believe it's wise to use it for creating energy.

The waste products are too damaging to the atmosphere in the quantities we currently pour them out.

I agree, oil and coal are dirty!

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

No, I said that Russia will become the #1 oil producing country in the next five years

Ami is having another sad fantasy, Jen. As much as I would LOVE for the Chinese Communist state to become as weak as Russia is now (or for Russia to stay weak), the facts don't support that conclusion. Putin is a de Gaulle type figure for Russia, neither democratic nor totalitarian. He will certainly make Russia a stronger power again, if only through oil as you said. There are also tons of other natural resources in Russia. No nation will go forever without ruthlessly exploiting its natural resources and eventually depleting them. It's a fact of history.

R. Richard's new theory is news to me, too. But it is certainly possible. And his idea that China could threaten Iran is certainly valid. No country with such a high population can deemed a minor menace. A lot of people and a growing shortage of resources is the historical formula for wars of aggression. And China will not far apart yet. It will take enough incompetence and weakness in Beijing to achieve that.

Sadly, I don't expect alternative fuels to become high in demand until oil becomes too expensive. And that's apparently STILL a few years away.

If we wait that long, of course, expect China and Europe to become the new superpowers.

 

[jeninflorida]

I think Europe is finished, and if you look deep, france has some major issues. For those who think the u.s. holds a tight grip on the media, take a look at france!

Russia has two massive oil reserves that will come on line in the next five years...enough oil to put S.A. to shame. So, how will that change the world?

Ami is having another sad fantasy, Jen. As much as I would LOVE for the Chinese Communist state to become as weak as Russia is now (or for Russia to stay weak), the facts don't support that conclusion. Putin is a de Gaulle type figure for Russia, neither democratic nor totalitarian. He will certainly make Russia a stronger power again, if only through oil as you said. There are also tons of other natural resources in Russia. No nation will go forever without ruthlessly exploiting its natural resources and eventually depleting them. It's a fact of history.

R. Richard's new theory is news to me, too. But it is certainly possible. And his idea that China could threaten Iran is certainly valid. No country with such a high population can deemed a minor menace. A lot of people and a growing shortage of resources is the historical formula for wars of aggression. And China will not far apart yet. It will take enough incompetence and weakness in Beijing to achieve that.

Sadly, I don't expect alternative fuels to become high in demand until oil becomes too expensive. And that's apparently STILL a few years away.

If we wait that long, of course, expect China and Europe to become the new superpowers.

 

[amicus]

TheEarl]Have you backup for these figures? I'd be interested to read, as I've never heard any projections that optimistic before.

The Earl

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~

Earl...this was about 45 minutes worth of searching, here and there, didn't find exactly what I had heard or was looking for, but this might give you an idea...

There is also a variable factored in the is directly proportional to the cost of energy per unit, the higher the cost per unit, the greater exploration can take place at deeper and more remote sources and thus the estimate, or forecast of reserves changes as the price per energy unit does.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaling_station#World_coal_reserves

World coal reserves

US coal regions
It has been estimated that, as of 1996, there is around one exagram (1 × 1015 kg or 1 trillion tonnes) of total coal reserves accessible using current mining technology, approximately half of it being hard coal. The energy value of all the world's coal is well over 100,000 quadrillion Btu (100 zettajoules). There probably is enough coal to last for 300 years.


The United States Department of Energy uses estimates of coal reserves in the region of 1,081,279 million short tons, which is about 4,786 BBOE (billion barrels of oil equivalent) [26]. The amount of coal burned during 2001 was calculated as 2.337 GTOE (gigatonnes of oil equivalent), which is about 46 MBOED (million barrels of oil equivalent per day) [27]. At that rate those reserves will last 285 years. As a comparison natural gas provided 51 MBOED, and oil 76 MBD (million barrels per day) during 2001.


http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp


http://lsa.colorado.edu/essence/texts/naturalgas.htm

The United States has large reserves of natural gas. Most reserves are in the Gulf of Mexico and in the following states: Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Wyoming, Kansas, and Alaska. If we continue to use natural gas at the same rate as we use it today, the United States has about a 50-year supply of natural gas, though another 200 years of additional gas supplies could be produced if people are willing to pay more for the gas they use.


http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/fossil_fuels/offmen-how-natural-gas-works.html

Also unknown is how much gas remains in the ground. Natural gas reserves are dwarfed by coal reserves in the US, but are still expected to be able to supply the nation for 60 years or more. What makes estimating difficult is that new supplies are still being discovered. Worldwide this is even more true. The former Soviet Union is anticipated to have huge supplies, up to ten times as much as the US, especially in Siberia. Major finds have been found recently in Indonesia, Mexico, North Africa, and other places. Estimates of worldwide gas reserves range from 120 to 175 years of supply, but some predict that with improved extraction methods, it could be three times higher.






  
The world's oil and gas reserves printable version




Almost since the discovery of the first oil reserves there has been a debate about how quickly those reserves might run out. That debate continues today and because there are significant uncertainties in both the geological and statistical data there is a very wide range of views about how much oil and gas remains.


http://www.shell.com/home/Framework...the_worlds_oil_and_gas_reserves_06072005.html

One way of measuring the availability of these resources is to focus on what are know as proven reserves. While precise definitions vary, these are broadly understood to be those resources which, with reasonable certainty, can be recovered from known reservoirs using existing technology and under current economic operating conditions. Using this definition most sources in the energy industry estimate that remaining global proven reserves amount to at least 1000 billion barrels.

However, proven reserves are not necessarily a good indicator of how much oil remains to be produced. To arrive at this figure it is necessary to add probable and possible reserves as well as resources that are yet to be discovered. Taken together these are known as ultimately recoverable resources. Clearly there is more uncertainty around estimates of these resources but the 2000 US Geological Survey suggests these could amount to more than 3000 billion barrels.

All these estimates are of conventional oil resources but there are also significant unconventional oil resources potentially available. These include extra heavy oil found in Venezuela, oil sands in Canada and shale oil in the US. The International Energy Agency estimates that these could amount to 7 trillion barrels. However, given the significant technological challenges in developing these resources, it is uncertain how much oil they could eventually yield.

What about gas reserves?

As a result of increased exploration, proven gas reserves have increased rapidly over the past twenty years and most industry sources suggest they could amount to about 180 trillion cubic metres. However, as there has still been significantly less exploration for gas than for oil, the potential gas resources still to be discovered could be extensive. The US Geological Survey estimates that ultimately recoverable gas resources could amount to 436 trillion cubic metres.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This does not exactly support my 500 year contention, but I do not retract those estimates as they were made by some of the best petroleum scientists in the world, those employed by the oil and gas corporations and used to forecast the profitability of the industry far into the future.

When I have more time...I will look directly at the oil company statistics and try to dig them out...some are very technical and do not venture into the political, in terms of advertising or publicizing future reserves or exploration plans.

The testimony I heard in the Senate hearings implied as much as it said in terms of nearly unlimited supplies out past 1000 years in the future with emphasis placed on yet to be discovered technology for discovery and recovery of fuel resources. It was a very interesting couple of hours...


amicus...

 

[amicus]

Even if oil is a replenishable resource I still don't believe it's wise to use it for creating energy.

The waste products are too damaging to the atmosphere in the quantities we currently pour them out.

~~~~~~~~~

I seldom even attemt to reply to your posts, you live in an irrational dream world for one and for two, you carry not a chip, but an ancient redwood on your shoulder and are always bitter and complaining...

"wise to use oil..." I suppose you would rather have households burn coal, or use horses for transportation? Petroleum products to create energy was a natural evolution from coal and whale oil to crude oil and then gasoline, petrol and diesel fuels. Coal and natural gas are the most efficient ways to produce massive amounts of energy needed to supply the demand of a modern society be it here, there or elsewhere; since Nuclear energy remains a boogey man to the left.

If you wish to remain a dreamer of pastoral fields and quiet villages, fine, then do so, but the world has moved on and will continue to do so. How best to accomodate the 30 million or so in Canada and the 300 million or so in the US is a practical matter and no non polluting alternative energy source has risen and don't give me the left wing crap about oil companies and cartels...the techology simply doesn't exist and may never exist.

The most harmful gas insofar as global warning is simple water vapor that evaporates from the oceans, lakes and rivers...another is natural methane pockets in deep and shallow water that regularly burst and flood the atmosphere with excess methane, even to the extent where this is thought to be the 'mystery' behind the Bermuda Triangle, methane bubbles in such quantity that water becomes aerated to the point where it no longer supports vessels and methane rising in the atmosphere that smothers aircraft engines.

then again, methane is largely produce by bovine flatulence, cow farts, to be crude, maybe you should pass a law against that?

While it certainly does not a lot of good to put the exhaust of internal combustion engines and coal burning power plants into the atmosphere, perhaps you would like to return to the days of coal fires or wood fires, or peat fires in every home and business to keep the people warm?

As I said earlier, you have a perfect right to be a dreamer, but you come across as an eccentric, irrational, non connected person who hates everything modern but hasn't a clue to how you might think the world should exist in your vision. I suppose a plague that eliminated half of humanity would satisfy you?

amicus...

 

[rgraham666]

I think Europe is finished, and if you look deep, france has some major issues. For those who think the u.s. holds a tight grip on the media, take a look at france!

Russia has two massive oil reserves that will come on line in the next five years...enough oil to put S.A. to shame. So, how will that change the world?

I disagree, jen. Europe will do well because Europe wants to do well. They are trying to imagine the future and fix their place in it. And do so without abandoning what they've learned through history.

And where did you get the idea that France holds a tight grip on the media? They have many independent media sources that cover the whole political spectrum. If their media was tightly controlled we would never have had the coverage of the riots they recently had. The rest of the world would have found out about it the same way it found out about Tianiman Square. Through reports and pictures smuggled out.

I don't quite understand where you got this idea.