What's the best solution to our energy problems?

[ford nut]

Yep - and you can thank the envirowackos and Democrats for that.

Hurricane Katrina exposed the need for refineries. Yet the Do-Nothing Congress has done zilch about it since then.

True but big oil has big interest in keeping the situation the way it is.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E0DB1731F936A25755C0A9679C8B63

But industry documents obtained by Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, suggest that in the mid-1990's, oil companies had no interest in building refineries because of low profit margins and, in fact, were discussing the need to curtail refinery output to increase profits.

''If the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase'' in refinery profits, said a Chevron Corporation document in November 1995.

It seems like its been planned to keep output low. :shifty:

Not just here but also in Europe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4296812.stm

Even before the hurricanes hit America the oil market was worrying about the lack of refining capacity. Especially so in the United States and Europe.

"There is just no slack," said Barclays analyst Paul Horsnell.

"There really was very little leeway for any accident, any unexpected disruption, [because there is] no spare capacity.

OPEC also knows it.
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/522262-refining-shortage-cause-of-high-oil-price--uae?ln=en

High oil prices are due to a shortage of refining capacity in industrialised nations, UAE Oil Minister Mohammed Al-Hamli said in remarks published on Tuesday.

"There are not enough refineries to meet growing demand," Al-Hamli told UAE daily Gulf News.

"A shortage of refineries is one of the main reasons behind the increasing prices as a result of the policies adopted by industrialised nations not to invest in new refineries due to environmental concerns, while the sector needs substantial new investments," he said.

I think big oil likes it how it is. :leghumper so if we drill for more we are still stuck. Unless refineries get built....that needs to happen first.

 

[fossten]

Ford nut, I don't disagree with you. Congress has created this situation and the large oil companies are enjoying the returns at the moment. However, if the goal is to get prices to go down, lots of "little oils" need to spring up. This will bring down big oil's profits faster than any tax increase would do. Furthermore, it would create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Refineries is the key, I agree with you. But expanding drilling would give short term relief as the market, in the form of speculators, would respond.

 

[ford nut]

Ford nut, I don't disagree with you. Congress has created this situation and the large oil companies are enjoying the returns at the moment. However, if the goal is to get prices to go down, lots of "little oils" need to spring up. This will bring down big oil's profits faster than any tax increase would do. Furthermore, it would create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Refineries is the key, I agree with you. But expanding drilling would give short term relief as the market, in the form of speculators, would respond.

:I

 

[Joeychgo]

Do you hear me, Joey?

The government should not FORCE industries to produce things.

Nobody's more ignorant of energy solutions than the government.

I didnt say FORCE. I said push, encourage.

Whether wind farms and solar is the right move or not, I truly dont know. But its a start. I thought Gingrich had a good point about nuclear power plants and using them to product hydrogen at off peak load times. Regardless, we need to keep the heat on for alternative energies. Period.

 

[ground_zero298]

Release the ESPR and invade a oil rich country and take it over. No one likes us anyway, and we need a permanent base of operations over sea's anyway.
Plus we could post spanish sign's every where over their to confuse them. Besides, Obama would fit in just fine over their. We could also give them free air to inflate their tires to make the take over less stressful. 40 years ago we'd jump in the :q:q:q:q head first, now we just take it.

 

[fossten]

I didnt say FORCE. I said push, encourage.

Whether wind farms and solar is the right move or not, I truly dont know. But its a start. I thought Gingrich had a good point about nuclear power plants and using them to product hydrogen at off peak load times. Regardless, we need to keep the heat on for alternative energies. Period.

Wind farms take up too much land and cut down too many trees (can you say less carbon dioxide absorption???). Solar is simply not ready yet. But let the markets figure it out. Don't PUSH it on us.

 

[shagdrum]

Wind farms take up too much land and cut down too many trees (can you say less carbon dioxide absorption???). Solar is simply not ready yet. But let the markets figure it out. Don't PUSH it on us.

Amen!

 

[Joeychgo]

Wind farms take up too much land and cut down too many trees (can you say less carbon dioxide absorption???). Solar is simply not ready yet. But let the markets figure it out. Don't PUSH it on us.

The wind farms I have seen are in the middle of corn fields, deserts, etc. No trees lost.

Keep in mind - "the markets" also gave us how many gas guzzling SUVs on the roads?

 

[taylor414ce2003]

heres a solution a local Radio Dj came up with."I can solve both the illegal alien problem and the energy problem in one ,We build windmills with razor sharp blades all along the mexican boarder"

 

[shagdrum]

True but big oil has big interest in keeping the situation the way it is.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E0DB1731F936A25755C0A9679C8B63

But industry documents obtained by Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, suggest that in the mid-1990's, oil companies had no interest in building refineries because of low profit margins and, in fact, were discussing the need to curtail refinery output to increase profits.

''If the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase'' in refinery profits, said a Chevron Corporation document in November 1995. ​

Of course they have an interest in not building refineries; it is not profitable. For them to build refineries, it needs to be profitable for them. Unfortunately, the government, through various programs and policies works to make it impossible for oil company to be able to profitably (in the long run) build more refineries.

It isn't the oil companies who are to blame here, it is the government.

It seems like its been planned to keep output low.

A more accurate statement would be, "due to government policies and restrictions, it is more profitable not build new refineries."

With the profit margins for oil companies being what they are, you have to sell more volume (not less) to keep the business viable.

Not just here but also in Europe.

Yes, the world market is all intertwined. When prices went up due to Katrina, they went up across the world, not just in America.

I think big oil likes it how it is.

Not really.

I know you hear a lot about huge oil profits but that number is never put in context. The first question to ask; is that number gross profit or net profit?

Gross profit = Net sales – Cost of goods sold
In this case...
Gross profit = Sales revenue - cost of oil

Net profit = Gross profit - overheads and other indirect costs - one off items and redundancy payments, staff restructuring – interest payable - taxes - Dividends​

As you can see, net profit takes into account all the costs of doing business (infastructure, refining, financing, taxes, etc...), while gross profit is simply looking at sales minus the physical cost of the oil.

If the huge profits cited are gross profit, then that number is effectively meaningless. There is a huge investment (and a lot of risk) for oil companies. Therefore the difference between gross and net profit is going to be huge.

The second question to ask is; what is their profit margin?

Here is a good breakdown of the price of oil:

The profit margin is only about 9%! And with the high cost of crude, that profit margin is decreasing! Last I checked it was between 8% and 8.5%. In fact, actual profits are going down for oil companies as well. As this link points out:

Net income in the fourth quarter [for Exxon] dropped to $10.25 billion from $10.71 billion a year earlier.​

Here is another link on oil company profits...

so if we drill for more we are still stuck.

Not really. opening up drilling still has a psychological effect on the market. Actual drilling will further increase that effect.

But you are right, we do need to increase refining capability, as well.

 

[shagdrum]

The wind farms I have seen are in the middle of corn fields, deserts, etc. No trees lost.

But those wind farms are highly inefficient. they don't provide enough energy to support much of anything, by themselves. Again, a supplement at best.

If we were to switch from fossil fuels (on the non-transportation end of things) to wind, the shear land mass required would be prohibitive, and would not help reduce CO2 emissions, because of the amount of plant life that would need to be removed to make wind farms feasible.


Wind energy is mostly a gimmick.

Keep in mind - "the markets" also gave us how many gas guzzling SUVs on the roads?

Remember, Fossten and I are global warming "deniers", that argument is worthless on us.

 

[fossten]

Keep in mind - "the markets" also gave us how many gas guzzling SUVs on the roads?

What's wrong with SUVs? By the way, Joey, how's that gas guzzling Mark VIII you're driving these days, hmmm?

 

[ketyokeinnor]

The wind farms I have seen are in the middle of corn fields, deserts, etc. No trees lost.

Keep in mind - "the markets" also gave us how many gas guzzling SUVs on the roads?

Maybe in flat areas they do that. Here they stick them in the woods on the sides of mountains. I can think of 4 wind farms(6-~12 windmills each, plus dirt roads cut to connect them, plus trees cut to run new lines to hook them to the grid) in my immediate area(within 50 miles). I know at least 2 more are approved (one 2 miles from my house), and last I heard 3 more pending.

Ron

 

[shagdrum]

I'm sure some of you will argue that that was a different time, and that's true. But my point is that no politician from either party is above bowing to political pressures.

It was a different time, so you could say that it is comparing apples and oranges due to different concerns, etc..

But you are right, most politicians on either side of the isle are not completely above bowing to political pressures. And Bush is no exception. I think you would be hard pressed to find a conservative on this message board who thinks otherwise.

But those political pressures are a two edged sword. They could be purely ideologically based, or they could be based in what is best for the country and/or what the country overwhelmingly wants.

Right now the country overwhelmingly wants to drill more.

Second, I've heard several pundits make the claim that there were no oil spills associated with Katrina and Rita.

Here is what Rush Limbaugh said on August 8th 2008:

Well, to me, that whole environmentally friendly stuff is a straw dog because it's [drilling] been environmentally friendly for decades. We haven't had spills from rigs. We haven't had leaks from rigs. The oil facilities pumping and drilling and so forth, we've had, you know, tanker spills and so forth, but the actual infrastructure to get the oil is clean as it can be. We're not destroying anything with this.​

Basically, the oil spills come from the transporting of the oil, not the extracting of the oil, according to Limbaugh.

And fossten did raise a few good points...

• The amount spilled from man made efforts to get oil and move it to market is chump change compared to the amount of oil put into the ocean through nature...

• American technologies are the most up to date and cleanest when it comes to extracting and transporting oil. If we don't extract it, less environmentally friendly methods are going to be used by foreign countries to extract and transport that oil. The oil will also have to travel a much longer distance to get to America, increasing the chance of an oil spill.

Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, points out:

Environmentalists...insist that the wilderness that would be despoiled by energy extraction is worth more than the energy itself. That's nonsense - faith masquerading as fact.​

Unless you can show that the actual danger to the environment from oil exploration, extraction and transport is a greater cost then the potential benefit to society from oil exploration, extraction and transport, this is nothing more then a red herring.

I want to talk a bit now about this fallacy that offshore drilling will have an impact on oil prices.

As far as known reserves, it is questionable weather there is enough supply to make much of a difference in oil prices through supply and demand forces alone. But you are forgetting one thing when it comes to markets...perception is reality.

There is the psychological feedback effect that actions to increase supply have on the market. You can already see evidence of that with Bush's lifting of the executive ban on offshore drilling. Or in the reverse, when gas prices go up due to political unrest in the middle east.

Also, you have to consider that those numbers in that report are based on known reserves. This Heritage Foundation link makes a valid point:

As it stands right now, 85 percent of America's territorial waters are off-limits to energy exploration and production. Beginning in 1982, Congress restricted more and more areas through annual Department of the Interior (DOI) appropriations. DOI has authority over the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), which includes most areas more than three miles offshore. Through this annual process, Congress chose to deny DOI the funding necessary to conduct leasing of new offshore areas to oil companies. It is important to note that Congress could have, at any time, passed a law permanently putting these areas out of reach, but it chose not to do so. The restrictions must be renewed annually.​

We haven't been allowed to explore for oil in most of the OCS since 1982! The know reserves in those areas are based on estimates before they were made off limits starting in 1982.

In that time, technology to find oil has been refined and the usage of oil worldwide has increased.

So, of course the known reserves are going to be very small in comparison to the national, or worldwide usage.

When those factors are considered and put into context with known reserves, this point looks more and more like a red herring...

Because oil prices are determined on the international market...any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.

Correct. But I think you are wrong when you claim that most people tend to forget that fact.

No proponent of drilling is claiming that the oil will go exclusively to America or that it will lower the price of the American market alone. They are counting on it dropping the price of oil in the world market. That will in turn drop the price of oil in the American market, as well.

And as noted earlier...
The psychological effect of increased drilling and exploration in America will amplify the effect that the oil extracted and added to overall supply has on the market.

Further exploration will also, most likely, find new reserves and bring even more oil to market.

This point seems to be a bit of a strawman and a red herring as well...

 

[hrmwrm]

There is no way to know that. It is simply an assumption you are making. In fact, the theory of abiotic oil, if true, would blow that assumption out the window.

Petroleum is believed by most to be formed only from the remains of buried plant or animal material. Abiotic oil however might be formed from the reaction of carbonates with iron oxide and water in the region called the mantle, deep in the Earth where there is a great amount of heat and pressure. Furthermore, the mantle is such a huge reservoir that the amount of reactants consumed in the reaction hasn't depleted it since the formation of the oil. In short, according to this idea petroleum is not a fossil fuel and has no intrinsic connection with plant or animal remains.

There are two theories of abiotic oil:

- The "weak" abiotic oil theory: oil is abiotically formed, but at rates not higher than those that petroleum geologists assume for oil formation according to the conventional theory.

- The "strong" abiotic theory: oil is formed at a speed sufficient to replace the oil reservoirs as we deplete them, that is, at a rate something like 10,000 times faster than theorized in petroleum geology. ​

Besides, as Fossten pointed out, even if we were running out of oil, that is such a long way off (100 or more years) as to be a non-concern at present. It is simply a red herring to this discussion. Nice try.

evidence for abiotic oil is pretty lean. a red herring on your part.

http://www.rense.com/general58/biot.htm

but your still looking at it as a domestic problem rather than a global problem. do you really think in even 30 years there will be a lot of countries capable of oil exporting? as more nations keep asking for more, oil exports will dwindle as counties keep supply for domestic markets. the states can't even supply their own domestic needs already, and more drilling isn't going to put a big enough dent in that. it still won't eliminate importation. that IS the big picture.

kudos to you on nuclear. it is a clean and viable source for new energy demands. hydrogen is viable, but only as a replacement for natural gas, which has the infrastructure in place for transport.(why do you think they've been putting so much plastic line underground) most hydrogen is already created from natural gas, and is more abundant than oil. and carbon can be sold as a commodity(carbon fibre, buckyballs, in otherwords, structural carbon composites) this is a market and a direction that was thought up years ago when i was getting my gas ticket. as energy prices climb, the change over comes that much closer.

i'll quote from the page in my link. i think it hit's close to reality.

"Given the ongoing runup in global petroleum prices, the notion of peak oil hardly needs defending these days. We are seeing the phenomenon unfold before our eyes as one nation after another moves from the column of "oil exporters" to that of "oil importers" (Great Britain made the leap this year). At some point in the very near future the remaining nations in column A will simply be unable to supply all of the nations in column B.

In short, the global energy crisis is coming upon us very quickly, so that more time spent debating highly speculative theories can only distract us from exploring, and applying ourselves to, the practical strategies that might preserve more of nature, culture, and human life under the conditions that are rapidly developing."

 

[fossten]

He's looking at it as a domestic problem because he's an American, and right now America is having a problem. The fact is that other countries such as Brazil are becoming energy independent, and there are enough energy reserves available for us to do the same.

Let's not forget that we get many other things besides gasoline from oil, such as plastic and roof shingles. For us to completely get away from oil would involve too many new technologies. It's just not practical.

 

[97silverlsc]

Science Startup Has E. Coli Pooping Black Gold
Jason Mick (Blog) - August 12, 2008 5:41 PM
http://www.dailytech.com/Startup+Has+E+Coli+Pooping+Black+Gold/article12649.htm

Biochemist Stephen del Cardayre is the vice president of research and development at LS9. He holds a vial of his company's prized bacteria. The brown fluid at the top of the vial is diesel that the bacteria excreted, mixed with water. (Source: CNN)
Genetic engineering yields hope for fossil fuel replacement

DailyTech previously covered startup LS9 Inc.'s efforts to genetically engineer microbes to produce synthetic fuels. After initial efforts to genetically modify both yeast and bacteria to produce long-chain hydrocarbons, they have since focused their efforts on a particular common bacterium -- E. Coli.

E. Coli is commonly found in feces, and the LS9 researchers have succeeded in a rather ironic goal -- genetically modifying the bacteria to excrete diesel fuel. After much research and genetic modification, LS9 says it has used a variety of common sugar metabolic pathways to force E. Coli to convert virtually any sugar-containing substance in part to carbon chains virtually indistinguishable with diesel.

The bacteria "poop" out this black gold, while using part of the sugar to fuel their growth and reproduction as well. The net result is that any carbon source can be turned into synthetic fuel by the economic bacteria.

Biochemist Stephen del Cardayre, LS9 vice president of research and development, says his company has come a long way. He states, "We started in my garage two years ago, and we're producing barrels today, so things are moving pretty quickly."

He explains the process of creating the microbes, stating, "So these are bacteria that have been engineered to produce oil. They started off like regular lab bacteria that didn't produce oil, but we took genes from nature, we engineered them a bit [and] put them into this organism so that we can convert sugar to oil."

While the microbes are currently only producing diesel fuel, they could easily be tuned to produce gasoline or jet fuel according to Mr. Cardayre. Best of all, the bacteria don't have to use simple sugars such as corn, a major criticism of the ethanol infrastructure. The increased demand for corn by the ethanol industry is accused of raising food prices. Instead they can use a variety of "foods" including sugar cane, landscaping waste, wheat straw, and wood chips. The microbes used are a "friendly" noninfectious type of E. Coli that lack the proteins needed to invade the human body, which some strains of E. Coli are capable of doing.

Robert McCormick, principal engineer at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado remains skeptical of LS9's claims. He adds, "Scalability is really the critical issue. If you've got something that you can make work in a test tube, that's good, but you've got to be able to make it work on a very large scale to have an impact on our petroleum imports."

LS9 is not only confident they can scale the technology, but they also believe that their oil will be significant to the oil found in fossil fuel deposits. Typical oil deposits contain significant amounts of sulfur that get released into the atmosphere, creating acid rain which destroys forests, limestone, marble, and damages lake ecosystems. It also contains benzene, a carcinogen that can cause cancer even in very small quantities.

The E. Coli produced diesel has none of these unwanted extras, it's just pure black gold. Unlike ethanol, it can be pumped along existing infrastructure, LS9 is quick to point out.

While they hope to be entering commercial level production in the next couple years, they acknowledge that even if they continue their path of unlikely and rapid success, their technology is a magical solution to the global energy crisis. Mr. Cardayre states, "I think that the answer to reducing our petroleum-import problem and reducing the carbon emissions from transportation is really threefold. It involves replacement fuels like biofuels, it involves using much more efficient vehicles than we use today, and it involves driving less."

He says that LS9's success and continued prospects are only thanks to constant collaboration by a diverse team of experts from many different professions. He continues, "The fun of the challenge from the science perspective is that you do have farmers and biologists and entomologists, and biochemists and chemical engineers, and process engineers and business people and investors all working to solve this, and it ranges anywhere from a political issue to a technical issue."

 

[shagdrum]

evidence for abiotic oil is pretty lean. a red herring on your part.

A red herring? Hardly.

A red herring is, "the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question."

Pointing out a scientific theory that shows that oil isn't made from biological sources does address the claim that we are running out of oil (it would disprove it) and is a very valid response.

I acknowledged the fact that abiotic oil hasn't been proven when I said, "the theory of abiotic oil, if true, would blow that assumption [that we will run out of oil] out the window." It is clear that I was hardly claiming it as fact, but merely pointing the theory out. It hasn't been disproven, so it can't be scientifically discounted, but it hasn't been proven either, so you can't claim it as fact.

You also need to keep my mention of abiotic oil theory in context. It was in response to someone talking about wind power as a viable alternative. There is a much greater chance that abiotic oil theory is accurate then that wind power will be a viable alternative.

but your still looking at it as a domestic problem rather than a global problem.

It isn't an either or thing; it is both. I indirectly acknowledged as much in post #39. However, as fossten pointed out, national concerns take precedent over global ones.

do you really think in even 30 years there will be a lot of countries capable of oil exporting?

Yes.

...as more nations keep asking for more, oil exports will dwindle as counties keep supply for domestic markets. the states can't even supply their own domestic needs already, and more drilling isn't going to put a big enough dent in that. it still won't eliminate importation. that IS the big picture.

It isn't quite the "big picture" you claim. The effect that allowing more drilling and exploration will have on the market seems to be overlooked in your analysis, as well as the increased reserves that will happen from increased drilling.

Your whole analysis seems to be based on the idea of "peak oil", and it was talked about in your quote, "the notion of peak oil hardly needs defending these days".

In fact, the notion of peak oil does need defending; the author who you quoted is spinning and overlooking certain facts.

The idea of "peak oil" has been tried countless times before throughout history and been show to be false. It hasn't always been called "peak oil", but it was the same idea. Oil quantities are limited and are projected to be used up by a later (sometimes given) date. The oil difference is that now they provide a date at which oil production will "peak" as well (since that date is closer then the date that oil will supposedly dry up). Can you say "fear-mongering"?

All of these theories are based on computer/mathematical models which have been show to be incapable of estimating when oil will peak, or be dried up. These computer models are completely unreliable and utterly useless, yet all claims that we will run out of oil are based on them.

There have been hundreds of models that predicted that all of some resource in the world would be used before 2008 and all have been proven wrong.

Heck, according to some models, we should have been out of all natural resources before I was born in 1980.

If history is any indicator, then the theory of peak oil will eventually prove false as well, and we will find many more reserves (remember, we essentially haven't been allowed to explore for oil in some of the richest parts of this country since 1982).

If fact, citing a U.S. Geological Survey estimate of more than three trillion barrels of conventional recoverable oil resources, Exxon's Australia chief, Mark Nolan, told an industry conference in Adelaide, Australia, that "the end of oil is nowhere in sight."

 

[hrmwrm]

"If fact, citing a U.S. Geological Survey estimate of more than three trillion barrels of conventional recoverable oil resources, Exxon's Australia chief, Mark Nolan, told an industry conference in Adelaide, Australia, that "the end of oil is nowhere in sight."


that's on american soil? no. so americans increase energy needs and still import. and yes, as population expands, energy needs will increase.
and 140 years AT CUURENT OUTOUT RATES. so your assuming that the world's energy demands will stay flat and developing nations won't put any demands on world energy production? and then there's still the question of if oil is the best choice to provide energy needs.

and if you stick with oil, will it meet future demands? even if your abiotic theory has merit, can it replenish at a rate necessary to keep up with demand? since there is more evidence to the contrary of the theory, i doubt you'll ever answer that question.

then there is the little blurb of what the reality of it really is


"Saudi Arabia, with a quarter of the world's proven crude reserves, has an interest in countering developments that would reduce demand. "If you are sitting on the world's biggest oil deposits, you would want to prevent the premature development of alternatives to oil,"

then goes on to say that 3.5 trillion of those 4.7 trillion barrels will need new technology to develop. so the majority of these supposed reserves aren't even available right now, with technology that has to be developed to get them when the same dollars could be spent on technology to free the states of being a net importer.

yea. my analysis is based on "peak oil". you run with that.

did you ever hear of the "black fog" ? a lot of british towns used to have that problem many years ago.

and fossten, i'm talking about oil as an energy source. it could still be used to make what alternate products come from it until viable alternatives come around.

 

[shagdrum]

that's on american soil? no. so americans increase energy needs and still import. and yes, as population expands, energy needs will increase.

What is the importance of weather it is on American soil? Even if American oil companies find oil on American soil, that doesn't guarantee that the oil will go exclusively to Americans. It is a non-issue.

What is important is that it goes into the world market and drives down the equilibrium price due to the increase in supply shifting the supply curve.

seems to be a red herring...

and 140 years AT CURRENT OUTPUT RATES. so your assuming that the world's energy demands will stay flat and developing nations won't put any demands on world energy production?

I think you are taking that part of the article way too literally. They aren't saying that the known reserves being discussed will provide oil for 140. If they were, then it was unnecessary (and frankly sloppy) to qualify that point with the phrase, "at current output rates".

What they are doing is putting the amount of oil available in those reserves into perspective. When you are discussing numbers in the trillions, perspective on how big that number really is gets lost. By giving the example of how long that amount could sustain us for at current output rates, that number is put back into perspective...

and then there's still the question of if oil is the best choice to provide energy needs.

There really is no question there...

and if you stick with oil, will it meet future demands?

Always has, and no reason to think that will change any time soon...

even if your abiotic theory has merit, can it replenish at a rate necessary to keep up with demand? since there is more evidence to the contrary of the theory, i doubt you'll ever answer that question.

I see no need to answer the question. I was merely pointing out the theory...

Besides, there is hardly enough hard evidence (non model based) to answer the replenishment thing on oil at all, let alone abiotic or biotic.

Also, what evidence to the contrary? Oil has always been assumed to come from biological sources, but it has never been proven. It is simply the generally accepted theory in the scientific community. That hardly means there is evidence to back it up...

In fact, the scientific community and the DOE have been out and out resistant to even considering any research in this area...

In 1992 [Professor Thomas] Gold published a paper titled “The Deep Hot Biosphere.” In this paper he suggested that oil is non-biologically produced, deep within the earth. In other words, oil is not a fossil fuel. The Department of Energy refused to fund his research although both outcomes would have been good - If the research uncovered sources of oil that did not take millions of years to produce, it would be a bonanza for oil companies . If abiogenic petroleum sources are found to be abundant, it would mean Earth contains vast reserves of untapped petroleum. On the other hand, if his research failed, this research proposal will contribute strongly to fundamental science in petroleum engineering. So far, the DOE has refused to fund any of his research because it is counter to the mainstream effort.​

then goes on to say that 3.5 trillion of those 4.7 trillion barrels will need new technology to develop. so the majority of these supposed reserves aren't even available right now, with technology that has to be developed to get them when the same dollars could be spent on technology to free the states of being a net importer.

Yes, but that technology is constantly improving. We are already tapping reserves today that even 10 years ago were technologically off limits. There is no reason to think that the tech will not improve enough to get at those reserves in a cost effective manner in a few years..

On the other hand, most of the "alternative" energy sources have not historically shown such technological promise. Usually being more based on hype then anything else...

did you ever hear of the "black fog" ? a lot of british towns used to have that problem many years ago.

I dug around a little and found out a little bit about it, but what is it's relevance to this discussion?

 

[fossten]

Oops, never mind.

 

[hrmwrm]

black fog relevance equates with my train of thought towards if oil is the right energy choice of the future. with coal once being the choice and the quickly compounded problems of pollution in the air as more and more burnt it. it was the fuel of choice for industrial revolution. the technology as you cite to go deeper begins to raise expomentially as a ratio of depth. so does extraction from tar sands.

your idea of more drilling to flood the market, lowering prices will ultimately actually cause the reverse to happen. after all, i live in the province that's booming because of oil prices. if it wasn't for higher/ barrel gains, the oilsands wouldn't happen.

so, low prices, LESS exploration. if pricing isn't high enough, you can't afford to go deeper, or extract tarsands.

and as to american soil, some keep saying about energy independence. it ain't gonna happen for the states on oil. as long as oil is the energy source, the U.S. will always be an importer.

and i'm aware of what current output rates to years means. qualifying it that way is sloppy. it gives a false sense of available time.

and you still haven't touched my first statement on hydrogen. that was from a head guy of a natural gas utility. they've been gearing up for hydrogen for years now. a little better technology in production would change it over quickly. as antiquated lines are replaced, soon the infrastructure in some areas will be complete. they won't talk much about it until it's very close to launch. the plan for the future was put into action about 25 years ago.

if the money spent on trying to drill deeper was routed to a more viable and mass scalable technology of converting NG to hydrogen, conversion could happen sooner. (most hydrogen manufactured currently comes from NG sources) that would buy you many years to find a more cost effective way of creating hydrogen from water. you just keep talking about throwing good money after bad.

you also didn't touch this

"Saudi Arabia, with a quarter of the world's proven crude reserves, has an interest in countering developments that would reduce demand. "If you are sitting on the world's biggest oil deposits, you would want to prevent the premature development of alternatives to oil,"


so, the reality would be if hydrogen powered products came about, what's to stop floyd r. turbo american from creating his own energy. solar/wind power and rain water and have free energy at home. but that will never happen as long as politicians have their hands in it.(Bush comes to mind)

 

[shagdrum]

the technology as you cite to go deeper begins to raise exponentially as a ratio of depth. so does extraction from tar sands.

your idea of more drilling to flood the market, lowering prices will ultimately actually cause the reverse to happen. after all, i live in the province that's booming because of oil prices. if it wasn't for higher/ barrel gains, the oil sands wouldn't happen.

you are right that prices do go up. But so does demand. Even if prices go down, you are still pulling a profit due to more volume being sold. Right now, many oil companies are losing money (to a degree) due to having to cut their profit margins down in an attempt to keep oil prices somewhat reasonable and not have a larger turn away from oil as an energy.

and as to american soil, some keep saying about energy independence. it ain't gonna happen for the states on oil. as long as oil is the energy source, the U.S. will always be an importer.

Not so sure about that. The big question isn't weather we are importing oil or not, but weather we are a net importer or exporter. We were a net exporter until around 1993-1994, due to more and more restrictions on domestic oil drilling, exploration and refining from years ago. Changing those restrictions will start to reverse that trend...

and you still haven't touched my first statement on hydrogen. that was from a head guy of a natural gas utility. they've been gearing up for hydrogen for years now. a little better technology in production would change it over quickly. as antiquated lines are replaced, soon the infrastructure in some areas will be complete. they won't talk much about it until it's very close to launch. the plan for the future was put into action about 25 years ago.

Nothing really to say. I think it is a viable alternative. I think I said as much in an earlier post. I was focusing mainly on transportation concerns, as hydrogen can be adapted to work in an internal combustion engine.

Hadn't heard the thing about it replacing natural gas, but if it pans out, great. Still it is an exception in the area of alternative energies. Outside of nuclear and hydrogen energy sources, most alternative energies are a supplement at best, not a replacement.

if the money spent on trying to drill deeper was routed to a more viable and mass scalable technology of converting NG to hydrogen, conversion could happen sooner. (most hydrogen manufactured currently comes from NG sources) that would buy you many years to find a more cost effective way of creating hydrogen from water. you just keep talking about throwing good money after bad.

Well, as you have already pointed out, we have been putting money into this. Still, you don't ignore current energy sources on the hope of alternatives; don't sacrifice short term interests form long term ones. The long term interests are worthless if you can't first meet the short term ones...

"Saudi Arabia, with a quarter of the world's proven crude reserves, has an interest in countering developments that would reduce demand. "If you are sitting on the world's biggest oil deposits, you would want to prevent the premature development of alternatives to oil,"

What's to say? It is accurate, but irrelevant; a red herring. They are going to do what is in their best interest, but they aren't the ones causing the high oil prices, it is the speculators.

In fact, OPEC has said that according to purely supply and demand forces, the price of a barrel of oil should be between $70-$80 a barrel.

 

[Marcus]

Not so sure about that. The big question isn't weather we are importing oil or not, but weather we are a net importer or exporter. We were a net exporter until around 1993-1994, due to more and more restrictions on domestic oil drilling, exploration and refining from years ago. Changing those restrictions will start to reverse that trend...

I just want to point out that you've either mixed up your terminology or misread the stats. We've ALWAYS been a net importer since day one. To be a net exporter would mean that we produce more than we use, which has never been the case.

What happened in 1994 was that the amount of oil we import started to exceed the amount we produce domestically.

 

[shagdrum]

I just want to point out that you've either mixed up your terminology or misread the stats. We've ALWAYS been a net importer since day one. To be a net exporter would mean that we produce more than we use, which has never been the case.

What happened in 1994 was that the amount of oil we import started to exceed the amount we produce domestically.

I see; we haven't been exporting more then we have been importing. When comparing exporting to importing, we have always imported more then exported. Sorry, you are right, I mixed up the terminology. I was thinking about domestically produced oil vs. imported oil, as spelled out in this chart:

Thanks for the correction. That was a rather sloppy of me. Good lookin out!