Peak Oil

[USSWisconsin]

Wouldn't ALL of the carbon on earth start out from the same stock? Life would naturally take up carbon that already exists here... the methane and ethane.

I have no idea if it's true... I'd like to think it is. It's hard to explain the gigatons of natural gas surrounding many of the outer planets and moons. If we could build a pipeline from Titan, we'd have enough natural gas to last forever. ;)

Excellent points, the discoveries on Titan really shook up the existing theories. With greater understanding of the petroleum cycle, I can envision economical processes to make the stuff when needed (water and CO2?). But the theory that we will use the last of the existing resources in the near future is not clear to me. We will want oil for petro chemicals and lubricants long after we don't use it as a mainstream fuel, though some things like chain saws would be hard pressed to do better than they can with petroleum - there was even a petroleum fuel cell for laptops a couple years ago - it is hard to achieve that kind of energy density in micro-apps without the use of hydrocarbon fuel.

The alternative energy situation needs to be handled with a distributed approach, IMO. Approaching it like there is one or two correct solutions is naive, IMO. A near term capitalization on fossil fuel and fission nuclear, followed by a long term fusion and geo thermal energy solution - handling base loads high density grid requirements, and intermittent sources like solar, tidal and wind; applied in situations where they are suitable, will be the ideal solution as far as I can see. The need for batteries is a big detractor, they need to be replaced regularly - all the intermittent power sources have this issue. I do believe that many of these 3rd world tiny villages will be better served by non-reactor situation, batteries and solar cells may be the ideal solution for a few kw in the near term. Once the requirements grow to 100's of kw, the micro nuclear approaches makes sense (which offer things like: decades with no maintenance and secure underground stations with thermal or beta particle electrical generators - that simply stop providing power in a worst case scenario). Wind is more limited I believe, more maintenance, more environmental impact (it kills birds and disrupts habitats and isn't pretty besides being very fragile) - still there are many valid applications for it in rural areas - farms are an obvious application. Energy diversity is the best situation when a disaster strikes, IMO. Tidal power offers a lot of promise too, like wind it isn't steady and the installations are fragile and it kills marine life and needs batteries. If those super flywheels ever become practical, the battery situation would be less of an issue. I do think fission will eventually end up as a small spaceship application, perhaps eventually serving a function like the diesel generators on a naval ship of today.

[ace16807]

Excellent points, the discoveries on Titan really shook up the existing theories. With greater understanding of the petroleum cycle, I can envision economical processes to make the stuff when needed (water and CO2?). But the theory that we will use the last of the existing resources in the near future is not clear to me. We will want oil for petro chemicals and lubricants long after we don't use it as a mainstream fuel, though some things like chain saws would be hard pressed to do better than they can with petroleum - there was even a petroleum fuel cell for laptops a couple years ago - it is hard to achieve that kind of energy density in micro-apps without the use of hydrocarbon fuel.

The alternative energy situation needs to be handled with a distributed approach, IMO. Approaching it like there is one or two correct solutions is naive, IMO. A near term capitalization on fossil fuel and fission nuclear, followed by a long term fusion and geo thermal energy solution - handling base loads high density grid requirements, and intermittent sources like solar, tidal and wind; applied in situations where they are suitable, will be the ideal solution as far as I can see. The need for batteries is a big detractor, they need to be replaced regularly - all the intermittent power sources have this issue. I do believe that many of these 3rd world tiny villages will be better served by non-reactor situation, batteries and solar cells may be the ideal solution for a few kw in the near term. Once the requirements grow to 100's of kw, the micro nuclear approaches makes sense (which offer things like: decades with no maintenance and secure underground stations with thermal or beta particle electrical generators - that simply stop providing power in a worst case scenario). Wind is more limited I believe, more maintenance, more environmental impact (it kills birds and disrupts habitats and isn't pretty besides being very fragile) - still there are many valid applications for it in rural areas - farms are an obvious application. Energy diversity is the best situation when a disaster strikes, IMO. Tidal power offers a lot of promise too, like wind it isn't steady and the installations are fragile and it kills marine life and needs batteries. If those super flywheels ever become practical, the battery situation would be less of an issue. I do think fission will eventually end up as a small spaceship application, perhaps eventually serving a function like the diesel generators on a naval ship of today.

The idea of transitioning is a valid point, but keep in mind we're talking about oil. Oil accounts for a rather insignificant share of total electricity output in the US and is primarily used as a transportation fuel. Regardless, I'm of the opinion that transition is necessary none the less. In the short term, we should be looking at increasing domestic oil production to reduce the impact of oil dependence costs. In the meantime though, we should be looking at R&D in alternative fuel sources such as hydrogen. From a purely "efficiency" point of view, hydrogen is far more efficient as a fuel than petroleum is.

[gunnut]

Dump the EPA, roll back every regulation; drill anywhere you like and how much you like, and I will guarantee you that oil production in the US will not double; in 5 our any number of years. There is a reason that there is only one Saudi Arabia in the world.

Ofcourse it sounds stupid if you put it like that. But; this is a commodity that is vital to the economy. If we do know a certain number of years in the future oil production will start to decline by a certain amount each year; it might be prudent to just think ahead about how that might affect the economy and just maybe....prepare.

The more vital it is, the more we should use it up quicker, and at the same time denying it to other nations. It's in our own best interest.

Why should I give up on cheap energy and let you have it to manufacture more goods to compete with me? How stupid is that?

[USSWisconsin]

The idea of transitioning is a valid point, but keep in mind we're talking about oil. Oil accounts for a rather insignificant share of total electricity output in the US and is primarily used as a transportation fuel. Regardless, I'm of the opinion that transition is necessary none the less. In the short term, we should be looking at increasing domestic oil production to reduce the impact of oil dependence costs. In the meantime though, we should be looking at R&D in alternative fuel sources such as hydrogen. From a purely "efficiency" point of view, hydrogen is far more efficient as a fuel than petroleum is.

Hydrogen as a hydrocarbon yes, as a gas, I strongly disagree, it is the hardest thing there is to store on Earth, it is very light (low energy density), and very explosive. It will always cost more energy to isolate hydrogen and store it than it yields as a fuel - it is physics, it is a rocket fuel, underwater welding gas, and vital component of other molecules, but it isn't an economical alternative fuel to replace fossil fuel, and would not exist for that without subsidies.

[InExile]

The more vital it is, the more we should use it up quicker, and at the same time denying it to other nations. It's in our own best interest.

Why should I give up on cheap energy and let you have it to manufacture more goods to compete with me? How stupid is that?

I agree somewhat. If there is an oil shortage the stronger nations will try and reduce the impact on their own economies by denying oil to the weaker and poorer ones.

[DOR]

Supply and demand.

[tankie]

I had this sent to me today , I cant authenticate the truth in this as i am gonna be hospitalized (again) today , the links ref google seem to work , anyone care to recce this , if true the implications are massive , take care gang



Note the location of oil on the map.



American Oil - can you believe this!!!!!!?



OIL - you better sit down... Here's an interesting read, important and verifiable information: About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together." Please read below.
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota , and extreme eastern Montana ...... check THIS out:



Bakken Oil Shale Map - North Dakota- Bakken Shale Formation

Bakken Shale Map - Maps of Bakken Shale Oil Formation Field

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5..3 trillion.

"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.." says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst. "

This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years," reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada .. For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from 2006!

U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

- 18-times as much oil as Iraq

- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait

- 22-times as much oil as Iran

- 500-times as much oil as Yemen

- and it's all right here in the Western United States .

HOW can this BE?

HOW can we NOT BE extracting this?

Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

Got your attention yet?

Now, while you're thinking about it, do this:

Pass this along.

If you don't take a little time to do this,

then you should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices - by doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain.



--------

Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book. By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!

GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It will blow your mind.

USGS Release: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate— (4/10/2008 2:25:36 PM)

Massive Oil Deposit Could Increase US reserves by 10x

[dave lukins]

"Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?"



Who will hold all the cards when the middle east oil runs out? Answers on the back of a stamp please

[astralis]

snopes.com: Bakken Formation

[tankie]

snopes.com: Bakken Formation

Cheers astralis , 50/50 huh , hmmm ahh well not a complete false one then

[1979]

snopes.com: Bakken Formation

The oil is there, the problem seams to be getting it out. :)

[Chogy]

"It's the economy stupid." I don't know if the Bakken is primarily tar sands/shales, with pockets of traditional crude, but apparently it is still much cheaper to import than it is to extract U.S. domestic oil from these resources. Once the price of oil exceeds some unknown amount and stabilizes there, that would create economic incentive to tap these reserves.

Likewise, coal can be turned into a liquid fuel, and we don't lack for coal, but the process is currently too expensive.

If/when fusion ever comes on line, that could be used to power the conversion process much more cheaply. Barring some extreme technological breakthrough, liquid fuels are going to be needed for transportation for the forseeable future. I can envision flying in a jet to become something only the rich can afford, with kerosene costing $20 per gallon, and us normal peons will all be riding mopeds or other IC vehicles that yield 150 mpg. Or... we will have electric vehicles that plug into a fusion grid. But electric airliners... naah. We'll need kerosene for a LONG time yet.

[ace16807]

"It's the economy stupid." I don't know if the Bakken is primarily tar sands/shales, with pockets of traditional crude, but apparently it is still much cheaper to import than it is to extract U.S. domestic oil from these resources. Once the price of oil exceeds some unknown amount and stabilizes there, that would create economic incentive to tap these reserves.

Likewise, coal can be turned into a liquid fuel, and we don't lack for coal, but the process is currently too expensive.

If/when fusion ever comes on line, that could be used to power the conversion process much more cheaply. Barring some extreme technological breakthrough, liquid fuels are going to be needed for transportation for the forseeable future. I can envision flying in a jet to become something only the rich can afford, with kerosene costing $20 per gallon, and us normal peons will all be riding mopeds or other IC vehicles that yield 150 mpg. Or... we will have electric vehicles that plug into a fusion grid. But electric airliners... naah. We'll need kerosene for a LONG time yet.

Which is exactly why the idea that an apocalyptic end to society when peak oil is hit is absolutely absurd. At some point it will become cheaper to turn to unconventional sources and the switch won't be a sudden change like someone flipped a switch from "Conventional sources" to "unconventional sources". Will there be a blip on the screen as a result of this gradual transfer? Yes, but there have always been blips in the form of price shocks caused by one reason or another. However, if we decrease foreign dependence on oil, either by increasing domestic petroleum production (be in through increased extraction of conventional and/or unconventional reserves) or decreasing demand through developing fuel-efficient technologies, we can minimize the impacts of such price shocks. And who doesn't want to save a few billion dollars if we can?

[astralis]

chogy,

i suspect long-term oil prices to settle around $150-200/bbl, at which point tar sands become economically profitable.

this means air travel will probably get more expensive by about what, 50%...it'll reduce air travel, but it won't be back to the old 50s-60s "for rich people only" travel.

[Chogy]

this means air travel will probably get more expensive by about what, 50%...it'll reduce air travel, but it won't be back to the old 50s-60s "for rich people only" travel.

Total agreement... I am thinking of air travel in the worst-case scenario. It's the year 2100, peak oil is a reality, there's no magic anti-grav drive, jet engines are still the only practical powerplant, and the world's remaining petroleum stock is carefully hoarded for critical purposes.