Author
|
Topic: When the Oil Runs Out
|
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 04 May 2005 06:37 AM
quote: Respectful disagreement. It will be worse than anyone can imagine.
You've got it right, egal...the guy who wrote that little piece has no idea. Like we can all move to the country, grow beans and carrots, milk cows, and use wood stoves. Where the hell does he think 300 million Americans are going to find 'country' to move to? Where does he think the wood is going to come from to burn. Where does he think the smoke is going to go? Our whole industrial structure floats on a sea of oil. No oil, no industry, no industrial food production, no manufacturing, no nothing. If you really want to know what being without oil will be like, check out those societies that are currently using only tiny amounts of oil...
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 04 May 2005 07:07 AM
I think it's Beijing that re-uses methane? gas from the city's sewer system. There are thin pipes carrying the "natural" gas and distributed to apartments for use in stoves. I agree with the catastrophic scenarios though. Our economies are based on oil and its derivatives. The collapse of ENRONg et al was described by pro-market theorists as the ultimate in capitalism because market forces eventually weeded-out the bad apples. An ENRONg subsidiary had plans to venture into the world water market in anticipation of fresh water shortages world-wide. They were planning to become part of a global cartel for the supply and control of drinking water. Can you imagine paying half your days wages for water and their personal right to become filthy rich at the expense of our bodily fluids ?. Do you realize that privatisation of water is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous capitalist plot we have ever had to face?" - general Jacques D'ripper [ 04 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674
|
posted 04 May 2005 07:28 AM
another good link on "peak oil" ... quote: Oil is made into many different products – gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, lubricants, plastics, boats, oil filters, car battery cases, car bodies, tires, paint, solvents, wire coating, asphalt highways, anti-freeze, vinyl, trash bags, plastic toilet seats, VCR tapes, CD-s, plastic bottles, house paint, telephones, detergents, glues, carpets, fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, containers, garden hose, fibers, nail polish, pillows, toothbrush, medicines ... and ENERGY for doing useful work.It isn’t just about cheap gasoline at the petrol station but about almost everything we could think about. Our civilization is built on something that will soon reach its peak production (or it already has, we really do not know at that moment) and then decline. Think about it. Think about our supermarkets, suburbia culture, SUVs, giant metropoles, highways full of cars and trucks. They will be gone and distant memory within our lifetime, how fast we don’t precisely know, but we will all feel it very soon. The warning signs are already here. And remember, this is very important, our current food production and distribution is very dependent on cheap oil. Without fertilizers and pesticides and cheap diesel fuel for our farming machinery the food production will fall sharply.
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 04 May 2005 02:14 PM
quote: You read it too quickly. Read it again - It doesn't say that at all. It also talks of small towns and cities.
Sorry, but this guy hasn't the foggiest notion of what a world without oil will look like. He seems to have some quaint idea that we can just remove ourselves to some pleasant past, where we all live off the land, and make sandals for each other or something. To begin with, just to return to 1940, half of the population of the US has got to move away, or starve. Almost all of what he describes requires a pre-existing industrial infrastructure, but that infrastructure is not possible without oil. The only thing he says that makes any sense is that the collapse won't happen all at once. We know that's true because we are already in the collapse. When the real consequences of little or no oil start to become obvious, that's when the real trouble will start. People will be looking for scapegoats...
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292
|
posted 04 May 2005 02:51 PM
quote: That blogger makes peak oil sound like something to be celebrated, not something to be wetting our pants over.
That is a common sentiment, really. The thought among many is that running out of oil, or at least very high oil and gas prices, is all that will stop the run-away train that is global warming.So long as oil is cheap, people will continue burining it until we all choke and die. For some, peak oil offers a hope for environmental rejuvenation. I think they are dreaming. It is going to take a severe environmental catastrophe on the scale we have not yet imagined to cause Joe and Jane Suburban to finaly give a shit.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089
|
posted 04 May 2005 03:20 PM
quote: Originally posted by Gir Draxon: That blogger makes peak oil sound like something to be celebrated, not something to be wetting our pants over.My only worry is that some imperial power (could be, but not necesarily, be China and/or the United States) will just stroll in, kill us, and steal all of those wonderful resources mentioned in the article UNLESS we've got big guns, lots of guns, and lots of people who know how to use them.
Hence, the root of my hatred of America and China and my support for militarisation.
From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336
|
posted 04 May 2005 03:29 PM
quote: Originally posted by WingNut: I think they are dreaming. It is going to take a severe environmental catastrophe on the scale we have not yet imagined to cause Joe and Jane Suburban to finaly give a shit.
You're right on that one. NDP Newbie, we've had thousands of years of militarization and it hasn't solved anything. The idea that he who has the biggest stick wins is non-productive. The world is again at a point of needing co-operative solutions.
From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238
|
posted 04 May 2005 03:43 PM
But how many guns, and how much skill with them, would be enough to defend our natural resources if the Americans are really desperate for them? Could we actually convince the US to back off, or would we just succeed in getting a lot of Canadians killed with the same end result?I mean, sure, I understand the principle of sovereignty, and I kind of like the idea of hiding in the alleyways of Ottawa with an AK-47, picking off American soldiers as they advance on Parliament. On the other hand, I have a strong survival streak, and I'll only sacrifice my life for my country if I think the sacrifice will mean something some day, or if I think that death would be better than the alternative. 'Cuz I suppose the alternative could be having to chant "Hu-ah" and listen to inspirational speeches by George W. Bush every day. In that case, guerilla warfare sounds quite appealing.
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 04 May 2005 04:56 PM
quote: the first, and most troubling question is ..shoot who?
Actually that's the second most troubling question. The first most is "how did talk of depleting oil reserves turn into a bloodbath on Shady Elms Crescent?". I get the bad feeling that obscurantist is going to be burning off buckets of gasoline in his backyard this weekend in the hopes of being able to shoot a few Yanks sooner. quote: the corporate executives who manipulate the media and democratic process in order that consumer sheep sacrifice their children's future?
When you pack that much whiny rhetoric into one sentence it implodes in on itself and makes a little black hole, whose gravity is strong enough to suck in matter, light, and even logic!
From: ř¤°`°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°`°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°°¤ř, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238
|
posted 04 May 2005 05:49 PM
quote: Actually that's the second most troubling question. The first most is "how did talk of depleting oil reserves turn into a bloodbath on Shady Elms Crescent?".I get the bad feeling that obscurantist is going to be burning off buckets of gasoline in his backyard this weekend in the hopes of being able to shoot a few Yanks sooner.
Actually, I was being sarcastic about Gir's suggestion that we arm ourselves against the Americans, and the response of another poster that militarization should be a Canadian priority, given that even the most vigorous military strategy would be worthless against a determined American effort. And besides, could you really imagine Canadians going guerrilla? I'm thinking now that perhaps Gir was also being sarcastic. I would love it if Canada's leaders would denounce the policies of the current American administration, and back their words up with action, but I realize there are good reasons that they don't: we're a bit too close to the States, and economically and socially intertwined with them. Besides, I would feel wrong attacking American soldiers in any case. They're not the ones who made those policies. And some of the other posters have a point: If / when oil starts to become seriously scarce, who's in charge of Canada may be one of the least of our worries. So I agree, Mr. Magoo. Enough of the jingoistic, militaristic rhetoric. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292
|
posted 04 May 2005 06:43 PM
I wish I could agree more with you, but I've been here too long. quote:
1. The only thing worse that ignoring the coming peak oil would be to throw up your hands in despair and think that nothing can be done. The point of the article is that if we act now, both individually and collectively, we need not regress to a Third World existence. Try this metaphor. If you have 48 hours warning of a hurricane, there will still be damage, but not any where near as much as if you didn’t know it was coming.
It is quite different. Everyone says a huricane is coming. You lock up the house, shutter the windows and head inland until it passes. Peak Oil is permanent. There are those who continue to deny it is real. Peak Oil demands a complete and utter change in lifestyle. People are not only unprepared for that, they refuse to even think about it. It is more like someone receiving an eviction notice and never bothering to look for alternative housing or to pack a single item because they hope at the very last minute the landlord will have a change of heart and call off the sheriff. There is complete denial in this issue. Visit the new subdivisions in Mississauga to see what I mean. quote:
2. The disappearance of the suburban-SUV culture and its replacement by a 21Century version of the 1940’s is not a total disaster for the world. We will get by somehow, and in the process create a saner and more equitable society. Oil won’t disappear immediately, it will do so gradually and as the price rises other substitutes will come on line. Compare the price of a liter of gasoline with a liter of cooking oil or wood alcohol and you will see how far the price has to climb before it gets competitive.
Generally I agree but it will be far worse than what you are suggesting. Transportation, food, clothing, pharmaceuticals, everything we now take for granted will begin rising in price. The abandoned and run-down urban centers will become, again, the place to live and the poor will be pushed out to tomorrows slums: the suburbs and huge empty department stores. It will be much more difficult for large urban centers like Toronto that is far removed from agricultural land. All vacant urban land will likely be reclaimed for farming. quote:
3. True, it would be better if we didn’t have to go through this. But the people who seek social change are only a minority. It takes a major crisis to force the majority into action. The oil crisis may just be the impetus needed to eliminate corporate capitalism. Should it really surprise anyone that 20 years after the fall of Stalinism, the corporatist system should fall too? And for the same reasons – imperial overstretch and an economy entirely constructed on lies? Peak oil forces us to confront the fact that nice social democratic electoral politics are over and that the only way out is revolutionary change. Perhaps that is the reason for the resistance.
Putting aside the ideological rhetoric, there is a definitely a case to be made that responisble persons in responsible positions should be, today, sounding the alarm and focussing resources and human energy on minimizing the impact and even becoming leaders in alternative energy, land use policy, and development. But such leadership is in short supply when measured against the short-term interests of our political and business elite. There will be no real recognition of the threat until it is too late to avoid a heavy human cost with major social upheaval. Consider we barely even talk about this and what its potential impact is: quote: Since the industrial revolution, sea surface pH levels have dropped by around 0.1 units as the oceans absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is already enough to trouble some marine species, but researchers warn that values could fall by a further 0.5 units by 2100. If steps are not taken to cut CO2 emissions, pH could drop even further, perhaps to levels that are thought to have triggered catastrophic extinction events in Earth's history (Nature 425, 365; 2003).
Nature I am not optimistic at all.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238
|
posted 04 May 2005 08:21 PM
Just from a personal point of view, I already try to walk whenever I can, take the bus when walking isn't practical, and take a taxi or share a ride when busing isn't practical. I don't have a car. I should probably get used to riding a bike. During Vancouver's four-month-long transit strike / lockout in 2001, when I was back in Vancouver I did even more walking than I normally would, and discovered that an hour-long walk to downtown really isn't that long.Of course, as some people pointed out, oil shortages will also affect transit, taxis and carpooling. Not to mention the fact that not everyone can walk or cycle. So from a societal point of view, we need to build much more in the way of electrically powered transit infrastructure. All major cities should be setting up subways, tram systems like Toronto's, and / or trolley bus wires like in Vancouver and Edmonton. And they should have the capacity to take on many more riders than they currently have. Early in the century most people got to work on electrically powered public transit. We could go back to that, if we start getting ready for it now. [ 04 May 2005: Message edited by: obscurantist ] [ 04 May 2005: Message edited by: obscurantist ]
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 04 May 2005 08:28 PM
quote: Mr. Magoo guilty-pleasure Babbler # 3469 posted 04 May 2005 02:26 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- People will be looking for scapegoats... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Okay, that would be the SUV crowd. What's the next omen?
Acutally the scapegoats they will come looking for is us. When oil becomes very short, the fact that Canadians are sitting on a relatively large whack of it will make us the goat. It wasn't that long ago I read an op-ed piece in the National Post by Charles Krauthammer in which he said the Arabs didn't have the right to ration the oil supply just because of an accident of history that left them living on top of it. When the US runs short, we'll be to blame, and that will justify them just taking it.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 04 May 2005 08:59 PM
quote: The article was an attempt to raise the issue, get a discussion going on alternatives and provide a bit of hope. Aside from Fidel, none of the posters have picked up on that. Why not talk about alternatives? What are YOU going to do? Its not like peak oil is going to happen next Thursday. We probably have about 10 years, so lets cut the crap and get on with it.
redlion, I am sorry to say so, but I read the article thouroughly (and about 5 times). This guy doesn't come within a thousand miles of proposing anything workable, or any realistic alternatives. He does offer hope, but it's the hope of the utterly naive. And that's infinitely more dangerous than a realistic assessment of what's coming. If I had the time I could go through the whole thing, sentence by sentence, and point out his lack of understanding, but it's not worth the effort. It's true we can't just throw up our hands and say a dark future is a fait accompli. At the same time, actions taken to stave off that future have to be based on a realistic assessment of what will happen. The author of the posted article doesn't do that.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 04 May 2005 09:01 PM
quote: Actually, I was being sarcastic about Gir's suggestion that we arm ourselves against the Americans, and the response of another poster that militarization should be a Canadian priority, given that even the most vigorous military strategy would be worthless against a determined American effort.
Dry! quote: And besides, could you really imagine Canadians going guerrilla?
I sometimes go commando.
From: ř¤°`°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°`°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°°¤ř, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 04 May 2005 09:04 PM
quote: Fortunately for us, there's a few countries further up than us on the list of countries to invade, and each one will tax the resources of the empire. So by the time they get to us they might not have the resources left to launch an invasion.
Well, I hope you're right. I expect there won't be a real invasion. They will just privatize the resource, and then sell it to themselves (they're already doing this, as we in BC well know). Of course any attempts to stop that from happening will be 'terrorism', and will be fought by both the US and the Canadian governments. What I've suggested before is that we arrive at a mutual defence agreement with another country that has nuclear weapons. That should slow'em down.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292
|
posted 04 May 2005 11:52 PM
quote: "Sell your suburban house and gas-guzzler now. Eliminate any large debts. Get rid of any stocks and mutual funds. Rent an allotment or put a vegetable garden in your back yard. Install a wood stove. The people who will suffer the least will be those in the country who can cut wood and grow food, people in small towns who can walk everywhere, and people in the city centers with public transportation."
I do appreciate where you are coming from. I really do. But read that paragraph again. And one more time. These are personal actions to plan against a coming emergency. Excellent ideas if you have lost hope in society's ability to recognize a coming problem and deal with it effectively.And this is my point: It is a societal problem. And forget personal solutions. If you plan for your own survival, then you had better heed the advice of the others on this board and buy a gun to defend yourself because what will those who didn't have your foresight do? I am pessimistic. I am so pessimistic. We have Liberal party in power that is being patted on the back by business for maintaining a commitment not to maintain a commitment to the bare bones requirements of Kyoto. We have a conservative party that is burying its head in the sand on the environment and will only say "A made in Canada solution: which translates into "do nothing and deny a problem." And then we have an NDP and Green Party arguing over who is greener and which offers the true path to environmental consciousness. And then, worst of all, we have born agains holding sway in the United States who believe it is okay to destroy the planet because Christ is coming to save us all. Just in the nick of time, too! I would like to be optimistic. I really would. Do you know that Tsunami disaster last year was made much worse due to the clear cut of Banyan trees for shrimp farms? The trees themselves would not have stopped the water but they would have broken the force of the wave. In one Sri Lankan tourist community only boats were damaged due, in part, to a thick cover of mangrove trees. Do you know why they clear cut the mangrove trees? Shrimp farming. A practice that is destroying lifestyles and contributing to the destruction of coral reefs and fish habitat as well as depriving wild fish of feed. The one thing we in the West could have done in support of the peoples harmed in that disaster would not have cost us a cent: stop buying farmed shrimp (the little baby ones harvested before they become diseased.) Instead we sent money and people and we continued the practice that is stripping their natural protections and destroying the oceans that all life on this planet depends on. Yes, I am terribly pessimistic. For fundamental change we will require a fundamental shift in the way we view wealth, success and happiness. We don't see having enough as being good enough. We think we must have far more than we will ever possibly need to be happy. We seem incapable of using the gifts God gave us, if you believe in God, such as empathy, mercy, compassion and a genuine ability to care about another, to build a world where every person has worth, love, and security. So a discussion on peak oil becomes a discussion on how do we protect what we have rather than how do we bring about the massive political and economic change that is required. Let me tell all of you planning to fight a war to protect Canada's resources something important: there is no point. At the time when it is so bad that we are facing invasion, all civil society has already collapsed and you will be too busy chopping trees and stealing food to notice American tankers on Canadian highways. If there is to be a plan it must come now and it must come from you. If you feel strongly about this then now is the time to begin speaking with your neighbours, planning your campaigns and preparing to win elections on environmental platforms. The environment will be the issue of this century. The question is do we take and lead with it, or do we wait until we are forced to deal with it? That is the choice. Lead or follow. [ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 05 May 2005 04:12 AM
quote: Farming and agricultural pursuits will revive. The end of cheap petroleum means the end of the over-mechanized and chemical based agro-business. Farms will be organic and labor intensive and will produce for local markets. Food will be more expensive, but of vastly better quality and the "multiplier effect" will revive the countryside.
This is a typical paragraph in the blog. What does he mean when he says farming and agricultural pursuits will 'revive'? That sentence is just nonsense, literally. And you can denigrate the chemical based agro-business all you want, but without nitrogen fertilizer (manufactured in natural gas fired plants) a good part of production will just disappear. Saying farms will be labour intensive is certainly true. It also means production declines will be dramatic. And saying that farms will produce for local consumption may also be true, but where does that leave the bulk of the population that lives in the cities? They'll make there way out to the country on raiding expeditions before they'll starve to death. The line about food being 'more expensive, but of vastly better quality' indicates this guy has no idea about farming at all. How does he imagine it will be of vastly better quality? Man, I was born and raised on a farm. I know all about family farms and the way they operate. Let this guy go out and hand weed corn the way I did for several summers. He'll lose the romantic notions he has pretty quick. Then he concludes the paragraph with another non sequitur, the countryside will be revived by the multiplier effect. What is this wonderful 'multiplier effect'? No explanation is given, and that pretty much sums up the whole article. A lot of extremely shaky suppositions tied together with a great deal of naivete. It's true that we have to find a way to deal with the fact that oil is not infinite. The very first thing would be to demand a complete inventory of oil (and natural gas) resources, including the energy expenditure required to retrieve them. We have to demand an accounting from the energy industry, so everyone has a clear idea of not only where the energy is coming from, but where it's going. Then we have to look at how we can share out that resource in such a way as to make it as beneficial as possible to the greatest number, and make it last as long as possible. Yes, we also need to examine the viability of various alternative energy sources. If we find some that actually are worthwhile exploring, we need to develop those while there still is enough of an industrial base to support that development. Unfortunately, so far most 'alternative' energy sources are not sources at all, they're energy consumers. Hydrogen, for instance, consumes more natural gas than would be needed if you were just burning the natural gas in a car. Bio-fuels require the infamous agro-business to be in full operation. Without fertilizers and large scale mechanized farming methods, you couldn't get enough bio fuel to run the machinery needed to make the stuff. Large scale public transportation requires an industrial infrastructure that can't exist without oil, as do windmills etc. There are some things that can be done, it's just that none of them were mentioned in the article. The single suggestion contained in the article that wasn't just a personal plan was work sharing. I'm not opposed to work sharing. Whether it would indeed result in greater worker solidarity, as suggest by the article's author is another question. He provides no evidence to back his claim. But work sharing also implies the division of labour. Yet in the article the author goes on about making do by ourselves on our little farms out in the country. If we're all just tilling the soil, then what work is there to share? Sorry, but there just isn't anything in the article that even comes close to dealing with reality.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739
|
posted 05 May 2005 11:08 AM
His alternatives are somewhere related to a bandaid for a severed arm.We honestly need a MASSIVE reengineering from the ground up of virtually everything we do, and this goes for all of us. Just spend your day thinking about how much direct gas you use in driving and heating your home. And the indirect use through lighting, computers, cooling, phones, etc. The less direct use of oil that's transporting your lunch to you from California or Mexico, and the even harder to see use of oil with all of the manufactured products that are likely surrounding you while you read this, from paper, to pen, bottle of water, coffee mug, tshirt, and how much plastic, energy and transportation costs went into all of this. Now, Take away all that oil, because that's what's going to happen to the "middle class". These oil wars (afghanistan/Iraq) are not happening to help out America, they're happening to secure a supply for the WEALTHY ELITE. The middle class will almost overnight be turned into a subclass of third world people and there's virtually nothing we can do. The only real solution is to build small sustainable communities completely independant of the world we live in now. It can be done, the technology is there, the question is, Is it too late?
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fossilnut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8972
|
posted 05 May 2005 11:11 AM
mawstro:Excellent evaluation of the mythology of agriculture. You've obviously 'been there, done that'. As for your energy assessment:
quote: The very first thing would be to demand a complete inventory of oil (and natural gas) resources, including the energy expenditure required to retrieve them
As a petroleum geologist please let me in on your plan. My wife and I (and thousands of other geologists and geophysicists) have spent years trying to do just that. It's an educated gamble of millions, tens, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars to measure the quantities, extractability and cost of dollars just to develop a minor field...let alone a basin or widespread formation. I'd be the richest guy in the worlds if I could tell you how fossil fuel is in the ground and what the eventual cost will be to extract it. We just don't know and any figure thrown out would be speculation based on no consensus. A lot of the confusion in energy assessments is caused by confusing 'known' reserves with 'potential' reserves. The former is an educated guess (how many hundreds of millions of barrels are left in a basin if you spent $20 a barrel to bring it to market?) Are there ten times that amount that is not economic to extract. If oil is $200/barrel it moves oil into potential reserves. Unknown reserves? Pretty much unlimited on a geoogic scale but not infinite on a practical scale. Nobody knows. What's under Devon Island? Vast sedimentary basins in central Saskatchewan? Northeastern B.C.? Vast, vast parts of the Western Arctic? Nobody knows so it can't be quantified. [ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: fossilnut ]
From: calgary | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Igor the Miserable
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8445
|
posted 05 May 2005 11:50 AM
I've been reading up on Peak Oil for about a month now, and I've yet to decide just how bad it's going to be - as in four horsemen bad? dirty thirties bad?One of the most interesting (and hopeful) things I've come across is the success the Cubans had with their urban argriculture. They had to get inventive when their oil (and fertalizers etc.) ran out, and urban farming now provides between 150 and 300 grams of produce per person, per day. That's not a complete diet, but it certainly helps. The Venezuelans are even taking lessons now. Also thought that Permaculture guru David Holmgren makes some interesting suggestions on how the suburbs could be retrofitted. We've made this ugly, stupid sprawl, and it's a terrible waste of resources and space. But perhaps there's a way to turn it into something livable rather than just abandon it and eat berries and nuts in the bush (or go rioting and looting the city, as the case may be). [ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: Igor the Miserable ]
From: STRIKE | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336
|
posted 05 May 2005 12:55 PM
It all depends upon the speed of the transition. If it happens quickly, there will be chaos. If, however, the change is gradual, we can adapt. Either way, the change will be wrenching. There is no particular hope for "survivalists", those people who move to rural areas and stock up and wait (and go nuts). There's too much luck involved. It's like that guy who predicted WWII and scoured the globe looking for a safe haven, and consequently moved himself and family to Guadacanal! No, singular actions won't insulate you from the problems. We need cooperative solutions, massive cooperative solutions. My belief is that humans are like any other species. We consume and multiply and consume and multiply, etc, until we have over multiplied and over consumed and then there is a massive die-off. It has happened many times before. Globalization means that we will experience it on a global scale. As a species, we don't learn. Individuals learn, mankind does not.
From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 05 May 2005 02:54 PM
quote: I knew it! Maestro is an agro business lover. Thats what is up srtting him. With all the work that has been done over the years about organic agriculture, he drags out all the old cliches about how chemical agro business is necessary to feed us.
Pardon me, at no point have I said I loved agro-business. However, the reality is that without fertilizer a good portion of the produce wouldn't get produced. Specifically nitrogen fertilizer is indispensable in the growing of corn. The production of nitrogen requires large amounts of natural gas. This is also true for bio-fuels, most of which are corn based. If you want to learn something, read about corn, and it's place in industrial economies. quote: Also more straw men - the article does not - this is for the seceond time - say we should all move out into farms
quote: The people who will suffer the least will be those in the country who can cut wood and grow food, people in small towns who can walk everywhere
Apparently you don't think this is an endorsement of living off the land out in the country. Of course he does say that those in the city will also be ok 'cause there'll be lots of public transportation. Where that public transportation is going to come from (and where it's going to go) is left to the imagination. There would also be the problem of food in the city, but why let a little thing like that get in the way of a wonderful fantasy. From quelar: quote: His alternatives are somewhere related to a bandaid for a severed arm.We honestly need a MASSIVE reengineering from the ground up of virtually everything we do, and this goes for all of us.
From fossilnut: quote: As a petroleum geologist please let me in on your plan. My wife and I (and thousands of other geologists and geophysicists) have spent years trying to do just that. It's an educated gamble of millions, tens, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars to measure the quantities, extractability and cost of dollars just to develop a minor field.
Both of these were addressing my suggestion of an oil inventory. Notice how one refers to it as a bandaid, and the other as too much of a job. To address the second one first, I am well aware of how difficult it is to do such an inventory. I have read Mathew Simmons (energy advisor to President Bush) describe how hard a time he had determining what amounts of oil were left when he was asked to report on the state of the industry to Bush. He was very clear that it was almost an impossible job. Not only because figuring out how much oil is available is tough, but because most oil producing countries and companies regard such information as confidential. I also know that it's in most countries and companies interest to overstate their reserves. Back in the 80's, OPEC instituted a policy of apportioning members quota's by fixing them to the amount of reserves they had. Almost overnight, every OPEC member restated their reserves, in some cases as much as three times what their previous statement had been. But the inventory is extremely important if we are to make the best use of what's left. Even if this amounts to a 'best guess', it is better than the situation we have now, where only interested players are allowed to see what's what. Having said that, I'll address the idea that it's only a 'band-aid'. A demand for an oil inventory (as complete as possible) attacks directly the oil companies control over the resource. That is the first step in regaining control. At the same time, it provides the basis for determining how the remainder of the oil is to be used. Without that inventory, we are like a group travelling in a car, who are at a crossroads. There's a number of different directions they can go, all of differing distances. But they don't know how much fuel is in the tank. They go racing off in some direction without the foggiest notion of whether they can get there or not. First step is to figure out how far we can go with what's left. Then we can determine what strategies will be most beneficial. [ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: maestro ]
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
redlion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7638
|
posted 05 May 2005 03:23 PM
I think we can all agree that even if we should succeed in applying alternative energy sources and alternatives to petroleum products, the era of cheap energy is over. Society, if it comes out of this crisis, will be a great deal different from what we have now. One task is to prepare people for this, starting right now. It will not be a pleasant message to many, but maybe if we start now, when the crisis begins to bite they will remember what we said.As for when the crisis will occur, this is a complex issue. As Maestro points out, we need to have a thorough understanding of what petroleum and natural gas reserves exist. Depending on the investigator, Peak Oil could be as soon as 5 years or as long as 30 years. I would like to point out that the day PO arrives the world will not fall apart. Barring something stupid from the US state (always a possibility) there will be no instant petroleum shock, the price will not double or triple overnight. What is important for us is what I call "D Day" (D for disaster) which will occur when the price of oil rises to the point that the whole economy becomes completely unworkable. When D Day occurs is open to question because once again, it is a complex situation. As the price of oil rises gradually, as with any commodity in this circumstance, people start to use less or convert to alternate sources. This means the supply is not depleted quite as fast and thus the price does not rise as quickly. Even a significant minority switching to natural gas, alcohol, taking the bus or whatever, can effect the rate of depletion and thus the price. While these alternatives may not be THE answer, (THE answer does not exist) any that are introduced will have a positive effect. This is why these alternatives ought not be merely dismissed as impractical. The longer we can stave off D Day, the more chance we have of minimizing the damage. If we have only 10 years, we will have a hard time, if we have 30-50 years, providing we have the sense to make the necessary changes, we could make the transition to a new form of economy without a lot of death and destruction. Remember it took about 30 years to construct the suburban lifestyle for the majority.
From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 05 May 2005 04:41 PM
"""I also know that it's in most countries and companies interest to overstate their reserves. Back in the 80's, OPEC instituted a policy of apportioning members quota's by fixing them to the amount of reserves they had. Almost overnight, every OPEC member restated their reserves, in some cases as much as three times what their previous statement had been. """"It is in OPEC's best interest to understate what there reserves are. Imagine what would happen to oil prices if they came out and said our reserves are double than previous. Oil prices would probally free fall and would loose much control of the market. However as expensive as gas is, compared to before it is still cheaper than a litre of coke or water.
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 05 May 2005 04:49 PM
quote: Originally posted by Agent 204: I think we could run enough of a guerrilla campaign to keep them from being able to use our resources, and keep it going long enough to force them to give in. This would, of course, be catastrophic for both countries. The problem is, if someone like Bush is in charge they might try anyway.Fortunately for us, there's a few countries further up than us on the list of countries to invade, and each one will tax the resources of the empire. So by the time they get to us they might not have the resources left to launch an invasion. [ 04 May 2005: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]
no just enough probally to launch those nuclear war heads
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 05 May 2005 08:22 PM
quote: Actually you need not be a Luddite. There are lots of alternate technologies out there. Of course, according to Maestro they are all fantasies...
What I described as fantasy was the idea that people who live in cities would be ok because there'd be lots of public transportation. That is a fantasy. What I pointed out, it that many so-called energy sources are not sources. At best, they are energy carriers, at worst they are energy consumers. (Just read in the Globe & Mail Report On Business that the oil sands conglomerates are using between 800 million and 1 billion cu. ft. of natural gas every day to enable them to extract the oil. At some point it will take more energy than a barrel of oil to extract a barrel.) The blogger who wrote the article says, quote: "There is plenty of coal in the ground, so look toward new advanced forms of steam technology for trains and boats."
Now that's a real step backward. The unfortunate fact is that there is currently no technology, or energy alternative, that even comes close to replacing oil. That is why an inventory is so important. We have a limited resource that is essential to our ability to find new ways of doing things. Once the oil is gone, any hope of finding alternatives will vanish. Solar power, wind power, tidal power - all these are renewable, but each requires fairly sophisticated manufacturing and technology to put in place. Presumably we also want to leave as much oil as possible for coming generations. Written human history is a scant 10,000 years old (if that). Is there anyone who thinks are present industrial age will last that long? And thanks, Wingnut, for responding to the comment about OPEC wanting to minimize their reserves. It really is true that all players have an interest in overstating reserves. There is disturbing evidence coming now from Saudi Arabia that they may not have the capacity to increase their barrels per day flow. I read recently where the Saudis are pumping millions of gallons of water into the fields, trying to maintain pressure. It's worthwhile to remember also that increasing the flow from a field can damage it, and end up stranding more oil than a lesser flow. By trying to extract too much too quickly, the field can 'turn over' very quickly. In any case, having a best quess inventory would at least provide a number that people could latch on to, and show conclusively the finiteness of the resource.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Embarassed American
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7608
|
posted 05 May 2005 10:14 PM
From my reading Colin Campbell and others have come up with reasonable expectations on what oil is left in the ground. Colin Campbell A big problem is that there is no transparency on oil reserves. Nations have a vested interest in overestimating their reserves as Wing Nut has stated. Now from what many of the peak oil theorists believe, Ghawar is in accelerated decline and the Saudis may have peaked in 1981 (see the original peak oil thread on babble). If some of these scenarios are true, the drawdown in oil making it to market could be subject to more severe shocks within the next 2 years or sooner. The problem is that you'll literally wake up to a 20-30 cent spike a gallon at the pump and no one will be able to give you much of an explanation, which, pretty much is what started happening in 2000. Without the transparency in reserve capacity, we are left to having the peak oil geologists reading the tea leaves - which means careful examinations of oil company reports and government estimates, much of it is nuanced. But the preponderance of the evidence seems to be pointing (and this is simply based on personal reading) that we should have about a year left of moderate oil price increases followed by small decreases. Then the nightmares could begin. Right now, as many of the geologists have mentioned, you could spend a lot of energy extracting Canadian oil shale but you cannot count on it coming fast enought to mitigate the difference between overall world production and the increasing demands of the US, China and India. There is no way we can find another six or seven Saudi Arabias in the next 10 years, every serious geologist knows this. You can check all the sites and run the projections over and over and over and it always comes out the same. Around 2015 under the best scenarios, we are in deep shit. Redlion, I appreciate your interest and willingness to do something positive. Let me tell you I have tried here locally in Cedar Rapids to fire people up on this issue. I pressed the newspaper I work at repeatedly on doing a multi-part series on Peak Oil - I bombarded them with the stats, the sites and the projections. They were too scared of being wrong and causing panic. The Y2K fiasco is still fresh in their minds. Undaunted, I have created a Peak Oil presentation with numerous handouts and charts. I delivered this presentation at my Unitarian church in January and the response was tremendous. I got a call from a woman Tuesday who wants me to replicate the talk at her women's club. There is a former county commissioner at my church that has been telling people to have me come and talk to them - I'm willing to do that anywhere, anytime, for free. I printed all the materials at my own cost. We must get this news out - we owe to people that they know what their governments have done and are not doing. What people choose to do to prepare for Peak Oil is their own business. But if we arm them with information, then at least we can rest assured we've done our part. I noted with some irony that Ford and GM's securities were downgradedt to junk bond status today. If these US automakers had seriously invested in hybrid technology earlier and knocked off their love of gigantic SUVs they might have been in better shape today. But the Japanese got to market with the hybrids earlier and better and are reaping the rewards. My wife and I have invested in new bikes. I am going to start biking to work. We do what we can. But I feel the greatest preparation for North Americans is mental/psychological - that is going to be the worst problem for most people is getting used to the idea of "progress" being growing enough food to eat rather than trading up to a new subdivision. My biggest worry is that the US government knows exactly what is coming and is fashioning the building blocks of a fascist state to control the population and the resources when the time comes. I know that sounds paranoid to many people but the timing of the way things are coming out of Washington is very suspect. We're about to get a national ID card with the Real ID Act. And its not about terrorism. But that's my opinion. And yet, my fellow Americans still pine for the Humvee to drive to the Burger King one mile from their house to buy the Giant Omelet sandwich with a plastic credit card. It just amazes me.
From: Cedar Rapids, Iowa | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
blacklisted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8572
|
posted 05 May 2005 10:55 PM
and ,in case anyone forgot, the folks who are currently managing to ensure the disaster happens are making sure they make a buck on it. "Mother Jones has tallied some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of “skeptic” scientists who continue to do so. Beyond think tanks, the count also includes quasi-journalistic outlets like Tech CentralStation.com (a website providing “news, analysis, research, and commentary” that received $95,000 from ExxonMobil in 2003), a FoxNews.com columnist, and even religious and civil rights groups. In total, these organizations received more than $8 million between 2000 and 2003 (the last year for which records are available; all figures below are for that range unless otherwise noted). ExxonMobil chairman and CEO Lee Raymond serves as vice chairman of the board of trustees for the AEI, which received $960,000 in funding from ExxonMobil. The AEI-Brookings Institution Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, which officially hosted Crichton, received another $55,000. When asked about the event, the center’s executive director, Robert Hahn—who’s a fellow with the AEI—defended it, saying, “Climate science is a field in which reasonable experts can disagree.” (By contrast, on the day of the event, the Brookings Institution posted a scathing critique of Crichton’s book.)" http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html
From: nelson,bc | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fossilnut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8972
|
posted 05 May 2005 11:01 PM
You folks know a lot of things that we in the industry don't know here in Alberta. According to the Energy Utilites Board the bitumen production in Alberta is about 7 billion barrels is the current reserves and we'll round it off at 340 barrels as the known potential reserves (estimates run as high as 2.2 trillion). So yes, at current rates of production in Canada we'd use up developed reserves (or just bitumen and not other crude) in about 18 years. By 2020 bitumen barrels will double and we'll call it an even 2 million barrels a day....then 3 million by 2025 (only 20 years off)...that'll be around 300 years worth of production. It's a myth that we are going to run out of oil in the next couple centuries. What we're running out of are conventional supplies and supplies that can meet current and increasing demands. Otherwise, oil is not going to be 'rare' but just very expensive. Very,very expensive. Supply and demand in its most fundamental manifestation. It's the reason billions and billions are being poured into bitumen production. There are billions to be made in the industry. At today's prices over 150 million in revenue a day will be generated in 20 years and that revenue only increases with rising prices. How much will'alternate' energy souces effect fossil fuel demand? A bit of tinkering around the edges but nothing sifnificant and nothing practical on the horizon. Will energy use be reduced? I don't know but I don't see any signs of it in any meaningful way...again a bit of tinkering but almost insignificant in the larger scheme of things.
From: calgary | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104
|
posted 05 May 2005 11:12 PM
quote: Mandos: That's if you like the Luddite lifestyle. I happen to be a technologist and don't relish the prospect.
I don't fault people for nessesarily liking technology. I find it interesting and happen to be big on video games myself. However I understand what it takes to sustain it. In order for you interest to continue, someone like me must continue to live under a constructed time system and either hit the factories or mines to continue this interest for many who might feel differently if they actually got a taste of what people who assemble things go through. Particularly minning which has killed so many people. In the most egalitarian system the risks will remain. Technology really comes with its own imperitives which Jaques Ellul correctly pointed out in 1964. Those imperitives are negative for many. Anyone who talks about the liberating aspect of technology is probably in a cozy western position to say these things. Of course I havn't even mentioned the nonhuman tole. Sooner or later people like me have to prepare to transition.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911
|
posted 05 May 2005 11:47 PM
fossilnut:from the latest report in The London Guardian: quote: Tar Sands These are found in sedimentary rocks and must be dug out and crushed in giant opencast mines. But it takes five to 10 times the energy, area and water to mine, process and upgrade the tars that it does to process conventional oil. The Athabasca deposits in Alberta, Canada are the world's largest resource, with estimated reserves of 1.8 trillion barrels, of which about 280-300bn barrels may be recoverable. Production now accounts for about 20% of Canada's oil supply.
Of course, you know that. But the problems with needing either water or available supplies of natural gas to do the trick with extraction are a big factor in how much and how economically you can produce this oil. Here's some analysis by Colin Campbell on the problems inherent in shale extraction. And quite frankly, I don't know how secure I would feel in the statistics from the Energy Utilities Board. But who you trust for accuracy is your own decision. But 340 billion recoverable barrels seems a bit on the high side. And, you mention at current rates of production, you'd use up developed reserves in 18 years. But at current demand projections plus the projections on conventional fuel extraction the world would need Alberta to ramp up its extraction exponentially to keep ahead of the curve (and I believe its planning on doing so to the extent possible). I'm not dissing oil shale/tar sands. We need to do what we can. But as Campbell points out, they're not a panacea but something we can use to buy a little time. Check out : ASPO for information you may not be getting from the industry.
From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 06 May 2005 12:05 AM
quote: Without the transparency in reserve capacity, we are left to having the peak oil geologists reading the tea leaves - which means careful examinations of oil company reports and government estimates, much of it is nuanced.
If the Oil geologists are really " reading tea leaves" how can we trust their projections? The way I see it, the oil companies have really screwed us over. We know two things, we know that the oil is running out and that when it does, things will be extremely bad. That's it. if the oil-producing states are keeping shtume about their reserves, and the companies like Exxon won't tell us either, we are fighting blind. The crash could happen next year, and we wouldn't know in advance. I'm sorry, but I'm a little reluctant to trust Campbell's projections, and for the record, I won't trust Exxon's either. [ 06 May 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292
|
posted 06 May 2005 12:18 AM
quote: The unfortunate fact is that there is currently no technology, or energy alternative, that even comes close to replacing oil.
True. quote: The Petroleum Consumer This person uses an average of 26.9 barrels of oil in the form of petroleum by-products every year. This person will spend an average of $2873 on end products that derive from petroleum every year. This person will purchase about 2135 liters of gasoline, motor oil, anti-freeze and other automotive fluids every year Open this door to see whose life is tied so closely to petroleum and its many by-productsThe roads we travel on are made of it, the vehicles we use are powered and lubricated by it, the homes we live in are full of products that depend on it. If you want to farm without it, you'll have to hitch up old Dobbin the horse. If you want to be a kid without it, you'll have to dump all those plastic toys, many of your clothes, and even your computer. Yes, in almost every part of our lives we use and depend on products that derive from petroleum. And, the Heavy Oil produced in this Lloydminster region is an increasingly important part of that petroleum industry. That's why we're proud to tell you the story of our unique, innovative and important industry and salute the people who make it all possible - including you!
From an Alberta industry source. Here
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
fossilnut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8972
|
posted 06 May 2005 04:58 PM
anericanain egalite quote: I'm not dissing oil shale/tar sands
What do oil shales have to do with tar sands? There's over 40 bilion dollars invested in tar sand production that is already producing almost a million barrels/ day barrel for around $19/barrel. It's real oil being produced today with many more billions of dollars bring on another 2 million barrels a day within two decades. Not economical!!!! Billions are being made. The Alberta tarsands are not just Alberta's, not just Canada's but the World's largest industrial undertaking. The oil shales? They were a mismanaged, poorly thought out boondoggle that probably wasted millions (billions) in Colorado. Any article that uses oils shales and tar sands together in the same sentence is like mixing skateboards and the Space Shuttle.
From: calgary | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911
|
posted 06 May 2005 07:27 PM
fossilnut:They are both forms of alternative sources of oil. And the US still has countless tonnes of untouched oil shale that the price of conventional oil may make the US take another serious look at exploitation. You might have missed this article last year: World Oil.com: Oil Shale Back in the Picture I'm not trying to pick a fight with you so please drop the sniping, OK? We're all on the same side and in the same boat here. If your people are right I'll gladly eat my hat. You are entirely correct that the world needs everything that Alberta can produce -- its critical. All I am asking of you is not to dismiss peak oil theorists out of hand - they are serious oil industry people and geologists as well. Y'all might also take a gander and this new effort from former CIA director James Woolsey who has a new effort bankrolled by a number of heavy hitters called the Energy Future Coalition Read their materials. Its very interesting that they are, essentially, tackling the peak oil crises without mentioning peak oil, which I find rather amusing. But when you look at the people and foundations behing the effort, this is going to get the attention of a lot of people in Washington. But they still aren't coming clean with the actual reasons to do all of what they suggest - the oil will start running down soon. [ 06 May 2005: Message edited by: Américain Égalitaire ] [ 06 May 2005: Message edited by: Américain Égalitaire ]
From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fossilnut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8972
|
posted 06 May 2005 07:48 PM
I know what oil shales are. I'm a petroleum geologist. Just because they are both 'alternate sources of oil' doesn't make one's development any more or less feasible than the other. The tarsands are currently in production and quite lucrative. There are currently about a million barrels of tarsand production a day. Equating the tarsands and oil shales are like calling dew drops and ice bergs alternate forms of freshwater. The statement is true but one has no bearing on the economic feasibility of developing the other. Tar sand production is alive and well. About a million barrels a day already on streamat a significant profit per barrel. Oil shale production is (was?) some American fiasco that was e a case of complete incompetence.
From: calgary | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 06 May 2005 10:01 PM
quote: I know what oil shales are. I'm a petroleum geologist.
Could you give us an idea of how much energy (oil equivalent) is required to get one barrel of tar sands oil to the marketplace? How much water is used in the production of one barrel of tar sands oil? Could you also tell us what the quality of the oil is? In other words, is it usable in place of light sweet crude from Saudi Arabia?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743
|
posted 07 May 2005 06:15 PM
fossilnut - I would also be interested in hearing the answer to Maestro's questions.This debate would be merely fascinating if there weren't so much riding on it. There are a lot of people out there who believe that not only are we not running out of oil but that the middle of the earth is made of the stuff (google 'abiotic oil'). As a non-geologist, I find it hard to seperate the wheat from the chaff on this topic. Personally, I am greatly worried by the prospect of the aftermath of peak oil; but I am even more concerned about the prospect of paranoid survival nuts having running gun battles over inflated concerns. Those of you who are advocating buying guns and holing up really need to top up your medication.
From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743
|
posted 07 May 2005 08:01 PM
quote: A tiny oil company from Michigan has struck oil in central Utah, but it may be years before anyone knows whether the discovery produces another "one field wonder" or results in a series of major finds that could help reduce the nation's dependency on foreign crude. Wolverine Gas & Oil Corp. is producing approximately 1,500 barrels of crude per day from two wells just outside of Sigurd. The company, though, believes its discovery 130 miles south of Salt Lake City eventually will point the way to a billion barrels or more of oil in the area.
Even if it does turn into a billion barrel find, that represents less than 2 weeks of global demand and less than 2 months of American demand. Big deal.
From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 07 May 2005 11:19 PM
There's a little quibble I'd like to make about the 'cheap oil' thing.It's not a matter of money, it's a matter of energy. That's why I posed the questions re the oil sands. If it takes a barrel of oil to get a barrel out of the ground, you're not doing anything. That's one of the problems with the oil sands. It requires a great deal of energy to extract the oil. At some point, it's no longer worth extracting, not because of price, but because extraction takes too much energy. Right now, oil sands companies are using 800M to 1B cu ft of natural gas to extract the oil. That translates roughly into 166 thousand barrels a day of oil equivalent. As extraction continues, the energy cost will get higher. quote: Contained in the oil sands are vast quantities of so-called bitumen, or super-heavy oil, underneath an area of northern Alberta as big as Florida. One extraction process is similar to strip mining, in which sand is scooped out and cooked at high heat to extract the sludge. Another process pumps steam into the underground deposits, dissolving the bitumen and allowing it to be piped to the surface. Under both methods, the resulting goo is refined into commercial grades of crude oil and piped to customers, mostly in the western United States. About 2 tons of sand have to be dug up, heated and processed to make a single 42-gallon barrel of oil. The crucial ingredient in this process is natural gas. Although other fuels have been used to cook the oil sands, such as coal and the bitumen itself, none works as well as gas. Production of gas from long-established fields in Alberta is expected to decline in coming years, and because demand for gas is rising fast, expansion of the oil sands will require new supplies.
They also use a lot of water getting that stuff out of the ground, which is another cost. And then there's this cost quote: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 OTTAWA (CP) - An estimated $1-billion insured loss at Suncor's disabled oil sands facility in northern Alberta could put a strain on some Canadian insurance companies, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions says.
So there's lots of oil there, but extraction is very energy intensive, and at best, will result in a couple of million barrels a day, which is 1/40th of current demand. The environmental impact is also a consideration.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 08 May 2005 02:15 AM
Fromt the Utah article: quote: "They have made a good find, but the question is whether it will be as big as they think," said Tom Chidsey, petroleum section chief for the Utah Geological Survey. "And it is going to take awhile to figure out the geology of the area."...Chidsey noted that oil companies have been exploring central Utah for over 50 years with no success until now. Wolverine acquired lease rights and seismic data for the area from Chevron in 1999.
One thing for sure, if Chevron sold the lease rights and seismic data, they didn't think it was going anywhere. The other thing is the history of 50 years of exploration with no success. If they haven't stumbled on anything til now, there probably ain't much there.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
fossilnut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8972
|
posted 08 May 2005 02:18 PM
What questions? He isn't asking economic issues but making statements about water use, crude quality, etc. Carbon energy is carbon energy. Whether in a stick of wood, a diamond, coal natural gas, 'oil', etc. The main stages to bring it to an end use are finding it (exploration), extracting, refining, transportaing and end use infrastructure. No carbon source is better economically in itself than any other unless all the stages 'together' are assessed. A barrel of sea water is not better or worse a barrel crude. Oil in itself has no more value than a barrel of water. The practical cost of the end product is all that counts. Barrels of oil aren't collected like stamps or antiques. As for his question of comparing Alberta and Texas oil. Does a Douglas Fir tree from B.C. have no value because Yellow Pines are harvested in Georgia and used for fine furniture making. I don't really understand the comparison or relationship. Oil doesn't go from the ground into the gas tank or generating plant or into industrail use. Oil goes through various refining processes that separates out the carbon components for various uses.
From: calgary | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 08 May 2005 05:21 PM
quote: What questions? He isn't asking economic issues but making statements about water use, crude quality, etc.
Here are the specific questions as posted: quote: Could you give us an idea of how much energy (oil equivalent) is required to get one barrel of tar sands oil to the marketplace?How much water is used in the production of one barrel of tar sands oil? Could you also tell us what the quality of the oil is? In other words, is it usable in place of light sweet crude from Saudi Arabia?
[ 08 May 2005: Message edited by: maestro ]
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548
|
posted 10 May 2005 12:54 PM
quote: Cougyr: It is an inevitability. The only questions are when and how fast.
I completely agree. I did not state that it is not a problem. I believe that as oil becomes more expensive alternative sources of energy will be adopted. That is why I now purchase wind generated electricity (it is finally economical to generated) and I drive my car alot less than I did five years ago. quote: Wingnut: Yes, and you are not unlike most of the population. And that's why I am so pessimistic. Is the WWF on?
Another example of why the environmental movement has pretty much failed over the last few decades. If someone doesn't complete agree with your argument, you rush off to insult them. Bravo. [ 10 May 2005: Message edited by: scooter ]
From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|