|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| rapier wrote: |
| What I predict though, is that the Arab/Islamic world which controls the energy supply to the west, (in the form of oil) will deliberately withold it to force EU political intervention on "resolution" of the Arab Israeli conflict. |
While Saudi Arabia is the world's largest producer of oil at 10.37M barrels a day, they aren't all that far ahead of Russia (9.27M) and the U.S. itself at 8.69M a day. After that, only four Arab countries round out the top 15 and they combined barely match Saudi Arabia's production. Influence the price of oil, yes. Control? No.
Their actual export numbers are lower, coming in at 8.7M for SA and about that for everyone else combined.
And a decision to stop supplying the west would result in the murder of their economies as they are oil dependant for everything from government income to direct jobs. 73% of Saudi Arabia's government income is from oil, and I seriously doubt the people in charge hate Israel more than they like having a stable homefront. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
death from above
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
Location: in your head
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the road warrior kicked ass
but what ever happened to mad max 4?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sonofthedarkstranger wrote: |
What other resources? Or are you saying they've gone entirly over to biodiesel? (Which is usually mixed with petroleum, no?)
My understanding is that to rely COMPLETELY on vegetable matter for fuel would require a massive investment in agriculture--more space, more cultivation, just more agriculture.
Proponents of hemp power say that if the US were to rely on hemp for its sole power source, 6% of the US land area (roughly equal to the size of Texas) would need to be given over to this enterprise. Anything less than that and we'd still need to use at least some petroleum.
I don't really believe that all the leftover vegetable oil from restaurants nationwide are a viable power source, although it'd be fine as a supplement. Same goes for windpower, solar--they just don't provide the same kind of power and oomph that petroleum does.
I think given the bottomless (and growing) energy needs of our society, there may be no real viable alternative to petroleum except perhaps nuclear power, which is obviously an unpalatable option. (Nuclear fusion would be nice). Either that or simply scale back our consumption--which is unrealistic to hope for. That won't happen until people are forced to cut back--i.e. nothing left to burn. |
Here is a good article on biofuels from Newsweek.
| Quote: |
| For either the United States or Europe to replace just 10 percent of transport fuel using today's crops and technology would require around 40 percent of cropland. Southern countries growing sugar cane, on the other hand, can get up to five times as much biofuel from each acre of land. "Without too much effort, producing ethanol from sugar cane in developing countries like Brazil and India could replace 10 percent of global gasoline fuel," says Lew Fulton, biofuels expert at the International Energy Agency. Malaysia, Indonesia and Australia are well positioned to join Brazil as global suppliers of sugar-cane ethanol. |
For me, a massive agriculture initiative would not be wholly negative. It would mean more jobs. In addition, biofuels reduce carbon emissions because the carbon released is largely carbon that has already been drawn away from the air. However, right now, biofuels are only supplementing oil and providing 10 to 20% filler. But as oil costs rise, so will the demand for alternatives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:38 pm Post subject: Re: Oil--price and supply |
|
|
| Quote: |
Judging by our atmosphere, it's unfortunate that Big Oil and car manufacturers have had this planet in such a death grip for so long. Hopefully that's about to change  |
What? Who is "big oil" and what have they done to the atmosphere? And how can you accuse car manufacturers of hurting the atmosphere? They keep coming out with new ideas for electric and hybrid cars, and people (especially Americans and Canadians) keep refusing to buy them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| canuckistan wrote: |
| Problem is the Big Interests (read: shareholders) don't have much interest in converting the entire supply chain right down to cars, which would cost them trillions. |
My dear boy, the "big interests" would be very very happy to change over the entire industry to a new model because then everybody in the country would have to buy a new car. The technology exists and they're ready to make it. The problem is SMALL INTERESTS like you and me don't want to pay a couple thousand bucks more or deal with the inconvenience of sparse fuel stations, even if that's whats right for the environment.
The only solution to dependence on petroleum is punitive taxes on gasoline consumers, but no politician could support that and get elected. So what do we do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rapier wrote: |
People only do things when they have to, and usually when its too late. Human nature.
Fossil fuels is no different.
What I predict though, is that the Arab/Islamic world which controls the energy supply to the west, (in the form of oil) will deliberately withold it to force EU political intervention on "resolution" of the Arab Israeli conflict. |
They already tried it. Didn't work. Not only that, but they controlled more of the oil then than they do now.
Last edited by bucheon bum on Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| sonofthedarkstranger wrote: |
What other resources? Or are you saying they've gone entirly over to biodiesel? (Which is usually mixed with petroleum, no?)
My understanding is that to rely COMPLETELY on vegetable matter for fuel would require a massive investment in agriculture--more space, more cultivation, just more agriculture.
Proponents of hemp power say that if the US were to rely on hemp for its sole power source, 6% of the US land area (roughly equal to the size of Texas) would need to be given over to this enterprise. Anything less than that and we'd still need to use at least some petroleum.
I don't really believe that all the leftover vegetable oil from restaurants nationwide are a viable power source, although it'd be fine as a supplement. Same goes for windpower, solar--they just don't provide the same kind of power and oomph that petroleum does.
I think given the bottomless (and growing) energy needs of our society, there may be no real viable alternative to petroleum except perhaps nuclear power, which is obviously an unpalatable option. (Nuclear fusion would be nice). Either that or simply scale back our consumption--which is unrealistic to hope for. That won't happen until people are forced to cut back--i.e. nothing left to burn. |
Here is a good article on biofuels from Newsweek.
| Quote: |
| For either the United States or Europe to replace just 10 percent of transport fuel using today's crops and technology would require around 40 percent of cropland. Southern countries growing sugar cane, on the other hand, can get up to five times as much biofuel from each acre of land. "Without too much effort, producing ethanol from sugar cane in developing countries like Brazil and India could replace 10 percent of global gasoline fuel," says Lew Fulton, biofuels expert at the International Energy Agency. Malaysia, Indonesia and Australia are well positioned to join Brazil as global suppliers of sugar-cane ethanol. |
For me, a massive agriculture initiative would not be wholly negative. It would mean more jobs. In addition, biofuels reduce carbon emissions because the carbon released is largely carbon that has already been drawn away from the air. However, right now, biofuels are only supplementing oil and providing 10 to 20% filler. But as oil costs rise, so will the demand for alternatives. |
I would rather rely on Brazil for energy than the mideast -cause the mideast is so messed up politically |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
People who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, or words to that effect.
Hot news! Oil has been embargoed before! The Arab members of OPEC cooperated to raise the price of oil! This just in from Wikipedia:
The 1973 oil crisis began in earnest on October 17, 1973, when Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), during the Yom Kippur War, announced that they would no longer ship petroleum to nations that had supported Israel in its conflict with Egypt�that is, to the United States and its allies in Western Europe.
At around the same time, OPEC members agreed to use their leverage over the world price-setting mechanism for oil in order to quadruple world oil prices. The complete dependence of the industrialized world on oil, much of which was produced by Middle Eastern countries, became painfully clear to the U.S., Western Europe, and Japan, requiring Western policymakers to respond to international economic constraints that were qualitatively different from those faced by their predecessors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| which lowered demand for oil in the long-term, producing a glut, and bringing prices down again and hurting the oil dependant economies of the middle east. Lesson: while in the short-term the OPEC can have some affect on energy prices and profit from them, in the long-term it is not in its interest to have high prices because eventually it'll bite oil producers in the ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Lesson: while in the short-term the OPEC can have some affect on energy prices and profit from them, in the long-term it is not in its interest to have high prices because eventually it'll bite oil producers in the ass.
|
Alternatively, as some Texans down in the oil patch like to say, "Let 'em (Northerners) freeze in the dark".
The bottom line is not necessarily the bottom line. Other factors at times take precedence over money. Things like pride, nationalism, religion...emotional things like that. All I'm saying is: If it happened once, it can happen again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| well yes, can but unlikely. Unlike then, every country minus Iran recognizes Israel. Unlike then, the world is more aware of the Palestinian cause. Unlike then, the image of Arabs is pretty damaged these days thanks to 9/11 and similar events. They (arab gov'ts) can't afford to do something that extreme. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I hope you're right, bb, but I think you're wrong. 
You don't think that new guy in Iran or Chavez in Venezuela wouldn't take a whack at the US/EU if he thought he could get away with it? A year or so ago China turned off the oil spigott to the North. What do you think would happen if any one of the oil exporters said they were considering shutting down production for just 3 days? The price of oil would blow right through the $100 a barrel level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Peak Oil according to the Army Corps of Engineers
| Quote: |
World oil production is at or near its peak and current world demand exceeds the supply. Saudi Arabia is considered the
bellwether nation for oil production and has not increased production since April 2003. After peak production, supply no
longer meets demand, and prices and competition increase. The proved reserve lifetime for world oil is about 41 years,
most of this at a declining availability. Our current throw-away nuclear cycle will consume the world reserve of low-cost
uranium in about 20 years. Unless we dramatically change our consumption practices, the Earth�s finite resources of petroleum
and natural gas will become depleted in this century. Coal supplies may last into the next century depending on
technology and consumption trends as it starts to replace oil and natural gas.
We must act now to develop the technology and infrastructure necessary to transition to other energy sources and energy
efficient technologies. Policy changes, leap-ahead technology breakthroughs, cultural changes, and significant investment
is requisite for this new energy future. Time is essential to enact these changes. The process should begin now.
Our best options for meeting future energy requirements are energy efficiency and renewable sources. Energy efficiency
is the least expensive, most readily available, and environmentally friendly way to stretch our current energy supplies.
This ensures that we get the most benefit from every Btu used. It involves optimizing operations and controls to minimize
waste and infusing state of the art technology and techniques where appropriate. The potential savings for the Army is
about 30 percent of current and future consumption. Energy efficiency measures usually pay for themselves over the life
cycle of the application, even when only face value costs are considered. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Burgan Oil Field Depleting
| Quote: |
Tests
By Peter J. Cooper
KUWAIT: It was an incredible revelation last week that the second largest oil field in the world is exhausted and past its peak output. Yet that is what the Kuwait Oil Company revealed about its Burgan field. The peak output of the Burgan oil field will now be around 1.7 million barrels per day, and not the two million barrels per day forecast for the rest of the field's 30 to 40 years of life, Chairman Farouk Al-Zanki told Bloomberg. He said that engineers had tried to maintain 1.9 million barrels per day but that 1.7 million is the optimum rate. Kuwait will now spend some $3 million a year for the next year to boost output and exports from other fields.
However, it is surely a landmark moment when the world's second largest oil field begins to run dry. For Burgan has been pumping oil for almost 60 years and accounts for more than half of Kuwait's proven oil reserves. This is also not what forecasters are currently assuming.
Last week the International Energy Agency's report said output from the Greater Burgan area will be 1.64 million barrels a day in 2020 and 1.53 million barrels per day in 2030. Is this now a realistic scenario?
The news about the Burgan oil field also lends credence to the controversial opinions of investment banker and geologist Matthew Simmons. His book 'Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy' claims that ageing Saudi oil fields also face serious production falls.
The implications for the global economy are indeed serious. If the world oil supply begins to run dry then the upward pressure on oil prices will be inexorable. For the oil producers this will come as a compensation for declining output, and cushion them against an economic collapse.
However, the oil consumers then face a major energy crisis. Industrialized economies are still far too dependent on oil. And the pricing mechanism of declining oil reserves will press them into further diversification of energy supplies, particularly nuclear, wind and solar power.
All this was foreshadowed in the energy crisis of the late 1970s when a serious inflection in oil supply by the year 2000 was clearly forecast. How ironic that those earlier forecasts now look correct, while more modern and recent forecasts begin to look over optimistic and out-of-date with geological reality.
Nobody can change the geology, and forces of nature that laid down reserves of oil and gas over millions and millions of years. Could it be that we have been blinded by technological advances into thinking that there is some way to beat nature?
The natural world has an uncanny ability to hit back at the arrogance of man, and perhaps a reassessment of reality at this point is called for, rather than a reliance on oil statistics that may owe more to political manoeuvring than geological facts. - AME Info FZ LLC. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If Brazil can switch over to ethanol over night, the Western economies can as well. There's a heap of tar sands that can be tapped at a reasonable profit when oil is $60 a bbl. We've had that for a good stretch and the world didn't come to an end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
