|
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 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: Peak oil dealt another blow |
 |
|
| Quote: |
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. � The Kern River oil field, discovered in 1899, was revived when Chevron engineers here started injecting high-pressured steam to pump out more oil. The field, whose production had slumped to 10,000 barrels a day in the 1960s, now has a daily output of 85,000 barrels.
In Indonesia, Chevron has applied the same technology to the giant Duri oil field, discovered in 1941, boosting production there to more than 200,000 barrels a day, up from 65,000 barrels in the mid-1980s.
And in Texas, Exxon Mobil expects to double the amount of oil it extracts from its Means field, which dates back to the 1930s. Exxon, like Chevron, will use three-dimensional imaging of the underground field and the injection of a gas � in this case, carbon dioxide � to flush out the oil.
Within the last decade, technology advances have made it possible to unlock more oil from old fields, and, at the same time, higher oil prices have made it economical for companies to go after reserves that are harder to reach. With plenty of oil still left in familiar locations, forecasts that the world�s reserves are drying out have given way to predictions that more oil can be found than ever before.
In a wide-ranging study published in 2000, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that ultimately recoverable resources of conventional oil totaled about 3.3 trillion barrels, of which a third has already been produced. More recently, Cambridge Energy Research Associates, an energy consultant, estimated that the total base of recoverable oil was 4.8 trillion barrels. That higher estimate � which Cambridge Energy says is likely to grow � reflects how new technology can tap into more resources.
�It�s the fifth time to my count that we�ve gone through a period when it seemed the end of oil was near and people were talking about the exhaustion of resources,� said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of Cambridge Energy and author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning history of oil, who cited similar concerns in the 1880s, after both world wars and in the 1970s. �Back then we were going to fly off the oil mountain. Instead we had a boom and oil went to $10 instead of $100.� |
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/business/05oil1.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
Cato sums it up nicely..
| Quote: |
An excellent article by reporter Jad Mouawad in today�s New York Times knocks the stuffing out of those warning for the nth time that we�re about to run out of oil. What the doomsayers overlook is that existing fields typically deliver about 35% of their oil to the market. Until recently, the rest had been deemed unrecoverable for economic reasons.
But as technology improves and oil prices go up, what was once deemed unrecoverable becomes, well, recoverable. And that has a big impact on supply. Oil analyst Leonardo Maugeri has estimated that if recovery rates (which hovered around only 10% a few decades ago) were to move from 35% to 40%, that would be akin to adding a new Saudi Arabia to the global crude oil market. Maugeri�s recent essay in Newsweek covers a lot of the same ground. |
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/03/05/the-grey-lady-deflates-peak-oil-fears/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That's been my point about "peak oil". We may never see $20 a bbl for a long long time but $55 a bbl is break even for a vast amount of untapped resources and alternative energy sources. We got up to what? $75 a bbl? The world didn't come to an end. Really the smart move by the major oil producers is bring the glut on again. It will bankrupt the competition and next time there's a period of obscene profits, people will be even more gun shy about investing in alternative oil sources and alternative energy. The vast lag we're seeing today in rolling out alt. energy is a direct result of the last oil crisis-oil glut tag team. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
You dudes are so simplistic in your thinking. First, oil prices have to STAY high for this story to be worth more than toilet paper at the end of te day. Second, if we stay on fossil fuels as we have, you can kiss the way you live today goodbye. 3rd, look at the stats on just how much oil that is given future consumption expectations.
Simplistic is not good when discussing something like the oil supply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oil prices are high, and will remain high for the long run. They aren't at a historical high, but oil is expensive now. The more expensive it is, the more we will 1) learn to use it efficiently, 2) search for more oil 3) search for alternatives.
At the turn of the century, in Canada, the forests were being cut down for heat. Then, we discovered oil, and the trees grew back. We won't notice when the oil 'peaks' or runs out because we will have moved on to something else.
You need to learn about basic economics, efl. I'll help you.
Below is an excerpt from "The Invisible Heart", by Russ Roberts.
| Quote: |
"Well, it appears we'll run out of oil," said Amy.
"Amy, do you like pistachio nuts?" Sam asked her.
"Doesn't everyone?"
"Suppose for your birthday I gave you a room full of pistachio nuts in the shell. It's a big room, say the size of this classroom. The room is filled with pistachio nuts up to a height of five feet. There are millions of them. Happy birthday, Amy. Welcome to the Nut Room. The nuts in this room are yours for the taking. Any time you want to come in here and help yourself, there is no charge. Bring your friends if you'd like. Just wade in and have a pistachio party. You're thrilled of course�"
"Thrilled?"
"OK, mildly happy. Work with me." Sam said, smiling. "You're happy because you love pistachio nuts. Outside the Nut Room, they're expensive. Inside, they're free. There's only one rule in the Nut Room. As you eat the nuts, you've got to leave the shells in the room. You can't take them out with you. At first, that's no problem. For the first few days and maybe weeks and months, the pistachios are plentiful. But as the years go by, it takes longer and longer to find a pistachio. The shells start getting in the way. You come in with your friends and you spend hours wading through the shells of pistachios you've already eaten in order to find one containing a nut. Your friends say, we've got to stop meeting like this. 'Why?' you ask. 'Don't you like free pistachio nuts?' And what do your friends say in response?"
"The nuts aren't free any more," Amy said.
"Exactly!" Sam shouted in triumph. "After a while, you're better off paying for nuts in the store rather than spending hours trying to extract a nut from the depths of the pile. The cost of the nuts in the Nut Room has gotten too high. It's the same with oil. Years before the last drop of oil is found and extracted, we'll walk away from oil as an energy source. It will be too hard to find new reserves. Or too expensive to extract the reserves we know about. Long before we run out of oil, we'll switch to cheaper alternatives. Remember the pistachios!"
The kid in the back row leaned over again to his friend. "I told you he was crazy. Too much time in the Nut Room." |
http://www.invisibleheart.com/Iheart/ISampleC1.html
There is no need to be alarmist about this. The market will take care of our energy problems. Public policy can speed solutions along, by keeping oil even more expensive via taxation, and tolling all roads. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
Oil prices are high, and will remain high for the long run. They aren't at a historical high, but oil is expensive now. The more expensive it is, the more we will 1) learn to use it efficiently, 2) search for more oil 3) search for alternatives.
At the turn of the century, in Canada, the forests were being cut down for heat. Then, we discovered oil, and the trees grew back. We won't notice when the oil 'peaks' or runs out because we will have moved on to something else.
You need to learn about basic economics, efl. I'll help you. |
You're an arrogant little *beep*. I know plenty of economics. You were talking about oil and stated there was enough - more than enough - and did so with no qualifications whatsoever. Now, add in how the oil/auto industry has kept alternatives, etc., from being developed... etc. So, if there's plenty of oil, why would the government - dominated by an oil cartel's wo's who - ever do anything serious about developing alternatives?
Let me add an example of all this "new" oil: the recently-found deep drilling oil field in the Gulf or Carribean? Worth, oh, some few months of oil.
Ah, and, we don't have 20 or 30 more years of current, let alone increased, fossil fuel consumption available to us.
You're still being simplistic. And an arrogant putz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
Oil prices are high, and will remain high for the long run. They aren't at a historical high, but oil is expensive now. The more expensive it is, the more we will 1) learn to use it efficiently, 2) search for more oil 3) search for alternatives.
At the turn of the century, in Canada, the forests were being cut down for heat. Then, we discovered oil, and the trees grew back. We won't notice when the oil 'peaks' or runs out because we will have moved on to something else.
You need to learn about basic economics, efl. I'll help you. |
You're an arrogant little *beep*. I know plenty of economics. You were talking about oil and stated there was enough - more than enough - and did so with no qualifications whatsoever. Now, add in how the oil/auto industry has kept alternatives, etc., from being developed... etc. So, if there's plenty of oil, why would the government - dominated by an oil cartel's wo's who - ever do anything serious about developing alternatives?
Let me add an example of all this "new" oil: the recently-found deep drilling oil field in the Gulf or Carribean? Worth, oh, some few months of oil.
Ah, and, we don't have 20 or 30 more years of current, let alone increased, fossil fuel consumption available to us.
You're still being simplistic. And an arrogant putz. |
No, you don't. You don't really understand how these markets work, and the larger forces at play.
The rest of your post, well, read the OP. It takes care of it just fine. You also might want to keep in mind that "the government" doesn't start and stop and the USA... There are 190+ other nations out there that aren't in the pocket of the Saudi's and who will explore ways to generate energy that don't depend on oil. For example, ohhhhhh, China, who is importing 2 nuclear reactors a year from France to generate their energy and move away a coal-fired economy. And the Japanese who lead all efforts at energy efficiency. Scandinavian governments are hugely investing in science to find alternatives, as is Brazil. Add that to the tens of thousands of scientists in the USA who are working on alternative energy and I think your alarmist nonsense, though entertaining, is hugely misplaced. The world doesn't start and stop and the United States.
If you think we are going to "run out" of oil, you are more delusional that I previously thought. And I think you are really damn delusional. Peak oil, like your 'truther' pals, is total bunk. Putz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
Oil prices are high, and will remain high for the long run. They aren't at a historical high, but oil is expensive now. The more expensive it is, the more we will 1) learn to use it efficiently, 2) search for more oil 3) search for alternatives.
At the turn of the century, in Canada, the forests were being cut down for heat. Then, we discovered oil, and the trees grew back. We won't notice when the oil 'peaks' or runs out because we will have moved on to something else.
You need to learn about basic economics, efl. I'll help you. |
You're an arrogant little *beep*. I know plenty of economics. You were talking about oil and stated there was enough - more than enough - and did so with no qualifications whatsoever. Now, add in how the oil/auto industry has kept alternatives, etc., from being developed... etc. So, if there's plenty of oil, why would the government - dominated by an oil cartel's wo's who - ever do anything serious about developing alternatives?
Let me add an example of all this "new" oil: the recently-found deep drilling oil field in the Gulf or Carribean? Worth, oh, some few months of oil.
Ah, and, we don't have 20 or 30 more years of current, let alone increased, fossil fuel consumption available to us.
You're still being simplistic. And an arrogant putz. |
Again, we come back to this:
1) Ethanol. Brazil made the switch in a matter of years. If a nation as f'd up as Brazil can do it, the USA might be able manage.
2) Oil sands and oil shale reserves are vast but break even when oil is 55 bbl.
3) Nuclear power is proven, safe, and can be brought online the second there is political will. 80% of France is run off of nuclear energy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gas is far to inexpensive. Instead of sending money to the Mideast the US could be investing in medical research or cutting the US budget deficit. The US needs a gas tax more than ever.
Too bad the US has already forgotten that the enemy is funded by oil money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
You putzes: I did notset up the simplistic model, the idiot did. And still maintains it. Yes, there are alternatives. Yes, they CAN be developed. Yes, some nations are doing serious work with regard to this. Yes, the high price of oil makes getting at other oil "affordable" (for the oil companies.)
None of that deals with the GLOBAL situation. Even if you ca ramp up all these other industries, nothing coming from climate scientists indicates the TIM to do it is there. And, despite the OPutz's claims of the development going on elsewhere, if China and the US don't get off the oil addiction IT WON'T MATTER WHAT ANYONE ElSE DOES.
Etc., etc.
Simplistic in the OP, simplistic still. Nothing new there, eh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't think you get it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
You putzes: I did notset up the simplistic model, the idiot did. And still maintains it. Yes, there are alternatives. Yes, they CAN be developed. Yes, some nations are doing serious work with regard to this. Yes, the high price of oil makes getting at other oil "affordable" (for the oil companies.)
None of that deals with the GLOBAL situation. Even if you ca ramp up all these other industries, nothing coming from climate scientists indicates the TIM to do it is there. And, despite the OPutz's claims of the development going on elsewhere, if China and the US don't get off the oil addiction IT WON'T MATTER WHAT ANYONE ElSE DOES.
Etc., etc.
Simplistic in the OP, simplistic still. Nothing new there, eh? |
You keep dragging global warming into the argument. Peak Oil has nothing to do with global warming. How will global warming alter the energy need equation? Peak Oil makes low emission technology like ethanol and nuclear more appealing anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Really the smart move by the major oil producers is bring the glut on again. It will bankrupt the competition and next time there's a period of obscene profits, people will be even more gun shy about investing in alternative oil sources and alternative energy. The vast lag we're seeing today in rolling out alt. energy is a direct result of the last oil crisis-oil glut tag team. |
I thought the biggest problem was that a lack of refineries left oil companies unable to process all the petroleum they are taking out of the ground.
I thought the oil spike localized to the US in the wake of Katrina, which had hit oil refinery territory right after a huge fire at a Texas refinery: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7277890 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Coal Liquefaction:
| Quote: |
Synthetic fuel, created via coal liquefaction, requires no engine modifications for use in standard automobiles. As a byproduct of oil embargos during Apartheid in South Africa, Sasol, using the Fischer-Tropsch process, developed relatively low-cost coal-based fuel. Currently, about 30% of South Africa's transport-fuel (mostly diesel) is produced from coal [53]. With crude-oil prices above $40 per barrel, this process is now cost-effective; however the process emits large amounts of carbon dioxide, thus contributing substantially to global warming.
|
How much coal does the USA have? Loads.
Tar sands:
| Quote: |
With the development of new in-situ production techniques such as steam assisted gravity drainage, and with the oil price increases of 2004-2006, there were several dozen companies planning nearly 100 oil sands mines and in-situ projects in Canada, totaling nearly $100 billion in capital investment. With 2007 crude oil prices significantly in excess of the current average cost of production for tar sands of $28 per barrel [1], all of these projects appear likely to be profitable. However, tar sands production costs are rising rapidly, with production cost increases of 55% since 2005, due to shortages of labor and materials. [2] |
None of this is good for global warming, other than high pump prices encourages people to get fuel efficient vehicles. But peak oil is not the bogeyman people claim it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
mindmetoo, again, quite simplistic. GW and PO are not related?
I'll let you consider your words before responding. This is wrong, prima facia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
mindmetoo, again, quite simplistic. GW and PO are not related?
I'll let you consider your words before responding. This is wrong, prima facia. |
It's like we're trying to argue X medication can cure cancer and you keep harping on it makes you fat.
Peak oil is about there not being enough oil to meet demand.
Global warming is about humans adding too many hydrocarbons to the atmosphere.
If there was no threat of peak oil, we would still have the global warming problem. The only connection I can see:
No peak oil = we'd have a bigger problem with global warming. People would be burning more hydrocarbons.
Peak oil threat = moderately less hydrocarbons being pumped into the atmosphere as people shift to biofuels, conservation, etc.
There is a relation there but so what? Someone is making the argument there will not be enough energy to meet future demand. I'm arguing the market system will make unprofitable energy sources, reasonably easy to tap and put into the pipeline, profitable and available.
My ultimate prediction is the major oil producers will enjoy their profits for a bit longer and then turn on the tap and create a new oil glut, destroying the business plans of the oil sand, wind, nuclear, hybrid, and ethanol industries.
Now do you want to argue peak oil is likely or not? I take the position, independent of environmental effects, the market place will ensure we have enough energy to meet demand, as long as we're willing to pay for it. If you see some issue about global warming that would stop tar sands, nuclear, biofuels, dead in its tracks, then please enlighten me. That's at least the third time I've asked for clarification on the connection you see ("How will global warming alter the energy need equation?"), which you've ignored, and you've simply restated your premise as if it's fact. |
|
| 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
