Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

What's the best solution to our energy problems?

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: fossten

Which one is the best, and why?

Posted by: shagdrum

I really don't think there is any question on this one...

Posted by: taylor414ce2003

answer is none of the above they are all short term solutions eventualy the well will be dry!!!!! another short term fix is taking oil,we invaded an oil producing country why not get something out of it!!!!
what ever hapeened to the oil crises of the 1970's it didnt just go away. Real Alternive fuel sources should have been developed by now,these gas prices are no surprise!!!! If our gov. spent 1/2 as much $s on new energy sources as it does on UFOs and developing WMDs 90% of Americans would never evan have herard of Iraq,Iran etc!!!!!!!

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by taylor414ce2003

answer is none of the above they are all short term solutions eventualy the well will be dry!!!!! another short term fix is taking oil,we invaded an oil producing country why not get something out of it!!!!
what ever hapeened to the oil crises of the 1970's it didnt just go away. Real Alternive fuel sources should have been developed by now,these gas prices are no surprise!!!! If our gov. spent 1/2 as much $s on new energy sources as it does on UFOs and developing WMDs 90% of Americans would never evan have herard of Iraq,Iran etc!!!!!!!

Actually, we have been investing money in alternative energy sources for years. We have yet to see any evidence to suggest that any of them are more then a pipe dream, let alone a viable alternative to oil. Real alternatives would have been developed by now, if any were viable (given current technology).

Besides, your whole analysis intentionally disregards any "short term" solutions, and is thus unrealistic. The long term is irrelevant without the short term. If there is no bridge (short term solutions) between now and long term solutions, then the long term solutions are worthless.

Also, what definition of "short term" are you using? Because drilling for oil is hardly just a short term solution. Short term usually means less then a year. It will take longer then that to get oil to the market from new drilling sites, and the oil is already conservatively projected to last for decades, based only known reserves, not taking into consideration the new reserves we will inevitably discover.

You should focus on the here and now as well, not just some Utopian vision of energy consumption that might come about 40 plus years in the future.

Besides, government is usually terrible at planning for the long term. They are too concerned with the here and now (short term), and usually aren't too good at fixing those concerns either.

Your whole argument is nothing more then a red herring, and is thus irrelevant.

Posted by: shagdrum

We shouldn't drill, it is only a short term solution!

I have a solution!

We need to be investing in alternative energy sources like; Flux capacitor's, antimatter warp drives, hyperdrives, transporter technology, ZPM's, FTL drives, the Genesis device, wormhole technology, stargates, etc., etc.

In fact, maybe we can create an energy source that runs on belief and wishful thinking....

Posted by: taylor414ce2003

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

We shouldn't drill, it is only a short term solution!

I have a solution!

In fact, maybe we can create an energy source that runs on belief and wishful thinking....

Where did I say that?
what do you call the Hydrogen cell,I call it evidence that there are alternitives to oil along with the sun and wind ..Oil was once a pipedream!!!!

Posted by: Marcus

Here's something I posted yesterday at another forum, with some rewording here and there. Part of the thread was about oil spills, so part of my reply had to with that. The rest addresses the topic at hand:

First off, READ ME.

Bush prevents oil, gas drilling off Florida coast
Government to buy back leasing rights

Thursday, May 30, 2002
WASHINGTON -- With his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, looking on, President Bush sealed a deal Wednesday to prevent further oil and gas drilling off the white sand beaches of the Florida Gulf Coast and in the cypress swamps near the Everglades.

The unexpected announcement would require the federal government to repurchase $235 million worth of oil and gas leasing rights in the Destin Dome area, about 25 miles south of Pensacola, and in three wildlife areas including Big Cypress National Preserve.

Jeb Bush acknowledged that the Oval Office announcement would boost his re-election campaign in Florida, the swing state in the 2000 presidential election and a tourism mecca where polls show 75 percent oppose offshore drilling.

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

Second, I've heard several pundits make the claim that there were no oil spills associated with Katrina and Rita. The US Minerals Management Service issued a report in May, 2006 that contradicts that rosy picture.

Some highlights:

Based on additional industry assessments, investigations, and reports, the number of pipelines damaged has risen to 457 from 183. The number of larger diameter pipelines (10 inches or greater) that were damaged has risen to 101 from 64.

MMS has also revised the number of platforms destroyed from 115 down to 113...

MMS also is releasing the following tally of hurricane-related oil/condensate/chemical spills in Federal offshore OCS waters as reported to MMS and the National Response Center. Six spills of 1,000 barrels or greater were reported; the largest of these was 3,625 barrels of condensate reported by the Gulf South Pipeline Company in the Eugene Island Block 51 area. A total of 146 spills of 1 barrel or greater have been reported in the Federal OCS waters; 37 of these were 50 barrels or greater. No shoreline or wildlife impacts were noted from these spills.

Please note that, in the interests of honesty, I didn't conveniently leave out the last sentence of that last excerpt. However, the sentence doesn't tell the whole story. There were indeed oil spills created. See this satellite photo taken September 1-2, 2005 (fairly large download):

http://skytruth.mediatools.org/sites...5/11946-lg.jpg

See all those dark splotches? Those are oil spills. Out of sight, out of mind I guess.

But what about spills at onshore facilities which support those offshore platforms? A true disaster. All in all, the Houston Chronicle estimated a total of 595 spills with over 9 million gallons of oil spilled due to Katrina and Rita, both onshore and offshore.

There's no doubt that technological improvements have made it possible to avoid some large-scale disasters, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that there are no longer any dangers.

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

It's been stated that there is a potential of 18 billion barrels of oil around the outer continental shelf that remains off limits. Let's put that number into perspective.

According to this Department of Energy report (PDF - see table 10), there are almost 41 billion barrels of oil available JUST IN THE GULF, THAT IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR EXPLORATION! That's over twice the amount estimated for the rest of the outer continental shelf combined! Why do we need to open up more when the oil companies haven't even begun to tap what's available to them right now? I'm not referring to the Democratic talking point about the 57 million acres, or whatever the number is, of land that the oil companies have available. I'm talking about offshore reserves that we know are there and are ready to produce!

Next let's put into perspective the amount of oil that can realistically be produced on a daily basis if we open the rest of the OCS. Last year, the DOE released a report, Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030. Do a find on "Impacts of Increased" to go to the relevant section. In it, they use a couple of projections, the first being the "Reference Case", which assume that the OCS will NOT be opened up, the second being the "OCS Access Case", which assumes that it WILL be opened.

Let's forget about all of the arguments about how many years it will take before anything comes to fruition and skip right to the numbers for the year 2030, and pretend we can start drilling at full production right now.

According to the report:

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20)...

The actual number, if you click the links under the charts, are 2.2 million bbls a day for the reference case vs. 2.36 million bbls a day in the access case. That's a difference of 160,000 barrels a day.

So, opening up the rest of the OCS will increase TOTAL domestic production by 3 percent. While that's an improvement, it's hardly the goldmine that pundits make it out to be. But hey, that's better than NO extra production right? Sure, you could make that argument. But will it make a difference at the pump? Unlikely.

I intentionally left off the last sentence in the excerpt above. It reads--and this is the key:

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

Too many people seem to forget this inconvenient fact. America doesn't set its own oil prices. The world market does (I'm ignoring the artificial hyper-inflation of prices due to skewed futures markets for now). The oil companies aren't going to give Americans a discount. They're going to sell it for the market price.

Total world oil production is around 86 million bbls a day. That additional 160,000 bbls a day we'd get from the OCS amounts to less than 2 tenths of one percent of total world production. Hell, double that amount and you're still at less than half a percent increase in world production. What kind of effect do you think that will have on oil prices? If you answered "NONE" you win!

OK, you argue, let's do it just so we're sending that much less money to the terrorist havens in the middle east and communist dictators in South America. That's a fine sentiment, but just bear in mind that these countries aren't going to be losing one red cent simply because we aren't buying from them. We're not talking about trucks or baby strollers that we can boycott and have a true impact on sales. Oil is a vital resource that will always have buyers. If we don't buy their oil, someone else will.

Offshore drilling is not the panacea that pundits and partisan politicians make it out to be. It will solve nothing. The finger pointing is disingenuous, and nothing more than pandering and posturing.

If someone has some opposing information, I'm all ears.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by taylor414ce2003

Where did I say that?
what do you call the Hydrogen cell,I call it evidence that there are alternatives to oil along with the sun and wind ..Oil was once a pipedream!!!!

It is called illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

The hydrogen cell is the most promising of the potential alternative energies, IMO. But it is still a very long way off from being a viable alternative. Sun and wind are a joke and a pipe dream; the technologies are inherently inefficient and unable to compete with gas in a free market. They can supplement oil based energy at best. There is no change that either, or both of those can replace oil as the main form of energy that drives the modern world. Nuclear energy is a must better option for that (at least on the non-transportation end of things).

Oil was never a "pipe dream", because it was never over hyped as a "solution" to a perceived problem; in other words, it was never a "dream" of any kind. It was just the natural course of human progress.

There was never a social and/or political movement to replace the then current form of transportation with oil based transportation.

Posted by: shagdrum

Marcus, I will get back to your post later. I don't really have time to respond at the moment, and the quality of your post demands some care and attention to detail in a response.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by taylor414ce2003

Where did I say that?
what do you call the Hydrogen cell,I call it evidence that there are alternitives to oil along with the sun and wind ..Oil was once a pipedream!!!!

How do you suggest we fuel our jets, boats, and make things like shingles for houses? Oil is used for far more than just fueling cars.

By the way, the world is literally drowning in oil. If you search, you'll find the thread I posted a while back that shows that the world, as of right now, has over 100 years of oil in harvestable quantities.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus

But what about spills at onshore facilities which support those offshore platforms? A true disaster. All in all, the Houston Chronicle estimated a total of 595 spills with over 9 million gallons of oil spilled due to Katrina and Rita, both onshore and offshore.

There's no doubt that technological improvements have made it possible to avoid some large-scale disasters, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that there are no longer any dangers.

I knew somebody would try this baloney red herring eventually. That's why I saved this:

Mother Nature, the biggest oil polluter on Earth

posted at 5:15 pm on July 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Senator Jim DeMint has joined the effort to bring a little rationality to American energy policy. His office has clipped this video from Fox News that talks about the issues of increasing domestic production — and exposes the greatest oil-spill polluter on Earth. It’s a real mother:

[visit link to view youtube video]

DeMint’s office provided this handy chart, showing the 63% that nature itself puts in the water as oil seeps from natural vents.

Now, some can say that the percentage due to spills from drilling and extraction remains low because we restrict that activity — but we don’t restrict it everywhere, and drilling spills have become very rare. On the other hand, we keep buying more of our oil from abroad, which means we have to bring more of it by big tanker across a much longer voyage, and that brings more risk. Already it accounts for four times as much as drilling and extraction spillage, and it could get worse:

Considering that U.S. oil consumption and oil imports have steadily increased, the trend of declining spill incidents and volume in past years is noteworthy. Yet, recent annual data indicate that the overall decline of annual spill events may have stopped. Both consumption and imports are projected to maintain upward movement, and the United States is expected to increase the proportion of its imported oil. More oil-carrying vessels will be entering U.S. waters, and a higher percentage of transported oil will likely travel by vessel. The threat of oil spills may increase if more oil is being transported into and around the nation.

Enhancing domestic production would reduce opportunity for environmental damage. Further, opening up oil shale and other land-based oil reserves would eliminate risk for shore spills altogether. More importantly, it would put the US on a path to greater energy independence, create jobs, and slow down the massive transfers of wealth from America to nations of questionable friendship with us, or worse.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/1...earth/?print=1

By the way, Marcus, or TommyB, or whatever your name is

:

You think oil spills are bad now, imagine how bad they'll be as we depend more and more on oil tankers coming, I might add, from less environmentally conscious third world countries. The United States is already the cleanest and most environmentally responsible country in the world thanks to your treehugger buddies. Things will only get worse if more banana republics become our suppliers.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Well, I think we should drill, and drill and drill. Period. Flood the market and drop the cost of oil to nothing. This includes constructing more refineries as well.

BUT -- I also think we should tax the oil. (after drilling as above) If people are willing to pay $4 now, then we can tax cheaper oil. This will have 2 effects. Keep demand down a bit, and provide a good revenue source.

Next, we HAVE to keep pushing for development of more efficient engines, alternative energies, etc.

We also need to start employing those alternative energies as we can where they are easiest to do so that will make a significant difference. ie. Power all cop cars with some alternative energy -- or something like that.

We also need to find new ways to heat and power our homes. Solar panels and wind farms need to keep growing in number and improving in efficiency.

In short, drill now, develop for the future.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

We also need to find new ways to heat and power our homes. Solar panels and wind farms need to keep growing in number and improving in efficiency.

Well, there is only so much energy you can get from solar panels and wind farms, and that tech has pretty much plateaued (if not peaked). They are not an effective or realistic solution. A supplement, at best.

Besides, if your goal is to reduce CO2 emissions, solar panels and wind powers are not the answer. Those alternatives take up massive amounts of land mass to produce relatively little energy. To occupy that land mass, trees and other plants that absorb CO2 emissions must be cut down.

Oil at least draws energy from well under the ground where things are already dead and leaves the various plant life in place to absorb and reduce CO2 emissions.

Reforestation has been the only effective way shown to reduce greenhouse gases.

The best solution for non-transportation type energy, if one of your goals is to reduce CO2 emissions, is nuclear power.

As for transportation based energy needs, oil is currently the only viable energy known (at least without enough drawbacks to make it a net negative for the economy and most Americans, like E85 is).

I will note that hydrogen shows some promise, but is still a long way from being a viable solution.

I also have to ask, why do we have to develop more efficient engines? I see no necessity for that. Only a lot of hyperbole and people trying to force their own priorities (dictated by their political agenda) on society.

Posted by: JoeyGood

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Well, I think we should drill, and drill and drill. Period. Flood the market and drop the cost of oil to nothing. This includes constructing more refineries as well.

BUT -- I also think we should tax the oil. (after drilling as above) If people are willing to pay $4 now, then we can tax cheaper oil. This will have 2 effects. Keep demand down a bit, and provide a good revenue source.

Next, we HAVE to keep pushing for development of more efficient engines, alternative energies, etc.

We also need to start employing those alternative energies as we can where they are easiest to do so that will make a significant difference. ie. Power all cop cars with some alternative energy -- or something like that.

We also need to find new ways to heat and power our homes. Solar panels and wind farms need to keep growing in number and improving in efficiency.

In short, drill now, develop for the future.

I Agree , places like the gulf are filled with oil and more refineries are a must for us . look at South America and learn from them, Brazil has been using Sugar Cane for fuel for quite some time. If cut out the Saudi oil and get it from both South America and Canada wouldn't that be better? This in turn would keep us from using any reserve oil we had.

Speaking of reserve oil, Do they rotate this oil or something or do we just keep a stock pile of it, Where is it all kept and how much is enough?

From what it looked like to me when the gas prices went up and people cut back and started using mas Transit they in turn went to the development of Ethanol. What that translated to me was if we can't screw you with the gas will do it an other way, which brought up the price of everything else we use.

Looks like we (middle class) can't win no matter what we do. From what i can tell and someone please correct me if I'm wrong. This country is being run like a book i read called the The Art of War

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeyGood

This country is being run like a book i read called the The Art of War

I thought it was more like Atlas Shrugged.

Posted by: JoeyGood

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I thought it was more like Atlas Shrugged.

HHMMMM could be a combination of both

Posted by: taylor414ce2003

[quote=shagdrum;410525]We shouldn't drill, it is only a short term solution!

I have a solution!

All that would be R Reagans dream with his Star Wars program

Posted by: taylor414ce2003

Besides, your whole analysis intentionally disregards any "short term" solutions, and is thus unrealistic. The long term is irrelevant without the short term. If there is no bridge (short term solutions) between now and long term solutions, then the long term solutions are worthless.

thought I said to start taking oil out of the country we invaded for short term fix

Posted by: taylor414ce2003

[quote=Joeychgo;410650]Well, I think we should drill, and drill and drill. Period. Flood the market and drop the cost of oil to nothing. This includes constructing more refineries as well.

More drilling is just ignoring the fact that we will run out of oil!!! not in our lifetime but maybe your kids or your grandchildren.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by taylor414ce2003

More drilling is just ignoring the fact that we will run out of oil!!! not in our lifetime but maybe your kids or your grandchildren.

1. We’re not running out of oil.

2. Even if we were, it would take 100 years based on present known reserves.

3. It’s likely that increased technology will allow us to find oil previously unavailable.

4. Even if we can’t do #3, we have 100 years to find alternative sources. Certainly they’ll have the solar/electric car battery worked out by then if the government gets out of the way. Let the markets solve it.

5. Based on the above 4 points, there is no reason why we should pretend like we have a shortage in oil. It’s there, so we should use it, and use the hell out of it. Restricting ourselves from using a cheap, accessible, and useful resource is stupid and punitive.

6. The best solution is for government to get out of the way and let the market handle it. If increased efficiency in automobiles is the way to go, the public will demand it themselves and the industries will produce to meet the demand. If the public doesn’t want little Prius deathtraps or ugly-light twisty bulbs, the government should not be FORCING industries to produce them.

Do you hear me, Joey?

The government should not FORCE industries to produce things.

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

Posted by: JoeyGood

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

The government should not FORCE industries to produce things.

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

I Agree with you on this but that's what they're doing or trying to do now.

but we're just the little voice (little voice that keeps the country going) that can't do anything about the next puppet that goes in to office or what they vote on in congress,

they say our voice is heard but guess what.... it's the money hungry execs running the country so in any case we can be heard but not listened to (meaning yea we (politicians) let the people speak but we decide the final outcome is)

The rich get richer the poor stay poor and the middle class gets the shaft

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by taylor414ce2003

More drilling is just ignoring the fact that we will run out of oil!!! not in our lifetime but maybe your kids or your grandchildren.

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

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

There are two theories of abiotic oil:

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

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

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

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

...there is no reason why we should pretend like we have a shortage in oil. It’s there, so we should use it, and use the hell out of it. Restricting ourselves from using a cheap, accessible, and useful resource is stupid and punitive.

Quote:

The best solution is for government to get out of the way and let the market handle it. If increased efficiency in automobiles is the way to go, the public will demand it themselves and the industries will produce to meet the demand. If the public doesn’t want little Prius deathtraps or ugly-light twisty bulbs, the government should not be FORCING industries to produce them.

Quote:

The government should not FORCE industries to produce things.

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

Posted by: ford nut

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

You scare me when your right fossten

Joey does have a point though, we need more refineries.
I got this from one of your fav. web sites

http://www.slate.com/id/2102031/

Quote:

There are plenty of reasons gas costs so much, but one of them is that the United States doesn't have enough refineries. The National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association says that the last new refinery built in the United States was Marathan Ashland's Garyville, La., plant—and it was completed in 1976.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

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

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

Posted by: ford nut

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

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

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

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

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E0DB1731F936A25755C0A9679C8B 63

Quote:

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

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

It seems like its been planned to keep output low.

Not just here but also in Europe.

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

Quote:

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

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

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

OPEC also knows it.
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/52226...ice--uae?ln=en

Quote:

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

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

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

I think big oil likes it how it is.

so if we drill for more we are still stuck. Unless refineries get built....that needs to happen first.

Posted by: fossten

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

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

Posted by: ford nut

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

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

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

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Do you hear me, Joey?

The government should not FORCE industries to produce things.

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

I didnt say FORCE. I said push, encourage.

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

Posted by: ground_zero298

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

head first, now we just take it.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

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

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

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

Amen!

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

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

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

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

Posted by: taylor414ce2003

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

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by ford nut

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

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E0DB1731F936A25755C0A9679C8B 63

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

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

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

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

Quote:

It seems like its been planned to keep output low.

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

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

Quote:

Not just here but also in Europe.

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

Quote:

I think big oil likes it how it is.

Not really.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a good breakdown of the price of oil:

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

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

Here is another link on oil company profits...

Quote:

so if we drill for more we are still stuck.

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

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

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

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

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

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

Wind energy is mostly a gimmick.

Quote:

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

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

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

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

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

Posted by: ketyokeinnor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

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

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

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

Ron

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus

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

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

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

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

Right now the country overwhelmingly wants to drill more.

Quote:

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

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

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

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

And fossten did raise a few good points...

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: hrmwrm

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

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

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

There are two theories of abiotic oil:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: fossten

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

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

Posted by: 97silverlsc

Science Startup Has E. Coli Pooping Black Gold
Jason Mick (Blog) - August 12, 2008 5:41 PM
http://www.dailytech.com/Startup+Has...ticle12649.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

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

A red herring? Hardly.

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

Yes.

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: hrmwrm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

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

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

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

seems to be a red herring...

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

There really is no question there...

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Posted by: fossten

Oops, never mind.

Posted by: hrmwrm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you also didn't touch this

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

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

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Posted by: Marcus

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

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

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

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus

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

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