energy, technology, global economics

[Athena]

22 June 2006
"Economic Brief: Fallout from Energy Trends"
ecent economic forecasts point to the emergence of new energy players on the global scene. Russia, though never fading completely from the world scene, is coming back with a new marketing brand as an energy supplier. Venezuela is catching world attention by its open defiance of the United States. The Central Asian states of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, and the Caspian littoral republic of Azerbaijan, have become key to energy diversity long sought by the West. Iran, too, can openly threaten the West and affect world energy and futures markets by using energy as a geopolitical weapon. In and of itself, these trends are nothing new -- OPEC used oil as a successful geopolitical tool in the 1970s, profoundly affecting the global economy. Today's major investment trends and calculations point to the accumulation of vast capital earned from oil sales in states that lack the developed, diversified economies of countries dependent on oil.
_______________________________________
You can get the rest of the story at:
Power and Interest News Report (PINR)

http://www.pinr.com

In the 1920's a US newspaper warned "Given our known oil supply and rate of consumption, we are headed for economic disaster and possibly war." Soon all industrial economies collapsed and world war II began.
The US was pulled into this war, when it embargoed oil to Japan and Japan bommed Pearl Harbor.

Technology increased the US ability to use harder to process oil, and it increased the use of every barrel 100 times. Still by the 1970's when oil producing countries united and increased the cost for oil for political reasons, the US economy was hurt bad. President Carter told the citizens they had to conserve and he began government funding for developing alternative energies. Then Reagan won the next campaign by saying conservation wasn't necessary.

Reagan slashed domestic budgets and poured money into military spending, including granting arms to mid east countries. That brings us to our present trouble which will get a whole worst in the mid east if these countries realize a reduction in oil prices or come to the finite end of their oil reserves.

An honest history, will paint the US as an extremely immoral nation, for keeping its citizens ignorant and allowing oil companies to increase the dependency on oil, and than attempting to maintain this evil with military force and efforts to malniplate politics in the mid east for self serving purposes.

[Nitrus]

I am keeping this thread open, but I am closing the other two duplicates, please DO NOT triple post in future. Thank you.

-N

[Mayberry]

An honest history, will paint the US as an extremely immoral nation, for keeping its citizens ignorant and allowing oil companies to increase the dependency on oil, and than attempting to maintain this evil with military force and efforts to malniplate politics in the mid east for self serving purposes. Citizen's ignorance is their own fault. Apparently we learned nothing in the '70s. O.K., cars got small for a while, and the efficiency of modern engines is excellent compared to 30 years ago, but consumers haven't demanded alternative fuels until now. The oil companies, acting I believe in concert with our government, import more oil in an effort to conserve our own supply for the future. I live in Texas, and I've driven past the same idle pumpjacks for 20 years. Now if there's no oil there, why leave the pump, much less maintain it? The answer is simple. They're sitting on it. Compounded by liberals refusing to drill on ANWR, the Left Coast, and Florida, this has increased our consumption of foreign oil. People still drive, they haven't trimmed back much, so demand is still there, it's partly our fault. I say drill everywhere because I want to see gas prices drop. Build new refineries. Build nuclear power plants. Get off the foreign oil, then watch the Arabs come begging to us to buy oil at $10 a barrel again. If the treehuggers would shut up, or people would stop listening to them, we wouldn't be in half the fix we're in.

[sbannon]

So Craig, you're in favor of continuing to depend on a resource that is limited and will eventually run out?

I simply don't understand the mentality in that. The technology exists to begin switching to renewable and reusable energy sources on many fronts, forget the environmental benefit to doing this and the fact that it would end us sending money to foreign entities which sponsor or are friendly towards terrorist organizations, doesn't it just make more sense to utilize a renewable resource over relying on one which has a finite amount and will ultimately run dry?

It isn't just liberals who oppose drilling in ANWR, many conservatives I know personally recognize the simple fact that oil is a limited resource and continuing down a path of oil dependency is dumb. Heck, even President Bush said this in his last State of the Union address. Opening up more drilling areas only serves to continue our dumb dependency on oil.

Will switching be hard and even costly? Sure, there'll be bumps in the road. Change is never easy. But blaming liberals and environmentalists (treehuggers) is sort of just side-stepping the real problem. It's not their fault that oil will run out someday. It's not their fault that we've based our industry and economy on oil. They just recognized and accepted the truth about oil being a limited resource before everyone else.

[Mayberry]

So Craig, you're in favor of continuing to depend on a resource that is limited and will eventually run out? I never said that. I merely stated that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I should have added "temporarily". We do need to look in other directions, but unfortunately the options currently on the table aren't viable alternatives. Without delving into each option individually (there are many websites devoted to the subject) suffice it to say that the available alternatives are all oil derivatives or oil dependent. On that note, oil prices will continue to climb in the forseeable future, and the only way to counteract that trend is to increase domestic production. In all likelihood prices will continue to climb, but perhaps a little slower. And who knows, maybe we'll discover the next bonanza? In the mean time, if folks would curb their driving as I have, we could significantly reduce demand and give ourselves some breathing room to develop alternative energy sources.

[sbannon]

Without delving into each option individually (there are many websites devoted to the subject) suffice it to say that the available alternatives are all oil derivatives or oil dependent.
See, that statement is just not accurate, however it is the disinformation and line of thinking being pushed by those who wish to prolong our dependency on oil.

I'm not saying that's you, it may be that you've simply chosen to accept the wrong sources (in my opinion) as credible.

We are 3 decades behind several other industrial and even some 3rd world nations with respects to our solar and wind energy use. That's lots of oil and coal consumption in making our electricity which could be absolutely eliminated in America with a project not much larger in scope than a fence across the entire U.S. & Mexican border. The project has never been given serious debate in Washington though, because there are no lobbyist hand-outs backing it (though many who oppose it) and there hasn't been a large public outcry demanding it. Still, the capacity to replace all of our nation's electricity production with solar and wind power has been an achievable goal for over a decade now, yet we're still not even promoting small-scale home conversions as well as the 3rd world has done.

Why do you think that is? It's not the cost, it's not the ability to do it. What could it be then? Well, my Grandpa always said to follow the money, if you do that here you see that the energy companies have a huge stake in keeping our current electric plants running. They also have the lobbying power in Washington to ensure this, and in-fact they've even been allowed to write our most recent national energy policy. I guess Grandpa was right...

As for the largest oil use, in auto fuel, the fact that alternatives aren't further along--which is misleading because the technology actually is there but mass production capabilities aren't--but it has a lot to do with the lack of funding and government encouragement for these programs coupled with consumers not worrying about gas prices until recently. Many car buyers in recent years either weren't old enough to remember or had forgotten the lessons of the 1970's which led to all those ugly little box-cars of the 1980's.

Since the early 90's when the economy began it's long upswing consumers have been demanding bigger and faster models from car makers again, and the car companies were happy to oblige with the high-ticket profits. Suddenly, many are kicking themselves for buying that SUV now, but the market for the past 15 years wasn't demanding car makers to invest too much on their own into alternatives and Washington has been lax in promoting it as well.

Ethanol is a good step away from oil, but it's just a step and not the solution. It again relies on finite resources, part oil still and the rest grown products like corn or sugar. Sure, we can grow more of such products, which makes them more attractive than oil, but they don't grow overnight so you have a very real risk with supply.

My belief is that hydrogen power will ultimately be the answer. It too is a limited resource, however it's an almost purely renewable resource which makes it the most abundant non-solar energy source in existence.

GM began working on this in the late 1960's and had a drivable model in the mid-1990's. Still, the government wasn't pushing the technology enough and the consumer market was demanding more R&D be spent on bigger and faster combustion models. Basically, we've painted ourselves into the corner we're in.

I'm not ranting to rant here. I just wanted to clear up a common misconception that many people who either oppose kicking the oil habit or in this case, support expanding oil drilling along coast lines or in ANWR have, that it's somehow our only short-term option for getting away from foreign oil. That notion is what you'll hear from oil companies, who of-course have a self-serving financial interest in the direction we go.

It's one option, but it isn't the only one that exists and it may not be the best one. If you view the oil addiction like a true addiction, then expanding drilling is simply changing pushers for your drug; it's not kicking the habit. Making the hard choice to detox and get clean is another option, and it is in-fact something that can be worked towards now and achieved in a very short time-line with the right commitment.

[tj_the_great]

I would agree that 'addiction to foreign oil' is a bad thing. However, you haven't exactly addressed the benefits of using up the rest of the worlds oil before our own.

Imagine.. for a second.. what the world will do when our country is the only one left with substantial amounts of oil, and many countries are still using it? I mean... sure we can convert to alternate forms of fuel, but it's not like it's going to be a global thing over night. So... when we're the only one with oil, and everyone wants ours... we'll have the upper hand, right? thoughts on this?Â*Â*

My belief is that hydrogen power will ultimately be the answer. It too is a limited resource, however it's an almost purely renewable resource which makes it the most abundant non-solar energy source in existence.

Sounds pretty good, but I'd like to ask this... where are we going to get the energy to produce hydrogen?

Lets get into the details, but rather than explain myself, since it's your belief, I want to test your knowledge.Â*Â*tell me, sbannon how you intend to find power for electrolysis, or what other method you would have our country use to obtain hydrogen for fuel?

btw...

Why do you think that is? It's not the cost, it's not the ability to do it. What could it be then? Well, my Grandpa always said to follow the money, if you do that here you see that the energy companies have a huge stake in keeping our current electric plants running. They also have the lobbying power in Washington to ensure this, and in-fact they've even been allowed to write our most recent national energy policy. I guess Grandpa was right...

although that's cute. it's a fallacy.Â*Â*Non causa pro causa.... Just because energy companies do have a reason to want us to stay on oil, and just because they can lobby does not automatically mean this is the reason we have not changed to other forms of fuel.

It might not be profitable. Our country is full of entrepreneurs, would you not agree? Do you think people are not cutt-throat enough.. that if I were given enough capital to start an 'alternate fuel' company, I would, if it would make me money?

give me a break. if it's profitable, someone will do it. No matter what the lobbysts suggest. Certainly there is a benefit to having a gov't support / regulate it in the car industry or something to that effect... but from our history, I would suggest if there was a demand, someone would come around to supply.Â*Â*

before I rant on more.. I'd like to see your response to all this.. I think I've given you a bit to chew on, and I dont' want to overwhelm you because I really do want to hear your response. Thanks. :)

[sbannon]

Imagine.. for a second.. what the world will do when our country is the only one left with substantial amounts of oil, and many countries are still using it? I mean... sure we can convert to alternate forms of fuel, but it's not like it's going to be a global thing over night. So... when we're the only one with oil, and everyone wants ours... we'll have the upper hand, right? thoughts on this?
tj, that's a hypothetical scenario built upon numerous assumptions. I really have no thoughts on it.
Sounds pretty good, but I'd like to ask this... where are we going to get the energy to produce hydrogen?
Perhaps you have more insights and knowledge than myself on this and can enlighten us, but as I understand it from the research I've done into just GM's program the hydrogen isn't actually being produced, but rather extracted from water to fill fuel cells.

Again, my knowledge is limited but I assume the tools used in this process are electric powered? If so, then my response would be to see the first half of my last posting which addressed solar and wind being a better alternative to oil/coal burning.

My Grandpa analogy wasn't a fallacy by any means. The question it answered was not why we haven't converted to alternative fuel and energy sources--it was why are we trailing the rest of the world (even the 3rd world) in taking this step?

The full answer, and I did expand upon this further after the Grandpa analogy so need to keep it all in context, is that neither the federal government nor the consumer market have placed pressure in the direction of change. The Grandpa analogy touched on why the lack of pressure in Washington has existed only.

The idea that it 'might not be profitable' is absolutely wrong. In-fact, it's the polar opposite of the truth. In the UK, many homes not only have 100% free energy but the homeowners actually earn profits from selling their excess electricity back to the grid.

It's profitable not only to businesses which produce and offer maintenance services for the equipment, but also to the End Users in a very real way.

People I have talked to about this have been amazed by that for 2 reasons. First, that you could rely on solar power in the UK's climate because there's a lot of misinformation regarding how this works and what it needs to work. And second, that the home owner could for a change bill the electric company each month.

You're right that we're a nation of entrepreneurs. Still entrepreneurs and business are often short-sited. This isn't a bad thing, it's simply a reality that you have to protect your profits today to ensure you're around tomorrow.

Legislation is often the balancing weight intended to protect the more long term interests of the nation and it's citizens. Unfortunately, our legislation has been impacted and directed more by businesses with strong lobby efforts and deep pockets which are acting to protect their own interests.

[Nathan Brazil]

Oh, heck. The US isn't short of oil. We're sitting on the equivalent of a trillion barrels in the Colorado oil shale, and there's at least two different proven methods to extract that oil equivalent at costs less than $25 per barrel.

I'd say the US government is encouraging a policy of consuming foreign reserves and holding our own for the future, but no one in the government is that smart.

There's not enough oil in ANWR to make a dent in US demand, anyway.

We could grow corn and make ethanol, but IMO we gain nothing from getting the government out of the control of the oil companies by placing in the control of the major agricultural consortiums.

Nuclear power is clearly the safest and cleanest way to ease off our dependence on fossil-fueled electricity. That, and maybe damning the Colorado river and making the Grand Canyon a big lake for hydroelectric purposes and boating fun. Mexico doesn't deserve water anyway.

[tj_the_great]

Eh... alright, I guess it's a bit too much speculation to really consider. The idea that the US would possess oil after the rest of the worlds oil is gone... but I do see the logic in it. Analogy: if you had a bottle of water and I had a bottle of water in the desert.. using up your water first before touching my own. It makes perfect sense.

Perhaps you have more insights and knowledge than myself on this and can enlighten us, but as I understand it from the research I've done into just GM's program the hydrogen isn't actually being produced, but rather extracted from water to fill fuel cells.

Naw.. I don't really have more insight or knowledge probably, call me lazy. I would say we 'produce' gasoline as much as we would 'produce' hydrogen fuel however.

To get hydrogen seperated from water, it undergoes a process called electrolysis. and I know wikipedia isn't infallible, but for more information about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis I'm pretty sure this is acurate information... from what I've learned in Chemistry classes and whatnot.

Yes... electricity is required to do this. The only problem is that this energy has to come from somewhere, so we 'hydrogen fuel' is not a solution to our energy needs, it's simply an alternative car fuel.

also... it actually takes more energy to extract hydrogen from water than the energy you receive when burning up hydrogen. I don't know if it's significant or not, I'd just throw that out there for accuracy.

I agree nuclear power or solar power are the way to go. I do not agree that it is profitable right now however. This my understanding of the situation with 'selling back power'

a person / family owns equipment to produce electricity (wind/solar whatever) they generate electricity throughout the month, and use electricity throughout the month. (I forget the actual logistics... if the power generated is the power used) at the end of the month, the electric company looks at how much is used, and how much is generated and then does simple math. If you produce excess to what you used, the company will purchase that excess at the same rate at which they sell it.

I'd like to see some numbers on how much the equipment costs and how much on average is produced per month by said equipment before I would lay down and agree that it's profitable. 1,000 dollars worth of solar equipment.. with an avg of 100 dollars a month in electricity... I guess it would only take a year before you started saving money (assuming there were no maintenance costs and that you produced the same amount of electricy as you used)

Sounds pretty good to me. :)

But yea.. I dunno, it seems like if it were profitable, consumers would create a demand. I've never heard of a free-market not taking advantage of things when it could.

anyway, I like your thinking! I just had to play the devils advocate so the kinks would be worked out.

Nuclear power might be hard to push though.... a lot of citizens are distrustful, I believe because of ignorance. Since nuclear power is one of the safest forms, although I do not believe that people think this is true. Especially after chernobyl and other incidents.

I agree with Nathan Brazil. also.... could anyone direct me to a study or article dicussing the actual influence lobbying has over legislation? There are studies, right? I mean.. I hadn't thought about it til now, but I'd actually like to read through some of those.

[sbannon]

tj, I'll quickly admit that I don't have all of the answers. There sure are smarter people than myself on all sides of the energy debates.

You may be right on the energy expended vs. energy capacity gained point on extracting hydrogen from water to refill fuel cells at this time. I honestly don't know.

What I do know is that even if that's true today, American industry has always been able to overcome obstacles in mass production and to lower production costs when there's a sell-able product and a buying market involved. If the desire and demand for hydrogen fuel cells increases the methods and associated costs for production will come down through innovation and ultimately tilt that scale the other way.

I've never argued against nuclear energy. I also haven't argued for it either. I'm honestly undecided on the benefits vs. risk involved. If I had to take a position today, given what I've learned about the existing ability to fully supply our nation's electricity needs on solar and wind power I'd have to come down against it. Simply because: if the ability to fully power the nation on solar and wind energy does exist as has been claimed, then I think the obvious question becomes why we should assume the risks--however minimal they've become--of nuclear plants at all?

I agree nuclear power or solar power are the way to go. I do not agree that it is profitable right now however. This my understanding of the situation with 'selling back power'
I've spoken with several friends who live in the UK about this in the past year because it is of such interest to me, I can only go by what they've said on it at this point. Judging from these conversations though, their investments seem to be the equivalent of about 3 years worth of electricity bills prior to converting. As I understand it, it's not a straight forward method of the utility companies just subtracting your use from your production and then paying you market value for your excess, it's a bit more complicated but there are multiple buyers for you to negotiate the best deal with and each wants your excess because they in turn receive taxation credits based on the amount of clean energy they purchase into the grid. In other words, the governments are promoting a seller's market by offering incentives to the utilities to be buyers, all in an effort to promote more wide scale usage of clean energy.

Even if you weren't selling energy back to the grid, your investment is paid for in 3 years. Selling energy back reduces your break-even point further and leads to eventual profits, so it is profitable right now for those in the UK. The question is, can we do it here?

It's an example, in my opinion, of government having a long term vision on what's ultimately the best direction for all citizens (individual and business alike) to go in. I think the fact that the U.S. lags behind as it does on this is evidence of the power of special interests groups in Washington. That's just my opinion however, based on the fact that I believe there simply isn't the same sort of lobbyist-to-politician relationships in the UK as there are here.

I too would like to see an extensive study on the legislative influences of lobbyists in America. I'm willing to bet it would support my opinion stated above, and would possibly shock and scare a lot of people.

I did a quick search and found many such studies available, however all were from--or sponsored by--organizations which could be argued as too left or right so I'll not suggest them here. I wish I could have found one produced by a strictly academic panel but that wasn't the case.

[Mayberry]

O.K., I've got an idea. Oil prices are driven by demand (or the price that OPEC decides they want to charge). America is one of, if not the largest consumer. We have a large strategic reserve (http://www2.spr.doe.gov/DIR/SilverStream/Pages/pgDailyInventoryReportViewDOE_new.html)., 687.9 million barrels as of 7/21. America consumes roughly 20.7 (http://mwhodges.home.att.net/energy/energy.htm) million barrels daily. Therefore, at current consumption, we have roughly a 33 day supply. If people would half their consumption for a short time, we could stretch that time out to 66 days. In that period of time, we would not purchase oil from OPEC, causing the price to fall dramatically, at which point, we would resume imports. It would require a united initiative from our government (probably making it impossible) to rally the country to the cause, but it could work, in theory. We just need to do SOMETHING. Am I the only one who remembers that 3 years ago, gas was under 2 bucks, and we were complaining about THAT price? Nothing has changed that dramatically to warrant our current gas prices, other than bowing to a corrupt cartel. I'm sure my thinking is flawed, and y'all will let me know about it, but what other short term solutions are there, besides driving less, which America seems unwilling to do?

[BoogyMan]

What needs to happen is a laser-like focus on developing new technologies along with dropping some of the idiotic bans on off shore drilling for oil along our coasts. We have a huge resource along our coastal areas that we refuse to allow ourselves to access.

We also need to stop allowing people to kill things like wind farms that are to be installed off-shore. Ted Kennedy et al killed a huge windfarm project off their shores all the while beating the drum of alternative energy. Don't think that I am slamming only the democrats in this regard because the republicans let Kennedy et al get away with this action and deserve just as much reproach as does he.

Consider Brazil whose energy imports are down to 10% of total energy usage and whose nationwide ethanol push has made the fossil fuel industry and its baggage a non-issue there.

To summarize we need to focus on alternate fuel while backing away from some of the idiotic restrictions we place on ourselves for fossil fuel exploration.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Therefore, at current consumption, we have roughly a 33 day supply. If people would half their consumption for a short time, we could stretch that time out to 66 days. In that period of time, we would not purchase oil from OPEC, causing the price to fall dramatically, at which point, we would resume imports.

India, China and the rest of the world will buy plenty. OPEC refusing to sell to us is more of a threat than americans refusing to buy.

Even then, I'm not sure what your suggestion would do in the long term. Lowering prices just for America wouldn't be worth it.

Besides, lowering prices will increase demand, that's not a good thing.

[Nathan Brazil]

We've got a trillion barrels of oil in Colorado shale, and at least two proven methods of extracting the crap that cost less than $25 per barrel.

Our problem isn't a shortage of oil, it's an excess of soft-headed environmentalists.

A trillion barrels.

[Mayberry]

What needs to happen is a laser-like focus on developing new technologies along with dropping some of the idiotic bans on off shore drilling for oil along our coasts. Thank You! We also need to stop allowing people to kill things like wind farms that are to be installed off-shore. Thanks again! To summarize we need to focus on alternate fuel while backing away from some of the idiotic restrictions we place on ourselves for fossil fuel exploration.
This is what I've been saying, along with reducing our consumption. India, China and the rest of the world will buy plenty. OPEC refusing to sell to us is more of a threat than americans refusing to buy. Loosing 50% of your business would hurt anyone. OPEC wouldn't cut off their biggest customer for long. Even then, I'm not sure what your suggestion would do in the long term. Lowering prices just for America wouldn't be worth it.
America is all I care about. The rest can fend for themselves. And lowering the price for us would be well worth it. It would put more money back into the rest of the economy. Besides, lowering prices will increase demand, that's not a good thing. This is where Americans would have to excercise some (gasp!) self control. It worked in the late '70s. Consumption dropped dramatically (albeit involuntarily) and so did oil prices. We've got a trillion barrels of oil in Colorado shale, and at least two proven methods of extracting the crap that cost less than $25 per barrel.
Everything I've read says the energy required to extract this oil exceeds the energy it contains. If oil companies could have this stuff for $25 a barrel, don't you think they'd be all over it? Our problem isn't a shortage of oil, it's an excess of soft-headed environmentalists.
If we have no shortage of oil, please explain why domestic production has decreased every year since 1977. I will agree, however, with soft-headed environmentalists being a problem.:D

[sbannon]

We've got a trillion barrels of oil in Colorado shale
No... we don't. There's an estimated 1.6 trillion barrels in shale across the planet. About 1 trillion of that is in the U.S. I'll grant you, but it's spread out across several states.

As Craig pointed out already, Shell has been working for years on extracting this oil and still haven't been able to make it profitable, so I don't know where you get the $25 per barrel figure but the oil companies say it's way more than that.

I don't know if you could honestly say there's an existing shortage of oil today, but you can honestly say there's a Oil Finish Line up ahead, and once we cross it there'll be no more oil.

Forget the environmental reasons and set aside the patriotic duty of stopping the flow of U.S. dollars into the hands of terror-friendly entities and nations; just knowing that we'll run out of oil in the not so distant future should be reason enough to promote expanding alternatives and not ways to grow the current dependency on oil by opening more drilling areas.

If we are, as the President said 'addicted to oil' and want to break that addiction then we have to recognize that opening more drilling locally isn't any way to address the real problem, it's simply finding a new dealer to buy from.

[Mayberry]

opening more drilling locally isn't any way to address the real problem, it's simply finding a new dealer to buy from. No, it's not a solution, but at least the dealer is domestic, keeping our money at home, and helping to provide for the research to wean ourselves off the oil. As I said, I'm sure the oil companies are no dummies and can see that finish line. They're exploring other options if they have any hope for survival.

[Athena]

Ah fellows, the value of the dollar is tied to oil. If the world stopped trading oil in dollars, the value of the dollar would collapse. Saddam began trading oil in Euros, and if the rest of the oil producing countries followed suit, the US economy would be in serious trouble.

Using up our reserves to get a lower price is not a good defense move. the world could explode in another world war, and we need to be able to supply our oil needs for several years. During times of war, our consumption of oil skyrockets. I don't even want to think what would happen if we could not supply our own oil needs.

[Nathan Brazil]

A new dealer is good enough for me, especially if it's not dressed in red or riding a camel. A new dealer dressed like Uncle Sam is the best possible supplier.

Search for "Oil Tech" or "Shell oil shale".

[Athena]

opening more drilling locally isn't any way to address the real problem, it's simply finding a new dealer to buy from. No, it's not a solution, but at least the dealer is domestic, keeping our money at home, and helping to provide for the research to wean ourselves off the oil. As I said, I'm sure the oil companies are no dummies and can see that finish line. They're exploring other options if they have any hope for survival.


"Relaxation of drilling restrictions in the offshore areas of the United States, and the development of the seingly potentially largest new oil area on shore .... would help in this oil balance of payments problem, but would not eliminate the need to import oil. ..... Balance of payments and the value of the dollar affect everyone, and oil imports will continue to be the largest single factor in the U.S., forwign trade deficit for the foreseeable future.....


This continuing transfer of wealth to the oil producing countries affects all industrialized nations. It will ultimately be the citizens of these nations who will have to pick up all the bills in various ways- the higher oil cost, and perhaps problems with the banking systems. Higher taxes, a depreciated currency, higher prices for things of daily living, and a lower standard of living may also be some of these cost. As more and more basic raw materials have to be imported, a depreciating domestic currency means these imported materials cost more."

GeoDestinies by Youngist

[Nathan Brazil]

Yeah, tapping into a resource which could supply 100% of US oil needs for 200 years won't reduce our demand for foreign oil one bit.:rolleyes:

[Athena]

Yeah, tapping into a resource which could supply 100% of US oil needs for 200 years won't reduce our demand for foreign oil one bit.:rolleyes:


What is your meaning? What resource do you think could supply 100% of the global oil need?

Oil- much more than just energy

Crude oil is a remarkable material. Not only can it produce high quality, convient fuels, gasoline, kerosene, and diesel, but it also is a versatile raw material from which to make myraid useful products. Petrochemicals are used one way or another by nearly everyone in the industrial world every day. Plastics in particular are used very widely in automobile parts, plastic cabinets for television sets and radios, in products including food packaging, television and raido parts, in paints and inks, dyes, videotapes, pharmaceuticals, and in many agricultural chemicals. There are thousands of different petrochemical products in daily use with an anual value of hundreds of billions of dollars. When soler energy or nuclear power is suggested as a replacement for oil, frequently the multitude of uses to which oil can be put beyond simply being an energy source are overlooked. there is no evident replacement for oil in the volumns and the myriad ways in which it is now used.

Many of these petrochemical products are relatively new, and gave us many jobs. Living without petrochemicals would change a lot more than our transportation.

[Nathan Brazil]

What is your meaning?Â*Â*What resource do you think could supply 100% of the global oil need?

We've a trillion barrels of oil equivalent in Colorado shale. Saudi Arabia has about 800 billion barrels or so or genuine petroleum. Do the math?

Besides, I don't care if it could supply the global need. The rest of the planet can cook over cow turds for all I care, so long as my children can continue to control the lightning.

[Athena]

What is your meaning?Â*Â*What resource do you think could supply 100% of the global oil need?

We've a trillion barrels of oil equivalent in Colorado shale.Â*Â*Saudi Arabia has about 800 billion barrels or so or genuine petroleum.Â*Â*Do the math?

Besides, I don't care if it could supply the global need.Â*Â*The rest of the planet can cook over cow turds for all I care, so long as my children can continue to control the lightning.


:D Maybe as long as you are willing to spend enough on military spending and willing to send your children to war, the world will revolve around what you want, but I don't think you have given the matter much thought.

About shale oil-

......, the term "recoverable oil" seems to be used rather loosely, and can be somewhat misleading in the sense that it may be ignoring environmental costs and basic economics. It might be possible to "recover" 500 billion or more barrels of an oil-like substance (not crude oil as we know it from wells). But would the recovery process use as much energy as is obtained from the product produced, and what would be the monetary cost and the environmental impact? A look at the facts is in order. GeoDistinies by Youngquist

[Mayberry]

The rest of the planet can cook over cow turds for all I care :P I love it! Keep 'em coming. Saudi Arabia has about 800 billion barrels or so or genuine petroleum. Do the math? Unfortunately, the math works out as: US daily consumption= 20.7 million barrels per day (bpd), which is 7,555,500,000 barrels per year. 800 billion (are these proven reserves?) divided by annual consumption (with no growth of demand) = 105.88 years, if the US were the only consumer. Annual increase in demand has been about 3%. I don't feel like doing any more math, but you can see, the Saudi's have maybe 40 years worth left. As far as shale, oil sands, etc... everything I've seen says the energy expended is greater than the energy extracted. I hate to be the devil's advocate. But I'd sure love to see someone come up with a good way to extract this oil, which in time, I'm pretty confident someone will. Until then, I'd love to feed my boat hydrogen straight out of the water she's floating in! Or give me a "Mr. Fusion" from Back to the Future.

[Athena]

Maybe we should pay attention to someone who worked for the oil companies?Â*Â*

The first fact is that there is no oil in oil shale.Â*Â*The organic material in oil shale is kerogen, a solid material which has not evolved to oil.Â*Â*The second fact is that the rock is not shale but what geoloist call organic marlstone.Â*Â*But as one promoter put it, "New York bankers won't invest a dima in 'organic marlstone', but 'oil shale' is another matter."Â*Â*So "oil shale" is a promotional term.Â*Â*This and other items about the history of the Colorado oil shale ventures are inclueded in a fascinating volume by Harry Savage, titled The Rock That Burns.Â*Â*Thus, except for the fact that oil shale neither contains oil nor is it shale, the term is very good.Â*Â*It canraise money at times for oil ventures, non of which so far, however, has proved successful. Younguist

[Athena]

Now I need to up date what I said with this site..


The Oil Sands Discovery Centre is located in Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada and presents the history, science and technology of Alberta's Oil Sands - the ...
www.oilsandsdiscovery.com/ - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

The Oil Sands Story: Upgrading
The oil in oil sand is called bitumen, a complex hydrocarbon made up of a long chain of molecules. In order for bitumen to be processed in refineries, this chain must be broken up and reorganized. Unlike smaller hydrocarbon molecules bitumen is carbon rich and hydrogen poor. Upgrading means removing some carbon while adding additional hydrogen to make more valuable hydrocarbon products. This is done using four main processes: coking removes carbon and breaks large bitumen molecules into smaller parts, distillation sorts mixtures of hydrocarbon molecules into their components, catalytic conversions help transform hydrocarbons into more valuable forms and hydrotreating is used to help remove sulphur and nitrogen and add hydrogen to molecules. The end product is synthetic crude oil, which is shipped by underground pipelines to refineries across North America to be refined further into jet fuels, gasoline and other petroleum products.

It must be noted that some of the oil companies pipe their bitumen south in diluted form for upgrading at other refineries. Others produce either a single high quality synthetic crude oil or multiple petroleum products to suit market feedstock demand.

It is easier to remove the desired substance from sand than from rock. And currently the chief source of hydrogen is natural gas which brings us back to the finite problem.

[Athena]

Another problem with regard to the Utah and Colorado oil shale is that the processing and auciliary support facilities would use large amounts of water. The richest oil shole deposits are located in the headwaters of the Colorado river. This river now barely it at all reaches the Gulf of Lower California. Present demands are already more than the river can meet. Geodistinies.

[Nathan Brazil]

Oil Tech (http://www.oil-techinc.com/profile.html)

Dispelling the Myths

For many years, individuals and companies have wrestled with producing oil from oil shale. Along with this knowledge, several myths evolved explaining why the production of oil from shale is seemingly ‘impossible.’ These myths can be found through any internet search. Previous efforts have significantly assisted Oil-Tech in attempting to overcome earlier identified problems. These out-of-date ‘facts’ are dispelled by the Oil-Tech technology and development plans.

There is oil in oil shale . . . UNTRUE – there is no oil in oil shale, only organic material, perhaps best described as a bio-mass. The Oil-Tech process vaporizes this organic material and condenses this vapor into shale oil.

The process requires huge volumes of water . . . UNTRUE - past efforts used water to transport shale oil slurry through pipelines to a central processing center. The Oil-Tech retort technology processes oil shale on site and does not require water in the process. There is a secondary remediation on site to separate the refinery feedstock from the asphalt additive, and water is not required in this process. Water is required for personnel and safety use (showers, potable water, fire suppression), and for mining operations, most of which is recyclable. The need for water in the Oil-Tech plan is so minimal that it will be trucked to the site rather than piped from the river which is only a few miles away.

The costs are excessive because of the need to mine the shale . . . UNTRUE – mining is indeed required. In the last 15 years, the technology of mining has dramatically changed and the cost of large scale mining operations has dropped from $20 to $25 per ton of material produced, to under $10 per ton, depending on the depth of the mining operation and the mining technology used. Long wall mining technology and/or other mining innovations are key to these better economics. These technologies were not available during the last period of heavy research and attempted production of oil from oil shale.

The technology of producing oil from oil shale is highly polluting . . . UNTRUE – the Oil-Tech process is completely contained, with no harmful emissions to the atmosphere. All products from the process are utilized within the sealed system. Even the leftover spent shale has the qualities similar to vermiculite and desiccated charcoal and can be used in numerous ways to absorb pollutants.

It is not economically feasible to produce oil from shale because of the capital required . . . UNTRUE – early attempts by others required heavy capital expenditures on huge facilities based on the alleged benefits of economies of scale. The Oil-Tech process reverses that trend and uses smaller, easily replicated and fabricated modular units. These may be easily transported. Any operational/service problems do not disrupt production by more than a minimal percentage.

It is not economically feasible to produce oil from shale because of the energy required . . . UNTRUE – the Oil-Tech process has been validated to produce shale oil with a very low energy cost. The system can also be upgraded by utilizing cogeneration and a variety of BTU recovery technologies that virtually eliminate the need for external power for any site operations.

Transportation of the product is prohibitively expensive . . . UNTRUE – this statement is based on the idea of piping shale oil sludge to various processing centers, involving pipelines, pumping facilities and rights-of-way disputes. It also was based on shipping raw shale oil to potential refining centers for pre-processing prior to normal refinery operation. The Oil-Tech process does not need to transport shale sludge or raw shale oil to a refinery based pre-processing center. Refinery grade feedstock is either transported in tanker trucks or injected into a local pipeline. The asphalt additive is easily transported with heated tanker trucks. On sites where the remediation process will not be available, the shale oil is easily transported in tanker trucks.

[url=http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002981.html]Oil Shale and Tar Sands[/quote]

It's doable, it's independence, and a successful effort would piss of the environmentalists big time. We should push forward on this as hard as possible.

[Athena]

The push is on but it might be Oil-Tech. Inc that wins the race to develop the technology.

Oil shale proving a tough nut to crack for industry Outside Vernal, Utah, officials with Oil-Tech Inc. are working on another technique to extract oil from shale. They say they have perfected an older ...
www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcpolicy/5oilxshal10.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

Feds narrow oil-shale contenders
In a second elimination round, Exxon Mobil Corp. and a tiny Utah company, Oil-Tech Inc., were knocked out of the running for research and development leases ...
www.headwatersnews.org/stories/redirect.php?id=31317 - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

Is there as much interest in green building? Some really exciting things are happening there. I hope someone starts a thread for going green.
Maybe with all the different efforts things will come out okay. In the mean time, I seriously regret our activity in the mid-east.

[Nathan Brazil]

In the mean time, I seriously regret our activity in the mid-east.

Why? Those people want to kill us. Not just take away our erl, but turn us into future oil deposits ourselves.

As for "green building", people will do it when it's economical. When oil's at $10 a barrel, like under Reagan, it simply wasn't cost effective to make housing solar. When it's almost 8 times that, alternatives become naturally attractive. That's simple market economics at work, there.

If one can convince a client to build green construction by an appeal to something else besides his bottom line, and he makes a free choice to do that, that's perfectly fine. But under no circumstances should a free society compel such compliance with threats of physical or economic force.

[tony mitra]

Interesting thread.

[Athena]

In the mean time, I seriously regret our activity in the mid-east.

Why? Those people want to kill us. Not just take away our erl, but turn us into future oil deposits ourselves.

As for "green building", people will do it when it's economical. When oil's at $10 a barrel, like under Reagan, it simply wasn't cost effective to make housing solar. When it's almost 8 times that, alternatives become naturally attractive. That's simple market economics at work, there.

If one can convince a client to build green construction by an appeal to something else besides his bottom line, and he makes a free choice to do that, that's perfectly fine. But under no circumstances should a free society compel such compliance with threats of physical or economic force.


I find it very hard to believe anyone in the mid east wants to kill me, and if someone did, it would be a male. Us women folk, would just enjoy a cup of coffee and share stories about raising children, caring for our aging parents, problems with getting along with men.

Plenty of people have done grand things for humanity, just for the pleasure of doing. Men like Milton S. Hershey and Buckminster Fuller who lived to make life better for others. Bob Hope, Red Skelton, and Walt Disney also wanted to spread happiness, because the Great Depression had caused so much sadness. We live in sad times, people have had more than ever before in history, and yet they expect wars and think everyone lives for the botton line, as through the struggle life proved them correct. Odd isn't it, when people have life the easiest they expect the worse. How sad they do not know this was not always how things were. The Spirit of America once believed in peace, and was thrilled with the advances of sciences, and expected great things were yet to come.

Each of us benefits greatly from our good fortune to live in countries that can keep our bellies full, and give us clean drinking water, educations, and advance the sciences, and make our lives comfortable. Cicero said, we all owe our countries for the blessings they give us, and it is our duty to give something back. I really don't have much use for anyone who is only out for himself.

[bobbylien]

Wow, Nathan Brazil and Athena... blast from the past! Welcome back Athena.