Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Oil Will Be Cheap And Plentiful For At Least 100 Years


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 737
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not sure you understand what wind energy represents... indeed the whole renewable energy sector represents. We are at a juncture in human history where we either choose to try and live a life and build a society that is built to last or we succum to our own stupidness and greed and destroy our childrens future. I hardly think that digging up thousands upon thousands of hectares of pristeen countryside, in the most ugly of fasions i might add, in order to satisfy short term gains could be classified as sustainable. Gains that are reducing as the price of oil reduces (oil sands are only viable if the price of oil is very high) (you might not be aware of this but Shell who are 'committed to tar sands' have lost 30 million dollars in the first three months of business this year alone.

Forgive the pun but oil sand really is scraping the bottom of the barrel. It is a desperate act of a society in the final death throws of an addiction that will be the end of it.

Of course turbines disturb the land they are put upon. I'm not sure i agree with them on the large scale on land... they are better of shore where wind levels are more consistant. But that doesn't negate the need for them on land, closer to the point off use (you get rather large losses associated with the transportation of electricity produced this way). they may upset the local environment but at least the source of energy is continuous... unlike digging up oil in alberta... once its dug up and used it will never return. What is sustainable about that then?

BTW this is kara's husband!!

And i'm quite willing to educate you further if you so wish... i have plenty more where that came from!!

:blink:

That's the point I have been making and the point of the article.

The price of oil has crashed because production now far exceeds demand

And it will probably be at least 10 years before Global demand for oil returns to pre depression levels

So it is no longer economically viable to use the oil tar reserves

So 100 years supply of oil will just sit there until the price of oil rises permanently, then the oil will be extracted.

We have at least another 100 years of relatively cheap oil

I think the Chinese will have solved the engineering problems associated with nuclear fusion before then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been driven nuts all my life by people droning on that the oil is about to run out, I finally 'cracked', did 30 seconds 'research' and found this article from 2005 in the Wall Street journal.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-oil_oil.htm

Apologies to anyone who has already read this, but basically there is a 100 years supply of oil in Canada and Venezuela alone.

The only reason it is not extracted is because oil can be pumped out of the ground in the Middle East for 1 to 2.5 dollars a barrel wheras the oil in tar sands would cost 15 dollars a barrel to extract.

As a result it is just not commercially worthwhile at the present time to extract this oil, BUT if all the oil in the Middle East ran out tommorrow it would then become a viable economic proposition.

This basically means that oil will be cheap and plentiful until it is superceeded by hydrogen as a fuel, extracted using power generated by fusion reactors.

Sorry guys, 'The end is NOT nigh'

:blink:

This issue has occupied some of the most brilliant (and less politically compromised) minds for more than a decade (see theoildrum.com)

I'll bet they will be kicking themselves when they discover that they could have solved the problem in five minutes:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes a lot of people think that WW1 and WW2 were really about leveraging the power of cheap energy to grab control of other countries, I wonder if it will all unwind peacefully - we have already had Gulf war 1 + 2 which were both about energy not terrorism and that was before we even hit the peak.

I take it you don't read much history

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This issue has occupied some of the most brilliant (and less politically compromised) minds for more than a decade (see theoildrum.com)

I'll bet they will be kicking themselves when they discover that they could have solved the problem in five minutes:)

And?

Economically it is just not worth the effort at the moment and probably won't be for another 10-20 years.

People were making all the same arguments in the 70's

Now millions of people burn more fuel than is used in global food production GOING ON HOLIDAY

And you expect me to believe that the oil is about to run out ???????????

And I will ask you the same question, which is never answered

If oil is going to be hugely expensive and scarce in a few years time

WHY DO WE NEED BLOODY CARBON EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS ?????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Steve Cook
They were wrong weren't they? The acknowledged father of peak oil was M King Hubbert, and he never said anything of the sort. He correctly postulated that oil production follows oil discovery with a margin of approximately 40 years. He predicted that the US would peak in the early 70's (which it did, whatever happened to the Texas Railroad commission?), and that the world would peak in the mid 90's. Of course the oil shocks in the 70's caused this to be moved back about 10 years. Which brings us to now.

There is a lot of oil available in planet earth, we will simply not be able to get access to it on an economic (and I mean EROEI basis, not dollars), so you can expect some to still be trickling out in a 100 years from now.

The UK has about 45 years supply, this has been known from about day one, this is going to be reality very soon. We started extracting in 1976, the end is indeed nigh, although gas will decline even quicker, try 2010.

The other thing that no-one ever factors in is the reality that the oil producing countries are themselves increasing usage and therefore will become non exporting countries sooner rather than later. Indonesia left OPEC last year and Mexico will be in the same position sometime in 2010/11. Mexico is the third largest supplier to the US, how do you think that is going to work itself out?

The real horror/fantasy is not resource depletion, but denial within large swathes of the worlds population. When they move onto the anger stage the party will really get going.

As for carbon emissions, that is tied with fossil fuel usage, the question is whether or not we will destroy the climate before we run out of fossil fuels. Although please note we won't ever run out. We will run out of cheap energy, and we will be unable to continue the exponential growth in the use of energy.

Energy is everything, it is the main reason our economies are busy imploding.

If anyone has solved the E=MC2 puzzle would they mind letting us in on it now, as otherwise we are about to return to a less energy intensive time. Although slaves will always be available.

excellent post

Agree with all of this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Steve Cook
Who says? You have consistently demonstrated an inablity to absorb the simplest of arguments. I took a charitable view that it was mainly due to your indolence and lack of application. If you are saying it's not laziness, then I must look for other explanations, like mental retardation.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much oil has been wasted running the monitors, PCs, modems, routers, phone exchanges and fiber links in order for people to argue over how much oil is left and whether or not we're all going to die over and over and over again?!?

If we only stopped repeating the same crap 200 times a month we would probably have enough oil for the next 500 years :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Steve Cook
I'm not sure you understand what wind energy represents... indeed the whole renewable energy sector represents. We are at a juncture in human history where we either choose to try and live a life and build a society that is built to last or we succum to our own stupidness and greed and destroy our childrens future. I hardly think that digging up thousands upon thousands of hectares of pristeen countryside, in the most ugly of fasions i might add, in order to satisfy short term gains could be classified as sustainable. Gains that are reducing as the price of oil reduces (oil sands are only viable if the price of oil is very high) (you might not be aware of this but Shell who are 'committed to tar sands' have lost 30 million dollars in the first three months of business this year alone.

Forgive the pun but oil sand really is scraping the bottom of the barrel. It is a desperate act of a society in the final death throws of an addiction that will be the end of it.

Of course turbines disturb the land they are put upon. I'm not sure i agree with them on the large scale on land... they are better of shore where wind levels are more consistant. But that doesn't negate the need for them on land, closer to the point off use (you get rather large losses associated with the transportation of electricity produced this way). they may upset the local environment but at least the source of energy is continuous... unlike digging up oil in alberta... once its dug up and used it will never return. What is sustainable about that then?

BTW this is kara's husband!!

And i'm quite willing to educate you further if you so wish... i have plenty more where that came from!!

:blink:

good post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been driven nuts all my life by people droning on that the oil is about to run out, I finally 'cracked', did 30 seconds 'research' and found this article from 2005 in the Wall Street journal.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-oil_oil.htm

Apologies to anyone who has already read this, but basically there is a 100 years supply of oil in Canada and Venezuela alone.

The only reason it is not extracted is because oil can be pumped out of the ground in the Middle East for 1 to 2.5 dollars a barrel wheras the oil in tar sands would cost 15 dollars a barrel to extract.

As a result it is just not commercially worthwhile at the present time to extract this oil, BUT if all the oil in the Middle East ran out tommorrow it would then become a viable economic proposition.

This basically means that oil will be cheap and plentiful until it is superceeded by hydrogen as a fuel, extracted using power generated by fusion reactors.

Sorry guys, 'The end is NOT nigh'

:blink:

Dream on - lalalalalalala :lol:

Super heavysour crudes such as those that Venuzuela produce and tar sands will never be cheap for the user because they require so much processing. This is why there is still plenty of the stuff - whilst sweet light crudes have been available no one wants this heavy gunk. Tar sands need huge amounts of input heat - which currently comes from cheap natural gas. Once they have depleted Camandas gas reserves the cost of processing tar sands will rocket.

As for water shortages - yes this is a problem for Canada in the region the tar sands are being exploited (Athabasca river basin)

Hydrogen will never be a viable fuel due to embrittlement and transport issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you understand what wind energy represents... indeed the whole renewable energy sector represents. We are at a juncture in human history where we either choose to try and live a life and build a society that is built to last or we succum to our own stupidness and greed and destroy our childrens future. I hardly think that digging up thousands upon thousands of hectares of pristeen countryside, in the most ugly of fasions i might add, in order to satisfy short term gains could be classified as sustainable. Gains that are reducing as the price of oil reduces (oil sands are only viable if the price of oil is very high) (you might not be aware of this but Shell who are 'committed to tar sands' have lost 30 million dollars in the first three months of business this year alone.

Forgive the pun but oil sand really is scraping the bottom of the barrel. It is a desperate act of a society in the final death throws of an addiction that will be the end of it.

Of course turbines disturb the land they are put upon. I'm not sure i agree with them on the large scale on land... they are better of shore where wind levels are more consistant. But that doesn't negate the need for them on land, closer to the point off use (you get rather large losses associated with the transportation of electricity produced this way). they may upset the local environment but at least the source of energy is continuous... unlike digging up oil in alberta... once its dug up and used it will never return. What is sustainable about that then?

BTW this is kara's husband!!

And i'm quite willing to educate you further if you so wish... i have plenty more where that came from!!

:blink:

Everything I have read to date on this subject either directly or indirectly states that 6 billion people is not sustainable post-oil. If we all stopped ******* right now it would probably take 50 years for the population to halve, and we need it to reduce by 70-80%. Based on that, there is no 'future for your children' whatever we do unless you are prepared to start a lottery where 3 out of 4 people are executed on the spot or start massacring those least able to shoot back.

So we may as well keep on enjoying life with our heads firmly buried in the (tar) sand until it's all over :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so. We will leave out the environmental implications, because you would be perfectly happy to live in sh1t and call it paradise.

The extraction of this stuff requires large quantities of natural gas, the supply of which is itself becoming problematic, and large quantities of water. Then there is the concept of Energy Return on Energy Invested - EROEI. Basically, if it takes as much energy input as you get out, you are undertaking a futile exercise. The EROEI on the tar sands is currently high, and will get higher as the easier stuff is extracted.

It is clear that you know nothing of geology or oil or basic physics and that you are a complete t*sser. Took me less than 30 seconds to work that out.

Dont confuse GO ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely liquid coal is the answer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/sec...7222384113.html

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2263710.htm

Perhaps we should move across to liquid coal if ever there's a problem with oil supply (perhaps in a couple of hundred years or so).

There's enough coal, oil and gas to last 500 years anyhow, according to this green:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006...s.climatechange

Mark Jaccard likes coal.

For decades Jaccard was a leading expert in sustainable energy, darling of the environmental movement and bane of Big Oil.

But now he proclaims that the world can continue to rely on fossil fuels. And his reasoning, while consistent with his beliefs, comes as a huge surprise. The professor says he has not stopped caring about the environment; it's just that he now believes fossil fuels offer the most sustainable future for the planet.

...'The more I explored it, the more I got caught up on two big myths: one is that we're running out of oil; number two is that fossil fuels are dirty,' he says. 'I believed that for 20 years.'

No longer. Jaccard's book, Sustainable Fossil Fuels, argues that coal, oil and gas are plentiful, and do not need to be polluting. It's not that Jaccard prefers fossil fuels per se; but he believes accepting and cleaning up oil, gas and coal power is a better way than trying, and failing, to quickly shift the energy-hungry world to still-doubtful and expensive renewable technologies such as wind, tidal, solar or nuclear power.

'If your goal is a clean energy system that endures, it's really hard to argue that you should stop using fossil fuels right away,' he says.

The first 'myth' Jaccard claims to puncture is that fossil fuels are running out. Most quoted information relates to easily extracted 'conventional' oil, gas and coal. Adding more controversial figures (though from the respectable UN and World Energy Council) for 'unconventional' supplies, that have traditionally been too difficult and/or expensive to use, Jaccard favours the view that there are enough hydrocarbons for humans to use for up to 2,000 years - or, more importantly, at least 500.

Edited by gruffydd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It IS being extracted!!!!

Also the implications of mining for tar sands are huge. 2 tons of sand to be extracted to produce just one barrel of oil, causing mass environmental destruction as this has to be strip mined.

tar.bmp

That's ok. Looks like an uninhabitable and ecologically bereft place.

I always wanted a big engine: A proper car

TFH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps someone with a training in Psychology could give an insight into the reasons why so many people appear to have a deep seated need to believe that the World is going to end.

This is obviously a very powerful emotion in many people and must have been studied by psychologists because it is such a long standing phenomenon, probably as old as mankind itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely liquid coal is the answer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/sec...7222384113.html

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2263710.htm

Perhaps we should move across to liquid coal if ever there's a problem with oil supply (perhaps in a couple of hundred years or so).

There's enough coal, oil and gas to last 500 years anyhow, according to this green:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006...s.climatechange

Mark Jaccard likes coal.

For decades Jaccard was a leading expert in sustainable energy, darling of the environmental movement and bane of Big Oil.

But now he proclaims that the world can continue to rely on fossil fuels. And his reasoning, while consistent with his beliefs, comes as a huge surprise. The professor says he has not stopped caring about the environment; it's just that he now believes fossil fuels offer the most sustainable future for the planet.

...'The more I explored it, the more I got caught up on two big myths: one is that we're running out of oil; number two is that fossil fuels are dirty,' he says. 'I believed that for 20 years.'

No longer. Jaccard's book, Sustainable Fossil Fuels, argues that coal, oil and gas are plentiful, and do not need to be polluting. It's not that Jaccard prefers fossil fuels per se; but he believes accepting and cleaning up oil, gas and coal power is a better way than trying, and failing, to quickly shift the energy-hungry world to still-doubtful and expensive renewable technologies such as wind, tidal, solar or nuclear power.

'If your goal is a clean energy system that endures, it's really hard to argue that you should stop using fossil fuels right away,' he says.

The first 'myth' Jaccard claims to puncture is that fossil fuels are running out. Most quoted information relates to easily extracted 'conventional' oil, gas and coal. Adding more controversial figures (though from the respectable UN and World Energy Council) for 'unconventional' supplies, that have traditionally been too difficult and/or expensive to use, Jaccard favours the view that there are enough hydrocarbons for humans to use for up to 2,000 years - or, more importantly, at least 500.

So why are most oil producing nations in decline?

Why is use outsripping disvery by afctor of four-to-ne?

Why is global supply stuck on a plateau?

Where is this oil?

If we convert coal to oil, will that not reduce coal reserves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dream on - lalalalalalala :lol:

Super heavysour crudes such as those that Venuzuela produce and tar sands will never be cheap for the user because they require so much processing. This is why there is still plenty of the stuff - whilst sweet light crudes have been available no one wants this heavy gunk. Tar sands need huge amounts of input heat - which currently comes from cheap natural gas. Once they have depleted Camandas gas reserves the cost of processing tar sands will rocket.

As for water shortages - yes this is a problem for Canada in the region the tar sands are being exploited (Athabasca river basin)

Hydrogen will never be a viable fuel due to embrittlement and transport issues.

BBC News Monday 16th June 2008

Japanese car manufacturer Honda has begun the first commercial production of a zero-emission, hydrogen fuel-cell powered vehicle.

The four-seater, called FCX Clarity, runs on electricity produced by combining hydrogen with oxygen, and emits water vapour.

Honda claims the vehicle offers three times better fuel efficiency than a traditional, petrol-powered car.

Honda plans to produce 200 of the cars over the next three years.

One of the biggest obstacles standing in the way of wider adoption of fuel-cell vehicles is the lack of hydrogen fuelling stations.

Yes Hydrogen will never be used to power vehicles

Because 'Kurt' says it isn't viable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BBC News Monday 16th June 2008

Japanese car manufacturer Honda has begun the first commercial production of a zero-emission, hydrogen fuel-cell powered vehicle.

The four-seater, called FCX Clarity, runs on electricity produced by combining hydrogen with oxygen, and emits water vapour.

Honda claims the vehicle offers three times better fuel efficiency than a traditional, petrol-powered car.

Honda plans to produce 200 of the cars over the next three years.

One of the biggest obstacles standing in the way of wider adoption of fuel-cell vehicles is the lack of hydrogen fuelling stations.

Yes Hydrogen will never be used to power vehicles

Because 'Kurt' says it isn't viable

200 vehicles is doable. Tens of millions is not. Game over, where's the extra electricity to convert water to hydrogen coming from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.