NationStates Jolt Archive

stuffhttp://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Ok this isn't the normal doom and gloom, no more oil

This is real!!! :(


Ok so we've got 1,000,000,000,000 barrels ( 1 trillion) of oil left

We use 29,200,000,000 each year so lets do the math.

We are out of Oil in 34.years 2 months :eek:

Given we don't find any more giant fields

Also my uncle bill is a geologist so these are real facts. :(


so start getting ready because we should't be worried about no more oil but shortages are what we should worie about first.


i'm going to 47.2 years old when theres no more oil. :(

Ok so we've got 1,000,000,000 barrels ( 1 trillion) of oil left
1,000,000,000 is a billion.

i'm going to 47,2 years old when theres no more oil.

what does that say? 47,2?

Its says 47,2 because in other parts of the world they use a comma instead of a period to separate the ones place from the decimals place. There is more to the world than just the USA, you know.

what does that say? 47,2?

Forty-seven and one-fifth years old.

Its says 47,2 because in other parts of the world they use a comma instead of a period to separate the ones place from the decimals place. There is more to the world than just the USA, you know.

which is why i asked...because its unfamiliar to me...

Its says 47,2 because in other parts of the world they use a comma instead of a period to separate the ones place from the decimals place. There is more to the world than just the USA, you know.
Ah, another reference to this "outside world" that everyone keeps talking about. Very interesting, and almost certainly false. As everyone knows, the world is flat, with Canada being the farthest north part, and Mexico being as far south as it goes. George "NINJ4 4SS4SIN N4ZI" W. Bush created the entire idea of an "outside world" so that he could pretend to have a war in "Iraq."
In reality, he has invaded the moon and is struggling to wipe out the moon people dwelling there and harvest their babies (which are liquified and use to power cars, there is no such thing as gas either). The "outside world" is just as much a lie as "9/11" which was really a clumsy attempt to assasinate the Moon Lords by giving them all free coupons for microwaveable egg rolls that were only redeemable in the Twin towers on the 11th of September.
Regretfully, the plan failed because the Moon Lords are allergic to egg rolls and none of them could get off work on such short notice anyway, so they all stayed on the Moon.

Its says 47,2 because in other parts of the world they use a comma instead of a period to separate the ones place from the decimals place. There is more to the world than just the USA, you know.
In seriousness, though, you are (in fact) wrong anyway. IF our thread starting friend were intending to use the European system for numbering he wwouldn't have said "1 trillion" as "1,000,000,000" he would, instead, have used periods making it "1.000.000.000"
Remember, in these cases consistency is important, because other wise you end up with "1,457,905" where you really mean "1,457.905/1.457,905" and you would be skewing numbers very wildly.

I've looked at that site before and found some problems with it. For example, it claims that thermaldepolymerization (sp?) is not a solution because it's only 85% efficient at producing oil. Still, it's making oil from any organic waste, so evin if it's "only" 85% efficient it's still generating a metric crapload of fuel from all the plastic, wood, paper, food scraps, and other waste products put into the process and the byproducts can be used as fertilizer for growing more plants to be run through the process.

Hell, pumping oil out of the ground isn't 100% efficient. Something has to power the pumps and refineries that process the fuel. It may be less efficient and cheap than oil from the ground, but it's still a good substitute.

I cananadian
hell i made a mistake

stuffhttp://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Ok this isn't the normal doom and gloom, no more oil

This is real!!! :(


Ok so we've got 1,000,000,000 barrels ( 1 trillion) of oil left

This in itself is ridiculous. It assumes that we keep consuming the same amount of oil and have no improvement in efficiency. And no, the source messes up one thing! Canada itself has approximately 2 trillion in its oil sands. This will be unlocked once technology gets better and it always is.

Given we don't find any more giant fields

Which in itself is ridiculous, considering that exploration has actually been stepped up and there has been tens of billions invested in Alberta to extract oil from the sands, which is increasingly efficient and cheap. The better our technology gets the more we can access. Currently we have access to 300 billion barrels, but as technology gets better this will improve.


i'm going to 47,2 years old when theres no more oil. :(

You sir should not believe everything you read on the internet. Those who come up with this oil storm nonsense, and this oil is going to run out in thirty years... well isn't thinking. And isn't taking into account how much we have in Canada, and how we have untapped in the gulf. We barely are scratching at how much is actually in the gulf of mexico.

My sources:

Canadian Oil sands:

http://www.spaceship-earth.org/Letters/Editor/Unlocking_Petroleum_From_Sand-NYT.htm (Yes from 2001, but read it)

"By 2010, 75 percent of oil sands production will go down to the United States," predicted William Almdal, regional coordinator for Athabasca Oil Sands Developers, a private planning group here. After many lean years, Mr. Almdal says, the strong oil prices of the last 18 months have unleashed such a torrent of investment that today's biggest development obstacle is not a lack of money or overcoming objections from environmental groups but a growing shortage of skilled labor.

http://www.growley.com/war/can-oil.html

The U.S. government itself mentioned one possible solution in Vice-President Dick Cheney's recent energy report: Alberta's oil sands, a vast ocean of tar-like goo in the northern part of the province. By most estimates, there is more oil in the so-called "tar sands" than there is in all of Saudi Arabia, or about 300 billion barrels that is recoverable using existing technology. That's enough to supply the United States for more than 40 years - plus there's another 1.5 trillion to two trillion barrels on top of that, which would be harder to extract. That's 10 times what Saudi Arabia has.

--So that oil crash nonsense is unsubstantiated!

Other sources:

African Oil Development/Discovery: http://business.iafrica.com/news/351665.htm

And we aren't finding any new oil.. we aren't making any new discoveries... NOT!

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/050917/2005091719.html

There ain't Nothin' That's gonna stop me from buyin' me a 1977 Trans Am Gettin' Eight Miles The The Gallon! Git R' Done!

I've looked at that site before and found some problems with it. For example, it claims that thermaldepolymerization (sp?) is not a solution because it's only 85% efficient at producing oil. Still, it's making oil from any organic waste, so evin if it's "only" 85% efficient it's still generating a metric crapload of fuel from all the plastic, wood, paper, food scraps, and other waste products put into the process and the byproducts can be used as fertilizer for growing more plants to be run through the process.

Hell, pumping oil out of the ground isn't 100% efficient. Something has to power the pumps and refineries that process the fuel. It may be less efficient and cheap than oil from the ground, but it's still a good substitute.

Thermaldeploymerization still gives us oil, and even 85% efficiency that's pretty good. Come one.. all the garbage shouldn't go to waste (no pun intended.. and they even have a chicken parts factory making oil).

If I hear anything more about oil crashes, or oil storms.. I'm going to scream. I'm going to rip my hair out. Are these people who think this way really that obvilious? Guess what? A group said we were goiing to have an oil crash in 2000, back in the 1970s. Same kind of people using the same kind of ridiculous, borderline idiotic methods... does the damn Canadian oil sands ring a bell in anyone's head? You realize how much we are spending there? $22 billion, and that's with a B.

They've being saying 30-40 years since the 1950s, and they've always found more oil. Yes, oil is going to run out, but not at the moment.

However, that is still no excuse not to search for clean, renewable energy. Regardless of what some people who would sacrifice the human race in the name of big buisness say, climate change is a real issue.

If that's true, then explain to me this (and sadly, I don't have the source in front of me at the moment):

There were several off-shore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico that were projected to run dry in the mid-90s. After several years of reduced production, however, exploration was done in 2004 and it was found that the resevoir had filled again, for all intents and purposes. There is currently a small but growing theory, as a result of this and similar phenomena worldwide that oil is not actually produced by a long and arduous change of fossils, but that it is instead produced by another geological process (I'm not a geologist, so I really am unfamiliar with the details). I wouldn't accept the sky-is-falling hyperbole as being gospel truth automatically.

Thermaldeploymerization still gives us oil, and even 85% efficiency that's pretty good. Come one.. all the garbage shouldn't go to waste (no pun intended.. and they even have a chicken parts factory making oil).
I agree. That's one of the most blatant errors on the site IMHO.

Schoney, you bring up an extremely important point. I heard this from my chemistry professor last semester. He said oil may actually be produced by the earth in other methods because it keeps showing up.


However, that is still no excuse not to search for clean, renewable energy. Regardless of what some people who would sacrifice the human race in the name of big buisness say, climate change is a real issue.

Hybrid vehicles. Hydrogen vehicles. Nuclear Power.... we most certainly are trying and it is big business that is doing all the work and research. They deserve a pat on the back, especially Toyota.

Oh and news just in.. the first nuclear power plant is going to be constructed in the US.. in something over 30 years...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-22-nuclearplant_x.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) — A consortium of utilities narrowed the potential locations for what could be the first nuclear power plant built in the United States in more than three decades.

----

We must go to nuclear fission and then eventually find nuclear fusion. If we perfect nuclear fusion, you know how beautiful that would be? Say can anybody tell me how the progress has been on nuclear fusion? It is clean, very safe (even moreso then fission), and produces loads of energy.

We're not going to run out of oil. The primary problem is with the lack of new investment, not the supply of oil. We've got the crude capacity now, and there are a considerable number of deposits out there being discovered but they aren't being developed.

The other thing is the lack of refining capacity; from 1995-1999 the capacity grew much faster and much more steadily. Demand grew slower then and prices were lower. After that, refining capacity expansion slowed to a crawl even though millions of new drivers in India and China started consuming gasoline, with the result being the current situation. The oil companies do not have any incentive to increase capacity because of lack of competition.

If we increase capacity in refining, especially sour crude, prices will normalize and quite rapidly.

However, there is some good news: Motiva plans to increase its capacity from 285,000 bpd to 570,000, doubling capacity. Kuwait and Qatar, along with Saudi Arabia are also increasing their refining capacity and want to build refineries in the US.

Schoney, you bring up an extremely important point. I heard this from my chemistry professor last semester. He said oil may actually be produced by the earth in other methods because it keeps showing up.


However, that is still no excuse not to search for clean, renewable energy. Regardless of what some people who would sacrifice the human race in the name of big buisness say, climate change is a real issue.

Hybrid vehicles. Hydrogen vehicles. Nuclear Power.... we most certainly are trying and it is big business that is doing all the work and research. They deserve a pat on the back, especially Toyota.

Oh and news just in.. the first nuclear power plant is going to be constructed in the US.. in something over 30 years...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-22-nuclearplant_x.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) — A consortium of utilities narrowed the potential locations for what could be the first nuclear power plant built in the United States in more than three decades.

----

We must go to nuclear fission and then eventually find nuclear fusion. If we perfect nuclear fusion, you know how beautiful that would be? Say can anybody tell me how the progress has been on nuclear fusion? It is clean, very safe (even moreso then fission), and produces loads of energy.

Here is a credible site on thermo-deploymerization:

http://www.kantor.com/useful/thermo.shtml

The other thing is the lack of refining capacity; from 1995-1999 the capacity grew much faster and much more steadily. Demand grew slower then and prices were lower. After that, refining capacity expansion slowed to a crawl even though millions of new drivers in India and China started consuming gasoline, with the result being the current situation. The oil companies do not have any incentive to increase capacity because of lack of competition.


Good news on China. The Chinese finally scratched their butts and said to themselves: "Damn we need to discover oil in our own country more. This is getting to damn expensive." Even prices right now without any further rise will hamper Chinese economic growth. Fuel shortages have been happening throughout the country. Here is an article on the chinese gaining some common sense:

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/news/article.jsp?content=b091619A#

They are also pursueing fuel efficency.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/050921/3/w197.html

"To maintain high growth rates, China will keep on raising energy efficiency and tapping renewable resources, as well as spending more on environmental protection, he said, noting that China spends some 1.4 per cent of its gross domestic product, the level of many developed countries, in the field."

Keep in mind, I still think China's economy is overheating and that its productivity rate will plummet in twenty years, leading to poor economic readings as the population ages unusually fast for a developing country.

However, there is some good news: Motiva plans to increase its capacity from 285,000 bpd to 570,000, doubling capacity. Kuwait and Qatar, along with Saudi Arabia are also increasing their refining capacity and want to build refineries in the US.

Excellent. You have some sources? I might be writing an article on this for my school's newspaper..

Gosh this is kinda sad.. I think I know way too much about crude.

Schoney, you bring up an extremely important point. I heard this from my chemistry professor last semester. He said oil may actually be produced by the earth in other methods because it keeps showing up.

Oil keeps showing up because they keep looking for it, not because the Earth produces it. If it did, it would show up in the places where they already took it from.

It is true, there's still a lot of oil down there, the problem is not really how much there is, but how difficult it is to extract. Almost all of the cheap, easily accessible oil is gone now. We can still get more oil from those fields, but that means injecting water or nitrogen, drilling sideways, etc. That means higher investment for a lower yield.

There are still new fields that can be exploited, but these are deeper underground, under more water, are of not so good quality, need additional processing, etc. All this means that it's going to be more expensive to get at it.

Oil has been so attractive so far because it packs a lot of energy in a relatively accessible form, but it's becoming less and less so.

I believe I had this discussion a little while ago. Here is what we should do: Disown Alaska. Invade. Take over. Take oil. Make them a state again. Meanwhile, merge North and South Dakota. Problem solved.

Oil keeps showing up because they keep looking for it, not because the Earth produces it. If it did, it would show up in the places where they already took it from.

I will do more research on this later.

It is true, there's still a lot of oil down there, the problem is not really how much there is, but how difficult it is to extract. Almost all of the cheap, easily accessible oil is gone now. We can still get more oil from those fields, but that means injecting water or nitrogen, drilling sideways, etc. That means higher investment for a lower yield.

Well actually, take this example I keep bringing up! Alberta's oil sands. Thirty years ago.. not really an option.. but now with improved technology we have access to 300 billion barrels. This will go up once technology gets better and better. There is also a recent drive to drill more wells. But those oil sands to me are the most attractive investment right now. They say the cost per barrel is like $35.


Oil has been so attractive so far because it packs a lot of energy in a relatively accessible form, but it's becoming less and less so.

Not so the case. I still believe it can get really cheap once we increase exploration. Keep in mind we had several years of little exploration. Right now our problem lays with refinery capacity but that appears to be improving itself.

I'm all for alternative energies. I'm a huge proponent of nuclear fusion, and hybrid vehicles. There is a way to modify hybrid vehicles so they can actually get double the MPG.

Also another process I'm pushing for:

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex43159.htm


19-07-04 Amid continuing violence in the Middle East, the issue of energy security is again on the front burner. With oil prices rising to a peak of $ 40 a barrel, countries have been looking at alternative energy with a greater urgency.
This heightened sense of urgency, fortunately, has come at a time when there is evidence that a new approach using existing resources and technology can provide alternative energy to many countries.

A glimmer of good news recently appeared: China signed an agreement with Sasol, a South African energy and chemicals firm, to build two coal-to-liquid fuel plants in China. These plants, costing $ 3 bn each, are reported to jointly produce 60 mm tons of liquid fuel (440 mm barrels) a year. Since China imported 100 mm tons of oil last year, these plants would give China much control over its domestic energy situation, though its demand is growing fast. The raw material and capital costs of a barrel of fuel would fall under $ 10 and other costs would not bring total costs over $ 15.
Coal resources of 1 tn tons are widely distributed around the world. Many countries, including China, India, Russia, Ukraine, Germany, Poland, South Africa, the United States and Australia have extensive coal deposits that would last 100 years or more at current rates of exploitation. But coal is a highly polluting fuel when burned directly and also emits a lot of global-warming carbon dioxide.

The Sasol technology, a third-generation Fischer-Tropsch process, was developed in Germany and used in World War II, and later in South Africa. (Steam and oxygen are passed over coke at high temperatures and pressures; hydrogen and carbon monoxide are produced and then reassembled into liquid fuels.)
It has long been too expensive to compete with standard crude oil. On the plus side, sulphur and other pollutants such as ash and mercury are removed -- the sulphur can be sold as a by-product -- and carbon dioxide is segregated and can be injected underground. If hydrogen is needed for fuel cells, these plants can also provide it. In the near term, the petrol and diesel produced are high grade and clean, meeting even future '”lean diesel” requirements of the United States.

The real question is if these plants can be built and reliably produce fuels for less than $ 20 a barrel. Sasol already produces 150,000 bpd from coal. (Conversion from natural gas is cheaper and Sasol is in the process of switching its feedstock to gas in South Africa.)
Each of the Chinese plants would be four times as large as the existing Sasol plant, and scaling up can involve difficulties. If Sasol can make these larger plants work at the publicised costs, this technology could be used by many other nations -- rich and poor -- who are willing to forego periods of very cheap oil for more security. (Indeed, even oil-producing Indonesia is looking into a coal-to-liquids plant as it now imports oil.)
This technology also works in converting coal to natural gas at a cost of $ 3 to $ 3.50 per mm Btu. Since current natural-gas prices in the US are roughly double that, it would appear that coal-to-gas is also an economically viable technology.

Don't be afraid of this.. it is actually cleaner burning then oil.

The good news is that once the oil fields run dry we won't be giving profits to the terrorists overseas.
Oil money funds a good chunk of terror
EDIT: I mean Saudi oil money, in particular

Not so the case. I still believe it can get really cheap once we increase exploration. Keep in mind we had several years of little exploration. Right now our problem lays with refinery capacity but that appears to be improving itself.
The refinery problem affects gas prices in the US, but has no effect on the price of a barrel of oil in the international market.

More exploration and discovery of new fields would be good, but wouldn't necessarily lead to lower oil prices since you still have to get it out from wherever it is. Not much use just knowing it's there.

But I agree with you that there's no cause for great concern or alarmism. New technologies and more efficient use of current sources will provide us with energy for many centuries to come.

More exploration and discovery of new fields would be good, but wouldn't necessarily lead to lower oil prices since you still have to get it out from wherever it is. Not much use just knowing it's there.

I just said we are discovering it and we are getting it. Please understand, we have access to 300 billion barrels of oil in Canada alone. This will improve with time as there are 2 trillion barrels actuallythere.

But I agree with you that there's no cause for great concern or alarmism. New technologies and more efficient use of current sources will provide us with energy for many centuries to come.

Yes and I'm all for these energies. Including nuclear fusion, coal-to-liquid fuel (burns cleaner then oil based fuel), wind, hydroelectric, and all of the renewables.

Nuclear Fusion:

http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/14/2.html

Nuclear fusion reactors, if they can be made to work, promise virtually unlimited power for the indefinite future. This is because the fuel, isotopes of hydrogen, are essentially unlimited on Earth. Efforts to control the fusion process and harness it to produce power have been underway in the United States and abroad for more than forty years.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Fusion/Fusion1.shtml

Nuclear energy can also be released by fusion of two light elements (elements with low atomic numbers). The power that fuels the sun and the stars is nuclear fusion. In a hydrogen bomb, two isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium are fused to form a nucleus of helium and a neutron. This fusion releases 17.6 MeV of energy. Unlike nuclear fission, there is no limit on the amount of the fusion that can occur.

The good news is that once the oil fields run dry we won't be giving profits to the terrorists overseas.
Oil money funds a good chunk of terror

I hope you are responding to me on the Canadian Oil sands projects..

I hope you are responding to me on the Canadian Oil sands projects..
Actually I direct my comment towards Saudi Arabia...they seem to enjoy playing with and against us.

Good news on China. The Chinese finally scratched their butts and said to themselves: "Damn we need to discover oil in our own country more. This is getting to damn expensive."

That's funny. And here I thought the Chinese were busy buying Canadian oil companies to drill for oil in other people's countries.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1124726863826_120136063?s_name=&no_ads=

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/26/MNG27DF8HQ1.DTL

That's funny. And here I thought the Chinese were busy buying Canadian oil companies to drill for oil in other people's countries.

I just caught you in a bit of a mess up...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1124726863826_120136063?s_name=&no_ads=

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/26/MNG27DF8HQ1.DTL

While headquartered in Calgary, PetroKazakhstan operates solely in the Central Asian country of Kazakhstan, which is to the south of Russia and north of places like Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

---

This is not in Canada itself... though china has interests in Canadian oil sands, these are solidly in US hands. China is also spending something like $12 billion in discovery in their own territory.