NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, all the conspiracy theories about Big Oil keeping "alternative energy" down can now be thrown out the window.

NEW YORK - Chevron Corp. Thursday said it has taken a stake in a Texas company building a large-scale biodiesel plant.

The biodiesel production and distribution facility in Galveston, Texas, is scheduled for completion by the end of the year and would have the potential to produce 100 million gallons of biodiesel per year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12738523/

Also, Shell Oil is the biggest producer of solar power in the world.

Just sayin'.

Mythbusters came to the same conclusion last night when they tested some products that claimed to be able to deliver incredibly high fuel mileage that the "oil companies have tried to supress". They also discovered that pants treated with a certain herbicide can explode. The name of the herbicide wasn't given, but it's Sodium Chlorate. Now be sure not to blow up any pants at home. They're professionals.

RIght, because they don't sell oil. They sell fuel, and oil just happened to be the fuel on which they could earn the most profit.

But now they can sell biodiesel because there's increasing demand for it.

RIght, because they don't sell oil. They sell fuel, and oil just happened to be the fuel on which they could earn the most profit.

But now they can sell biodiesel because there's increasing demand for it.
Funny how that works, ha?

I'm sick of hearing people talking about how oil companies and blaiming them. Look at which political party has opposed building: refineries, pipelines, offshore drilling, and wells. Which political party has opposed exploring for more oil?

Yes, there are some exceptions, but by and large, democrats are responsible for the high oil prices because they have not allowed supply domestically to expand. And yes, I know we import 2/3 of our oil, but we can expand our oil production again if we drop restrictions on oil.

Well, all the conspiracy theories about Big Oil keeping "alternative energy" down can now be thrown out the window.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12738523/

Also, Shell Oil is the biggest producer of solar power in the world.

Just sayin'.Hold on a second. Just because energy companies are starting to get in on the game now doesn't mean they haven't actively suppressed it in the past. It just means that they're looking for the next thing--which I'm glad they're doing, even if it is a bit late in the game for it. The time to dump money into R&D on this sort of stuff was 30 years ago, not when you're staring down the barrel of peak oil worldwide and you've been lying about your reserves for the past few years like Shell was doing.

I'm sick of hearing people talking about how oil companies and blaiming them. Look at which political party has opposed building: refineries, pipelines, offshore drilling, and wells. Which political party has opposed exploring for more oil?

Yes, there are some exceptions, but by and large, democrats are responsible for the high oil prices because they have not allowed supply domestically to expand. And yes, I know we import 2/3 of our oil, but we can expand our oil production again if we drop restrictions on oil.

As Tactical Grace would say. You need to read a book on it.

Local supplies are not big enough to take care of our consumption needs. That's why they are in the ME....

Mythbusters came to the same conclusion last night when they tested some products that claimed to be able to deliver incredibly high fuel mileage that the "oil companies have tried to supress". They also discovered that pants treated with a certain herbicide can explode. The name of the herbicide wasn't given, but it's Sodium Chlorate. Now be sure not to blow up any pants at home. They're professionals.

Exploding pants? Who would be interested in something so crazy? YOu'd have to be a...slightly demented, highly mischievous attention seeker.

*googles Sodium Chlorate* :D

RIght, because they don't sell oil. They sell fuel, and oil just happened to be the fuel on which they could earn the most profit.

But now they can sell biodiesel because there's increasing demand for it.

So they are fulfulling a legal obligation to their shareholders?

And oil companies don't determine the prices, the futures traders do.

And Oil companies make only $10 per $100 of revenue, while Yahoo, Google, and Amazon make around $20 per $100 of revenue.


[from another forum I am active on]

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/...0075&Type=HTML

comparing last year to this year ending Mar 31:

revenue increased 8%
expenses increased 6%
net income increased 7% (and BTW - about 2% of that net income came from better stock/bond investments rather than sales)

and a compelling piece of evidence against price gouging by ExxonMobil...
1/1/06-3/1/06 profit margin - 9.44%
1/1/05-3/1/05 profit margin - 9.57%

usable inventory increased 24% (this could help make a case they cut supply, BUT it could also mean they extracted more or found a new oil field or started using one they shut down before or, or, or).

The notion that oil companies supress technology is illogical and economically nonsense; they exist to make a profit and it is becoming clear to them that alternative fuel sources are going to become a major source of energy in the future so they need to get in now to make money. History has shown that better technology leads to more profits and stronger growth, and companies that don't embrace new technology end up failing.

Those same fuels are also getting very competitive with and in some cases are much better than their petroleum counterparts, and oil companies see the need to begin their transition to a changing market...if they don't, they will be rendered technologically obsolete and will be drastically reduced in size, profitability, and ability to grow and compete.

It's a promising sign, though. Hopefully, this is one of the first proofs of a permanent shift in the market; given the changes already, it seems like it but moves like this from major corporations are really encouraging.

Exploding pants? Who would be interested in something so crazy? YOu'd have to be a...slightly demented, highly mischievous attention seeker.

*googles Sodium Chlorate* :D

Gives a whole new meaning to "are you happy to see me?" :D

They aren't trying to keep alternate energy down. They're trying to keep other companies' energy down. :p Now that the future of oil is in jeopardy, and the end of that gravy train is in sight, it's time to plan for future monopolization of the industry. :p

Exploding pants? Who would be interested in something so crazy? YOu'd have to be a...slightly demented, highly mischievous attention seeker.

*googles Sodium Chlorate* :D
Watch it. It will spontaneously ignite in combination with red phosphorous (the red stripe on the back of a pack of matches contains red phosphorus) or sulphur or certain other chemicals. It's not really all that safe to work with, like most improvised explosives. I was serious when I said not to try it at home.

Local supplies are not big enough to take care of our consumption needs. That's why they are in the ME....

We have more than enough "oil" to meet our needs for hundreds of years in oil shale and oil sands, but the reason why it's not getting developed is because it's simply too much work and expense to produce it.

It's not the amount of oil per se that is the issue, it's how much that oil costs to extract/process/refine/distribute.

We have more than enough "oil" to meet our needs for hundreds of years in oil shale and oil sands, but the reason why it's not getting developed is because it's simply too much work and expense to produce it.

It's not the amount of oil per se that is the issue, it's how much that oil costs to extract/process/refine/distribute.
Plus how much energy it takes to extract it. There's a point where it takes more oil energy to get the oil out of the ground than you get out of the extracted oil.

As Tactical Grace would say. You need to read a book on it.

Local supplies are not big enough to take care of our consumption needs. That's why they are in the ME....

I have read books about it, ones written by industry experts such as Matt Simmons, who wrote Twilight in the Desert.

I have also read various other ebooks about oil that I downloaded.

And I'm not aruging that we have enough energy to be self sufficient, but if we dropped restrictions on drilling and exploration and were able to stop the decline of domestic oil production that'd be better than doing nothing, which is what we are doing right now.

We have more than enough "oil" to meet our needs for hundreds of years in oil shale and oil sands, but the reason why it's not getting developed is because it's simply too much work and expense to produce it.

It's not the amount of oil per se that is the issue, it's how much that oil costs to extract/process/refine/distribute.

True. However, when you hear the "expand production" argument, it usually means drilling.....

We have more than enough "oil" to meet our needs for hundreds of years in oil shale and oil sands, but the reason why it's not getting developed is because it's simply too much work and expense to produce it.

It's not the amount of oil per se that is the issue, it's how much that oil costs to extract/process/refine/distribute.

The oil shale in the USA is questionable in terms of it's EROI (Energy return on investment), and oil sands have a return of 2:1 (2 units of energy for every unit used to extract it), whereas most oil wells have an EROI between 15:1 and 30:1.

I have read books about it, ones written by industry experts such as Matt Simmons, who wrote Twilight in the Desert.

I have also read various other ebooks about oil that I downloaded.

And I'm not aruging that we have enough energy to be self sufficient, but if we dropped restrictions on drilling and exploration and were able to stop the decline of domestic oil production that'd be better than doing nothing, which is what we are doing right now.

Ahh ok! The "read a book comment" is withdrawn.

Hold on a second. Just because energy companies are starting to get in on the game now doesn't mean they haven't actively suppressed it in the past. It just means that they're looking for the next thing--which I'm glad they're doing, even if it is a bit late in the game for it. The time to dump money into R&D on this sort of stuff was 30 years ago, not when you're staring down the barrel of peak oil worldwide and you've been lying about your reserves for the past few years like Shell was doing.
Because they didn't spend much of their money on R&D doesn't not equate to supressing alternative energy. How much of your money do you spend on R&D into alternative energy? If oil prices were high enough 40 years ago they would have started producing it then. Oil companies are not charities. Research has been done in the public sector on oil alternatives for decades and no one has come up with a process than can compete on an economic level with $30/barrel oil. They still haven't. If oil prices were to fall back to that level companies would bail on it in a second. The fact that Chevron is getting inot the game should give you a good idea where oil prices are headed from here. If they believed that prices were going to come back down they wouldn't be making these kinds of investments.

Because they didn't spend much of their money on R&D doesn't not equate to supressing alternative energy. How much of your money do you spend on R&D into alternative energy? If oil prices were high enough 40 years ago they would have started producing it then. Oil companies are not charities. Research has been done in the public sector on oil alternatives for decades and no one has come up with a process than can compete on an economic level with $30/barrel oil. They still haven't. If oil prices were to fall back to that level companies would bail on it in a second. The fact that Chevron is getting inot the game should give you a good idea where oil prices are headed from here. If they believed that prices were going to come back down they wouldn't be making these kinds of investments.

Ok. With the profits they are making, why aren't there several plants being built?

Plus how much energy it takes to extract it. There's a point where it takes more oil energy to get the oil out of the ground than you get out of the extracted oil.

To a point, yes. However, if the energy being used is cheaper than the stuff being produced it doesn't matter how efficient the process is because it is profitable to produce and has more value added than the energy consumed.

For example, gasoline is highly energy negative, but it's profitable enough to produce despite its inferiority in virtually all aspects compared to biodiesel and clean petroleum diesel.

For example, if a company were to use alternative fuels and renewable energy/nuclear/hydrogen to extract oil from oil shale, the energy difference would be unimportant because the stuff consumed to produce the oil is either renewable and effectively limitless or abundant and cheap. However, the oil companies would not want to invest billions of dollars and several years to build the large quantities of these facilities so their production is highly limited unless the energy intensity falls to a point of profitability.

Also, oil companies have to be assured that their investment will be profitable 5-10 or even more years down the line; if they build a network of nuclear plants and biodiesel facilities at a production site where the extraction is profitable at $50 and the price falls to $30, they lose massive amounts of money.

Because they didn't spend much of their money on R&D doesn't not equate to supressing alternative energy. How much of your money do you spend on R&D into alternative energy? If oil prices were high enough 40 years ago they would have started producing it then. Oil companies are not charities. Research has been done in the public sector on oil alternatives for decades and no one has come up with a process than can compete on an economic level with $30/barrel oil. They still haven't. If oil prices were to fall back to that level companies would bail on it in a second. The fact that Chevron is getting inot the game should give you a good idea where oil prices are headed from here. If they believed that prices were going to come back down they wouldn't be making these kinds of investments.

Don't forget that when prices were down to $10 a barrel in the late 1990s the companies were so stretched that many weren't able to make their dues payments to the API (American Petroleum Institue).

I'm sick of hearing people talking about how oil companies and blaiming them. Look at which political party has opposed building: refineries, pipelines, offshore drilling, and wells. Which political party has opposed exploring for more oil?

Yes, there are some exceptions, but by and large, democrats are responsible for the high oil prices because they have not allowed supply domestically to expand. And yes, I know we import 2/3 of our oil, but we can expand our oil production again if we drop restrictions on oil.
And it was Republicans who passed tax breaks for people who buy SUVs and who have consistently resisted raising the CAFE standards. Also, it was Ronald Reagan who, very poignantly, had the solar panels removed from the White House roof when he moved into it. Quite a statement, that.

Ok. With the profits they are making, why aren't there several plants being built?
Risk exposure.

Ok. With the profits they are making, why aren't there several plants being built?


Exploring for oil, and drilling for oil is an extremely expensive process, and since the best, cheapest, easiest to drill fields have long since been depleted, costs for drilling fields are rising as fields are more difficult to find (which means higher expenses for finding oil) and of lower quality and less quantity.

And it was Republicans who passed tax breaks for people who buy SUVs and who have consistently resisted raising the CAFE standards. Also, it was Ronald Reagan who, very poignantly, had the solar panels removed from the White House roof when he moved into it. Quite a statement, that.

It's not just SUVs; big trucks as well. And the tax breaks are for the makers......

Ok. With the profits they are making, why aren't there several plants being built?

Well, because they need to test the market. If they were to make a massive investment and oil prices plunged, they would be stuck with billions of dollars worth of losing assets that could not be easily divested. However, if they test the market now and see that it is viable they will begin to invest on a larger scale.

Exploring for oil, and drilling for oil is an extremely expensive process, and since the best, cheapest, easiest to drill fields have long since been depleted, costs for drilling fields are rising as fields are more difficult to find (which means higher expenses for finding oil) and of lower quality and less quantity.

Not talking about oil. Dan mentioned Chevron is building 1 plant to make biodisel; so there has never been an effort to prevent alternative engery sources.....

I'm sick of hearing people talking about how oil companies and blaiming them. Look at which political party has opposed building: refineries, pipelines, offshore drilling, and wells. Which political party has opposed exploring for more oil?

Yes, there are some exceptions, but by and large, democrats are responsible for the high oil prices because they have not allowed supply domestically to expand. And yes, I know we import 2/3 of our oil, but we can expand our oil production again if we drop restrictions on oil.

Oh but I thought the war in Iraq would allow supply to expand?

And the reason democrats have opposed it is to move off of oil and consider other renewable resources. We dont need to drill into natural space anymore. We should be researching new methods.

It's not just SUVs; big trucks as well. And the tax breaks are for the makers......
Actually, they are gone now but they were for the buyers. I drive a Mustang. Because I have a regular job that requires the same commute every day I cannot write off the car. If I had bought an SUV two years ago I could say I needed a truck that size for work and write it off with the same job I have now just because it was a truck. Which, BTW, you are right. It wasn't just SUVs it was any Army size vehicle.

Because they didn't spend much of their money on R&D doesn't not equate to supressing alternative energy. How much of your money do you spend on R&D into alternative energy? If oil prices were high enough 40 years ago they would have started producing it then. Oil companies are not charities. Research has been done in the public sector on oil alternatives for decades and no one has come up with a process than can compete on an economic level with $30/barrel oil. They still haven't. If oil prices were to fall back to that level companies would bail on it in a second. The fact that Chevron is getting inot the game should give you a good idea where oil prices are headed from here. If they believed that prices were going to come back down they wouldn't be making these kinds of investments.
When you take inflation into account, oil was actually more expensive per barrel in 1979 than it is today--not by much, but it was. The difference, of course, was that those shortages were artificial, and all OPEC had to do to stop them was turn the spigot on again. If oil companies had been farsighted, they could have worked in concert with the federal government to use that shortage to put money into R&D to get us into alt-fuels much earlier, even if it meant keeping oil prices high artificially in order to make it happen.

Like I said, it's good that they're doing something now. One thing that Kevin Phillips' book (haven't finished it yet) mentions as a concern is that he's afraid the US won't make the transition to whatever the next major energy source will be in time to avoid the coming downfall of US power. Maybe these companies are learning from the lessons of the past after all--I have my doubts, but this is a step in the right direction as far as energy is concerned.

Of course, it means bupkus for the global warming problem.

And it was Republicans who passed tax breaks for people who buy SUVs and who have consistently resisted raising the CAFE standards. Also, it was Ronald Reagan who, very poignantly, had the solar panels removed from the White House roof when he moved into it. Quite a statement, that.

The supply side matters a lot more than the demand side, because demand cannot exceed supply for very long.

Personal transportation accounts for 40% of oil use in this country, and SUVs are an even smaller chunk. SUVs are no worse on gas mileage than a midsize or full size car. My 1996 explorer [with a 4.0 liter V-6]gets 20 miles per gallon, and my 1994 Volvo [with a turobocharged 2.4 liter straight 5] 850 gets 22 miles per gallon. Figure that.

And if CAFE standards had been raised, oil demand wouldn't have gone up, prices wouldn't have gone up, and there would be no research going into alternate energy because nothing can compete with cheap oil. Now, without CAFE standards being raised, people are flocking to fuel-efficient cars, and all the companies are making cars with better gas mileage. Look at the 3 ton Chevy Tahoe, which gets 20 mpg despite having a 5.4 liter V-8.

Solar panels until very recently take 30 years to give back the amount of energy that it takes to produce them.

Watch it. It will spontaneously ignite in combination with red phosphorous (the red stripe on the back of a pack of matches contains red phosphorus) or sulphur or certain other chemicals. It's not really all that safe to work with, like most improvised explosives. I was serious when I said not to try it at home.

Are you nuts?!? I don't want to blow up my home! I'll try it in someone else's home. :)

Exploring for oil, and drilling for oil is an extremely expensive process, and since the best, cheapest, easiest to drill fields have long since been depleted, costs for drilling fields are rising as fields are more difficult to find (which means higher expenses for finding oil) and of lower quality and less quantity.

Also, places where there are significant amounts of undiscovered, light crude are unable to be invested in due to laws and/or are unexplored due to politicial and social instability in those regions, in particular Iran and Iraq.

Other places like Saudi Arabia don't allow investment and are inefficient at producing; however, this is in highly desirable because it keeps us from being able to produce at full capacity and therefore keeps the supply from being depleted too quickly.

Not talking about oil. Dan mentioned Chevron is building 1 plant to make biodisel; so there has never been an effort to prevent alternative engery sources.....
Anybody could have built one. Chevron or any other oil producer wouldn't have stopped one from being built. They would have destroyed them on the business front, though, because it costs a lot more to produce biodeisel than deisel. At least, for teh time being. As we slide down the backside of Peak Oil that will no longer be the case and Chevron, who has publically said that the end of cheap oil is here, knows it.

Also, places where there are significant amounts of undiscovered, light crude are unable to be invested in due to laws and/or are unexplored due to politicial and social instability in those regions, in particular Iran and Iraq.

Other places like Saudi Arabia don't allow investment and are inefficient at producing; however, this is in highly desirable because it keeps us from being able to produce at full capacity and therefore keeps the supply from being depleted too quickly.

From what I read about Saudi Arabia in Twilight in the Desert, 90% of the oil they have ever produced has come from one massive oil field, which has been pumping at a prolific rate since the 1970s. They have to inject water into it to keep production up, and there is concern that Ghawar (the field) will begin to decline, simply because there is less and less oil. The Saudis have explored virtually the whole country, and have not been able to find many fields except for a few smaller ones on the Persian Gulf.

Anybody could have built one. Chevron or any other oil producer wouldn't have stopped one from being built. They would have destroyed them on the business front, though, because it costs a lot more to produce biodeisel than deisel. At least, for teh time being. As we slide down the backside of Peak Oil that will no longer be the case and Chevron, who has publically said that the end of cheap oil is here, knows it.

Also, I believe that it was Chevron that had an advertising campaign showing a bell curve of oil production.

As for peak oil, I think we are at the plateau, and the best solution to ease the transition is to try to keep prices manageable for the time being.

Personal transportation accounts for 40% of oil use in this country, and SUVs are an even smaller chunk. SUVs are no worse on gas mileage than a midsize or full size car. My 1996 explorer [with a 4.0 liter V-6]gets 20 miles per gallon, and my 1994 Volvo [with a turobocharged 2.4 liter straight 5] 850 gets 22 miles per gallon. Figure that.

It's actually closer to 60+%, and is rising every year as the remaining industrial/commercial consumers switch to alternatives like natural gas.

Solar panels until very recently take 30 years to give back the amount of energy that it takes to produce them.

But not anymore; the only thing preventing massive growth in the solar industry is the shortage of polysilicon used to make them. Also, technology is improving at phenomenal if not literally exponential rates each year.

Each day, the Earth recieves more energy in the form of solar than has been produced by the combustion of all fossil fuels for centuries. Tapping in to only a portion of that would be enough to meet our needs, and with the increasing abilities of distributed generation it will be part of an integrated
power grid composed of renewables and other sources that will be cheaper and more reliable than any grid today.

Solar power is really part of an energy revolution.

Well, because they need to test the market. If they were to make a massive investment and oil prices plunged, they would be stuck with billions of dollars worth of losing assets that could not be easily divested. However, if they test the market now and see that it is viable they will begin to invest on a larger scale.

Then is it a "token" gesture? Chevron likes to say it's green.

If biodisel means having to buy a new car/truck, many people aren't going to be able to afford it. Especially if they can't make enough selling the old one and if there is no "real" drop in the prices(ie gas $5 and bio $4.5).

There is nothing the US can do to arrest the decline of domestic oil and gas production. It has found it all, it has used most of it, peak was news decades ago. No amount of technology is going to find oil that isn't there. You can do seismic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of California all you want, you can strip-mine a couple of states, but you'll be lucky to find another billion barrels which can be extracted at an energy profit. ANWR will give you another 6bn barrels and will slow the domestic decline by a fraction of a percentage point a decade from now, when US-48 production and its contribution to US oil consumption will be trivial.

The US can never change the fact that its domestic oil and gas resources are inadequate. The US economy has outgrown its geology. It outgrew it when my parents were kids. Globally, that is the norm, not the exception. When a dozen countries have virtually the entire global resource, you are going to buy most of your stuff from them whether you like it or not. Because you need it, they have it, and you don't.

You want a solution? Use less. You're importing two thirds, your production will never rise again, and as the years pass you are going to have to slash demand like crazy just to keep the imports at a steady two thirds.

Solar power is really part of an energy revolution.

Yup. I am looking to do solar on the house. It will not eliminate electricity but it will greatly reduce my use of it.

I am also looking to play with some wind. I am in a place that seems to get wind all the time so I figure a couple small generators to handle stuff like the lawn lights and backyard lighting......

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Solar_land_area.png
Global solar energy resources. The colors in the map show the local solar energy, averaged over three years from 1991 to 1993 (24 hours a day, also taking into account the cloud coverage reported from weather satellites). The scale is in watts per square meter.
The land area required to supply the current global primary energy demand by solar energy alone using available technology is that represented by the dark disks.

ANd that's not including the breakthroughs of the last few years.

Oh but I thought the war in Iraq would allow supply to expand?

And the reason democrats have opposed it is to move off of oil and consider other renewable resources. We dont need to drill into natural space anymore. We should be researching new methods.

1. Iraq's oil infastructure was in horrible condition before the war, and is in worse condition now.

2. Supply for oil has always exceeded demand. Now they are about equal.

3. We need to drill for more oil because we are horribly prepared for Peak Oil, a this point we should have been more prepared.

4. Natural space will return back to the way it was within 15 years of the oil industry leaving. The oil extraction is a temporary blight in the effected area. Look at places that people used to be, where they live no longer, or even look at the old wells in Texas. Detroit for example in some places is turning back into it's former habitat, in Texas the same thing goes for old oil fields.

5. We have been researching for new methods for quite a while now, since the days of Carter, and if it was economically feasible, companies would be doing it rather than the government. Hybrid engines are a good example of this.

The supply side matters a lot more than the demand side, because demand cannot exceed supply for very long.But demand is within our ability to control. Supply is going to run out and there's nothing we can do about it. The fact is that the biggest bang for yoru buck that you can get is through conservation, not more production. It is enormously cheaper to save oil than to find and produce more. I don't blame the Republican party for this, I'm simply pointing out that both parties have been criminally short sighted on this issue.

Personal transportation accounts for 40% of oil use in this country, and SUVs are an even smaller chunk. SUVs are no worse on gas mileage than a midsize or full size car. My 1996 explorer [with a 4.0 liter V-6]gets 20 miles per gallon, and my 1994 Volvo [with a turobocharged 2.4 liter straight 5] 850 gets 22 miles per gallon. Figure that.Yeah, well my friends 2004 Dodge Ram gets 8 miles to the gallon and my Mustang GT gets 26. This is real miles to teh gallon as tested on my odometer, not from the specs. There is a HUGE difference in gas mileage between large trucks and regular cars. Also, part of the reason the nig car companies are in trouble is because SUVs, in particular, have underpinned their sales for more than a decade. There are a LOT of SUVs on the road.

And if CAFE standards had been raised, oil demand wouldn't have gone up, prices wouldn't have gone up, and there would be no research going into alternate energy because nothing can compete with cheap oil. Now, without CAFE standards being raised, people are flocking to fuel-efficient cars, and all the companies are making cars with better gas mileage. Look at the 3 ton Chevy Tahoe, which gets 20 mpg despite having a 5.4 liter V-8.Same thing would still have happened, it would just have taken longer and the downside of the depletion slope would have been less steep.

Solar panels until very recently take 30 years to give back the amount of energy that it takes to produce them.
True, but as I said, it was a statement about energy and oil. Reagan was declaring his allegience to an oil based economy.

From what I read about Saudi Arabia in Twilight in the Desert, 90% of the oil they have ever produced has come from one massive oil field, which has been pumping at a prolific rate since the 1970s. They have to inject water into it to keep production up, and there is concern that Ghawar (the field) will begin to decline, simply because there is less and less oil. The Saudis have explored virtually the whole country, and have not been able to find many fields except for a few smaller ones on the Persian Gulf.

The Saudis don't explore a lot; there are only 30 or 40 wildcat drills drilled (compared to 13,000 in the US) and only a fraction of the oil exploration budget of Africa. Also, their producing fields are inefficient and poorly managed compared to the US, Canada, or other ME nations like Kuwait.
Ghawar has not yet peaked yet, but it will eventually. The Saudis will need foreign investment to keep production growing, but eventually they'll hit a wall regardless...the question, of course, is when.

Oil will peak, but I think it will be a minor disruption. The only thing really barring a rapid transition to alternatives is the price of oil which is still lower in real terms than it was in the 1970's and early 1980's, and if we adjust for reduced energy intensity since then is even lower. Oil needs to go a lot higher to prompt another wave of efficiency, innovation, and conservation like it did during the 1970's/1980's.

Well, all the conspiracy theories about Big Oil keeping "alternative energy" down can now be thrown out the window.
Here's another: http://www.marketcenter.com/stocks/story.action?id=AWS117w7390



Norsk Hydro reports sharp net profit gain on strong oil, aluminum prices

"Hydro is enjoying record prices for both our energy and aluminum operations, and I am also pleased with our high production for oil, gas and aluminum, as well as our operational performance," said President and Chief Executive Officer Eivind Reiten.

Norsk Hydro said its oil production averaged 610,000 barrels per day in the quarter, up 26,000 barrels per day from a year earlier. It said the oil sold for an average price of just over US$60 per barrel, and that it expects prices to remain high in 2006.

The group is one of Norway's largest companies, with 33,000 employees in 40 countries.

The key word here is Hydro. It's a green, tree-hugging, zero carbon emission hydropower company which also happens to be a multinational conglomerate which runs oil, gas and light metals interests, with a ~$4bn annual profit.

Remember: The energy industry does not give a fuck about the technology or the associated politics. It uses what works.

Plus how much energy it takes to extract it. There's a point where it takes more oil energy to get the oil out of the ground than you get out of the extracted oil.
In a way, this is the highest of comedy.

The Saudis don't explore a lot; there are only 30 or 40 wildcat drills drilled (compared to 13,000 in the US) and only a fraction of the oil exploration budget of Africa. Also, their producing fields are inefficient and poorly managed compared to the US, Canada, or other ME nations like Kuwait.
You're smoking crack. Their oilfield management is world class. Their R&D is cutting edge.

Yup. I am looking to do solar on the house. It will not eliminate electricity but it will greatly reduce my use of it.

California's really put some major incentives in place for residential solar, and most major cities have reduced fees. Be sure to look in to it; the federal government also offers credits, and the benefits to the environment are huge.

Plus, if you are producing more than you are using, you can recieve additional money from the utility which reduces power costs even further. In California, alternative energy is going to be a major windfall for utilities as well as consumers.

I am also looking to play with some wind. I am in a place that seems to get wind all the time so I figure a couple small generators to handle stuff like the lawn lights and backyard lighting......

Definitely; hydrogen fuel cells will also be big for appliances and computers, and are very cost effective compared to current technology.

There is nothing the US can do to arrest the decline of domestic oil and gas production. It has found it all, it has used most of it, peak was news decades ago. No amount of technology is going to find oil that isn't there. You can do seismic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of California all you want, you can strip-mine a couple of states, but you'll be lucky to find another billion barrels which can be extracted at an energy profit. ANWR will give you another 6bn barrels and will slow the domestic decline by a fraction of a percentage point a decade from now, when US-48 production and its contribution to US oil consumption will be trivial.

The US can never change the fact that its domestic oil and gas resources are inadequate. The US economy has outgrown its geology. It outgrew it when my parents were kids. Globally, that is the norm, not the exception. When a dozen countries have virtually the entire global resource, you are going to buy most of your stuff from them whether you like it or not. Because you need it, they have it, and you don't.

You want a solution? Use less. You're importing two thirds, your production will never rise again, and as the years pass you are going to have to slash demand like crazy just to keep the imports at a steady two thirds.

1. Exploration hasn't been allowed in the new era of 3-D seismology, which is right now the best way.

2. I'm not denying that expanding production is a "silver bullet", but it will help in the long run. Every little bit at this point helps.

3. It is estimated by the USGS that there are between 5.4 and 9 billion barrels of oil off of the East Coast and as much as 9 billion barrels north of cuba. Not a lot, but it's better than sitting back and doing nothing.

You're smoking crack. Their oilfield management is world class. Their R&D is cutting edge.

I've heard otherwise; the Saudi government has major problems with nepotism and corruption in the industry, and their barring of foreign investment in the oil sector is putting a major dent in their ability to produce.

Ghawar has not yet peaked yet, but it will eventually.
And you know that how? Their production statistics have been declining since December... November was their all time high...

Here's another: http://www.marketcenter.com/stocks/story.action?id=AWS117w7390



The key word here is Hydro. It's a green, tree-hugging, zero carbon emission hydropower company which also happens to be a multinational conglomerate which runs oil, gas and light metals interests, with a ~$4bn annual profit.

Remember: The energy industry does not give a fuck about the technology or the associated politics. It uses what works.

Energy by my definiation is all forms including electricity, oil, natural gas, coal, etc. Hydoelectric power is a form of energy. And the most ideal places for hydro electric power have already been used in the USA.

I've heard otherwise; the Saudi government has major problems with nepotism and corruption in the industry, and their barring of foreign investment in the oil sector is putting a major dent in their ability to produce.

They mostly hire foreign workers from the USA in particular, they don't bar investment, but then again, they don't need any, because they are the #1 oil exporting nation and a flush with cash.

In a way, this is the highest of comedy.
Reminds me of a scene from "The Fog of War" where McNamara is talking about flying fuel over the hump into China--they figured out pretty soon that it was a losing proposition--it took more fuel to fly the planes in than they could stockpile.

And you know that how? Their production statistics have been declining since December... November was their all time high...

The Saudis say it hasn't, so I have little choice but to believe them until there is unequivocal evidence otherwise. Aramco is saying they can keep production rising, so I don't really have any other proof besides their word for it, and Aramco has been able to deliver in the past.

They mostly hire foreign workers from the USA in particular, they don't bar investment, but then again, they don't need any, because they are the #1 oil exporting nation and a flush with cash.
They bar invetsment in any productioownership. You can sell or lease them equipment and you can work for them, but you cannot own any producing assets in SA.

Energy by my definiation is all forms including electricity, oil, natural gas, coal, etc. Hydoelectric power is a form of energy. And the most ideal places for hydro electric power have already been used in the USA.

Or in Africa; they've got incredible amounts of energy available, all of it clean and all of it produceable without threatening food production. Peak oil may be what is needed to lift sub-Saharan Africa out of poverty and economic instability, given their massive capacity to produce biofuels and hydropower with current technology.

Reminds me of a scene from "The Fog of War" where McNamara is talking about flying fuel over the hump into China--they figured out pretty soon that it was a losing proposition--it took more fuel to fly the planes in than they could stockpile.
I need to see that movie.

The Saudis say it hasn't, so I have little choice but to believe them until there is unequivocal evidence otherwise. Aramco is saying they can keep production rising, so I don't really have any other proof besides their word for it, and Aramco has been able to deliver in the past.
You do, however, have access to their production stats as seen from the supply side. There are companies that publish the number of barrels coming out of SA. It's incomplete information, but it can give you a glimpse. As far as taking them at their word... hmmm...

Why not allow independent audits of their fields? It's not ownership, it's just a survey. Screams of something to hide.

I need to see that movie.
It's fascinating. My girlfriend used it in her Freshman Composition classes this term, and it apparently went over very well.

I've heard otherwise; the Saudi government has major problems with nepotism and corruption in the industry, and their barring of foreign investment in the oil sector is putting a major dent in their ability to produce.
You have heard wrong.

All their fields have been redrilled several times, most recently with horizontal multilateral branching wells for maximum reservoir contact and automatic shutoff valves. Most producing wells in the US are several technological generations behind.

Outside experience is hardly necessary considering the home-grown technological advances that have given the national oil company resources and expertise equivalent to any you will find anywhere else. 4D seismic, reservoir models with millions of data cells, holographic maps, the ability to horizontally steer every well branch into position with an accuracy of a few feet and make it 'smart', these days even making well completions with the aim of avoiding specific cracks in the rock.

In comparison, most wells in the US have this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/45/Nodding_donkey.jpg).

I really wouldn't trust what some TV news pundit is saying without qualification. "They are inefficient because they don't allow foreign investment." Bullshit.

But demand is within our ability to control. Supply is going to run out and there's nothing we can do about it. The fact is that the biggest bang for yoru buck that you can get is through conservation, not more production. It is enormously cheaper to save oil than to find and produce more. I don't blame the Republican party for this, I'm simply pointing out that both parties have been criminally short sighted on this issue.

I think the Republicans are somewhat responsible, but the democrats are more responsible, because of their oppisition to drilling and exploration in the first place.

Yeah, well my friends 2004 Dodge Ram gets 8 miles to the gallon and my Mustang GT gets 26. This is real miles to teh gallon as tested on my odometer, not from the specs. There is a HUGE difference in gas mileage between large trucks and regular cars. Also, part of the reason the nig car companies are in trouble is because SUVs, in particular, have underpinned their sales for more than a decade. There are a LOT of SUVs on the road.

I got those figures in my Explorer, from the odometer, and in my volvo from the computer. Depending on the car, the figure is way below EPA statements [hybrid cars], below [most passenger cars and some SUVs], or misses the target [some SUVs and some cars] I agree that they are dependent on SUVs for sales, and I think that it was short-sighted planning, however, if you look at history, GM made huge investments into alternate fuel research in the 1980s and most of it failed horribly, such as the 8-6-4 Cadillac, or the diesel Cadillac.

Same thing would still have happened, it would just have taken longer and the downside of the depletion slope would have been less steep.

Well, I consider that to be preferable to a steep decline.

True, but as I said, it was a statement about energy and oil. Reagan was declaring his allegience to an oil based economy.

He was shortsighted as well.

You have heard wrong.

All their fields have been redrilled several times, most recently with horizontal multilateral branching wells for maximum reservoir contact and automatic shutoff valves. Most producing wells in the US are several technological generations behind.

Outside experience is hardly necessary considering the home-grown technological advances that have given the national oil company resources and expertise equivalent to any you will find anywhere else. 4D seismic, reservoir models with millions of data cells, holographic maps, the ability to horizontally steer every well branch into position with an accuracy of a few feet and make it 'smart', these days even making well completions with the aim of avoiding specific cracks in the rock.

In comparison, most wells in the US have this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/45/Nodding_donkey.jpg).

I really wouldn't trust what some TV news pundit is saying without qualification. "They are inefficient because they don't allow foreign investment." Bullshit.

Also, they have magically self-replacing reserves.

http://www.peakoil.nl/images/bpopec.jpg

The Saudis say it hasn't, so I have little choice but to believe them until there is unequivocal evidence otherwise. Aramco is saying they can keep production rising, so I don't really have any other proof besides their word for it, and Aramco has been able to deliver in the past.

Read Twilight in the Desert it is basically written by an industry insider with a massive amount of experience in the field.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/047173876X/002-6706539-9812842?v=glance&n=283155

Also, they have magically self-replacing reserves.
I am aware of that. They have Enroned the whole planet and are getting away with it. But their technological prowess is not in doubt.

You have heard wrong.

All their fields have been redrilled several times, most recently with horizontal multilateral branching wells for maximum reservoir contact and automatic shutoff valves. Most producing wells in the US are several technological generations behind.

Outside experience is hardly necessary considering the home-grown technological advances that have given the national oil company resources and expertise equivalent to any you will find anywhere else. 4D seismic, reservoir models with millions of data cells, holographic maps, the ability to horizontally steer every well branch into position with an accuracy of a few feet and make it 'smart', these days even making well completions with the aim of avoiding specific cracks in the rock.

In comparison, most wells in the US have this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/45/Nodding_donkey.jpg).

I really wouldn't trust what some TV news pundit is saying without qualification. "They are inefficient because they don't allow foreign investment." Bullshit.
While I believe you're right when it comes to SA and have to bow to your experience, everything I have read is that SA breaks the rule. My reading has led me to believe that most state run energy enterprises are horribly mismanaged. It also bares pointing out that those dinosaurs mean a gentler backside slope. The kind of production going on in SA generally portends an outright production collapse. If you look at depletion curves, the US's is much gentler than most because we lacked the tech to suck it out so fast in teh first half of the last century. We peaked at about 10 million barrels/day in 1970/71 and are producing a little more than half that more than 30 years later. Mexico, for example, will be lucky to produce half as mush oil in 2010 as they did last year.

There is nothing the US can do to arrest the decline of domestic oil and gas production. It has found it all, it has used most of it, peak was news decades ago. No amount of technology is going to find oil that isn't there. You can do seismic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of California all you want, you can strip-mine a couple of states, but you'll be lucky to find another billion barrels which can be extracted at an energy profit. ANWR will give you another 6bn barrels and will slow the domestic decline by a fraction of a percentage point a decade from now, when US-48 production and its contribution to US oil consumption will be trivial.

As you're our resident geologist, I have a couple of questions for you. I've been hearing that as the ice sheets recede, there may be oil fields to be exploited in the Arctic Ocean. What are you thoughts on that?

Also, as oil supplies diminish world wide, what are the possibilities of oil exploration and drilling in Antartica? I realize that at the moment it is strictly a no development zone, but as the oil disappears and our economies tank I would think that will no longer be the case. Have there ben any studies on the possibility of oil fields there? I can imagine there would be a major land rush and conflits over who controls what.

It also bares pointing out that those dinosaurs mean a gentler backside slope. The kind of production going on in SA generally portends an outright production collapse. If you look at depletion curves, the US's is much gentler than most because we lacked the tech to suck it out so fast in teh first half of the last century. We peaked at about 10 million barrels/day in 1970/71 and are producing a little more than half that more than 30 years later. Mexico, for example, will be lucky to produce half as mush oil in 2010 as they did last year.
Oh I agree with that. The North Sea is another fine case. A province discovered very late, came on production with all the latest tech available from Day 1, with the result that it is getting sucked dry in half the time seen elsewhere.

As I'm sure you have read, Saudi Arabia is a mixture of both, though. Discoveries in the 1940s and 1950s, significant production 1950s onwards, fairly low-tech inefficient vertical well stuff before they even had a clue about the reservoir structure. Fairly late experimentation with secondary recovery techniques too. That part mirrors the US experience. But then they developed and installed all the tech necessary for the all out draining of the fields, not maximum total recovery, but maximum rate. And that's what they have been doing for coming up to two decades, while boasting their reserves are magical, but not letting anyone assess them because they are secret. :rolleyes:

It is deception and corruption, I agree 100%. But the lie has world-class technology at its core.

Oh I agree with that. The North Sea is another fine case. A province discovered very late, came on production with all the latest tech available from Day 1, with the result that it is getting sucked dry in half the time seen elsewhere.
And that's why this:

Light Crude (NYM)
June 06 ($US per bbl.) 73.32 +1.19 73.85 72.35 73.32 5/11 2:57pm
Brent Crude (NYM)
June 06 ($US per bbl.) 73.44 +0.98 73.50 73.00 73.44 5/11 2:37pm

...is becoming more and more common. Five years ago WTI was always more expensive than Brent. More and more that's not the case.

As you're our resident geologist, I have a couple of questions for you. I've been hearing that as the ice sheets recede, there may be oil fields to be exploited in the Arctic Ocean. What are you thoughts on that?
I am not a geologist. :p I am actually an electrical engineer, working for a company which supplies, amongst other interesting things, the technology behind what I'm talking about. The geological issues are just interesting background reading I have done which are not directly related to my job, but which help with the commercial awareness side - ie, trying to figure out what the real big cheeses' strategy is.

Whilst I do probably have a better grounding in this area than most users of this forum, I do not claim to be an expert, as I mostly design circuit boards and write spreadsheets for calculating stuff.

So regarding the Arctic, since I am not a geologist, I do not know whether oil is there. However, as an engineer in that industry, I can tell you that if there is any oil there, $100 per barrel will not even begin to provide a sufficient incentive to double-click the CAD icon.

Also, as oil supplies diminish world wide, what are the possibilities of oil exploration and drilling in Antartica? I realize that at the moment it is strictly a no development zone, but as the oil disappears and our economies tank I would think that will no longer be the case. Have there ben any studies on the possibility of oil fields there? I can imagine there would be a major land rush and conflits over who controls what.
From what I have read, the geology is all wrong. It's a distant enough prospect in the Arctic, the Antarctic is just wishful thinking. The thing you should take from the discussion though, is the realisation that we are talking about the North and South poles. If that's not scraping the bottom of the barrel, I don't know what is.

Nevermind. After doing a bit of research I found that Antarctica may have very large oil reserves. No need to worry about running out of oil in my lifetime. It may be difficult to get (expense and political problems), but we will tap these resources if it becomes necessary.

From http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/antarctica.html

"The call for an environmental protocol to the Antarctic Treaty came after scientists discovered large deposits of natural resources such as coal, natural gas and offshore oil reserves in the early 1980s. Antarctica is considered to be part of the theoretical super-continent known as Gondwanaland, which separated near the end of the Paleozoic era and consisted of South America, Africa and Australia. And, because it once was completely covered in vegetation, many scientists believe it may hold one of the last supergiant oil fields yet to be discovered. The continental shelf of Antarctica is considered to hold the region's greatest potential for oil exploration projects, and although estimates vary as to the abundance of oil in Antarctica, the Weddell and Ross Sea areas alone are expected to possess 50 billion barrels of oil - an amount roughly equivalent to that of Alaska's estimated reserves. However, Antarctica's extreme conditions make oil field accessibility in many areas economically problematic.

Nevertheless, following the energy crisis of the 1970s, several oil companies looked to Antarctica as a possible solution to future world oil shortages by announcing plans to exploit the continent's resources. The necessary conditions for economically-sound oil production projects were beginning to ripen along with high oil prices and demand, and improved drilling technology. The prospect that Antarctica's fragile wildnerness could be tainted as a result of oil exploration and drilling activities resulted in the mobilization of several conservation groups who were intent on preserving the continent's status as the most pristine in the world."

The thing you should take from the discussion though, is the realisation that we are talking about the North and South poles. If that's not scraping the bottom of the barrel, I don't know what is.
I couldn't have said that better myself.

A story to illustrate that point.

Exxon lost a platform in the far North Sea in the mid 90s to an iceberg. Thier response was to hire 10,000 people on 3 continents to build a structure with 70,000 tons of steel and 300,000 toms of concrete and to ring it with boats with water cannons that fire hot water at icebergs to steer them away from the platform. If we need to do that to get oil what have we come to? The only way something like this is worth it is if we are sucking out teh very last drops that we can.

If that's not scraping the bottom of the barrel, I don't know what is.

I agree, but it will likely be scraped for every last drop. Not that I think we should be so dependant on oil. I'd much rather see conservation, nuclear, renewables, etc. Unregulated oil/coal use will surely destroy our enviroment. But it's good to know it's there if we need it.

Nevermind. After doing a bit of research I found that Antarctica may have very large oil reserves. No need to worry about running out of oil in my lifetime. It may be difficult to get (expense and political problems), but we will tap these resources if it becomes necessary.

From http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/antarctica.html

"The call for an environmental protocol to the Antarctic Treaty came after scientists discovered large deposits of natural resources such as coal, natural gas and offshore oil reserves in the early 1980s. Antarctica is considered to be part of the theoretical super-continent known as Gondwanaland, which separated near the end of the Paleozoic era and consisted of South America, Africa and Australia. And, because it once was completely covered in vegetation, many scientists believe it may hold one of the last supergiant oil fields yet to be discovered. The continental shelf of Antarctica is considered to hold the region's greatest potential for oil exploration projects, and although estimates vary as to the abundance of oil in Antarctica, the Weddell and Ross Sea areas alone are expected to possess 50 billion barrels of oil - an amount roughly equivalent to that of Alaska's estimated reserves. However, Antarctica's extreme conditions make oil field accessibility in many areas economically problematic.

Nevertheless, following the energy crisis of the 1970s, several oil companies looked to Antarctica as a possible solution to future world oil shortages by announcing plans to exploit the continent's resources. The necessary conditions for economically-sound oil production projects were beginning to ripen along with high oil prices and demand, and improved drilling technology. The prospect that Antarctica's fragile wildnerness could be tainted as a result of oil exploration and drilling activities resulted in the mobilization of several conservation groups who were intent on preserving the continent's status as the most pristine in the world."
You don't run ointo problems when you run out. You run into problems when production peaks. 50 billion barrels is less than a years worth of world consumption and that production will be spread out over decades if it happens at all.

You don't run ointo problems when you run out. You run into problems when production peaks. 50 billion barrels is less than a years worth of world consumption and that production will be spread out over decades if it happens at all.

That's just what is thought to be in the Weddell and Ross Seas (a small percentage of the continent). Further exploration may uncover truly large deposits. Or it may not. Only one way to find out. And I have no doubts that as oil prices soar and threaten our civilization, we will explore Antarctica and exploit every thing we find.

I agree, but it will likely be scraped for every last drop. Not that I think we should be so dependant on oil. I'd much rather see conservation, nuclear, renewables, etc. Unregulated oil/coal use will surely destroy our enviroment. But it's good to know it's there if we need it.
(Emphasis added)

For when we need it. Decades from now, for chemical processes, not fuel.

It makes no sense to tap the last remaining pockets with technology that makes 10% annual decline rates possible, just so fuel bills grow by a little bit less than they would otherwise.

From a self-interested perspective, I am not too bothered, I am new to the industry, and with the shit hitting the fan all over the world, my career looks secure. But from the perspective of someone with an above-average stake in the shaping of human society, full exploitation looks short-sighted.

That's just what is thought to be in the Weddell and Ross Seas (a small percentage of the continent). Further exploration may uncover truly large deposits. Or it may not. Only one way to find out. And I have no doubts that as oil prices soar and threaten our civilization, we will explore Antarctica and exploit every thing we find.
You better hope we don't because that's a losing proposition. The smarter thing to do is to get out of oil and into some form of cleaner energy and hope the poles refreeze.

Really, though, no matter what tech we come up with, no matter what conservation measures we come up with, we are all fucked, probably in our lifetimes because we are not controlling our population increase and it is probably too late to avoid a population crash as Peak Oil, other resource depletion, wars to control what is left and famine and disease take their toll over the coming decades so, go out and party like it's 1999!

Really, though, no matter what tech we come up with, no matter what conservation measures we come up with, we are all fucked, probably in our lifetimes because we are not controlling our population increase and it is probably too late to avoid a population crash as Peak Oil, other resource depletion, wars to control what is left and famine and disease take their toll over the coming decades so, go out and party like it's 1999!
Dr. Malthus tends to take care of excess population--just depends on what tactic he chooses to use this time.

You better hope we don't because that's a losing proposition. The smarter thing to do is to get out of oil and into some form of cleaner energy and hope the poles refreeze.

I agree. As I've said, I'd much rather we move towards conservation, nuclear and renewables. But this may buy us a little time to develop fusion power. Without fusion, I don't believe modern civilization will survive. Nuclear and renewables are just as short term as oil. Nuclear fules won't last forever either and renewables aren't very efficent when you take into account the energy and materials needed to manufacture them.

But either way, I'll be lucky to live another 30 years and have no children. So this won't have a major impact on me one way or the other. So you guys have fun. ;)

I agree. As I've said, I'd much rather we move towards conservation, nuclear and renewables. But this may buy us a little time to develop fusion power. Without fusion, I don't believe modern civilization will survive. Nuclear and renewables are just as short term as oil. Nuclear fules won't last forever either and renewables aren't very efficent when you take into account the energy and materials needed to manufacture them.

But either way, I'll be lucky to live another 30 years and have no children so this won't have a major impact one me one way or the other. So you guys have fun. ;)
I think the ambush is coming much, much sooner than that. What you're feeling now is just the tickle before the kick in the nuts. By 2010 we're in big trouble.

I'm sick of hearing people talking about how oil companies and blaiming them. Look at which political party has opposed building: refineries, pipelines, offshore drilling, and wells. Which political party has opposed exploring for more oil?

Yes, there are some exceptions, but by and large, democrats are responsible for the high oil prices because they have not allowed supply domestically to expand. And yes, I know we import 2/3 of our oil, but we can expand our oil production again if we drop restrictions on oil.
Like going through all that trouble of building a ton of Derriaks in Alaska to get 6 Months worth of Oil? Wohoo. That's so worth it indeed. And Federal doesn't control who builds refineries. Why don't the Oil executives just buy a large amount of land to put in a refinery. Wait they won't because that costs money.

Like going through all that trouble of building a ton of Derriaks in Alaska to get 6 Months worth of Oil? Wohoo. That's so worth it indeed. And Federal doesn't control who builds refineries. Why don't the Oil executives just buy a large amount of land to put in a refinery. Wait they won't because that costs money.
The fed does set the regulations.

Tapping in to only a portion of that would be enough to meet our needs, and with the increasing abilities of distributed generation it will be part of an integrated power grid composed of renewables and other sources that will be cheaper and more reliable than any grid today.

Solar power is really part of an energy revolution.

Do you have any idea what that would do to the Earth's albedo? If people are complaining about global warming now, imagine what happens when you build a bunch of solar panels so we stop reflecting solar energy into space.

The current high price of oil is fuelling R&D into development of oil sources like oil shale (the US oil shale isn't good, but Canada and Venezuela have lots). We can make oil from coal, and there's plenty of coal around. Again, Canada is a great source for coal.

And then there's nuclear. The oilsands mines in northern Alberta have long eyed the massive uranium deposits in northern Saskatchewan and wondered if that's where they should look for the power to run their mines.

Do you have any idea what that would do to the Earth's albedo? If people are complaining about global warming now, imagine what happens when you build a bunch of solar panels so we stop reflecting solar energy into space.Who cares? As long as that energy doesn't end up wasted as heat energy in the atmosphere it's fine.

The current high price of oil is fuelling R&D into development of oil sources like oil shale (the US oil shale isn't good, but Canada and Venezuela have lots). We can make oil from coal, and there's plenty of coal around. Again, Canada is a great source for coal.Actually, the US has the biggest and best supplies of coal in the world, but that doesn't matter. The estimates that say the US has 200 years worth of coal left always tag that statement with the phrase at present rates of usage. We will be accelerating that use dramatically, though, as we substitute coal for oil and nat gas.

And then there's nuclear. The oilsands mines in northern Alberta have long eyed the massive uranium deposits in northern Saskatchewan and wondered if that's where they should look for the power to run their mines.Okay.

Mythbusters came to the same conclusion last night when they tested some products that claimed to be able to deliver incredibly high fuel mileage that the "oil companies have tried to supress". They also discovered that pants treated with a certain herbicide can explode. The name of the herbicide wasn't given, but it's Sodium Chlorate. Now be sure not to blow up any pants at home. They're professionals.awww... I wanted to see if anyone tried the Exploding Pants and ended up with a Darwin Award. :headbang: