Oil, oil and more oil

[skyrider]

We are never going to run out of oil.

At least, not according to this article -- click here

In a chilling 2010 column, Paul Krugman declared: “peak oil has arrived.”

So it’s really not surprising that the national average for a gallon of gas has fallen to $2.77 this week – in 10 states it was under $2.60 – and analysts predict we’re going to dip below the two-dollar mark soon. U.S. oil is down to $75 a barrel, a drop of more than $30 from the 52-week high.

Meanwhile, the Institute for Energy Research estimates that we have enough natural gas in the U.S. to meet electricity needs for around 575 years at current fuel demand and to fuel homes heated by natural gas for 857 years or so – because we have more gas than Russia, Iran, Qatar and Saudi Arabia combined.

......<snip>

.

[krys]

I don't think this is true except under certain situations but if we permit ourselves to go down that road we are doomed. Those items made from oil products....petrochemicals....are very valuable. If we burn it all up for heat for our dwellings, or transportation to get from point A to point B will very sorry and, I'm afraid up the creek with no paddle in sight.

[WordWolf]

The article is partly right, but spends its time taking a strong stand in one direction-

and leaves out what doesn't support that position.

It is true that, statistically, 100% of the planet's oil probably will never be used up.

However, that's because it becomes a matter of what can be gotten easily vs

what can be gotten.

The US can get a LOT of oil, just not as easily. For example, we have fracking,

which is oil that isn't that easy to get (shale also), but the environmental effects

of fracking are still being discovered (contamination of groundwater, higher

incidents of seismic activity), and that should be kept in mind when comparing

options. The US has size-able coal and gas supplies as well, which are worth

remembering. Skipping a number of other resources, the US' crop production

also makes it a good candidate for producing BIODIESEL. Naturally, this means

fights between people who want FOOD and people who want BIODIESEL,

and will eventually lead to some hot fighting over those resources.

On the one hand, some people will point out that beef production is very

inefficient per acre for food production, which means we might have to

consider going mostly veggie or all veggie or starving. On the other hand,

if we give up beef entirely, will we really think it's worth not starving?

We won't have leather, either. And so on. Things are complicated,

and there's no EASY answers, but there are answers.

So, I really think the US' oil supply is better served if the price and supply

elsewhere gets more expensive and rarer- which is a point the article

you linked agrees with, but phrases in a different fashion. If the price

goes up, the US will find it cost-effective to get the rest. If the price goes

down, the US won't find that so, but will be able to buy more on the

market. That's not counting biodiesel and other GROWN fuels as options.

I find it comforting that problems foreseen decades ago can be solved

by solutions not seen decades ago. In the 70s and 80s, people talked

about nuclear, solar, hydroelectric, even thermal and wind, but

nobody (almost nobody) mentioned a fuel from a crop, and who

imagined people working on bacteria and so on that would eat garbage

and excrete a fuel? (It's in the earliest stages of development,

so perhaps in 20 years, it might be ready for the market.)

The only place I saw discussion of a grown fuel, in the 80s, was a

martial arts movie- and I actually took a class on Energy for a year

back in high school.

[skyrider]

While we continue to innovate and explore ALL avenues of energy.....

solar, wind, electric, thermonuclear, etc. it is encouraging to know

there is every indication that we are going to stay warm during

these long, cold winters ahead.

*****

energyforamerica.org

NORTH AMERICAN'S VAST RESOURCES

OIL

Total Recoverable Resources: 1.79 trillion barrels.

 Enough oil to fuel every passenger car in the United States for 430 years

 Almost twice as much as the combined proved reserves of all OPEC nations

 More than six times the proved reserves of Saudi Arabia

COAL

Total Recoverable Resources: 497 billion short tons.

 Provide enough electricity for approximately 500 years at coal’s current level of consumption for electricity generation

 More coal than any other country in the world

 More than the combined total of the top five non-North American countries’ reserves. (Russia, China, Australia, India, and Ukraine)

 Almost three times as much coal as Russia, which has the world’s second largest reserves.

NATURAL GAS

Total Recoverable Resources: 4.244 quadrillion cubic feet.

 Enough natural gas to provide the United States with electricity for 575 years at current natural gas generation levels

 Enough natural gas to fuel homes heated by natural gas in the United States for 857 years

 More natural gas than all of the next five largest national proved reserves (more than Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkmenistan)

[Rocky]

While we continue to innovate and explore ALL avenues of energy.....

solar, wind, electric, thermonuclear, etc. it is encouraging to know

there is every indication that we are going to stay warm during

these long, cold winters ahead.

*****

energyforamerica.org

NORTH AMERICAN'S VAST RESOURCES

OIL

Total Recoverable Resources: 1.79 trillion barrels.

 Enough oil to fuel every passenger car in the United States for 430 years

 Almost twice as much as the combined proved reserves of all OPEC nations

 More than six times the proved reserves of Saudi Arabia

COAL

Total Recoverable Resources: 497 billion short tons.

 Provide enough electricity for approximately 500 years at coal's current level of consumption for electricity generation

 More coal than any other country in the world

 More than the combined total of the top five non-North American countries' reserves. (Russia, China, Australia, India, and Ukraine)

 Almost three times as much coal as Russia, which has the world's second largest reserves.

NATURAL GAS

Total Recoverable Resources: 4.244 quadrillion cubic feet.

 Enough natural gas to provide the United States with electricity for 575 years at current natural gas generation levels

 Enough natural gas to fuel homes heated by natural gas in the United States for 857 years

 More natural gas than all of the next five largest national proved reserves (more than Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkmenistan)

Yeah, we'll stay warm... but will we be able to breathe?

[waysider]

While it's true we have an abundance of these particular resources, What often gets overlooked is that we do not have an abundance of usable water. We need to be extremely cautious about how we extract these resources so that we avoid the catastophic results we have seen from past efforts. Ohio, for example, is still struggling to remedy mistakes that were made in the mining industry a hundred years ago. Without potable water, it's all meaningless conjecture.

Edited December 7, 2014 by waysider

[Twinky]

Not to mention that burning oil and petrochemicals releases stuff into the environment that doesn't "vanish" but merely vanishes from obvious view. Global warming? Hole in the ozone layer? There might be enough fuel; is there enough clean air, or clean water (as Waysider points out), and what becomes of the waste products?

It befits us all to be cautious and sparing with what we use.

Nuclear power, for example, is considered clean energy. Yeah, right. Just leave the debris for future generations to deal with. We're smart enough to make the stuff but not smart enough to deal with the waste in a totally harmless way.

PS I just got back from the US. You pay only $2.60/gallon for gas? (and less in Texas)

The equivalent volume in the UK would cost around a staggering US$7.30/US gallon at current Brit prices. Wince at that one.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Twinky

[Galen]

Our current model of conventional Ag is dependent on petroleum for the manufacture of fertilizers. If we lose access to oil, that segment of our food production is crippled.

Our current model of conventional Ag is dependent on petroleum for herbicide synthesis [especially GMO crop production]. If we lose access to oil, that segment of our food production is crippled.

As for Nuclear pollution, keep in mind that Solar panel manufacture produces more waste in terms of radioactive heavy metals. But it does not get much press. Does anyone remember Solyndra? Why were they not allowed to open for business? They would have been producing solar panels, and also as a by-product radioactive heavy metal waste. Solyndra could not pass the EPA requirements for disposal of the waste. Which is why Mexico produces so much of our solar panels and IC chips.

:)

[Rocky]

Our current model of conventional Ag is dependent on petroleum for the manufacture of fertilizers. If we lose access to oil, that segment of our food production is crippled.

Our current model of conventional Ag is dependent on petroleum for herbicide synthesis [especially GMO crop production]. If we lose access to oil, that segment of our food production is crippled.

As for Nuclear pollution, keep in mind that Solar panel manufacture produces more waste in terms of radioactive heavy metals. But it does not get much press. Does anyone remember Solyndra? Why were they not allowed to open for business? They would have been producing solar panels, and also as a by-product radioactive heavy metal waste. Solyndra could not pass the EPA requirements for disposal of the waste. Which is why Mexico produces so much of our solar panels and IC chips.

Dependent? Not to the degree Big AG would be unable to adapt.

Maybe you're being a bit too pessimistic there, Galen.

I'm connected with people who have their fingers on the pulse of the solar industry and I've never heard that about radioactive waste. Got a source? I'd be interested in evaluating it.

[waysider]

Fracking, on the other hand, does produce radioactive waste. To what degree it will impact the environment is an ongoing source of controversy.

HERE

[WordWolf]

This is 2014. If the current types of fertilizers become rarer, there's plenty of alternatives available,

and-after the obvious conversion from one type to another or several- things will proceed as normal.

As for Solyndra, that was just one of many startup companies that had to close its doors when they

failed to account for dramatic shifts in prices that resulted in their company no longer being

able to meet costs, let alone turn a profit.

Simply put, the cost of competing technologies to make solar cells COLLAPSED, which meant that

Solyndra was now selling the most expensive panels on the market. Naturally, that meant they

had no customers, and no customers means you're out of business.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-13/solyndra-program-vilified-by-republicans-turns-a-profit.html

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-11-12/u-dot-s-dot-expects-5-billion-from-program-that-funded-solyndra

"The California-based solar manufacturer went bust pursuing an alternate photovoltaic technology that became too expensive as panel prices plunged worldwide."

[Rocky]

Dependent? Not to the degree Big AG would be unable to adapt.

Maybe you're being a bit too pessimistic there, Galen.

I'm connected with people who have their fingers on the pulse of the solar industry and I've never heard that about radioactive waste. Got a source? I'd be interested in evaluating it.

My sources tell me that the radioactive by product story is a false myth.

Indeed, my understanding of Solyndra comports with what WordWolf said.

And when the business plan becomes economically unfeasible, that's not the same as some government agency saying they aren't allowed to open for business.