This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Oil’s Out -Find Out What’s In
Submitted by Marin Katusa of Casey Research
Oil’s Out -Find Out What’s In
The International Energy Association (IEA) has spoken. What the world needs now is a clean energy technology revolution.
June saw the 2010 launch of IEA’s biannual report, Energy Technology Perspectives.
Speaking at the launch was Nobuo Tanaka, executive director for IEA.
The Gulf oil spill, he said, could prove to be a tipping point in the
world’s energy consumption habits. He added that the disaster serves as a
tragic reminder that our current path is not sustainable.
As far as the IEA is concerned, this is probably a very important
moment to start looking at alternative energy sources. If we, as a
collective group of consumers, continue on the business-as-usual path,
the scenario for 2050 is looking grim.
This baseline scenario sees carbon emissions rising by 130%, with power
generation accounting for 44% of total global emissions in 2050. Oil
demand will be up by 70% – that’s five times the oil production in
Saudi Arabia today. I’ll leave you to imagine what this means from an
energy security perspective.
The other scenario offered by the publication, known as BLUE Map, is
the “target” scenario. It assumes that all carbon emissions will be
reduced by 50% by 2050 and suggests the least costly way to get there.
This 50% reduction, the IEA insists, is the absolute minimum, should we
want to keep climate change within the more acceptable 2-3 degree
change.
The main focus of this scenario is, of course, weaning the world off
fossil fuels. Carbon intensity of energy use would have fallen by 64%
by 2050. Demand for coal would drop by 36%, gas by 12%, and oil demand
by 4%. Renewable energy would be providing a hefty 40% of primary
energy supply and 48% of the electricity generated. As for cars, 80%
will be electric, hybrid, or hydrogen-fueled.
And while the world is expected to reduce emissions by 50% by 2050 in
the BLUE scenario, it is the OECD that will bear the real burden.
Non-OECD countries can get away with just a 50% reduction; OECD
countries are looking at cutting 70-80% of their 2007 emissions. This
would mean that the electricity sector for these 32 countries would have
be “almost completely decarbonized” by 2050.
A portfolio of technologies needed to achieve the carbon emissions under the BLUE Map scenario
So what needs to be done to make this work? Well, gird your loins – the
“top priority” will be to increase energy efficiency, reduce energy
consumption, and lower energy intensity.
But there’s also some exciting news. The revolution is already under way.
On a global scale, total investment into technology and its deployment
between now and 2050 would be about US$45 trillion – 1.1% of average
annual global GDP over the period. The good news is, that investment
has already begun all around the world.
Even as China grudgingly accepts the mantle of the biggest energy
consumer, investment dollars are being poured into renewable energy
research. China has already surpassed the United States as the largest
producer of clean energy, whether it be hydro, wind, solar, or nuclear.
Germany, Europe’s powerhouse, is lining up renewable energy to compete
with nuclear. Currently getting 10% of its energy from renewable
energy, Germany’s renewable numbers for 2020 are projected at 38.6%
electricity, 15.5% heating and cooling, and 13.2% of the transport
sector.
And in the United States, the Obama Administration has been pushing
for, and encouraging, clean energy research and development since it
came into power. On display are a variety of subsidies and loans
guaranteed to tempt even the most conservative producer.
Whether it’s the 30% cash up-front that the government is willing to
give renewable energy projects or the vast amounts of cash injections
into various energy technologies programs, renewable energy is set to
take off in America.
For those investment portfolios that have taken a hit from the BP and
Enbridge oil disasters, the IEA report is only going to spur up greater
interest in the renewables game. Knowing which companies are enjoying
political favor from Washington to Berlin and are at the receiving end
of substantial grants is a sure-fire way to repair the damage.
»
- 16298 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
The IEA has zero credibility with me.
DITTO With extreme....
Geopol - why is that Iran has such limited refining capacity? I understand that Iran has to import 40 to 50% of its refined products. This seems like an easy problem to fix when they the fourth largest oil exporter, and significant weakness when trying to fuel their military to protect themselves from a western agressor.
Windpower is the biggest hoax next to AWG.
Now, get me 3000 lb of helium 3 from the moon and I will power enough nuclear power plants to meet current electrical demand for a year...without any nuclear waste.
Maybe if we were not spending so much money meddling in other nations' business and had pursued a purpose other than orbiting around the earth (so, every everyone can feel good about their nation's "contribution" to the world and blah blah...We would be mining the HE3 on the moon and we would be in a better position NOW.
disclosure: very long <remington typewriters>
God damn 3000 lbs of helium 3. Are you nuts. Helium 3 is crazy stuff. Just having that much in one place would freak people out.
Hell give me 1/2 a mole of it and you won't ever see me again cause I will be playing with it.
I have lot's of natural gas and wind power, most of the time...
<very long remington typewriters> ++++1000
Oh really?? So you have a fucking sustainable fusion reactor sitting in your basement.
Moron.
No, Asshole.
It can be burned in conventional nuclear power plants. Try opening your mind before your big ass mouth.
LOL.
How can it be "burned" in conventional fission reactions, genius?
He3 is a fusion fuel. Learn, then speak
America will not participate in this at all.
We will cling to our outmoded expectations until we are buried under them. We will be driven into this insane and self-destructive behavior by oil and coal interests, and the automotive industry, and Big Ag, all of which own our minds, our sense of self-worth and (most importantly) our governance.
There is no escape possible. The doors were locked by the SCOTUS. We will fall behind and we will never catch up.
As a result, the quality of life of our children, and the next 5 generations of children, will be less than our own. If not neolithic, then certainly pre-industrial, because everything we know today is predicated on the abundant availability of energy that will not go forward. No way. No how.
Flame me if you like. But I have glimpsed the future and there we have burned it all to the ground. That counts more to me than anything a bunch of fucking head-up-ass denialist morons can throw.
Are you mixing "quality" with "quantity" of life? Couldn't the next generation do without more iCrap? I mean, really. It wasn't so bad growing up in the 50s and 60s with a lot less junk around the house. You sound like it's a bad thing to live more simply.
I say this within the framework of the topic of the article: energy alternatives, etc.
Note: Twas not I who junked you.
Well, there was that whole business of Lake Erie catching fire, the Cold War, mid-20th C medicine, and legally sanctioned racism.
I quote myself:
That's why I was trying to stay within the bounds of the article.
Love Canal
Coug - what are you referring to when you mention "fall behind"? Is there specific nation, or a plan's milestones? Sincerely curious.
c2084
If we used our military to stop other cititzens of the world and their greedy use of oil and coal we would not need to do anything.
Keeping the rest of the world down and me and mine will be just fine.
and afghanistan is about what exactly?
1. surrounding Iran
2. blocking out china and russia
3. spending billions of dollars for the military-industrial-congressional complex.
4. misplacing billions in cash
5. increasing the poppy trade
6 getting rid of the taliban for not supporting and oil pipeline from the caspian sea down to the coast of pakistan (did not say it would work)
7 installing more military bases in tajikistan, uzbekistan, turkmenistan, kyrgystan
8. oh, and the claimed $1 trillion in minerals in afghanistan
I was reading an article on Monday maybe that discussed the potential of Thorium for power generation...and found it, didn't realize it was an AEP article, pretty sure it got cribbed on someone else's blog:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-foss...
This is what grabbed me about it:
Anyone out there care to expand on or refute AEP's article? Very interested to hear what fellow ZH'ers in the know have to say on the topic.
This is interesting stuff but Obama hasn't heard about natural gas yet. Who's going to share hairbrained shit like this with him? Then again he's clueless enough to stumble into a good idea once in a while, right? I mean Hitler ran cars on buckets of coal, no? Is there a union contract?
Most current reactors are very wasteful in that they only burn the U235 isotope of uranium which only makes up about 1% of natural uranium. It is possible to build breeder reactors which burn the more plentiful U238 isotope as well, but there are lots of safety issues with these and none are used for commercial power generation in the US. I don't know where Dr. Rubbia gets the 200:1 ratio. Perhaps it is because some of the molten salt thorium designs run at high temperatures which means that the energy they release can be converted to electricity with a higher efficiency.
Some of the proposed thorium reactor designs do seem to have features which could make them a lot safer than current designs and they would also generate a lot less of the long-lifetime nuclear waste products which are difficult to store. If you could ever get the public to accept nuclear power, then thorium reactors might not be a bad way to go.
I think that India is currently doing research into thorium reactors. (It has something like a third of the world's thorium reserves). The US did some experimentation with them in the 60's and early 70's and got some promising results, but little follow-up research was done.
Energy is only part of the total equation. Consider that nearly every other resource is, or soon will be, at/past peak production ("extraction"). Also note what we've done with essentially "free" energy to-date- do we want more of this? It would only result us in further expediting eventual collapse. We're now starting to see what expanind the American Dream will mean to the world, just look at China and the growth of the automotive paradigm there.
- tonnes
These jokers have been talking about the same thing for fourty years and for fourty years of talking about energy needs they have yet to architect a solution because the costs to changing the current infrastructure is so beyond the capital available. It just simply is too late to develop something to meet current requirements. If they were truely serious about it, then instead of siding with the government for taxation justification or the oil industry for creating grants for multi trillion dollar companies with sayd taxes. They would be forcing the technology to change by forcing engineers to change the products being offered by making them effective and efficient
They are for all purposes the codpiece of the oil industry and always will be.
Actually, the reason viable alternatives aren't developed is that it's illegal to do so. We were heading toward nuclear power at one point, then Chernobyl and 3-Mile Island happened, and the government responded to the collective national freak-out by promising anyone that they'd never have any more of that big, bad nuclear power.
Bullshit. Legality has ZERO to do with it. What was made "illegal" was further, excessive subsidization of that crap! The "industry" wasn't able to get the govt to cover its ass for future, eventual disasters: only the likes of banksters can get that kind of protection!
If you don't know how to fix something, don't break it! The nuclear industry couldn't find a place to hide their externalized costs -waste, couldn't bury it in other countries (like is typical of US activities- force our garbage on other countries).
Thanks for playing!
Get off the CO2 nonsense. Talk QBTUs and ways to obtain it, and get it in more portable forms.
Global warming is a lie used to force the sheeple into austerity.
www.Gold-Silver.US/forum
www.energysolution.US
Had there been some sane level of "austerity" all along there would be no need for this topic at all. My definition of austerity is moderate living style and foregoing excess.
More Neo New World Order or whatever they don't want to be called anymore, manage the human species for the benefit of all mankind in the image of what they believe to be the best for us, from which they are specifically exempt, requiring additional taxes upon those saddled with the additional regulations, the benefits of which will disproportionately accrue to the Powers That Be.
And just who are all these non-elected fuckers coming calling at our doors?
The use of alternative energy is just scam to force spending.
No it's a big scam to change things which will need cooperation and employees and give us something to do and give us more time playing follow the leader while the universe continues on it's never ending quest to support, enforce and maintain hegemony for all time.
Long live the king and may your wages be high.
Abiogenic petroleum. Hydrocarbons without biology. Come over to the dark side.
Seriously. Did you really think there were that many dead dinosaurs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Let's hear the dark side on the economics of it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH0CKxqxhJU&feature=related
"Seriously. Did you really think there were that many dead dinosaurs?"
The vast majority of oil is the result of massive deposits of dead plankton, diatoms and sea vegetation, ever notice oil deposits around river deltas?
River deltas? Well that just nails Saudi Arabia and Bakken/North Dakota. I'm thinking St Lawrence, Mekong, Indus, Rhine, Nile and anything out of China. You got me.
Saudi Arabia oil deposits, like most of the modern North American continent, is ancient sea bed, and ancient river deltas.
Bakken is not oil, but a shale deposit...all of which is biotic in origin.
COMPLETELY fucking irrelevant.
Assume oil comes out of your ass.
You jackasses don't understand the difference between reserves and production.
Look, on any given energy topic on ZH there are but a few people who should be speaking. You are not one of them.
The general consensus here seems to be biased toward the contrary.
Fad energy is Out -Here's What’s In; Oil.
Oil, coal, nukes. Since we're sending troops to liberate oil reserves in our new partner countries(Iraq), I think the evidence shows that the USA covets oil.
Thank you.
Rumour has it the Discovery Channel will cover this topic in depth shortly......... ( too soon ? )
LOL...coast is clear...another one bites the dust.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE&ob=av2e
If abio oil was real we would not be in Iraq.
Whether or not you believe in warming, the energy cost and risk of getting the last half of the oil is a whole other problem
If abio oil was real we would not be in Iraq.
Says who?
Says the same folks who know that Saudi is hiding its numbers, who recarved the middle east and a whole bunchof other logical pieces of evidence and the fact that the scientists do no buy this theory
If abio was real you WOULD have to be in Iraq to preserve artificial scarcity and all that accompanies it:
1. inflated oil prices in USD and GBP the only 2 currencies accepted on oil bourses that also happen to be the pre-eminent global private central banking fiat debt notes that rely on high prices to absorb currency liquidity (inflation)...greasing the wheels for the ponzi scheme, so to speak
2. energy dependence of the developed world on specific middle eastern sites controlled by the US military (see comment 1. on global central bankers)
Saddam threatened to go off the USD and trade oil for Euros (as Iran has been planning recently)...now that's what you call a WMD threat (to the global elite).
Also note that Saudi Arabia is located above a spot on the Earth's surface where the planet's crust is the thinnest and where Upper Mantle abio petro would readily accumulate and replenish the reservoirs (which the Saudis have acknowledged is happening).
As background:
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/266424
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Peak_Oil___R...
The BP's GoM chernobyl-grade spill adds further fuel to fire to promote scarcity: it's toxic, destructive and environmentally damaging so we must reduce its use to preserve the planet (still not as damaging as DU and GMO tho...) oh and don't forget...it causes AGW which we know is not a fraud<do I really need a sarc tag here?> which will be cured by a global carbon tax that will backstop IMF SDRs. Nice how it all comes together under one roof.
This global energy grid consolidation process is moving hand in glove with the global financial/currency grid consolidation.
It is social engineering and resource farming on a planetation scale where the serf class are targeted as shattel for the gulag.
Knowledge is power. The ability to limit knowledge is power. The ability to limit energy is power.
He who controls the light, controls the darkness.
The fact remains that the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis has zero credibility for economically interesting accumulations. 99.9999% of the world's liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter derived from organisms. To deny this means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.
8 ) The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in igneous and metamorphic rocks (the rare exceptions discussed below).
The evidence usually cited in favour of abiogenic petroleum can all be better explained by the biogenic hypothesis e.g.:
The geological evidence is utterly against the abiogenic postulate.
- OilDrum
I am by no means a geologist but I always wondered how the oil got so far down in the ground if it came from dinosaurs, fish, and plants. Does anyone know how many pounds of dead animal flesh or plants it takes to make a barrel of oil? Is it reasonable that there were that many tons of biological life to make all that oil? DaveyJones, you seem to be an expert on this and so I am not doubting what you are saying but some of the abiotic oil theory sounds plausible. Is methane gas from dead plants and fish? If so, then the moon of Saturn and some other planets that have rivers of methane must either be abiotic or be proof of a lot of biological life. Any insight you can give is appreciated.
DaveyJones,
It appears your reply is a cut and paste that’s been bouncing around since at least 2005 from peakoil.com and now it seems from the Oil Drum as you have referenced.
http://pesn.com/2005/08/26/9600155_Oil_Gouging/
As a bit of disclosure I have science degree in Geology and had some limited exposure to the petroleum exploration industry. That said I am no expert on the subject but I am also not without experience in this field. And for the record, in my experience in both university and in the industry little time, resource or concern is wasted with determining the actual generation process for petroleum. The industry's focus is remote detection, reservoir structure and extraction of the shallow pools of the low hanging fruit.
Also as a qualifier, I do not hold that biotic processes are not at work in methane and coal production but do believe that the abiotic process is the primary producer of petroleum which is abundant deep in the crust where it rises after being produced in the earth’s upper mantle.
I will address the points you posted either by number or by number and quotation:
1. The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.
The water that is delivered to my house is carried in plastic or cement pipes but on that basis I do not believe that plastic or cement is associated with water generation. Sedimentary rocks are associated with petroleum because they are great reservoirs. The have the permeability and porosity that is the welcome final environment for fluid under pressure. The final location does not imply it is the sole initial site of generation and production (save and except zombies) Remember that word, ‘location’ we’ll get back to it.
Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are consistent with petroleum deposit contamination or tortuous rationalizations for the accepted gospel of biotic generation and should be re-examined in light of alternative explanations.
5. Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).
Location, location, location. When oil is heated where? At the earth’s surface? Or is this duplicated in the laboratory under the significant high pressure conditions 50 km or greater below the earth’s surface in the upper mantle. This location changes the chemistry completely.
6. The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory.
I’m not suggesting sedimentary rocks are not free of kerogen and that heating them will not also produce organic chemicals with distinctive biomarkers but perhaps the biomarkers are just local organic components in the reservoir contaminating the abiotically produced petroleum that has seeped into the structure.
No. 7 I’m going to have to go with deep pressure environment again. Has this enrichment been disproved in a high pressure test case?
No. 8 Assumes the rocks in the position on the gradient are the source (biotic) so therefore it assumes the premise is correct before logic is tendered. Invalid.
Additionally it is argued:
The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in igneous and metamorphic rocks (the rare exceptions discussed below).
Not true. From Fortune/CNN Money
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/02/17/337289/index.htm
(FORTUNE Magazine) – In the quiet waters off the coast of Vietnam lies an area known as Bach Ho, or White Tiger Field. There, and in the nearby Black Bear and Black Lion fields, exploration companies are drilling more than a mile into solid granite--so-called basement rock--for oil. That's a puzzle: Oil isn't supposed to be found in basement rock, which never rose near the surface of the earth where ancient plants grew and dinosaurs walked. Yet oil is there. Last year the White Tiger Field and nearby areas produced 338,000 barrels per day, and they are estimated to hold about 600 million barrels more.
Additionally real research is being done today that validates the chemistry and physics of abiotic oil generation as advocated by such scientific giants as Freeman Dyson and Thomas Gold and as supported here:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/full/ngeo591.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4848193/Methane-Generation-at-High-PT-NobelHerschbach-0405930101v1
In fact the exceptions you cited in support of abiotic generation (Nos. 1-7) are that much stronger now as they agree with the proven physics and chemistry as noted above.
Without oceans of oil in the upper mantle and lower crust it could be posited that plate tectonics would not be possible...and who knows, it may even explain the Moho Discontinuity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohorovi?i?_discontinuity
But don’t believe me. Check it out yourself.
The best faith is a skeptical mind.
Cheers,
Global warming or no global warming, the future is domestic oil. Harold Hamm, COE of Continental Resources, estimates that we have 8 billion barrels of oil in the Montana shale - which can be profitably extracted abiove $60 BBL.
I'm sure that this person is wholly independent.
More BS...
Perhaps we can take YOUR share of water to process this? Yup, externalize enough costs and stuff is really, really cheap!
This is scenario is a fantasy - 40% renewable energy. It is only 40%, as the other 60% will be used producing the 40%.
Tipping what? Obama as my investment guide, what? This guy is a crack addict. Our oil use has increased relentlessly despite the Exxon Valdez, despite global warming, despite $145 crude, and despite peak oil. The only thing that will reduce are demand is higher prices. Until it costs more for a cup of ethyl than it does for a double decaf no-foam frappacino, oil is cheap and will be the fuel of choice. Get Matt Simmons on the line he'll tell you.
OOPS! I forgot, he was assasinated.
Oil already cost that in the debt of this war, we're just deferring the cost but I agree the real cost is the only thing that will change the game and its coming despite all our stupid strategies
Ah, but we cannot have that. Reason being economies of scale. Scale back production, because there will be less use (more poor people). And then there's the junk mail phenomena: without all that junk mail postage rates would be a LOT higher; without the masses subsidizing oil costs for corporations and the military oil would be a LOT higher!
Nuke
could have been doing it for decades, but nooo.
Thorium reactors
last chance-extract oil, gas, coal like mad to buy enough time to get a serious effort going, or follow the lies and fraud into slavery like good little sheeple?
They weren't positioned for the change yet. No need to change something till the powers have thier ducks in a row.
This is extremely interesting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html
- boy, the coal industry may get their panties in a wad.
Imagine the economies that this would outright kill?
A small appliance for your home or business and all the electric transmission lines in this world could be taken down.
...and therein lies the problem...
I like it, "No Pain, No Gain"
That is why things like this never make it to market, it would bankrupt the big Corps. I always read stories about inventions like the 100 mile to gallon carb and all the sudden the inventor dies in some strange accident. There are even buried stories about cold fusion. We are supposed to put a big windmill in our backyard!
Imagine all the economies it would create.
I think it highly unlikely that this miracle cure is just waiting for mass production. Nuclear engineers throughtout the world would have already built reactors to prove these claims and we would have been building these things left and right because economies based on production need vast amounts of cheap energy. The US economy is based on consumption so we would need thousands of these reactors to power all the light and cash registers in the shopping malls for 24-hour-per-day shopping huals. Besides, most of the crude oil is refined into fuels for transportation and raw materials for plastics.
When the concept of nuclear power was being sold to the sheeple it was promoted to be "to cheap to meter."
I wonder...if a vast country imploded into economic chaos...and their manned weather stations could not be kept open due to no money to pay the people who monitored them.
And...let's say these stations were in one of the coldest places on the planet. I wonder what affect that would have on global warming data analysis?
I also wonder, what if air monitoring stations were improperly placed next to...oh, air conditioning exhaust, black top parking lots etc. Would that skew the results?
- 'well, it is nice, to be able to drive right up to the monitoring station...wouldn't want to trudge out into the bush where the REAL weather is, would we.
Yeah, nothing like idling car exhaust blowing into a weather monitoring station to get some "real science" done...LOL.
And the country where coldest monitoring stations were shut down? The Soviet Union...think Siberia.
You do realize even now they average out the pole temps because it's not covered...it's not actual.
It's a scam my man. To relieve you of that pesky fiat a little quicker.
Well, anyways.
SeeYa
Cheers !!
The U.S. policy should be total domestic energy independence (with the exception of Canada), for reasons of national security.
I nominate RabidYack's comment,
"The U.S. policy should be total domestic energy independence (with the exception of Canada), for reasons of national security."
...as the best comment of the year, anyone second that??
Yes. I might also accept importing oil from, say, Statoil.
Okay, we just printed up some FRN's, send it.
No, because independence is fucking impossible.
I nominate both of you for posters who should not be speaking on energy topics.
its over now Saudi Arabia has been converting their dollars for gold for the last 30 years and is now saving their oil for future generations in their own country.
The biggest misconception is we fund terrorism with our petro dollars. That totally benefits us we are the country built that needs the oil and we turn around and devalue the dollars we just sent them. Well thats all coming to an end. Its called $10.00 gas and or shortages.... gold for oil....let see how much foreign oil we buy when we have to send whats left of our gold supply over..
Guess how long that scenario lasts.
Until the first bomber can fly overhead and deploy its payload.
US military will not pay for oil with anything but FRNs.
And the bomber is going to be using what for fuel?
Problem solved!
The military will not have enough fuel to strike!
Charge for oil in gold and the US military will be unable to respond!
/sarcasm
I'm called a nut job by the neighbors but that oil spill was intentional and someone finally touched on it in the first two paragraphs. They are going to use this spill as the reason for high oil prices partially priced in gold, they are going to use it for enviromental they are going to use it and refer to it the next 2 years after the monetary system changes. They needed something real bad to get everyone on board.
Think 9/11.......right before the bottom of an economic cycle.... We have a ditto.....
Don't feel bad - I agree with you, but not only my neighbors think that, my family thinks I am a nut job - the spill was a false flag to push their green energy bull! There is plenty of oil right up in North Dakota in the Bakken Reserve and in ANWR - they are both listed right on the USGS website, but the greenies have them tied up with lawsuits
I'm nto a greenie, but I DO think that you're a nut.
Do the math. There ain't shit for "reserves," not when you figure what kind of growth this country needs.
When will people get it, what growth really means?
Thanks for playing!
JFC, how did you possibly solve the captcha to be able to post on this forum?
You're a raving lunatic idiot.
Sunspots are a false flag too, man..."they" caused them.
I forgot what the original post was while trying to do math.
The faction who would exploit the oil spill for political benefit dosen't want anyone to even think about gold. That, if it comes, will be forced on them. Gas priced at $10 will occur because the dollar is collapsing; not because it is a political objective. Whether the dollar collapse was a political objective or political casuality will have to be judged in retrospect.
So, every fiat currency in history eventually collapses and you think that it's different with the USD? It's intentional? The very thing that allows those rulers to sit on the throne?
Logic- FAIL!
Oh, right, alternative energy is another stock bubble coming up.
just invest in alternative.com and sit back and collect.
Fear is in derivative the driving wheel of greed.
Go for it.
Let me count the ways:
1) Abiotic oil is utterly bogus and the time taken typing this is wasted, in every discussion of oil. If oil was abiotic, you could drill anywhere and find it. Anywhere, as in . . . fields that are empty would refill. If this worked, there would exist no such phrase as "plug and abandon" in the oil industry. So put that to bed.
2) There's plenty of oil. There's a lot of oil. English is not the right communications media. There is some quantity of oil coming out of the ground each year and it's a lower amount now than 2005. This will kill us all eventually. It's not the size of the tank. It's the size of the siphon.
3) You can increase oil production with "more investment"? This is an economics mindset that dismisses geology as a science. It imagines that oil is created from money. Well, oddly, this is correct. Titan, a moon of Saturn, is covered with CH4 (methane) and with infinite money we could go get it and convert it to oil. But that's the ONLY WAY money creates oil.
4) You will never ever ever drive 500 horsepower agricultural tractors with electricity. So stop elegantly trying to rephrase "oil crisis" into "energy crisis". There is no energy crisis. There is an oil crisis.
5) 95% of people reading these words will not die of natural causes.
Crash is Optimistic indeed.
"5) 95% of people reading these words will not die of natural causes."
94% - some of us have guuunnnns
Guns, bitchez
you mean .000094%
ah, someone who gets it.
But, infinite money can't get Titan's methane here.
Money can't create energy; never has, never will.
Infinite money cannot make a past-peak well deliver more net barrels than before peak. Period. Titan is just a scaled-up exercise in negative EROI
10 acres of sunflowers will fuel that tractor for longer than you want to sit on it and the US Govt pays for enough farm land to sit idle each year to run every tractor in the US with plenty left over. The crisis is in leadership and as long as a prima donna, a snake, and a closet full of village idiots are camped at the White House, that will not change.
You're kidding right? I hope so, else you're one dumb MF!
Those sunflowers just jump into the processing plant and process themselves?
I propose that we fuel our energy needs with the corpses from morons. Looks like we have plenty of morons...
Elevator got stuck on the way home tonight?
It's clear yours doesn't hit the top floor
Alternative.com will be the anti-gold.
IEA is full of shit.
Perhaps they are couching expectations of impending supply decline in terms of AGW or CO2. Who knows, who cares?
The decrease in oil supply that's coming will take care of all of this. If we burn coal and foul the earth, we'll get a decrease in humans that will lead to less energy being consumed. Win/win
Your unbridled optimisim is reprehensible. Who are you working for? What are they paying? I want some of that.
Everyone has the right to be an asshole, he's just abusing the privilege.
The most to-the-point posting in this thread!
Further, all those folks who think that climate change is a hoax- wrong! It's real. But, as trav here says it, win/win! We'll be out of the inter-glacial period before you know it- no global warming! Ha! Take that you hoaxters, see, NO global warming!
Climate change, as presented by Al Gore, is a hoax. Sure the planet gets warmer in the day time and colder during the night. The average temp changes based on lenght of day, distance to sun, sun activity, precession, ocean currents, clouds and UFOs. Ok, well not UFOs. Look back at the CO2 v temp relations back hundreds of millions of years and you will see that CO2 concentration have been much, much higher in the past, with out the "correspondingly" high temps. Gore's presentation states that CO2 concentrations lead temp changes when in fact it is the other way round. That bullshit presentation by Al "harass the massage girl" Gore was an attempt to establish a global tax on manufacturing with him and his partner David Blood (formerly of yes.....Goldman Sachs) to set up a carbon trading company (Generation Investment Management LLP) to be one of the first to corner the market on cap and trade.
Just another TPTB scheme to tax to control every manufacturing business on the planet. They got close, but oh, those leaked emails from the University of East Anglia.
Package a lie with an indisputable truth and you've got momma's good ol homecooked progaganda: oil is running out and we need alternatives...because of global warming and carbon emmissions.
Anyways the premise is correct despite all the CO2 nonsense. Extraction and transportation energy costs are cutting deeper and deeper into the energy output of fossil fuels and efficiency, and hence total energy output less costs is set to plummet. There will be money thrown at the problem and it will most likely be in the form of subsidies and funding of private companies rather than the creation of a public project. The key will be to see which companies profit from the government spening orgy. My vote is for solar power being the prime beneficiary becuase of its relative safety and perceived promise. This company seems to have made an interesting breakthrough:
http://www.nanosolar.com/
Leo didn't tell us he had a son! Chip off the old block, another econ major trying to throw darts for pork instead of trying to decipher how we will survive the next 30 years vis-a-vis energy needs.
Stuffing your ears, singing 'lalalalala' and pretending the government doesn't exist isn't a good option either. It might stroke your sense of moral superiority but the practicality of the real world will always leave you with a foul taste in your mouth if you use that approach.
And I've dedicated some of my time to thinking how to change the world so that complete breakdown of society can be averted and actually the company I've linked to seemed like part of the answer. Coal will unavoidably serve as a stopgap, but if solar can be streamlined fast enough it can be an exteremely good alternative. It requires silicon and we have a shit ton of that in the mojave, plus it could make society a lot more energy efficient by saving on energy transportation costs. Convenince is a big issue in terms of being able to store that energy, but that techlogy is improving rapidly as well. I believe it is the only alternative that can get here fast enough to prevent reliance on coal. Once that can be accomplished, then more investment heavy options can be developed like the thorium option people are talking about here.
And don't try to typecast me. It's annoying and you will get a headache.
Raises some other questions.
Remember computers were supposed save on paper costs. How did that work out?
Shouldn't technology help to reduce our cost of living? Is it? cable bill, phone bill, cell phone bill for each member of the family, internet access bill, netflix / movie bills...
How many people are actually generating enough revenue to offset these added expenses from their use?
Article is very interesting,thanks for your sharing.I will visit this site.welcome to my site!.... cheap site hosting
windows web hosting
windows vps hosting