• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oil rises above $90 amid US crude supply drop

Everything in this world is finite, nothing is infinite in quantity. We are discovering more oil every day, some of these finds are huge. Our country has more oil than any other country in the world. Unfortunately, we also have more regulations on drilling than any other country in the world, estimated we have 8 times as much oil as Saudi Arabia.

Before It's News

Definitely not something you'll hear on the mainstream media:

USGS Release: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate— (4/10/2008 2:25:36 PM)

an in depth analysis of the Bakken formation :

The Oil Drum | The Bakken Formation: How Much Will It Help?

Will Bakken ever produce as much as 4.1 billion barrels (= 3,649+500 million barrels), the amount suggested by the USGS estimate? It seems very unlikely. Production so far has been 111 million barrels. If the industry is able to discover several more prolific areas such as the Elm Coulee field in Montana (43 million barrels, or 38% of the Bakken oil recovered to date), it might be possible to increase this recovery to 500 million barrels, or 4.5 times the current production. Is total production of 500 million barrels likely? It's difficult to say. The USGS estimate is vastly higher than this, so much less likely.

If 500 million barrels turns out to be the ultimate recovery, the recovery factor would range from 0.13% to 0.25% of estimated oil in place. This very low percentage recovery of the estimated oil in place is not unreasonable if one considers that many of the more marginal areas of the field are likely to be deemed sub-economic and will never be drilled and produced. Technology improvements that will inevitably be made during an era of high energy prices will undoubtedly render some of this more marginal oil recoverable, but the total recovery is still likely to be low.
 
Technically recoverable is not cheaply recoverable....last I heard, shale oil recovery is very energy intensive....so I wonder if it will sell for under $90 a barrel?
 
Everything in this world is finite, nothing is infinite in quantity. We are discovering more oil every day, some of these finds are huge. Our country has more oil than any other country in the world. Unfortunately, we also have more regulations on drilling than any other country in the world, estimated we have 8 times as much oil as Saudi Arabia.

Before It's News

Definitely not something you'll hear on the mainstream media:

USGS Release: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate— (4/10/2008 2:25:36 PM)

Peak oil has nothing to do with how much new discoveries there are or how much "technically recoverable oil is out there. Peak oil is when consumption exceeds production. That has been the case in this country since 1971, and the US military says world peak oil is approaching in just a few years.

Of course, that doesn't mean there will be no oil, it will just become much more expensive. Have you not noticed the price increases over the years???? Well you ain't seen nothing yet as to how expensive it will become. That is why the military issued the warning and are preparing for it.
 
Isn't it funny how information that plays to one side of the argument is constantly given as fact, and anything disputing it is dismissed. The oil drum is a great example of this.

So called Peak oil may exist in this nation, but only due to over burdensome regulation that hinders the exploitation of our own resource.

j-mac
 
Isn't it funny how information that plays to one side of the argument is constantly given as fact, and anything disputing it is dismissed. The oil drum is a great example of this.

So called Peak oil may exist in this nation, but only due to over burdensome regulation that hinders the exploitation of our own resource.

j-mac

More personal opinion.

Only one side has presented facts on peak oil in this forum so far. All the rest have either been personal opinion or not related to peak oil. Do you have some facts you would like to present in rebuttal of peak oil? Well what are you waiting for?
 

While a good idea the volt has two major things wrong with it

#1 price of the car is too expensive for most people, especially now.

#2 there is no national charging infrastructure in place. For instance I can't drive cross country.

With #2 that pretty much limits people who can even use the car as people that dont drive far and can charge their cars at night.

It's all about being able to use what you buy. And yes, while you still have to pay for electricity it is domestic and not foreign.

Most of the electric grid could handle at night charging as well.
 
Isn't it funny how information that plays to one side of the argument is constantly given as fact, and anything disputing it is dismissed. The oil drum is a great example of this.

So called Peak oil may exist in this nation, but only due to over burdensome regulation that hinders the exploitation of our own resource.

j-mac

No one has submitted anything to refute the warning of peak oil by the US military.
 
While a good idea the volt has two major things wrong with it

#1 price of the car is too expensive for most people, especially now.

#2 there is no national charging infrastructure in place. For instance I can't drive cross country.

With #2 that pretty much limits people who can even use the car as people that dont drive far and can charge their cars at night.

It's all about being able to use what you buy. And yes, while you still have to pay for electricity it is domestic and not foreign.

Most of the electric grid could handle at night charging as well.

your typical gas station can service hundreds of cars per hour if the fuel is liquid. You pull in, insert your credit card, fill up in about 5 to 10 minutes, go inside and whizz, buy more liquid caffiene, get back on the road and drive for 500 miles before needing more fuel.

Want to guess what an equivalent electric battery charging station would look like ? The grid will need a lot more substations and AC to DC convertors. You pull in, plug your car in, and go somewhere on foot for several hours while your car charges. Then you come back, drive for a few hundred miles, and do it all over again. Batteries must be charged relatively slowly to prevent overheating them, which shortens their useful life.
If you only refill ONCE per day, it will add hours to your travel time....
I can drive 750 miles in 12.5 hours using gasoline. That is a LONG distance for batteries.
But as a commuter car, local use only, they makes sense to own, and you can charge them at home, at night...and at work during the day if your employer sets up enough charging outlets...
 
One thing that has been suggested/looked at is the possibility of swapping batteries -- sort of like propane exchange. Obviously that would require a whole lot more uniformity and cooperation than we've seen to date.

Also, it's a lot easier to install an electrical outlet than it is to install in-ground gas tanks. Charging outlets could be installed in parking garages, for instance.
 
your typical gas station can service hundreds of cars per hour if the fuel is liquid. You pull in, insert your credit card, fill up in about 5 to 10 minutes, go inside and whizz, buy more liquid caffiene, get back on the road and drive for 500 miles before needing more fuel.

Want to guess what an equivalent electric battery charging station would look like ? The grid will need a lot more substations and AC to DC convertors. You pull in, plug your car in, and go somewhere on foot for several hours while your car charges. Then you come back, drive for a few hundred miles, and do it all over again. Batteries must be charged relatively slowly to prevent overheating them, which shortens their useful life.
If you only refill ONCE per day, it will add hours to your travel time....
I can drive 750 miles in 12.5 hours using gasoline. That is a LONG distance for batteries.
But as a commuter car, local use only, they makes sense to own, and you can charge them at home, at night...and at work during the day if your employer sets up enough charging outlets...

Not arguing, but some commercially available chemistries can be charged in minutes, not hours. The A123 cells for instance. Rated for 15 minute recharge. Does require 220 and a charger programmable to the cells charging profile, but its already being done.

Just saying we're a bit farther along than you think. 15 minutes every couple hundred miles makes it competitive with gasoline at 5-10 minutes every couple hundred. Lots of other issues too with electrics, but I believe its the way to go.

I'll read the thread before commenting further.

(Oh, and the Volt is the first series hybrid) electric car with an onboard generator for longer trips.
 
Last edited:
One thing that has been suggested/looked at is the possibility of swapping batteries -- sort of like propane exchange. Obviously that would require a whole lot more uniformity and cooperation than we've seen to date.

Also, it's a lot easier to install an electrical outlet than it is to install in-ground gas tanks. Charging outlets could be installed in parking garages, for instance.


Might be a good time to get into the towing business with all the electric cars hitting the road. Carry a few batteries and charge them a service charge when they run out of juice.
 
One thing that has been suggested/looked at is the possibility of swapping batteries -- sort of like propane exchange. Obviously that would require a whole lot more uniformity and cooperation than we've seen to date.

Also, it's a lot easier to install an electrical outlet than it is to install in-ground gas tanks. Charging outlets could be installed in parking garages, for instance.

Chargers for the types of batteries being used in vehicles are actually fairly sophisticated and I don't know if there's any move to standardization, so it would be relatively expensive to install that many chargers. But I see a future in electricity "vending machines" plug in your adapter ,swipe your card, get a text when you're topped up.
 
Not arguing, but some commercially available chemistries can be charged in minutes, not hours. The A123 cells for instance. Rated for 15 minute recharge. Does require 220 and a charger programmable to the cells charging profile, but its already being done.

Just saying we're a bit farther along than you think. 15 minutes every couple hundred miles makes it competitive with gasoline at 5-10 minutes every couple hundred. Lots of other issues too with electrics, but I believe its the way to go.

I'll read the thread before commenting further.

(Oh, and the Volt is the first series hybrid) electric car with an onboard generator for longer trips.

Commuters can also charge their electric cars at home from solar panels, which is my plan. :sun
 
Chargers for the types of batteries being used in vehicles are actually fairly sophisticated and I don't know if there's any move to standardization, so it would be relatively expensive to install that many chargers. But I see a future in electricity "vending machines" plug in your adapter ,swipe your card, get a text when you're topped up.

Can't the Volt be charged from an ordinary 110 or 220 outlet?
 
Can't the Volt be charged from an ordinary 110 or 220 outlet?


Yes, it can be.

How Do You Charge An Electric Vehicle?

"Worried about how to charge them? Plug them in at home or work using either a standard 120-volt outlet (slower charging times) or into a specialized 220-volt outlet (for faster charging times). If you’re out and about, you’ll need to find one of 655 electric-vehicle charging locations located across the United States, though 434 are located in California, according to the Department of Energy. By the end of 2011 there will be over 11,000 individual charging stations found at locations just like these. Plan longer trips in advance, and give yourself some time to recharge, because electric cars can take six to 12 hours to get to a full charge at standard 120-volt outlets."
TrueCar's Green Cars for Earth Month: Spotlight on Electric Cars | TrueCar Blog
 
More personal opinion.

Only one side has presented facts on peak oil in this forum so far. All the rest have either been personal opinion or not related to peak oil. Do you have some facts you would like to present in rebuttal of peak oil? Well what are you waiting for?

So, iow anything that disagrees with your theroy is dismissed as non factual eh. Closed mind much?

So tell me then. When do we run out?

J-mac
 
So, iow anything that disagrees with your theroy is dismissed as non factual eh. Closed mind much?

So tell me then. When do we run out?

J-mac

The closed mind in this thread isn't his. The time to adapt to alternatives is BEFORE you run out. Even if a precise date could be calculated, waiting till then is plainly stupid.
 
Catawba - Do you have some facts you would like to present in rebuttal of peak oil?

So, iow anything that disagrees with your theroy is dismissed as non factual eh. Closed mind much?

J-mac

Just the facts Ma'am! Do you have any facts to dispute the US military or not?
 
Just the facts Ma'am! Do you have any facts to dispute the US military or not?

The 'facts' seem largely ignored by the Peak Oil believers since the early 70s. But, (*sigh*) here they are AGAIN, maybe this time you will actually digest what experts are saying....

Daniel Yergin's Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) disagrees. Its analysis finds that "the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels - three times as large as the (claimed) 1.2 trillion barrels by (peak oil) proponents." CERA argues further that peak oil reasoning is faulty and, "if accepted, (may) distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future." It states as well that the "global resource base of conventional and unconventional oils....is 4.82 trillion barrels and likely to grow" and bases its analysis on fields now in production and those "yet-to-be produced or discovered."

Its chairman, Daniel Yergin, noted that: "This is the fifth time that the world is said to be running out of oil. Each time....technology and the opening of new frontier areas has banished the specter of decline. There's no reason to think that technology is finished this time."

The Paris-based International Energy Agency (AIE) agrees. It's an energy policy advisor to its 27 member countries that was founded by the OECD in 1974 in the wake of that period's oil crisis. It believes peak oil notions are extreme, says there's "no shortage of available oil and gas in the ground," but new technologies must be found to curb "the world's thirst for them (and to) tap reserves" to increase production. AIE believes as much as 10 trillion barrels of "oil equivalent" conventional oil and gas exist and at least as much non-conventional oil.

In a 2005 report it stated that: "The hydrocarbon resources in place around the world are sufficiently abundant to sustain likely growth in the global energy system for the foreseeable future. The doomsayers are again conveying grim messages through (the media). The AIE has long maintained that none of this is cause for concern."

AIE considers all type oils - the easy to find and produce "light sweet" kind that's likely running out plus potentially huge untapped deposits of heavier oils that will become more important when it does. With this in mind, the Middle East doesn't have two-thirds of world oil reserves as many analysts, the industry, and US Department of Energy claim. It has two-thirds of "proved" cheap oil reserves.

The US Geological Survey (USGS) collects data on all type oils and estimates their amounts. For the year 2000, the US Department of Energy (DOE) and oil industry estimated remaining "proved" light sweet reserves at slightly over one trillion barrels. USGS, however, placed "identified" reserves at 1.1 trillion barrels and "recoverable" reserves at nearly 2.3 trillion or more than double the industry and DOE amounts. In addition, USGS estimates combined non-conventional heavy and tar sands deposits at around 4.250 trillion barrels with about 3.6 trillion of them in the two countries with most of them - Canada and Venezuela.

Peak Oil - True or False

That's three different expert organizations on the subject, including the USGS.

Here is more.

Most of today’s petro-doomsters base their forecasts on the work of the geologist M. King Hubbert, who correctly predicted in 1956 that U.S. domestic oil production in the lower 48 states would peak around 1970 and begin to decline. In 1969 Hubbert predicted that world oil production would peak around 2000.

Hubbert argued that oil production grows until half the recoverable resources in a field have been extracted, after which production falls off at the same rate at which it expanded. This theory suggests a bell-shaped curve rising from first discovery to peak and descending to depletion. Hubbert calculated that peak oil production follows peak oil discovery with a time lag. Globally, discoveries of new oil fields peaked in 1962. The time lag between peak global discoveries and peak production was estimated to be around 32 years, but peak oilers claim that the two oil crises of the 1970s reduced consumption and thereby delayed the peak until now. Hubbert’s modern disciples argue that humanity has now used up half of the world’s ultimately recoverable reserves of oil, which means we are at or over the peak.

The prophets of oily doom are opposed by preachers of energy abundance. Chief among the latter is the energy economist Michael Lynch, president of the Massachusetts-based Global Petroleum Service consultancy. “Colin Campbell has the worst forecasting record on oil supply,” says Lynch, “and that’s saying a lot.” He points out that in a 1989 article for the journal Noroil, Campbell claimed the peak of world oil production had already passed and incorrectly predicted that oil would soon cost $30 to $50 a barrel. As for Matthew Simmons, Lynch dismisses him with a sneer: “Petroleum engineers know a lot more about petroleum engineering than a Harvard MBA.”

One petroleum engineer— Michael Economides of the University of Houston—calls peak oil predictions “the figments of the imaginations of born-again pessimist geologists.” Like Lynch, Economides, who worked in Russia to boost that country’s oil production in the last decade, rejects Simmons’ analysis. Saudi Arabia, which currently produces about 10 million barrels of oil a day, “is underproducing every one of their wells,” he claims. “I can produce 20 million barrels of oil in Saudi Arabia.”

Peak Oil Panic - Reason Magazine

Proponents tend not to believe the experts in the field but rather search for those pseudo intellectuals that hold their respective degrees in fields other that geology, but agree with their doomsday predictions. That is the mark of a religion rather than fact.

The fact is that much like the old fable that has the chicken running around yelling that 'the sky is falling' 'the sky is falling', peak oil keeps yelling, and to this day remains wrong every time.

So what happens when that is the case? well they create some excuse and revise their forecast, and start to yell all over again. Not only are people like this dangerous in that they distort policy, but that they drive price all the way down to the poorest of us all, and as we see in the current race for so called 'green tech' they have NOTHING to replace hydrocarbon energy.

I say develop it all. green tech, oil, gas, everything. When there is proven tech sufficient to replace oil as our energy resource then put it in place, until then peak oil doomsday theorists should focus their efforts less on the politics of fear, and more on the effort of development.

j-mac
 
The closed mind in this thread isn't his. The time to adapt to alternatives is BEFORE you run out. Even if a precise date could be calculated, waiting till then is plainly stupid.

Strawman argument. No one in the 170++ pages of this thread has said that green tech development should take a back seat. Nor that we should wait until the well runs dry if that day ever comes.

Only that what is truly is stupid is choking off supply of current oil energy as a catalyst of development. Many say that you can develop both. The difference is that those that are of the Peak Oil religion want to force the issue artificially, and that is just cruel.

j-mac
 
The 'facts' seem largely ignored by the Peak Oil believers since the early 70s. But, (*sigh*) here they are AGAIN, maybe this time you will actually digest what experts are saying....



That's three different expert organizations on the subject, including the USGS.

Here is more.



Proponents tend not to believe the experts in the field but rather search for those pseudo intellectuals that hold their respective degrees in fields other that geology, but agree with their doomsday predictions. That is the mark of a religion rather than fact.

The fact is that much like the old fable that has the chicken running around yelling that 'the sky is falling' 'the sky is falling', peak oil keeps yelling, and to this day remains wrong every time.

So what happens when that is the case? well they create some excuse and revise their forecast, and start to yell all over again. Not only are people like this dangerous in that they distort policy, but that they drive price all the way down to the poorest of us all, and as we see in the current race for so called 'green tech' they have NOTHING to replace hydrocarbon energy.

I say develop it all. green tech, oil, gas, everything. When there is proven tech sufficient to replace oil as our energy resource then put it in place, until then peak oil doomsday theorists should focus their efforts less on the politics of fear, and more on the effort of development.

j-mac

I'll tell you what, you go by this Yergin and the "free market" website you found and I will go with the US military and the majority of experts on the subject. I knew this guy didn't know what he was talking about when he said, "This is the fifth time that the world is said to be running out of oil."

Peak oil has nothing to do with running out of oil. It is when consumption exceeds production. We passed that point in this country 40 years ago.

If you think that is not true, please post the years since 1971 that we have produced more oil than we consumed (with source links).

Thanks! :sun
 
Last edited:
another bad day for secty chu

A judge on Friday threw out Obama administration rules that sought to slow down expedited environmental review of oil and gas drilling on federal land.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Freudenthal ruled in favor of a petroleum industry group, the Western Energy Alliance, in its lawsuit against the federal government, including Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

The ruling reinstates Bush-era expedited oil and gas drilling under provisions called categorical exclusions on federal lands nationwide, Freudenthal said.

Federal judge throws out Obama drilling rules - seattlepi.com

we'll never get to $8 gas this way

he needs to try harder
 
Back
Top Bottom