• 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!

Trump's revenge: U.S. oil floods Europe, hurting OPEC and Russia

apdst said:
You can find it. Right? Sure you can. Or, maybe you lack the ability? Not my problem.
Click to expand...

Just at the top of this page... Post #121:

poweRob said:
No one is trolling the thread.

You make definitive statements. People ask you to back it up. You then start back-peddling and saying you did when you didn't. It's what you do all the time. And this is what I do when I see it... :lol:
Click to expand...
 
bluesmoke said:
Yes, anymore. I said “proven”, which the Israel “find” is not. Neither the exact amount nor the quality has been confirmed.

I said “OPEC”, a consortium of 14 countries. The consortium includes Venezuela.

Canada is #3. So what?

The US “untapped reserves” are neither proven in amount, quality or feasibly recoverable.

Saudi Arabia, like OPEC, does not deplete oil reserves at any greater rate than does the world. They both produce oil at a lower percentage of total world production than is their share of proven oil reserves.

There is more coal than oil, no doubt. But the economic feasibility vs. oil and especially vs. renewable resources that are, obviously, un-depletable only make coal more competitive in a future imaginatively favorable to coal. Or, perhaps you have evidence to support your particular point regarding the future you say is in coal.
Click to expand...

Not only has the Israeli find been confirmed, geological surveys are showing it extends well into Syrian and Lebanese waters. You need to get out more. Geological surveying technology can now pinpoint with extreme accuracy location and amounts of any compounds thanks to NASA.

Yes, the US reserves are a purposeful underestimate. Not that long ago, fracking was not a considered a feasibly recoverable technology.

Only the Romanian oilfields have been more thoroughly harvested than the Saudi and Iranian fields. "Saudi Arabia, like OPEC, does not deplete oil reserves at any greater rate than does the world," is a meaningless statement. And the Venezuelan economic and political internal disarray has made Venezuela a non-player for anything of international scope.

Coal is just one more carbon based fuel. The proof and feasibility for converting coal to petroleum based carbon products is in the laboratories for the future. It is only a question of when, not if.

My preference both for conscience and investment is renewable energy sources, as well as renewable sources for plastics and other carbon based fuel products, and note sustainable and renewable sources are also carbon based, so is life as we know it. The real problems we are seeing with sustainable renewable sources, is that they too come with an environmental price to pay. I am not interested in getting into a long drawn our discussion on this topic. My time is limited and I have other interests.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Coal is just one more carbon based fuel. The proof and feasibility for converting coal to petroleum based carbon products is in the laboratories for the future. It is only a question of when, not if.
Click to expand...

The Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (inventors Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch) for converting coal into "petroleum based carbon products) was developed at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in the 1920s. This is an indirect coal liquefaction (ICL) process.

in 1913 Friedrich Bergius invented a direct coal liquefaction (DCL) process that turned coal into synthetic oil.

In the 1950s South Africa developed its own CTL process and now has two plants operating with a total output of around 185,000 BPD

The PRC has 9 operating CTL plants with a total output of around 135,200 BPD

The US has 3 operating CTL plants with a total output of around 40,000 BPD.

The future is already about 100 years old.

The real problems with CTL processes is that not only are they incredibly "dirty" but they cost more than the profit margin on petroleum products from "conventional" sources (they are even more expensive than either "fracking" or "oil sands extraction").

OldFatGuy said:
My preference both for conscience and investment is renewable energy sources, as well as renewable sources for plastics and other carbon based fuel products, and note sustainable and renewable sources are also carbon based, so is life as we know it. The real problems we are seeing with sustainable renewable sources, is that they too come with an environmental price to pay. I am not interested in getting into a long drawn our discussion on this topic. My time is limited and I have other interests.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on "renewable energy sources".

Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be very much readily available material on the TOTAL energy/environmental impact of using them. By that I mean the total energy/environmental impact from initial extraction of raw materials used to construct the "renewable energy collector" (solar power is of no use as a power source unless you collect it) right on through the final disposal/recycling of the no longer functioning "renewable energy collector" PLUS the energy/environmental impact of the "collected renewable energy distribution network".

Retrofitting every house in the country with solar energy collectors would be wonderful, but what would the power grid do with the excess energy collected during the day time? Would it be used to pump water back upstream of the hydro-electric plants?

[ASIDE - In BC the BC Electric company once ran inter-urban trams between Vancouver and Chilliwack (about 60 miles). They used a single wire collector for their electric motors and "regenerative braking". In the middle of the tram line was a large "power station" that consisted of a generator connected to a huge flywheel. When outside power was applied to the tram power line it was used to (a) power the operating trams, and (b) spin up the flywheel if not needed for (a). When the trams used their "regenerative brakes" this fed power back into the line and that power was used to (a) power other operating trams, and (b) spin up the flywheel if not needed for (a). During the course of the operating day, the operating trams would draw more power than was being fed into the system from the outside source and that meant that the flywheel/generator produced power to run the operating trams (and also slowed down). During the night (when the trams didn't run) the outside power was (obviously) more than was needed to run the trams so it was used to speed up the flywheel/generator (and thus "store" the power). That had the effect of allowing the entire tram system to operate at a constant draw rate that was lower than the needed power rate at any given moment.

Old technology was sometimes very sophisticated in its effect, eh wot?]

PS - If the transit company where you live is using "trolley buses" ask them if their buses are equipped with "regenerative brakes" and, if not, why not?
 
OldFatGuy said:
Not only has the Israeli find been confirmed, geological surveys are showing it extends well into Syrian and Lebanese waters. You need to get out more. Geological surveying technology can now pinpoint with extreme accuracy location and amounts of any compounds thanks to NASA.

Yes, the US reserves are a purposeful underestimate. Not that long ago, fracking was not a considered a feasibly recoverable technology.

Only the Romanian oilfields have been more thoroughly harvested than the Saudi and Iranian fields. "Saudi Arabia, like OPEC, does not deplete oil reserves at any greater rate than does the world," is a meaningless statement. And the Venezuelan economic and political internal disarray has made Venezuela a non-player for anything of international scope.

Coal is just one more carbon based fuel. The proof and feasibility for converting coal to petroleum based carbon products is in the laboratories for the future. It is only a question of when, not if.

My preference both for conscience and investment is renewable energy sources, as well as renewable sources for plastics and other carbon based fuel products, and note sustainable and renewable sources are also carbon based, so is life as we know it. The real problems we are seeing with sustainable renewable sources, is that they too come with an environmental price to pay. I am not interested in getting into a long drawn our discussion on this topic. My time is limited and I have other interests.
Click to expand...



It's not just that the Israeli find extends into Lebanese and Syrian waters, the reserves in that basin are contested by Turkey, Gaza, Lebanon, and Cyprus. I don’t know what you mean by “confirmed.” The reserves are considered “potential” and production has not even yet been determined to be viable. As of 2014, Israel’s estimated proved reserves of oil were 11.5 million barrels. The company that started a project back in 2008 to drill and thereby determine the viability of the shale reserves in question was refused going forward with the project as of 2014 by the Israeli government. There simply is not the evidence, obviously, that even convinces the Israeli government to proceed with a project that is supposed to make itself energy independent from it’s adjacent Middle East sworn enemies. Your claim is highly suspect and you produce no evidence that the reserves are “proven”, or recoverable, or that production is viable. I mean, really, Israel itself isn’t proceeding.

I don’t know what you mean by “purposeful underestimate” or what bearing it has anything.

You brought up that Saudi oil reserves have been depleted by more than half, which you cannot prove. My note regarding relative depletion to the rest of the world is that OPEC countries still have, regardless of what you say, 80% of the world’s proven oil reserves. Venezuela is doing pretty good for being in “disarray” and being a “non-player for anything of international scope” considering the fact that it produces about the same amount of oil as the UAE and Kuwait and, regardless, still is #1 in proven oil reserves (which is a point you made). What else you say is conjecture without any proof that overcomes currently worldwide accepted evidence of reserve and production levels.

Yes, coal liquefaction is “in the laboratories for the future.” Just as it was 30 years ago when it was then, and still is now, considered not cost-feasible (which does include environmental costs). Still, a great deal of progress has been made.

I agree with your last paragraph entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom