If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
I'm no expert in the field, but one of my best friends is. He's a
geophysicist (With MS degrees in geophysics and geology) who works for a company that does seismic analysis of potential oil fields for many of the major oil companies. He's reluctant to participate on usenet as himself in a discussion (gee, I wonder why), but I asked him some specific questions about this topic, and paraphrase below. Take it for what it is worth. 1. Using current technology, how long will current oil reserves last? This is a difficult question. The lower-end estimates are at about 75-100 years at current useage levels (and average increases)and current technologies. The higher-end estimates are at over 500 years. There is no clear consensus in the field about this, in part because new technologies are developing quickly, and we are constantly discovering new areas where exploration could be very profitable, and because the data we are getting on field size and composition is becoming better all the time. My personal 'guestimate' is much closer to the 500 years than to the 75 years. Certainly we won't run out of oil any time during our lifetimes, or our childrens. 2. Like where? Off the coast of Brazil is very promising, as is the area off Sierra Leone. The Gulf of Mexico also has great potential. The problems with each areas are different tho. In the Gulf, the problems are primarily political and environmental. Florida has consistently acted to restrict oil field exploitation for fear of pollution. Brazil has some problems as well politically, in that one of their demands (so far, to at least one major proposal) has been that Brazilian companies and workers make up at least 90% of suppliers to any development. But Brazil doesn't have the kind of experience in the field that would be needed for a large-scale project. Deep-water rig exploration is highly specialized (and dangerous), and the people who have the experience are the Americans and North-Sea types. There are plenty of other areas. Russia has large numbers of unexplored fields, and both Canad and Alaska in the US still have great potential. We aren't sure about ANWR. Obviously there is some oil down there, but we don't know the extent yet. Political debates aside, it might not even be worth it to develop. 3. What about other places in the US? There is plenty of oil under the US. The question is when does it become economically feasible to get it. At $20 a barrel, there is really no incentive to spent billions of dollars exploring the Gulf of Mexico (or even dealing with political bureaucracies like Brazil). At $50 a barrel it becomes very reasonable to spend that kind of money to get to what we think are extensive (but relatively hard-to-get-at) reserves. Same with Alaska and Canada, and even other places like Pennsylvania where the size of fields might be relatively limited, and the quality relatively low, but when the price per barrel reaches some number, it then makes sense to start production from there. Additionally, the US has large reserves of shale-oil. This can't be distilled using conventional processes, but there are a number of technologies that look very promising for managing both the production and the pollution problems associated with this, and when they are solved (quite possibly within the next decade) many billions of barrels of shale-oil will very readily available. 4. What about the middle east? There are still vast reserves in the middle east. [He told me these were just ballpark numbers]The total known oil reserves in the world are estimated to be about 1250 billion barrels. Known reserves just in Saudi Arabia are along the lines of 400-500 billion barrels. Demand is supposed to be about 90-100 million barrels per day by 2010. Right now, it's about 75-80 million. Iraq has large reserves, as does Libya and several other nations. Remember, these are *known* reserves. There is quite a bit more out there that we can get (albeit expensively), and a great deal more beyond that that we can't get to just yet. But the technology flows with the cost of oil, to a great degree. Saudi does *not* want oil at $40 a barrel. Because at $40 a barrel, oil companies are a lot more likely to spend the billions necessary to develop the shale-oil stuff, the alternative fuel stuff (soybeans anyone?), and the direct exploitation technology (improved slant-drilling, cheaper processing for lower-quality crude, deeper water technology) that will make Saudi oil much less important. Saudi has enough oil, and enough of an incentive to keep it relatively cheap that it can slow the development of other technology. 5. How much of this is government overregulation? LOL. *Which* government? Brazil? Sierra Leone? Russia? Saudi? The EPA? The state of Florida? Yes, the governmental regulations are a big part of it. ANWR might have huge amounts of exploitable oil underneath it. but the government says we can't go get it. At least not yet. But in my mind, the bigger problem is refinery capacity. Most of the refineries are at or near capacity, and these things cost a ton of money to build, and nobody wants them in their backyard. There are several different types of refineries, but even the 'cheapest' kind (Called a 'topping' refinery), which can usually only process the cleanest, highest-quality oil, costs a ton of money, and produces some obnoxious stuff. The most expensive refineries (Called 'complex' or 'cracking' refineries) can easily cost billions of dollars, are huge, and can be very polluting. If we start using lower-quality crude, then we'll need more of the big, complex refineries. These are not his direct quotes, and I'm sure I mangled some of what he said, but I thought his opinions might be useful in this discussion. "Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message . net... Wasn't there an article in the WSJ a week or two ago where some oil company execs said the regs weren't the primary issue? I didn't look into it further. What's the problem? Failure of the marketplace to place sufficient refining capacity on line? The price of bringing more well capacity online is too high or unpalatable to the public? What? Or is it working the way it's supposed to and there are just a bunch of people annoyed at higher prices? Are you an expert in the field (no pun intended) or just going with a gut feeling? Just curious, because while I would gladly discuss with someone with significant industry knowledge I really don't have any time to debate environmental politics or with someone who bases their knowledge on one party's propaganda (either one). No offense but it's late. "Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... "Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message et... This doesn't sound right. Are you saying the "EPA and others," meaning government regulation, reduced the oil well reserves? Reserves (from the time) and known resources are much higher than what we're extracting. |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
I'm no expert in the field, but one of my best friends is.
Thank you for taking the time to write a most enlightening post. One thing though: You're going to ruin Usenet's reputation for hyperbole if you keep this up! :-) -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 21:18:20 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote: I'm no expert in the field, but one of my best friends is. Thank you for taking the time to write a most enlightening post. One thing though: You're going to ruin Usenet's reputation for hyperbole if you keep this up! I still maintain until the average American learns to conserve, gas is going to be a problem. No I do not believe that the average American has done much if anything to reduce their use of gas. It is the attitude they think they have that creates the problem. We are going to get few, if any more refineries. Maybe for shale oil reclamation and technology added to bring out fields that are no longer good producers, or never were like the ones in central Michigan. The problem with those big numbers on reserves is the stuff is not readily obtainable/available, or still leaves the US at the mercy of foreign oil. Maybe not the same foreign oil, but foreign never the less. There is a real problem with what is defined as current identified reserves, developed reserves, and accessible reserves. Regardless we need to get away from our present dependency on gas and particularly on some one else's. Nor do we want to use our own reserves as that would leave us even more dependent later on. Over 20 years ago my wife and I decided we didn't like spending so much for day-by-day travel. What did we do? As we both worked we moved from a very nice and relatively new home into a smaller one that was located in between our work places and the kids had to settle for changing schools. That alone cut our driving by half. Was it convenient? No, but it made economic sense. No, not every one could do that, but a lot could and more could over time. Most of us do not need to make 5 trips into town every day. If the kids have to go to soccer practice, hockey practice, music lessons...etc, work out schedules with others on any thing that can be worked out.It may not be nearly as convenient, but it may become a necessity. Work out different times with the music teacher so trips can be combined. At least make an effort. Just remember, what ever the reason the price of gas is high, if we only use half as much *they* (whether they is OPEC, or the refinery) won't have the leverage to charge as much. I quit work and went back to school at age 47. Got a degree and after graduation got a job that was less than half the distance I had been driving. No, I never did make the cost back, but it was worth it. One other energy savings we all need to take a realistic look at is recycling. Recycling some products makes sense both from economic and energy standpoints. Recycling some other products is inefficient from an energy, resource, and economic approach and serves nothing more than "make work" that has the appearance of being economically correct. We tend to blame every one but ourselves. We "claim" we've done all we can, but that is an out and out excuse. Even if the refineries had lots of slack and were artificially setting the price high it is the demand *we* create that allows them to do so. If they had surplus capacity the price would come down by supply and demand, but that won't happen as long as we keep coming up with excuses as to why we have to use as much as we do. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com :-) |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger Halstead" wrote in message ... I still maintain until the average American learns to conserve, gas is going to be a problem. Roger, while I agree with the principle that we, in America, must learn to conserve not abuse what can we do about this: "With real gross domestic product growing at a rate of 7% a year, China requires increasing amounts of oil to sustain its economic development. Its oil consumption grows by 7.5% per year, seven times faster than the ..S." -- as reported by The Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. The IAG report names the USA as the highest consumer but: "China currently imports 32% of its oil and is expected to double its need for imported oil between now and 2010 and become the second largest world oil consumer." Second place currently belongs to Japan. We in the US must learn to conserve, but we ain't the only problem and maybe not the worst. Not when oil consumption in China is increasing "seven times faster than the U.S." |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Halstead wrote: I still maintain until the average American learns to conserve, gas is going to be a problem. It's going to be a problem whether we learn to conserve or not. We *will* learn to conserve to some extent, because it's going to get more and more expensive as the Saudi oil runs out. George Patterson None of us is as dumb as all of us. |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Roger Halstead wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 21:18:20 GMT, "Jay Honeck" wrote: I'm no expert in the field, but one of my best friends is. Thank you for taking the time to write a most enlightening post. One thing though: You're going to ruin Usenet's reputation for hyperbole if you keep this up! I still maintain until the average American learns to conserve, gas is going to be a problem. The geologist who gave the information above showed exactly the point I tried to make earlier - we aren't going to run out of oil in absolute terms, but we are close to running out of _cheap_ oil. All the sources that were identified in the grandparent post all had one thing in common - they weren't cheap oil, they were all more expensive oil. I also agree that we (not just the US, but ourselves) need to reduce dependence on foreign oil. It's strategically worthwhile to develop alternative fuel sources. If the fact that our oil is coming largely from countries that dislike us doesn't get us, then the environmental consequences may well do. (We'd do well to switch our electricity generation more to nuclear energy using modern reactor designs, for a start). -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee" |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger Halstead" wrote in message ... On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 21:18:20 GMT, "Jay Honeck" wrote: I still maintain until the average American learns to conserve, gas is going to be a problem. That's the function _prices_ serve in a free market. |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
"Casey Wilson" wrote in message ... "Roger Halstead" wrote in message ... I still maintain until the average American learns to conserve, gas is going to be a problem. Roger, while I agree with the principle that we, in America, must learn to conserve not abuse what can we do about this: "With real gross domestic product growing at a rate of 7% a year, China requires increasing amounts of oil to sustain its economic development. Its oil consumption grows by 7.5% per year, seven times faster than the .S." -- as reported by The Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. The IAG report names the USA as the highest consumer but: "China currently imports 32% of its oil and is expected to double its need for imported oil between now and 2010 and become the second largest world oil consumer." Second place currently belongs to Japan. We in the US must learn to conserve, but we ain't the only problem and maybe not the worst. Not when oil consumption in China is increasing "seven times faster than the U.S." China is only making up for lost time in its industrialisation. Not only that when every Chinese family has as many cars as the average American family then you can start to point a finger at the Chinese. with 1.5bn people, their perhead consumption is a fraction of the US. Now if you want to start a war about oil........ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Floridians Are Hit With Price Gouging | X98 | Military Aviation | 0 | August 18th 04 04:07 PM |
Garmin Price Fixing Post from other newsgroup | TripodBill | Home Built | 17 | August 4th 04 10:42 AM |
Garmin Price Fixing Post from other newsgroup | TripodBill | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | July 16th 04 04:50 PM |
Headsets: "Minimum Advertised Price" | Will Thompson | Piloting | 21 | April 10th 04 11:22 AM |
Cessna 150 Price Outlook | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 80 | October 16th 03 02:18 PM |