US Oil Reserves Increase Ten Fold
April 21st, 2008 by jacob
Has anyone seen this on MSM? Or Fox, or some such? This is a big deal.
Western North Dakota has large oil reserves. By some estimates, it has more oil than the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A federal government geologist estimated a formation called the Bakken shale holds 400 billion barrels of oil.
Just curious as this is a far bigger find than the Brazilian abiotic field. I am wondering when, if ever, this could lead to a decrease of the price at the pump.
This entry was posted on Monday, April 21st, 2008 at 9:20 am and is filed under Energy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:35 am
Yes, it is a big deal. It is also a big deal in Colorado for the same type of oil-shale. With the directional heads (mud-motors) used for all types of drilling today, we can tap ANY oil source. We could tap overseas from here with enough rod. We don’t need no stinking Saudi oil if we could just keep the environ-niks out of the mix.
Only one thing could sour this kind of deal. That would be allowing BP to somehow control the wells. They are not good for the American (or world) economy. They actually cause much of the problem as well as inflated pricing.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:45 am
It is about time that the US start becoming energy dependent on no country. There is enough oil in Colorado, Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico to get enough oil to keep the US going for hundreds of years and bring the price of oil and gas down to where it used to be. Enough is enough! All these years, the USA and its politicians have done nothing and It is pushing food prices up and people can’t afford to keep their homes due to the ridiculous prices and it will kill businesses as well.
Please someone step in and do something and tell these Environmentalist-Wackos like Al Gore to shut up and get the hell out of our lives.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:01 am
All the US is doing is trying to keep peace by buying oil from the middle east. when there is no real need to buy from them when most of our consumed oil is from our own reserves. the only reason that prices are going up in the US (Not factoring world wide uses) is to make the rich politicians pockets fatter and gain more personal wealth for them and their families not thinking about the people they are supposedly representing.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
There is no representation in this country.I want to start a petition to Investigate & regulate the oil prices in this cuntry.Why can,t the oil reserves be opened up in this country ?
May 13th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
The oil reserves holds a 2 months supply - that is 2 months of no oil being shipped into the United States. We have it in case of an emergency. And with the state of our world right now, keeping a full reserve is a wise move.
Imagine an emergency and the reserve was not there. Then there would be complaints that we did no prepare well enough.
A nest egg is a good thing to have, especially during turbulent times.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:16 am
Are you serious? Our reserves at current production will last 18 years. This is not including the oil shale deposits, which if converted would last 98 years. Additionally this new find which could last who knows 200years!
May 21st, 2008 at 11:42 am
Jon,
I think you missed something here. Come into the middle of a conversation? Sarah is talking about the strategic reserves used in an emergency-not earth’s reserves which need to be sought out. What the earth holds under our feet are not reserves per se. They are called deposits.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Just read this site -
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html
My question is that if the deposit was discovered, when are we starting to make that low gas price a reality? Answer is, probably NEVER - at least not until we suck the oil out of every other country first.
See, it is a good business plan. True, the oil price here is really high - but imagine once all the oil resources are gone and we are the only oil resource left in this world - unbelievable, isn’t it? Imagine the money that yet to be made.
I am not saying we (the general public) will be rich. The rich people will still be richer and our status will not change. But good thing is that our country will be richer, and we can then control other economical aspect in this world more.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
John,
Hate to put a dampener on your scenerio but those “oil deposits” that we have are tapable and are being tapped outside this country. May cost more but directional drilling is a marvelous thing. Anyone can do it and at any place on earth….if you have enough time, money and materials!
May 21st, 2008 at 2:41 pm
What does it cost to drill the average oil well,
lets say in Montana? How many companies can do it?
June 4th, 2008 at 7:54 am
All this is great but I see nothing of concern for alternative energy source. Why remain dependent on oil? We as a nation have some of the smartest brain at our deposal to assist in mking alternative energy a reality. Let’s push for change.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Tommy,
We are a capitolistic society. Most of our greatest inventions have been sold to others at the highest bid. We are unwilling to put dollars back into the business until we have a viable and sole/sought after product.
Money talks. If there was something lucrative on the horizon, I’m sure someone would be working on it. It surely has to be worth the initial investment and guarenteed to generate a good return. Are you saying that we should hook-up all the exercycles at the gym with a generator system so we can make energy? Treadmills? Dog walks? My idea was methane bags (like Depends) with a central depository. Don’t know if I can force people to wear them though. It would clean the air and make it smell better too!
June 9th, 2008 at 2:04 am
The sad fact is, there are more than enough oil reserves in the US and US controlled off shore sands to give us all the oil we need. The nutsos in congress and the far left scream “no drilling” so we are held hostage to clown countries like Venezuela and our friends the Saudis who would just as soon see us dead as alive, Wake up America and demand that our elected politicians put America first and to
hell with the rest od the world.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:35 am
TKidwell
Where did you get your “sad fact”? Have you checked with the US Geological Survey, for instance?
- In the 70s there was an oil leak from a platform in the Santa Barbara channel, consequences of which were felt for many, many years (black tar on the beautiful beach). After a time you couldn’t see it, but it was imbedded in the sand and stuck to your feet.
If you truly believe that “there are more than enough oil reseves in the US and US controlled off shore sands to give us all the oil we need”, you had better do some more research. There ARE things more important than oil, you know. One doesn’t have to be “far left” to believe that we are stewards of our earth. What kind of land do you want to leave to coming generations?
20 years ago I drove through the Texas panhandle. Everywhere there were idle, rusty oil rigs “beautifying” the landscape; I’ve seen the oil pumps in the Oklahoma fields and I doubt very much that you’d be happy to have any of those contraptions near where you live. - And, remember the Alaska oil spill!
Let the Arabs use up their oil. That’s all they’ve got. When that’s gone, we’ll have our reserves, OR some smart folks will have found a better fuel. As the old saying goes “If we can put a man on the moon …” John Kennedy said: This is what we are going to do.
“…to hell with the rest of the world” just doesn’t cut it, TK. It’s a global society whether you like it or not. Interdependency is here to stay.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:44 am
The sad fact is that no-one is even allowed to LOOK for oil off the U.S. coasts. Why? Environmental wackos.
Then there is the simple, but too infrequently asked question, “What part of the Constitution gives the federal government the power to restrict such exploration?”
June 9th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Lovisa,
First of all the Alaskan oil spill was from a tanker not a well or pipeline. Second, the Minerals Management Board has very strict guidelines that must be followed when a well is shut in or when it is abandoned. The cost of abandonment and the required cleanup is very expensive but still it is bore by the oil companies.
Now with the price of oil so high, many old fields that were not profitable at $10 per barrel are very profitable at $100 per barrel so they will be reworked.
The tar balls you see on beaches usually come fro ships pumping out their bilge which always seems to accumulate petroleum. The drilling and production capability of the oil industry is very clean today. We have the oil and we should be exploiting it.
Finally, Lovisa, unless you have given up all forms of travel other than walking, stopped traveling on asphalt, never ever use anything made out of plastic, and only use wind and solar energy, you are as guilty as the rest of us at using oil products.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Yes Lovisa, I did my research. I invite you to do the same. Even oil company execs say we have tremendous amounts of oil that they are noy allowed to drill for. Read up on the Bakken field. Even the USGS says there may be 500 billion(that’s billion)barrerls recoverable and they have greatly increased their own estimates of reserves. For right now oil is what we have. There have been a dozen new wells put into production in our county this year and not one soul has complained. The drill site have been left neat and tidy and checked out by more inspection teams that a dog has fleas. These high oil pricwes are not only ruinous at the pump but at the grocery store, the lumber yard, anywhere where goods are deliverd by truck or rail. Truckers(like me) are paying a minimum of 4.69 a gallon for diesel. Are you re4ady to raise all your won food? Because if this keeps up, you will not be able to afford to buy groceries other than Raaman soup.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
We may have to do business with other countries b ut we don’t have to like it. List our true friends. Mexico? Russia? China? Germany? The Araqb States? Hardly! Our few friends are in the same boat we are. I can remember when we could export oil. All people like me want to see is for us to become energy independent and beholden to no country. And it is not our fault that the Opec nations don’t like us. They don’t like Britain of France or Canada or any of the rest of the non Muslim nations. And no intelligent thinking person cares if they don’t like us.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:14 am
TKidwell,
“I can remember when we could export oil.”
I have a document where BP is trying to buy ARCO. These are the ONLY 2 companies with right to drill on the north slope. BP is trying to corner everything and they have been selling petroleum meant for California (crude flowing down the CA pipeline) to Japan for LESS then we can buy it for. Not saying the oil industry doesn’t deserve profit but there are many areas that are in desperate need of overhaul.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Back in the late 70’s there was a brainiac named Dirk Pearson that knew alot about everything. He did a study at that time and found in the U.S. alone what amounted to 400 years of natural gas and 175 years of crude related to current consumption of the time. Since then we have increased in population and found more uses for oil. Still, that was by the technologies of the time and I’m sure that was RECOVERABLE deposits. Many things have changed since then. No reason why we can’t drill and keep oil in our daily routine for some time to come. That doesn’t mean we should sit on our laurals and not hasten research for alternative (make that VIABLE) fueling sources.
June 10th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
The Bakken fields are estimated to hold far less than 400billion barrels. USGS estimates that with new technology 3.0 - 4.5 billion barrells are available. That is 5-7 months supply at 2007 consumption rates in the US. Add the 3-11 billion barrels on ANWR, we get another 6-18 months.
The US has at best 5-10 years of untapped reserves. Add a decade or 2 for the Oil Shales of Colorado etc.
Not all are resources are currently recoverable.
Enviro-wacko’s are not the ones stopping drilling off of the Florida coast. Jeb Bush put the brakes on that. Seems that people living in the sunshine state don’t want too see oil rigs on the horizon.
It is their land, it is their choice.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Regardless of the estimates of the production capabilities of the Bakken fields, they remains just that, estimates. We will never know if we don’t explore further, will we ?
We are hearing the same background noise we heard 30 years ago when the Alaska pipeline was proposed. The hard truth is, the sky did not fall. the tundra is safe, and the caribou remain all warm and fuzzy.
But, what good is more oil if we cannot refine it ?
June 10th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Dan,
I don’t think that they have even begun building another refinery. And that has been the biggest excuse for the companies-”we don’t have enough refineries”. DUH? But hey, Dan. There is a new TV series coming about….guess what….oil drilling! I believe that will be a short lived series, don’t you?
June 10th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
ACT, Ethanol refineries seem to be popping out faster than baby rabbits. If not, where else is all of our food going ? Alien abduction of corn ? Maybe this is what crop circles really are, aliens just taking home a few samples ?
Don’t get me wrong, I say drill and find out what is there. One years worth of oil justifies this. If we find more, all the better, we can pop a cork or two to celebrate. Given that Joe is dehydrated, and needs to drink more, I hope this proves to be the case.
I saw a commercial for a new series on the Discovery Channel I think it was for a series on oil riggers. A Dangerous Catch type of show. It that the one you refer to ?
Btw, not sure of this came up on the abiogenic thread some time back. A recent Scientific American had a sidebar on this that led me to explore :
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5863/604
http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive_articles/080201_LostCity/index_EN
June 10th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Has anyone heard of any plans for the common person to get involved with some kind of “out of the box” plan to create a solution not involving oil?
June 11th, 2008 at 9:33 am
#23
Jeb Busch wasn’t the only one. I believe the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland governors were also against putting oil rigs near their beautiful beaches.
Wouldn’t surprise me if New Jersey with its famous “Jersey Shores” would also be against oil rigs nearby.
Again, I refer to the oil spill in the Santa Barbara channel. Joe, the tar in the sand was NOT “tar balls” from passing oilers, or whatever you stated.
dan - ONE YEAR’S WORTH OF OIL JUSTIFIES this! Do you have any idea of the cost of explorative drilling?
Bigger problem than oil, worldwide, is the availablity of WATER.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:46 am
There is plenty of water, it merely requires desalination. That requires energy.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:20 am
“Do you have any idea of the cost of explorative drilling?”
No, I do not, and neither do you.
If harvesting Bakken is not economically sound it would not be on the radar screen now would it ?
June 11th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Dan,
Yes, that is the show I was referring to. Songs by Atkins who use to be a roughneck before he got counrty singer stardom.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Most of your “island” areas/nations rely on rain and/or desalination for water. There was also an article years ago about a turbine that sets in the ocean using “wave action” to generate electricity. It would be a perfect match for desalination plants so that there is a neutral (or off-setting) energy use. The plants process of desalination could then generate a POSITIVE (or surplus) energy excess which could be distributed to further drive down costs. But they would have to disguise these wave turbines as to not offend the ethstetic elites. Maybe dress them up to look like whales or big jellyfish colonies. Never mind. I am now envisioning these “dressed-up” wave generators being put on the endangered species/habitat list. But the sane ones understand where I am going with this (I hope. Otherwise I am having another flashback. They promised me it would stop years ago!!!)
June 11th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Lovisa, The cost of not drilling is what we are paying for now. 7 years ago when Bush took office was the time to shove Alaska and the Outer (as in 50 miles off shore) Continental Shelf drilling down Congress’ throat. A handful of people in the environmental-religious movement and Congress hijacked and hoodwinked the public on energy issues. I will add a lack of resolve on the part of the President and Republicans in Congress, no backbone.
The same goes for Nuclear and Clean Coal technology, we have coal coming out our ears in this country and technology has vastly improved. Yet again, the same handful of people are in the way or unwilling to expend political capital to get things moving.
Lastly I will add voluntary conservation, no gov’t mandates mind you, but it is part of the equation. Everything should be on the table, however demonizing perfectly acceptable and environmentally sound exploration, drilling and refinement has gotten us to 4$/gallon.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Wait… let me get this straight… oil on a pretty california beach that sticks to your feet is more important to avoid than being held hostage to the middle east, and being drawn into all out modern warfare over and over again?
Hello? RISK THE STICKY SAND. WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER. GOING TO ANOTHER BEACH IS.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
ANWR has been on the radar for a LONG TIME.
Imagine if we had acted to drill ANWR when the idea was first floated.
We would not be facing econimic ruin, less likely to care and become involved in middle east BS… less chance of war, and many lives spared.
The short sightedness of anti-progress “progressives” that keep steering us into ruin, like killing nuclear energy that would have done so much to prevent global warming, would have led to an electric infrastructure for electric cars… and at that same time they have deepened our dependence on foreign oil.
these idiots are *creating* the problems they complain about so often… foriegn oil, global warming, and gas powered cars. They have pushed us all into these bad circumstances, and no doubt endless wars for oil.
All because they lacked the sense to support our own energy initiatives here in the US.
Global warming, foreign energy dependence, gas infrastructure for cars, and wars for oil… all thanks to the environmentalists.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Mike,
Yes. According to some, it is more important not to step into something warm brown and sticky on the beach than it is to provide energy cheaply, AND, to be independent of authoritarian or totalitarian whackos.
You obviously don’t get it. You also obviously have been ‘duped’ by the evil nuke-u-lar lobby into thinking they can solve your problems. Don’t you realize that a refrigerator size lump of waste is far an away worse than dumping tons of radioactive carbon soot from a coal fired plant?
That will go too, but first we need to get all them stupid inbred rednecks to stop expecting air conditioning, heat, water, electricity and to move into those yurts where they belong after they have been sterilized.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
“Let the bastards freeze in the cold”
This sign were stuck on most vehicles in Alaska in the early 70s to show they were all for developing Prudho Bay and building the pipeline.
Then there were the antis’ sign:
“Jesus is coming and, man, is he pissed.”
June 11th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Weather the high gas prices :
Buy an SUV at the current heavily discounted prices.
Invest your savings in oil stocks or oil/natural resources funds.
If your returns are as mine, you will significantly offset what you pay at the pump.
There have been reports of a coming renaissance in nuclear power for the last year or so. Looks like it may be true. For more info on new plant applications check out :
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf
About damn time..
June 11th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Mike - Do you really believe that NOT drilling ANWAR when the idea was first floated, to use your expression, would have prevented us from “facing economic ruin, …less chance of war …”
Do you not think that we went to war because of the unfortunate event of 9/11? Do you think the popping of the housing bubble would not have happened?
As for nuclear energy, there was a partial meltdown with ensuing leakage in March of 1976 at 3-mile Island near Harrisburg, Penna. The extensive clean-up took more than a decade according to records. The contaminated stuff was shipped to Nevada, which is our national dumping grounds for nuclear waste. How’d you like to live in that area?
The anti-progress progressives want the best minds used to develop means of energy that are more environment-friendly.
“They have pushed us all into these bad circumstances, and no doubt endless wars for oil.” That’s sure laying a lot on the anti-progress progressives, don’t you think? They pushed Bush to invade Iraq, did they?
June 11th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
jacob
Yes, Jacob, it IS more important not to foul our ocean beaches unnessarily than to provide energy cheaply!
dan’s comment proves that he has absolutly NO concern for the future, except to line his pockets. Doesn’t care how much of a finite resource he uses up. Probably doesn’t have any kids, or he thinks that all the money he’s making off his oil stocks will provide a nice fat inheritance moneywise, while the earth is poorer. Oh, well, to each his own!
June 12th, 2008 at 4:12 am
NoVisa,
“Yes, Jacob, it IS more important not to foul our ocean beaches unnessarily than to provide energy cheaply.”
I take it you feel that the energy industry runs amuck when collecting energy and the environment be damned, right? What are you putting in your creme-of-wheat? As with anything there will always be accidents. That is how the word came about. What the earth does naturally is either blamed on mankind or left unnoticed all together. Let’s be a little less biased.
Nuclear? Until we have a safe way to send our nuke waste to the Sun (which would be a VERY safe way of disposing off-world) we will be burying (storage) at the nations nuke waste storage site or Nuclear Waste Storage Site if that looks more formal. The people that live in Colorado know that their mountains are being used for all kinds of storage. That want to do that in Virginia. I feel if there is no way to neutralize waste with todays technologies that they need to be stored until something comes along. We need the energy. You need energy to blog with us.
I would suggest before we start ramping up with more reactors and more waste that we take care of the “borders” problem first. Too many people here that don’t belong and we know nothing about. And they are using our energy. Hey, NoVisa. Good slogan. Save energy-deport an illegal alien/immigrant/migrant/criminal.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Lovisa,
Cheap energy is what revolutionized our society. Cheap energy is what made work with the aid of mechanical devises possible. It IS the source of our prosperity, longevity and easy life.
Wood you like to go back to splitting firewood just to make your coffee? Would you like to spend 70->80%% of your income on food? Wood you like to live in a shack that is 50F in the winter on a good day, and has no AC in the summer? Would you like to see us return to a 40 year avg lifespan?
Because that is the result of the idiot thinking you espouse. Nothing is for free, and windmills are NOT going to make up the difference, even with all the hot air we get out of the left.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:24 am
ACT,
“Nuclear? Until we have a safe way to send our nuke waste to the Sun (which would be a VERY safe way of disposing off-world) we will be burying (storage) at the nations nuke waste storage site or Nuclear Waste Storage Site if that looks more formal.”
1. The amount of nuclear waste created by a typical power plant over a 20 year time span is way less than that of a coal fired plant. After 40 years it is even less.
2. We have a place in NV and it will do the job and then some. The enviro-whackos want to make it impossible to store this waste anywhere because they are anti-nuclear power.
3. The amount of waste from a plant over a 20 period would fit in a refrigerator.
The only reason NOT to do this is if you are anti-human and want us to live lives that are brutish and short. A population ‘draw down’ will come naturally after energy goes away. I am sure lovisa and her ilk will be ecstatic.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:35 am
Jacob,
I’m with you, buddy. The only problem I have with waste is its half life (radioactive), its strain life (biological) or its decay life (petroleum products et al). If it can be secured until a viable neutralization/elimination scheme can prevail then I am all for it. I personally don’t like things lying around that can harm you or other generations well into the future.
I am ignorant of coal plant waste. Are we talking about ash? And if it is an inert byproduct and/or waste, why not put it BACK into the cavities from which it came? Seems easy enough.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:53 am
ACT,
The final resting place that was designed and built and now lays idle (thank you Harry Reid), is such a solution. The half life of the really dangerous stuff is ~100 years (Plutonium, Strontium). There is stuff with really long halv lives is not near as deadly and occurs in far smaller amounts. Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain#Radiation_standards
That is as final a storage solution.
As for coal power. C14 is a radioactive variant of C12 (regular carbon). It is present naturally. When we burn coal C14 gets released into the air along with the rest of the C12. Guess what? These is more than a few refrigerators worth released over a 20 year period. Guess what else, it is released into the air. We breath it. Ain’t exactly contained you know.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Jacob,
I’m glad to see that they are looking 10,000 to 1 million years in the future (that’s 25,000 generations to you and me or 7 million dog years) but c’mon. We have been around how long? Nobody lives in the same house forever, do they? Future generations will be using the moon as the earth’s landfill site. We’ve already started placing our trash there.
Radioactive coal. Never knew. Am I going to die with the prevailing winds coming from Japan and China? Just one more thing for me to worry about. I’ll be a basket case in no time if I keep listening to you guys (and GIRLS)!
June 12th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Lovisa and others, ANWAR is piece of the puzzle, the continental shelf is part of the solution, nuclear, clean coal, same deal. Put it all together (come on kindergartners!) and you have a much, much better scenario then we do now. Do nothing and pay the additional price, this is only the beginning.
ANWAR was researched in the 1980’s in the Reagan administration, it was been over 20 years where we have been held hostage to the do-gooders.
And Lovisa, 3 guys with signs in Prudho Bay in the 70’s constitutes stopping exploration and drilling? I am putting a sign in my yard that Loudoun needs to do something about traffic concerns, will I be remembered 30 years later?
And for the anti-nukes crowd. 3 Mile Island was an accident that will be used till the day we die, meanwhile France is running a majority of their electricity safely via nuclear power. This is a safe, environmentally sound venue that most of the world is using with little problems. Perhaps you all have been watching too many Simpson’s episodes with Blinky the 3 eyed fish, or Silkwood, but these are fiction, despite Cher’s very good performance.
Arguement after arguement against any changes, except for conservation, coupled with no one wanting the other side to get credit for solving the problem, will get us nowhere.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:04 am
Lovisa, no, I don’t believe what I said, I made it all up. Christ, what a *pointless* posting. Try saying something next time.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:09 am
Al gore says the entire earth is doomed unless we take what amounts to panic measures… and you are worried about storing nuclear waste?
Hello?
See you don’t weigh issues by counting them. The end of the earth and waste storage are not equal just because the represent one issue each. Weighing issues means that you consider the magnitude of the effects. Preventing the end of the planet in exchange for storing nuclear waste is a NO BRAINER. (for most people)
June 15th, 2008 at 10:40 am
It defeats me why everyone is so obsessed with vast amounts of oil. As far as I can see, the only real uses are in material sciences. The internal combustion engine is a 100+ year old technology. You all sound like the steam engine fanatics demanding calculating how much cheap coal they could find, and deriding those internal combstion fans as a bunch of freaks - steam cars out-performed early internal combustion for a while.
It completely beats me how a people who sit atop the world’s technology development tree, with Silicon Valley, NASA, and all the defence-related spin-offs, still cling to a technology that impressed my great grandfather - a petroleum powered internal combustion engine. When you open the front of your car, you’re looking back in time.
Fuel generation from boring solar-thermal - forget the rest of the wind powered tree generators, or whatever they are. A small part of any one of the southern states could comfortably produce all the power needs for the entire country, with exports to spare (How much solar can Canada manage?).
All this wittering on about ‘oil reserves’, all these eco-warriors telling us to hug trees - it’s all so unnecessary. Perhaps people just like to bitch, and forget reality.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Centerfire cartridges are even older than that, and they’re still the best thing going.
Sure, the southwestern states can produce solar energy. But there is no way we could export it — no-one would buy it at the price required to produce it.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:56 am
And one final thought guys: All this obsession with oil is one of the things that makes the developed world look like an old, craggy, pathetic, lawyer, clinging to his quill pen, and blaming the world’s ills on the lack of decent quills. Screw the arabs, screw the oil companies - I want a 200 mile an hour electric De Lorean, and the knowledge that all the power comes from Nevada.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Your analogy is flawed, Steve. The “old, craggy, pathetic, lawyer, clinging to his quill pen” was complaining of “the lack of decent quills” after fountain pens and ball-point pens were more prevalent and less expensive.
Such alternatives to internal combustion engines do not exist yet, except on the scale of naval vessels. Trust me, there are no bubbleheads pining for the days of diesel submarines.
June 15th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Hi Jack, until very recently diesels we’re quieter than the nukes, and there was considerable resistance, within the navies in the ’50s, certainly in NATO countries, to the introduction of nuclear powered vessels. The advantages were very clear, but the technology wasn’t quite there….. until it was, and it only got there because they decided the advantages were worth it.
Similarly with the pens, there was a time when fountain and ball pens were way more expensive than ‘dip’ pens. The much maligned CEO of DEC computers, I’ve forgotten his name, famously said that he couldn’t understand why anyone would want a computer in their home (in the 1970s) , and so on, and so on.
The essential nature of innovation is exactly that, it doesn’t work until it does.
Bog standard, battery powered cars, for most people, for most journeys, are quite adequate. The current problem is no more than logistics, recharging, repairing, and so on. The problem is therefore one of social and economic inertia - why change?
The problem with us, and it may just be a human thing, is that we seem quite incapable of acting on what we know will be case. We only react to what IS the case.
Take the car. It was going nowhere at all, until WW1 struck, and the military suddenly got interested. It then leapt forwards, changing from something that needed a well trained driver, to something that just about anyone, could drive. The same applies to aircraft, in WW1 & WW2.
We all know that oil is going to be a problem, a few billion barrels here and there, or not. Ever increasing transport costs will just damage all of us, those with oil and those without. We know this is going to happen, so why don’t we, just for once, break with tradition, and get ourselves ahead of the curve. Why wait until times are tough before solving the problems, or are you suggesting that a 200%-1000% improvement in electricity storage is beyond us? Us, who have created the greatest civilisation in the history of the earth; Us, who have been to the moon, who have harnessed the elementary forces of nature, who have split the atom, and put it back together again, who know more about just about everything than every previous civilisation combined, multiplied by 100?
Are you seriously suggesting that with a determined effort, we couldn’t
rid ourselves of this pestilential problem of electricity storage, forever?
Once the infrastructure is in place, the technology surrounding it will leap forward. It always has, and it always will. It’s why I wouldn’t, given the option, live in any other civilisation, whatever their architecture was like: I like my car, my iPhone, my dentist, and my holidays.
June 15th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
“Why wait until times are tough before solving the problems…?”
That is the key question. The answer is COST. Until other forms of energy are more cost-effective, we will rely on oil.
June 15th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
The cost is in the considerable infrastructure changes necessary, but these are absolutely inevitable. The cost per mile of an electric car, assuming nuclear of solar thermal energy production are significantly less than even $75 oil. In fact, taking in account how the power generation currently works, charging the cars at night would lower the costs very significantly even from where they are.
Another problem is with the speed of the energy market’s prices compared to the time it takes to ‘retool’ the infrastructure. The oil price can change in days and weeks, whereas the infrastructure could take months and years.
Given that it is absolutely inevitable, and that the only solution is electrically powered vehicles, the only reason to wait is because it’s always easier to do nothing. Just wait until all hell breaks loose. It’s a matter of blame:
If you make the changes now, you’ll get blamed for the disruption and costs today, and you won’t receive any applause for the fact that you will have stopped hell breaking loose.
If you just do nothing, and wait for all hell to break loose, then none of the blame falls on you, but everyone has to put up with the hell none the less.
In my lifetime, p[laying the blame game is what insecure left-wing politicians do, and generally do very well - everything is always someone else’s fault.
The only sort of argument to keep going with oil, that seems to hold water, is that a technology such as fusion will be ready for prime time in the foreseeable future. That might well be true, but no one’s mentioned it.
Our economies are incredibly interlinked. If the price of energy and transport rises too far in the developing world, it’ll bring significant inflation to the developed world. Bottom line, my lifestyle will be hit, and possibly hit badly. Sure, some companies will do nicely, especially the energy companies, but that’s no consolation to me.
We need ever more predictably cheap energy, I want ever more predictably cheap energy, and oil and coal are not going to give us that.
I want air conditioning in the summer, heating in the winter, as many tech devices as I want. I want to be able comfortably to afford to drive huge distances whenever I feel like it. Oil and coal will just not do that.
I want the developing world to develop, so I’ll get richer, and have truck loads of new toys to play with, interesting places to visit without the threat of some unpronounceable disease. Also, it makes me feel bad to see starving beggars in the streets. I want them to get richer. I want every Indian, Chinese, and African, to have a car, and a fridge, and 4 TVs, and airconditioning, and everything else. As energy demand rises, the very finite oil and coal will get ever more expensive, and will just make that much more difficult.
Unfortunately Jack, you will get your way. We will do nothing beyond talk. When it’s almost too late we’ll leap into action, and everyone will suffer, but it’ll be OK, because I’m sure there’ll be someone else we’ll be able to blame.
June 15th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Jack, my last sentence reads kind of rude, apologies for that, it wasn’t meant to be so.
June 15th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
“Given that it is absolutely inevitable…”
So is death.
“Unfortunately Jack, you will get your way.”
It is not “my way,” Steve — it is the way of economics. Electric cars are not cheap enough or good enough yet, and petrol is not expensive enough yet, to make electric cars a good buy.
June 15th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Had a VW Dasher diesel that took us from Vermont to Virginia on one tank. Why is diesel more expensive?
June 15th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
BTW, Steve, the electric motor was invented in the 1830’s. You want to replace the “old” internal combustion engine with even older technology.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Re ancient electric engine - yes, it’s true!
OK, what are my points on Costs - let me try and get my ducks in a row here:
Firstly, there’s the limited life of oil, as a mass energy source.
1. Millions more people are using oil, and energy generally, every year.
2. Our economies are increasingly integrated, we rely on many countries for our low cost products and services. If their economies were damaged, it would damage us, quite considerably.
3. As a comparatively cheap energy source, oil is toast, and it’ll just get worse.
4. So we are going to have to move away from oil. As I see it it’ll be in my lifetime (I’m 46).
Current costs of electricity for cars and so on
1. Electric cars are expensive because our car companies are not tooled up to make them. Mass production, and the research that would be encouraged by that, would very significantly cut the costs.
2. Petroleum driven internal combustion engines are inherently more complex, and need more maintenance, than electric engines. The whole combustion and cooling processes are so much more complex than an electric engine.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
“Petroleum driven internal combustion engines are inherently more complex, and need more maintenance, than electric engines.”
Really? Then why have I had to replace so many starters (which are nothing but electric motors) in my automobiles?
June 16th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Lovisa,
I believe diesel is more expensive here because our refineries here are predominately gas orientated. In Europe, where diesel is more commonly used, diesel refineries are also more commonplace. there, prices are inline with gas prices.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Electric or gas, one common problem remains. Our petroleum industry and our electricity generating infrastructures are sorely in need of a production boost.
Bottom line, we have been living off the excess capacities of the infrastructures created by the last generation of Americans. These excesses no longer exist. We need to invest in infrastructure, regardless of the power source, oil or electric.
Fuel efficient vehicles don’t solve any problems, they just push it off to the next generation. Electric vehicles on a large scale will only trade oil shortages for electricity shortages.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
*oriented*
jacob, you’re rubbing off on me dude..
June 16th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Dan,
welcome to the dark side, bwah hah hah hah!
June 16th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Jack,
Crappy starter motors? I don’t know. I’ve never had trouble with one. I once had trouble with the engine management computer in my Peugeot, due to under revving - eventually I cold booted it and all was well.
Oh, come on. You know how an electric motor works, and you know how an internal combustion motor works, there’s absolutely no comparison! Internal combustion engines are fiendishly complicated in comparison. There’s nothing to an electric motor, it has so few parts: no combustion chamber, no need for cooling, no fuel injection, there’s no job for an engine management computer to do.
The problem isn’t the motor, it’s the energy generation, and energy storage. No point having nice electric cars if we generate the electricity from oil! Similarly, no point having electric cars if you have to recharge them every 50 miles, or if they go flat parked up over night!
Compare solar thermal and electric cars to the current situation. Transporting tens of millions of gallons of oil, every day, to refineries. It’s then put into huge machines that split it up into various densities, and transfers it to pipes and tankers, where it’s driven around the country, and deposited into more tanks. Then it’s pumped into cars and whatever. It’s so complicated: every trans-shipment point is expensive. Compared to:
The solar thermal station generates the electricity, which enters the grid. You plug your car in and wait. To recharge on-the-go, you just swap batteries with already charged ones.
There’s just no comparison! It’ll be hugely cheaper, not to say easier, as you can recharge at home!
The science and technology really appeals to me: It’s a really clean design, it’s so simple: sun…. electricity generation…car. That’s it!
Photo voltaics is the perfect solution (no steam turbines), but as far as I’m aware it’s not really there yet, although I do have a photo-voltaic charger for my laptop and phone, courtesy of Fry’s on my last trip to Palo Alto!
Look up electric cars, and just see what they cost to run, per mile. You’ll be very surprised. Solar thermal was a bit crappy when the first stations came on stream in the 80s, in S.California, but they’ve come a long way since then.
As I understand it, it isn’t running costs that are the problem, it’s the infrastructure change, and the fact that the oil companies, quite rightly from their point of view are against the idea.
June 16th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Dan
You’re right. Get serious with solar (probably thermal), and a backbone of giga watt transmission lines between the major cities, and the you’ll leave the kids in good shape.
June 16th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
One spin off of serious solar generation is that it would remove any arguments about needing nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes, especially in hot countries. Just a thought.
June 16th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
… and an even more final thought. The Baaken shale is estimated to hold 4 billion barrels tops (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868).
At current consumption, that wouldn’t even last the USA a year:
(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html).
It’s time for serious solar.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Solar does not scale very well, this is a problem it shares with wind. The other problem is that solar is ineffective when folks need power the most, at night. Yes, I know we could stockpile batteries, but for me, I certainly don’t have room for them in my basement.
Nuclear is proven, as it already produces 20% of our power.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Electric and hybrid cars have a couple of dirty little secrets. The overall cost of ownership is greater with a hybrid than that of their conventionally powered models. Second, who is going to by a 6-7 year old used hybrid or electric when they know they may be looking at a $2k plus battery replacement bill ? Personally, for this very reason I believe that a lot of hybrid or electric vehicles will prematurely end up in landfills, while their internal combustion counterparts will provide years more of service.
Hydrogen, the fuel of tomorrow..
June 16th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Dan,
“I believe that a lot of hybrid or electric vehicles will prematurely end up in landfills”
What kind of eco-terrorist are you? We are talking about greening the earth and conserving and here you go throwing good stuff into a landfill. Have you noticed that lead is way up in cost? We’ve taken it out of paint, gasoline and communications cables and driven the price right thru the floor. Now it is on the rise again and do you know where they are putting that lead? No, not there! Ha,ha. No, I don’t have a lead head you card you. That’s right. Batteries for the eco-weenies. They even charge for cores now. You need lead for bullets? Go out in the woods and find those old discarded batteries!
June 17th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Steve,
Dan is correct. Currently, and possibly indefinitely, the energy from Solar and Wind does not scale well. In short the are still more expensive than oil. Nuclear power by comparison is cheap, scales well and does not vary in output as the wind and sun go.
Both wind and solar have a huge Achilles heal in that the ratio capital costs v. the power output is high. Also batteries are NOT a good source of power in the long run. Batteries are made using nasty ingredients and unlike nuclear power you get millions of tons of waste. Even with recycling the problem would quickly get out of hand.
Predicting how a battery based energy system would scale is akin to predicting the impact of ethanol on our food supply. Good luck, no one really saw that coming though it was obvious in hindsight. If the lead-battery issue looks ugly now, it will more than likely be a nightmare when we get there.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:45 am
As in War of the Worlds, it could be the tiniest of creatures that are our salvation :
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,367642,00.html
Regarding storage of nuclear waste, it is a falsehood that we need to store it for thousands of years. It only needs to be stored until such time that we have the technology to recycle it.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Steve,
I would like to say that you just are too engrossed in Star Trek-TNG. Solar ain’t ready yet. As a matter of fact there are 2 things that will drastically change our energy climate altogether-cold fussion and the room temperature semi-conductor. While those and others are seriously being worked on it’s use what we have in plentiful supply to get by.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Jacob,
The nasty stuff is the sulfuric acid getting into the ground water system. I just saw on science channel last night where the Navy is looking at electric ships. The quarter scale model used 376 car batteries to run. What they did say is that when it is full-sized ships, there will be a nuclear reactor creating the electricty to run the motors. Batteries are storage for rainy day solar systems and not much more.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Dan,
When it comes to nuclear waste the really dangerous stuff has half lives of ~100 years. This means in 1000 years, the stuff is 99.90% gone. In 2000 years it is 99.9999% gone. In other words, its gone. The stuff with longer halve lives is not gone, but it is far far and away less lethal.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:02 am
ACT,
We are total agreement here. Batteries are for flashlights.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Batteries are for baseball.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Jack, Huh?
June 17th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Don’t you have a dictionary? The battery of a baseball team is the pitcher and catcher.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Dang. He’s right! New one on me. You got lucky, Jack!
June 17th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Jacob,
Correct me if I am wrong, but the big kahuna of the nasty stuff is Strontium 90. S90 has extensive uses in both medicine in industry, seems like this would be a candidate for recycling..
June 17th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Sr90, Cs137 Pu238 these are the killers. They all have hazardous lives in the 500->2000 year range
June 18th, 2008 at 6:14 am
“You got lucky, Jack!”
Certainly, but what has that got to do with batteries and baseball?
June 18th, 2008 at 6:21 am
“Dang. He’s right!”
Make that your mantra: “Jack is right. Jack is right. Jack is right…..”
June 18th, 2008 at 7:43 am
“Make that your mantra: “Jack is right. Jack is right. Jack is right…..””
Sorry but you’re first loser in this race. My wife already has the mantra “Mama is always right. Mama is always right. If in doubt just remember that Mama is always right!”
June 18th, 2008 at 8:59 am
You call your wife “Mama”?
June 18th, 2008 at 9:18 am
“You call your wife “Mama”?”
Only when I talk to others. When I speak to her it is Honey, mame or Your Highness! Jack, surely you know that famous saying-”If mama ain’t happy-NOBODY’s happy!”
June 19th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
All the problems we are all talking about will never be resolved as long as we set around on our fat asses and just talk about them! And if you all are so damn smart, why aren’t you rich?
If you were rich, you wouldn’t be on this site would you? You would be off anjoying the beach’s that you don’t want us drilling for oil near because you are the only one that can afford to the fuel to get to the beach! And if those of you who think we need to get some other source of energy to power our vehicles and our farm equipment would put your hard earned dollars on the line and develop such? Just to clear something up, the ash from coal powered plants is being used to help hold down the cost of cement as it is being used as an additive to cement to make our resources of cement go further. Our sources of lime, a key ingredient in making cement are becoming limited because environment regulations are limiting the mining of lime and this is an area where technology has fallen behind because the suppliers of lime are so few that they have not had the time or resources to improve their methods because of the demand for everyone to live in safer and sturdier buildings made of concrete and drive on roadways that are supported by concrete! And speaking of roadways, we are using all the tires you and I wear out to be ground into a powder to be mixed with the asphalt on our highways which reduces the amount of maintenance on our highways while at the same time drastically reducing road noise! Upshot: Everyone get off your fat asses and get something done! I did my share and earned my retirement and hopefully fuel prices will make a downward move soon so that those of us on a fixed income can get out the house and enjoy our retirement years! As for now, our vacation will amount to being able to afford the fuel to go to the grocery store once a week because our Social Security and Pension checks won’t be reflecting any cost of living increases any time very soon!
June 19th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Quick clarification - Raw material for making cement (limestone), which is a key ingredient of Portland Cement (somthing like 85%) is not in short supply. In fact it is readily available throughout the world. You are correct in that the cost and the regulations relating to the manufacturing/mixing of cement is a problem. In addition, China is consuming way more than what it produces, causing worldwide cement shortages.
Don’t get me started on ASTM and “standard building practices”. Lime mortar worked for thousands of years, it is only in the last 150 or so that we have been using cement. It is not about safer or studier as far as concrete goes, it is about setting time and “strength”. Obviously it is a solid choice for large commercial projects, such as high rise buildings, but for residential and smaller scale construction it is WAY overrated.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Mr. Price:
You ask, “if you all are so damn smart, why aren’t you rich?”
According to the government, I am rich. (I don’t think so, but the government knows best, right?) Anyway, many of our best and brightest choose to direct their energy into scientific research. One of the smartest people I know, a high-school classmate, is a government employee (not much money there) at the Naval Research Laboratory working to develop a Quantum Computer.
Money does not buy happiness. So, being smart, one may choose happiness (in the form of job satisfaction) over money.
You go on to whine:
You are on no more of a “fixed income” than are those of us who still work for our income. I cannot go to my boss and demand a 10% raise. I cannot even work overtime — I am salaried. (And rarely can one work overtime without the employer’s prior approval.) Yes, I could go get another job. Come to think of it, your income is less fixed than mine, because you can go get a job with all that free time you have available. I, on the other hand, still have children to raise, and I have neither the time, leave, or money to go on a vacation.
BTW, my uncle is 78, a Petroleum Engineer turned Patent Attorney. He is still working at his law practice, despite having been diagnosed with cancer. So quit your whining, get off your ass, and go get a job.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:25 am
This past weekend someone, politician probably, spoke to the issue of US oil reserves and said 80% of our oil is in areas which are not protected and can be legally drilled. I cannot find that quote or who said it. I would like to know if that information is correct and if so where that 80% is.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:53 am
There was a congressional hearing on TV last night (nothing else was on) about the oil reserves in Alaska and North Dakota equalling or bigger than the Saudis oil reserves but Congress has made it illegal to drill for this oil. In 1994, Congress passed a bill to drill in the Anwar area of Alaska, but Clinton vetoed it. Then the republicans (I don’t want to be political) lost control of congress and the other group is not willing to pass legislation for allowing drilling. There is also trillions of cubic feet of natural gas in the gulf area that can’t be accessed either. All this while Cuba is drilling just 45 miles off of Key West.
The U.S. is the only country in the world where drilling for oil is illegal.
Anyway…Even if a new viable technology were to be discovered tomorrow, using an extremely aggressive development schedule, it would take one to two decades to get it to where it could be mass produced and affordable to the public. The Honda hydrogen car is not available and estimates are at around $500,000 per car (according to one article) and it will go 280 miles on a fillup of Hydrogen gas. Where are you going to fill it up at ? Service stations would have to all be refitted to the new energy that would be required.
Why not drill for the oil now and use it for now and get the gas prices down so we can afford to develop and test new energy sources ?
When new technology comes out, great, only once it becomes affordable and competitive with the petroleum industry will it become predominant.
Look at E85 … how come it has increased in price at the same rate as gas even though it is only 15% gas ? It’s because the people that make it price it at a competitive rate so that it is not better or worse (cost wise) than regular gasoline. It is not based on what it costs to make and distribute it, it’s based on what they can get for it.
As far as the people investing in oil. They are part of the reason the price is so high. Like any stock, if investors keep buying it, the price goes up. If investors are selling it, the price goes down.
June 25th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Brian T. said: “Why not drill for the oil now and use it for now and get the gas prices down so we can afford to develop and test new energy sources ?
When new technology comes out, great, only once it becomes affordable and competitive with the petroleum industry will it become predominant”
The problem, of course, is that once the price comes down, the incentive to develop new technology, which is, admittedly, a number of years away from any viability, goes away. If that wasn’t the case, we would have the new technologies now since the same argument applied 30 years ago. Price was high, folks scrambled to develop new technologies, price came back down (thanks to the 100’s of oil tankers hanging out off the coast of Florida), everyone stopped pushing the new technologies.
June 25th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Sanity,
“The problem, of course, is that once the price comes down, the incentive to develop new technology, which is, admittedly, a number of years away from any viability, goes away.”
Good point. This was the case after the last oil shortage in 79. The price went from the high forties to the low twenties and then the teens. This killed the research, and help kill off all the nuclear reactors we were thinking of building as well.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:28 am
I marvel at the whole situation with regard to oil reserves and wonder if we are really gullible about supply. I am amazed at the oil, coal, oil shale and natural gas reserve figure controlled by the United States but, I am more amazed that certain of our politicians actually think we should believe what they tell as or that they don’t have an ability to act toward a resolve of the problem. I appears that we have two problems and they are competition for oil on the open market and lobal economic growth. Unfortunatelywe have certain politians including some with aspirations to become president that create obstacles. The government need to simply ecourage drilling and refining of our existing reserves rather then throwing out roadblocks like saying that if we start drilling now it will take ten years for that oil to be available. If we dopn’t start now some basic industries including agriculture and manufacturing could easily move us into the realm of a third world country.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I’m not sure why no one looked for this and linked it, but the conclusion of the survey was that 4 billion barrels of oil were determined to be technically producable.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
This of course is an estimate and it could result in more or less production than we see here.
Also keep in mind that the cost of oil comes from more factors than just the world’s production capacity. In fact, at the rate that it keeps increasing, one has to wonder if it has much, if anything, to do with constraints on production at all. That said, speculation would be curbed if it appeared that capacity would easily keep pace with future consumption, something that would be achieved by investing heavily in taking advantage of resources such as those in North Dakota.
July 16th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Every one is missing the point. We are constantly surrounded by energy at all times. Sunlight, wind and even mass can be converted to energy. Do you honestly belive with todays understanding of science we cannot build cars or transportation without having to destroy our environment or buy energy from some one?
Homes self suffecient on electricity through wind, solar, fuel cell technology, etc drawing the needs from the environment and charging our electric cars from that. No oil companies, far less electric companies to lobby congress. Our energy would be virtually free after the cost of the cars and homes.
What about the people who depend on those industries for income? This is a free market society. One of the benifits of a free market society is flexibility. During the ramping done of our traditional energy industry, these emplouees would be transitioning to fields of green energy.
Short term the price of oil is killing us. Long term, economic prosparity. All the money now spent on energy would be spent elsewhere.
July 16th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
What I envision are magic beans which, when planted and watered, sprout magnificent stalks growing far, far up into the sky, to a magical land where the sun warms the homes 24/7, 365 days a year and everyone drives sail-cars.
Here on Earth, I envision nuclear power plants every 200 miles for as far as the eye can see.
July 16th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Aren’t solar panels made of gallium arsenide and plastic ? Wouldn’t a solar frenzy cause further oil shortages and price increases ? Not to mention the energy demands of all those GaAs furnaces running 24×7..
Aren’t windmills made of metal ? Doesn’t mining metal cause more damage to the environment than drilling for oil ? Never head of a “strip” oil field..
July 16th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Chris, get your facts straight — With all of the ‘available’ sites the oil companies have drilling rights for……….. did you know that 90% of those sites are tied up in litigation right now — environmentalists (of which I am) of the worst kind (far left) are unfortunately suing so oil companies CAN NOT DRILL!! I take care of the earth too — but this is ridiculous — we must drill as well as keep working for alternatives.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Kevin,
Even when oil is over $100/barrel wind is not economical on an industrial scale. The trouble with both wind and solar is that the energy IS both dispersed and unreliable. Furthermore solar is not available at night and the wind usually stops blowing in a heat wave. Storing electrical energy is problematic on an industrial scale.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Joe,
Can I please have some of those magical beans.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Kiddin’,
“Our energy would be virtually free after the cost of the cars and homes.”
You gotta stop watching Star Trek. Nothing will ever be free or close to it. You use what is there consistantly as well as proven. Meanwhile you look/research for another consistant source. I would say pop the mantle and you would have unlimited energy. I’m just afraid some fool will screw that up and this big blue marble will go flying thru the universe like a balloon loosing air!
July 16th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Nice to see the Charm City Brain Trust pop in from time to time to give us simple Virginia country folk the solutions to all of life’s problems..
July 17th, 2008 at 6:43 am
New bumper sticker: “I Love Wind Power — Blow Me”
July 20th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
[…] in a single day, and it continues to fall. The market knows that the U.S. has huge, untapped energy reserves. The United States has more than three times the amount of Oil the Saudi Arabians do. Due to a […]
July 29th, 2008 at 2:13 am
Where did you find that out novatownhall not saying your wrong I would just like to read up on something that states that and is reliable, because if that is true there is no doubt that we could sustain our countrys need of oil for the next 10 years while we have research for other alternative fuels.
And kevin,
Build me a vehicle powered by wind that can go 0-60 in less than 4 seconds yeah there are alternative fuels but efficiency is a big deal too. If the need(at some think theres an absolute need) to get somewhere quicker were not a big deal here in the US we would be a lot like China by now. Yes Ethanol and Hydrogen are coming up in eventually but Oil still outdoes any fuel when it comes to Cost Eficiency and Accessability.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:35 am
The strategic oil reserve and oil reserves are different things. The source of our misery is the LEFT wing democrat potitician. For the democrat to be elected, the electorate must feel anxious, nervous, pessimistic, and victimized. But for Democrats, we would be far along the road of energy independence. But independence is a dirty word to the democrat. He is like the corner crack dealer in that he trades in dependence and addiction. Stop electing democrats, and stop getting news from the MSM that serves democrats in the way that Pravda and Isvestia served the Kremlin. Get back to American traditions and values.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:03 am
FYI, pokenhorn, Democratic president Jimmy Carter tried to have solar heating panels installed at the White House and was thoroughly ridiculed for such a stupid idea.
You sound like a total extremist, bringing in Pravda and Isvestia.
I guess the Democrats will make it this November since I believe a majority of Americans “feel anxious, nervous, pessimistic, and victimized.” After yesterday’s stockmarket plunge, the bailout of Fannie and Freddie, banks going under, housing market in the basement, and the deficit at an ALL TIME high even without counting in the expense of our wars. there’s definite cause for anxity, nervousness, and pessimism.
July 29th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
All im saying is we are not there yet we have the technology but it will be a while before people start to realize that there is something better we can use and therefore be a while before companies start to make a genuine effort to produce things that will use it.
until that happens we will be depending on oil again cost is the one of the reasons oil is still on top and that can only be changed by catching peoples interest in alternate fuels.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
BigDodge,
People’s interest are there for other fuel sources. Unfortunately, there is nothing available at this time that is as plentiful and low cost as oil. When a new, as cheap or cheaper source comes on the scene that won’t STARVE half the world and is plentiful, King Oil will then diminish.
July 30th, 2008 at 3:12 am
US blame india and china for oil price crisis as they have started consuming more oil. US people should know that fact that US consume 44% of world oil and small state like california consume more oil than whole of India.
July 30th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Sanjeev,
Who in the U.S. blame India and China? The news media? And considering your “facts” are correct, are you in India consuming oil or are you in America? Either way, you are part of the problem or….part of the problem!
August 9th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I’m sorry to see so much opinion and so little in the way of facts to back them up. That makes this site rather useless for my needs. What I need is: 1) where & how many deposits exist in the world? 2) what is the quality/quantity of each of those deposits? 3) What would be the environmental impact vs costs of getting at each of those deposits? 4)In the western states, water is, perhaps, a more precious commodity than oil! What will be the water requirements to extract oil from oil sands and oil shales? So much of this discussion relies on purely emotional content with little, if any, factual information to support ANY of the positions. TOTALLY USELESS!
August 9th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Mark,
This is not an article about shale Oil. That is another article. Try this one …
http://novatownhall.com/2008/06/19/shale-oil-yet-another-alternative/
Water rights can be bought. That is the common practice out there. The water availability is being taken into account otherwise Shell and the other Oil companies would not consider the idea profitable.
As for your (1,2,3&4) you won’t find all that information on any one sight anywhere. So what is your point?
September 4th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
In regard to the Bakken oils reserves, these are oil shale deposits. The oil is locked in the shale, you cannot drill and extract the oil. The shale must be mined and the oil extracted from it. Current technologies for doing so involve heating and injecting heated liquids. Current technology does not provide economical extraction even at today’s high oil prices.
As far as offshore drilling is concerned it is a political red herring. Currently, every offshore drilling rig in the world is drilling and under contract to drill in another location when that job is completed. There would not be a drill rig available to drill for at least 5 years.
Drilling onshore is another story and Anwar is the biggest single researve. Although I consider myself an environmentalist I have no objection to drilling there if it is done in a safe manner. However, all oil extracted there should remain in the U.S. Over 15 billion barrels of oil have been extracted from the Prudhoe Bay site (yes, BP is a major producer there)and almost all of it has been sent to China and Japan. How does it help America gain energy independence if U.S. oil is extracted and sent to foreign countries? Oil companies make billions and all were are left with is empty holes in the ground. Yes, all our politicians are to blame but so are the oil companies who want to keep us tied to world oil markets. Oh, yes Democrats have held production down but consider that when the Alaska pipeline was built Democrats proposed a bill to require that all oil pumped through it must stay in the U.S. Republicans (including McCain) voted it down. Yes, drill dril drill, but keep the oil here. You won’t hear Republicans say That because they are owned by big oil.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
There is no proven method of extracting oil from oil shale.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
So what?
September 10th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Jack, are we resorting to grade school responses. Dave has the only logical response on this site that I’ve read. I always here everyone talk about shale and these reserves of 200 billion barrels (potentially). I’m with Dave. ANWAR has proven recoverable “mean” reserves of about 10.5 Billion barrels. As a percentage of consumption, it would provide a source until 2030 or so, based upon internal use and current consumption levels. So, with new technologies (NGV,hybrid, electric, clean burning coal) we could decrease our need to use the ANWAR oil and oil in general. We could require that oil companies fund through fees, public transportation nationally. If that is a transport tax, fine. If they keep the oil domestically, then eliminate a large part of that. So, if we can figure out a way to cheaply and effectively get shale into heating oil and fuel, let’s do it. The truth is, oil companies and the powers that be don’t want to invest in the infrastructure to do this. Oil companies want the government to do that. I believe that is what could be referred to as corporate welfare. So, if we currently provide subsidies (welfare) to oil and gas, we could also provide subsidy to local and regional transportation. Privatize it if that makes more sense.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
“We could require that oil companies fund, through fees, public transportation nationally.”
That’s a non-starter. That will simply drive up the price of domestic petrol. How would you impose such fees on foreign companies? Our companies are already burdened with ridiculously high income taxes, making them less competitive in the global market. Now you want to make them pay for public transportation, too? Then we will be buying even MORE foreign oil, because we will be making the domestic stuff more expensive.
“So, if we can figure out a way to cheaply and effectively get shale into heating oil and fuel, let’s do it. The truth is, oil companies and the powers that be don’t want to invest in the infrastructure to do this. Oil companies want the government to do that.”
Of course they do — why take the risk yourself if the government is willing to do it?
“We could also provide subsidy to local and regional transportation.”
Almost all local and regional transportation systems already ARE owned by the government.
September 13th, 2008 at 3:33 am
ANWAR has enough oil to power America for about 8 months–if we could get all of the oil out at one time. It won’t lower prices because there won’t be enough fuel coming out at one time to lower prices. As of 2000, the EIA (Energy Information Administration) said USA had 21 billion barrels of PROVEN oil reserves. The US, in 2000 used 7 billion barrels per year. You do the math.
Last, even if we started drilling right now, that oil will not be infused into the economy until around 2030.
Is there really 500 billion barrels of oil in shale? Not according to oil company estimate. It’s more like 8-10 billion recoverable.
Now add up how much more energy is going to be used when China, Africa, and India come fully online power wise. This is not a situation we can drill our way out of.
The other concern is global warming from fossil fuels. If you don’t believe that is a problem, ok fine, you go against virtually all scientific studies on the subject.
There is something that could revolutionize fossil fuels however. It’s a new, genetically modified type of algae that can turn into usable sweet crude in less than a day instead of a million years. The upside? It’s CO2 neutral. The algae takes in, before it turns to oil, as much CO2 as it puts out when burned. This is where we should be spending our time and money, not on drilling.
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Two Words Nut Jobs: Climate Change
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:55 pm
One word: Bollocks.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:06 pm
[…] have enough alternative supplies in place by the time drilling gets underway, we have enough oil reserves to feed our current consumption rate for over 100 years in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming alone. The […]
October 17th, 2008 at 11:33 am
The good Lord has placed minerals, and other substances on earth for us to use. We use timber to build our houses, and every thing that we can use from the earth to make our lives more comfortable. Oil is one of those things we have used since the beginning of the combustible engine. All our machinery has been set up over the last several decades for oil. Oil provides us with hundreds of other biproducts that we take for granted. The environmentalist who are telling us not to drill or use more oil, that we are ruining the environment is being deceitful or they are nuts. While Big Al Gore is telling us this very same thing, he is in his huge mansion and flying his big airplane around the country. He wants us to save while he traverses across the country telling us how bad it is to use oil. That way he will have more to use. Let’s face it, he is a hypocrit. I say let’s continue with the drilling until we can find another alternative form of energy that we can use efficiently. Do not use athenol as this is driving up the price on corn, and we know what that does to the cost of our food products. (End)
October 17th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
“While Big Al Gore is telling us this very same thing, he is in his huge mansion and flying his big airplane around the country.”
Truth be known, the elitists want to be sure the oil lasts for their exclusive use..
October 19th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Nobody talks about burning fossil fuels more effeciently. Inventors have patents on carburation that gets 100 mpg or more in cars of today. If our government was serious about the oil crisis we face in the states,then why do they regulate fuel efficiency in american cars.
My old 1980 honda accord gets 45+ mpg in the city and better on the interstate. Auto manufacturers boast their cars getting 28mpg, WOW! what happened there?
Imagine producing cars that get 100 mpg. It seems to me that all the numbers I have read on oil reserves would increase dramiticly.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Those of us who are from N Dak. are well aware of the oil reserves here. We are wondering with all the risks in off Shore Drilling why this oil reserve is not being used. The owners of the mineral rights, which I am one of, have long waited for this to happen. The dependence on forien oil has become a threat to us all.