Pages: 1 2 3

 

2008-06-05 09:53:38
Switch
Knee Deep In Clunge
+489|6940|Tyne & Wear, England

S.Lythberg wrote:

konfusion wrote:

Either way, oil will run out, so why not invest more in research for alternative fuel sources? I've seen a video where a guy made fuel out of salt water. This is the kind of stuff we need to be focusing on, instead of grasping at the hope of being able to continue the comfortable lifestyle we have now.

-konfusion
it takes more energy to dissociate water than you get from burning the resulting gases
Right now it might do yes, but thats what they said about Nuclear power.  The point is we have to start working towards perfecting these methods and making them more efficient.

Some countries in the Middle East are going to get a huge shock when their oil eventually runs out.  Their preparation for renewables is pretty much none existent.

Last edited by KILLSWITCH (2008-06-05 09:57:24)

Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
2008-06-05 09:53:47
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|7019|Texas - Bigger than France
Anyone want to shift to the "what ifs"?

Some of the comments are going there - impact on environment, green technology...etc.

But if "oil independence" is upcoming...how does the geopolitcal arena change?
2008-06-05 09:54:37
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7078|132 and Bush

teek22 wrote:

The world seems not be taking it seriously that oil WILL run out.

Also I think America will save their oil until it has run out everywhere else. Then and only then will they start using their own supplies.
We've been using our own oil for decades (32% domestic). We are actually importing more from Canada than the ME.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr … mport.html
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-05 09:58:26
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6977|so randum

SEREVENT wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

Pug wrote:

I know this has been covered a bit. 
But I think it merits a "HOLY SHIT HAVE YOU SEEN THIS!!!!" Thread.

200 Billion Barrels of Oil estimated.  Possibly up to 503 Billion barrels.  Alaska's Artic Reserves are 16 Billion.  The total reserves in Saudia Arabia are 1050 billion barrels.

Think about that - one field (not all of them) with 20% of all of Saudi Arabia, or up to 1/2.  This isn't shale either - its drill and suck = not expensive to get to market.
Yet, you are missing a KEY issue.  How will it get from those oil fields to the US?  The Alaska pipeline can only transport 1 Million barrels a day ... and the US consumes about 21-23 Million barrels of oil per day.  So, we can only transport just 5% of the US consumption with current systems.  So, this is hardly a bonanza.
Build a new pipeline(s)?
No. Simple as, too environmentally damaging, and it'd be running though an already fragile area
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2008-06-05 10:00:54
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6999|...

I thought that find turned out to be a wash ... article date is old too.

Last edited by jsnipy (2008-06-05 10:01:24)

2008-06-05 10:04:22
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|7019|Texas - Bigger than France

jsnipy wrote:

I thought that find turned out to be a wash ... article date is old too.
Maybe - the EOG oil strike is recent.  The USGS admitted they don't know everything.  And I have an EOG exec not talking about it.

Who really knows...
2008-06-05 10:12:46
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7078|132 and Bush

FatherTed wrote:

SEREVENT wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

Yet, you are missing a KEY issue.  How will it get from those oil fields to the US?  The Alaska pipeline can only transport 1 Million barrels a day ... and the US consumes about 21-23 Million barrels of oil per day.  So, we can only transport just 5% of the US consumption with current systems.  So, this is hardly a bonanza.
Build a new pipeline(s)?
No. Simple as, too environmentally damaging, and it'd be running though an already fragile area
I imagine a world where pipeline and wildlife can coexist.

Experience shows that oil and wildlife can live together, albeit not perfectly. The National Academy of Sciences reported two years ago that oil development at Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, west of ANWR, has polluted water and air, damaged the tundra and harmed some wildlife. But the caribou herd has flourished, and oil companies were complimented for limiting the environmental impact. New technology raises the hope that the amount of fragile tundra disturbed by oil development at ANWR could be even smaller.
Maybe I'm just a dreamer.

When the Human food supply is disrupted by lack of fuel and transport worldwide I hope the caribou herds appreciate our sacrifices.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-05 10:37:38
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7032
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_For … _estimates

I know it's wikipedia but how come not a single solitary soul has entered this 'bonanza' into the wiki article for Bakken???

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-05 10:44:22)

2008-06-05 10:41:26
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|7199|Eastern PA

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

OHound makes a point, the US doesn't have the infrastructure to become self sufficient on oil. It's all heavily based on importing and shit. And the environmentalists wouldn't allow it for quite alot of reasons.

The US has missed the boat on this. They should've done this during WW2 or during the 70's oil crisis or someshit. It's too late for that now. Unless things get REALLY desperate and the US refuses to change its habits. Then they'll turn Alaska into a giant industrial oil.....thing
All Alaska ever gave us is Ted Stevens so I call it even.
2008-06-05 10:41:54
ThaReaper
Banned
+410|7117

Kmarion wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

SEREVENT wrote:

Build a new pipeline(s)?
No. Simple as, too environmentally damaging, and it'd be running though an already fragile area
I imagine a world where pipeline and wildlife can coexist.

Experience shows that oil and wildlife can live together, albeit not perfectly. The National Academy of Sciences reported two years ago that oil development at Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, west of ANWR, has polluted water and air, damaged the tundra and harmed some wildlife. But the caribou herd has flourished, and oil companies were complimented for limiting the environmental impact. New technology raises the hope that the amount of fragile tundra disturbed by oil development at ANWR could be even smaller.
Maybe I'm just a dreamer.

When the Human food supply is disrupted by lack of fuel and transport worldwide I hope the caribou herds appreciate our sacrifices.
What would be the point of building another pipeline when it would only provide about 1-2 million barrels of oil a day? It would take years to build and would cost billions of dollars. Since the pipeline was completed in 1977 only 15 billion barrels of oil have been transported. That's over 30 years of oil being transported.

The best bet to solving fuel problems is using alternative fuels. There are so many different things that could be used as fuel.

Last edited by ThaReaper (2008-06-05 10:45:18)

2008-06-05 10:48:35
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7234|Argentina

Pug wrote:

Can I get a "Holy crap"?
Holy crap.

There you go.
2008-06-05 11:04:53
The#1Spot
Member
+105|7017|byah

FatherTed wrote:

SEREVENT wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

Yet, you are missing a KEY issue.  How will it get from those oil fields to the US?  The Alaska pipeline can only transport 1 Million barrels a day ... and the US consumes about 21-23 Million barrels of oil per day.  So, we can only transport just 5% of the US consumption with current systems.  So, this is hardly a bonanza.
Build a new pipeline(s)?
No. Simple as, too environmentally damaging, and it'd be running though an already fragile area
When and where has anyone built something for the animals interest.

Last edited by The#1Spot (2008-06-05 11:05:12)

2008-06-05 11:07:50
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6607|North Tonawanda, NY

CameronPoe wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation#Oil_production_estimates

I know it's wikipedia but how come not a single solitary soul has entered this 'bonanza' into the wiki article for Bakken???
Yea, I heard about this back in April...and it didn't seem to turn into anything.
2008-06-05 11:15:40
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7234|Argentina

SenorToenails wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation#Oil_production_estimates

I know it's wikipedia but how come not a single solitary soul has entered this 'bonanza' into the wiki article for Bakken???
Yea, I heard about this back in April...and it didn't seem to turn into anything.
Maybe that would make the price of oil drop a lot and it would be kinda inconvenient for some people, who knows.
2008-06-05 11:22:06
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7032

Kmarion wrote:

I imagine a world where pipeline and wildlife can coexist.
Chernobyl:

https://www.essex.ac.uk/wyvern/2006-04/pripyat2005.jpg

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/060426_chernobyl_big.jpg

If this is what happens when a nuclear reactor explodes I hardly think a pipeline is going to 'destroy nature'.
2008-06-05 11:37:07
imortal
Member
+240|7142|Austin, TX

sergeriver wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation#Oil_production_estimates

I know it's wikipedia but how come not a single solitary soul has entered this 'bonanza' into the wiki article for Bakken???
Yea, I heard about this back in April...and it didn't seem to turn into anything.
Maybe that would make the price of oil drop a lot and it would be kinda inconvenient for some people, who knows.
You mean like the nationally-owned, goverment-run companies who control 85% of the world's oil produciton?
2008-06-05 11:39:58
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6607|North Tonawanda, NY

sergeriver wrote:

Maybe that would make the price of oil drop a lot and it would be kinda inconvenient for some people, who knows.
That's possible, though I doubt it.

This is an interesting read.  It seems unlikely that Bakken will produce as much as people think.
2008-06-05 11:44:03
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7234|Argentina

imortal wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:


Yea, I heard about this back in April...and it didn't seem to turn into anything.
Maybe that would make the price of oil drop a lot and it would be kinda inconvenient for some people, who knows.
You mean like the nationally-owned, goverment-run companies who control 85% of the world's oil produciton?
Sssshhhhhhh, they could hear you.
2008-06-05 11:49:28
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7078|132 and Bush

ThaReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

No. Simple as, too environmentally damaging, and it'd be running though an already fragile area
I imagine a world where pipeline and wildlife can coexist.

Experience shows that oil and wildlife can live together, albeit not perfectly. The National Academy of Sciences reported two years ago that oil development at Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, west of ANWR, has polluted water and air, damaged the tundra and harmed some wildlife. But the caribou herd has flourished, and oil companies were complimented for limiting the environmental impact. New technology raises the hope that the amount of fragile tundra disturbed by oil development at ANWR could be even smaller.
Maybe I'm just a dreamer.

When the Human food supply is disrupted by lack of fuel and transport worldwide I hope the caribou herds appreciate our sacrifices.
What would be the point of building another pipeline when it would only provide about 1-2 million barrels of oil a day? It would take years to build and would cost billions of dollars. Since the pipeline was completed in 1977 only 15 billion barrels of oil have been transported. That's over 30 years of oil being transported.

The best bet to solving fuel problems is using alternative fuels. There are so many different things that could be used as fuel.
Have you read the op? If you are just referring to ANWR we haven't any idea of how much real oil is available (aside from the 8% of the area we have actually researched). Exploratory drilling has not been permitted. These are not one option problems. It will take a culmination of different approaches to get ourselves off of oil.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-05 12:57:07
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|7027|CH/BR - in UK

S.Lythberg wrote:

konfusion wrote:

Either way, oil will run out, so why not invest more in research for alternative fuel sources? I've seen a video where a guy made fuel out of salt water. This is the kind of stuff we need to be focusing on, instead of grasping at the hope of being able to continue the comfortable lifestyle we have now.

-konfusion
it takes more energy to dissociate water than you get from burning the resulting gases
This was a guy used radio waves to make salt water burn... No gasses, really...

-konfusion
2008-06-05 13:07:23
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6607|North Tonawanda, NY

konfusion wrote:

This was a guy used radio waves to make salt water burn... No gasses, really...

-konfusion
That guy used radio waves to dissociate the hydrogen and oxygen gas from the water.  It was the gases that burned.

Watch for about 30 seconds starting at 1:10.
2008-06-05 13:08:14
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|7019|Texas - Bigger than France

konfusion wrote:

Either way, oil will run out, so why not invest more in research for alternative fuel sources? I've seen a video where a guy made fuel out of salt water. This is the kind of stuff we need to be focusing on, instead of grasping at the hope of being able to continue the comfortable lifestyle we have now.

-konfusion
I guess my point is this - finding more oil is not a problem in my book.  Look around - not many are ready to stop using oil.  I see posts in this thread talking about how it will prolong the use of oil and cause other energy sources to be overlooked.  Well, at this very moment are we ready to do that?  I don't think so.  So what's the problem with getting some "borrowed time" from a new oil find, effectively allowing us to figure out how to do what we should have done all along?

I also don't understand why if you find oil, that it doesn't help us at all.  It takes a long time to get out of the ground to the consumer...but if remember that at some point the oil we are using now was found in the past.  So exactly how is it bad to have more oil available in the future?

Ultimately a large field find would allow us to convert on a timetable, rather than "shutting off the lights" when the oil stops...and then deal with the resulting problems from being forced to convert within an extremely short time period.

Last edited by Pug (2008-06-05 13:09:27)

2008-06-05 13:20:54
Vax
Member
+42|6329|Flyover country

Pug wrote:

I know ya'll may be wondering "why hasn't this already been found if its sooo big?"

-Shale oil is expensive to produce
-Bakken was thought to be mostly shale, and therefore relatively ignored
-The rise in oil prices caused more people to be interested
I think this is the main point; we are going to see a shift in the conventional thinking when the price for crude has jumped what, nearly 5x ?

Relaxing rules about where we drill, and oil shales will actually become "worth it"
2008-06-05 13:33:09
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7213|Salt Lake City

Even we do find a local "bonanza" of oil, I hope the fuel prices stay up.  It's only now that people are starting to change their habits about what and how they drive.
2008-06-05 13:37:37
CC-Marley
Member
+407|7306

konfusion wrote:

Either way, oil will run out, so why not invest more in research for alternative fuel sources? I've seen a video where a guy made fuel out of salt water. This is the kind of stuff we need to be focusing on, instead of grasping at the hope of being able to continue the comfortable lifestyle we have now.

-konfusion
Unless it's Abiotic like some Russians think. http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard