PEAK OIL is PAST

[acronym]

Edit-reply to scriabonop23-it just occured to me, thats a really strange nik


Glassification-okey doke-if its so good, why dump it in a trench, the marianas or whatever-its would then be, if these boffins got it wrong (not unheard of) it would then be part and parcel of the global ecosystem for eons.
Earthquakes? Volcanoes? The insurance people said it wasnt a significant risk? Heard it before, no thanks.

What can i say, i just dont like the idea, nor trust any cost cutting contract to the lowest bidder bastard politicians to make that decision.

Rail was to be my next post, strangely-its true, vast networks of electric (or other) rail can be built comparitively cheaply, yet all modern rail networks, passenger or otherwise are largely operating at losses, but for government subsidies.

At the end of the day, people wouldn't be happy taking the train, their car is, and represents freedom, (even if they cant afford to go anywhere but work and back) for the time being.

Maybe they could re-legalise hitchhiking, its just a sort of car-pooling after all-which has itself been subsidised and supported largely, by many governments, globally.
Go figure.

Why do people pay these people again, or vote for them?

 

[dhpar]

Quote from Sparohok:

Oil sands are not a viable substitute for conventional oil. I've been an oil sands investor for years and I'm a big believer, but you have to be realistic. Production is by mining rather than pumping, which is intrinsically slow, labor intensive, and environmentally disruptive. The upgrading plants are incredibly expensive and difficult to build, which means that they take a long time to come online and have to be capitalized over a very long productive lifetime, meaning slow production rates relative to total oil in place. Upgrading relies on natural gas which is supply limited, and getting the product to market relies on pipeline capacity which isn't built yet. All of this means that even in the rosiest possible scenario, oil sands cannot even meet new North American demand, much less new global demand, much less make up for shortfalls in conventional oil production.

The same argument obviously applies to shale oil, just more so. Coal gasification, even more so. And that's not even touching the question of carbon dioxide and global warming, which gets worse and worse as you go from light oil to heavier and heavier carbon rich alternatives.

If the conventional oil peak is indeed already here, which seems increasingly likely, we are in for a world of hurt. We needed to start diversifying our energy supply 30 years ago when Carter thought it was a good idea, not now when we are staring into the abyss.

Martin

good post. I am in oil sands too - recently got hurt by new Alberta proposals (which is by the way just another nail into oil supply - lol).

nice article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/b...th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

let me think; 1 billion people want car in india, hmmm - they will get it for $2,500, hmmm - maybe the oil demand is going to slow...

 

[Pekelo]

Quote from rcanfiel:
Back up and deal with the several dozen energy alternatives that were listed, but ignored by you, because you fail to understand that ALTERNATIVES are the same thing as EXTENDING the availability of oil

Hate to point it out for the 3rd time, but you are ignorant on the subject. NONE of the substitutes is going to replace oil or aviable in the needed quantity.

And thanks for acknowledging peak oil, obviously we need the substitutes because oil production is peaking.

Now if you were man enough, you would agree, and then we could step further in the discussion about substitutes. Again, crunch the numbers and you shall see. And it also helps if you actually post some numbers instead of just repeating media talking points.

And for god's sake, learn how to quote properly....

P.S.: For good measure, I will put you on Ignore, because I have a low treshold for stupidity....

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from Sparohok:

Oil sands are not a viable substitute for conventional oil. I've been an oil sands investor for years and I'm a big believer, but you have to be realistic. Production is by mining rather than pumping, which is intrinsically slow, labor intensive, and environmentally disruptive. The upgrading plants are incredibly expensive and difficult to build, which means that they take a long time to come online and have to be capitalized over a very long productive lifetime, meaning slow production rates relative to total oil in place. Upgrading relies on natural gas which is supply limited, and getting the product to market relies on pipeline capacity which isn't built yet. All of this means that even in the rosiest possible scenario, oil sands cannot even meet new North American demand, much less new global demand, much less make up for shortfalls in conventional oil production.

The same argument obviously applies to shale oil, just more so. Coal gasification, even more so. And that's not even touching the question of carbon dioxide and global warming, which gets worse and worse as you go from light oil to heavier and heavier carbon rich alternatives.

If the conventional oil peak is indeed already here, which seems increasingly likely, we are in for a world of hurt. We needed to start diversifying our energy supply 30 years ago when Carter thought it was a good idea, not now when we are staring into the abyss.

Martin

You should read the plans for using nuclear energy to replace natural gas for this oil recovery in Canada

 

[Pekelo]

Very well said, I couldn't have stated it better.

Quote from Sparohok:

If the conventional oil peak is indeed already here, which seems increasingly likely, we are in for a world of hurt. We needed to start diversifying our energy supply 30 years ago when Carter thought it was a good idea, not now when we are staring into the abyss.

Exactly. That's why it is important to raise awareness and fight ignoramuses. It is already late, but it is better late than never....

Also a question for deniers:

If we are supposed to add to the production 2-3 mbpd every YEAR just to keep up with the growing demand, how come that in the last 2 years the production actually STALLED and dropped by that much?

Oh silly me, temporary thing, I know...

 

[dtan1e]

Quote from Pekelo:

Hate to point it out for the 3rd time, but you are ignorant on the subject. NONE of the substitutes is going to replace oil or aviable in the needed quantity.

And thanks for acknowledging peak oil, obviously we need the substitutes because oil production is peaking.

Now if you were man enough, you would agree, and then we could step further in the discussion about substitutes. Again, crunch the numbers and you shall see. And it also helps if you actually post some numbers instead of just repeating media talking points.

And for god's sake, learn how to quote properly....

agree, there is a thread here somewhere where someone quote an article that shows that ethanol has some kind of -ve environmental impact b/c the pesticides used that sips into the adjacent land/ sea kills the surrounding ecology so there is a price => unlikely oil be replaced anytime soon unless we have a new technology to use alternative fuel /w minimal other costs

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from Pekelo:

P.S.: For good measure, I will put you on Ignore

That is one way to deal with the fact that you have no clue how things work. All you see is Peak Oil. You have no understanding of alternatives, conservation, the impending requirements of emissions trading and a hundred other things that are already escalating. Within 10-15 years, oil will likely be a boring subject.

because I have a low treshold for stupidity....

It must be tough to talk to yourself then

 

[blackjack007]

the u.s. has an interesting energy policy. we invade and rape other countries for our current oil needs. when the middle east is finally wrung dry, we'll close our airbases there and stop supporting israel, then increase domestic production of coal and oil shales, pump oil from the artic refuge in alaska, and invade canada for their tar sands. alberta will join the union in 2100.

then when all fossil fuels are gone, we'll convert to solar & wind.

it's a diabolical plan but it may just work: take everyone else's fossil fuels first then use your own as a last resort.

 

[blackjack007]

the first claims about "peak oil" were several decades ago, then again in the 70s, 80s, and in 2000. so now, it supposedly happened in 2005? yeah sure.

 

[Sparohok]

Quote from rcanfiel:

You should read the plans for using nuclear energy to replace natural gas for this oil recovery in Canada

I have, and they aren't really plans, they are currently at the "idle speculation" stage. Until NG comes up to par with oil on a $/BTU basis they will remain idle speculation I believe.

In theory it's a fantastic idea. A good sized nuke plant provides hydrogen for upgrading and high temperature steam for recovery (particularly the "in situ" recovery techniques that are needed for the vast majority of oil sands reserves too deep for surface mining). It also reduces carbon emissions; generating hydrogen from water is a lot more environmentally friendly than generating it from NG.

There are a lot of problems though. Nuke plants are capitalized over an even longer useful life than bitumen upgrading plants. Once the oilsands are gone, the ghost town of Ft McMurray Alberta is going to have really fucking cheap electricity. Also the oilsands region is huge, the size of Florida, so it's not you can pipe high pressure, high temperature steam from one nuke plant to wherever it's needed.

Martin