Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I doubt that the small net gain would keep the current civilization going anything like 100 years.
Yes, it would. It's a topic of research of many large energy companies. I work at a university, and in the Industrial Eng, Electrical/Computer Eng (my dept), and Chem Eng departments, these topics are heavily researched as it becomes less costly compared to extracting "clean oil" from ground reserves. (Note: before the oil price contraction recently)
A good friend of mine works in the Industrial Eng dept researching representing Southern Company, and they wanted his team to research the sand oil in Canada. They concluded that with the average densities, dimensions of the fields, current refining technologies and the current oil consumption patterns in the world and those to be expected, the volume of oil would last WORLD CONSUMPTION for approximately 1 century (the exact number was something like 109 years or so). Now, their task is to find a better way of converting the sand oil into "clean" oil more affordably. However, my point wasn't the affordability. It was the fact that it can be done if needed(which if needed, we DEFINITELY would), and that the peak oil crap is BS.
And, many of the gloomers say that the mainstream media, such as the WSJ, is "controlled by the Illuminati" or some other asinine comment like that and are therefore not reliable. However, and I'm assuming you're a doomer so forgive me if I'm incorrect, you just said that the linked URL had "reputable sources" such as WSJ. So, is the main stream media reliable or not? You can't have your cake and eat it, too. And, if you're not as against the MSM and do think of them as reputable, why? Sure, they have truth to them, but many of the stories you read/see are heightened to a point of grabbing your attention, increasing ratings, and getting them more advertisement dollars. And, notice, this site only grabs sources to back up any arguments it makes, not diversifying their sources.
And, the reason I bring up their links: it IS relevant. Saying it's not is like saying the fact that CNN and Fox News have advertisements for investment banks, brokerages, financial firms, etc. have nothing to do with what they broadcast and therefore their audience. Or the fact that Nickelodeon shows kids sweetened cereal commercials during cartoons. Or MTV shows Neutrogena and prepaid cellphone commercials. Or Primetime shows consumer goods, "American Dream" commercials, or other commercials attractive to the middle class family. Those ads and shows work together towards a target audience; the "hook" is the TV show, or in this case, website of doom content, and once the audience is hooked, they can look at all the pretty merchandise being shown to them and BUY BUY BUY. How does no one ever see the difference in this?
In the case of doomers, it seems there is a psychological need to "be in the know" and to feel special. I see it with any conspiracy theorist, doomer, or the like I've met. And, many people who can read others know this and take advantage. They see that a person wants to be in the know and write books about government secrets (many of which really aren't secret and others that are just pulled out of their ass), conspiracies, prophecies, etc. etc.. They say "hey, I got a secret for you," you pay them for that secret, you get to feel special (until you find out they were wrong, and try to figure out "miscalculations" if they haven't already), and they get your money.
Y2K anyone? People turned what was simply a condensed representation of the date in binary format into this big deal. "Computers would go crazy and lose your money". I laughed when I heard it. Every computer scientist and engineer knows that once a binary digit reaches all ones, all the counter does is reset. No one listened to those who used rational and logic to explain that nothing would happen, and many used this scam to profit off of unsuspecting people. Hell, they tried to say it would happen in 2001 since that was the "real" millennium, which had nothing to do with the original problem posed by computer scientists.
Or, "Secret Cures They Don't Want You to Know about." That guy needs to be LOCKED UP.
The end of the world, civilization, industrialization, etc have been predicted so many times and no one has been correct on it. "Secrets" about various entities have been spread for ages and again, usually a lie. It always ends in embarrassment or riches for these people.
A good friend of mine works in the Industrial Eng dept researching representing Southern Company, and they wanted his team to research the sand oil in Canada. They concluded that with the average densities, dimensions of the fields, current refining technologies and the current oil consumption patterns in the world and those to be expected, the volume of oil would last WORLD CONSUMPTION for approximately 1 century (the exact number was something like 109 years or so). Now, their task is to find a better way of converting the sand oil into "clean" oil more affordably. However, my point wasn't the affordability. It was the fact that it can be done if needed(which if needed, we DEFINITELY would), and that the peak oil crap is BS.
The Peak models have proven correct in every source and location so far -- Texas for example Peaked at around 1 million Mbarrels annual back in the 1970s and has been in decline since, with current levels back down to the 1930s -- about 1/3 of Peak. Fits the Bell Curve model of Peak Oil theory almost exactly.
Here are real data numbers over the 70 + year run >>>
RRC:History of Texas Crude Oil, Annual Production, and Producing Wells (http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/divisions/og/statistics/production/ogisopwc.html - broken link)
You might notice that although the number of wells has tripled, the production now keeps falling.
As far as the Canada Oil sands and "109 years." Did you see or know any of the math behind that claim? Just for full disclosure, I am also in power/energy engineering, and I turned down working that project.
What I find really dumb and goofy are the folks that declare themselves "optimists" (or conservative / liberal, whatever, etc.) and let their own label set their mind and show themselves too dumb to learn something from others, such as Doomers.
But, these doomers are just as stupid. They say they know what will happen, just as the optimists do. WE DON'T KNOW, but we can use certain indicators and common sense to steer us through. If it sounds too good to be true, as in the real estate boom, then it probably is. Something will go wrong. If something sounds ridiculous, and the person spouting it is condescending, again, probably not going to happen (as in the doomers predicting Y2K, alien attacks, the end of the world, Maya Calendar, and now the "Second GREAT Depression" that will have martial law, internment camps, starvation, and China kicking people out of their homes... that's probably not going to happen).
A logical person would look at the current situation and think like this:
"we're probably going to have negative growth because of the current credit market's condition. Credit will be harder to get, so businesses won't start up as easily or expand as easily. This will impact employment most likely, decreasing it. Hopefully, the government increases unemployment benefits so that it won't be too hard. Job performance evals are coming up... I better work harder this quarter! Did I move my stocks into bonds? That darn stock market looks like it will continue to go down for a while. I'll move to safer investments until it's safe to buy again. Banks DID close during the Great Depression, but were there other factors in play besides stocks and bank closures? Oh yeah, the S&L crisis had many bank closures and was pretty damn bad; they froze credit then, too. There was a baaad recession, but things picked back up. Now, what made the Great Depression different where people were starving and food prices increased but farmers had to leave their farms? Oh yes, the government didn't intervene until it was too late, there was a great dust bowl in the midwest, causing food shortages, and the crops then were not as protected w/ pesticides, genetic modifications, etc.., bad farming techniques. This caused an INCREASE in food prices (less supply for the same demand), but the government intervened with bad regulation that depressed prices, causing farmers to foreclose and leave farms, look for OTHER jobs, adding to the non-farm unemployment rate, and at that time, the country was 50% rural/aggrarian."
And on and on. Using a little logic, you can see that things aren't much of a surprise.
Hell, had our politicians used a little logic when deciding to regulate GSEs, or whether or not to lift Glass-Steagall Act provisions in the 90s. Or had people realized that home prices could not fundamentally increase infinitely as depicted, because they had become so unhinged from the CPI. Or had the Fed decided to raise the rate as the economy got back on its feet (it just kept them artificially low during economic growth, which is a no-no, even in Keynesian economics). We would not be in this mess if we used just a bit of logic instead of pure optimism or pure gloom.
The Peak models have proven correct in every source and location so far -- Texas for example Peaked at around 1 million Mbarrels annual back in the 1970s and has been in decline since, with current levels back down to the 1930s -- about 1/3 of Peak. Fits the Bell Curve model of Peak Oil theory almost exactly.
Those are for PROVEN reserves and the overall worldwide picture does not cover shale oil, heavy crude oil, or tar sands that could be used if light crude becomes too costly to suck out of the ground or sea. Many other reserves were excluded from the theory's analysis to create a bell-curve interpolation.
Also, in the link you provided, although there was an increase in wells since the 1930s, there has been a sharp DECREASE since the peak of wells in the mid 80s. And that decrease in peak oil wells is accompanied by sharpening decreases in production. There are reasons for this.
1) NIMBYs. The same problems we're having building refineries, nuclear power plants (my fave option), prisons, waste plants, and other infrastructure we need. People don't want them "in their back yard" and it becomes harder to build them, even on land the oil companies have attained control on. Unfortunately, as a country modernizes and industrializes it has to deal with the cons of industrialization as well as the pros. And, many of the citizens want to minimize or eliminate the cons, many times through voting power and regulation.
2)Exxon-Valdeez. Remember in 1989, the horrific images of oil-covered animals, tarry looking water, etc.? This caused heavy regulatory controls to be implemented on oil industries because the once-in-a-lifetime crisis happened. Also, the EPA was created in 1970 to address environmental concern. Hmmm... 1970. Isn't that about the time oil peaked? Could it have to do with stricter controls placed upon oil industry due to air quality concerns, oil leaks, etc, thus cutting into their productivity of more barrels per day? Also, gas became more expensive after EPA regulations came into play. So, more money on gas caused us to import more Japanese cars which are far more fuel efficient. That cut demand for oil, which would cause prices to sink. So, oil companies, too, cut back on production to save money and drive up prices. We also imported more oil from overseas, again addressing the NIMBY problem. That explains decreases in production from oil companies in Houston. After that, they expand as other countries impose conditions and regulations for their environments, hoping to cut costs.
Also, Matthew Simmons, the man who presented the theory as we know now, focused HEAVILY on Saudi Arabia. Many parts of the US weren't even surveyed! Adequate evidence was not collected in other countries where oil production is heavy, either.
Now, before you think I'm some crazy kook that thinks oil will be infinite: no, I'm very rationale and know that oil will not last us forever. I also know that at some point, production will have to decrease as we tap dry. However, saying that oil production follows a perfect bell curve or anything in the real world ALWAYS follows a perfect bell curve is absurd. Most of the time, you have to normalize data onto the curve and interpolate a good bit. And even then, the shape isn't a perfect curve. And, I don't think the evidence presented in the peak oil theory is evidence of "peaking out" and declining just yet.
As far as the Canada Oil sands and "109 years." Did you see or know any of the math behind that claim? Just for full disclosure, I am also in power/energy engineering, and I turned down working that project.
I already told you how they got them.
You take samples of the sand oil at various parts of the reserves. Say, 100-1000. You find the density of actual oil in each one, so as to not count sand. That was done in the ChemE dept, so I'm not sure if they look for specs of sand in the oil with a spectrometer or other instrument or "refine" the small samples and measure how much oil they get out of them.
Then, you take those samples' mean density, use the dimensions of the pool of sand oil to find a volume, multiply the density by that volume, and you get a mass.
So: (∑D_sample/n_#samples)*V_pool = m_pool
The mass formula above can then be used to calculate how much potential energy is totaled in the reserve. You can use basic Calculus and numerical quadrature to divide, over time, with current oil usage trends and future expected trends, how much time it will take to use that up. Thus we end up with ~109 years.
And, I LOVE the links to the left to sell books. And the name "Peak Oil Crash." God, how do people still believe in that peak oil BS? Aren't they aware that there is ONE reserve in Canada that could keep world oil needs afloat for 100 years (adjusting for increases in usage, as well)? And, there are many others like it around.
All I can say is: ENTERTAINING!
Interesting that you believe your source that tells you about the Canadian oil reserve as strongly as the people who believe their sources who say we have reached peak oil.
I suspect nobody on this website knows the definitive answer to this question.
Interesting that you believe your source that tells you about the Canadian oil reserve as strongly as the people who believe their sources who say we have reached peak oil.
I suspect nobody on this website knows the definitive answer to this question.
Due to many environmental regulations and risk guards taken buy oil companies, we really can't. Not to mention changes in consumption patterns. Etc. The way peak oil was figured out just wasn't as sound as it should be for me to support it. It seems like the author reached a conclusion and filled in the gaps of the scientific process to make his theory "stick". Removing sources that can be used, even, that would disprove his point; focusing heavily on one geography and not the other; ignoring potential reserves.
The 109 years worth of oil in Canada was figured out by empirical data and formulations that I can trace through, so that's why I can believe it.
You take samples of the sand oil at various parts of the reserves. Say, 100-1000. You find the density of actual oil in each one, so as to not count sand. That was done in the ChemE dept, so I'm not sure if they look for specs of sand in the oil with a spectrometer or other instrument or "refine" the small samples and measure how much oil they get out of them.
Then, you take those samples' mean density, use the dimensions of the pool of sand oil to find a volume, multiply the density by that volume, and you get a mass.
So: (∑D_sample/n_#samples)*V_pool = m_pool
The mass formula above can then be used to calculate how much potential energy is totaled in the reserve.
umm, yeah Einstein, I get how to do energy density and volume equations.
The following mathemagic handwaving is what I am questioning . . .
Quote:
You can use basic Calculus and numerical quadrature to divide, over time, with current oil usage trends and future expected trends, how much time it will take to use that up. Thus we end up with ~109 years.
That "thus" is the hinky part.
If the basic total is assumed to be 1.7 (or so) trillion barrels equivalent gross . . . it does not come anywhere near "109 years." So is your assumption that it could all be pulled out? Or that there is more there? Or that it will come out of the ground with no energy input? or that consumption will somehow reduce? Or all the above? None of the above?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I get how to do energy density and volume equations.
