You are probably right, but the cost will make it prohibitively expensive for most uses.

I think the point being made is that oil is a very cheap convenient fuel today, but the changing economics is what is going to hurt most.

While I can see oil being used less for heating and private road vehicles, but what about long haul rail, ships and aircraft ?

Well with the thought of 2,000 billion barrels in the US alone, we need to get the technology to get that oil out and use the time is gives us to find another fuel.

Originally posted by edsinger
Well with the thought of 2,000 billion barrels in the US alone, we need to get the technology to get that oil out and use the time is gives us to find another fuel.

agreed

there is plenty of oil in the ground... but only a small amount of the total volume is easily extracted

This is the so called "peak oil" that people talk about... when the cost of extracting the stuff outweighs the actual practical benefits.

When peak oil will hit is anyone's guess as it is largely down to availible future technology and the cost of implementing it... which is something that simply can't be predicted.

However peak oil WILL come...

Canada's oil is locked up in tar sands and shale.

It takes approximately 3 tons of water to extract 1 ton of oil using this method...

efficient?

Ah. Thanks for the clarification Lucretius. I though the term "peak" meant when the oil levels reach their midway point. Do you have any projections when we will reach this peak oil?

Originally posted by Lucretius
Canada's oil is locked up in tar sands and shale.

It takes approximately 3 tons of water to extract 1 ton of oil using this method...

efficient?

No but its become increasingly cost competetive. I for one HATE oil. I hate any type of power plant that burns period. Why? Cuz I have Asthma and it's stealing years off my life. Also if we keep burning Oil like we have been Global Climate Change is gonna take its toll on food production and the amount of landmass above water. Climate Change is gonna happen either way, but by dumping massive amounts of C02, N0X, Methane etc, its changing the dynamic to somthing that cannot be fully prediction/simulated so that in itself is enough to be concerned. Will we drown ourselves, or kickstart a new iceage sooner than what would be normal(btw Scientists are now saying that ice ages happen 13,000-14,000 year intervals so when the next one will hit no one knows but with the Atlantic current weakening it cound be the start allthough we have not reached glacial minimum yet....maybe we already are a nd just dont know it yet...its worrying)

Originally posted by eaglewingzI've seen a site that claims that oil reserves are actually renewable, as oil creation is actually a more rapid process than traditionally thought. Apparently there are wells that should be dry actually producing more than they had been.[edit on 11/27/2004 by eaglewingz]

There are quite a few scientists that believe this and the Russians and Americans have witnessed dry wells pumping faster then ever, they just think that a deposit next to the old has seeped in but the odd part is that its chemical makeup has changed, different oil - same well???

Do a search as the articles are here at ATS...

I for one do not want to bet the future of civilization -- because that is what we're talking about here -- on the chance (which most scientists deny) that petroleum can be made in large quantities and that it is exploitable.

If you use this as an excuse to do nothing about the oil crisis and it doesn't work out, I figure a couple billion people will die. On the other hand, if there is an unlimited supply of oil, then a couple of billion people won't die (at least not of the cold when winter hits).

Instead, we'll just continue fouling out atmosphere, raising the rate of pulmonary disease, and probably exacerbate global warming.

Either way, burning hydrocarbons is a loser.

Solar energy is at best a niche source, as is wind power. The only large scale power source we can exploit cost-effectively is nuclear fission, and the ignorance of the vast majority of the populace in regards to trade-offs of nuclear versus hydrocarbon tends to obviate against that, too.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Solar energy is at best a niche source, as is wind power. The only large scale power source we can exploit cost-effectively is nuclear fission, and the ignorance of the vast majority of the populace in regards to trade-offs of nuclear versus hydrocarbon tends to obviate against that, too.

I think Nuclear is a good idea, it is safer now than at any time and the reactor designs are idiot proof. The Asians are building # piles of them. Solar and Wind are still not Viable.

Ahhh, Mr. Ed

I see you posting here very often, which is very good. Free speech for everyone.

Now, I've been drinking, so ignore me if you will, but I have something to add to this speculation of yours.

I (unfortunately?) work in the oil patch. I (unfortunately?) make a lot of money doing so. I work in geo-physical survey. We go in after a well is drilled (as soon as they get their drill pipe out of the hole), and send our 'logging' tools into that hole to tell the client if they've hit oil or gas or water, what kind of rocks are down there from shale, to dolomite, to sandstone, to whatever.

NOW, you say we are not running out of oil and gas. Thats great that the Saudis have plenty, and a few other countries that AREN'T YOURS. Unless you take them over like say... er...Iraq? But, my man, we, us, North America land based stuff? You WILL see the end of it in your life time.
I promise you that.

Even when (not if) Mr. Bush rips into the wildlife reserves up north (which i'll end up logging for some pretty sweet coin), you still don't ahve enough for ALL the petroleum starved citizens of Canada and the US. (Mostly the US, you take a VERY large percentage of all oil produced in Canada at cut-throat prices). So, when you're finished bleeding us dry in the next... oh... 40 to 50 years... then what?

OH YEAH!!! Theres still 50 years of production left in the Middle East!!!! Good thing you started taking them over today, because it saved your arse in the future... for another 50 years. But after that?

CRAP! Now we have to start investing in alternative energy. Wait a minute, we already have it, it just wasn't profitable yet. Now, refer to www.sandia.gov and their pulsed power section, or maybe www.jet.efda.org and look at the leaps they are making in nuclear fusion technologies. While your looking, check out the Princeton Plasma Physics labs, and a few other links you'll find on those pages.

My man, we ARE running out of fossil fuels, and thats the truth. No hiding or denying to make Joe Q. Public feel better, thats it. But, Mr. Public CAN feel better, because all the alternatives are already there, ready to be implemented for a price, to take over the highly valued fossil fuel markets, as soon as they are the most profitable alternatives. Solar power, grain ethanols (farmers rejoice, finally some cash!!!), GMO's, magnetic and plasma physics... all cheap, all clean, all worth cash when we're done with oil and gas.

[edit on 28-11-2004 by Torus]

Thats all fine and dandy but they are not economical YET. Fusion is still 20 years away at the earliest. The others still require more power to operate than is retrieved out of them.

As for the US , we have plenty od coal and oil/shale. We just need to get it.

My father was a pipeline engineer and I Ave many friends in oil. Southern Illinois and Indiana has oil but it takes $24 a barrel to get it so I guess all the wells that were turned of in the last few years are running again. We have oil here and my dad told me that this argument would come. True we do not have the 'easy' oil that the Middle East has but we do have it.

And just suppose we do find an alternative, kinda puts the Middler East out of business docent it? Oil at less than $10 a barrel Becca's of no demand?

We can all dream, but you will have no solar-or plasma powered car in your lifetime.

Originally posted by edsinger
Thats all fine and dandy but they are not economical YET. Fusion is still 20 years away at the earliest. The others still require more power to operate than is retrieved out of them.

As for the US , we have plenty od coal and oil/shale. We just need to get it.

My father was a pipeline engineer and I Ave many friends in oil. Southern Illinois and Indiana has oil but it takes $24 a barrel to get it so I guess all the wells that were turned of in the last few years are running again. We have oil here and my dad told me that this argument would come. True we do not have the 'easy' oil that the Middle East has but we do have it.

And just suppose we do find an alternative, kinda puts the Middler East out of business docent it? Oil at less than $10 a barrel Becca's of no demand?

We can all dream, but you will have no solar-or plasma powered car in your lifetime.

OH!

Not true my friend. The Sandia rapid fire thermo-nuclear explosion and Z-pinch experiments? The power output of a Z-pinch? 80 times the entire power out-put of the entire planets power facilities combined (in X-ray watts) at any given moment. All fired from a machine plugged into a wall outlet (with the assitance of a few capacitors....HUGE capacitors).