It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Oil and gas running out much faster than expected, says study

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 2 2003 @ 12:21 PM
I was making a indirect reference to INEEL in Southern Idaho, which is home to the largest concentration of reactors in the world. It also has another little gem called Pit 54, which was dug during the 50's, not lined with anything and continues to leech isotopes into the Snake River aqifer. A fact I've seen established in a lab. Surrounding communities have WAY ABOVE AVERAGE rates of cancer.

The same goes for Hanford in Washington. Glassification didn't work and they're stuck with millions of gallons of waste siting in detiorating tanks, leeching into that acquifer.

Did you notice that there was a 4.0 earthquake at Yucca Mtn. the day it won approval from the Senate? Talk about coincidences.

There are alternatives. My personal favorite is OTEC but I see wind making the biggest gains until OTEC is seriously considered.

[Edited on 2-10-2003 by kukla]

posted on Oct, 2 2003 @ 12:25 PM
I read this article and noticed a few things...

First of all, there is no direct empiracle data pertaining to the claims that we are running out of oil.

Second of all, I dont see ANY representatives from the American Association for Petroleum Geologists, which would be the organization first and foremost all over this subject.

What I DO see is a geologist somehow attached to the International Panel on Climate Change (???) which I do not see as being any kind of petroleum exploration or production company. It is however, apparently an environmentally (read, tree huggers) organization, which immediately sets off alarms in my head regarding a political connotation to this entire article.

He, Anders Sivertsson and Colin Campbell told New Scientist magazine that less than 3,500 billion barrels of oil and gas remained in total.


of which about 1,000 billion has been used up so far

Thats still reserves of 2.5 times what we have already used.... thats not a bad ratio: and thats the WORST CASE SCENARIO!

As a degreed petroleum geologist, I do know the processes that go into finding and mapping oil and gas reserves, and I find it extremely hard to believe that the (very intensive) research that has so far gone into such exploration would have an error of over 80%, across an entire industry and the thousands of geologists who have performed these explorations.

If there is indeed data suggesting that worldwide estimates of fossil fuel reserves are that far off, I wish to see it for myself.

The best information I have available is that we have at least 50-60 years of petroleum still easily accessible with current recovery technologies. As these reserves play out, new extraction technology will become financially feasible as the price of oil rises. Recoverable reserves are expected to at least double when these recovery technologies are used (many of them already exist, but are not financially feasible at current oil prices).

Beyond petroleum, in North America alone, we have enough coal reserves to run the country for at least 300 years. Far greater coal reserves exist in China and Russia, as well as smaller reserves in Europe and South America.

North American natural gas can easily run the country for another 100 years, again with current recovery technologies. Again, this can be expanded by including reserves in Europe, Asia, and Russia.

An interesting geological phenomenon is known to exist at great ocean depths and low temperatures. This is called clathrates. Under the correct pressure and temperature conditions, a water ice lattice forms in a highly complex crystalline form, forming voids that are then filled with natural gas: it is essentially a solid form of natural gas. Such conditions exist naturally under the continental slopes in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, (Clathrate samples have been successfully recovered in both places), and deep under the Siberian permafrost.

Petroleum engineers have contemplated the possibility of recovering natural gas from clathrate deposits, and they believe it to be possible using the Frasch process.

If estimates for clathrate deposits is correct, there is easily enough natural gas under the oceans to power most of the world for the next 500 years.

posted on Oct, 2 2003 @ 12:31 PM
As far as nuclear power for an alternative, well, its not.

Nuclear power has never generated a positive net amount of energy: I say that, because when you take into account all the energy and effort that goes into processing the fuel, and then operations cost for a reactor throughout its lifespan (usually less than 20 years), and the disposal of all materials that are contaminated (this includes coolant, tools, clothing, and the entire reactor structure) not to mention the nuclear waste, the cost associated with dealing with the waste exceeds the profit from the energy generated.

Ever notice that there are NO new nuclear reactors under construction in the US? Ever wonder why Sweden, which was the most per capita nuclear dependent nation on the planet, has pledged to be nuke free by 2050?

It became obvious that nuclear power was not financially feasible once all associated costs were factored in.

posted on Oct, 2 2003 @ 12:34 PM
I tend to agree with insite on this and would also add some good news on the plus side of it.

"Deep underwater, and deeper underground, scientists see surprising hints that gas and oil deposits can be replenished, filling up again, sometimes rapidly.
Although it sounds too good to be true, increasing evidence from the Gulf of Mexico suggests that some old oil fields are being refilled by petroleum surging up from deep below, scientists report. That may mean that estimates of oil and gas abundance are far too low.

According to marine geologist Harry Roberts, at Louisiana State University, "petroleum geologists don't accept it as a general phenomenon because it doesn't happen in most reservoirs. But in this case, it does seem to be happening. You have a very leaky fault system that does allow it (petroleum) to migrate in. It's directly connected to an oil and gas generating system at great depth."
What the scientists suspect is that very old petroleum -- formed tens of millions of years ago -- has continued migrating up into reservoirs that oil companies have been exploiting for years. But no one had expected that depleted oil fields might refill themselves.
Now, if it is found that gas and oil are coming up in significant amounts, and if the same is occurring in oil fields around the globe, then a lot more fuel than anyone expected could become available eventually. It hints that the world may not, in fact, be running out of petroleum.
"No one has been more astonished by the potential implications of our work than myself," said analytic chemist Jean Whelan, at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in Massachusetts. "There already appears to be a large body of evidence consistent with ... oil and gas generation and migration on very short time scales in many areas globally," she wrote in the journal Sea Technology.

"Our first discovery was with trawls. We knew it was an area of massive seepage, and we expected that the oil seeps would poison everything around" the site. But they found just the opposite.
They found clams and tube worms that experts recognized as "chemo-synthetic communities," creatures that get their energy from hydrocarbons -- oil and gas -- rather than from ordinary foods.
It has long been known by geologists and oil industry workers that seeps exist. Roberts said it's clear that "the Gulf of Mexico leaks like a sieve. You can't take a submarine dive without running into an oil or gas seep. And on a calm day, you can't take a boat ride without seeing gigantic oil slicks."

Analysis of the ancient oil that seems to be coming up from deep below in the Gulf of Mexico suggests that the flow of new oil "is coming from deeper, hotter formations" and is not simply a lateral inflow from the old deposits that surround oil fields, she said. The chemical composition of the migrating oil also indicates it is being driven upward and is being altered by highly pressurized gases squeezing up from below.
It is suspected that the process of upward migration of petroleum is driven by natural gas that is being continually produced by deeply buried bacteria and from oil being broken down in the deeper, hotter layers of sediment. "

posted on Oct, 2 2003 @ 12:39 PM

Are you familiar with Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion?

posted on Oct, 2 2003 @ 12:42 PM
kukla, i was unaware of all the instances you pointed out. you have just educated me. keep in mind that this 'Pit 54' was dug in the 50's when people held little consideration of the environmental impacts. as we are currently in a 'green revolution' i would say that future decisions regarding nuclear waste would be better thought out.

i dont mean to wiggle myself out of this one, its obvious that nuclear power has its major downfalls, i just think the outright dismissal of nuclear power in california and across the country is a bit closed minded. also, what is OTEC? and do you think that wind power would be able to fill the void in Mgw/h produced by a oil or natural gas plant that has been shut down?

Thanks DR, that should quell the fears of those posters who are worried about our impending descent from modern (petrol powered) civilization

posted on Oct, 2 2003 @ 12:44 PM
Gee am I the only one that notices that this BS comes from a socialist country?

Always check your sources first folks.

When you don't do that you fall for anything.

posted on Oct, 2 2003 @ 12:47 PM

No worries. I ran glassification and INEEL as a debate case in High School...otherwise, I'd probably be in the pro-nuke camp.

I wish I could be more reassuring but Bechtel is currently under contract to operate the facility. The place is a nightmare in the making.

See previous post about OTEC..

posted on Oct, 2 2003 @ 12:48 PM

Originally posted by kukla

Are you familiar with Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion?

Yes I am. Back in college, I did quite a lot of research on alternative energy sources.

The main downfall of OTEC is high operational/maintenance costs (due to it being out in the ocean), relatively low energy recovery (several square KM of ocean needed for what a standard gas turbine can turn out), and only limited deployment areas.

It is similar in principal to geothermal energy systems, which have many of the same downfalls.

Not to say that they are not good ideas, and indeed useable ideas... however, they are not financially feasible due to the high costs.

posted on Oct, 2 2003 @ 12:49 PM
i feel the way i do about nuclear energy because i just dont see any other "generic" alternatives to oil and gas. Many power plants rely on environmental phenomenon like wind, waves, geothermal activity and so on. you can put a nuclear power plant anywhere.

i didnt know that there was an issue with cost/profit concerning nuclear power generation. guess ill shut up now. i always thought that the reason there werent any new nuclear power plants in america was because people are scared of them. also, isnt sweden heavily socialist? meaning left, meaning liberal like new zealand. maybe they vow to be nuclear free because it makes the people less scared, and a socialist place would keep the peoples concerns in top priority

posted on Oct, 2 2003 @ 12:53 PM
In all honesty, if we want to make the world better and cleaner, we could go to straight natural gas or coal for energy production and natural gas/propane for vehicles.

We have more than enough coal and gas reserves to do either or both, gas burning is extremely clean, coal burning using fluidized bed boilers and gas scrubbers is just about as clean, and if the clathrate assumptions are correct, we have 500 years of fuel waiting for us.

posted on Oct, 2 2003 @ 12:59 PM

thank you!

furthermore, the globalists have said in plain language that they will be shutting down the nuke power generating industry and increasing the reliance on oil.

The present alternative energy souces are but frauds, they are not up to the job without massive expensive projects on the scale of a socialists dreams.

The alternative that I have suggested to those in the know is to advance technology and find all new sources period.

posted on Oct, 2 2003 @ 01:02 PM
In theory, a gargantuan facility built at the right gradient could produce massive amounts of electricity. I'm stealing some math and facts from DrDarkMatter..

# Thermal gradients of greater than 22 C can be exploited and used as a heat engine

# Energy is derived from cooling warm surface water to the temperature of the water at approximately 500-1000 feet depth.

# The maximum surface temperature of ocean water is 25 C and its minimum value is of course 0 C

# efficiency is then 1 -(273+0)/(273+25) = 1 - 273/298 = 7%

# Energy is derived from the cooling water via transfer to a working fluid such as ammonia which when mixed with warm water vaporizes to steam and powers a turbine

# Ammonia returns (condenses) to liquid when mixed with cooler water at depth and then the cycle repeats itself

# Since the volume of water in the oceans is huge, the capacity in just the Gulf Coast Waters alone is several 10's of Giga

Of course the construction cost would be MASSIVE, but in comparison to say, the cost of the Iraq War it seems like a viable resource. The way I understand it, the Hawaii facility has maintenance costs similar to gas fire.

posted on Oct, 2 2003 @ 01:06 PM
# efficiency is then 1 -(273+0)/(273+25) = 1 - 273/298 = 7%

And here is the problem:

This is actually pretty good efficiency for an alternative energy source (compared to say photovoltaic cells which are normally around 4-5% efficiency).

However, compared to a gas turbine generator, with efficiency above 60% now (with a cogen system, some up to 70%), and considering that gas turbine technology is well established, very reliable, relatively low cost, and natural gas is fairly cheap and readily available, well.....

It has OTEC beat on all counts!

posted on Oct, 2 2003 @ 01:12 PM
I like Clean Coal...too bad Clinton marked the only U.S reserve of clean coal as a National Park. Now the Chinese are the only one's with a clean coal reserve. The way I understand it, the reprocessing costs associated with dirty coal should jump when the clean coal regulations go into effect..hmm..2006, I think. I wouldn't be suprised if Bush has already overturned that, haven't heard it though.

As for turbine efficieny, I agree, nothing comes close. But you must remember the cost associated with exploration, extraction, transportation and storage of any fuel. Whereas OTEC, build it and maintain it, you get electricity, desalination and other gases extracted as a bonus.

posted on Oct, 2 2003 @ 01:40 PM
10 Years is the projected timeframe for construction of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48 states,the natgas shortage was and is being caused by problems with extracting from protected lands,transporting it, and then requiring power plants to use it even though there is not a ready supply beyond what is used for home heating on a normal basis.
Coal,whether clean or not will have to be used for power within that 10 year time frame eventually,the real issue is getting people to stop wasting electricity so the plants don't have to use coal to keep people from freezing in the winter since their homes are being converted to natgas pretty much routinely.
I dis-like this situation,it bothers me to be hooked up to natgas and electricity since these things are really,completely outside of my control,I'm de-evolving my house to disconnect from depending on energy which is manipulable by any greedy little execs or whatever.Newer alternative sources of power are a nice thought,but for the most part are too expensive for me to utilise right now,which is the case for many people.If I were to go low tech until things pick up,and make a conscious effort to stop wasting energy,I would probably be able to rig up solar water heating,I take cold showers because my water heater is turned off,just warm would be panels and batteries/inverters to run a minimum of appliances,put up a fence and buy a goat to mow my yard and save me the trouble and gas of running to the store for milk to put in my coffee....
There are many,many ways to save money and reduce pollution,the big problem is zoning and town ordinances,if people actually follow them they are forced to do everything the expensive way,kind of like feeding a monopoly that's there without them realising it.
You have to ask them little sheeple town hall dummies to produce a paper that bears your signature,which states that you agreed to allow them to tell you what to do with your own property,a contract that does not truly exist cannot be enforced....
Which leads back to the legal system,that thing nearly everyone is almost completely ignorant of which controls their life more than they will ever realise.
I bought one of those Coleman catalytic heaters that uses propane cylinders,the cylinders cost about 1.75 and one will last for several days,just carry it around.
I am keeping my house just warm enough to keep my pipes from freezing,chilly but efficient,think I'll go take a cold shower........

posted on Oct, 2 2003 @ 01:47 PM
there are about 3 liquified natural gas importation stations along the east coast and another one is in the works as a joint ventrue between TransCanada Pipelines and Royal Dutch Shell. The new facility will either be a floating dock in the middle of long island sound or in lower Maine. This facility is in the works and will be completed in under ten years. besides, theres plenty of other importation facilities close to market. LNG from Angola and Norway is readily available.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in