Yup...We're Running Out Of Oil

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • steve
    Sniper
    • Feb 2004
    • 841

    Yup...We're Running Out Of Oil

    The Dept. of Defense must have some crazy ass "doomsday" focasts cooked up by statiticians on this problem.



    Global competition for future energy supplies heats up By Kevin G. Hall, Knight Ridder Newspapers
    Thu Apr 28, 2:56 PM ET
    WASHINGTON - Soaring demand for crude oil in China, India and other developing nations has set off a scramble to secure future energy supplies that could undermine the economic and national security of the United States.

    The United States, Europe and Japan increasingly will be forced to compete with developing nations, especially China and India, the world's two fastest growing major economies, which comprise more than a third of the world's population.

    "The center of gravity in world oil is shifting," said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates and an author of "The Prize," an award-winning history of oil.

    "Last year, Asia consumed more oil than North America," Yergin said. He predicts an oil supply shift, too, as Africa, Russia and former Soviet republics compete with the Middle East to fill the growing demand for oil.

    The developing world's growing appetite for oil is one reason gasoline prices have shot up for Americans. Over time, these emerging economies will also shape not just global oil flows and prices but also world events, said Anne Korin, the co-director of the Washington-based Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, an energy security think tank.

    "A third of humanity doesn't want to ride bikes anymore," she said. "That has profound geopolitical implications."

    China and India already have moved aggressively to strengthen their relations with two oil-rich countries - Sudan and Iran - undermining U.S. sanctions against Sudan's regime and undercutting U.S. efforts to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions.

    "We are in a situation right now where the energy consumption of the developing world is having an impact on the foreign policy options of the United States," said Korin.

    For now, the United States remains well positioned, at least when it comes to energy supplies. The proven reserves in the Middle East make it the expected primary global supplier of crude oil. Iraq, where the United States has forcefully established a beachhead, has proven oil reserves of between 78 and 112 billion barrels.

    But political instability, increased terrorism and the spread of fundamentalist Islam make it unlikely that today's oil-production map will look the same 20 years from now.

    What's clearly changing is demand. The Paris-based International Energy Agency, a research arm of the world's most developed nations, projected last year that oil demand will grow by 45 million barrels a day to 120 million barrels a day by 2030. More than $3 trillion will be invested to find and produce that oil, and more than half of that investment will serve the needs of emerging economies.

    The scramble to find and develop new oil fields and natural gas wells will occur in places such as eastern Siberia and West Africa, as hungry nations hedge their bets should leading producers such as Saudi Arabia or Iraq falter.

    "You need energy to develop an economy, so there's a great strategic value in securing energy assets," said Antoine Halff, an oil expert with the risk-management company Eurasia Group in New York.

    One likely winner is Russia, along with some of the now independent states that formerly made up the Soviet Union. They have proven reserves of 78 billion barrels but the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that there may be 171 billion barrels of estimated undiscovered oil in the region.

    "Russia is virtually unexplored. Their potential is enormous," said Gary Swindell, an independent petroleum engineer in Dallas whose business is estimating reserves.

    Africa is another winner. It's got 87 billion barrels of proven reserves and estimated undiscovered reserves of 125 billion, mainly in West Africa. Central and South America have roughly the same, but, as in Russia, many are in prohibitively remote areas.

    Elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere, Canada and Mexico are expected to remain the second and third largest U.S. oil suppliers. But smaller oil players are courting Washington's competitors.

    In Venezuela, the fourth largest U.S. oil supplier, President Hugo Chavez, a self-described protege of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, is trying to rewrite concessions to U.S. oil companies and has invited China and India to participate in oil exploration. Ecuador and Colombia are negotiating oil deals with China, too.

    China, the world's fastest-growing economy, is also making heavy diplomatic and energy investments in Africa. It needs to: China is projected to consume within 20 years what the U.S. consumes today - 21 million barrels a day.

    Although China is the world's second largest oil consumer after the United States, it's only the fifth largest importer because of its own oil reserves. That's changing, however, because China is rapidly exhausting wells in Manchuria and the South China Sea. Soon its reliance on foreign oil will rival America's.

    China's President Hu Jintao in mid-April cemented a "strategic" partnership with Nigeria during a state visit to Beijing by President Olusegun Obasanjo. Nigeria is West Africa's biggest producer and a major U.S. supplier. China's already trading development loans for energy development participation in Chad, Gabon and Angola.

    In Sudan, China ignored evidence of genocide in the country's long-running civil war to entrench itself. It also effectively voided unilateral U.S. sanctions imposed because Sudan sheltered Osama bin Laden before he moved on to Afghanistan.

    Sudan's widely reported human rights violations also sparked protests in Canada and Sweden that drove oil companies from those countries out of Sudan in 2002 and 2003. China, which now gets as much as 10 percent of its imported oil from Sudan, has repeatedly blocked U.N. efforts to impose anti-genocide sanctions against its trading partner.

    Data from the federal Energy Information Administration help explain China's moves. The EIA predicts that China will import about two-thirds of the oil it consumes by 2025, up from the current figure of one third.

    India, which has almost none of its own oil, is equally hungry. The EIA expects India to more than double its oil consumption to 5.3 million barrels a day by 2025.

    Both China and India are investing billions in Iran despite President Bush's attempt to isolate the Persian Gulf nation because of its nuclear ambitions. The money is a lifeline for the world's fourth biggest oil producer, which also sits atop the world's second largest natural gas reserves. Both are off limits to U.S. companies.

    Iran - already China's largest oil supplier - earlier this year signed long-term oil and natural gas contracts worth tens of billions of dollars with both China and India. Iran gave India's state oil company a 20-percent ownership stake in the development of a key Iranian oil field.

    In strictly economic terms, it doesn't hurt the United States when developing countries promote oil drilling, extraction and production. That increases world supply, slakes demand and drives down prices. But access to ample energy is a prerequisite to world power.

    That's a lesson not lost on Russia, the world's second largest exporter of crude oil and holder of the world's largest reserves of natural gas. The United States, Europe, India and China have each carved out stakes in Russia's energy future, while, for its part, Russia has sought to control strategic pipelines for oil and natural gas flowing from or through former Soviet republics.

    President Bush travels to Russia in early May and is expected to lobby President Vladimir Putin for a multi-billion dollar pipeline deal to take natural gas to the Russian seaport of Murmansk. There, it would be liquefied and transported for sale in the United States.

    Putin seems intent on using Russia's energy supplies to boost his influence at home and abroad. He's meddled in neighboring countries like the Ukraine and Georgia in hopes of securing greater control over how oil flows in and out of the region. And he has broken apart the country's largest private oil company, OAO Yukos, which had ties big U.S. oil interests, and is creating a new and massive state oil company from the ruins.

    Putin has been friendliest to Western Europe, which now buys from Russia about a quarter of the natural gas it uses to fuel power plants and factories.

    Russia's leader favors Western Europe because the dependency it promotes restores some of the international influence that Moscow lost following the collapse of the Soviet Union, said Clifford Gaddy, an expert on the Russian economy at the Brookings Institution.
  • steve
    Sniper
    • Feb 2004
    • 841

    #2
    If only we had a President with the cojones to tell us to conserve.

    Comment

    • BenJammin
      Foot Soldier
      • Feb 2004
      • 533

      #3
      Well, I am not a GWBUSH fan, but I will admit there is at least one proactive and good decision he made....

      To provide significant funds for research and development of the hydrogen and alternative energy markets.

      Solar (both photovoltaics and solar heat concentrators), and hydrogen technologies are the answer to this mess (forget dangerous nuclear, fission or fusion, that shit is just scary).

      200 years in the future, they are going to look back on us in this time and think we were neanderthals because of the primitive ways we meet our energy demands...."oh, it's flammable, lets burn it!"
      "Money can't buy poverty." -Marty Feldman

      Comment

      • steve
        Sniper
        • Feb 2004
        • 841

        #4
        Hydrogen Problems:

        It was one of his better moments, but the energy bill itself was heavily flawed.

        It included a LOT of giveaways and welfare to the oil industry, and totally eliminated any reserach grants into Hybrid cars, solar power, wind, biomass etc.

        The bill put all of our near term alternative energy research money into one basket - which seems to be unravelling as an un-wise decision.

        The Sci-American a few months ago had a really freaking big and dense description of why many scientists are starting to doubt Hydrogen technology. Basically, becasue they have to heat water to a very high temperature to CREATE Hydrogen (it doesn't occur naturally on earth) they end up using almost as much energy to create it as it itself creates...it's almost a wash. Also, it's SUPER hard to transport and distribute.

        The article basically said that people are starting to think Hydrogen may be viable as a way to supply Power Plant energy, but not cars.
        Last edited by steve; 04-28-2005, 06:44 PM.

        Comment

        • steve
          Sniper
          • Feb 2004
          • 841

          #5
          Bio-mass has major problems as well.


          2 friends of mine have bio-mass trucks.
          They have done much research on the stuff, so I trust their opinions on it.

          They basically say it's great, but for small-scale enomies, but if it were used on a very large scale you'd have 3 HUGE problems.

          1. There isn't nearly enough used oil from restaurants alone to supply even 1% of the US needs.
          2. The land needed to grow enough Corn/etc. to turn into veggie oil would wipe out our agriculture needs - translation, we wouldn't have enough food.
          3. Veggie oil is actually very expensive because of the labor needed to produce it.

          Comment

          • steve
            Sniper
            • Feb 2004
            • 841

            #6
            The Solution

            The Solution is tough...because it requires leaders with the cajones to tell Americans: "you'll have to sacrifice and conserve some".

            We, as a nation, haven't conserved or sacrificed jack shit since World War II.
            Case in point: after 911 - we were told it was our civic duty to BUY STUFF to supplant the economy.
            We are dependent upon what we consume...which the Buddha might see as a problem.


            The irony is, what we'd have to give up isn't stuff that are the biggest deals in the world, like:
            Driving 12 MPG SUVS (drive Hybrids instead - like the 60 MPG Prius or the new 50MPG Highlander SUV (if you need 4wd and room for your family)

            Taking the freaking bus or train...or even (gasp) WALK OR BIKE
            Using less AC (drop some weight so we don't sweat so much)
            Switch to LED lighting

            Give consumers a checklist on their power bills that lets them choose where their power comes from - with tax rebates for choosing renewable.

            Drive less - we're driving all over tarnation on Sat and Sun in order to feed our empty souls with buying useless crap. This, of course, in our free society could not be mandatory. But we could teach our children about consumerism and participating in govt. more in school...educate people for X-sake!

            Cease welfare payments to the oil industry.
            Last edited by steve; 04-28-2005, 06:57 PM.

            Comment

            • ODShowtime
              ROCKSTAR

              • Jun 2004
              • 5812

              #7
              Re: Hydrogen Problems:

              Originally posted by steve
              It was one of his better moments, but the energy bill itself was heavily flawed.

              It included a LOT of giveaways and welfare to the oil industry, and totally eliminated any reserach grants into Hybrid cars, solar power, wind, biomass etc.
              yep, that's classic gw&friends!
              gnaw on it

              Comment

              • ODShowtime
                ROCKSTAR

                • Jun 2004
                • 5812

                #8
                Re: The Solution

                Originally posted by steve
                The Solution is tough...because it requires leaders with the cajones to tell Americans: "you'll have to sacrifice and conserve some".

                We, as a nation, haven't conserved or sacrificed jack shit since World War II.
                Case in point: after 911 - we were told it was our civic duty to BUY STUFF to supplant the economy.
                We are dependent upon what we consume...which the Buddha might see as a problem.


                The irony is, what we'd have to give up isn't stuff that are the biggest deals in the world, like:
                Driving 12 MPG SUVS (drive Hybrids instead - like the 60 MPG Prius or the new 50MPG Highlander SUV (if you need 4wd and room for your family)

                Taking the freaking bus or train...or even (gasp) WALK OR BIKE
                Using less AC (drop some weight so we don't sweat so much)
                Switch to LED lighting

                Give consumers a checklist on their power bills that lets them choose where their power comes from - with tax rebates for choosing renewable.

                Drive less - we're driving all over tarnation on Sat and Sun in order to feed our empty souls with buying useless crap. This, of course, in our free society could not be mandatory. But we could teach our children about consumerism and participating in govt. more in school...educate people for X-sake!

                Cease welfare payments to the oil industry.
                the problem with humanity. If it makes so much god damn sense, then why don't we do it?
                gnaw on it

                Comment

                • scorpioboy33
                  Commando
                  • Jul 2004
                  • 1415

                  #9
                  I really wish gas was 3 times the price it was now...maybe than the world might stand a slight chance

                  Comment

                  • Nitro Express
                    DIAMOND STATUS
                    • Aug 2004
                    • 32798

                    #10
                    Does anyone have statistics on how crude oil is actually used. There's much talk about cars but we also power ships, planes, and use oil to manufacture things. Oil is used to make asphalt and plastics. There are a mind boggling amount of poducts made from oil.

                    Sure we could power trucks and cars on bio-diesel, fuel cells, or batteries. We have the technology to do. I think that's only a small part of the problem.

                    My brother in law flys a 747 for a living. He once was showing me the cockpit of the 747 cargo plane. The fuel indicator measures the fuel in tons on those babies, not gallons or liters. Granted jet fuel is basically kerosene but it's still cracked from the same crude oil gasoline is.

                    With airplanes there doesn't seem to be the options available. Fuel cells won't work and niether will electric motors. Turbine engines need to burn something. Maybe a highly refined version of bio diesel or something. Even if cars are running on alternative fuels, airplanes may still need tons and tons of oil.

                    Replacing our use of oil is a tough challenge. Sure we can reduce our dependance on it in some areas but other areas might not be technologically feasible without a major breakthrough.

                    I still think we are nuts over oil because it's cheap. Any alternative fuel is more expensive because the production costs are higher.
                    No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

                    Comment

                    • scorpioboy33
                      Commando
                      • Jul 2004
                      • 1415

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Nitro Express
                      Does anyone have statistics on how crude oil is actually used. There's much talk about cars but we also power ships, planes, and use oil to manufacture things. Oil is used to make asphalt and plastics. There are a mind boggling amount of poducts made from oil.

                      Sure we could power trucks and cars on bio-diesel, fuel cells, or batteries. We have the technology to do. I think that's only a small part of the problem.

                      My brother in law flys a 747 for a living. He once was showing me the cockpit of the 747 cargo plane. The fuel indicator measures the fuel in tons on those babies, not gallons or liters. Granted jet fuel is basically kerosene but it's still cracked from the same crude oil gasoline is.

                      With airplanes there doesn't seem to be the options available. Fuel cells won't work and niether will electric motors. Turbine engines need to burn something. Maybe a highly refined version of bio diesel or something. Even if cars are running on alternative fuels, airplanes may still need tons and tons of oil.

                      Replacing our use of oil is a tough challenge. Sure we can reduce our dependance on it in some areas but other areas might not be technologically feasible without a major breakthrough.

                      I still think we are nuts over oil because it's cheap. Any alternative fuel is more expensive because the production costs are higher.
                      thanks man good post...I like learning about new shit

                      Comment

                      • 4moreyears
                        Commando
                        • Oct 2004
                        • 1245

                        #12
                        Club of Rome Prediction from 1972

                        March 17, 1999
                        Low Oil Prices: A Fill Up of Good News

                        by Stephen Moore

                        Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.

                        Some people are just genetically incapable of accepting good news. In recent weeks the media have inundated us with stories of the latest crisis in America: low oil prices. James MacKenzie of the World Resources Institute has declared that low oil prices are harmful because they destroy the market for alternative fuels and increase pollution from cars. Meanwhile, financial analyst Teresa Wyszomierski writes in the Washington Post that low gasoline prices are bad news because they are hurting the Saudi economy.

                        It seems like only yesterday that the doomsayers were warning that high oil prices were a harbinger of economic collapse. Now it's bargain-basement prices that are the curse. As for Ms. Wyszomierski's absurd claim that we should worry about the Saudis, excuse me, but I don't recall the Middle East oil sheiks crying tears for Americans when we were paying our astronomical heating bills during the days of $30 a barrel oil in the 1970s.

                        In fact, one wonders whether those who long for the good old days of high oil prices have totally repressed that era of malaise from their memories. I haven't. I vividly remember frigid February Chicago mornings in 1973 when my parents and I scrambled out of the house early to beat the rush to the gasoline pumps. If you arrived too late, frustrated motorists would be queued up half way around the block.

                        Many of the doomsayers who predicted $100 a barrel oil in 2000 are the same people who falsely predicted nuclear winter, massive famine across the globe, cities so polluted that gas masks would be required and other crises of biblical proportions. And these are the same pessimists who somehow have concluded that low oil prices are the problem.

                        Throughout the whole energy crisis ordeal, I kept thinking: What is wrong with our country? Why is America being bought up by Arab princes? It didn't help matters that at school our social studies teacher was filling our heads with frightening forecasts about the planet's oil reserves running dry within 20 years.

                        It wasn't just junior high school social studies teachers who were prophesying doom. The Club of Rome's Limits to Growth report predicted that oil would cost $100 a barrel by 2000. Even President Jimmy Carter in his cardigan sweater announced to the nation that we should all turn down the thermostat and bundle up because "we could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade."

                        Twenty-five years later the good news is that we can conclude definitively that the globe is not running out of oil. And despite what the nattering nabobs of negativism say, this is truly good news. Oil now sells for roughly $11 a barrel, meaning that the Club of Rome was off by a factor of almost ten. The Associated Press recently calculated that oil is now cheaper than bottled water. In fact, oil is just about the cheapest liquid on earth.

                        Regular unleaded gasoline can now be had in many parts of the country for 89 cents a gallon, which, adjusted for inflation, is cheaper than at any time in 50 years. The average state and federal tax on a gallon of gasoline is now 43.4 cents, which means that half the cost of filling up your tank now goes for taxes, not the fuel itself.

                        So what lessons can we learn from the false energy crisis? I suggest three.

                        First, apocalyptic predictions from academics, government officials and the media should always be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism. Many of the doomsayers who predicted $100 a barrel oil in 2000 are the same people who falsely predicted nuclear winter, massive famine across the globe, cities so polluted that gas masks would be required and other crises of biblical proportions. And these are the same pessimists who somehow have concluded that low oil prices are the problem. Just remember these Chicken Littles have a perfect record: they have been wrong every time.

                        Second, markets work; government interventions don't. Almost every energy policy Presidents Ford and Carter devised to try to alleviate the energy crisis backfired. The windfall profits tax and energy price controls short-circuited the market pricing system. With prices held low by government fiat, oil consumption was raised artificially high, and domestic production was kept artificially low. The result: shortages intensified, gas lines got longer and America's reliance on imported foreign oil doubled. On the day Ronald Reagan became president, his first Executive Order was to lift all remaining energy price controls. Oil prices soared in the short term, but that stimulated domestic production and exploration, thus triggering the 20-year swoon in prices.

                        Third, we no longer need a national energy policy or a federal Department of Energy. Actually, we never did. The energy crisis is over. Why do we still spend billions of tax dollars on energy conservation and alternative fuels programs? Why conserve a resource that is in great abundance? While we are at it, Congress should repeal another byproduct of the energy crisis: the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Standards for U.S. autos. With energy as affordable as ever, it makes sense that Americans want to trade in their 40 MPG Pintos for safer and heavier cars, even if they guzzle a little more gas.

                        The United States has an energy policy. It's called the free market. And it has worked marvelously for consumers. True, producers are none too happy these days, whether they're in the Middle East or the Texas panhandle, but for the rest of us, more cheap oil means greater prosperity. In fact, low oil prices are equivalent to a large tax cut for American workers.

                        Only those who fear progress and prefer to sit in darkness would bemoan our new era of cheap and abundant fuel. As for me, I say, fill 'er up


                        This is a bit dated but in 1972 the club of rome predicted we would run out of oil by now. But inventions like Fuel Injectors, and advances in oil drilling, refinery, and pipelines has helped increase the supply of crude available in 1972 and lower the usage of oil and crude.

                        Comment

                        • steve
                          Sniper
                          • Feb 2004
                          • 841

                          #13
                          The problem with 1970s forcasts is that predictions were weighted towards KNOWN oil reserves, and did not include much in the way of finding new deposits.

                          Forcasters learned from that.

                          If we were using 1970s predictions...we'd only have about 5 or 10 years worth of oil left.

                          40 years of oil is what the OPTIMISTIC drilling scientists/geologists say - their predictions assume new deposits, new drilling technologies, etc.

                          Comment

                          • Nickdfresh
                            SUPER MODERATOR

                            • Oct 2004
                            • 49126

                            #14
                            I don't know the specifics, but I think SUV's/trucks are immune from the fuel economy & emissions standards of cars. There is no reason for this. Ford MC was using engines basically designed in the 1050's in their vehicles up until a few years ago. While they were refined quite a bit, they still lacked more advanced fuel emissions tech.

                            Comment

                            • steve
                              Sniper
                              • Feb 2004
                              • 841

                              #15
                              Yup, they are.
                              Thank the GM/Ford lobbyists.

                              Comment

                              Working...