An apology to all future generations: Sorry we used up your oil...

[DeLoreanBrown]

'

Californian Initiative references Brazilian Model

(Warning; Interest in Subject a Necessity – Hour Long Presentation on Google Video)




The Guy's Website




Californians for Clean Energy





.
​

 

[magburner]

C'mon... I can afford this **** until it hits UK levels... bring it on!

Actually, if you took off the approximate 75% tax rate, the UK would have cheaper petrol than the US. The high price of petrol in the UK is only partly due to the rising cost of crude oil.

Here's another thought. I hear a lot of talk about bio-fuel on the news, and on the web, but is it really a credible replacement for petrol? I mean, the world has a daily usage of oil rated in millions of barrels a day. Bio-fuel has to be grown, so how long does it take to create a barrel of bio-fuel? More importantly, how many hectares would it take to create that barrel? I'm pretty sure that whatever bio-fuel is made from doesn't grow overnight, so isn't the problem still the same?

 

[Famine]

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but bio-ethanol is about half as thermally efficient as oil (77,000BTUs/barrel compared to 135,000BTUs/barrel), still requires oil to grow and, in order to replace the oil in every car on Earth, would require half of the Earth's land surface (11 acres of corn per car per year is used, making 33 acres per car with a three field system) to be devoted to corn growth.

 

[Omnis]

I was just thinking of this... Okay, nuclear fusion magnetic containment devices like tokamaks and stellarators don't have to be freakin' huge like ITER's and LHD's and stuff, do they? Perhaps, with the further research with these machines, we could make little micro fusion devices. But, then again, that would kind of suck. Mechanics would need degrees in nuclear physics , and there could possibly be radioactivity problems. I'm probably thinking a thousand years ahead here. Oh well.

 

[FoolKiller]

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but bio-ethanol is about half as thermally efficient as oil (77,000BTUs/barrel compared to 135,000BTUs/barrel), still requires oil to grow and, in order to replace the oil in every car on Earth, would require half of the Earth's land surface (11 acres of corn per car per year is used, making 33 acres per car with a three field system) to be devoted to corn growth.

A friend of my wife decided to test this out on a trip out of town and used ethanol in her car. While she paid about 30 cents less per gallon she got almost 50 miles less per tank all interstate driving. From an economic standpoint I doubt it will pay off in the end with everyday driving. It probably breaks even.

Now if it is an environmental issue then sure you will pollute less but as Famine is saying here you will have to eliminate most of the rainforests to make it work. Perhaps this could be solved with some genetic altering of corn to allow the final result to be more ethanol per plant and a more efficient ethanol, but rom my experience the environmentally concerned people also tend to be the ones opposed to genetically altered foods, at least I see a lot of Priuses in the organic food store parking lot. It isn't scientific but it tells me that locally a genetically altered ethanol product would be opposed.

Ethanol is a total failure in my opinion. Good idea, but it won't work out in the end.

Of course, MSNBC has a story about how a company is selling moonshine stills to people to make their own ethanol using things other than just corn. Maybe you can make your own moonshine and save money in the end. Don't drink it though, in order to get the government permit to do this you have to add poison.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12801825/

 

[Omnis]

Sweet. I want genetically altered corn. I don't think it would work because if there was some sort of mistake, some people's bags of popcorn might grenade in their microwaves.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't think it would work because if there was some sort of mistake, some people's bags of popcorn might grenade in their microwaves.

While a bad side effect it would be awesome to see and well worth it.

 

[Danoff]

http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/05/news/companies/chevron_gulf/index.htm?cnn=yes

^^ Stuff like this happens when oil is worth more. Big oil companies like to find resources, especially when its value doubles.

Rest assured there's a lot more like this that will come through when the price of oil is high.

 

[southern347]

Sorry if this has been posted before, but I dont have time to read all 22 pages. I would be willing to bet that there are many solutions for the oil shortage problem that are already proven to work, and maybe even refined to a degree that would allow them to be integrated with modern life very easily; but, the patents/designs are owned by major oil companies and will not be revealed until every last bit of money is made on oil

 

[OZZYGT]

Southern: You don't need to read all 22 pages of this thread to see a similar post to this one. Read the first one and you'll find posts refering to solar power as an alternative for the oil shortage...let's not go back a year ago please..




Ciao!

 

[southern347]

I think you completely missed my point...
The big oil companies KNOW that the supply will run out, they have to stay in business somehow. However, they may have the rights to alternative technologies waiting. These may not be made available until no more money can be made with the resources available.

 

[OZZYGT]

Ok. You're saying that companies know that oil will run-out and therefore they have alternative resources that are kept in "secret" so nobody has access to them and when the time comes, they'de be using that as a "reserved provisions". I understand. This being said, we're going back in the thread and saying that they'll probably, put a high price on these resources left; that's when solar system comes into play. People have already started using solar panels to provide electricy to a whole house to avoid the actual high prices such as oil. Nuclear power has also being mentioned as a big alternative; and France has already started making a use of it.

And like you say..they may have an even more adaptable and convinent alternative resource of energy for us, but that would not be any different to what it is today. If this is true, then I really expect high prices from these services provided by these companies, and this is why people have already started taking action.
I really believe in a not so rough future for us, (at least in this aspect)





Ciao!

 

[Kylehnat]

There are also other SOURCES of oil that energy companies are starting to look more into. The most noteable example is the tar sand oil in Canada. They've known about for years, of course, but to extract this oil was not economically advantageous....until now (or in the very near future). Once this oil becomes profitable (when "conventional" oil reaches $4-$6/gallon in the U.S.), they'll start seriously digging around up there. And there is a LOT of oil there; a very significant supply in fact (2nd largest reserve in the world behind Saudi Arabia). Reserves are estimated at 200-400 billion barrels, depending on who you listen to. That's another couple of decades of oil right there (for North America, anyway).

 

[southern347]

I agree, the future really won't be anything different than the past. There have always been events that change society. I'm not worried about it.

 

[FoolKiller]

I think you completely missed my point...
The big oil companies KNOW that the supply will run out, they have to stay in business somehow. However, they may have the rights to alternative technologies waiting. These may not be made available until no more money can be made with the resources available.

So, this is why they are the same companies that are working to lead the way in the hydrogen fuel resources for cars?

You make it sound as if there is an evil conspiracy, but in reality they would make more money by releasing these alternative fuels because people would jump on to them and the supply/demand ratio would cause higher profits than that of oil for years. Much like the hybrid vehicles come at a higher price and the demand is high so would be a completely alternative fuel source.

Nevermind the fact that this would probably lead to some form of anti trust suit that would cost the companies tons more money than any profits they can garner from these kinds of activities.

 

[southern347]

No, I'm not saying its a conspiracy, but wouldn't a company want to use all of their existing systems for profit while they can, rather than introduce a replacement? That would mean alot of wells, rigs, refineries, etc. would continue to run, but not produce the same profit level. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but it makes sense to me.

 

[Danoff]

No, I'm not saying its a conspiracy, but wouldn't a company want to use all of their existing systems for profit while they can, rather than introduce a replacement? That would mean alot of wells, rigs, refineries, etc. would continue to run, but not produce the same profit level. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but it makes sense to me.

Companies want to make as much money as possible. That means meeting demand where it exists as cheaply as possible. That's it. If that means using existing infrastructure, that's what they'll do. If it means developing new infrastructure and products to meet changing demand, that's what they'll do.

We've seen that as they develop hydrogen , hybrid, electric cars while continuing to look for oil and invest in alternatives.

 

[FoolKiller]

No, I'm not saying its a conspiracy, but wouldn't a company want to use all of their existing systems for profit while they can, rather than introduce a replacement?

Not if the replacement is more profitable. But then you also can't just turn off all the oil and say you only sell hydrogen. There are still more petroleum fuel based vehicles on the road than anything else. So, even if hydrogen or whatever became the new big thing they would have to provide oil for decades until it no longer held any profit whatsoever or everyone had a new car.

In essence, that guy driving the 82 Chevy Nova is just as responsible for our reliance on oil as the oil companies themselves. Of course I won't buy an alternative until it becomes cost effecient and gives me the same driving satisfaction as a gasoline car. I guess I am at fault too.

Cost efficient is the key there. Energy companies may have the patents and righst to oither alternatives, but we are seeing them. There are electric, hybrid, and hydrogen cars on the market, Joe Public just hasn't bought them on a large scale yet. Why? Because they are too expensive and don't save you anything in the long run. A hybrid takes ten years to give you back your initial expense and hydrogen is more expensive than gasoline.

So, even if the oil companies could make more money from alternative sources they can't switch to them because the public hasn't converted yet. A hydrogen station here and there will show up and eventually you will find that they become more common than gasoline and have the pump off to the side that offers gasoline, much like current diesel pumps at gasoline stations. As we convert so will the oil companies, but the general public isn't switching over fast enough to create a large demand that would call for a major switch over.

 

[ledhed]

The US had a company valleed syntec that started up way back when OPEC started breaking stones...oil from coal and shale and other means...the saudi's deliberately manipulated the market to drive oil down to 10.00 a barrel or so and the billions invested in syntec went "poof "....

A lesson not lost on investors and oil co. heads.......can you think of another good reason WHY aside from ADM there is no other major " alternative " oil co . ?


The NEW Syntec...http://www.syntecbiofuel.com/

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/aboutus/history/syntheticfuels_history.html

shale is prevalent in the western states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.The resource potential of these shales is estimated to be the equivalent of 1.8 trillionbarrels of oil in place. Retorted oil shale yields liquid hydrocarbons in the range ofmiddle-distillate fuels, such as jet and diesel fuel. However, because oil shales havenot proved to be economicallyrecoverable, theyare considered a contingentresourceand not true reserves. It remains to be demonstrated whether an economicallysignificant oil volume can be extracted under existing operating conditions. Incomparison, Saudi Arabia reportedly holds proved reserves of 267 billion barrels.Federal interest in oil shale dates back to the early20thCentury, when the NavalPetroleum and Oil Shale Reserves were set aside. Out of World War II concerns fora secure oil supply, a Bureau of Mines program began research into exploiting theresource. Commercial interest followed during the 1960s. After a second oilembargo in the 1970s, Congress created a synthetic fuels program to stimulate large-scale commercial development of oil shale and other unconventional resources. Thefederal program proved short-lived, and commercially backed oil shale projectsended in the early 1980s when oil prices began declining.The current high oil prices have revived the interest in oil shale. The EnergyPolicyAct of 2005 (EPACT) identified oil shale as a strategicallyimportant domesticresource, among others, that should be developed. EPACT also directed theSecretary of Defense to develop a separate strategy to use oil shale in meetingDepartment of Defense (DOD) requirements when doingso isin the national interest.Tapping unconventional resources, such as oil shale, has been promoted as a meansof reducing dependence on foreign oil and improving national security.Opponents of federal subsidies for oil shale argue that the price and demand forcrude oil should act as sufficient incentives to stimulate development. Projectionsof increased demand and peaking petroleum production in the coming decades tendto support the price-and-supply incentive argument in the long term.The failure of oil shale has been tied to the perennially lower price of crude oil,a much less risky conventional resource. Proponents of renewing commercial oilshale developmentmightalsoweighwhether other factors detract from the resource’spotential. Refiningindustryprofitabilityis overwhelminglydriven bylight passengervehicle demand for motor gasoline, and oil-shale distillate does not make idealfeedstock for gasoline production. Policies that discourage the wider use of middle-distillates as transportation fuels indirectly discourage oil shale development.Because the largest oil shale resources reside on federal lands, the federalgovernment would have a directinterest and rolein thedevelopment of this resource.This report will be updated as new developments occur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRS-1027Garfield County, Colorado, Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Revision, Study AreaFive, adopted version, Apr. 24, 2002, at [http://garfield-county.com/home/index.asp?page=664], visited Mar. 28, 2006.28H.Rept. 99-196, Part 1, July 11, 1985.Department of Energy Synthetic Fuels ProgramThe Department of Energy (DOE) encouraged interest in large-scale oil shaledevelopment through its Synthetic Fuels Program. DOE initially promoted twoprototype lease tracts in the Piceance Basin of Rio Blanco County, Colorado (NOSRtracts C-a and C-b).27Amoco later produced 1,900 barrels using in situ retorting intract C-a, and Occidental Petroleum planned a similar effort for tract C-b.The InteriorDepartmentAppropriationsAct(P.L. 96-126) and the SupplementalAppropriations Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-304) appropriated $17.522 billion to the EnergySecurity Reserve fund in the Treasury Department. Of that amount, $2.616 billionwas committed by the Department of Energy to three synthetic fuels projects. Twoof the projects were approved under the Defense Production Act: Union OilCompany’s Parachute Creek project in Garfield County, Colorado, and Exxon-Tosco’s Colony oil shale project, also in Garfield County. Union Oil Companyreceived a $0.4 billion price guarantee for the Parachute Creek Shale Oil Project, andthe Exxon-Tosco ColonyOil Shale Projectreceived a loan guarantee of $1.15 billion(applied to the 40% owned by Tosco).28Union Oil was expected to produce 10,400bpd at $42.50/bbl, which, adjusted for inflation, equaled $51.20/bbl by March 1,1985.As an additional stimulus to producing alternative fuels — for which oil shale,among others, qualified — Congress provided a $3.00 /bbl production tax creditprovision in the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-223). The creditwould take full effect when crude oil prices fell below $23.50 /bbl (in 1979 dollars)and would gradually phase out as prices rose above to $29.50/bbl.Tosco’s interest in the Colony project was sold in 1979, and again in 1980, toExxon Company for the Colony II development. Exxon planned to invest up to $5billion in a planned 47,000 bpd plant using a Tosco retort design. After spendingmore than $1 billion, Exxon announced on May 2, 1982, that it was closing theproject and laying off 2,200 workers.U.S. Synthetic Fuels CorporationThe Energy Security Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-294, Title I, Part B) established theUnited States Synthetic Fuels Corporation (SFC) with the authority to providefinancial assistance to qualified projects that produced synthetic fuel from coal, oilshale, tar sands, and heavy oils. The SFC’s loan commitments would be paid fromthe Energy Security Reserve fund. Executive Order 12346 (Synthetic Fuels) laterprovided for an orderlytransition of DOE’s earlier syntheticfuelprogram to theSFC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 14
CRS-1129Daniel Yergin, The Prize, Touchstone, 1991, pp. 722-725.Between 1981 and 1984, the SFC received 34 proposals for oil shale projectsin three rounds of solicitations. Only three letters of intent were ever issued. UnionOil’s Parachute Creek Phase II80,000 bpd plant was to receive a $2.7 billion fundingcommitment and a guarantee of $60/bbl, escalated up to $67 /bbl; another $0.5billion in price and loan guarantees was added in October 1985 to Union’s ParachuteCreek Phase I. Cathedral Bluffs, a 14,300 bpd plant based on a Union Oil design,was to receive a $2.19 billion loan guarantee and a $60/bbl price guarantee. SeepRidge Oil Shale’s 1,000 bpd plant was to receive $45 million in price and loanguarantees. None of the oil shale projects that received SFC loan guarantees everreceived actual funding, as Congress rescinded $2 billion originallyappropriated forthe EnergySecurityReserve fund in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-369)and later abolished the SFC.In 1984, Congress asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to report on theprogress of synthetic fuels development and to specifically respond to the question“Whyhave project sponsors dropped synthetic fuels projects?” GAO answered thatoil had become plentiful, with about 8 to 10 million barrels per day in excessworldwide capacity, and the trend in rising oil prices had reversed after early 1981.President Reagan’s Executive Order 12287 had removed price and allocationcontrols on crude oil and refined petroleum products in 1981. For the first time sincethe early 1970s, market forces replaced regulatory programs and domestic crude oilprices were allowed to rise to a market-clearing level. Decontrol also set the stagefor the relaxation of export restrictions on refined petroleum products. Oil demandhad also declined, due in part to energy conservation measures and a worldwideeconomic recession. A more fundamental change had taken place in the waythat oilcommodities were traded. Prior to 1980, the price of crude oil was determined bylong-term contracts, with 10% or so of internationally traded oil exchanged on thespot market.29By the end of 1982, more than half of the internationally traded oilwas exchanged on the spot market or tied to the spot market price. The mostsignificant change occurred in 1983, with the introduction of crude oil futures bytheNew York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). All served to undermine price settingby the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).Tax incentives for oil shale projects had also been reduced. Some of thegenerous oil depreciation allowances under the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act(P.L. 97-48) were rescinded in 1982 bythe Tax Equityand Fiscal ResponsibilityAct(P.L. 97-248), reducing potential project sponsors’ after-tax rates of return.The House began considering a bill to abolish the SFC in 1985, and Congressterminated the Corporation the following year under the Consolidated OmnibusBudget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-272). The Appendix to this reportprovides a more complete legislative history of the Synthetic Fuels program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRS-1541“U.S. Oil Dumping Case Wins Investigation By Commerce,” Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2,2000.421980 vs. 2004 Refinery Inflation Index and 1980 vs. 2004 Refinery Operating Index fromthe Nelson-Farrar Cost Indexes, Oil & Gas Journal (published first issue each month).43“U.S. appears to have built last refinery,” Alexander’s Gas & Oil Connections, vol. 6,issue 13, Jul. 17, 2001.44U.S. DOE EIA, Performance Profiles of Major Energy Producers 2004, Table 15, U.S.(continued...)been dumped on the American market.41Though unsuccessful, the suit does saysomething further about bottom-line production costs (the crude oil price equivalentthat producers could not compete below) and the production costs that oil shale mayneed to compete against. For several years precedingthe price drop, crude oil rangedfrom $20 to $30/bbl.The perception that oil shale serves as a crude oil substitute overlooks thelimited fungibility of the middle distillates that are extractable — they make poorfeedstock for gasoline production. That does not necessarily prevent oil-shaledistillates from beingusedasgasolinefeedstock, but additional energyand hydrogenare needed to crack them. The loss may be even greater considering the lower fuelefficiency of spark-ignition engines that use gasoline, compared with compressionignition engines that use diesel distillate fuels.Other incentives or disincentives may include the cost and size of an oil shaleprocessing facility, conventional refining profitability, and the cost and availabilityof refined commodities. Certain environmental and tax regulations that act asincentivesto usinggasolinein light-dutyvehiclesdiscouragemiddle-distillatedieselfuel use, and thus oil-shale distillates as substitute motor fuels.The Cost of Constructing an Oil Shale FacilityA reliable cost estimate for producing oil shale has proved challenging, if notcontroversial. The cost of resources extraction had depended on whetherconventional underground or strip-mining methods were employed. Because therewas aconsiderableexperiencein mining, reliablecost estimates could bedeveloped.A second variable — the cost of constructing and operating an oil shale facility —had to be accounted for separately. The former OTA estimated in 1979 that a 50,000bpd oil shale facility (based on above-ground retorting technology) would haverequired an investment of $1.5 billion and operating costs of $8 to $13/bbl. Usingthe Nelson-Farrar Cost Indexes to adjust refineryconstruction and operation costs to2004 dollars, the investment would be equivalent to $3.5 billion, with operatingcostsof $13 to $21/bbl.42This excludes the cost of shale extraction.In comparison, the cost of building a new conventional refinery has beenestimated to range between $2 and $4 billion as recently as 2001.43The cost ofoperating a refinery (marketing, energy, and other costs) averaged nearly $6/bblduring 2003-2004, as reflected in the difference between gross and net margins(where the gross margin reflects the refiner’s revenue minus the cost of crude oil).44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read the whole report its illuminating...and boring...and if your into hydro carbons and chemistry ...somewhat understandable...


http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache...history+of+oil+shale&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4


Cracking.....is that what crak heads do for like 3.00 a hit ?