Posted on 05/03/2005 5:06:37 PM PDT by gogipper
There's No Oil Shortage May 3, 2005
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT Let me dig out that story here and then go back to the phonecalls. It's in The Economist, which is a British publication, magazine, pretty high repute, and the title of the story, "A Bottomless Beer Mug: Why the World is not Running Out of Oil." Let me just read to you an excerpt.
"Peter O'Dell of Rotterdam's Erasmus University points out that since 1971, over 1500 billion barrels of oil have been added to our worldwide reserves. Over the same 35-year period, under 800 billion barrels were consumed. One can argue for a world which has been running into oil rather than running out of it. What makes the estimates go up continuously is a combination of economics and innovation." Let me give you a word for that. It's called capitalism. "The IEA explains the process this way. Reserves are constantly revised in line with new discoveries, changes in prices, and technological advances. These revisions invariably add to the reserve base. A few decades ago the average oil recovery rate from reservoirs was 20%. Thanks to remarkable advances in technology this has risen to about 35% today." Let me give you another word for "advances in technology." It's called "capitalism." Capitalism is out there finding all this oil. He also says this under the section called The New Age of Discovery. "But there is a more practical fallacy embedded in the gloomy forecast, too. 'I challenge the idea that the era of discovery is over in oil,' says one expert. Thanks to the Cold War and other political constraints on western investment, much of the world has yet to be explored with the aid of the latest technologies. Most of the oil still undiscovered thanks to the Cold War and other political constraints on western investment, called environmentalism. New word for political constraints on western investment, environmentalism. Already, the industry, (the oil industry), is exploring underwater at depths that were unimaginable a decade or two ago. In the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere, oil rigs now float atop 3,000 meters, or 10,000 feet of water. These marvels of engineering [capitalism] are stuffed with the latest in robotics, electronic sensors, and satellite equipment using fancy multilateral wells that twist and turn in all directions, they can hit giant underwater oil pockets miles away from the rigs."
There's more oil being discovered out there. It's just a question of profitability and getting it, and eliminating the political constraints of western investment, i.e., environmentalism. Because that's what's holding us back. There's so much oil out there that we have enough that we could go get on our own, that we wouldn't need to be nearly as dependent on the Saudis and other foreign sources as we are. But it is my contention, folks, that the people on the left in this country who are bemoaning our dependence on foreign oil actually wish to encourage it. They want us held hostage, particularly when a Republican is in the White House.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Mark in Midland, Texas, it's your turn. Welcome to the program, sir.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, mega dittos.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: We just wanted to let you know, not only are they drilling offshore now in deeper depths, but I'm actually in the oil industry, and here in Midland, Texas, which is the only place that you're more popular than George W. Bush, I think he's the only man that is as popular as you are out here, but we are drilling in areas out here horizontally that are thought to have been drained years and years ago. So there's an awful lot of technology moving forward because the price will dictate it now.
RUSH: It's called capitalism.
CALLER: Absolutely.
RUSH: But how much opposition do you face? How many hoops and hurdles do you have to jump through to get your process restarted?
CALLER: Well, there's quite a bit of government opposition even with the current administration. We do a lot of drilling on federal lands and it just takes forever to get permits to get things drilled, but overall things have been better since Bush has been in, but it's obviously still just a matter of time.
RUSH: Well, it's a matter of time. It's a matter of necessity. But it's interesting to note the obstacles in your way generally come from liberals in government. You know, there's all kinds of liberals that are in permanent positions in these bureaucracies like the EPA.
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: The EPA is probably the primary bureaucracy you deal with in trying to bring this oil out. And believe me, it's just like the state department, they've got people in there, career people been there a long time that openly despise the president's policies, openly despise the president for not signing Kyoto and this sort of thing, all over the place. But it's a sign also that all these discoveries are taking place, and that we are going to get the oil eventually. It's a sign of triumph over all of these environmentalist wackos, despite their best efforts. The way to explain this is this guy is in business. He's in Midland, Texas. He's in the business. It's a tough business. Domestic oil is a tough business. They've done their best to shut it down, cap wells back in the seventies when the price skyrocketed, and there was no way that domestic oil could compete on the world market given the production costs and so forth. But what's happening is, what you need to consider is, that conservation, while laudable, and while conservation is of course makes sense, it's not the answer to fuel an ever-growing economy. You have to have new discoveries and if an economy is going to grow, all aspects of it must grow, and especially that aspect that provides the fuel. Whether people want to admit it or not, fuel and oil are the -- well, oil is the fuel of democracy. You take oil out of our equation, like fossil fuels out of our equation, out of our economy, and you tell me the number of businesses that are going to survive as they currently are. You talk about staggering, and yet there are people out there that are attempting to get this done over time, not overnight, but over time, and that's not the answer to our problems. And of course all of this business of conservation and hybrid cars, it's all based on the fact that, "We don't have much oil left, we're going to have to do something fast." It's just the opposite. There's all kinds of oil out there so then the environmentalists say, "Well, it's polluting, it's dirty, it's like filthy," blah, blah, blah, "it's exploitative," all of that, and yet it is what our society is built on, and the world's as well. As long as there's plentiful supply we continue to make progress in cleaning up our messes. We're now able to drill in places that actually provide interesting cohabit.
Bingo!
I would suggest that, more precisely, their agenda is to destroy capitalism in Western Civilization. And replace it with "5 year plans".
Whenever I am in a discussion such as this with a lib, with each solution I put forth for a problem they perceive, the response (objection) is always "yes, but...".
There is NO answer to ANY problem that does not entail trade offs. These people demand solutions that have no cost limits, no trade offs. Their manner is not to look for solutions, but to look for faults in the solutions that they demand from others.
Yes, it's so.
Why? Geez, it's pretty obvious. Listen to a Dimocrat speak.
Yes, until their guidance system had a little glitch and they fried a major population center.
"no new refineries have been built in the USA since the 1950's"
Since the 70's actually.
The University of New Hampshire is conducting tests on that very theory. They have a process worked out to produce oil from microbes and have suggested that we turn the Salton Sea in California into a giant oil-producing "farm" using oil-extruding microbes.
Cool. Bet it'll smell to high heaven though.
I don't care if we develop fancy new energy sources, as long as its a product of the free market, and not compelled on us by the EPA. If we could just leave the economy alone, these issues would not require intervention. Free markets are incredibly efficient at making a cost-benefit analysis, and developing practical solutions to economic needs. If it becomes economical to run our cars on sunlight, fuel cells, or twizzlers, and there's a realistic chance of it working, then it would happen. If looking for more oil is the best approach, then the economy will do that instead. If in 100 or 200 years we start to actually have problems finding oil, then marketable solutions will be found. It's when we adopt this Master Plan mentality of subsidies and regulations that we end up causing problems. The OPEC oligopoly does try to rig prices, but the market factors that in as well. We need to stop suppressing domestic energy companies, and maybe even let them build refineries once in a while.
"Earth Firsters" want to end all of civilization...letting the goat herds free.
I assume that if you beleive the late T. Gold's theories, you're out making BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars pumping this oil out of the ground at >$50/bbl. Unfortunately, companies like EOM, PetroBras, Aramco and Shell aren't making a penny listening to debunked theories like his... If they really wanted to make any money, they would ALL be drilling in granite to find this deep oil. Glad to see they're all bankrupt...
Have you ever seen seismic of the White Tiger field off Vietnam or the other highly fractured granite fields off Lithuania? Both look like shattered glass... Surround a bunch of fractured granite with shale source rock and apply a seal. Guess what eventually fills the fracture space...
One of MANY articles debunking the late Thomas Gold:
http://www.energybulletin.net/2423.html
http://www.energybulletin.net/2741.html
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100404_abiotic_oil.shtml
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012805_no_free_pt3.shtml
I won't call you stoopid.. your socialist friend is stoopid.
from a US DOE site http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo/factsheets/l123.html
Solar Power Satellites
The feasibility of solar power stations orbiting the Earth and sending power to the Earth's surface, was investigated during the 1970s in response to the oil embargo of the United States. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) studied the concept of the Solar Power Satellites System (SPSS), which consisted of placing about 60 satellites containing large photovoltaic arrays in stationary orbits above the earth. Each satellite would have a matching receiving rectifying antenna (rectenna) on the ground. The satellites would have transmitted a fixed microwave beam to the ground station. The microwave transmission system envisioned by NASA and DOE would have had three aspects:
1. The conversion of direct current (DC) power (from the photovoltaic cells on the satellites) to microwave power on satellites on geosynchronous (stationary) orbit above the earth;
2. The formation and control of microwave beams aimed precisely at fixed locations on the earth's surface; and
3. The collection of the microwave energy and its conversion into electrical energy at the earth's surface.
Each SPSS would have been massive, measuring 6.5 miles (10.5 kilometers [km]) long and 3.3 miles (5.3 km) wide, or 21 square miles (55.7 square kilometers) in area. The surface of each satellite would have been covered with 400 million solar cells.
The transmitting antenna on the satellite(s) would have been about ½ mile in diameter (1 km) and the receiving antennae on the earth's surface would have been about 6 miles (10 km) in diameter. Massive structures such as this would have been a significant engineering challenge.
Because of their size, the satellites would have been constructed in space. The plan envisioned sending small segments of the satellites into space using the Space Shuttle. The materials would have been stored at work stations in low earth orbit, and then towed to the assembly point by a purpose-built "space tug" (such as operating the space shuttle).
Cost was the major obstacle to development of the SPSS. When the NASA-DOE report was completed in 1979, the estimated cost for building a prototype was $74 billion. Construction of an SPSS system would have taken about 30 years to complete. At the time, the United States did not appropriate funds to begin construction. Other countries, such as Japan, are currently exploring the concept of solar power stations in space.
NASA has continued research into the concept of space-based power stations under its Space Solar Power Technology Advanced Research & Development Program. The goal of the program is to conduct preliminary strategic technology research and development to enable large, multi-megawatt to gigawatt-class space solar power (SSP) systems and wireless power transmission (WPT) for government missions and commercial markets (in-space and terrestrial).
Well, that's wrong. It's risen from about 40% to about 60%.
I wish they'd talk to current professionals in the industry before publishing this stuff.
Boy is this timely::: from the DOD today
Bush Proposes Oil Refineries on Closed Military Bases
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, April 27, 2005 – President Bush unveiled a plan today to encourage building oil refineries on military sites that have closed.
Speaking at a Small Business Administration conference here, the president recommended this and other initiatives to address the country's energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign energy sources.
Bush said expanding refinery capacity will help address the shortage that's partly blamed for skyrocketing gasoline prices. The last oil refinery built in the United States was completed in 1976, he said.
more on why the dearth of refinery capacity from ask jeeves
12-06-01 No new refineries have been built in the US in the past 25 years. And petroleum industry experts say anyone would have to be crazy to launch such an effort -- even though present refineries are running at nearly 100 % of capacity and local gasoline shortages are beginning to crop up.
Why does the industry appear to have built its last refinery?
Three reasons: Refineries are not particularly profitable, environmentalists fight planning and construction every step of the way and government red-tape makes the task all but impossible. The last refinery built in the US was in Garyville, Louisiana, and it started up in 1976.
Energy proposed building a refinery near Portsmouth, Virginia, in the late 1970s, environmental groups and local residents fought the plan -- and it took almost nine years of battles in court and before federal and state regulators before the company cancelled the project in 1984.
Industry officials estimate the cost of building a new refinery at between $ 2 bn and $ 4 bn -- at a time the industry must devote close to $ 20 bn over the next decade to reducing the sulphur content in gasoline and other fuels -- and approval could mean having to collect up to 800 different permits. As if those hurdles weren't enough, the industry's long-term rate of return on capital is just 5 % -- less than could be realized by simply buying US Treasury bonds.
"I'm sure that at some point in the last 20 years someone has considered building a new refinery," says James Halloran, an energy analyst with National City Corp. "But they quickly came to their senses," he adds.
Source: Investor's Business Daily
details... details
So far, oil agrees me since it's price has gone up.
But then again, oil is pretty dumb. If there is too much oil, it's price will decrease. And if there is not enough oil, it's price will increase.
OK, lets try to have an intelligent discussion here. I posted a quote which included specific figures from the Economist magazine. To have a discussion you should try to present some figures that support you, not just say "based on what I've read...". That's really lame.
Lets also talk about "oil agreeing with you". Stay with me now. The price of oil can go up because of real demand (like China and India's economies reving up and needing more energy) It can also go up because people with money bet that the prices are going up (thinking that there is danger to the supply) and sometimes they even put out analysis saying the price is going to shoot for the roof. The latter is called speculation, and that is also boosting the price of oil.
"If there is too much oil, it's price will decrease. And if there is not enough oil, it's price will increase." -- You got that part right!
Even if the batteries were made out of hay, they'd successfully petition to make them illegal.
Read Roscoe Bartlett's (Congressman from Maryland) speech here
He's got plenty of numbers.
The latter is called speculation, and that is also boosting the price of oil.
I find it mildly amusing the high stock prices are never refererred to as "speculation", but high commodity futures prices are, even though the latter have been proven to be less volatile than the former.
It's much easier to blame boogeymen (evil speculators led by George Soros, Warren Buffet, and Emanuel Goldstein) than acutally deal with the underlying problem of oil demand starting to outstrip supply (hence the higher price).
I did a google and the second item was about airline stocks being HIGH DUE TO SPECULATION. You have provided a false absolute statement. What else are you wrong about?
http://www.thekirkreport.com/2004/06/10/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
I know enviro weenies are breathlessly waiting for us to run out of oil but for current prices see references to SPECULATION in the face of normal inventories.
The Oil Bubble: Set to Burst?
Strong fundamentals are working against a $50 barrel price.
Oil prices have soared from $32 a barrel at the beginning of the year to an all-time high of $50 a barrel at the end of September largely on the fear of supply outages stemming from terrorism and a series of odd events. Interestingly, virtually every fear so far has gone unrealized.
Terrorism has not removed a single barrel of oil production. Oil output in Saudi Arabia, instead of falling due to terrorism as some have feared, has increased by more than 1 million barrels a day this year. OPEC has steadily increased production — by a total of 1.7 million barrels a day since January — and has consistently outpaced analysts’ estimates of its capacity. Production at Russian oil giant Yukos has not fallen — it is up 6 percent so far this year. And despite a difficult war in Iraq, production in that country has averaged 2 million barrels a day — a 900,000 barrel-a-day (or 78 percent) year-over-year increase — with production currently estimated at more than 2.5 million barrels a day.
Although there have been labor strikes at various oil installations, ethnic violence in certain oil-producing countries, guerilla attacks on Colombian oil pipelines, and mechanical problems at producing oil fields — all typical events for the oil industry — non-OPEC production has been higher and less volatile than in the past.
The only meaningful event to hit the oil industry in recent months has been four back-to-back hurricanes in the southeastern U.S. This has caused temporary interruptions in oil and oil-product flows. Experience shows that inventories tend to rebuild quickly after these storms subside. Yet oil traders continue to speculate that oil supplies, in large quantity, will be cut off.
Perhaps there will be a supply interruption, but the likelihood of a prolonged outage is low.
What makes oil analysis difficult is that in addition to speculation and fear, there has been improvement in oil demand — so fundamentals have played a role in the rising price of oil. This has led to concern about the level of spare production capacity and a debate about how much of the upswing in oil prices is due to speculation and how much might be due to fundamentals.
The battery toxic issue is a real one, but if that could be solved, they would be thrown on their @ss if they tried to sabotage cheap clean energy IMO.
Scientists really need to think out of the box about this.
I bet the answer is here already, we just aren't seeing it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.