Posted on 01/16/2008 12:35:46 AM PST by Brian S. Fitzgerald
You’re right on the exploration - there are some significant discoveries being made here in the Great Basin. Here’s a little factoid of interest to folks:
Most all (if not practically all) new field exploration by the “majors” (ie, the big oil companies like Shell, Chevron, Texaco, etc, etc) stopped after the Valdez incident. They figured that there was less political BS and barriers in the way to go overseas.
In central/western Utah, there has been a new oilfield discovered that has some great potential. Central/eastern Nevada also has good potential. The oil formation in this area isn’t a wholly new one - it is merely part of the oil and coal belt that ranges from Canada, down through Montana/Wyoming and then down into New Mexico and west Texas.
So why haven’t the oil companies, even the juniors, drilled here before? Because the oil geology isn’t like Texas. There are some oil wells here in Nevada that have been producing for years and years, quite profitably, but some of these oil finds were discovered by accident. One of them was discovered due to a snow storm that delayed the company geologist from getting back to the drilling pad in time to prevent the drillers from going from 8,000 down to 13,000 feet of depth. At about 13,000’ depth, they found oil.
There is oil - new oil - around. People who claim that there isn’t are just ignoring the facts and evidence. The question is “Can we extract this oil at a cost level that makes the result economically viable?”
The notion in Congress that the US should export $100 for every barrel of oil we consume so that the pristine Alaskan or Wyoming desert is not disturbed is bizarre beyond comprehension.
Why?
You don't think there is a world food shortage do you? Starvation always has a local cause.
Food is what has always fueled our bodies efficiently. Calories are a measure of energy and food has quite a bit.
When is the last time you ate corn silage?
If you want to bring emotion to a commodity usage debate why not say "Pretty sad when so many of us are obese and yet farmers keep growing more food.... if only we could use it for something else." Why should our government continue paying farmers to grow weeds instead of crops or dump milk or store cheese in mines to keep food prices up when farmers could convert the excess into fuel?
WAAA WAAAA we're burning food for fuel while women and children are starving in Africa. Boo Frigging HOO! Those who starve in Africa are starved intentionally there is no worldwide shortage of food or shortage of NGOs that give food out for free. The reason Africans starve is because it is cheaper to starve them than shooting them and there is no smoking gun to point at that way. A lot of food aid ends up getting sold to buy weapons by those in power. Those who starve are being starved by their countries regimes. IT IS NOT A WORLDWIDE SHORTAGE OF FOOD THAT CAUSES MODERN DAY STARVATION!
In our nations statistics "malnutrition" has even been defined so as to include obesity. If you went out to find the millions of American children who "suffer" from malnutrition you'll find most of them are "Suffering" from childhood obesity. We're not starving. When is the last time you actually saw someone in the USA who was starving to death because they could not get food? I've never seen it.
We've used food for fuel in many ways since time began. It is often even hard to decide if something is more of a fuel or a food. Many bio-diesels are also edible oils, but how much more oil do you really want to eat? If we burn wood for fuel aren't we stealing some poor termite's food? If we burn straw aren't we going to starve the buffalo?
Just as one man's trash is another man's treasure, one man's food is another man's fuel, one man's dog is another man's dinner. Did you see the guy who eats bicycles and stuff? Fruitcake gets used as a doorstop, Salt and flour dough trinkets and popcorn get used to decorate Christmas trees, eggs get used to make paint, oh the horror of it all. Get a clue people. Using food for other purposes is fine.
If I hear one more ignorant dildo claim it is mad or bad or sad to continue using food for fuel as humanity has done from the beginning I think my head is going to explode!
Oats were traditional horse fuel back when horses were vehicles and not just food or glue. Was it wrong of our ancestors to fuel their horses with oats that could have been some kids oatmeal and not instead sell the horse to a French butcher to create more food? If you don't eat the bark off the trees in your yard that is good food going to waste. If you don't stew and eat your leather shoes, belts, and seat covers when you're done with them shame on you! You're throwing food away! ....and dammit women and children are starving! I can't believe you capitalist pigs don't eat your banana peels and melon rinds when they're high in fiber and people are starving. I could go on for ever. My point is the use of food for fuel is neither new nor morally bad and if that is the best those who oppose biofuels can come up with then they are really running out of reasons to keep things the way the oil companies like them.
Agreed. Price is the thing. I recall a talk way back in '79 by an oil guy saying that if oil ever reached the price per gallon of diet coke, people would be down in Texas and Oklahoma digging it out with a spoon. Figuratively speaking, that's happening now with oil shales and tar sands.
I ain't an expert and I don't play one on tv. However, it does seem to be clear that corn ethanol is economically competitive vs. $40 oil. Tar sands and oil shales will come into the game at that point also. Given $100 oil, the range of potential alternatives grows rapidly. We're very early in the game and various successor fuels are at various stages in the development process. But if I had to bet, I'd wager that oil isn't viable long-term at $100. Given the huge quantities involved, it will take decades to build out the replacement capacity, but this will come.
Short term, I expect that before long many of us will be burning E-85 in flex fuel plug-in hybrids.
It sounds good to me.
An acquaintence is an outside reviewer on grant applications for federal research funding in this area. I know nothing about the merits of the applications and my friend wouldn't discuss specifics even if I were competent to follow the details, which I'm not. He did, however, mention that they have more than 300 feedstocks in competition -- and this is just one small program in an obscure part of the bureaucracy. I get the impression everyone in the ag sciences with a petri dish is in on the hunt.
Some of the potentials are quite high. I've heard back of the envelope guesstimates from knowledgeable people that peg the potential from algae as high as an equivalency of 10,000 gallons per acre. That may be wishful thinking, but if anything close to that is realized, it is a clear path to a post oil economy. Who knows? Especially with gene splicing, the eventual energy yields are likely to be substantially greater than we would now extrapolate from the first generation, unmodified feedstocks.
Yes -- and faster than most people realize.
The oil buffs on this thread, however, still don't need to be worried. Oil has a long future ahead as a blending agent with ethanol.
[Right, but if we use oilseeds as a biodiesel feedstock (and diesel engines) we have better efficiency in both the production and the use.]
I could be convinced to swap my 400 horse, 350 Chevy for a similar V-8 biodiesel. But I think these guys jest when they think Americanos are going for V-6s in SUVs.
Not when we have mountains of excess food.
If that is your point why do you need a half page diatribe insulting someone you don't know? Calling me an "ignorant dildo" for using the word "sad" as if you have sole exegetical authority on the word and its uses is a bit presumptious. If you want someone to listen to your point of view try speaking civilly.
And lest you forget, pigs will eat anything, (not just crude oil).
Personally I think every home should have solar power, wind power, and a good fireplace. Wind and solar don't need to be grown and there's no shortage of either. With food and water, you can have droughts. With the new emerging economies of the world, food prices WILL continue to rise. Just look at wheat futures. Thats my response and its all I have to say on the subject to you in particular.
Whatever the case, you can’t just shove food in your gasoline tank.
You are right that I don't know you. "Ignorant dildo" was just a general term for people who are sad that we are using cleaner burning domestic renewable fuels to replace fossil fuels often imported from our sworn enemies. The hallmark of the ignorant is they always seem to be able to spot progress and stand in the way. You also don't know my English vocabulary prowess. I can honestly say I do know what words like sad and is mean and I don't have to get it from you.
I'm glad you support wind, solar, and wood energy, you should just think of biofuels as being grown and harvested renewably and managed just like the wood fuel you like, and that might help you to not feel so sad when I burn E-85 in my car instead of gasoline.
You predict "food prices WILL continue to rise." Well ,guess what, the economic law of supply and demand tells us that this will actually end up increasing the world's food supply. And yes I can explain this in detail if you need me to. Anticipating more food production makes me happy not sad, because I have a gift for seeing through many fads, hype, and popular misconceptions that often envelop people who ignorantly delegate their thinking to their peers. This lesson in economics will be free of charge minus the part where I keep calling you an ignorant dildo.
Of course not, that's what ethanol plants are for.
Oil sands have been in commercial production in Alberta Canada for 4 decades. Production from Alberta oil sands now exceeds conventional oil production from Western Canada, and is expected to make up over 65% of total production by 2010.
CANADIAN OIL SANDS SUMMIT
http://www.insightinfo.com/index.cfm?ci_id=25058&la_id=1
I agree with you on the fire (wood stove/coal stove) in my case. The wood makes sense because I have a ready supply and the coal displaces gas I’d otherwise be burning AND it lines American pockets. Solar and especially wind make no sense where I am.
and didn’t jesus say, “consider the mustard seed...”
makes me think...
teeman
That’s o.k., GM has peaked a long time ago and now they, like the other American auto companies, are ripping off their retirees for their previously AGREED retirement health plans.
GM, Ford and Chrysler can go on supporting Carl Levin, John Dingell, John Conyers, Debbie Stabmenow, etc. as a PAC contributor, because I ain’t buyin’ their crap.
The only car they make that is worth a damn anymore is the Corvette and I can’t tow a boat with it or screw in the back seat.
Plants that build these batteries pollute the ground worse than any oil well ever has.
A completely electric car emits poison gas when the batteries are recharging. Also, a barrel of oil whether used to generate electricity or run a gasoline engine, STILL USES OIL!
These ecofreaks are morons.
But, nuclear power emits none of the so-called "greenhouse" gasses. Hit them with that one and watch them squirm.
They still emit poison gas when the batteries are recharging.
Also, a barrel of oil whether used to generate electricity or run a gasoline engine, STILL USES OIL!
They still emit poison gas when the batteries are recharging.
Also, a barrel of oil whether used to generate electricity or run a gasoline engine, STILL USES OIL!
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.