|
(Love your run on sentences. Do me a favor and please use spell check.)
Okay point by point.
"Technology invented new and faster ways to extract oil."
-Oil companies are using the same technology to find and extract oil as they did in the 1970's. It hasn't changed a whole hell of a lot since then.
"Our oil production would have peaked in the 1980s if steam injection would not been invented."
-Oil production in the U.S. peaked in 1973. it was at that point we had to start importing oil.
(Do you only spout off oil company talking points or do you ever do any research?)
"Deep water drilling, horizontal drilling, and Seismic graphing have vastly increased oil reserves."
-There has been no new large oil discovers on the same par as the last large oil field in Saudi Arabia in the last 35 years.
"New technologies are allowing us to drill in extremely deep water to find new sources of oil. The prime example of that is the Gulf of Mexico."
-The oil that was found in the deep water in the gulf was a test drill. Do you have any idea of the temperatures and pressure oil is under at that depth? The average temp of oil at 1 ocean mile plus 5 sediment miles is roughly in the range of 285 degrees. The equipment and technology for drilling at that depth to extract that oil, has yet to invented.
"There have been over 10 oil crisis in the United States. All of them proved false."
-actually the "oil crisis" that the U.S. has experienced that you have mentioned happened, the majority of the them, prior to 1973. They were geopolitical crisis. Shall I list them? The only other crisis that has happened after 1973 was the 1981 oil embargo. Geopolitical. And Katrina. Natural disaster.
"Now I agree eventually we will run out of oil, but its not going to happen for quite some time."
-we aren't going to run out of oil, the concept of peak oil is based on easily extractable oil. After which, the oil that is left, is low grade thick heavy oil which is harder to extract because when sea water is injected to help it rise to the surface, there is a much greater chance of the oil being ruined. oil industry execs one month ago stated that we have roughly 140 years of oil left. Now think to yourself, how long has the world been using oil...give up? roughly 140 years since it was "discovered" in Titusville, PA in 1858, that my friend would put us at PEAK.
"High prices will be our savior. High prices will increase investment in exploration, which will increase reserves."
-High prices have lead to one thing, the improved development of alternative energy and hybrid cars. Pouring money into exploration hasn't found any more new fields. The gulf fields have long been known to exist. For as long as 40 years, but as like now, the technology then wasn't able to extract it.
"There is still plenty of areas in the world that haven't been fully explored yet such as Iraq, Iran, Alaska, Canada, the continental shelfs off the coasts of the US, Siberia, the Arctic Ocean, the Caspian Sea region, the Gulf of Mexico."
-Since your such a fan of technology, you would also realize that in the 30 years since U.S. peaked, the Dept of Agriculture and the Dept of Interior, in joint cooperation with OPEC have launched a series of geocentric satellites to search for oil. So far, other than the already know existing fields, only a handful have been found. All of which, with the rapid expanse of development in china and in india don't amount to more then a few months to as much as a single year at current rates to cover need. At the rate china is going, in the year 2020 the world will requires 5 fields the size of Al Ghawar to be put on line each year in order to cover the worlds needs.
"Iraq could have enormous production potential with the proper foreign investment, which will come in time."
-in late 2004, Iraq's field were down graded to poor. Why? because of the years of sanctions, lack of spare parts and very poor equipment, many of the huge fields have gone foul. Poor pumping practices have "muddied" the oil due to inefficient sea water injection methods. They best they can hope for is a 10-15% return on the fields.
"Iran with new foreign investment to return to its peak production."
-The U.S. gets no oil from Iran. So what's the point in the foreign investment? And with the worlds majority of oil fields in decline what good would Iran's fields do in the long run?
"Alaska has enormous production as well, but environmental issues are slowing that production."
-Have you actually read how much oil is in the new Alaskan oil fields? By the time it actually gets online, (remember, nothing has been drilled there yet), it will be at the earliest 2015. If the oil companies are lucky. It will yield less than what the new jack oil field will yield. Rates have been estimated upon growth and demand of the worlds economy at roughly 2 to 3 weeks of oil.
"Canada obviously with the tar sands."
-I addressed this in my previous email, which you obviously failed to read.
"Siberia was enormous production potential as well, but Putin likes to drag his feet and shut down private oil majors in Russia."
-Please provide me with evidence that Putin closed down the oil fields. I would love to see that. All indications is that Putin sells primarily to Europe and to Asian nations. Our amount of oil we get from them is very small and would have little effect upon the price here. Putin never shut them down, he made them state owned. Big big difference.
"OIl prices would be about 30 dollars per barrel if Yukos was still around."
-read my above reply.
"The Caspian Sea will have new oil production coming online over the next few years and more discoveries are being made every year."
-the Caspian has a large proven reserve however, due to geopolitical issues, it won't be online anytime soon. Read Iran. There are several routes by which a pipeline can be constructed to carry the oil. All of the primary routes by which a pipeline would originate aren't friendly to western powers. Also, we are not the only country that is interested in it. The most easy and viable route goes through China. Who do you think is working deal with the break away republics in the Caucus region? It ain't us.
"The Artic Ocean could hold billions of barrells of oil, but extraction could be difficult."
-it also could hold nothing. No one knows. And realistically if we ever got to the point where we actually have to drill in that region, we will have bigger issues to deal with. That would be the mark of desperation. You think drilling in the gulf would be difficult? I wouldn't hold a candle to the Arctic where temps average in the 50 below region for a good portion of the year.
"I know that the Greater Cantrell field in Mexico has peaked, but Mexico just discovered a new major field."
-did you read the follow up on that new field? Their first estimate as 15 billion, it has now gone down to around 3 billion. That's a gigantic difference and won't do a whole lot of good in the long run when it's finally on line.
"Kuawait trimed back production on there Greater Bergen field, but only by about 200,00 barrels."
-Kuwait released a report 3 weeks ago after doing an extensive audit on their fields and announced they have peaked and are now in decline.
"New oil production from Saudi Arabia and Iraq could easily replace that amount."
-I replied about Iraq above. Saudi Arabia was at pumping capacity as of 2 months ago. Nothing new from them.
"My point is the time will come when peak oil arrives, but that day is not today."
-nope not today, but in about 5 years. Or as many have said, we are currently at plateau and in 5 years will begin the slow dive.
"When it comes to electricity production. Nuclear power is a great options for the United States."
-recent inventory of the world uranium production will peak in roughly 75 years. It won't last forever, just like oil.
"It is extremely clean, except for radioactive waste, which can be reprocessed."
-yeah that pesky waste. As it stands now only a very small percentage of the worlds nuclear powered nations reprocesses waste. We don't. So perhaps conservation, which, deals with reprocessing waste could be a solution, who would have thunk it??? You seem to have an odd view of what environmentalists believe in.
"France is great example of nuclear power working. Uranium is safer than most power sources, but people are mainly scared of it because they can't see or feel when a plant melts down."
-Yeah, that Chernobyl was a bitch huh? whole abandoned cities not inhabitable for 50,000 years, but just think of what real estate will go for when that passes, huh?
"We have come a long way from 3 mile island and I would feel perfectly safe living next to a nuclear power plant."
-Actually we haven't, the reason why France is using Nuclear reactors is because they use breeder reactors which is very very safe. But anything is only as safe as it's safe guards. Here in the U.S. a new plant hasn't been built in 25 years, and they are of those problematic old versions. I wouldn't in my life live next to one if my life depended on it. The type that was profiled in the "china syndrome" and the real life almost melt down at 3-mile island are still in use. Both here and in Russia.
"The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. Now coal isn't the cleanest energy out there, but it is one of the cheapest."
-if you can find a way to eliminate the heavy metals being spewed out of the coal power plants by the millions of tons daily, more power to you. But until there is a way to limit it, we will continue to breath in a Host of heavy metals daily.
"Conservation alone does not find new sources of energy."
Well, are you mad at the conservationists or the environmentalists. Conservation is just that, call me kooky, but it has nothing to do with finding new energy sources, it has everything to do with the conservation of what we have. By making it last longer until a proper alternative is put in to place. At the rate we are going, there will be an energy gap in out life times.
"You basically think we are doomed when the last bit of oil comes out of the ground."
-I never once said we are doomed what I have said if we continue to live this fantasy that some miracle technology is going to save us we are going to be very disappointed. I stated this in my first email. We use 25% of the oil yet have only 5% of the population. Conservation will save use period. We are an alcoholic in a liquor store. But the liquor is running out and we have to cut back on our overly bloated indulgence. We have to change the way we live, if we don't we are in for a very rude awakening.
"I am much more optimistic. If we could ever harness nuclear fusion, our problems would be solved, but that could be ways away."
-As mentioned in the Journal Science. Fusion is possible but not in our lifetimes. Thus that type of technology will not save us, thus conflicting with your statement that technology will save us.
"Electricity production is not the problem, transportation enery is."
-However if you don't have an energy carrier, production doesn't exist.
"Humans have always been a relisent race and we always find a way to beat our problems."
-I believe that as well, and the tools are right in front of us, the problem is not a matter of figuring it out, it's a matter of changing the way we live. Our oil soaked society can not be sustained at the level it's going at. It's impossible. We have solar, we have wind, we have biomass and we have tidal. Whole nations are switching over to these alternative energies, why can't we? Because we are Americans? That argument falls apart really fast.
And this gets back to what I said in my previous email, our issue of peak oil and it running short is less about where we are going to get new energy from, it's all about a social change. Until we understand that the golden age of oil is coming to a close things will indeed be very bleak.
If however you bend with the wind, many many opportunities open up for all sorts of new industries.
We will adapt and find a new path. Humans are remarkable that way, we just have to stop being such oil pigs.
|