Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Long Will the Oil Age Last?
Popular Science ^ | August 2004 | Kevin Kelleher

Posted on 07/31/2004 1:48:26 PM PDT by SunkenCiv

Chief among the pessimists is the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, a group of European scientists who estimate that maximum oil production around the globe will peak in 2008 as demand rises from developing economies such as China... Others believe, like Maugeri, that the number of glasses is virtually limitless. John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute, argues that peak oil- production estimates are so far off that for all practical purposes we might as well act as if oil will flow forever. "Ever since oil was first harvested in the 1800s, people have said we'd run out of the stuff," Felmy says. In the 1880s a Standard Oil executive sold off shares in the company out of fear that its reserves were close to drying up. The Club of Rome, a nonprofit global think tank, said in the 1970s that we'd hit peak oil in 2003. It didn't happen.

(Excerpt) Read more at popsci.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: autos; bigoil; biosphere; conservation; ecology; energy; environment; gold; hydrogen; johnfelmy; kyoto; napalminthemorning; oil; opec; peakoil; pollution; science; technology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-163 next last
To: TexasCowboy
Thank you for your insights.

But I wonder why the price of oil and natural gas appear to be in a long-term uptrend? If the supply is plentiful, why would prices go up?

Also, your views seem diametrically opposed to that of a number of seemingly well-credentialed and experienced people who contend that production capacity will peak. Peak production is, of course, very different than running out. Not all of those in the other camp seek to peddle books - why the considerable difference in conclusions, given the same information?

121 posted on 07/31/2004 9:01:35 PM PDT by neutrino (Lord, what fools these mortals be! (William Shakespeare, Midsummer Nights Dream))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: TexasCowboy

Price is set in markets.

Cost of production are much more interesting numbers.


122 posted on 07/31/2004 9:10:22 PM PDT by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Yeah, I suppose that could be true -- because they would be in geostationary orbit, I didn't think about how they could be turned to face the Sun near dusk and dawn, and after sunset but before sunrise. Even though 100 per cent of the eclipsed sunlight wouldn't reach the Earth (in the shadow of the device tracing a path across the surface), and only 30 per cent (at best; minus the transmission losses which would occur) would arrive as beamed electricity after the shadow had crossed the surface, there could be no net effect, or there could be slight heating.

OTOH, if it were possible to place a single large satellite on a path where it would receive sunlight all the time, or nearly so (polar orbit?), it would be necessary to build a series of the receiving dishes (six miles across, each) at various places to service various markets around the world. Problems abound, even without considering the maintenance of the satellite components in the steady rain of miles-per-second grains of sand. :')

Energy Savers: Solar Power Satellites (DOE)
Solar Power Satellites: Environment And Health ~1749k PDF
Appendix D: Environment And Health~255K PDF

123 posted on 07/31/2004 9:18:46 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Unlike some people, I have a profile. Okay, maybe it's a little large...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: neutrino
The supply is plentiful, but it's in the ground.

I've never said that production won't peak.
We simply don't have the infrastructure to produce enough to supply the world market at a fixed price.
The lack of oil is not what is driving up prices.
It's the inability to produce it fast enough.

No one outside the industy realizes the changes which have occurred over the last twenty years which make it impossible to produce with the same efficiency as we once had.
The crash of the industry in the mid-80s destroyed our infrastructure to the point that we have not recovered to this day.
Couple that with billions of dollars of lawsuits over bogus insurance claims, environmental fiascos, strangling rules and regulations from our federal government, lack of dedicated personnel and you have the scenario which faces us today - attempting to supply a need far greater than it was in 1985 with an industry which is a shadow of it's former self.
That is what is driving up the price.

124 posted on 07/31/2004 9:20:27 PM PDT by TexasCowboy (COB1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: TexasTransplant
#12

125 posted on 07/31/2004 9:46:31 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Unlike some people, I have a profile. Okay, maybe it's a little large...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone
Like other waste, if it produces a little energy to help offset (or avoid outright) disposal costs, great. But as you said, not an answer in and of itself.
126 posted on 07/31/2004 9:48:02 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Unlike some people, I have a profile. Okay, maybe it's a little large...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines; bert; bikepacker67; blanknoone; cookcounty; Dallas59; Dinsdale; Dog Gone; ...
Some old links, probably deceased and well on their way to becoming coal:
World oil and gas 'running out'
by Graham Jones
October 2, 2003
CNN


Global Warmers Admit No Solutions
by Steven Milloy
Friday, November 01, 2002
Fox News


Pipe Dreams Draw Environmental Fire
by Sam Olukoya
Tuesday April 17, 2001
The pipeline will tap Nigeria's estimated 124 trillion cubic feet of natural gas - 2.6 per cent of the world's reserves - and divert gas wasted by gas flaring in the oil-rich Niger Delta. Nigeria currently burns off unwanted gas left over from oil extraction, a process that emits carbon dioxide and methane into the environment - two of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Nigeria flares more than 70 per cent of its natural gas, compared to less than 20 per cent by other oil-producing countries, sending tens of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions into the air each year.

Niger Delta environmentalist Isaac Osuaka said a project of this magnitude will worsen human rights violations in the Niger Delta, where local communities are agitating to wrest control over local natural resources and to stop environmental degradation from oil exploration. Environmental groups and human rights organisations from Europe and the US -- Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Oil Watch Europe, Transnational Institute, Project Underground and Sierra Club -- are focusing their attack on the World Bank, which is drafting a financial management plan to make the pipeline profitable. The groups, through a joint protest letter drafted in December 2000, are asking the Bank to withdraw.
Nano fuel additive enters efficiency trials
by Barry Fox
15 October 03
New Scientist
[A] British firm says it has developed an additive that makes diesel burn more efficiently, producing fuel savings of 10 per cent. And the UK's largest bus operator is running large-scale tests to find out for itself if the claims are true. The diesel additive, called Envirox, has been developed by Oxonica, an Oxford-based spin-off company from the University of Oxford. It consists of tiny particles of cerium oxide, which catalyse the combustion reactions between diesel and air. The cerium oxide functions as a kind of oxygen store. It releases oxygen to oxidise carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon gases to form carbon dioxide, and also absorbs oxygen to reduce the quantities of harmful nitrogen oxides. The result is a cleaner burn that converts more fuel to carbon dioxide, produces less noxious exhaust, and deposits less carbon on the engine cylinder walls.
Carbon dioxide turned into hydrocarbon fuel
16:00 02 August 02
New Scientist
Nakamichi Yamasaki of the Tokushima Industrial Technology Center in Japan says he has a process that makes propane and butane at relatively low temperatures and pressures. While his work still needs independent verification, if he can make even heavier hydrocarbons, it might be possible to make petrol. It has carbon chains that are between five and 12 atoms long - butane is four atoms long. The work suggests the tantalising prospect that CO2, the main greenhouse gas, could be recycled instead of being pumped into the atmosphere.
Fusion experiment disappoints
Thursday, 25 July, 2002
BBC
[F]resh research from Kenneth Suslick and Yuri Didenko, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, now suggests the temperatures inside a single imploding bubble fall several million degrees short of that needed for fusion. If confirmed, this would be a disappointment. Science is desperately looking for a practical fusion approach that would eliminate the need to use the far dirtier fission process currently employed in the world's nuclear reactors... Instead of the millions of degrees Celsius that are needed to drive a fusion event, Professor Suslick said the temperature inside the cavitating bubbles was only reaching 15-20,000 Celsius... Professor Suslick stresses that cavitation will have many practical uses. Possible applications include making catalysts to clean fuels, removing sulphur from gasoline, and enhancing the chemical reactions used to make pharmaceuticals. The process has already been used to make new chemical catalysts for industrial use and biomedical agents for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Nuclear fusion gets quadruple boost
by Eugenie Samuel, Boston
New Scientist
In experiments at the US National Fusion Facility in San Diego, researchers have quadrupled the rate of fusion in superhot deuterium gas.
Non-metallic magnet could be dream computer memory
by Justin Mullins
New Scientist
A transparent, flexible magnetic material made from an exotic form of carbon could turn out to be the dream computer memory. The substance, which was discovered accidentally by a Russian physicist hunting for high-temperature superconductors, is the first non-metallic magnet to work at room temperature. Organic magnets could be important because they are much lighter than their metallic cousins. Exactly why the material is magnetic is not yet clear.
Nanotubes hint at room temperature superconductivity
by Adrian Cho
New Scientist
Guo-meng Zhao and Yong Sheng Wang of the University of Houston in Texas found subtle signs of superconductivity. It wasn't zero resistance, but it's the closest anyone's got so far. At the moment no superconductor will work above about 130 kelvin (-143°C). But if a material could carry current with no resistance at room temperature, no energy would be lost as heat, meaning faster, lower-power electronics. And electricity could be carried long distances with 100 per cent efficiency.
Warm up
by Justin Mullins
New Scientist
The claim, from researchers in Croatia, comes just a few weeks after the discovery that the simple chemical magnesium diboride superconducts at temperatures up to almost twice those needed for other metallic superconductors to work. The Croatian scientists say that current will flow effortlessly through their material, a mixture of lead carbonate and lead and silver oxides, at up to about 30 °C. But because of numerous false alarms in this field, researchers are treating the announcement with caution, especially as no one has yet managed to reproduce the results.
Simpler superconducting
by Duncan Graham-Rowe
New Scientist
A previously ignored "off-the-shelf" chemical compound has been found to superconduct at far higher temperatures than believed possible for simple metallic compounds. Until now such metal compounds have only been found to operate at around 23K. But Jun Akimitsu and his colleagues at Aoyama-Gakuin University in Tokyo, Japan, have made magnesium diboride (MgB2) superconduct at 39K.
Down in Motown
by Peter Fairley
July/August 2001
Technology Review
A gritty section of Detroit surrounds one of the city's oldest electric power stations. But the technology that Detroit Edison is installing at the Frisbie substation is pure 21st century—underground superconducting cables that can transmit immense currents of electricity with near perfect efficiency.

While increasing energy demands are putting more and more stress on the nation's long-distance power transmission network, cities are suffering their own version of electric gridlock; in many locations, underground transmission lines are fast reaching capacity and are literally burning up. Superconducting cables, like the ones being installed in Detroit, could safely triple the power moving through existing conduits, avoiding the need to dig up the streets—even making room for fiber-optic communications lines.

The Frisbie demonstration marks a milestone in electricity know-how—one of the first commercial applications of high-temperature superconductors. These ceramics, first fashioned by IBM researchers in 1986, now transmit alternating currents with nearly zero resistance at temperatures as high as -139 °C (the materials can be cheaply cooled to that temperature using liquid nitrogen). In contrast, conventional copper cables dissipate as much as 10 percent of the power they carry because of resistance; that lost power escapes as heat, which limits just how much juice can flow before the cable melts.
Thermoelectric Clathrates
by George Nolas and Glen A. Slack
American Scientist
Abstract: Certain substances allow heat to be pumped from one place to another using electricity. Such thermoelectric materials also allow electricity to be generated from heat. Yet the promise of solid-state refrigerators and air conditioners has never been fulfilled, in large part because the efficiency of these materials is comparatively low. Thus thermoelectrics are restricted to specialized applications: thermocouples, radioisotope power generators and thermoelectric coolers for image sensors, for example. The fundamental problem is that a good thermoelectric must have high electrical conductivity and low thermal conductivity, but in most solids these two physical properties go hand in hand. A promising solution is to use semiconducting clathrates. These compounds have cage-like crystal structures in which the spaces are filled with atoms that can effectively rattle around. This motion interferes with the conduction of heat but not electricity, making them ideal candidates for the next generation of thermoelectrics.
Good night all.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." -- G.B. Shaw
NOT A PING LIST, merely posted to: Behind Liberal Lines; bert; bikepacker67; blanknoone; cookcounty; Dallas59; Dinsdale; Dog Gone; danmar; EGPWS; EggsAckley; editor-surveyor; Fintan; John Lenin; Ken K; laredo44; litehaus; MARTIAL MONK; mercy; Nakatu X; neutrino; PackerBoy; Paulus Invictus; paleocon patriarch; RightWhale; razorback-bert; Steve Eisenberg; SunkenCiv; SunnySide; snopercod; TexasCowboy; TexasTransplant; TomGuy; TommyDale; Truth666; truthandlife; ValerieUSA; William Terrell; Wonder Warthog; winker

127 posted on 07/31/2004 10:17:59 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Unlike some people, I have a profile. Okay, maybe it's a little large...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Ooh, check out the poll:

"In the year 2050, who will be the world leader in technology?"

http://www.technologyreview.com/


128 posted on 07/31/2004 10:19:58 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Unlike some people, I have a profile. Okay, maybe it's a little large...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

I am sorry, you cannot insinuate that any Greenhouse Gases are being emitted by Nigeria!

Those people are BLACK!

Only White people and anyone living in the USA that has ever received 40 acres and a mule can be blamed for Global Warmig, Global Cooling, a New Ice Age, (the last 3 Ice Ages are the fault of White Males).


129 posted on 07/31/2004 10:32:16 PM PDT by TexasTransplant (I made my Fortune selling Sugar Coated Cat Turds on a Stick at the DNC Convention)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: TexasTransplant; TexasCowboy; Dog Gone

Everyone will be pleased to know after I learned of the danger of greenhouse gases, I dismantle mine.


130 posted on 07/31/2004 10:35:39 PM PDT by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: TexasCowboy
when the infrastructure is set up to do so

I agree with all your remarks. I wonder if the infrastructure is robust. The recent price increase to close to $44 a barrel wasn't related to pipeline capacity, oilfield development, oil tanker availability, or anything else of a plant capacity. I would count the futures market as part of the infrastructure, and that is where things have gone haywire for the moment. All the same there is now an instability in the system and that instability could continue and grow worse even while Putin and the Saudis and all act quickly every day. Rumors are having a strong effect, which wouldn't be the case if the infrastructure were strong.

131 posted on 07/31/2004 10:35:50 PM PDT by RightWhale (Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and establish property rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert
Oh @#()_$%|, I keep losing letters, dismantled!
132 posted on 07/31/2004 10:37:17 PM PDT by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

I love Technology, where even mere Americans can convert Turkey offal into Petro Products
http://www.changingworldtech.com/home.html

I personally produce enough Natural Gas to heat and light a small city, (currently my aSSets are in a locked negotiation situation)


133 posted on 07/31/2004 10:47:26 PM PDT by TexasTransplant (I made my Fortune selling Sugar Coated Cat Turds on a Stick at the DNC Convention)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: All
Found the coal to liquid fuel thread. See the "in reply to" link for context. Good night all, I really mean it this time .
Coal-to-liquid solution for energy woes
The StraitsTimes ^ | July 19, 2004 | David Dapice

Posted on 07/20/2004 9:27:15 AM PDT by Baby Bear

AMID continuing violence in the Middle East, the issue of energy security is again on the front burner. With oil prices rising to a peak of US$40 (S$68) a barrel, countries have been looking at alternative energy with a greater urgency. This heightened sense of urgency, fortunately, has come at a time when there is evidence that a new approach using existing resources and technology can provide alternative energy to many countries.

A glimmer of good news recently appeared: China signed an agreement with Sasol, a South African energy and chemicals firm, to build two coal-to-liquid fuel plants in China. These plants, costing US$3 billion each, are reported by the Financial Times to jointly produce 60 million tonnes of liquid fuel (440 million barrels) a year. Since China imported 100 million tonnes of oil last year, these plants would give China much control over its domestic energy situation, though its demand is growing fast.

The raw material and capital costs of a barrel of fuel would fall under US$10 and other costs would not bring total costs over US$15.

Coal resources of one trillion tonnes are widely distributed around the world. Many countries, including China, India, Russia, Ukraine, Germany, Poland, South Africa, the United States and Australia have extensive coal deposits that would last 100 years or more at current rates of exploitation. But coal is a highly polluting fuel when burned directly and also emits a lot of global-warming carbon dioxide.

The Sasol technology, a third-generation Fischer-Tropsch process, was developed in Germany and used in World War II, and later in South Africa. (Steam and oxygen are passed over coke at high temperatures and pressures; hydrogen and carbon monoxide are produced and then reassembled into liquid fuels.)

It has long been too expensive to compete with standard crude oil. On the plus side, sulphur and other pollutants such as ash and mercury are removed - the sulphur can be sold as a by-product - and carbon dioxide is segregated and can be injected underground. If hydrogen is needed for fuel cells, these plants can also provide it. In the near term, the petrol and diesel produced are high grade and clean, meeting even future 'clean diesel' requirements of the United States.

The real question is if these plants can be built and reliably produce fuels for less than US$20 a barrel. Sasol already produces 150,000 barrels a day from coal. (Conversion from natural gas is cheaper and Sasol is in the process of switching its feedstock to gas in South Africa.) Each of the Chinese plants would be four times as large as the existing Sasol plant, and scaling up can involve difficulties. If Sasol can make these larger plants work at the publicised costs, this technology could be used by many other nations - rich and poor - who are willing to forego periods of very cheap oil for more security. (Indeed, even oil-producing Indonesia is looking into a coal-to-liquids plant as it now imports oil.)

This technology also works in converting coal to natural gas at a cost of US$3 to US$3.50 per million BTUs (British thermal units). Since current natural-gas prices in the US are roughly double that, it would appear that coal-to-gas is also an economically viable technology.

The coal-to-liquid technology would compete with the evolving tar-sands technology being expanded in Canada. This technology involves the production, either by mining or extracting with steam, of heavy oil trapped in sand. The heavy oil is then massaged into more valuable fuels. This source already accounts for a quarter of Canada's 3.2 million barrels per day output. It requires natural gas to heat the tar and is energy intensive, but still has production costs of under US$20 a barrel.

Tar-sand reserves are estimated at over 250 billion barrels. These and similar technologies would allow much more plentiful isolated natural-gas reserves, coal and tar sand to be converted into liquid fuels. The long-predicted decline in petroleum production could be delayed for decades or more, and the geopolitics of energy would be rewritten at something close to or below current crude-oil costs.

Is there a downside to rapidly adopting these technologies? Yes, from a global welfare perspective. Now, onshore oil-production costs are usually under US$5 a barrel. If prices are higher, somebody (the country owning the oil or the company producing it) gets the difference between the price and the cost. If we switch to US$15-$20 costs from these other technologies, then there is no surplus of price over cost, or a much smaller one. To use an economic phrase, the 'rent' on oil production is destroyed in a quest for self-sufficiency.

While true, the instability in oil prices - as well as the threat of terrorist disruptions to supply - are such that many nations might be happy to use their own resources to produce this vital input. They are no worse off if oil can be produced at US$20 a barrel, unless the price temporarily plunges below that level as it did in the late 1990s. A stable price and supply prevents very expensive disruptions.

None of this answers critics who are properly concerned with global warming. Subsidies to hybrid or other highly efficient vehicles are probably needed to reduce emissions. In the longer term, fuel cells burning hydrogen and producing only water as a waste product are promising, but still far from being economically feasible.

Overall, the coal-to-liquid technology is only one element of an integrated programme that is needed to deal with fuel security, local pollution and global-warming issues. But, even alone, it could bring an element of stability to world oil prices and thus also to the global economy. In addition, if it redirects efforts from geopolitical competition and even conflict to investment and efficiency, it is a welcome development.

The writer is an associate professor of economics at Tufts University. Rights: YaleGlobal Online, www.yaleglobal.yale.edu


Exit Polls: Bolivians Want to Export Gas (Latin America Leftist Alert!)
Yahoo News / Associated Press ^ | July 18, 2004 | DREW BENSON

Posted on 07/18/2004 7:33:04 PM PDT by EsclavoDeCristo

LA PAZ, Bolivia - The fate of Bolivia's immense natural gas reserves were at stake Sunday as voters decided whether to allow exports and increase government participation in a referendum aimed at healing social unrest threatening to fracture South America's poorest country.

Exit polls by television stations Unitel and ATB reported that between 56 to 63 percent of voters said gas should be exported. The issue is a sensitive one in Bolivia. Nine months ago, then-President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada was ousted for planning to export liquefied natural gas to Mexico and California. Clashes between highland Indians and security forces in and around La Paz left nearly 60 dead.

Although Indian leaders had threatened to burn down polling stations Sunday, there were only minor incidents of violence.

Police were investigating a dynamite explosion in the otherwise calm town of Achacachi, 40 miles northwest of La Paz.

Dozens of townspeople, including Indian women in felt bowler hats, sweaters and layered skirts, also threw rocks at a team of election observers from the Organization of American States. The team, part of 22 OAS observers sent to Bolivia, was trying to visit a polling station in the city of El Alto, a flash point of unrest in October.

President Carlos Mesa, formerly the vice president, offered to hold the referendum immediately after taking over to finish Sanchez de Lozada's term, scheduled to end in 2007.

"Whether people vote yes or no, this vote will win," he said. "We are creating peace today."

Valued at more than $70 billion, the gas fields in this landlocked country are the second largest on the continent, behind those in Venezuela.

Lured by privatization of the industry, some 20 foreign companies have invested $3.5 billion in exploration, discovering 55 trillion cubic feet of gas.

But some Bolivians remained wary of the vote and pledges that the exploitation of natural gas will raise incomes in a nation where two-thirds of the population live in poverty.

"I don't think this is going to improve the situation," said Patricia Mamani, a 28-year-old street vendor in the capital. "There have been so many promises, and the government always does what it wants."

The gas reserves have split the nation, with Indians in the western Andean plains pitted against the business elite in the eastern and southern lowlands, where the gas reserves are located.

The business leaders are set on exportation and have threatened to break away from the republic.

Indian leaders in the west want the entire gas industry nationalized to ensure profits stay in the country, an option Mesa left off the ballot.

"It's a trick," Indian leader Roberto de la Cruz said at a polling station in El Alto before voiding his ballot.

Despite opposition, Mesa has so far managed to hold the nation together as a straight-talking political outsider. But some fear Sunday's results could pull down the former television journalist's 70 percent approval ratings.

The ballot asked Bolivians if gas should be exported, if the government should recover ownership of all hydrocarbon reserves and re-establish the state-run oil company to work with multinational petroleum companies, and if Bolivia should use the gas to negotiate access to the pacific coast lost during Bolivia's 1879-84 war with Chile.

It also asked if a hydrocarbons law signed by Sanchez de Lozada that promoted the privatization and exploitation of Bolivia's gas and attracted foreign investment, should be repealed.


134 posted on 08/01/2004 12:55:30 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Unlike some people, I have a profile. Okay, maybe it's a little large...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
I love starting threads, and I love pingin' you.

I feel the love, Civ. It moves me. *smoooch*

135 posted on 08/01/2004 12:59:12 AM PDT by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
"Peak Oil would be of passing interest if it weren't for these reports of higher and higher oil prices."

And you think all the Muslim turmoil in the Middle East is having no effect????

136 posted on 08/01/2004 3:26:45 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: neutrino
"Nuclear reactors (the fission variety) may not offer a very big payoff; the energy invested to build the facility is large, and so is the energy investment to cart off and store the waste."

By comparison to the energy investment necessary to extract, refine, and use petroleum, the comparative energy cost of fission is miniscule.

137 posted on 08/01/2004 3:29:15 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

137 posts and I did not see this mentioned anywhere:

DRILL A.N.W.R.


138 posted on 08/01/2004 4:55:15 AM PDT by Trteamer ( (Eat Meat, Wear Fur, Own Guns, FReep Leftists, Drive an SUV, Drill A.N.W.R., Drill the Gulf, Vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
The futures market is a parasitic growth which feeds off of every other part of the infrastructure.
Any perceived weakness of any part of the infrastructure translates into a feeding frenzy in the futures market.
That is the reason for the volatility.

The fact remains, however, that America is like a big OilsRUs store. How we go, so goes the world.
We supply the equipment and the technology to keep the oil industry going all over the world, in spite of what European countries would like to think.
If we are shackled by governmental and societal restraints here at home, it is reflected in the world oil market.

A tanker filling in Saudi must be diverted to Yokohama or Liverpool because we have tankers sitting offshore waiting to unload to facilities already full waiting for refineries to come online which are installing new scrubbers required by a new clean air mandate.
That bottleneck decreases the supply of thousands of oil products on the world market, and the price goes up.
All of a sudden the price of milk increases twenty cents - not because the cows are charging more for their milk, but because the containers used to carry the milk costs more.
Working women must allow more in their budget for the increased cost of cosmetics.
Retired people must try to divert more money from an already stretched budget to pay for their medicine.
Home prices increase because of the hundreds of items used in the building of a home which come directly from oil.
And so the dominoes fall all over the world.

139 posted on 08/01/2004 6:15:35 AM PDT by TexasCowboy (COB1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Trteamer
"DRILL A.N.W.R."

We must make up our minds to drill anywhere that has a chance of increasing our oil and gas supply.

If we need to rig up a drilling rig in the middle of Yellowstone National Park, so be it.
We can no longer afford to bend to the demands of the envirowhackos.

140 posted on 08/01/2004 6:22:00 AM PDT by TexasCowboy (COB1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-163 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson