Posted on 03/04/2008 11:53:59 AM PST by shoptalk
Many energy analysts view the ongoing waltz of crude prices with the mystical $100 mark -- notwithstanding the dollar's anemia -- as another sign of the beginning of the end for the oil era. "[A]t the furthest out, it will be a crisis in 2008 to 2012," declares Matthew Simmons, the most vocal voice among the "neo-peak-oil" club. Tempering this pessimism only slightly is the viewpoint gaining ground among many industry leaders, who argue that daily production by 2030 of 100 million barrels will be difficult.
In fact, we are nowhere close to reaching a peak in global oil supplies.
Given a set of assumptions, forecasting the peak-oil-point - defined as the onset of global production decline - is a relatively trivial problem. Four primary factors will pinpoint its exact timing. The trivial becomes far more complex because the four factors - resources in place (how many barrels initially underground), recovery efficiency (what percentage is ultimately recoverable), rate of consumption, and state of depletion at peak (how empty is the global tank when decline kicks in) - are inherently uncertain.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
btt
Your argument is ignoring something.
The entire crust of the Earth, as far and as deep as has ever been examined, is a relative hotbed of microorganisms.
Oil bearing rock or not.
So if sterile oil were to seep up from down below, then get mixed with the local native deep crust bacteria, etc, that in no way could be held out as proof the oil was biotic.
My understanding is that there is no sedimentary rock under the Canadian Shield. But, I'm not a geologist. And 'sufficient' is an odd complaint? Sufficient for what? Any recoverable oil would seem to be a win. The point about sedimentary rock is that some of it is permeable. So, a permeable layer, covered by an impermeable layer, would trap anything moving up from below. Igneous rock just wouldn't have enough space to capture enough oil for our purposes, but any should be enough for proof of concept.
The concept is that the hydrocarbons come from deep down, below any sedimentary layers. The fact that some old, supposedly emptied oil fields have produced oil again after left alone suggests that they are being refilled from below.
Like I said, read the book. It's an interesting read by a more than competent scientist.
The overused observation that "the Stone Age did not end due to a lack of stones" may in fact find its match.
And likewise, the oil age will probably not end due to a lack of oil.
In the meantime, modern diesels can get double the miles per gallon of their gasoline counterparts. With an Acura i-DTEC or a Honda i-CTDI in my garage instead of my 2000 3.2TL, fuel could go to $5 a gallon and I might still be paying less than I am today.
Our own governments taxation and regulations.
You couldn't be more wrong. The price of oil is what we pay just to get it to our shore which has nothing to do with our internal regs and taxes.
And as for solar hydrogen - thin-film solar is poised to slash the cost of solar panels to 10% of the going rate.
http://world.honda.com/news/2004/4040506.html
"Honda’s new Accord 2.2 i-CTDi Sport has this week set no fewer than 19 world speed records and achieved 3.07 litres / 100 km (92 mpg) fuel economy to boot."
"Amongst the speed records set, which were all achieved in Production Car Class B (2000 – 2500 cc), were 133.04 mph (1 mile flying start), 84.25 mph (1 mile standing start) and an average speed of 130.38 mph over a 24-hour endurance period. These records were all set at Papenburg high-speed oval test track in north-west Germany on 1 and 2 May, and are all subject to FIA ratification.
Two production cars, randomly selected by FIA officials, were used to undertake the speed records, and apart from the fitting of roll-cages, racing harnesses and radio equipment for track-to-pits communication, no other modifications were made to the cars.
Following the speed record attempts, the same two cars were then driven 419 miles from Papenburg test track to Wiesbaden, near Frankfurt in order to complete the fuel economy run. The route comprised of a mixture of motorway and non-motorway driving, during which one of the Accords achieved a staggering 92 mpg average."
So let me get this right, they added weight for roll cages and still got 92 mpg! Imperial gallons BTW but simply convert 1 Imp gal = 1.2 US gal. 92/1.2 = 76.2..2 Mpg impressive...and fast apparently.
Please please Honda for the love of God send use these cross overs with CDTi motors. My explorer will head to the scrap heap in a heart beat for one of these. These motors are Tier 2 bin 5 as in 50 state legal, now if we can just convince Honda USA to sell them.
It is why we have to wait for it to come to our shores and are not energy independent and getting our own.
It's never been a national policy to be energy independent.
I gather they’re coming in 2009.
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.