Drilling for Oil in the Bakken formation

[JohnRPollard]

Originally Posted by Cruisingdad

4) Am I wrong to assume there is only so much oil? In essence, is it an exhaustable resource or will there always be oil no matter how much we use?

CD,

According to some scientists, yes you are wrong.

Ten or more years ago a scientist named Thomas Gold postulated that our assumptions about the nature and origin of petroleum were incorrect, i.e. that it is not in fact a "fossil fuel" but rather is a fundamental element or component of our planet and other planets, perhaps even somehow related to the mysterious universal force called "dark matter" or "dark energy". Since that time, an increasing number of researchers have found some evidence to support certain parts of the theory.

According to the theory, the volume of petroleum reserves within the earth would be so vast as to be inexhaustible for all intents and purposes. See, e.g.

Link

and other links at that site.

Food for thought....

[copacabana]

Quote: "The overwhelming majority of Brazilians live near the coast and a goodly percentage of them live in cities there. You cannot even compare the transportation needs of Brazil to one state, say California, with the US. They're also burning down forest as fast as they can to plant more of that sugar cane. I don't think the US is going to find much to emulate in Brazil that's transferable to the US on any significant scale."

Just to set you straight, Brazil isn't cutting down forests to plant sugarcane for ethanol. The sugarcane industry is mostly in the state of São Paulo, and nowhere near the Amazon basin. Virtually every car made in the last 8 to 10years runs on gas, ethanol or any mix of the two. They have had ethanol-running cars here in a big way since the 1980's. Finally, how could you imagine that California could have larger transportation needs than all of Brazil? Have you even seen the distances in Brazil? I'll say it again, ethanol works in Brazil because Brazil is in a very unique situation - LOTS of arable land and a perfect climate for growing sugarcane. There is not a single other country in the world that has the same conditions to make ethanol viable in the same way. Although Brazil is self-sufficient in oil, ethanol is the fuel of choice (50% less at the pumps!).

[sck5]

Cuba is another place that is great to grow sugar cane - We would do well to start buying it from them instead of planting corn to make it - First gotta deal with the Castros though

[sck5]

"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruisingdad View Post
4) Am I wrong to assume there is only so much oil? In essence, is it an exhaustable resource or will there always be oil no matter how much we use?
CD,

According to some scientists, yes you are wrong."

You might not want to believe everything you read - And the word "scientist" ought to be in quotation marks sometimes.

But do correct me you Repubs out there. I sometimes forget that each of you is also a climate scientist, a geneticist, a petroleum engineer and who knows what other kind of expert

[copacabana]

sck5, Cuba doesn't have enough land available to make ethanol viable. It takes a lot of free land that isn't necessary for food production. Really, there just are VERY paces on earth that have this kind of land and climate. Biofuels are a solution for Brazil, but I doubt they will work in other countries, with few exceptions. Perhaps Canada ...

[JohnRPollard]

Originally Posted by sck5

You might not want to believe everything you read - And the word "scientist" ought to be in quotation marks sometimes.

But do correct me you Repubs out there. I sometimes forget that each of you is also a climate scientist, a geneticist, a petroleum engineer and who knows what other kind of expert

ScK5,

I made no claims nor assertions about the validity of the theory. I merely introduced it as germane to a posed question, for discussion purposes. I'm not sure what politics or "Repubs" have to do with this.

You can quibble over my use of the general term "scientist" if you like, but the fact of the matter is that the advocate of the theory, Thomas Gold, was a professor of astronomy at Cornell University. If after reading his obituary you still feel he was not a "scientist", I'd be interested to know why you believe that.

Thomas Gold Obituary

[sailingdog]

One thing about most modern cities that no one seems to have mentioned. Most modern cities are on the brink of chaos...they usually only have about three-or-four days of food for the population, and if long-distance trucking and air transport failed for any reason for any extended period of time...they'd start to go hungry pretty quickly.

[Cruisingdad]

Ok, I will base my answers off of the US Department of Energy Statistics. I have posted a link to a chart that was well put together that shows this information. If you dissagree with these statistics, I would be intersted in knowing where you get your information since this comes straight from the US Governement Dpt of Energy.

Top World Oil Producers, Exporters, Consumers, and Importers, 2006 — Infoplease.com

I will sum up, here.

2) Does the US Currently produce enough oil to sustain itself. You said yes. I say, bluntly, no. We do not.

The US produces (not refines, produces), 8.37 millions of barrels/day. Our total consuption, as of 2006 is 20.59 millions of barrels/day. We import from other countries 12.22 millions of barrels/day. We do not currently produce even half of what we use.

So, I dissagree with your assesment that we currently produce enough oil to be self-sufficient. We do not.

1) Can the US currently produce enough oil to sustain itself. You said yes, I say no.

Let me define what I mean here, as it is NOT the same question. Is the reason we do not produce more simply because we get it cheaper elsewhere? In essense, with the flip of a switch, we can be off Venezueala and SA oil and tell them to stick it?

You feel the answer to that is yes???

I highly doubt that is the case. The numbers do not agree with that. Our current potential production is 8.37 million barrels. It is not to say that we cannot produce more (to be answered and discussed in another question), but we can not currently produce sufficient oil to sustain ourselves. It would take some time, if it is in fact possible at all.

I would equate this to my property (the best example I can think of this morning for some reason). I have a lot of acerage and run cattle. I have more than sufficient acerage to be self sufficient and not buy any food from the store. However, I do not farm. There would be a considerable time lapse between me turning over the field, sowing the seed, the crop growing, harvest, etc before I could actually realize any food. As such, I am dependent on the store to supply myself and my families food. I guess I could go out and shoot a cow and try to survive off of beef for the next... 6 months or better, but the reality is that this scenario is risky and very unhealthy if even possible.

This analogy is a good one for the US. We cannot, with the flip of a switch, suddenly produce sufficient oil to be independent. Could we, in theory, all quit driving our cars, shut down the economy, and be sufficient? Yes. But, the reality of such a thing is unimagineable and not even worth discussion.

As such, the answer to that question is no. We cannot currently produce sufficient oil to be independent.


3) Are we currently dependent on foreign oil for our survival? I do not mean whether you eat or have a house (though that too could be debated) but our economic survival? Our energy survival? Our production survival? You said no, I say yes.

Again, the numbers from the US Gov (and anything I have ever heard) do not agree with your assessment.

If Venezuela and SA and other countries shut off our oil, what would happen to the US? Well, we would have a few options:

a) suddenly quit using it and find alternatives. However, that cannot happen overnight. The US economy, if not collapse, would be crushed. I cannot imagine this scenario.

b) Try to start drilling and replace what we have. But this is not an immediately viable option because the time to drill and actually see any results from that are quite long. As such, the economy would plunge.

c) Go to war and take it. God forbid...

Can you honestly say that if all foreign oil was shut off to our country that our economic, production, and energy survival would not dissapear or be serioulsy hampered? How can you say that? We cannot, as a country, suddenly switch to electric cars or hybrids or trains, using your example. We cannot. It is CURRENTLY (not future) impossible. We do not have the means available. Go look at I-635 at 8:00 am and tell me how those people would get to work if they could not fill up their cars tomorrow? Walk? Ride the bus? Impossible.

I whole heartedly dissagree with you that we have to look at oil together with our other energy needs. Nope... that is not true. Oil is not simply used to power your car, it is also used in the production of countless other items - even the keyboard I am typing on. You car is the result of petroleum products (oil). Boats. Your streets. It is everywhere around you now and has a direct impact on your everday life. Also, since very few cars run on the other energy sources (will only use gasoline), you must look at oil independently. TO not look at it independently is a mistake.

I do not dissagree with much of the rest of your statements in that paragraph, Dan. However, you are not differentiating what COULD be for what IS currently. I am talking about right here, right now... 2008. In 2008, our homes have what they have and use what they use. We can switch away from that, but again, that takes time, resources, and a really good reason. None of which would help us for our current ills.

4) Am I wrong to assume there is only so much oil? In essence, is it an exhaustable resource or will there always be oil no matter how much we use?

We agree for the most part on that. However, the timing we might dissagree on. It is my notion to start that process now. Start making a sincere effort to get off now. It will take years and years and years - most likely decades. It cannot happen overnight. It seems to be Sway's to drill and tap everything we have now and let the problems work themselves out later when there really is a shortage. I just cannot see the validity of that argument since it seems inevitable that we will have to get off. And at what cost do we take oil from Chavez? At what cost from Saudia Arabia? I do not mean money. We lie down with dogs and are suprised we wake up with fleas.

5) Can we, by putting a pumper in everyones backyard, even with the most unrealisticly high estimates, produce enough to permanently sustain our country? Permanent, not a few years. If so, is this an economically feasible solution?

You said:

No and why would we want to. Other people have oil thats easier to get and they want to sale it to us.

I agree... the answer is no, it is not a permanent solution. And if it is not a permanent solution, it is a stop-gap measure. And you ask why get off? Why do our own when we can get it cheaper from Chavez and SA? BECAUSE OF HOW MUCH IT COSTS US.

It ties us to them. No country should be dependent on a foreign country for its survival. It is geopolitical insanity. Everytime OPEC gets together, it makes national news. I don't know about you, but I sure don't appreciate it. It is not to say that we should not ever buy oil from them. However, once you reach the point that you cannot sustain yourself and are dependent on them, the rules change.

Again, imagine what would happen if they suddenly decided to quit supplying oil to us because... I don't know... how about because Israel bombed Iran (a very real scenario). Can you imagine the impact on your life personally? Now imagine the impact on them if we suddenly quit buying it and we were no longer tied to oil. Would that change world politics?

Most certainly it would.

I think we all agree we SHOULD get off of it. It sems to me that we dissagree on when. You say drill for more oil here and exploit our natural resources and let things work themselves out later. I say, let's bite the bullet now before it gets any worse. Drill where we can for a quick return, but focus the bulk of our resources on getting off - in whatever fashion that is... whether hydro, wind, solar, or nuclear (or all of the above). I cannot see the problem getting better, it will get worse.

I will equate our situation to being being on drugs. We started off sore. We took Vicodin. There is nothing wrong with that... we were sore, we were hurt, we needed it. However, we did not get off of it. We worked harder and got more done and took more Vicodin. The months passed, and our dependence grew. Now, to suddenly quit taking it would seriously screw up your body and really make you hurt - if not kill you alltogether. You have to work to get off of it. However, what is even worse is that the people giving us the drugs that we are dependent on typically don't like us very much and realize they can control us with it. Your solution is to start making the drugs locally or in your house so you don't have to deaal with them (assuming their drugs are not cheaper). My solution is to get off the drugs and realize that you have exceeded what you should have done in the first place. It won't be easy. It won't be fun. It won't be cheap. But that is what we SHOULD do.

I am not opposed to drilling in the US. I just don't see that as the real solution long term. It would likely take many years to realize any return on that effort anyways. Trying to find an alternative energy solution would be the same investment (or likely more). But drilling seems to me like the easy way out. And in the meantime, look around: we stand in bloody quicksand while consuming black gold.

- CD

[Cruisingdad]

A long, but good read:

http://www.pppl.gov/polImage.cfm?doc...&size_code=Doc

[danjarch]

CD, Your using dooms day math. It assumes that all hell breaks loose and we can no longer get any foreign oil. Reality check, if Chavez decides to cut of the USA, he has to sell the oil some where. Whoever buy his oil won't be buying someone else's oil. Do to the economics involved. We ship millions of barrels of oil to Japan, and import this same millions from Mexico.

Why do we do this. Its cheaper to ship Alaskan oil to Japan and ship Mexican oil to the gulf coast then it is to ship the Alaskan oil to the gulf coast. That is the energy industy in a nut shell. If we increased the energy output in America. The world would still produce the amount of oil its producing. This would drive the price down to the point that we would all start using more.

Most of the dooms day stuff assume that what we have now is really good. Of coarse if you'd ask the people who had just gotten used to the idea of trains and steam ships if they could live with out them, what do you think they've said. Of coarse those were replaced with what we consider better items.

When we talk about what the energy needs vs the energy supply will be next year or five years from now, we've got to seperate what is a reasonable level of energy independence. Can we keep our basic needs covered in the event of all hell breaking lose. Can we continue to to provide some level of luxuries to brighten up your day.

These, in my opinion, are with in our level of energy production. Would things change if all hell broke lose and we could no longer get foriegn oil. Yes Would life be better or worse. Depends on who you ask and when you ask them.

On top of this is, there are a few things that are worth remembering. When I was born in 73, there were only a hand full of people who knew what DNA was. When I started high School. They still had to have scientists explain it to each and every jury. They had yet to even get a good start on mapping the human Genome.

Seem a little off topic, well consider that currently a company in Florida is growing 20 acres of a test crop. This crop has not been modified in any way. It produces a type of seed that has 8 times the vegtable oil then any thing currently grown commercially. Why hasn't it been grown before. Well it's not good for human consumption.

There are in fact thousand of plants that have never been cultivated for that same reason. And these plants could be modified in count less ways. This still presumes biofuel is the way to go. You brought up solar earlier. If you really want to see solar take off then you've got to get it in to space. Then use microwave to send it back to earth. This won't really hapen untill the nano tube tech is good enough to build that space elevator.

Of coarse you can't forget that even with out any new fuel, there is a reversing of the white flight that emptied our cities. Traffic sucks and the states are never going to get enough roads built. Meanwhile in other countries that haven't built interstates, they're more able to adapt new technologies that have less range and spead.

The notion that we should be independent in energy is about as useful as saying that the state of rhode island should be energy independent. The belief that you should be able to create all you need to live on your own land would send us all back to the cave men days. There is plenty of enegy all around us. As usual we are blessed in with a weath of plenty here in America. No is going to starve or go with out clean water for a lack of power.

If the price of oil continues to remain high, it will be replaced. More will get into sailing, others will change jobs or move to cut down on driving, still others will switch to electric or air power. There are millions of electric cars already being used in America. We currently restrict them to airport terminals, golf coarses, and for maitainence men for apartments. Slow down the speed limit and they can be freed to roam the streets.

If you step back from the doom and gloom and check out whats going on in the world of egineering and energy production, you'll see a world that has plenty of energy. Think of these times like the beginning of a house remodle. It's going to get a little messy and before its over we're going to give up on some of the extras that could be done. Not just because we don't want to spend the money, but because we're ready for things to settle down. In the near future we'll have some new ways of doing what we do now, only better.