What we need is a new apollo, towards a landing on energy independence and a successful return to prosperity.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/28/arctic.oil.gas.reserves/index.html If this is the case, this will pose a few problems. One being that if we know there is more oil out there, we may try to mine it instead of focusing our efforts on alternative energy sources, further exascerbating the warming/carbon footprint issue. Two, IIRC that is the same continental shelf system that several countries are laying claim to that area. There could be conflicts of interest between countries.
No this is not a problem from alternatives perspective, cheap oil is depleted, deep sea mining of the arctic is going to cost more then $100 a barrel, no matter what oil is going to cost a lot more.
Possibly initially (due to equipment set up) but once they get that operation established, the price would come down, due to the extra abundance of oil. But otherwise I understand what you mean. I just hope that it won't prevent/delay/postpone us moving forward aggressively with alternative energy sources.
The Govt has known about those reserves for a long time. So has Russia. I believe they have no interest in pursuing the oil for civilian transportation. We are willing to take whatever oil we can get from other countries and save that for when the crap hits the fan. End game tactics for the military. For now and over the next 20 years, transportation can be handled with alternative power sources but the military can not.
The number of deep sea rigs would make the price of maintaining the rigs off set production, the price comes down not only to how much initial infrastructure must be set up but how much must be imputed continuously. For example canada has insane amounts of oil sands, but 1 barrel worth of oil must be consumed to extract 2 barrels, this compared to the old days to drilling a hole in the ground of oil spurting out of 1 to 50! The same problems with deep sea drills is low return on energy inputed verse energy outputted. In a simple world any net positive energy could be made worth it but in reality the amount of infrastructure scales logarithmically up as the ratio approach 1:1 and thus the cost of making, installing and keeping running infrastructure makes only ratios far greater then 1:1 worth while. For these reason is why corn ethanol is dead in the water and why cane ethanol is exploding, Corn ethanol does at best 1:1.35 while cane ethanol does 1:8 (Unfortunately cane ethanol has limited places it can grow and mass transport of it retains the problem of energy dependence.)
That's a good point. And given that knowledge it seems that it won't affect our pursuit of alternate energy. And Fetus, I know off shore oil rigs are stupid expensive, but I thought they were pretty efficient where cost to production was concerned.
The military has there hands in everything it can. Coal to liquids is known technology and we can make as much fuel we would ever need for 50 years no problem. There is a company in South Africa that deals in synthetic fuel made from coal. So it's no secret, it was developed by the Nazi's during WWII. However, you don't see a huge push to mass produce it here, for one it's probably a non-starter politically due to the environmental issue of mining coal. But the for the military I could see us use that resource, for military purposes only. The algae oil is also proven but again, to make enough oil to off-set what our demand is would require a massive investment to get the production level up. The oil in the arctic is more about getting it out of the ground and they have the technology to do it. So either way you have an investment to make. Right now it's still cheaper to import it. My point was they are sitting on that oil for a reason. That to me is a logical one.
Not minding the massive increase in pollution or that based on expectational population growth and energy per person concept, and withte every decrease quality of mined coal (as we consumed all the good stuff already, we are at sulfur levels of several percentages of the gross weight!) coal would peak withing 50 years not consider the demand liquification would put on it! If gasoline goes beyond $4 a gallon coal to gasoline would be cheaper then importing oil. right now A) they just came upon it B) its grossly expensive to develop. Market economics is why they are "just sitting on it", not some military conspiracy.
I agree that we should not do this, my point is that we can. So in other words if we wished we could continue to use gasoline in our cars. The coal could also be used for generation stations to produce electricity as we have done for years, still doesn't make it the right choice. Yes and no. If the infrastructure was in place to produce the oil than yes, about $ 50 a barrel. However, we would need to replace what 20 million barrels a freaking day ! That would be alot of conversion factories to build. And until we replace it with something else that can replace the 20 million a day it is still king. No they didn't. Yes it is, but so are F-22's. I am not saying it's a conspiracy. I stating something that seems logical to me. If I were in charge, I would rather use everybody elses resources and pay the price and be the last one with the resource. There is no reason at this point to go up there and take it all out and be left with nothing. Think of it this way. The entire military arsenal of fighters, bombers, tanks and other ground based vehicles ( transport trucks etc ) you name it other than our nuclear subs are powered by oil based fuels. I am sure they are already working on alternatives or mixtures with synthetics, but for now and as far as can reasonably seen in the future, based on the massive amount they use everyday, oil is king. So they don't want anyone messing with that resource. It's what could be needed to get more of it.
That like saying Brazil never changed to ethanol because of the cost of building factories. I really don't think they think that far ahead, for example DOE estimates still pretend like there is not going to be peak oil any time soon despite oil companies saying it already happening.
Here are a couple links to put in perspective the challenge that we face. Oh, happy day ! http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_res-energy-oil-reserves
That's why Obama wants to cease production of them (the F22s). The five-ton and "Hemmett" transport and tow vehicles are already capable of using multi-fuels. They've had that capability for decades.
Well for one Brazil's demand is nothing compared to ours, most countries enjoy that luxury. Second I understand they are having issues themselves keeping up with production, as you know they don't have the political football we call corn based ethanol. I hope you aren't misunderstanding me. I am not saying we shouldn't go forward and make the investments because I do. I am just saying it is not that easy because it too us a long time to get in this mess, the demand and production levels are extensive and it will take a long time to ultimately replace oil based fuels. The easiest way is to go with all electric commuter cars and diesel electric trucks, build high speed trains etc. The oil companies are not about spending big bucks to keep drilling for more oil. They are about drilling for more money. They like the balance between what they say they can produce and get the most from us. They will keep the price high until we stop using as much and then they will lower it, again and again and again. We will likely see for the next twenty years as we have for the last 20 that there are massive reserve finds. So maybe they aren't worried because they know there is plenty to drill for if we want to invest in the operation. I think in the end, it's not so much about the oil shortage but the cost that will force us to change our ways. It will just become too expensive to invest in such elaborate operations, except of course for military purposes.
Yes and I know some people who are pissed about it. I am sure that money will find it's way into new cracks. Doesn't suprise me. We have the capability of easily converting the cars to accept new fuels but not the capability, without a massive investment to replace oil/gas with a new fuel. Damn.
Corn based ethanol IMO is a bad idea, as the corn in the U.S. is more or less the world's breadbasket. You start using those corn crops for ethanol and that will cut into the corn food supply, for humans and livestock. Brazil uses sugar cane to produce their ethanol, don't they? If that's the case, and since we can also extract sugar from sugar beets, why not try those, or some other plant that isn't otherwise a major food supply to use for ethanol.
So a quick check on the South African coal/gas production was 160,000 barrels a day in 2007, so we would need to offset at current use, 84,925,664 barrels a day with something else.
Totally agree, I think it is insane to think that oil is more valuable than food. It's like were all on crack or taking crazy pills. They do and any other plant form that will offer a decent return. We could and we will as oil becomes more expensive. I envision more and more locally developed energy sources not only with alternative electric power generation but fuel as well. What might work for Brazil doesn't need to work for everyone, but we need to find something that works for us. For me the biggest hurdle is not coming up with a new fuel, it's the massive amount of the stuff we need to create everyday. Hopefully these numbers are correct, let me know if you find otherwise, but Brazil themselves produce around 312,000 barrels of ethanol a day, but use 2.3 million barrels a day. That is not sustainable. How much more can they produce per day ?
