|
Post by lc on Apr 12, 2006 15:01:52 GMT -6
The BBC's Greg Palast has put together a mini documentary that reports that Venezuela has 90% of the worlds heavy oil reserves. Canada has the next largest reserves according to the same report. In fact he claims in his documentary that the US Dept of Energy has released reports that say Venezuela has 5 times the heavy oil reserves as Saudi Arabia does oil of any kind. The significance of this is reported to be that heavy oil costs so much to refine that it doesn't become feasible to refine it until oil prices approach $50/barrel. But with Oil at $69/barrel Should we be calling him Mullah Chavez? Heavy Oil Heavy oils, which can be pumped and refined just like conventional petroleum except that they are thicker and have more sulfur and heavy metal contamination, necessitating more extensive refining. Venezuela's Orinoco heavy oil belt is the best known example of this kind of unconventional reserve. Estimated reserves: 1.2 trillion barrels. Mid East Oil in Perspective The Middle East does not have two thirds of all world oil reserves, as is claimed by the oil companies and the US Dept. of Energy. It only has two thirds of "proven" oil reserves.
According to the US Geological Survey, other categories of oil reserves need to be taken into account. They say the Middle East has only half to one third of recoverable world oil reserves.
The idea that only the Middle East has the key to the world's energy future is not true and is politically dangerous. Venezuala Future Oil Superpower World Oil Reserves by nation
|
|
sandy
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by sandy on Apr 13, 2006 7:31:23 GMT -6
Michael Ruppert puts the subject of peak oil as the number one reason for 911. It put D.C. in a panic and may have brought about the attack from the Taliban.
It is discussed in his book called "Crossing the Rubicon" but you may not like the results of his investigation.
Jeez, if Venezuela is next, it will mean North America will be at war with South America.
We have allowed our dependence on the Middle East far too long and now that there could be a limit of oil in Iraq, we may have gone in for the wrong reason. This comes from bad leadership here and in the Middle East.
|
|
|
Post by lc on Apr 30, 2006 12:41:19 GMT -6
What if there was no oil left? Would we be up a creek? No. Definitely not. In fact everything we make from oil can be made from coal with only a handful of exceptions like asphalt. Separated ingredients of coal (such as methanol and ethylene) are used in making plastics, tar, synthetic fibers, fertilizers, and medicines. What about gasoline? Can coal replace gasoline? Yes. We can, we have and we will. Montana is actively pursuing development of coal-to-liquids technology as a means of converting our significant coal reserves into synthetic gasoline and other fuels. Synthetic versions of petroleum fuels have been made for almost a century, and this technology offers great promise for reducing American dependence on foreign oil.
What is synthetic fuel? Synthetic fuels, also known as synfuel or Fischer-Tropsch liquids, are fuels such as gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, that are made synthetically-that is, from coal or natural gas instead of oil. These are clean-burning, high-performing fuels that require no engine modifications.
Where is synthetic fuel made today? South Africa is the leading producer, making about 200,000 barrels of gasoline and diesel a day from coal. A number of other countries, including Qatar, Malaysia and China, are investing in synfuel production in response to increased global demand for oil and other energy. Synfuels have been in use for many decades. Notoriously, in the 1940s Germany powered most of its war effort using coal-based diesel.
Why are synfuels cleaner than traditional fuels? Synthetic fuel technology works by heating coal into gas in a contained reaction requiring no external energy. This first step is known as coal gasification, and is used widely around the world to create other forms of energy and industrial products. The gas is then cleansed of sulfur, mercury, arsenic and other toxins, as well as greenhouse gasses, and then distilled into a synthetic form of crude oil which can be refined on site to create any liquid fuel. The resulting fuels burn dramatically cleaner than petroleum-based fuels and can help America reduce emissions.
In addition to making liquid fuels, coal gasification can be used to generate electricity with virtually no emissions and, looking toward the future, can be used to produce hydrogen for use in fuel cells. Byproducts from the process include industrial materials such as naptha, waxes for cosmetics, fertilizer, and carbon dioxide for advanced oil recovery. So why are we using oil anyway? Until recently synthetic coal fuels have been too expensive to compete with cheap crude, but.... the cost of making a barrel of synthetic fuel is approximately $35 a barrel, including the sizable infrastructure and labor force. So now cOil is becoming cost effective. "There are already a number of small plants being designed around America, but a large-scale national effort must involve the federal government and would take a number of years. Given South Africa's success in this field, we should assume that if the federal government became meaningfully invested in this concept, America could have a strong synfuel industry by the next decade."Is coal plentiful? Plentiful enough to fuel American industry for another century. I dunno. We have approx 494,450,000,000 tons in reserve . And U.S. coal reserves are equivalent to four times the oil of Saudi Arabia, 1.3 times the oil of OPEC and equal to all the world's proved oil reserves. . That's just the US reserves. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Since there is oil to last several hundred years if the price/barrel surpasses $50/barrel, and coal substitutes all become competitive when crude reaches $35/barrel, why are we all of the opinion that there is a Peak Oil Crisis? Anybody have any idea how this idea was popularized I would love to hear about it. Only beneficiary I can think of who would benefit would be those who support our ME policies, the oil futures players and the biggest oil corporations. If you have any info please let me know. The only hint I have at present is right here. Why haven't synfuels been pursued in America before? They have. In fact, the U.S. government was seriously exploring synfuel as early as 1925. In the 1940s, a Synthetic Liquid Fuels Act passed by Congress even appropriated over $80 million for research and production. By the 1950s, America was producing thousands of gallons of synthetic gasoline a day at a test plant in Missouri. But the discovery of cheap oil, combined with a lobbying effort by the oil industry, caused the government to abandon its synfuel research. But wasn't cheap oil discovered 60 years earlier?Yes
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 2, 2006 16:54:55 GMT -6
LC,
Just to make sure I understand what you're saying, are you saying we have enough non-synthetic oil to last over 200 years, or are you including coal oil in that number?
|
|
|
Post by lc on May 2, 2006 21:21:56 GMT -6
Yes Coal oil is synthetic oil. That is just in the US.
In addition to that the US has extensive reserves of heavy sour oil that has never been tapped. And Venezuala has as much heavy sour as the ten leading nations have light sweet combined, and canada has tar sand oils equalling Venezuala's heavy sour reserves.
Combined the western hemisphere has enough fossil fuels that can be converted to oil at $50/barrel to be 4-5 times the volume of sweet crude in the world.
We have hundreds and hundreds of years of oil to rely on. And cheap.
|
|
sandy
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by sandy on May 3, 2006 6:50:45 GMT -6
I received an email from some source claiming that there is enough oil in Colorado to last us for the next 1000 years. I ran the writer of the email through my D.C. source and he is a fraud. If you get this email delete it.
|
|
|
Post by lc on May 3, 2006 9:29:13 GMT -6
Thanks Sandy
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 4, 2006 21:26:48 GMT -6
Given this information about having many years of oil supply, is there a current supply limitation due to refinery limitations, or is there really no current supply shortage at all?
|
|
|
Post by lc on May 4, 2006 22:52:30 GMT -6
What I know about oil pricing, Unlawful, is that refinery shortage does occur. Very rarely tho.
And when it does all the excess profits go to the refining sector by a 61:64 margin.
The refinery shortage doesn't account for the $72/barrel price or the $3.49/gallon I paid today for unleaded. Almost all of the price increase is oil company, commodity speculator or refinery profits.
These are designed shortages, no ifs ands or buts.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 5, 2006 14:26:39 GMT -6
LC,
Given what you've just said, is there any current shortage at this time? In other words, is less oil coming out of the ground at the current time? Is the supply of oil coming to market less than it was 3 months ago?
If this is truly a supply-and-demand effect, then it seems there would have to be at least a short-term shortage of gasoline produced. Is that actually happening?
|
|
|
Post by lc on May 5, 2006 15:12:27 GMT -6
Some people do say that we have a short term refinery shortage because some refineries are down for maintenance.
There is a slight downturn in world crude supply because of Nigeria being unstable. But the traders say concerns about Iran are driving crude prices.
But so much oil is in "the pipeline" ships, storage in the distribution chain that a real shortage never occurs. Evidence, when was the last time you saw stations out of gas? Or even gas lines?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 5, 2006 21:20:32 GMT -6
LC,
Thanks for the input. The last time I saw gas station lines and gas stations run out of gas was in 1974. That's when Nixon put price controls on gasoline. That's when California had to go to odd-even day gas rationing. So I did see what happens when price controls are put on gasoline.
However, I suspect the situation is much different today. Back then we had a legitimate, semi-democratically elected government. Now we have a fraudulently elected Corporate dictatorship. Back then I would have believed the government and the media if they said we had a shortage. Today I wouldn't believe either one.
|
|
|
Post by lc on May 6, 2006 22:06:29 GMT -6
1978 was the last time I saw gas lines.
Actually now that I think about it, I bet both the 74' and the 78' gas shortages were the result of Nixon pulling the dollar off the gold standard.
The Saudis used to demand gold as payment for oil. Then in 72' OPEC accepted the dollar as the sole petro currency. But when that petro dollar shifted away from the gold standard I bet supplies shortened quickly. Just a hunch.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 8, 2006 19:54:12 GMT -6
LC,
I never thought of that. That's very plausible. The Saudis might have perceived an almost immediate devaluation of the dollar, making them want a lot more of it for their oil. In retrospect, would could blame them for that.
If someone's accepting a currency that suddenly has no physical backing whatsoever, it has to decline in value some. Maybe even a lot. This might also explain the tremendous inflation rate during the 1970s. A dollar without backing, and not linked to any other currency, is something a lot more people would want to sell. And a lot less people would want to buy it. Thus there would be a lot more in circulation, even without printing any more. The demand for dollars simply declined, because it had no physical backing.
|
|
|
Post by lc on May 13, 2006 13:17:28 GMT -6
Military Plans Tests in Search for an Alternative to Oil-Based Fuel In a series of tests — first on engines mounted on blocks and then with B-52's in flight — the Air Force will try to prove that the American military can fly its aircraft by blending traditional crude oil-based jet fuel with a synthetic liquid made first from natural gas, and, eventually, from coal, which is plentiful and cheaper.
"Energy is a national security issue," said Michael A. Aimone, the Air Force assistant deputy chief of staff for logistics.
The United States is unlikely ever to become fully independent of foreign oil, he said, but the intent of the Air Force project is "to develop enough independence to have assured domestic supplies for aviation purposes."
The research and tests on synthetic fuel would ultimately produce a common fuel for the entire military, Air Force officials said.OK, it's a start....
|
|