WikiLeaks cables: Saudi Arabia cannot pump enough oil to keep a lid on prices - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

***Nikolai*** · 02-09-2011, 06:20 PM

Even if people can't be bothered to buy into the idea of the finite nature of fossil fuels, I think it's been amply demonstrated that our reliance on oil has been a geostrategic liability. We may be able to drill for more on our shores, but it won't be able to mitigate our reliance on foreign oil in a manner reliable enough to relax the strategic pressures we face in oil-producing regions. I would have thought the oil embargoes of the 1970s would have taught us this basic principle.

Quote:

It's all part of the plan...

1. Don't drill our oil
2. Suck the rest of the world dry
3. As the world collapses, we drill our oil, sell it off at a massive premium and convert completely to renewables

Interesting thought, and I'm not sure if it's a bit tongue-in-cheek, but number three takes for granted the world will collapse, when it could just as well adapt, create renewable energies and leave the US in the dust. It also assumes that we can control how much oil is consumed when both India and China are consuming exponentially higher amounts of oil every year.

***patsfan13*** · 02-09-2011, 08:29 PM

We have more than enough energy resources, what we don't have is the political will to come up with a sustainable energy plan.

First cannot support a prosperous society from renewable energy source, no matter how much money we throw at them. This is a matter of physics, these laws don't change regardless of how much we wish they would.

Energy Tribune- Understanding E = mc2

Quote:

The release of energy from splitting a uranium atom turns out to be 2 million times greater than breaking the carbon-hydrogen bond in coal, oil or wood. Compared to all the forms of energy ever employed by humanity, nuclear power is off the scale. Wind has less than 1/10th the energy density of wood, wood half the density of coal and coal half the density of octane. Altogether they differ by a factor of about 50. Nuclear has 2 million times the energy density of gasoline. It is hard to fathom this in light of our previous experience. Yet our energy future largely depends on grasping the significance of this differential.

One elementary source of comparison is to consider what it takes to refuel a coal plant as opposed to a nuclear reactor. A 1000-MW coal plant – our standard candle - is fed by a 110-car “unit train” arriving at the plant every 30 hours – 300 times a year. Each individual coal car weighs 100 tons and produces 20 minutes of electricity. We are currently straining the capacity of the railroad system moving all this coal around the country. (In China, it has completely broken down.)

We should get ALL our electricity from Nuclear sources of power. We have all the Uranium we need btw the Japanese are rapidly developing processes to extract Uranium from sea water.

http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wils...009_Tamada.pdf

Quote:

Total amount of uranium resource in seawater is one thousand times of that in terrestrial ores. A polymeric adsorbent being capable of collecting uranium in seawater was developed in early 1980s, since uranium is inevitable resource to operate atomic power plants. This adsorbent fabric was synthesized by radiation-induced graft polymerization which could impart a desired functional group into fibrous trunk polymers. The
amidoxime group was selected as a high affinity group for uranium collection from seawater. As a marine experiment, 350kg of the adsorbent stacks was dipped at 7 km offing of Mutsu-Sekine seashore in Aomori prefecture, Japan.
In total 9 tests over three years, 1 kg of uranium could be collected successfully as a yellow cake.

We should also develop thorium reactors.

There is increasing evidence that oil and methane can be developed using abiotic process at temps and pressures in the earth's crust.

From Nature Geoscience magazine:

Methane-derived hydrocarbons produced under upper-mantle conditions : Abstract : Nature Geoscience

KTH | Easier to find oil

Quote:

Together with two research colleagues, Professor Kutcherov has simulated the process of pressure and heat that occurs naturally in the inner strata of the earth’s crust. This process generates hydrocarbons, the primary elements of oil and natural gas.

According to Vladimir Kutcherov, these results are a clear indication that oil supplies are not drying up, which has long been feared by researchers and experts in the field.

He adds that there is no chance that fossil oils, with the help of gravity or other forces, would have been able to seep down to a depth of 10.5 kilometres under, for example the Gulf of Mexico. This is, according to Vladimir Kutcherov, in addition to his own research results, further evidence that this energy sources can occur other than via fossils - something which will cause a lively discussion among researchers for a considerable period of time.

Currently we are draining known fields faster than they are refilling and getting to oil is becoming more difficult. There is still a huge need for liquid fuels which are well suited for transportation. Algae processes are being developed that may result in the ability to produce large amounts of liquid biofuels.

Currently we use coal to produce most of our electricity as I said above we should convert to nuclear energy for electricity production (and we should be using breeder reactors, like the French). There are over a trillion tons of known coal reserves, so if we aren't going to use it for generating electricity what shroud we do with it if anything? We should use it to obtain our liquid fuels for transportation (ie gasoline and diesel).

The processes to do this at ~ $30/bbl of oil are in testing phases.

Texas university has eureka moment for coal-to-gas - The Globe and Mail

Quote:

The Texas researchers, who worked on the project for about 18 months, expect the cost to drop further. "We're improving the cost every day. We started off some time ago at an uneconomical $17,000 a barrel. Today, we're at ... $28.84 a barrel," Rick Billo, UTA's dean of engineering, told an Austin television reporter.

Texas lignite coal sells for $18 a tonne. The coal conversion technology uses one tonne of coal to produce 1.5 barrels of crude oil. One barrel of crude produces 42 U.S. gallons of gasoline. In other words, $18 worth of coal yields 63 gallons of gasoline: 0.28 cents a gallon.

Oh yeah we can get natural gas from coal also.

Cheaper Natural Gas from Coal - Technology Review

Quote:

In contrast, Great Point compresses the process into one single, efficient reactor by moving the catalysts into the gasifier itself. The key is a proprietary, recyclable catalyst developed in house with help from gasification and catalysis experts at Southern Illinois University, the University of Toronto, and the University of Tennessee, among others. The catalyst (which Perlman cagily describes as "a formulation of abundant low-cost metals") lowers the amount of heat required to gasify coal and simultaneously transforms the gasified coal into methane. In fact, the heat released in the syngas-to-methane step is sufficient to sustain the gasification, eliminating the need to fire up the reactions with purified oxygen. "It's perfectly heat balanced," says Perlman.

Sadly we are impoverishing our society by chasing the ghost of renewable energy instead of investing in real solutions.

***IcyPatriot*** · 02-09-2011, 08:31 PM

The Brandon Five · 02-10-2011, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

We have more than enough energy resources, what we don't have is the political will to come up with a sustainable energy plan.

No, we can't. We're doomed!

All good points, but as of today it is not likely that we are going to get any new nuclear plants. This is one area where I wish that we would emulate the French.

Higher oil prices will drive investments in alternatives and energy efficiency. The opportunities are massive:

Quote:

Massive investments in energy infrastructure will be needed

The Reference Scenario projections call for cumulative investment of over $26 trillion (in year 2007 dollars) in 2007-2030, over $4 trillion more than posited in WEO-2007. - World Energy Outlook 2008 Executive Summary, International Energy Agency, p. 5

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/do...es_english.pdf
That's just the investment.

There are tremendous opportunities in this space. Unfortunately, a lot of this investment will be misallocated due to the mass delusion about climate change.

I am not sure where people get the idea that the U.S. is behind in developing alternatives, but, as you point out, most of the renewable sources that are popular in faculty lounges and Manhattan c*cktail parties are not feasible replacements for fossil fuels anyway.

Triple-T · 02-10-2011, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikolai

Interesting thought, and I'm not sure if it's a bit tongue-in-cheek, but number three takes for granted the world will collapse, when it could just as well adapt, create renewable energies and leave the US in the dust. It also assumes that we can control how much oil is consumed when both India and China are consuming exponentially higher amounts of oil every year.

Yeah, it was most certainly tongue-in-cheek, but one way to view recent US actions. We are not actively exploiting our fossil fuel resources to the extent we could, but spend an inordinate amount of money in the middle east, presumably to keep oil flowing. Maybe the US strategy is to exhaust all foreign sources first? The transition period to non-fossil fuels will take time and will certainly have some nasty bumps in the road, but if the US still has sufficient resources, at least for the military, then our transition becomes far less painful than others. It's a chance to jump ahead without extreme pain. Just trying to make sense of the actions over the last 40 years.

To Titus, yes, I've heard about the issues with this methodology and am not in favor of it in populated areas and the way it has been carried out. It simply points to other means for the US to continue to extract fossil fuels if the need is great, which it eventually will be.

***Nikolai*** · 02-10-2011, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple-T

Yeah, it was most certainly tongue-in-cheek, but one way to view recent US actions.

It definitely is, and I can't speak for others, but I have appreciation for the kind of outside-the-box strategic thinking that you're posting here. I think there are problems with that approach, but it is one possible strategy or outcome of our current policy.

Real World · 02-10-2011, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titus Pullo

Because by all estimates, there's barely any light crude here to offset growing demand... and dry holes cost a lot of money?

Shale oil, shale gas and tar sands are plentiful, ... at 5-10x the cost, and devastating to the environment (which also factors into cost).

Of course, if we learned anything about the Cheney years, it's "to hell with the environment."

No one is surprised that Saudi has inflated their reserve totals. The same is true for all the other OPEC nations desperate to maintain foreign investment. The problem is that they can no longer keep a lid on the reality, and western corporate interest do NOT want a new, progressive energy policy that might shut off the gravy train.

I know Tar Sand oil is costly to extract, and the last time I looked (a few years ago) I believe it was in the $30-40 range per barrel to bring to market. At $80-100 per, the cost isn't an issue at all. It is the higher cost of oil that has made TS oil so viable.

Until people realize that we will need oil for at least 3-5 more decades, we won't be able to pass a worthwhile energy policy. Were it up to me, I'd have made energy a a matter of national security, and had us exploring/drilling our own supply, while investing massive capital in alternatives and their needed infrastructure. Wouldn't it make more sense to invest the countless billions we send to unpopular countries here at home, while also creating the industry and technology to propel us, and the rest of the world forward? To me this is really a no brainer. It doesn't happen because you have big oil on one side pimping their agenda, and the enviro-police on the other hoing theirs.

Titus Pullo · 02-10-2011, 05:28 PM

Energy not only IS a matter of national security already, it is THE MAIN matter of national security and has been since WW2. It's just that the methods used to "secure" us differ wildly. Some regimes prefer invasion, hegemony and creation of things like CENTCOM for the express purpose of "maintaining security."

We all understand that higher oil prices pave the way for increased investment in unconventionals. That says nothing about the ability for the average small business owner and consumer to afford those prices. When oil begins to cost $100, $150, $? per barrel, demand begins to get crushed, food prices skyrocket, economies suffer greatly, and growth can not sustain.

The Brandon Five · 02-10-2011, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titus Pullo

We all understand that higher oil prices pave the way for increased investment in unconventionals. That says nothing about the ability for the average small business owner and consumer to afford those prices. When oil begins to cost $100, $150, $? per barrel, demand begins to get crushed, food prices skyrocket, economies suffer greatly, and growth can not sustain.

No argument there, although methinks it will also lead to more exploration and drilling.

Titus Pullo · 02-11-2011, 04:33 AM

So to review: Two huge stories broke this week on the energy front. Let me repeat for effect: Huge.

I, for one, can't quite get over how the sour milk Saudi story preceded the yummy good "new shale drilling technique" story by about 12 hours. Even though there is nothing "new" about the "new" drilling process for shale oil really at all.

I continue to find it striking that a Google cut-and-paste of the lede graph on the Saudi VP story yields 8000 hosts, while a cut-and-paste of the lede on the "new" shale drillng story brings back some 65,000 hosts.

Americans are allergic to bad news. The Madison Ave. news conglomerates know this full well.