backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 165 comment(s) - last by Entropy42.. on Jun 30 at 11:24 AM

World oil production continues to rise; outlook good for next decade or more.

Peak Oil, a theory popular among Chicken Little types, has been much in the news recently.  The idea behind it is that future production levels of any consumable resource can be reliably predicted based off a single factor: the size of the known reserves.  Once half those reserves have been consumed -- so the theory goes -- production will steadily fall, no matter what.

So when world petroleum production dipped slightly in 2006 and again in 2007, this predictably brought the usual Peak-Oil disciples out of the woodwork.  The global oil peak -- first predicted for the mid-1990s, and many times since -- was finally upon us, they said. From this moment on, production would steadily fall, culminating in the end of life as we know it.

But once again, their crystal ball has failed.  Petroleum production for the first quarter of 2008 rose to 74.5M bbl/day -- 1.2M higher than the 2007 average. Those figures don't take into account Saudi Arabia's recent pledge to pump another half-million barrels a day, a promise they've already met by the first 300,000.

Even better, a landmark study of 800 major oilfields recently performed by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) found that the rate of decline averaged only 4.5% -- about half of what was previously thought. That, coupled with new field development, means the world is on track to be pumping more than 100 million barrels/day by 2017, according to CERA.

How does Peak Oil get things so wrong? First, it ignores technological improvements in oil discovery and production. As science advances, the URR (ultimately recoverable reserves) of existing fields rise in pace. Thanks to advances in water and CO2 injection, many oilfields predicted to have been dry a half-century ago are still pumping strong today.

But more importantly, Peak Oil puts the economic cart before the horse, with the notion that supply is independent of both price and demand. So much for Economy 101. Higher demand means higher prices... and higher prices increase supply. There are trillions of barrels in the ground that can't profitably be pumped at $50/bbl. But at $140, the story is different. Existing fields are worked harder, unprofitable fields get opened up, and exploration picks up pace.  

Several large new fields have been discovered in the past decade alone, such as Brazil's Tupi and Kazakhstan's Kashagan -- the latter not much smaller than Saudi Arabia's Gwahar, the largest field in the world.  In fact, since 1965, we've found five new barrels of oil for every three we've burned.  And vast North American deposits of tar sands and oil shale -- too expensive to process even a decade ago -- are now beginning to look like a bargain. 

Most of the world hasn't even been fully explored for oil, including vast stretches of land in Russia, the Arctic and Antarctica, and nearly all the deep sea itself.  Some of these undiscovered fields are in places we can't pump oil -- not with today's technology. By 2050, though, wells atop the thickest Antarctic ice, or through five miles of ocean floor will be trivial to implement.

Higher prices have another effect -- they enable alternatives. At a cost of somewhere around $150/bbl, coal can be directly transformed into oil -- and the US has the largest coal reserves in the world, enough for hundreds of years.. At even higher prices, oil can be synthesized out of nothing but CO2 and water...if one has an abundant supply of electricity.

Throughout history, many other resources have hit production peaks. But the point missed by Peak Oil acolytes is that past declines -- on everything from whale oil to natural rubber -- were the result of falling demand. Prices rose until alternatives became cheaper, which reduced demand...and so production fell.

So yes, oil will one day peak. But it won't be in our lifetimes, or our even our grandchildren’s. And when it happens, it won't be an earth-shattering catastrophe, but rather a smooth and natural progression to better, cheaper alternatives.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Quoting CERA?
By savebigoil on 6/19/2008 1:37:55 PM , Rating: 5
"Between 2004 and 2010, capacity to produce oil (not actual production) could grow by 16 million barrels a day -- from 85 million barrels per day to 101 million barrels a day -- a 20 percent increase." - Daniel Yergin, CERA, July 31, 2005

You are quoting the single worst predicter of oil prices and production in the industry. We are still at 85MM/Day.

Yergin is on track to miss the mark by more than two Saudi Arabias in just 2 more years. Search 'Yergin' in theoildrum.com for his track record. He is a lobbist of Saudi Aramco.

"Keep buying SUVs . ., Cheap oil Ahead, Keep buying SUVs . , Cheap oil Ahead"




RE: Quoting CERA?
By Ringold on 6/19/2008 3:02:42 PM , Rating: 4
Transocean's CEO yesterday stated that if he were given the green light today to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, he could get the exploration done and the rigs in place such that in 4 years the oil would flow, possibly 5.

Therefore, if oil firms saw the price signal any time in the last couple years, it's not inconceivable that production could start to roar. Asides from politics, the largest thing holding the industry back is a lack of skilled labor and equipment; thats a failure of liberal arts majors to choose to do something useful with their lives rather than proof of 'peak oil'.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By Murst on 6/19/2008 3:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I'm not a liberal arts major ( engineering actually ), and I think the argument for drilling is rather crazy. In fact, I think you have to be pretty bad at math to even think its a good idea.

For example, supppose we give the green light to start drilling in the gulf of mexico. Suppose that this drilling leads us to produce 1 million more barrels per day ( that'd have to be a pretty major find too, but I'll give you that ). I believe that we use about 25 million barrels per day in the US. So adding 1 million more would put us at 26, or a 4% increase.

Now, lets look at the alternatives here. Right now, I believe there is some kind of 25mpg requirement on new cars being produced (I think its some average, not exactly sure, but whatever). Now, suppose over the course of 5 years, we raise that from 25 to 30. That is a 20% increase in efficiency.

Which of the 2 scenarios do you really think is better for the USoA? In fact, I think that we're going to see huge improvements in MPG in cars over the next few years (it will be market driven), leading to a drastic decrease in demand for gas in the USA. Instead of drilling, we should focus our efforts on other sources of energy, because the demand / supply issue will be solved, and the solution will have nothing to do w/ the gulf of mexico.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/19/2008 3:24:39 PM , Rating: 5
> "Which of the 2 scenarios do you really think is better for the USoA?"

We can do both; they're not mutually exclusive.

As for alternatives to oil entirely, let's face facts here. We're realistically at least 20 years away from a majority of the US auto fleet using anything but gasoline. As oil is used for much more than cars (and indeed more than transportation) our oil needs are going to be with us for at least the next 40 years, regardless of how much money we pump into alternate R&D. So a responsible leader should take steps to ensure we have sufficient supplies over that period, or we risk economic chaos.

The US population is growing strong, and our economy relies on long term per-capita expansion simply to fund programs like Social Security. Given our needs for growth, it's inane to believe we can simply conserve our way out of a need for more energy.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By Murst on 6/19/2008 3:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
We actually had a decrease in demand for gasoline in 2008 from 2007 (I believe this is the first time that's happened)...

Today, China announced that they're going to stop subsidizing gas, which should greatly reduce demand there. India has already done that I believe.

I'm not arguing that we should stop using oil. I fully expect us to be heavily dependent on oil for many decades. However, I also don't think that we really need to be increasing supply at this point. If anything, we should be pushing to decrease our usage of oil. The first few years are going to hurt, but it will make us safer in the long run.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By Ringold on 6/19/2008 8:01:12 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
However, I also don't think that we really need to be increasing supply at this point. If anything, we should be pushing to decrease our usage of oil. The first few years are going to hurt, but it will make us safer in the long run.


Why not increase supply? Why not allow the market to do its job?

As you point out, and what any economist knows, demand curves slope downwards! The market is already working on the demand side. You've discovered that yourself. Highway miles driven monthly has been dropping I think since late last year. Oil companies still are very aware of what happened the last time they increased supply all they could, so it may never stabilize at a significantly lower price if we drilled. They themselves seem to have a common number of what oils long term price will be: about $75. At that price level, private investment in alternative energy has taken place and will continue to take place, thus slowly replacing oil. It may cause fear in some, but yes, it would take place with zero government intervention. After all, is the Volt called the US Government Volt? No, it's the Chevy Volt.

There's almost no possible logical argument that I can imagine that the market hasn't already been doing what it needs to, except for where the government has got involved; it's limiting its supply-side response, and it tried to 'pick a winner' replacement technology (ethanol), and that has resulted in ongoing disaster. The one exception would be global warming, some big, nefarious externality that markets can't internalize on their own. Unfortunately, we can justify government capture of the entire economy with global warming, not just energy market manipulation.

I also find it amusing that leftists will advocate a 'portfolio' policy plan on alternative energy, but for some mystical reason, that portfolio can not include proven technology -- including, for some people, nuclear.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By Murst on 6/20/2008 1:54:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why not increase supply? Why not allow the market to do its job?

The market can already increase supply if it wanted. The government estimates that if all areas that were already leased were to begin drilling right away, we would increase our oil production by 4.8 million barrels per day.

However, the cost of getting those 4.8 million barrels might not give the oil companies the amazing profit margins that they believe they deserve. These companies want the easy oil, not the stuff that might cost $40 - $50 per barrel to extract. That's why they want the ban to be lifted. After all, it makes sense. Its much better for your profits to extract oil at $15 per barrel and sell it at $140 than it is to extract it at $50 and sell at $140.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By porkpie on 6/20/2008 2:49:24 PM , Rating: 3
The WSJ today disassembles the "idle oilfield fallacy" you're trying to use:
quote:
Anyone with even the most basic understanding of how oil and natural gas are produced – and this should include many members of Congress – knows that claims of "idle" leases are a diversionary feint. […]

In reality, a lease is simply a block on a map, with no guarantee that it contains any resources. If all of them did, one could simply pay for the lease, haul in equipment and start pumping oil. But that only happens in fiction. And it happens in the minds of those who use the undeveloped-lease argument as a smokescreen to mask their intent to keep America's vast energy resources locked up underground, despite increasingly strong consumer demand for oil and natural gas.

For exploration to take place, our companies need access to the areas – offshore and onshore – that we know have the potential to produce the oil and natural gas consumers will need, if ours is to remain a viable economy in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. Today's short-term need was yesterday's long-term opportunity. If Congress had acted on that opportunity years ago, America would not be in the energy bind it finds itself in today
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121391719487790187...


RE: Quoting CERA?
By Murst on 6/20/2008 3:10:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Mr. Cavaney is president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, the trade association that represents America's oil and natural gas industry.

So... we have two sources: a report produced by the Committee for Natural Resources in the US House of Representatives, and on the opposing side, a opinion piece done by the CEO of the American Petroleum Institute.

No offense, but you're gonna have to try a bit harder next time.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By Ringold on 6/20/2008 3:26:11 PM , Rating: 2
If you look in to the issue, you'd see the oil CEO is correct. Environmentalists started using your line of attack approximately two or three weeks ago; I'm surprised it's taken this long to counter it in public. After reading a detailed report on the current goings-on around the Bakken formation in the Dakota's and Colorado I surmised much of what that CEO said, but wasn't sure. Some oil wildcatters buy leases just, it seems, to get a share of profits if a nearby lease in the same 'zone' or something strikes it big. Beyond that, you're comparing the credibility of an industry expert to that of a political group? Lets be realistic. The CEO is covering himself, and the House, run by Democrats, have a vested interest in coming as close to lies as they think they can get away with in tearing him apart. Those are their jobs in life at the moment.

Besides that, to address your earlier post, oil companies are already going almost full-speed to develop every field they have access to. NOV, RIG, the first two off-sea companies that come to mind, both have huge back-logs.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By Murst on 6/20/2008 4:21:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
For oil companies, vast holdings of federal oil and gas leases, even if undeveloped, show up in their financial records as assets that help attract investors.

“Absolutely,” said Mark Burford, director of investor relations for Tom Brown Inc., a Denver-based independent oil company. Tom Brown has more than 850,000 acres of federal land under lease, but just 22 percent is listed as producing, according to BLM records.

“In our investor presentations, we talk about the very large inventory of drilling locations on our acres that are prospective, and a lot of that would still be undeveloped,” Burford said. “But based on our knowledge of the producing areas and the formations, that acreage is very prospective and very likely to work out as far as becoming producing.”

From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5111184

Its pretty clear that these companies don't really need any new leases right now, except to drive up their companies' value. They're already sitting on a ton of inventory.

Here is an interesting map that shows leases and how much they're being used:

http://wid.ap.org/oilgas/oilgas.html


RE: Quoting CERA?
By Ringold on 6/20/2008 8:29:09 PM , Rating: 5
I'm not going to beat the same bush, I find the entire "wah, wah, wah, the acres arent all being used!" to be a smoke screen, though you've dodged the same point multiple times. Why not let them buy the leases they want? What right do we really have to be getting in the way if they're willing to pay for leases anyway? What's the point in stopping them? And if they really have access to everything they want here, why the hell are they going to dangerous, hostile locations all around the world to pump out from there instead? Democrats at this point appear obstructionist just for the sake of being so, while simultaneously trying to push their own pet technologies forward, despite them being even more pie in the sky.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By Murst on 6/19/2008 4:10:02 PM , Rating: 1
Just saw this on Digg:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/18/134047...

Now, I realize that's a very left-wing website, but I doubt they're making up #s.

If these permits are actually not being used already, then there really is no point in lifting the ban.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By Murst on 6/19/2008 4:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
Here is a better link... I don't like using that website...

http://courtney.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Natural%20...


RE: Quoting CERA?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/19/2008 5:26:56 PM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry, but this is the most backwards argument yet. Opening up new areas for drilling won't result in more wells? If people really believed that, then why even oppose lifting the ban? Getting free money from a lease without the so-called "environmental harm" of actual wells sounds like a dream come true.

The truth is the argument itself is a lie. Yes, not every lease sold results in a well, especially not within 5 years or less. Some leases are bought by smaller companies who then have to obtain additional financing. Others are for areas that aren't profitable to drill yet, but are expected to be soon, if prices rise or technology advances.

New leases mean additional drilling, plain and simple. And additional drilling means greater supply and, more importantly, more dollars in American pockets, rather than overseas.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By Murst on 6/19/2008 5:54:20 PM , Rating: 1
Or, instead of making new leases available, just take away the leases that are not being used and resell them to companies that would be willing to drill.

What's wrong with that solution?


RE: Quoting CERA?
By grenableu on 6/19/2008 7:20:49 PM , Rating: 2
You mean, besides the fact that breaking a contract is illegal and can result in us to being sued? As the previous poster said, a lot of those leases will wind up being used, it just takes time. Which is all the more reason to start selling more leases today, so that 5-10 years down the road, we have that oil before problems get even worse.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By Murst on 6/19/2008 7:53:20 PM , Rating: 1
You should really think before you post...

Lets, for a second, assume that you're correct and the United States cannot revoke the lease for region... What do you think all of the Environmentalist agencies would do if that really was the case? Do you really think they would let the oil companies buy out the leases w/o making competing offers?

Now, most rational people would agree that when the government leases something (be it land, frequency ranges, etc) and the 'thing' being leased is not used for the intended purpose, then the lease is broken. For example, in this particular case, the lease was granted for companies to dig in the region. If they are not digging, I'm sure there is some provision in the lease that would allow the government to revoke the lease. Hell, I'm sure there's a ton of provisions in that lease that would allow the governement to revoke the lease even if the company was actually exploring the area for oil.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By tmouse on 6/23/2008 10:57:48 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You should really think before you post...


You also could benefit from this

quote:
Now, most rational people would agree that when the government leases something (be it land, frequency ranges, etc) and the 'thing' being leased is not used for the intended purpose, then the lease is broken.


Wrong; plain and simple, there is absolutely NO legal requirement to do ANYTHING during the term of the lease. If you do nothing then they may not renew the lease. It’s a way to make money for the government from unused mineral rights. MANY such leases exist for large areas of New your & New Jersey but it currently makes no sense to exercise these rights at this time. They usually do very preliminary geological soundings and maybe some very small scale test wells in a single area then make a determination. You can, and often do, get dry wells even if you drill in a productive field. Leases simply have no relationship to actual resources, its simply an insurance policy for the oil company and serves to bulk up a “portfolio” of potential resources.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By Bremen7000 on 6/22/2008 1:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
Breaking a contract is not "illegal," which is why you can only be sued for it, and not thrown in jail.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By FreeTard on 6/20/2008 12:05:15 AM , Rating: 3
I agree that is a very strange arguement.

The company that I'm drilling for right now, is one of the small companies. Including this well that I am on now, they have 20 or 30 more leases, signed and paid for.

It really isn't about just punching a hole and hooking it up to a pipeline. It is a much longer process than that.

First you have to build the lease, which can involve a lot of construction, remember it has to hold a big rig, and all of the support people.

Then you have to drill the well. This can take anywhere from 5 days (Arkansas is a good example) to a year (Rocky Mountains).

Then you have completions, build the pipeline, build the compressor station, and get the product to market.

I'm sure I'm missings steps. But the point is, every step costs money. So for a small company, they may only be able to use one lease at a time, and have completions following them around finishing things off, so that they can afford to go onto the next lease.

These leases are also purchased based somewhat on speculation. If I was running an O&G company, and I only bought the lease that I would be working on for the next well, I wouldn't last very long. Someone else would come in and buy up everything else.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By Murst on 6/20/2008 3:03:56 AM , Rating: 3
Well, your example is actually perfect for what I'm arguing...

A small company like yours that can only afford to build one lease at a time should not be allowed to purchase 30 or more leases. If these take you 1-2 years to fully build (like you said), that means that your company has prevented regions from being drilled for the next 50+ years.

It would be much better to stop companies like yours from simply holding these leases until you're ready to drill / explore. Give it to someone who will use it right away. That way, we get oil faster, and we don't need to change any laws.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By ToeCutter on 6/20/2008 11:22:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
New leases mean additional drilling, plain and simple.


But, you just said they didn't.

quote:
Yes, not every lease sold results in a well, especially not within 5 years or less. Some leases are bought by smaller companies who then have to obtain additional financing. Others are for areas that aren't profitable to drill yet, but are expected to be soon, if prices rise or technology advances.


Perhaps you should try to clarify:

New leases might mean new wells after a few years, if companies receive financing.

Hmm. Now it seems probable that new leases will result in new wells, but not anywhere as "plain and simple" as described by you just a few sentences earlier.

No worries, I doubt many will read this anyway.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By FreeTard on 6/20/2008 7:06:06 PM , Rating: 3
You are exactly right.

The idea is great on paper. There are xxx number of leases just being held, so just drill on all of those leases right away and the problem is solved.

In reality, one of the majors bought 1000 leases in this state, in order for them to drill all of them at once (which would piss off a lot of people) they would need roughly $5 million per lease. Ok, so now the major shells out 5 Billion dollars to develop the leases, we still need 1000 rigs, 20,000 roughnecks, several million gallons of water for drilling fluid, and countless other resources.

So let the mom and pops do it, hand the leases over to them! Well the fact is, the mom and pops have less money than the majors, and just because someone wants to drill for oil or gas, doesn't mean they can. It's not like plumbing, I would bet you can't open the phone book and choose AAAAAAAA1-Oil and Gas. The mom and pops are usually a collaboration with the majors, and they pick off the wells they can handle at a speed they can handle, without overextending.

The theory, on paper, is great. In reality, to simultaneously start developing all of the leases out there would be 68% impossible (a random number I made up).

One other thing to note, is that not every lease produces. How many dusters are there, for every producing well?

"New leases mean additional drilling, plain and simple."

But not every lease means additional oil and gas, plain and simple


RE: Quoting CERA?
By ToeCutter on 6/24/2008 10:40:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
New leases might mean new wells after a few years, if companies receive financing.


This statement could be clarified even further:

New leases might mean new wells after a few years, if companies receive financing, and they can do so profitably.

It seems "plain and simple" has turned into "hardly probable" in just a few sentences.

Asher's "plain and simple" comment is classic, unadulterated conservo-speak: Take a complex issue, dispense with all nuance, reduce the infinite number of solutions to a viable few, and present them in such a way that the solution to a complex issue appears obvious to even a 5th grader.

It's an attractive proposition. Who doesn't want simple answers to hard questions? If only the results of those simple answers bore fruit.

I would guess that's it's this approach that has the US heading in the wrong direction, according to 85% of Americans who were asked.

Hard problems deserve critical thought, and critical thought isn't a bad thing. Critical thought has given us some cool stuff, like TV, GPS, vaccines, microwave ovens even the PCs we use to post on this forum.

The world ain't simple folks, which is why so few have it figured out.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By grenableu on 6/24/2008 1:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
Your entire post is a shell game trying to hide what truly is simple. If we drill more, we'll get more oil. If we don't let companies drill, we'll get less.

Yes. It really IS that simple.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By Fluxion on 6/22/2008 2:50:43 AM , Rating: 2
You're right, it is inane to believe we can escape by conserving the need for energy.

However, it's also inane to think that the need for energy, has to come from oil.

While we may be a quite some time away from a major shift away from oil, that doesn't mean we can't begin large scale efforts now to move away from the use of oil.

Look at the Tesla Roadster: 220 miles on a 3 1/2 hour charge. If a start up like Tesla can do it, every major Automobile manufacturer can do it. And it'd be a big jump in the process of moving away from oil.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By namechamps on 6/22/2008 11:49:21 AM , Rating: 4
Where will the electricity come from? Please don't say solar.
Just some quick numbers.

The Tesla gets about 4.7 miles/KWh. So a car going 12,000 miles per year will require 2553 KWh annually (2.5MWh).

Let's say Telsa could ramp production up to 1 million vehicles (even that is less than 2% of vehicles on the road).

That would require 2500 TWh of electrical production.

Nuclear power is the only zero emission option that can provide a constant source of low cost energy. Solar and wind are variable so a constant load source is still required.

The other issue is economics. Tesla sold <2000 roadsters (including future 2009 sales). Cost has already gone UP from $100K to $109K. Solar power costs about 3x as much as nuclear power so the "mpg equivelent" goes down from 140 mpg to 40mpg. I don't think many people will buy a car for $100K yet still doesn't cost less to operate than a Camry.

Simply put I think ideas like the Volt or Honda H2 car or the Tesla Roadster are great ideas. First issue is it will take 20-30 years to replace even 20% of cars on the road. Second issue is they still require power. Enviromentalist need to get realistic. Nuclear is best short term option. We could be like France and have enough nuclear plants to produce 70%+ of our electricity by nuclear PLUS enough to run millions of electric (or plug in hybrids or hydrogen) cars. Currently largest source of electricity in US is COAL.

So we can either burn coal and burn oil or we can build nuclear and run our homes, businesses and in the future cars on them.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By bjacobson on 6/27/2008 6:21:56 PM , Rating: 2
What's wrong with coal? We have enough in the US for 250 years at an increasing rate of consumption, and we're already so close to making them zero-emission. All we need to do is use SCR (maybe this is the hindrance, need a better catalyzer?) to oxidize the elemental mercury from the coal power plant exhaust. This Mercury Oxide can then be captured in the scrubber slurry like everything else, and stored/disposed of/not spewed into the air.

Don't say greenhouse emissions--> global warming, because we know from history that there hasn't always been as much ice as there is now. Take for example the Medieval British Grape/Wine industry, the medieval Viking coastal settlements (with everything including agriculture) in Greenland as examples that are impossible given the current climate in those regions (stole this bit from Penguinisto's post on slashdot. There's a good discussion going on about the melting of the North Pole ice, go check it out if you're so inclined: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/27/1... ).


RE: Quoting CERA?
By Murst on 6/19/2008 3:25:05 PM , Rating: 1
Oh... and I forgot to mention....

currently, we export over 1 million barrels of oil per day (we import more, but we still export). If we want more oil in the USA, then perhaps we should stop exporting it before we decide to drill...


RE: Quoting CERA?
By JustTom on 6/20/2008 3:15:18 AM , Rating: 2
Oil is fungible, not exporting US produced oil would not lower prices in the U.S.. Nor would it lower the trade balance.


RE: Quoting CERA?
By FreeTard on 6/20/2008 7:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Canada exports as much oil to the US as Saudi does. Yet oil costs as much to Canadians as it does to Americans. Gas is more expensive at around $6/gallon and going up. I don't remember the last time it stayed lower than $3.75/gallon for more than a few weeks.

If Canada by some miracle decided to stop exporting oil, and survived the wrath. We wouldn't see gas prices go down because of the greater stockpile there. We would see oil prices go up, and fuel prices go through the roof.


Interesting Read
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/19/2008 10:36:45 AM , Rating: 2
Just to float a theory out there...
Perhaps production slowed because of the high costs. I know this sounds counterintuitive, because a high cost would typically mandate increased production, as is currently occurring. However, the oil industry is not a typical one in that most of the major producers are closely related (ie OPEC) and coordinate their efforts extensively.

I see a likely scenario is that if they realize they can make the same amount of profits, while selling less, they would be inclined to do it. It makes sense from a fundamental perspective. If they sold more, they'd deplete their supplies further and be making no more profit.

In a normal industry such thoughts would be offset by independent entities upping production. However in the coordinated oil world, if the big players decide to artificially limit production, they can steer the entire market.

I think regardless of when exactly oil reserves are exhausted, it is an eventuality, likely within 1000 years at best. This is why it is imperative to the future of man that we develop nuclear, solar, tide, wind, and microbial/synthetic fuel technologies in cost effective manner.

I believe even the most hardline critics of the green movement, can agree on this fundamental point.




RE: Interesting Read
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/19/2008 10:57:29 AM , Rating: 5
Problem is that while the Oil cartels can spike the price for brief periods of time, it is unwise to leave them at high prices for too long. If it becomes cheaper to use alternatives than oil, then Oil demand drops, and even if prices drop later, it might be too late to get people to switch back. I think this is happening now. People now recognize that Oil isn't as dependable as they would like and will begin gradually switching from it to a variety of other resources. It will take years for this to happen, but the Oil cartels will decline over time because of the rising price of oil. Short term, were boned. Long term, this will end up hurting the longevity of the Oil business.


RE: Interesting Read
By vapore0n on 6/19/2008 11:24:33 AM , Rating: 3
That's not what out politicians say.

What they do say is: oil is expensive, we need to find independence from oil by .... drilling for more oil.

Its happened before. Oil goes up, demand goes down, oil goes down and everyone forgets the past and starts spending oil like we never had a crisis before.


RE: Interesting Read
By tallcool1 on 6/19/2008 12:57:09 PM , Rating: 4
Our left wing democrates also want to turn America into a socialist country. Yesterday House Democrats called for nationalization of refineries!
quote:
Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply.
http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/index.html#a54...

Your take is wrong on the drilling part. We need to drill for our own oil to allow independance from radical middle east controlled oil supply. A combination of drilling our own oil and reducing our dependance on oil in general with alternative fuel sources, and more efficient vehicles is the solution.


RE: Interesting Read
By jay401 on 6/19/2008 1:20:45 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing here, just providing another opinion. From June 2nd:

“Let’s be serious,” writes Kevin Kerr. “Oil has pulled back to $125, not $60.

“Think about the parabolic rise in oil we have seen in just the last six months. It’s incredible, and it’s overdue for a correction. But that doesn’t mean that this is the end of the longer-term bull market or global demand — not by a long shot. The idea that this was some kind of a bubble — with oil really worth $40 — is a pipe dream.

“The simple reason is that we are using more and more fuel and finding much less. Peak Oil is here, and it doesn’t feel good.

“Still, Congress can’t let it go. There is no ‘evildoer’ in the oil market, no cartel of traders that manipulated the oil markets to get us to this price. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is even getting a new mandate and a lot of power.

“If they continue on their latest witch hunt to find the traders responsible, it won’t matter. Those funds will simply flee into new oil markets springing up in Dubai and elsewhere.”


From April:

"We’re detecting a theme in much of the day’s news. Something you might call “Peak Everything.” Oil, food, water — you name it — supplies are falling and prices and tensions are rising. The world appears to be entering one of those phases in history that will take generations of library-sequestered historians inventing new theories to explain." hehe :)

Until recently, population-rich portions of the globe had a comparatively very small demand for oil. Places like India and China had steadily rising populations, yet their demand for oil and energy remained relatively low.

Over the last 10 years, that has become no longer true. Industrialization has finally caught up to these parts of the world, and we’re seeing demand that previously never existed. Now billions of people are driving cars and powering houses and factories in a way they previously weren’t. This puts serious pressure on the demand side of the oil curve.

Obviously, this demand must be met by a complementary amount of oil. The supply now becomes stretched and the price has nowhere to go but up. This is true for many of the world’s resources. New groups of consumers represent a need for scarce resources and there is only a limited amount to go around. Everything from metals and building materials to wheat and other grains must be allocated to new and growing population segments.

While these new needs are usually just a necessary side effect of much-wanted world development, the demand pressure being put on oil has a unique effect. The price and supply of the world’s oil have a much greater effect on the overall world economy than those of any other commodity.

We need oil for our own personal uses, and the more expensive it is, the more we have to pay. We all know this. But what about everything else we need to buy? Oil becomes the de facto cost of transportation and shipping. Anything imported to the United States takes oil to actually get here. From airplanes to trucks to cargo ships, the price of oil factors into everything we buy. The higher the cost of oil, the higher the cost of fresh produce that must be shipped across the country. Just one example of how oil affects everything we need and want.


RE: Interesting Read
By Spacecomber on 6/20/2008 11:40:28 AM , Rating: 2
The link doesn't work to the FoxNews reference. Is there a working link for this?


RE: Interesting Read
By tallcool1 on 6/20/2008 12:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
I just clicked the link and it is working fine for me...


RE: Interesting Read
By FiniteQuantity on 6/21/2008 5:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
Your take is wrong on the drilling part. We need to drill for our own oil to allow independance from radical middle east controlled oil supply. A combination of drilling our own oil and reducing our dependance on oil in general with alternative fuel sources, and more efficient vehicles is the solution.

At the phenomenal rate we (U.S.) use oil - 8 billion barrels a year - the protected areas off the coasts and ANWR will not give us independence from oil imports. Bush just recently talked about 16 billion barrels in protected areas. If that doesn't include ANWR add another 8 billion for a total of 3 years US oil use in protected areas. You cannot drill your way to energy independence. The oil isn't there. Ethanol will never be able to supply the fuel needed for the cars and trucks of 300 million people. There isn't enough energy return (if any) and there isn't enough arable land.

Conservation is a good idea. But the number one way to conserve is population shrinkage. Right now we have population growth. We will need to move to mass transit as our other big conservation, and yet not a single politician seems to be talking about it. They haven't even talked about fuel economy standards. SUVs are still exempt from car standards.


RE: Interesting Read
By geddarkstorm on 6/19/2008 1:21:13 PM , Rating: 4
Some politician in the news said about oil recently that, "We can't solve the supply problem by increasing production". My mind was numb for hours afterwards.

All I've gotta say is that we're doing a good job of fixing the supply problem by driving the price up. Can't have demand for what people can't buy, it's brilliant :D!


RE: Interesting Read
By porkpie on 6/19/2008 1:47:03 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Some politician in the news said about oil recently that, "We can't solve the supply problem by increasing production".
That's politician codespeak for "my environmental constituents have me by the balls".


RE: Interesting Read
By omnicronx on 6/19/2008 1:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps what they were referring too is the lack of refineries in the United States. You can produce as much oil as you want, but if the bottleneck is the lack of refineries to refine that increased production, then what good does it do.


RE: Interesting Read
By masher2 (blog) on 6/19/2008 2:07:39 PM , Rating: 5
But if the "supply problem" that politico was referring to was the refinery bottleneck, we could still solve it by increasing production -- production of gasoline itself, by building more refineries.

In fact, there isn't a supply problem in the world that can't be solved by increased production...which is why this remark is particularly inane.


RE: Interesting Read
By DanoruX on 6/23/2008 3:07:45 AM , Rating: 1
^ 6 for that one.


RE: Interesting Read
By FiniteQuantity on 6/21/2008 5:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
Some politician in the news said about oil recently that, "We can't solve the supply problem by increasing production". My mind was numb for hours afterwards.

He was probably referring to the long term supply problem. Any extra drilling now just makes the supply problem worse later. Oil discoveries peaked in the 1960's and have declined every decade since. And oil usage has increased every decade since. That is the supply problem. Adding some extra wells in protected areas doesn't change the terrible reality of the supply problem.


RE: Interesting Read
By greenchasch on 6/21/2008 6:33:32 PM , Rating: 3
Oil discoveries didn't peak in 1960. World reserves are twice what they were then, despite all the oil we've burned since then.


RE: Interesting Read
By Polynikes on 6/23/2008 2:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
The idea is not to ween ourselves off oil by drilling for more, but to ween ourselves off foreign oil by drilling for it here in the states.


RE: Interesting Read
By theflux on 6/19/2008 7:08:32 PM , Rating: 5
I think you're right, and that we're already seeing this. Saudi Arabia isn't increasing production out of the kindness of its heart, or because it suddenly wants more money. They are increasing production to help bring prices back down to levels where people aren't so interested in alternatives.


RE: Interesting Read
By Ringold on 6/19/2008 2:49:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see a likely scenario is that if they realize they can make the same amount of profits, while selling less, they would be inclined to do it.


Fatal flaw: The Prisoners Dilemma. Because oil companies can't enforce policy amongst their ranks (OPEC can't even do that with reliability), if a bunch held back supply, prices would spike. For some companies, the temptation to hike output and thus cash in huge from what others have done to the market would be irresistible. This is why airlines can't just save themselves by unilaterally raising prices; they can't collude to do it in unison, so they have to nickel and dime you on things you don't actively price check (like are in flight peanuts free or not). That's not in Econ 101 like in mashers post, but 201 at least.

If they did collude, then ultimately they'd be found out with all these "investigations." Eventually there'd be a whistle blower, or a CEO would swap immunity for ratting out the rest. It hasn't happened, and probably wont, 'cause I don't imagine theres anyone to rat out.


RE: Interesting Read
By TimTheEnchanter25 on 6/19/2008 4:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
There is a big difference between what they CAN produce and what they DID produce. OPEC will always play games with production levels to keep prices where they want them.

But, the speculators have managed to keep it higher then the $100 limit OPEC would prefer.


RE: Interesting Read
By Ringold on 6/20/2008 3:13:21 AM , Rating: 2
If the market isn't at equilibrium, how do you explain people still buying each months contracts? By the time the futures contracts mature, real consumers must have contracts from real producers. Otherwise, you'd see massive tankers being leased by oil speculators (who provide a vital market function, called liquidity, among other things) so that they could take delivery of oil -- but that hasn't happened. If people are buying at $135/barrel, that seems to indicate markets are indeed clearing properly.

Whether or not we like reality is another issue entirely.

I'll also point out that non-traded commodities have also gone up tremendously in value; cadmium is up, according to Deutsche Bank, more than twice what oil has risen since 2001. Blame the speculators? There are no speculators in cadmium.

As for OPEC, I wouldn't bet money on it, but I've got a feeling perhaps only Saudi Arabia has any spare capacity at all. I'd love to be wrong, though; then we'd at least have slack.


RE: Interesting Read
By martinw on 6/20/2008 9:39:05 AM , Rating: 2
You are right, Saudi Arabia is the only OPEC country with significant spare capacity at the moment, around 1.5 million barrels per day. All the others are pumping as fast as they can. And don't expect Saudi Arabia to increase by 1.5 even though they can. Having spare capacity like that gives them enormous control over the world markets.

One other point that is often overlooked - usually demand increases are blamed on China, but one of the largest increases is actually coming from the Middle Eastern oil producers themselves. Their huge income leads to plenty of money sloshing around. Combined with fast-growing populations, that means lots of spending on energy guzzling cars, aircon etc, all of which are oil powered since it is so cheap. Saudi Arabia alone increases internal oil consumption by 200k barrels per day every year. That is enough to completely wipe out the recent widely trumpeted increase in production, so although they are raising production, the more important export number does not change.

Total world oil exports were actually higher in 2006 than now. That simple fact alone should explain most of the recent price runup:

http://netoilexports.blogspot.com/2008/04/net-oil-...

The real peak oil problem hits not when you reach the peak, but when the slope first begins to flatten out, as appears to be happening now.


RE: Interesting Read
By Ringold on 6/20/2008 3:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
It's only so cheap there because of subsidies. If I'm not mistaken, they still have to export most of their oil due to a lack of refineries, then import the refined products. China just a day or two ago slashed its fuel subsidies, so there is hope that others will too. Off the top of my head, I think Venezuela is another uber-subsidizer. Iran as well; the Revolutionary Guard makes a lot of money on the side by buying from the state at subsidized prices and then smuggling it out of the country to sell at market prices.


RE: Interesting Read
By martinw on 6/21/2008 11:48:01 AM , Rating: 2
No the Saudi comment is not correct. Saudi refines more oil than it needs for internal consumption, and is increasing refinery capacity even further. So they do not import refined product, and so it is not really accurate to say they subsidize. Chine did cut fuel subsidies, but not by that much given the price increases, so it probably won't have a huge impact. Iran does subsidize because it has to import refined fuel, but they are rationing now which reduced demand quite significantly. Smuggling of course is a big problem for them as you say.


Worst article on Ars EVER.
By exploderator on 6/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By FreeTard on 6/20/2008 12:36:24 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you in part. I don't have a choice but to drive to work, and because of the nature of my work I need a bigger vehicle. I know I could change jobs, but I really enjoy what I do.

At my current rate of reimbursment for company mileage, my break even point for gas is $7.50/gallon. After that my company will have to start driving me around. For a lot of people $4.00/gallon is too much, $5 is out of reach, $6 is a death sentence.

As far as drilling under antarctica being disgusting, I know it's not a popular idea, and I hope we can avoid it. But it's going to be possible a lot sooner than 2050. I might be pulling this number out of the air, but I believe the longest Extended Reach Well on record is over 30,000', mostly horizontal under the ocean. There are already tests underway in the Arctic to safely drill in the extreme environment.


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By Hare on 6/21/2008 9:07:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For a lot of people $4.00/gallon is too much, $5 is out of reach, $6 is a death sentence.

Gas here in Scandinavia (and Europe in general) costs around 5.5$ per gallon (litre of 95oct costs a bit over 1.5€). I haven't seen any dead bodies yet and our economy hasn't crumbled...


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By JustTom on 6/20/2008 3:19:44 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, eventually oil production will peak. No, the situation in the U.S. is not a real example of peak oil. Oil production is artificially limited by government regulations. Give me the power of government and I can prove that corn production has peaked simply by mandating working acreage to lay fallow.


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By exploderator on 6/21/2008 8:27:17 AM , Rating: 1
But the history of US production peaking is a perfect real example. What has peaked is the production what we are willing and able to bear the cost of producing. That includes environmental and future reserve costs. Our ability to produce includes obeying laws that must justify their restrictions in the face of huge economic pressures. For you to dismiss this as simply artificial is either unrealistic or politically devious.

In denying this, your logic asks us to accept the notion that we should embrace 100% unrestricted drilling at any cost. As I said before, every last drop.

Indeed, perhaps we could start extracting and refining fats from fat people. Make a new law, and pay them some monthly compensation. Whales might be even cheaper, and they harvest from the sea. It's possible you know. High enough prices would make it viable. Your laws to protect their rights are just artificial. Oh sorry, I forgot, we actually just have slumping demand for oil, so I guess we don't need to after all.

The reality is that oil production depends on many factors. All together, they resulted in US oil production peaking about 1973. It happened, for completely real reasons. It's history. If you have better information, then please by all means let's hear it. If you have some better insight, then I'm sure lawyers for all those oil men who lost value would love to sue the asses off whoever artificailly restricted their market. What a shitty thing to have done.

In the meantime, I stand with my assessment that this article is deeply flawed and disgustingly biased. Definitely sub par. Get better independant reporting on Fox News these days.

/sarcasm


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By greenchasch on 6/21/2008 6:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sure lawyers for all those oil men who lost value would love to sue the asses off whoever artificailly restricted their market.
They would, but you can't sue the government for passing misguided environmental laws, or for banning drilling in so many areas.

No big surprise US production peaked. We stopped letting people drill for oil.


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By JustTom on 6/21/2008 7:44:54 PM , Rating: 2
Of course U.S. oil production peaked in 1973, I never disputed that. What is the real question is why it peaked and did it need to. I would answer it peaked because mainly because of artificial constraints placed on it by governments. Remove those constraints, which is possible if not probable in the current political environment, and the U.S. could easily produce more oil today than it did in 1973.

quote:
TextIndeed, perhaps we could start extracting and refining fats from fat people. Make a new law, and pay them some monthly compensation. Whales might be even cheaper, and they harvest from the sea. It's possible you know. High enough prices would make it viable. Your laws to protect their rights are just artificial. Oh sorry, I forgot, we actually just have slumping demand for oil, so I guess we don't need to after all.


Even as sarcasm this is rather weak. Restrictive drilling regulations do not remove the environmental impact of drilling, it shifts it. Instead of oil being produced in the United States it is produced in Russia, Saudia Arabia, and the Sudan. Which country do you think is going to produce oil with the least environmental impact?


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By exploderator on 6/21/2008 9:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Restrictive drilling regulations do not remove the environmental impact of drilling, it shifts it.

Yeah, that's right. We decided at that time that we weren't willing to pay that price on our own turf. There also must have been influence by oil investors with overseas interests who wanted to cash in, lobbying the opportunities and markets away from the domestic producers. I'm sure it's some of both.

And maybe if we are willing to forgo most restrictions, burn almost every last drop at any cost, we can do it all over again and get another few decade's ride until it peaks again.

I'm glad there's promise of more cheap oil to be had, or we would be seriously screwed. But I hope we don't drill ourselves anyways, in a mix of desperation and corruption where anything goes.

Sadly we will never know exactly what part of this equation is realistic practical truth, and what part is sick corruption and greed. You would have to be an idiot to doubt for a second that it's plenty of both. Or a Neocon to claim otherwise.

We seriously need to look for better solutions than oil and nuclear.


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/21/2008 11:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
> "We decided at that time that we weren't willing to pay that price on our own turf"

What price? You drill a hole, pump the oil out, then plug it up. There's no permanent environmental damage.

The price to be paid is huge sums of money we send overseas, while we ignore trillions of dollars worth of oil in our own backyard.


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By exploderator on 6/22/2008 1:37:22 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
There's no permanent environmental damage.

Yup. Never. I see no need to be the one to pull your head out of your ass.

I fully agree that the issue has benefiets and drawbacks pointing in multiple directions. I don't think we're doing the right things either. But I see no need to drink the koolaid.

Seriously, where do you come up with this shit?


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By Fluxion on 6/22/2008 3:08:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What price? You drill a hole, pump the oil out, then plug it up. There's no permanent environmental damage.


Look at pictures of the North Slope/prudhoe Bay drilling operations in Alaska, and how even these supposedly "clean" drilling operations, pollute many square miles with leaked oil, etc. (especially look for pictures of blackened tundra, and where oil has pooled in the snow. All that oil isn't exactly positive for the environment.

I'm glad that spills such as Ixtoc, the 1969 Santa Barbara off-shore spill, Prudhoe Bay in 2006, etc., all apparently caused no serious environmental impact. I'm also glad that, as long as you aren't inconvenienced or get to pay less, the cost in animal life, clean up, environmental impact isn't important or serious.


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By porkpie on 6/22/2008 12:17:04 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Look at pictures of the North Slope/prudhoe Bay drilling operations in Alaska, and how even these supposedly "clean" drilling operations, pollute many square miles with leaked oil...
Here's a picture of Prudhoe Bay taken last year. I don't see any miles of leaking oil. I don't even see any plants or animals. Just thousands of square miles of ice.

http://i27.tinypic.com/34y20wj.jpg


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By exploderator on 6/22/2008 9:03:00 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks for the support, it's been getting lonely trying to fend off this insane demented denial.

I don't have everything figured out, I am often poorly informed, lean on my own opinions, etc., and I admit it. But some of the assertions coming back this way can only be explained by a very twisted political agenda having suckered a lot of people into asbsolute denial of the extreme complexity of these issues. There are pitfalls in all directions, pros and cons, and apparently marks and rubes.

I just hope to cut through some of this dogma, because I might agree to drill in the Arctic/Antarctic, but not at the psychopathic blind insistence of some Neocon dupes.


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By JustTom on 6/22/2008 12:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree with the basic premise of your blog I can't agree that there is no environmental degradation involved in oil production. Which is why I think more drilling should happen in the United States; we are far more willing to lessen any possible impact than most major oil producing nations.


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By Ringold on 6/20/2008 4:53:37 AM , Rating: 3
Whats wrong with drilling deep in to the ocean or under ice?

Are you concerned that the rock or ice will miss the oil and become lonely?


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By exploderator on 6/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By Ringold on 6/20/2008 8:47:00 PM , Rating: 3
Lots of hate and simmering anger.

Zero economic analysis or logical argument at all.

For example, if we start building nuclear plants now, then the future can clearly be powered by nuclear. In the interim period, we could expand production of what is already abundant and relatively cheap; oil.

Instead, people like you propose starving the global economy of energy in the interim, while praying to the Alternative Energy God that something else saves us before things start flying apart. Wonderful logic.

IMHO, liberals are a testament to the failure of public school education. Where's the logic?


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By exploderator on 6/21/2008 7:57:46 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, I actually called this article out on something concrete and plainly false. Oh the nerve of me, it's all just "hate and simmering anger".

Nice analysis there mate, detailed logic. I lose.

You my friend actually expose yourself for the American Neocon puppet you are. Pull that party line, tow that load. My politics and nationality remain private, and you have guessed me wrong, while showing us your hand with trite party dogmas about "liberals" and "the failure of public schools". Fool. I hope you like your ball and chain.

It is you who offer "Zero economic analysis or logical argument". Or do you simply try to outright dismiss what I do offer (flawed or otherwise) without the courtesy of following your own standards?

The best you proffer is a future frought with the very real and uncertain challenge of containing the most toxic poisons known to humanity, nuclear materials. Maybe we can compitently handle a nuclear future, and maybe we can't. Again, as with peak oil, there is much room for legitimate debate, where you state some unprovable certainty. Your blind party line (as with this article's) would have us close our eyes and follow the whims of the current established big money holders, without questions. This is honestly folly.

I propose that it is entirely possible that we might develope workable small scale fusion power, and/or many other possible alternatives, for less than it will cost us to "trivially" drill through Antarctica. All with less environmental damage, and while maintaining some oil reserves for the unforseeable future.

Without the will to do something different, which this article clearly means to discourage, we gamble on options and a path forwards that is known to be toxic, and to have serious and risisng cost issues.

Can you actually argue me Ringold?

If peak oil is indeed very far off, then we have all the more time to do the right things without risk of shortages, and for that I am glad.


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By greenchasch on 6/21/2008 6:38:41 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, nuclear materials are not "the most toxic poisons known to humanity!" Botulinum poison is worse than plutonium, and people PAY to have that injected into them (Ever hear of Botox?)

Nuclear is safe because the quantities involved are so small. A nuclear plant makes about a ten-millionth of the waste a coal plant does. And nuclear is technology that works NOW.


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By exploderator on 6/21/2008 7:32:35 PM , Rating: 1
OK then, dump a pound of botulinum (powdered or sprayed, no matter) into the sky, maybe out of an airplane or in an explosion. What's the total damage? Sure it's gonna be short term nasty, and then it's over.

Now let's substitute uranium or plutonium. Apparently you weren't living in the huge area affected (still) by Chernobyl.

Your cheap dodge of the reality of the dangers is lame and dishonest. Radioactive metals persists in the environment, bioaccumulating, causing toxicological and radiological damage. You can't clean it up, ever. It just mixes around and around.

I agree that coal is bad news, and that nuclear is realatively safe. But a fair estimate for 100% replacement of oil is something like 700 new nuclear plants. And that could easily be far shy of the reality by the time we have actually switched over and got it working. Let's not forget about the mining required either, there's always serious environmental cost to mining operations.

All I said is, it's not some cut and dried fact that this Neocon talking point of a proposal (a mostly nuclear future) is guaranteed safe or viable for our energy future.

There are obviously some pretty realistic and serious questions to be asked here.

Check out http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2320 for a very interesting discussion, if you are interested in the whole topic of how much oil we use and how we might replace it.


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/21/2008 11:13:06 PM , Rating: 4
> "Radioactive metals persists in the environment...You can't clean it up, ever. It just mixes around and around."

This couldn't be more wrong. Radioactive isotypes decay naturally...and the more dangerous they are, the faster they decay.

Take Chernobyl, for instance. I-131 (radioactive iodine) was one the principle sources of danger. But it has a half-life of only 8 days. Once a week, the amount in the environment drops by half. The danger from that isotype has already cleaned itself up, automatically. Sr-89 was another major component, with a half-life of 59 days. Both those are essentially already gone from the Chernobyl area.

Radiation levels have already dropped to the point where the only real danger is from foods grown within the 19-mile exclusion zone. The risk is primarily from the longer-lived C-137...but even stll, within another ~50 years, even this will be gone.

Nevermind that Chernobyl was a RBMK reactor -- a type the Western World rejected as too dangerous to ever build. Out of thousands of reactor-years of operation, no Western commercial power plant has ever killed or injured a single person.

And we have far safer, cleaner designs on the books, ones which produce far less waste and are wholly unable to even theoretically melt down. Unfortunately, due to public ignorance, there is little interest in building them.


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By Solandri on 6/22/2008 1:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
OK then, dump a pound of botulinum (powdered or sprayed, no matter) into the sky, maybe out of an airplane or in an explosion. What's the total damage? Sure it's gonna be short term nasty, and then it's over.

Now let's substitute uranium or plutonium. Apparently you weren't living in the huge area affected (still) by Chernobyl.

Uranium and plutonium principally decay by emitting alpha particles. A piece of paper will shield you from it. They're only dangerous if you grind them into a fine powder (why would you?) and breathe it in. Once they lodge in your lungs, the high mass of the alpha particles (basically a helium atom without electrons) can cause physical damage to the molecular structure of your cells. So under those certain circumstances they can be very dangerous, but in practice it's exceedingly rare for those circumstances to ever happen as a result of nuclear power generation.

Speaking of which, if you're worried about uranium powder in the environment, you should be even more in favor of nuclear over coal. Right now our coal plants emit more particulate uranium into the atmosphere than our entire nuclear industry uses. There's a tiny bit of naturally occurring uranium in everything, including coal; and when you burn it it gets carried out with the smoke, into the air, where people breathe it in, and it gets lodged in our lungs just like the worst-case scenario I outlined above.

Anyhow, for some reason the nuclear argument always seems to take place with the opponents arguing for zero risk. Nothing has zero risk. Well, nothing except doing nothing. Nuclear in its current form carries considerably less risk than coal and oil-burning power generation technologies. A kg of refined uranium used in a reactor contains about 2 million times as much energy as a kg of coal, 1.5 million times as much energy as a kg of oil. Would you rather convert a kg of uranium (about three and a half tablespoons) into "radioactive waste" or burn 2000 tons of coal with its accompanying atmospheric emissions?

And most of that "radioactive waste" is actually reusable fuel. If we reprocessed the "waste" we could increase the energy extraction more than tenfold. It's only classified as "waste" because we (the U.S.) banned reprocessing in the 1970s due to fears of terrorists getting reprocessed weapons-grade plutonium. France and other countries happily reprocess and thus have a considerably smaller "radioactive waste" problem than we do. (Our waste is "hot" because we're classifying it as waste even though it still over 90% of its energy still in it.)

Environmental cost of mining uranium also suffers from the same flawed zero-risk assessment. We mined over 1.1 billion tons of coal last year, which provided about 50% of our electricity generation. In that same time, we extracted about 2200 tons of uranium from about 3 million tons of mined ore, which generated about 20% of our electricity. Concerns about the environmental impact of mining favor nuclear by over a hundredfold.


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By exploderator on 6/22/2008 9:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you Solandri. I admit that nuclear is not the worst possible option out there, but that also doesn't mean it's the only one we should be vigorously persueing.

Coal is pretty much the dirtiest bulk fuel we have ever used, so it's a pretty stacked-deck comparison that you gave. The certain safety of nuclear materials is also not quite as lilly white as you make out, and I don't think we will know for at least another hundred years, by which time an exessive commitment to nuclear could turn out to be a very painfull "too late". It would still be better than running off the coal cliff, and there are many people calling for a whole new wave of coal useage, now that NG is rising sharply with other easily mobile and clean fuels.

There are numerous possibilities, and political will, the lack of it, or the distrotion and corruption of it, all play a VERY large part in what happens next. I hope our enguaged discussions can play some small part in heading us towards sanity in our policy choices, because the stakes are too high to just leave it all to chance.


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By JustTom on 6/21/2008 8:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I propose that it is entirely possible that we might develope workable small scale fusion power, and/or many other possible alternatives, for less than it will cost us to "trivially" drill through Antarctica. All with less environmental damage, and while maintaining some oil reserves for the unforseeable future.


Maybe or maybe not. I have seen in my lifetime aritcles predicting commercial fusion power is just 10 years away repeatedly. And still we don't have any. And it is not for lack of resources committed to research, it is just a damn hard thing. I'd be the first to celebrate reliable commercial fusion power if it becomes available but I doubt it will any time soon.


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By exploderator on 6/22/2008 1:29:02 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7168

Right here on ars, we see cold fusion mechanisms proven by the Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center.

Nothing to see here folks, move along...


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By Fluxion on 6/22/2008 3:20:14 AM , Rating: 2
Cold fusion is one of those research areas, where the majority of mainstream science has kinda turned its back on it, but in reality, it has some promising potential simply in fusion research.

However, everything I've seen and read, essentially puts cold fusion as never being a commercially-viable source of energy, as it simply occurs in too small of amounts, if occuring at all (and yes, some research evidence strongly supports it).

So no, it's not time to move along.


RE: Worst article on Ars EVER.
By JustTom on 6/22/2008 12:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
What is possible in the lab is not always possible on a commercial scale. I will be estatic if there is a cold fusion plant in the near to mid term but I doubt it will hap