Hunter44 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report The Hirsch report, the commonly referred to name for the report Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management, was created by request for the US Department of Energy and published in February 2005. It examined the time frame for the occurrence of peak oil, the necessary mitigating actions, and the likely impacts based on the timeliness of those actions. Some conclusions: The report came to the following conclusions: World oil peaking is going to happen, and will likely be abrupt. World production of conventional oil will reach a maximum and decline thereafter. Some forecasters project peaking within a decade; others contend it will occur later. Peaking will happen, but the timing is uncertain. Oil peaking will adversely affect global economies, particularly the U.S. Over the past century the U.S. economy has been shaped by the availability of low-cost oil. The economic loss to the United States could be measured on a trillion-dollar scale. Aggressive fuel efficiency and substitute fuel production could provide substantial mitigation. The actual report: http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/oil_peaking_netl.pdf I just heard about this tonight. This is some amazing stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus71 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Amazing and scary **** if oil prices went up by 3 or 4 dollars you can kiss our country good bye! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 If gas went up to $7 or $8 then you would see alot more people buying EVs(and thats probably what it would take, as its not practical with low gas prices), whose cost would come down as the economy of scale improved. You would also see more power plants being built more quickly, with less NIMBY fights as people face the reality of having a new power plant next door vs. having to pay exorbitant amounts for power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 The US is sitting on vast amounts of energy, and as DC said, many things become feasible as the price increases. Strange how the world finds more as the cost increases and technology advances added a decent article on the issue http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7246 Does Peak Oil Even Matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 We need to get off oil period We are held hostage by oil exporting countries It pollutes the air It pollutes the water Economy is held hostage by Oil prices Global warming ? some say yes some say no. Either way less pollutants cannot hurt the air Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 We need to get off oil periodGlobal warming ? some say yes some say no. Either way less pollutants cannot hurt the air You have a feasible alternative to suggest? Turn off the taps and freeze a Yankee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 We need to get off oil period "We" can't mean the United States. If the United States gets off oil, oil prices plummet. The US would be at a crippling disadvantage because we would be tied into higher cost alternative energies while other countries are humming with $15 a barrel oil. It makes more sense that the demand for energy worldwide increases oil prices to the point that alternative energy becomes economically attractive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 WikiLeaks cables: Saudi Arabia cannot pump enough oil to keep a lid on prices US diplomat convinced by Saudi expert that reserves of world's biggest oil exporter have been overstated by nearly 40% The US fears that Saudi Arabia, the world's largest crude oil exporter, may not have enough reserves to prevent oil prices escalating, confidential cables from its embassy in Riyadh show. The cables, released by WikiLeaks, urge Washington to take seriously a warning from a senior Saudi government oil executive that the kingdom's crude oil reserves may have been overstated by as much as 300bn barrels – nearly 40%. The revelation comes as the oil price has soared in recent weeks to more than $100 a barrel on global demand and tensions in the Middle East. Many analysts expect that the Saudis and their Opec cartel partners would pump more oil if rising prices threatened to choke off demand. However, Sadad al-Husseini, a geologist and former head of exploration at the Saudi oil monopoly Aramco, met the US consul general in Riyadh in November 2007 and told the US diplomat that Aramco's 12.5m barrel-a-day capacity needed to keep a lid on prices could not be reached. According to the cables, which date between 2007-09, Husseini said Saudi Arabia might reach an output of 12m barrels a day in 10 years but before then – possibly as early as 2012 – global oil production would have hit its highest point. This crunch point is known as "peak oil". Husseini said that at that point Aramco would not be able to stop the rise of global oil prices because the Saudi energy industry had overstated its recoverable reserves to spur foreign investment. He argued that Aramco had badly underestimated the time needed to bring new oil on tap. One cable said: "According to al-Husseini, the crux of the issue is twofold. First, it is possible that Saudi reserves are not as bountiful as sometimes described, and the timeline for their production not as unrestrained as Aramco and energy optimists would like to portray." It went on: "In a presentation, Abdallah al-Saif, current Aramco senior vice-president for exploration, reported that Aramco has 716bn barrels of total reserves, of which 51% are recoverable, and that in 20 years Aramco will have 900bn barrels of reserves. "Al-Husseini disagrees with this analysis, believing Aramco's reserves are overstated by as much as 300bn barrels. In his view once 50% of original proven reserves has been reached … a steady output in decline will ensue and no amount of effort will be able to stop it. He believes that what will result is a plateau in total output that will last approximately 15 years followed by decreasing output." The US consul then told Washington: "While al-Husseini fundamentally contradicts the Aramco company line, he is no doomsday theorist. His pedigree, experience and outlook demand that his predictions be thoughtfully considered." Click on the link for the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The US is sitting on vast amounts of energy, and as DC said, many things become feasible as the price increases.Strange how the world finds more as the cost increases and technology advances added a decent article on the issue http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7246 Does Peak Oil Even Matter? Are you advocating nationalizing US oil fields? Because I hate to break it to you but Exxon drilling in the US is going to sell oil to Americans at the same price as Exxon drilling anywhere else. The prices of oil are set collectively not based on the region from which they come... unless they are nationalized. So socialism TWA? ---------- Post added February-9th-2011 at 08:02 PM ---------- You have a feasible alternative to suggest?Turn off the taps and freeze a Yankee? Electric cars would greatly impact the amount of oil used in the US and allow states to determine how to produce electricity. The beauty of electric is that we are all already wired to receive it and you can produce it from any other energy source. You can make it from burning fossil fuels, nuclear power plant, or capturing sunlight. It allows an areas natural advantages to be brought forward to solve it's own energy situation. The technology also already exists. We're damn good at making electricity and supplying it already and electric cars are real and exist in the here and now and improving yearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 "The Long Emergency" by James Howard Kunstler is a good read on this topic. Or, save your self the time and watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4878856748297910182# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Keep drilling, keep driving massive suburban assault vehicles, keep ignoring the call for investment into alternative fuels....it's our God given right to find ourselves paying $50 per gallon! So keep ignoring the alarmists, and all the chicken littles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metalhead Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 To those asking what are the alternatives to oil, well, the country needs to start developing now. Just because the technology/research is 10+ years away doesn't mean you wait 10 years before you start. Perhaps break ground on more nuclear reactors, or maybe develop ways to harness Thorium, who knows. I just want to see this nation do something about it. Be proactive for once. This is depressing though. I love my jeep but the mpg is low and I live 17 miles away from work...I may be forced to trade it in soon. I'm already spending $45 a week in gas and the summer hasn't even hit. A side story to relate to not being proactive - here in southern maryland the local government has spent over $1 million on researching whether they need to build a wider bridge between Calvert and St. Mary's. Their research only determined that it would take 5+ years to build. Traffic is already fubar down here at Pax River with three lanes, with over 2 miles of backed up traffic in one lane everyday trying to get over that particular one-lane bridge. If it takes so long to build then start right now before the traffic/road system completely collapses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Are you advocating nationalizing US oil fields? Because I hate to break it to you but Exxon drilling in the US is going to sell oil to Americans at the same price as Exxon drilling anywhere else. The prices of oil are set collectively not based on the region from which they come... unless they are nationalized. So socialism TWA? ---------- Post added February-9th-2011 at 08:02 PM ---------- Electric cars would greatly impact the amount of oil used in the US and allow states to determine how to produce electricity. The beauty of electric is that we are all already wired to receive it and you can produce it from any other energy source. You can make it from burning fossil fuels, nuclear power plant, or capturing sunlight. It allows an areas natural advantages to be brought forward to solve it's own energy situation. The technology also already exists. We're damn good at making electricity and supplying it already and electric cars are real and exist in the here and now and improving yearly. Nationalizing the oil and gas on federal land is not socialism(also not what I suggest) Demand and supply do effect price Electric is available now...go for it ,we even give rebates.....I like those that live what they preach China reserves are funny things and subject to great manipulation by view Take Bakken for example http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/7380721.html God bless frackers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 A side story to relate to not being proactive - here in southern maryland the local government has spent over $1 million on researching whether they need to build a wider bridge between Calvert and St. Mary's. Their research only determined that it would take 5+ years to build. Traffic is already fubar down here at Pax River with three lanes, with over 2 miles of backed up traffic in one lane everyday trying to get over that particular one-lane bridge. If it takes so long to build then start right now before the traffic/road system completely collapses. That bridge has been an issue for discussion since I was a kid. I grew up in Drum Point and now live in Dameron. Problem with replacing the bridge is where do you put the new one? Look at the Calvert side. You have the annex on one side and the huge farm on the other. Neither are going anywhere. On the St. Marys side, you have expensive homes on either side. How much will it cost the government to buy those people out? Only option I can see is moving a few miles up the river and try putting in something there. But knowing the government down here, they will wait until it collapses and make people drive through Benedict. Then ask the Feds for help. And there is a reason I live on the same side of the river as the base. I avoid that bridge as much as possible. It's gonna collapse soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Liberals are praying for people to buy into the oil peaking nonsense. I do not even need to tell the ND haters to google or search youtube for the video of Obama in 2007 and 2008 saying energy prices need to go up before their agenda can be implemented. The left in the US with mandates and lawsuits to prevent further exploration and drilling as well as propaganda when it comes to drilling in desolate places cough ANWAR, artificially create an energy crisis, but we know dometically we have enough of our own oil to last for centuries. Prices would go down when we drill more since the speculators would not be able to get away with driving up the stock price. And newsflash the energy companies will not lose money if there is ever a salt water powered energy source since they would already have investment in that area also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Liberals are praying for people to buy into the oil peaking nonsense. I do not even need to tell the ND haters to google or search youtube for the video of Obama in 2007 and 2008 saying energy prices need to go up before their agenda can be implemented.The left in the US with mandates and lawsuits to prevent further exploration and drilling as well as propaganda when it comes to drilling in desolate places cough ANWAR, artificially create an energy crisis, but we know dometically we have enough of our own oil to last for centuries. Prices would go down when we drill more since the speculators would not be able to get away with driving up the stock price. And newsflash the energy companies will not lose money if there is ever a salt water powered energy source since they would already have investment in that area also. Ever taken a look at the oil consumption of developing economies? Yeah, the peak is a myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Nationalizing the oil and gas on federal land is not socialism(also not what I suggest) Right... Demand and supply do effect priceDemand is growing faster than supply can match it. Let's say the US tries to counter that with a massive increase in supply. What's to stop those controlling larger amounts of oil form decreasing output? After all their economies DEPEND on oil and decreased output to keep prices high would benefit them twofold. And again... Oil companies drilling in the US would sell oil to Americans for the same price as oil companies drilling oil anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metalhead Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 That bridge has been an issue for discussion since I was a kid. I grew up in Drum Point and now live in Dameron. Problem with replacing the bridge is where do you put the new one? Look at the Calvert side. You have the annex on one side and the huge farm on the other. Neither are going anywhere. On the St. Marys side, you have expensive homes on either side. How much will it cost the government to buy those people out? Only option I can see is moving a few miles up the river and try putting in something there. But knowing the government down here, they will wait until it collapses and make people drive through Benedict. Then ask the Feds for help. And there is a reason I live on the same side of the river as the base. I avoid that bridge as much as possible. It's gonna collapse soon. Haha, no doubt about it collapsing soon. Repairs are becoming more frequent it seems. My father lives on 4 just before the bridge on our side and recieved the package that contained all the road/design proposals. I understand the problems associated with the plan as it is and there will be some tough decisions of course. They should have developed an adequate plan when they widened 235 ten years ago when they attempted to predict heavy traffic volumes. Right now the easist option would be to use Myrtle Point Rd. and cut through the park. This would take the bridge directly across that long, thin sandbar and right through the Annex in Solomons. There would be very little housing relocation but we would lose two small local parks. And all buildings at the route 4/235 light would remain intact with the creation of a bypass and thus the removal of the traffic light (which was in the proposal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 My step father is an economist who worked as a consultant for the Saudi government (live in Saudi actually) in the late 90s dealing with this stuff, wrote gov't reports on this stuff. He is a foreign national, with more of a bias for the right, he says that Saudi Arabia will run out of oil in HIS lifetime. He's about 70 now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Right... Demand is growing faster than supply can match it. Let's say the US tries to counter that with a massive increase in supply. What's to stop those controlling larger amounts of oil form decreasing output? After all their economies DEPEND on oil and decreased output to keep prices high would benefit them twofold. And again... Oil companies drilling in the US would sell oil to Americans for the same price as oil companies drilling oil anywhere. You can certainly draw a contract to give a right of purchase to the US...we do after all own it. Doing so not only guarantees royalties,lease payments and taxable infrastructure,but also control of supply and recipients. Decreasing their supply in that case only harms them,by both a rise in price and decreased output increasing the viability of alternatives as well as us not sending the money...we are buying oil regardless,until alternatives are viable Redirecting the profits of blackmail to recipients of your choice eliminates the profitability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 My step father is an economist who worked as a consultant for the Saudi government (live in Saudi actually) in the late 90s dealing with this stuff, wrote gov't reports on this stuff. He is a foreign national, with more of a bias for the right, he says that Saudi Arabia will run out of oil in HIS lifetime. He's about 70 now. Assuming that he plans on living for another decade or so, that's hard to believe. If you are that low on oil, it doesn't make much sense for the Saudis to be pumping as much of it as they are and selling at the prices they are. Unless, the ruling class there has plans to simply take their money and walk away and Saudi Arabia fall apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 My step father is an economist who worked as a consultant for the Saudi government (live in Saudi actually) in the late 90s dealing with this stuff, wrote gov't reports on this stuff. He is a foreign national, with more of a bias for the right, he says that Saudi Arabia will run out of oil in HIS lifetime. He's about 70 now. It is certainly possible......there will of course be plenty still there,but not recoverable w/o advanced technology(which they are starting to invest in) Ask him how much Iraq and Iran have undeveloped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Ask him how much Iraq and Iran have undeveloped War for oil.:evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 The problem isn't that alternative sources of energy don't work, it's the fact that there is no will in this country to make it happen. Not yet at least. Everytime people seem about to get fed up, the oil prices suddenly drop for a few months to shut everyone up, and they slowly creep back up. Other countries are making it a priority to get off oil as much as possible. Everyone knows it won't happen over night, but the problem is everytime a leader brings it up, the response is, "You may have a point, but well, that is a problem for the next generation to handle, for now we need to go drill every ounce of the slick stuff out of the ground" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I agree. Scientists at NASM and NASA have told me we no longer have the ability to get a man to the moon. It's not the technology we lack or courage or skill though. It's the will. We're by and large too content and resisitant to change. Same is true for alt energy. Really developing a way to get off of oil (or to use as little as possible) will be expensive, will have hiccoughs, and will be initially less efficient as we figure out the puzzle and ratios. Right now, there are too few really invested or motivated to do it. Heck, how many people have solar panels on their houses which are proven technology and would save em a bunch of money. They don't have the panels because they find the initial cost upsetting or they think it will make it their house look ugly, or they just don't think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.