The Kneeslider

Doers Builders and Positive People

Enhanced Recovery Means More Oil

By

Alaskan Oil FieldThe Department of Energy released reports indicating the effect enhanced recovery techniques are having on recoverable oil reserves. With all of the hand wringing going on and predictions of “peak oil” doom, these reports don’t get a lot of publicity, but they should. Our current proven reserves of 21.4 billion barrels could be increased by another 89 billion barrels, that’s additional reserves of more than 4 times what we already have.

The 89 billion barrel jump in resources was one of a number of possible increases identified in a series of assessments done for DOE which also found that, in the longer term, multiple advances in technology and widespread sequestration of industrial carbon dioxide could eventually add as much as 430 billion new barrels to the technically recoverable resource.

Other nifty capabilites we already have are things like directional drilling, which simply means we have a drilling rig over here and get the oil from way over there, the drill makes a turn once it’s down at depth. One rig can replace many separate rigs and reduce the surface footprint of the drilling operations. Cool.

Unfortunately, a lot of folks are convinced the oil is almost gone and there’s nothing we can do about it. Their view of drilling operations are formed more from old movies and environmentalist propoganda than reality. Directional drilling and enhanced recovery mean efforts to set up operations in Alaska’s ANWR, for instance, could make a major difference in our oil supplies, but the “don’t drill” crowd “knows” otherwise and nothing you say will change their minds. New technology must be solar or hydrogen or wind, new oil recovery technologies aren’t allowed or acknowledged because they keep trotting out the same old objections as though nothing has changed.

If the number above is right, 430 billion barrels means more oil than Saudi Arabia and of course, if we use those technologies, there’s no reason other countries can’t use them, too. If other countries also add to their recoverable reserves, a person might be excused for thinking we aren’t quite done with oil just yet. Once the price rises to today’s levels, all sorts of new technology becomes affordable and profitable. Combine this with tar sands, oil shale and some ethanol, too, and you have a very long future for the old reliable, liquid fueled internal combustion engine. I like that.

Department of Energy via Tech Central Station

The Kneeslider: Oil, Lots of Oil
The Kneeslider: High Gas Prices Mean More Oil Reserves

photo: ConocoPhillips

Posted on Filed Under: Economics and Politics, Science frontiers

-- Subscribe to The Kneeslider --

Be the first to know when something’s new!


Be sure to check out The Kneeslider’s motorcycle collectibles listings.

Your purchases through ebay links on The Kneeslider may earn a commission for this site.



Comments

  1. Sure the internal combustion engine can be astounding and it has not yet reached its potential. But, why is there no mention of whether or not the supply of oil should be consumed at the going rate? Furthermore, just because the oil supply is there, does it need to be used in all of our current applications?

    “There’s oil and more oil” side of the argument is short-sighted and can work against future generations from enjoying the internal combustion engine. This mindset is not supporting or encouraging the work necessary to come up with alternatives that could put away the embarassing 15 mpg family truckster and low mpg heavy duty trucks/equipment. Alternatives that could extend the use of the internal combustion engines that meet new benchmarks. (i.e. as in allowing motorcycles to be manufactured with internal combustion engines for the next 200+ years since they maintain 50+ mpg and meet emissions standards)

    Some parallels can be drawn to the H-D post you made about noise. Marketing, manufacturing, selling, buying, & using an SUV that gets 15 mpg for one’s daily use is bullshit.

  3. kneeslider, on this and other posts you seem to have expressed an outright enthusiasm for oil. Given that you have made the topic a legitimate theme on this site, I’d encourage you to explore the case for and against oil in future posts.

    I agree that over the last hundred years much of what we have come to enjoy in the developed world has at least been enabled or enhanced because of our petroleum-based economy. I am also a life-long follower and enthusiast of petroleum-based technology (cars, bikes, planes whatever). I even recognize the vast depth and scale with which our current economy depends on petroleum.

    This said, in the last five years two things have caused me to believe that “our” profit and enjoyment of petroleum comes at, for me, an unacceptable cost. First was a greater appreciation in the historic and current role that petroleum has played in geo-political corruption, war and the associated death and abuse of innocent populations around the world. Second, the increasingly reasonable conclusion that the combustion of petroleum is rapidly changing our environment in destructive ways. Raising the stakes going forward, we have the rapidly increasing prosperity China and India (among other developing nations) with governments, industry, and a couple billion consumers who want their chance at the petro-perks we have enjoyed. More fuel to add to the geopolitical and environmental petro-fire.

    For these reasons my personal enthusiasm for petroleum has gone from a life of carefree consumption… to thinking it could one of the biggest threats to the way of life we strive for.

  4. I am evil. I work in the oil and gas industry. Directional drilling is nothing new and has been around for a very long time. It does reduce the footprint allowing for multiple wells on one site, thus reducing the amount of surface land that has to be disturbed to access the reserves.

    Also a note, the percentage of recoverable oil increases as the price of oil increases. For example, at $60/bbl we have 1,000,000,000,000 bbls of oil left to recover. If the price drops to $30/bbl, the recoverable reserse number might drop to 2/3 of the recoverable volume at $60/bbl. If the price of oil were to go up even more, then we can recover more oil.

    It costs a certain amount per barrel to extract oil from the ground, clean it up, and get it heading down a pipeline to a refinery. If the price of oil drops too low, or the quantity of oil produced from a field drops too low, then we stop getting it out as it is not economic.

    Right now the average recovery factor from a typical oil pool is about 30%. For every 100bbl of oil in the ground, we only get 30bbls out. As technologies eveolve, and the price increases we can push this average up to ~50%. Not only do we flood reservoirs with water, but we now use C02 (wow, it is good for the environment too), polymers, steam, etc to increase recovery. It is an ever evolving industry that can add more reserves as the price goes up.

  5. Travis..

    You are NOT evil…your industry has fueled the greatest increase in living standards for more people than any other in history…. BE PROUD.

    sfan…

    Sorry but I subscribed to the half-empty Ehrich, Paddock et al. school for years..fool me once…..

    The world today is MORE peaceful than EVER before. This nonsense that we are being spoon fed..Al-Quaeda, Global warming, imminent oil shortages, geo-political unrest ad nauseum; will in the fullness of time be shown to be a bunch of malarcky as were ALL the previous doom scenarios.

    War & death caused by oil…thats rich..what religon? What gives you the right to deny the Chinesse & Indians their shot at the good life?

    Burn baby burn….

  6. you really think SFAN is claiming to deny the Chinese and Indians the “good life” ? Or is he/she suggesting that there are consequences to avoid before additional billions of people take to using petroleum as the disproportionate leading source of energy? Nowhere did I read that anyone is suggesting to deny prosperity. On the contrary, curbing the oil consumption will add AND prolong prosperity to more people around our single planet that we all call home.

    Curbing the consumption doesn’t mean to stop it all at once and deny others. Oil needs energy competition – everything gets better with competition.

    Peaceful than ever before? interesting

  7. Not in as many words…but the implication is the same. More people “enjoying” prosperity (using evil oil)…the WORSE the problem.

    If you’ve read Simon..you see the whole arguement is backwards. The more people living at a higher level…the more the WHOLE world prospers. Of course, this is TOTALLY contrary to (selfish) environmentalists…but it has been PROVEN to be true for the last 2 million years or so. NOTHING that ANY of the “dismal” scientists have predicticted has come true…why should today’s group be any more accurate?

    Ask an environmentalist if 2006 cars polute more or less than 1968 cars…I’ll wager 95% will answer..”at least as much or more” agree? Compared to a 1968 car new cars are 96-99% lower in HC, NOx & CO. EVER read that in a Sierra Club newsletter? In the few remaining poluted cities in the world…you could park a running car & the exhaust would be cleaner than the ambient air…amazing!

    Environmentalism has become a religion…pronouncements no longer need to be proven..they are just accepted on faith…but YOU don’t have to believe them. When was the last time you heard a positive story regarding the “planet”….strange, my neighborhood isn’t uninhabitable..how about yours?

  8. An environmentalist would say there is no difference between a 1968 car put alongside a 2006 car, in terms of pollution ?

    What about this analogy?….there are 2 Superdomes side-by-side. One has 1/200 th the number of cars inside as the other. The one with less cars are 1968 models, running on lead fuel.

    The other dome has 200 times the number of cars as the other. These cars are 2006 models running on un-leaded fuel.

    (it should be mentioned that India & China probably aren’t going to jump into using cars with Euro 3 emission and California emission standards right away.)

    Let’s assume the 2006 models are still not polluting the air inside the dome as much as the 1968 models are in their dome. Would you still sit on your hands inside the 2006 dome and be content? Or would you suggest we start doing something about it and make progress?

    Your last comment, “my neighborhood isn’t uninhabitable..how about yours? ” Perfect ! That embodies much of the problem with your argument — If it’s not happening in my backyard, then its ok.

    Maybe a trip to Valdez 10 years ago would have helped.

    “NOTHING that ANY of the “dismal” scientists have predicticted has come true…why should today’s group be any more accurate?” —

    Have the holes in the ozone been getting larger or not? Notice I didn’t mention anything about what I think caused the holes. Have the scientists been correct in saying the holes are getting larger? Are the ice caps getting smaller? Aerial photography of ice caps ‘now and then’ are hard to dispute.

  9. hoyt…

    I have problems with your analogy. I don’t see the world as a Superdome..it’s atmosphere is FAR more complex. Are you suggesting there are 200x as many cars? GM wishes!

    Yes..I would be “content”, pulmonarily speaking (not athestically). The air WOULD be cleaner, if that was your point. By “progress” you mean what? My point is, that cars are already 95+% pollution-free…what is the ROI on getting the last few points; surely hybrids, electrics & hydrogen wouldn’t get you a dime from an investment banker. Gov’ts are subsidizing these dead-end technologies (like solar & wind).

    You have TOTALY reversed my neighborhood reference, like most “environmetalists” do. Eventhough their “neighborhood” is habitable…they conjure-up a boogieman from some mythical (or 1 in a million) phenomenon ..like Valdez…then by (il)logical extension manifest it..where ever they want to paint a gloomy picture. The truth is..there are MORE habitable neighborhoods today than EVER before….globally.

    Ozone holes & ice-caps…where is the irrefutable proof that mankind is the cause..or that is irreversable? If you want to believe that mankind is some virulent virus on the planet & is hellbent on destroying itself..its your call. I believe mankind is a net ASSET to the eco-system! Where are all the mass species extinctions that were predicted?

    The point is…the whole environmental mov’t is based on dreary prognostications..based on extrapolations of snap-shot data (how old is the earth again?)…where’s the beef? Even if a few actually do occur..mankind will ..ADAPT

  10. The analogy of the Superdome was used in part to describe that the atmosphere (however complex) does not filter all that we consume.

    200 times the cars as 1968? Maybe not, but you missed one of Sfan’s and my points….China and India’s boom does not need to follow the status quo of using petroleum as their leading energy source, in the same disproportionate ratio. Notice I didn’t say that these emerging economies should NOT use Petroluem or even place oil behind other technologies.

    “Gov’ts are subsidizing these dead-end technologies (like solar & wind).”

    Solar and wind are dead-end ? Explain that one. Especially considering there are technologies that not only allow residents to get off the grid, but to power other homes with their surplus energy. Is this contrived boogieman fiction or is it already in-use around the globe? Wind doesn’t seem to be in short supply around coastal areas. Search google for the latest tech to harness that energy.

    Florida claims to be the “Sunshine State”. How many homes don’t have solar power? and how many months do those residents crank the A/C? Do the math on the amount of energy that can be saved. De-centralize residential energy sources wherever possible. Even energy companies are behind such a concept because it is cheaper to buy surplus energy from residents and pump it into their supply where they can sell it.

    “You have TOTALY reversed my neighborhood reference, like most “environmetalists” do. Eventhough their “neighborhood” is habitable…they conjure-up a boogieman from some mythical (or 1 in a million) phenomenon ..like Valdez”.

    Nope – you missed the point that ecosystems are intertwined and depend on one another, ….which you are presumably shaking your head at by now.

    “The truth is..there are MORE habitable neighborhoods today than EVER before….globally.”

    Like for example, the southwest….where the CO River dwindles to a trickle and snowbirds move out of their McMansion after only a month because they realize local authorities put back the snake that made it into their “backyard”. What is your point besides strengthening an irresponsibile argument that “mankind will ADAPT” with or without other ecosystems that were put on the globe as involuntarily as you were. Was Teddy Roosevelt foolish for his conservation efforts? Or did he take land that another strip mall could have been built on?

    Now, again, I’m not suggesting to stop development. I’m suggesting to stop the lack of significant consideration both in the short term and long term. A point that you don’t seem to be understanding even though I said it in the 2nd line of the original post…”no mention of whether or not the supply of oil should be consumed at the going rate? ” For example, ‘ “Ford’s Model T, which went 25 miles on a gallon of gasoline, was more fuel efficient than the current Ford Explorer sport-utility vehicle — which manages just 16 miles per gallon.” ‘
    — Detroit News, 6/4/03

    I have also mentioned these 2 other points:

    1. establishing new benchmarks so the internal combustion engine can reach its full potential and be used in the distant future.
    2. establish competitive energy sources so that petroluem does not monopolize our existence.

    I have also mentioned in other posts, to consider what the last 100 years would have been like had we invested in vegetable oil (Kneesider educated me on the fact that the first diesel ran on veg oil).

    Ah, but oil back then was easier and right there in the ground, wasn’t it? Why invest money in ‘growing’ oil when we have it right there? Good business decision then….but, had it been developed, the geo-political scene now would be undoubtedly different. We are at a similar point today to decide on investing in other energy sources…and all you want to do is be the naysayer, not environmentalists.

  11. A target rich environment….

    Yes..solar/wind/battery ARE dead-end technologies BECAUSE they are NOT economically viable. None, have made enough progress in the last 30+ years to stand on their own without large gov’t subsidy..ergo..DEAD-END. I believe we are “wasting” time & effort on them that could be better spent on other technologies (like fusion/nuclear.)

    People are funny, they usually do things in their own (selfish) best interests. If any of this tech. was “better” they’d use it…haven’t yet. “Power other homes…getting off the grid”..& I thought I was JoeKing.

    Umm..last I read, the Southwest is the FASTEST growing region of the country..I think the “snowbirds”..just don’t like all the riff-raff.

    Model T vs. Ford Explorer..I’m embarrassed (for you.) I thought you were a gearhead. If I must…1st, there is the 95+% less pollution I mentioned…then add about 3000 lbs. of safety, comfort, conveniences, style(??), the inconsequential extra 300HP topped off with 4+ extra people carrying capacity might go some way in explaining part of it..really hoyt, how can you not be insulted by this nonsense?

    I know you are genuine in your concerns..but you HAVE to consider the economics. Mankind uses oil because it is CHEAPER (including its eco-impact.) When another source(s) become more efficient, or when(?) oil gets too expensive, only THEN will it be supplanted..NOT UNTIL….gov’t interventions not withstanding. Vegetable oil?..why not bovine flatulance?

    I just don’t buy the impending doom…It ain’t getting WORSE..deal with it!

  13. Damn site…

    The article was about the “10’s of 1000’s” of birds killed by wind farms ..including endangered species like eagles..AND OWLS!!!!

    Or aren’t THEY part of the eco-system?

  14. ““Power other homes…getting off the grid”..& I thought I was JoeKing.”

    This is news to you? Or do you think it doesn’t have a place in dense suburbia?

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/21/MNGUIHBUPR1.DTL

    I believe the Kneeslider limits links (for good reason)…so, search “get off the grid” and other searches and you will find other links…one from Popular Mechanics.com that describes a household that got off the grid. This article is fairly balanced and presents both sides of the topic. One thing you should think about if you read it, is that progress takes time and effort.

    Do you have any responses to my comments about petroleum needs competition; besides saying the alternatives are not economically feasible? Early internal combustion engine pioneers had the same naysayers on a different scale…..”My horse can eat the hay I grow and can manuever over those ruts in the road. You have to put that oil-stuff in your carriage….run the risk of it blowing up, you can’t go as fast and you break down…”

    Are you glad those gearheads didn’t give up?

    “Umm..last I read, the Southwest is the FASTEST growing region of the country..I think the “snowbirds”..just don’t like all the riff-raff.”

    Ah, right. Thanks for adding to my point. Lots of desert golf courses being watered to have plush greens, too, right? You might want to re-read those comments, keeping in mind your other comment “my neighborhood isn’t inhabitable, how about yours?”

    Keep the bigger picture in mind. Those desert growth areas syphon a lot of water. Do you think there are significant cause-effect topics to consider with this type of growth in those areas?

    Have you heard of J. Harlan Bretz? If not, he was a geologist. He stood alone for 40 YEARS as an outcast in his field for his theory on what caused the Great Floods in eastern WA state. I mention him now because he was able to step outside of the status quo and think on a scale that no one could for 40 years. He is highly regarded now and his theory is unilaterally accepted. Interesting read. The man thought on another level.

    My overall theme has been suggesting to think on a different scale than you have been….The additional increase of billions of people using petroleum (as a disproportionate source of energy at our CURRENT RATE OF CONSUMPTION) has serious consequences. Notice I have never mentioned anything about the end of oil. My points have always centered around rate of consumption, conservation, oil-as-a-monopoly, and whether we need to use petroleum for all of our current applications. If we don’t think about this now, we are the selfish ones passing it onto other generations to figure out. [and you write, “People are funny, they usually do things in their own (selfish) best interests. “].

    This tech takes time, just like it took the Fords to go from minimal hp to the current day.

    “Model T vs. Ford Explorer..I’m embarrassed (for you.) I thought you were a gearhead. ” Ha! There is nothing to be embarassed about vintage iron. Over a 100 years of development and you are still proud of 16 mpg, regardless of the performance, “safety”, etc. ? Your low expectations would have been higher (without you even knowing it), if the diesel had been given more R&D over the last 100 years. The performance of the diesels at Sebring can attest to that. When was the last time a new engine qualified 1st and finished first on its mayden race?

    Safety? My ass. As stated in another post I witnessed an SUV slam a cement barrier at 50 mph. Why? The DRIVER. It flipped afterward. Why? The design of the wheelbase and high c of g of SUVs. Her “safe” rig compounded the accident.

    “You people are SO insensitive!!! ” Another erroneous generalization.

    “Mankind uses oil because it is CHEAPER “. I already said that.

  15. You are persistent.

    First, I would like to commend you for the civility with that you have maintained throughout…by this point most “discussions” have degenerated into ad hominem..cudos..sir.

    If I may…your larger point is your desire to adapt “alternative” competitive energy sources to oil. Odd, in the context of the original article..ie. happy days..there is MORE oil than we thought…ironic, wouldn’t you say?

    While philosophically I agree that there are tremendous opportunities for decreasing oil usage; our disagreement lies in the VALUE of it (at what cost); and what those alternatives should be.

    I think we have some comon ground on conservation. I am NOT however embarrassed by a 16mpg, 5000lb. 300hp 8 person, A-C’d, 8 speakered CD equipped, SAFE (I presume the anecdotaled woman ..survived) SUV..I actually have one (an Expedition). You mock the “MY ass” safety of autos..yet for the last 70 years fatalities/mile have steadily decreased…dare I say it..a point MORE IMPORTANT than the putative eco-damage they have caused. The fact that millions of people are alive or less/not injured because of “SAFETY” improvements is not a “JOKE”.

    RE: Competition for oil..It already has..just none are economically viable. I do agree that there should be a different allocation of oil. I think it is absurd to waste oil running an electrical generation plant..when Nuclear energy has almost NO atmospheric impact. I don’t agree that hybrids/Ethanol/ bio-mass or eco-panacea de-jour are viable for automobiles. How are diesels more ecological..Same Co2.

    Your friends the Parkinsons. I didn’t notice how much old Mr. P. “PAID” to save the $200/mo. (He had a $200/mo. electric bill 20 years ago(?)…sounds like he was “cultivating” some Indoor crops…dude); or how much you & I have subsidized this noble experiment. Strange how they left that out..hun?

    I just don’t see the problem with a few million Indians & Chinamen using oil…perhaps, if by doing so they hasten its depletion we’ll be ECONOMICALLY motivated to develop “alternatives”..& then we’ll both be happy…

  16. Almost forgot..Since we’re playing “Battlihttp://www.countryguardian.net/case.htmng articles” here’s mine..

    Pretty much systematically destroys the case for wind farms..at ALL levels. Good read..VERY long!

  18. “If I may…your larger point is your desire to adapt “alternative” competitive energy sources to oil. Odd, in the context of the original article..ie. happy days..there is MORE oil than we thought…ironic, wouldn’t you say?”….

    No irony at all. If another x trillion barrels of oil were discovered, I would say the same thing for numerous reasons. I see a problem with foolishly burning through oil when you don’t have to at the current rate, regardless of the amount of supply. Didn’t you say “burn baby burn”? Why drive something that gets 16 mpg, when I can drive something that gets 25+ mpg. Multiply that by the numer of vehicles getting below 25 mpg and the savings add up for everyone. Cumulatively, the numbers speak for themselves….over the life of a single Expedition owner and especially over the sum total of all expeditions.

    “I think we have some common ground on conservation. ….then later states, “I actually have one (an Expedition)”. The irony in that is absurd.

    more irony…”for the last 70 years fatalities/mile have steadily decreased…” Do you think these numbers are from increased weight and size of SUVs?

    “Rollover crashes in SUVs and pickups accounted for more than half the increase in traffic deaths from 2001 to 2002. SUV rollovers killed over 18,000 Americans since 1991. ” from an SUV-friendly page, at http://www.bettersuv.org/

    “I just don’t see the problem with a few million Indians & Chinamen using oil…perhaps, if by doing so they hasten its depletion we’ll be ECONOMICALLY motivated to develop “alternatives”..& then we’ll both be happy… ”

    Good planning. And, again, I never said deny them any oil.

  19. I drive a 16mpg (I never checked..don’t care) SUV because it suits my purpose better than a car that gets 25….like most eveyone else who owns one. If there was a vehicle that suited my purpose that got more mpg..I’d be “economically” imprudent not to buy one….simple. Your whole premise is flawed..you just “assume” that there is a vehicle that gets 25 mpg for EVERYONE that will suit their needs..& those of us who drive SUV’s are just profligate, selfish and/or just stupid…AIN’T necessarily so.

    Someone once said…”In the long run..we’ll all be dead.” Your data extensions are just like those that I was complaining about in a previous post…misleading. 18,000 in 15 years…sounds MUCH worse than 1200 out of 45,000/yr. Problem with your statistic , as hurrendous as it is..is that no one can PROVE how many of these people died BECAUSE they were in an SUV. I’m sure an equally persuasive case can be made of how many people’s lives were saved BECAUSE they were in an SUV. You believe SUV’s are inherently more dangerous than cars…you are wrong. Size & weight DO improve safety…physics trumps ecology.

    What else do you call “foolishly burning through oil” other than attempting (by guilt) deny(ing) its use to others, since YOU are setting yourself up as the arbitor of its “proper” use. Sounds pretty selfish to me.

  21. I did…pretty gloomy but misses 1 point…man’s ingenuity

    Watch & see its gotten us through the last 2 million years….My money is on the humans….

  22. “What else do you call “foolishly burning through oil” other than attempting (by guilt) deny(ing) its use to others, since YOU are setting yourself up as the arbitor of its “proper” use. Sounds pretty selfish to me. “…

    ….feeling more than a little defensive, you are claiming that I am denying
    its use to others. The exact opposite is true. You continue to miss the point of conservation. You don’t get it.

  23. You’re right I don’t get the point of conservation. I don’t see the point in meaningless “feel good” empty gestures that have no effect. I won’t sacrifice enjoying the fruits of my labors because of half-truths, distortions, hypotheicals & guilt.

    I understand Calvinists believe in doing “good deeds” eventhough they know they will have no positive results. Calvin can drive a POS Prius, I wont!

    Selfish, perhaps..but until I’m convinced (& yes, my mind IS still open..) I’ll believe my eyes & what I have & continue to read.

    We are approx. the 100,000th generation of humans. Somehow humanity has steadily improved its prosperity, health, & life-expectatancy despite having virtually NO concern for the “evironment” untill 1970. How is that possible? Only in the past 35 years we have grown a conscience, yet we are now being told we today are BY FAR the most destructive of all!

    How silly will you feel if 100 years from now most/all of the crises DON”T happen..like..Global Cooling, cyclamates & Communism? What amazes me is the pessimism enviromental is is founded on. The rush to accept the absolute worst possible scenarios…the hopelessness & the expectation that future generatons will be too stupid, lazy or helpless to cope with the “damaged” world we’ll bequeath them…why? Our forebearers weren’t so concerned.

    No Hoyt…I’m NOT defensive..I’m optimistic..anathema to “environmentalists.” Its NOT selfish to enjoy the bounty of our world & our efforts. The future will take care of itself, mankind will adapt (as irresponsible a concept as that sounds) & they will live BETTER than we can ever imagine…When horse-manure got to deep & unhealthy..voila..the automobile replaced the horse. When oil becomes scarce…it’ll be replaced by something better or the car itself will be replaced. …Be a Calvinist if you like…

  26. Joe,

    I agree with you. Most conservationists do not know what the word means because all they talk about is PROTECTION. To them, you can clear cut Brazil as long as you don’t cut trees in the USA. That is NOT conservation.
    It’s a truly stupid approach.
    I have this strange belief: Actions have consequences.
    I like a term used by farmers many years ago: Husband the land. That means use it in a way that protects it for the next 5 or 10 generations of your family. I have a son and a grandson and I feel the same about the things (resources) that I find very nice to have and use.

    One of the things I would like them to have is, as much energy as they need to make their life very nice. That US Army report indicates that will be a challenge.
    I think that you would agree that knowing challenge is coming, gives time for intelligent planning. Failing to plan for a chalange that you know is coming, is a plan for failure.

    I would also like them to spend the rest of their lives living in climate that they have grown used to. That is not likely to happen.

    What truly baffles me are people that say that Global Warming is a lie. Are they extrieamly stupid or just ignorant? Don’t they know that an area of permafrost the size of France and Germany has melted in western Siberia? In Alaska they are having the same problem which has closed some remote roads and required a lot of road repair work on major highways.

    I find this interesting: With oil prices as high as they are and demand still increasing, not a single large oil producer has been able to improve their pumping rate in the last four years.

    I wonder why.
    At what price will they pump more?
    $100.00 a barrel, $300.00 a barrel, $500.00 a barrel……..?

    If it wasn’t for my kids, my attitude about energy would be ” I don’t care how many kids have to be sent to the Middle East to die for my oil , as long as it doesn’t affect my lifestyle”.

    Not nice, maybe — but realistic.

  27. Call me stupid & ignorant..but I am NOT convinced that Global warming is anything but a “NATURAL” climatic occurrance…& the anthropogenic contribution is anything BUT settled science.

    I further don’t see it being ALL negative in its effects. Mankind’s greatest advanced have occurred during the warmest periods in history..why should the (alleged) coming period of warmer temps. be any different? Are you planning on spending your retirement in Wisconsin?

    Yes, the picture painted by the Army report is daunting..IF you look at it in 2006 terms. 100 years ago coal was the primary source of energy..look what happened. If oil prices itself out of the market..it too will be replaced.

    How about we give your children & granchildren their due..the RESPECT that they are/will be smart enough to deal with their world. No, that doesn’t give us carte blanche to distroy the world..I think we have demonstrated admirable..husbandry

  28. “What amazes me is the pessimism enviromental is is founded on. The rush to accept the absolute worst possible scenarios…the hopelessness & the expectation that future generatons will be too stupid, lazy or helpless to cope with the “damaged” world we’ll bequeath them…why?”

    You are wrong to make such sweeping generalizations about environmentalists. Most environmentalists act as a a checks and balances with a very optimistic mind. There would be rampant disregard without many of these optimistic scientists. You write about economics…you think business would be polluting more or less if it wasn’t for this “pessimism” ?

    “Our forebearers weren’t so concerned.” Bullshit again….why was so much land reserved at a time when land west of the Mississippi had been barely touched, (in relative terms) ?

    “Yes, the picture painted by the Army report is daunting..IF you look at it in 2006 terms. 100 years ago coal was the primary source of energy..look what happened. If oil prices itself out of the market..it too will be replaced.”

    what is your rationale for not pursuing other energy at this time, besides economics? I refer back to the points about Mr. Diesel and his engine running on veg oil….had enough people been investing in veg oil then, the middle east

  29. wouldn’t be as messed up as it is today and oil would have competition.

    Alternative energy technologies will become more and more economical in time….and will, in then end, make oil cheaper. Competition is good. Oil needs it.

  30. Hoyt

    You truly amaze me. For once, put down the Rose colored glasses & smell the coffee..to mix metaphors. Your arguments are utterly daft.

    You want us to run cars, trucks, airplanes & who knows what else on Vegetable oil/bio-diesel. Ever heard the term..energy density.ie. btu/gal? If you had you would go back to bovine flatulance (or have you?). Veg. oil has 17k btu/gal..gasoline has 115k..get it..10X. That means ..well I hope you know what it means…No matter how MUCH money you throw at it, it won’t change that fact!

    Optimistic environmentalist…talk about an oxymoron. The only optimism I have read from one is when they speak of the socialist utopia where NO ONE is ALLOWED person transport…I’ll pass.

    “Land reserved”..what are you talking about…the National Park sys. is mostly West of the Miss.& was set up in the 20th cent. I guess you believe any land removed from development is better than land that is…again, pretty selfish from someone typing from the comfort of his OWN home.

    You want business to not pollute..real simple..incentivise it. What is the ONE thing you can bet your a$$ on? A business will do ANYTHING to make a buck. Well..how ’bout you PAY them to not pollute..& CHARGE them when they do? No way..hun? Business is EVIL, so supporting them would be making a pact with the devil…violates Carl Marx’s rule #1.

    You spout this anti-business enviro-crap as if the people who own business don’t live on the same planet. Some even have children who they don’t want to poison or haven’t you thought about that? Do me a favor, before you throw Earth in the Balance at me..you’ll give it some thought first. I HAVE read it..& have bothered to THINK about it..& QUESTION it…you might try it yourself.

    Yes, alternatives will make oil cheaper or displace it…I have no problem with that.

  31. Oops

    The energy density IS comparable (my bad)..BUT…you have to compare the TOTAL energy required to GET the gallon of Veg oil. Growing, fertilizing, transporting, processing etc., not as efficient as oil. A bigger question..WHERE is LAND for all this going to come from..or will we be forced to choose between eating & driving????

  32. “You spout this anti-business enviro-crap as if the people who own business don’t live on the same planet. Some even have children who they don’t want to poison or haven’t you thought about that? Do me a favor, before you throw Earth in the Balance at me..you’ll give it some thought first. I HAVE read it..& have bothered to THINK about it..& QUESTION it…you might try it yourself”

    You have been spouting and spewing…even preaching. It’s in print above. Now, you’re making claims that I have spouted about anti-business…where? Because I wrote that businesses will pollute more if self-policing was up to them? If you don’t believe that you are naive.

    Best of all…you claim that I haven’t thought about this as if you are all-informed. ha! You haven’t even slowed down enough to read most of the posts here, otherwise your spewing wouldn’t have continued. Daft? Re-read your posts about the SW being the fastest growing region.

    “You want us to run cars, trucks, airplanes & who knows what else on Vegetable oil/bio-diesel.”….where did i say that? More generalized crap. The point was that 100 years of developing bio diesel would have resulted in better technologies sooner, while at the same time leveling energy options to a point where the geo-political situation we are in today may not have be as problematic. Nowhere did I say everything must run on bio diesel. Wrong, again.

    “Optimistic environmentalist…talk about an oxymoron. The only optimism I have read from one is when they speak of the socialist utopia where NO ONE is ALLOWED person transport…I’ll pass.” More generalized crap.

    ““Land reserved”..what are you talking about…the National Park sys. is mostly West of the Miss.& was set up in the 20th cent. I guess you believe any land removed from development is better than land that is…again, pretty selfish from someone typing from the comfort of his OWN home.”

    uh, forget it. holy shit.

    “You want business to not pollute..real simple..incentivise it. What is the ONE thing you can bet your a$$ on? A business will do ANYTHING to make a buck. Well..how ’bout you PAY them to not pollute..& CHARGE them when they do? No way..hun? Business is EVIL, so supporting them would be making a pact with the devil…violates Carl Marx’s rule #1.”

    laughable.

  34. interesting read on the global warming.

    Considering the volume of water on the globe, “global warming timeframes” seem suspect. In other words, with all of that water, a temperature change doesn’t occur over night, and when it does change, the resulting affects will not happen over night, either. This is on another scale, entirely. So, the timeframes mentioned may be from overlapping cause/effects.

    Another point of measurement besides ice caps & atmoshpere should be what’s happening with volcanic activity. Volcanoes are another example of an extraordinary scale….Mt. St Helens had been re-creating the dome at an insane rate. At one point for several days (maybe longer), roughly every three seconds, the equivalent of a large dump truck load of lava — 10 cubic yards had been oozing out of the mountain. Think about that – every 3 seconds. By the time it took to read that, a mound of lava the size of a small garage was spit out. That went on for days, maybe even months, continously. Is similar activity going on in oceanic volcanos, thereby affecting the water temp?

    Can scientists measure past changes to the ice caps during significant times in history? [Geologists studying layers of rock have it easy in comparison since they are not examining melted ice or newly formed ice. ]

    Back to oil….my stance has always been:

    – conserve it, regardless of supply so it can be used for a lot longer in the I-C engine. We will always have people and politics skewing facts, but if we hold ourselves to standards that are hard to refute, then those talking heads will be more noticeable.
    – raise the expectation for I-C engines. No harm in setting the performance bar and mileage bar higher. Result will positively impact first point.
    – competition. Alternative energy sources will be expensive to start. Many will fail, but as mortals, we will eventually find one that rivals and someday surpasses petro. In terms of transportation, the result may even smell better than gasoline and sound better when put in something like an internal combustion engine. These sources may be put in the shape of Joe’s red Prius at the beginning, but in time will evolve. The only way to find that evolution is to try options now. ….while enjoying SOME of the highly evolved internal combustion engines and using them as benchmarks. The Expedition is an example of low expectations.

    Eventually, the competition will produce choices that will positively impact the above 2 points.

  37. Er, when will someone measure the amount of OXYGEN in the atmosphere today and then compare it to what was there, say, 50 years ago? After all, we are using COMBUSTION engines that not only make a lot of heat, they also use up atmospheric oxygen. This leads me to wonder if we’re all going to drown (melted ice) before we asphyxiate, or asphyxiate before we drown?

    Nuclear is equally bad – maybe worse. Where will we put the radioactive material coming out of all those mini-reactors? The only thing that seems to make sense is to start maximizing what nature already makes a lot of – methane (natural gas). Compressed natural gas (CNG) can be used in our vehicles with very few modifications, and the atmosphere would not bear the load of combustion products coming from underground. Instead, CNG can be made from surface materials. It is created from sewage, decaying vegetable matter on farms and forests and farm animal gas! (hard to collect, that last item is).

    Finally, the scientists that have been maligned here are hard at work on Zero Point Energy (ZPE). If this ever translates into a workable technology, and we can somehow overcome the robber barons and the powers that be, no one need want for free energy ever again (or so these scientists say!). Hm-mmm – sounds familiar . . . I heard them say that once about atomic energy.

  38. http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060420/sc_space/scientistsfindtheelusivegabbro

    more information about oceanic volcanoes.

    “Gabbro is a dense type of rock formed from the slow cooling of magma chambers beneath mid-ocean ridges. Along with gabbro, the team hauled up a complete stratified core of the overlaying crust.

    By studying the gabbro along with the crust section, scientists will better understand the formation and structure of oceanic crust, a process that affects plate tectonics, builds mountains, and sets off earthquakes and volcanoes.

    “This process covers 60 percent of the Earth’s surface, and it’s an ongoing process that has replaced all of the seafloor since 180 million years ago,” study co-author Douglas Wilson of the University of California, Santa Barbara told LiveScience. “In terms of understanding the planet, it’s a fundamental process.”

  39. The article referenced above called “Global Warming Stopped” states:

    “Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century – a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records – has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.”

    ‘deeply’ flawed ? but the author doesn’t explain the flaws