Millions of jobs are readily available from the energy sector. by Kevin Roeten
(conservative)
Friday, January 29, 2010
Few thought it was possible, but a surefire conspiracy seems to be brewing. Energy, the heartbeat of the world, is the cusp in the coming tide. The theory of Peak Oil is running rampant. Over 75% of the human population believe that he earth will soon run out of oil.
The US is producing less than 40% of the domestic crude it needs. It's regulatory limitations have increased so much that a new oil refinery hasn't been built in over 30 years. It's environmentalregulations have 'built' a wall around obtaining oil from the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), ANWR, and oil shales. That can mean only one thing.
The current administration seems to want a global governance. That governance would be controlled by one person---a ruler of sorts over everything. The UN would control energy, economies, and lives. But Obama has the power to put America first again.
Before one pooh-pooh's this as another 'conspiracy theory', consider this. America is literally dependent on foreign oil now. But an estimated 31 billion barrels offshore, 117 billion barrels under land managed or owned by the goverment, and 139 billion barrels beneath privately held land exist in America. Even though the US is clearly well-positioned to declare energy independence, it is handcuffed by regulations from purported oil leaks from platforms, transport leaks, and increasing CO2 loads in the atmosphere.
Amazingly, on 7/3/06 the Investor's Business Daily editorial reported that no major spills were recorded as Hurricanes Rita and Katrina battered almost 3000 oil and gas drilling platforms operating in the Guf of Mexico. There have been operating oil platforms offshore in Britain and Norway for decades with no incidents, and oil platforms in Brazil have had the same performance. Per the Department of the Interior, more than 7 billion barrels have been produced in federal waters with less than 0.001% spilled.
Logically, a new device called the 'breakaway' valve has been used. Even if the entire platform is ripped a way, the pumped oil is immediately shut off. To put things into a better perspective, a National Academy of Sciences report shows 63% of the leaked petroleum in North American waters comes from natural seepage fom the ocean floor. According to Power Line - Where to Drill First, in Santa Barbara the local group Stop Oil Seeps advocates drilling there to improve the environment.
Bottom line--INSIGHT on Freedom: Life in a Box by Paul Driessen shows the existing administration stating an 'official' unemployment rate of 10.2%. But a closer look shows a number closer to 22% if you count all those who have given up trying to find a job. That compares to Americans working at 1.2 million new well paying jobs, just in the energy sector, found in Doc Hastings : Obama Blocks New Energy Exploration - Townhall.com. This would also include $70 billlion in additional wages each year (American Energy Alliance). Oh, that also includes 2.2 trillion in total tax receipts. Better add fewer unemployment checks being paid out. This increases US energy independence, and reduces the risk of terrorists threatening to disrupt an oil supply.
According to Driessen, many of our best energy prospects are off-limits, and locked up in over 5,000,000 acres of wilderness, refuge, park, recreation, endangered species habitats, ecological study areas, and "protective buffer zones". The total of oil shale deposits in America makes any other country look pale in comparison. The Institute for Energy Research calculates oil shale deposits alone in America contain 1 trillion barrels of recoverable oil. That is nearly equal to the world's total known conventional oil reserves.
On 12/28/09 we learned the US government is going to loan Petrobas, a Brazilian oil producer, up to $10 billionto finance the development of massive hydrocarbon reserves off Brazil's coast. If successful, Brazil would transform into one of the world's top 10 oil producers. Nothing but restrictions on the US.
It turns out The Myth Of Peak Oil destroys claims oil is only a fossil fuel, or a biological detritus of either fossilized remains of dinosaurs or algae. Amazing it has already been calculated that all the oil pumped, and in the ground now, is immensely larger than all the fossilized detritus that could have ever formed.
Restrictions on coal, nuclear energy, and natural gas all add at least 5 times to the numbers predicted above for America without current restrictions and regulations. Evidently this administration has something else in mind. How could they possibly be against more energy independence, higher employment, elimination of terrorist blackmail in the US, and more tax revenue?
Yes, Obama alone has the ability to pull America out of the demise it's in now. All indications are he will not do that. In fact many didn't catch it, but Obama even mentioned the US being in the 'global' economy during his State of the Union address on 1/27.
If we actually knew what Democrats discuss behind closed doors, we'd have a new administration.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 18
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Kevin Roeten only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Kevin Roeten is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2010-01-30 09:22:00
Hi Kevin,
I'm not going to debate your point because it isn't interesting or relevant to me. Peak Oil or not, running out or atop a vast ocean, created through physical processes or divine manifestation it doesn't matter one way or the other to me.
I haven't actually tried this but it is my assumption that when someone has their hands around your throat and has cut off your breath, it doesn't really matter how much air the world has left or how it was created. The relevant aspect of this scenario is the immediate scarcity of air for the one being throttled....not only because of the immediate pain and discomfort being experienced but because of the lasting damage to the potential future prosperity for that individual.
You didn't offer enough varieties of unrelated factoids for your article to be considered just another "conspiracy theory." The phrase you used, "This can only mean one thing." identifies your article as one to be "pooh-pooed" as faith-based argument with characteristics described by several logical fallacies such as appeal to belief, begging the question, false dilemma and several others.
You should know that most readers know that anything that follows such a simple and obviously false premise isn't a valid argument even when it is full of factoids.
I am curious though, when you say "than all the fossilized detritus that could have ever formed." Are we talking 4000 years or 4,000,000,000 years? We should be sure we're making apples to apples comparisons...we should first agree about what we disagree about.
"Yes, Obama alone has the ability to pull America out of the demise it's in now."
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.Ron Paul, maybe. Obama no way.
Anyway there is one advantage to keeping our domestic oil supply locked up; if we ever do start really running out of oil at least we will have supplies on our own soil that we won't have to fight over to get.
Your conclusions are completely ridiciuous. US oil production peaked in the 1970s and cannot and will not return to those levels. It's a geological limitation, and there's no way to replenish it (other then waiting millions of years ). It's obvious that your animus towards president Obama is what this article is really about.
Also, you link to a consiracy site (infowars) as if it were a real citation. Fail.
Some of your info is extremly irrelevant, so I'll address what isn't.
You obviously have never heard of "abiotic oil" before. I forgive you for not being versed with all scientific fact. It also doesn't sound like you've accessed any of the links I've provided. Too bad. Quite a bit more than 'factoids' I would guess.
I gather that you believe my column is somehow "faith based". It sounds like you believe that there's NO God.
I'm not sure the numbers you mention are included in the column, but it's a lot more than 4000 years, for sure. I'm sure you realize that fossilized detritus will also form many other things than petroleum.
I don't think you know exactly how many dinosaurs existed, or other animals for that logic. I also doubt your knowledge of how much algae there was since the birth of the earth.
Obama HAS the ability for 3 more years, but he won't. I can almost guarantee that.
Keeping our domestic supply locked up gives NO advantage. Already we're facing terrorist problems, underemployment, a huge deficit, and the inability to provide energy for our own country.
In any case, when "fusion" becomes available in 30 years or so, we won't need oil. But it'll be too late then.
I've been to Alberta about a year and a half ago.The amount of wealth flowing around up there was incredible.They have a lot of natural resources and they're profiting from it.I really wish we could do the same.
The communists had Trofim Lysenko and his theories on agriculture. Now it's the Libertarians and Conservatives whose turn it is to discredit themselves with pseudoscience with this abiotic oil nonsense. According to the abiotic oil theory, there is oil to be found in places where conventional oil theory says there is not any oil to be found. And, that said oil will have carbon isotope ratios showing it to be abiotic.
Well, go ahead and find some. Nobody's found a single barrel of this stuff. And you won't either. Oil is biotic in origin. Its supply is limited. And if your only answer to the oil crunch is to tap what little we have left within US borders, then it's like fielding a football team whose only good player is the punter. Yes, if we tap the oil we'll have more oil. For a little while. Then those resources will run out too, and our options will be even more constrained.
Since you didn't respond to Jahfre's first analogy I'll assume that was what you found irrelevant. I'll try to reframe it for you so that someone of your ability can find the relevance and thus formulate a response.
You are quoting theoretical estimates of total supply, which is irrelevant, it doesn't matter how many billions or trillions of barrels are left underground, or on what time scale it is being replaced. What matters is A) How fast we can extract it and B) How much energy must be spent to extract it or EROEI (energy return on energy invested)
It doesn't matter if the whole center of the earth is one giant ball of limitless gooey oil shale. If you have to spend more energy to get a barrel of oil out and refined into a useful product than the energy that is contained in that barrel, it is useless, and will forever stay in the ground.
Should I guess that you're some liberal now? Carbon-12 and carbon-13 isotopes generally give the age of the oil. Do you know that Russia, Ghawar(Saudi Arabia), Brazil, and others are now identifying if any of those isotopes are in their discovered oil?
Just so you know, if you're brave enough to send me your e-mail (mine is roetenks@charter.net) , I can send you several columns I've written in the past that talk about just that same thing. One example is listed below:
Ghawar oil has been dated with Precambrian rock produced 570 million years ago--but dinosaurs did not roam the earth until 250 million years ago.
Do you have any idea how much a billion barrels is? Have you read any of my links listed? Can you open your mind at all?
As I stated above, give me your e-mail, and I'll send you the article where it's predicted that oil shale can be available at only $50--$60 a barrels in 12 years.
And you don't seem to understand that x-rays and other methods used can predict quite easily how much oil is in the ground. However, for practical reasons, the estimates are usually in the low range. Too many predictions that didn't match output in the past.
Like I said, we know how much oil we can get. Unfortunately, we also know how many regulations and restrictions there are just in America from a liberal congress.
Kevin, Although I disagree with you on a lot of issues, I question if "peak oil" is a myth and part of a corporatist scam! Here is an online book you might find of interest, "The Energy Non-Crisis" by Lindsey Williams [link edited for length] Luther is correct about one thing though. Infowars is a conspiracy website. Alex Jones is a disinfo expert and "patriot for profit" so some things on his website simply aren't credible! Alex Jones is a fearmonger who tried to spread panic on his radio show on GCN, The Genesis Communications Network during Y2K, 9/11 and the H1N1 flu outbreak!
Regarding your pronouncements about “1 trillion barrels of recoverable oil” from oil shale: it might be a good idea for you to figure out how to add a factual explanation or two, although I recognize the risk that doing so might undercut your arguments.
The Bakken Formation, one of this country’s two large oil shale deposits, has produced a grand total of about 120 million barrels of oil … over the course of nearly fifty years! That’s a TOTAL of about a day and a half’s worth of oil produced over half a century, and THIS is your magnificent rebuttal to the concept of Peak Oil? Convenient of you to also ignore the fact that the entire process of oil extraction from shale is not yet commercially viable; that the environmental degradation is extensive; and that the energy needed to heat the kerogen to 700 degrees over the course of several years is a rather significant undertaking—among other essential considerations.
And how long will it take; how much will it cost in terms of money, energy expenditures, and effort; and how ultimately successfully will oil production efforts be regarding these other magnificent reserves we allegedly have?
But why let truth get in the way of a good right-wing sound bite or two?
As for your reference to abiotic oil … Thomas Gold and a few Russian nitwits floated this idiotic theory decades ago. No reputable geologist or engineer supports this, yet you tout it as a fact despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? You doubt Peak Oil (and probably global warming, right?) but a plot for global governance is your obvious conclusion about this Administration’s actions? Really? Yikes!
“The total of oil shale deposits in America makes any other country look pale in comparison.” That’s a direct quote from this column.
What you’ve written means that the total oil shale deposits in America make any other country’s physical appearance (Huh?) ashen/pallid/white/colorless in comparison (to what?). Apparently the skin tone of other countries is now a peak oil issue! Who knew?
Dinosaurs have nothing to do with oil formation … that’s basic fossil fuel science that any legit’ engineer or scientist can explain to you in 60 seconds, so your comment reply about Ghawar’s age and dinosaur eras is irrelevant.
Finally, before my head explodes at having to contemplate the rest of the inane commentary you’ve offered, what on earth are you talking about in trying to tie peak oil to valves and oil leaks?
How long have you been involved with oil production? I guess you have no information about how much oil shale we have found in this country. Are you familiar with the process to remove oil from oil shale? Are you a Chemical Engineer as I am?
Do you know about oil leaks and what that might mean for available oil to a country who's been handcuffed with regulations? Have you even read any of the links in the column?
Please don't embarrass yourself, or the grand total of your intelligence anymore.
Kevin, I put my email address in the form to comment. You can send me anything you like, but what you need to send is an actual barrel of abiotic oil. That would prove the matter, not any straw-man argument about oil pre-dating the dinosaurs. Oil is not made of dinosaurs. It is made of algae and plankton. Of course a lot of it predates the dinos. That still does not make it abiotic. What would make it abiotic would be it coming from sources predicted by the abiotic oil theory. So far not a single barrel of oil has been found except in sites predicted or explained by conventional theory.
You should know that your e-mail appears no where. I need to see it in one of your comments here, in this thread. Still looking for some backbone?
You know this already, but if I send a barrel of abiotic oil you'll need a carbon-13 isotope dating device. I don't believe you have one, do you?
Of course, you can get a barrel of oil from Russia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Venezuela, and a few others. If you use a carbon dating device for carbon-13, you'll know right then if a barrel, or part of that barrel, came from an abiotic source.
You know, I wonder how much you read and comprehended my column. You remember me saying fossilized dinosaurs OR algae, don't you?
ANY source that does not involve biogenic degradation would be abiotic. You knew that, didn't you? I guess you haven't even told me yet how 'you think' you would tell the difference between abiotic and biotic. And if you don't even know that, how would you know abiotic if you saw it?
Let me give you a hint: abiotic usually involves deeper sources. Oh, and by the way---do you know exactly how much a 'fortnight' is?
I guess you also forgot I was also talking about oil found in US territory, and NOT the world. You knew that, right?
If you send me a barrel of abiotic oil, I will have to fend off dozens of people willing and able to run isotope analysis on it, who will run to my doorstep to ask where I got it. They will of course offer me nice sums of money to point them your way for the rest of this abiotic oil. Being a mere middleman for the most important find of this decade is not my career aspiration, but I will do it. Or you can cut me out and present this oil in public.
But we both know it isn't going to happen.
If there was abiotic oil, the Russians would have found it, since they have spent decades looking for it and yet, for some strange reason, are only able to bring conventional oil into production.
And if there is abiotic oil but strangely enough it can only be found in places predicted by conventional oil theory, then one has to ask, why? If oil doesn't come from strata of trapped biological matter, but from deeper sources, then it should seep up from areas that do not have those old strata. Yet, it doesn't. It's only found under salt domes that trap upseeps from strata of cooked kerogen. Odd, that.
If Lysenko had been right, Russia would not have gone hungry. He was wrong. And Russia starved. Same thing with abiotic oil. It's a crackpot theory that came from the same poisoned well. And it's flabbergasting to see American conservatives falling for it.
"I guess you also forgot I was also talking about oil found in US territory, and NOT the world. You knew that, right?"
Okay, in that case, a billion barrels of oil isn't merely a two week supply. It's a ten week supply. Clearly a game changer...
You still don't seem to understand, EROEI is about physics not economics, it doesn't matter if it costs $50...money is a human construct not an absolute, the price of energy is such unrelated to the work it can perform. You have to look at the Energy cost, how many joules of energy does it take to extract the next barrel of oil (future energy) out of the ground. If more joules go in than come out it is a losing battle and should not be fought.
If a man spends 1200 calories everyday to find and gather 1000 calories to consume tomorrow, he will soon starve and die. That is the point.
Don't concern yourself with my level understanding, focus on your own. As a geologist I read and digest scientific papers not populist opinion espoused on the internet. If you feel the necessity to write about the subject I spent my life's energy learning about and understanding take a moment to actually educate yourself about the basics of the subject instead of regurgitating misinformation. Your continued reference to dinosaurs as if they have some bearing on the biotic production of oil exemplifies your naivete of the subject.
Now I'm going to bait you...please explain to me how x-rays are utilized in the task of calculating oil field reserves. I know, do you? Do you know why I laughed when you wrote that? Do you know why it is exactly the type of statement I would expect from an ignorant freshman in one of my intro courses?
Have you looked at any of my links yet? Have you even looked up 'abiotic oil' on the internet?
The Russians HAVE found abiotic oil, along with many other countries. Especially with deep wells. Have you sent your e-mail so I can send some info on abiotic oil yet?
Where have you been? How do you know that Russia only has conventional oil? Have you seen readouts of oil composition from these wells showing no carbon-13?
I thought not.
Abiotic oil seems to be seeping up into strata that Eugene Island (La) has been pumping from for years. Only now they're seeing higher production from their well. Have you seen any composition graphs from Eugene Island yet?
I thought not.
Check your math again, Omri. A billion is at least a hundred times a million. And the daily use of oil is only in the million barrels per day quantity.
You evidently do not understand. The physics of producing oil from oil shale IS different from pumping oil from the ground. The bottom line IS economics---how much it costs to manufacture a barrel of oil from oil shale.
The point is that production of oil from oil shale does not involve negative calories. Have you ever tried to refine oil shale before, as a geologist?
If you are a geologist, your level of understanding is of utmost concern. As a Chemical Engineer, my concerns would be slightly different, and also revolve around the US becoming energy indepenent of other nations. Evidently, that is not your concern.
What is it about dinosaurs that has your pants up in a wad? If you remembered (its right above), I said dinosaurs OR algae. Its fossilized detritus, no matter what went into making it.
If you have ignorant freshman, and into courses, that means you are likely involved with education. That means there's a 90% chance you voted Democrat in the last election. That also means there's a high chance you've refused to believe many of the facts Republicans propose.
Now I will bait you---x-rays show a distinct pattern that only oil will show. They will also show voids where other materials do no exist. They typically have a 98.4% chance of showing that a specific component does exist. The total amount of material that exists can be seen as well, but estimates are given only around 70% of what the total capacity is thought to be.
It you're in education rather than out in the field, then I'm the one laughing...
One more time. I\'ll try to go slow. You just answer Yes or No the following questions.
Does it take energy to extract oil shale from the ground?
Does it take energy to process and refining the oil shale into a usable product?
Does it take energy to transport and distribute that product?
Do we use that product as one of our primary sources of energy?
If the energy input is greater than the output are we gaining anything?
If you don\'t understand the argument at this point, you are lost, and that is my concern. An ignorant population too blinded by their own confidence in their psuedo-intelligence to understand a rational argument.
\"What is it about dinosaurs that has your pants up in a wad? If you remembered (its right above), I said dinosaurs OR algae. Its fossilized detritus, no matter what went into making it.\"
If you asked a child where the the water in a lake came from and they said \"Bear urine OR rivers\" would you not laugh? That is equivalent of your statement.
\"Ghawar oil has been dated with Precambrian rock produced 570 million years ago--but dinosaurs did not roam the earth until 250 million years ago.\"
The statement above indicates you believe the presence of dinosaurs on the earth has some important bearing on the creation of Ghawar oil....please explain how?
\"x-rays show a distinct pattern that only oil will show. They will also show voids where other materials do no exist.\"
X-rays are short-wave electromagnetic energy that is useful in imaging dense material like bone because it absorbs the energy, they are used in a...wait for it...Hospital. They are in no way used to image any structure within the earth that would indicate the presence of hydrocarbons.
What you think you\'re talking about is called seismic energy, pressure waves that travel through the earth, reflecting off and refracting along boundaries of different densities, like layers of rock. The pattern that you alluded to but don\'t understand are seismic wavelets, the analysis of which does not map oil, but the geologic structures where oil is most likely trapped.
X-rays also have a 98.4% chance of finding bullcrap....
Please let me know what company you work for, I would dearly like to short any firm that employs engineers with your ability to perform basic research.
"Have you looked at any of my links yet? Have you even looked up 'abiotic oil' on the internet?"
I don't want links. I find enough nonsense on the Web as it is. I want abiotic oil. Send a barrel to room 54-101 at MIT (77 Mass. Ave, Cambridge, MA) and watch history ensue.
"The Russians HAVE found abiotic oil, along with many other countries. Especially with deep wells. Have you sent your e-mail so I can send some info on abiotic oil yet?"
Well, then, let's have some. Send it to MIT.
"Where have you been? How do you know that Russia only has conventional oil? Have you seen readouts of oil composition from these wells showing no carbon-13?"
No, I've not. Send some of that oil to MIT and we'll see. What I've seen is that all of Russia's rig deployment is at sites where conventional oil is found.
"I thought not.
Abiotic oil seems to be seeping up into strata that Eugene Island (La) has been pumping from for years. Only now they're seeing higher production from their well. Have you seen any composition graphs from Eugene Island yet?"
Again, send some to MIT and we'll see.
I thought not.
Check your math again, Omri. A billion is at least a hundred times a million. And the daily use of oil is only in the million barrels per day quantity.
It's too bad you never look at links. Looking at only one side of an argument doesn't score too well.
And you won't even send your e-mail. What is one to think?
I guess you really should know better. I think you already know those countries I stated won't send any oil at all, much less abiotic. Hey, have you asked Eugene Island? Since you're the one who doesn't believe in abiotic, they really need to send the sample directly to you.
Darn, I forgot you probably don't have any carbon dating equipment. And even at a prestigious place like MIT. That's too bad.
You've seen all of Russia's oil rigs in person? And they've let you see their carbon dating equipment? Wow, I'm impressed.
I guess I'll have to send something to Eugene Island for them to send anything back. To bad I don't know anyone out there. Maybe you do!
Since you're the one who has disbelief in abiotic oil, likely they should be sending everything to you. Wait a second. I don't even have your street address, much less your e-mail.
You miss the point, Kevin. I personally don't have carbon dating gear. But room 54-100 is the main lecture hall in teh building where MIT's geologists are. Bring some "abiotic" oil there and they will rush to carbon date it.
And you still won't explain why if oil is abiotic, it insists on being found only in places where conventional theory predicts it. If oil is abiotic, it should be seeping everywhere.
Oh, yes, and regarding math: the world consumes ~85 million barrels a day. The US consumes aroun a fifth of that. So, 17 million barrels a day. Divide 1000 million by 17, and what do you get? NOT MUCH.
Of course you don't have any carbon dating equipment. So far, you haven't indicated if the other geologists at MIT have any either.
I guess you won't find out where abiotic oil may lie if you don't read my links. Too bad.
If oil is abiotic, you'll know if there's any carbon-13 present. But you know that right? But you know since you persist in your disbelief of abiotic oil, you're the best chance of receiving some from producers.
If you don't ask for some, I guess you'll never get some. Oh, and you might have to pay for it as well.
Wow, your math IS bad! You don't divide 1000 million by 17, but 287 billion or 287,000 million by 17 million and you get 16, 882 days or 46 years. And that's not even counting that the US only imports 60% of its oil. (287 billion is the total amount of oil that is available in the US territory.)
Let me rephrase that statement. It translates to the US being energy INDEPENDENT.
Rest assured, all the lab gear needed for carbon dating is to be found in Building 54 at MIT. Just bring the oil there.
"Wow, your math IS bad! You don't divide 1000 million by 17, but 287 billion or 287,000 million by 17 million and you get 16, 882 days or 46 years. And that's not even counting that the US only imports 60% of its oil. (287 billion is the total amount of oil that is available in the US territory.)"
The billion figure is normally touted by silly right wingers because of the most recent oil find in the Gulf of Mexico, which is estimated at 1 billion. By 287, I take it you are referring to oil shale ? That's even sillier. The price of a barrel of oil from Colorado shale is more than a barrel of oil. Very silly thing to rely on for national policy.
And that's not just a random hippie talking. Even at the Pentagon they laught at this.
Carbon-13 dating equipment is in Building 54?!? I thought you'd say it was in Building 51!
All kidding aside, you've got the carbon dating equipment (right?), and you are one of the unbelievers in abiotic oil, then you need to do the carbon dating yourself. I'm just here in my house, and I firmly believe in abiotic oil.
You're the perfect candidate, random hippie or not! I'm sure they'd send some to you. Be careful about the Russians though. They can get pretty stubborn. I know! You can ask Eugene Island to send you some. They're only in South Louisiana, and they're a much kinder folk.
I never even thought about including that recent find. My resources total three, not just oil shale. Just read the original column. You can do that, right?
I understand that they can get the price to $50-$60 dollars a barrel with oil shale.
Oh, that's right. You don't read links, do you? Nevermind...
I guess you better add more on to my estimate of 46 years if we access that oil. I just hate to be wrong.
Are you talking about the Pentagon that Obama's in charge of now???
It doesn't sound like you've been apprised of recent oil refining methods of oil shale. I guess you don't get out much, huh?
Darn, it must be a real pain when that math starts to slip...
We North Americans do not live in a vaccume, the world has an energy crisis, not just us 5% that live on this continent.
Globally, affordable pools of oil have been accessed, pumped and burned. Currently the overwhelming majority of discoveries are coming from deeper pools (4 km under the sea surface in the case of Brazil's offshore discoveries), marginal pools ( ANWAR is too small a pool to be considered better than marginal ), or high-risk geopolitical regions.
This does not mean we shouldn't have proactive Federal policies to increase our use of these oil resources on our soil & sea-shelf. Bush has left us with a legacy of newly leased Gulf of Mexico deep-water exploration areas that (might) increase our reserves. Obama has not altered this fact.
However, it does mean that our priorities need to aligned with LONG TERM benefits associated with shifting our energy sources away from fossil fuels; and toward reneawable sources that we can control. If you have an argument as to why we sould not make this transition ASAP, I am interested in your view.
slowly transitioning to renewable energy sources will only enable the French, German, Danish, Spanish and yes the Chineese to increase their lead in R&D as well as production of wind turbines and solar tech. I would rather our nation be a leader, not a lagard in all technologies. We were the energy R & D leader for 150 years; now lets reclaim that spot!
Sure the world has an energy crisis, but that %5 of population that America has uses at least 25% of the world's energy.
ANWR is not too 'small' a pool. It will be a factor in helping America become energy independent. It is also possible it may deliver a lot more oil than we think. Technology is already there to tap high-risk regions.
Obama has altered everything. He has prevented accessing oil in America's homeland. Unfortunately there are NO proactive federal policies that allow us to access our own oil.
Right now, there are no renewable energy resources that can replace oil--whether conventional or abiotic. The best that any energy source can provide versus oil is only a few %. That includes wind turbines, waves, geothermal, solar cells--you name it. By the way, abiotic oil is not from fossils.
We have the oil within our borders. Why not claim it now, and work on fusion energy as it will put America as the technology leader.
"Carbon-13 dating equipment is in Building 54?!? I thought you'd say it was in Building 51!"
Building 54. Room 100. It's a lecture hall. If you bring abiotic oil there, you can rest assured the whole geology department will come to take a look.
I was there a couple years ago to attend a public lecture by Nansen Saleri, operations manager at Saudi Aramco. Funny enough, he made no claim of having abiotic oil in his possession. but then, he's a professional, not a charlattan.
"
All kidding aside, you've got the carbon dating equipment (right?), and you are one of the unbelievers in abiotic oil, then you need to do the carbon dating yourself. I'm just here in my house, and I firmly believe in abiotic oil."
You're the one making the extraordinary claim. You're the one who needs to produce the evidence. Come on, Kevin. One sample of abiotic oil. can't be too hard if the stuff exists.
And you still haven't answered why nobody finds oil except where conventional theory predicts it.
ANWR is not too 'small' a pool. It will be a factor in helping America become energy independent. It is also possible it may deliver a lot more oil than we think. Technology is already there to tap high-risk regions."
ANWR is a punt. Maybe a long punt. Probably a short punt. But a punt. What's your plan for when the opposing team picks up the ball?
It seems you love to swim around issues, don't you?
If room 100 is a lecture hall, cances are 89.7% there is no carbon dating equipment there. Why would somebody from Saudi-Aramco tell you, who doesn't believe in abiotic oil, that he has some?
You mean he didn't offer to use your carbon dating equipment to date the oil while he was there? You do have the equipment, right?
You have the equipment (ahem), you don't believe in abiotic and need some proof that it exists, you won't read links to show it exists many places, you won't give me your address or your personal e-mail, and you're the one who refuses to open your mind a little and even postulate that abiotic might exist.
And, you have noinfo refuting the simple mas balance I talked about where I noted that it is impossible for all the oil we've pumped to only come from fossilized detritus.
Oh, that's right. You're very liberally oriented, in an 'education-only' mode. Need I continue?
And you refuse to read all the info (links) showing where abiotic can be found. You've got the equipment (carbon dating; ahem), you need some proof, and only you can analyze the sample.
Because of your incompetence you refuse to read all the conventional sources that say they are getting a refilling of oil from the depths,m, and you refuse to believe that abiotc is refiling these conventional locations.
Room 100 is right by the elevator bank. Bring a barrel there and you will be mobbed by professors each wanting a cup to take to their labs.Every single professor there will want some.
It's all you need to do. So, where is that abiotic oil? Why hasn't a single proponent of this crackpot theory produced a single barrel of it? Why can't they find oil in places not predicted by conventional theory?
"And you refuse to read all the info (links) showing where abiotic can be found. You've got the equipment (carbon dating; ahem), you need some proof, and only you can analyze the sample."
Not me. MIT. If there is abiotic oil, there are dozens of profs at MIT who would love to get their hands on it. All you have to do is bring them some. You don't even have to call ahead. just knock on a door to anyone's office in building 54, and say "I have abiotic oil." Any professor of geology. Building 54. No, I don't work there personally.
You can point me to as many web pages of charlattans blathering about abiotic oil as you like. You still refuse to produce any of this oil. if there is abiotic oil, you should have no problem producing some.
You should also have no problem explaining why even the Russians, who have spent decades looking for abiotic oil, continue to produce oil only from conventional oil fields.
"Because of your incompetence you refuse to read all the conventional sources that say they are getting a refilling of oil from the depths,m, and you refuse to believe that abiotc is refiling these conventional locations"
Oil wells getting a production boost after being given a rest is a known phenomenon. In fact, it's policy in the Ghawar oil fields to give every well a break. 6 months on, 6 months off. That's time during which oil can seep through the rock towards the well site. that says nothing aboit oil being abiotic.
I met the head of production at Aramco. His name is Nansen Saleri. If he had evidence of abiotic oil, he would be the first to say so. He did not. he also is frequently on the lecture circuit in the US. If he comes to your area, go meet him and learn.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
