Before praising them, not sure that you are but many do, folks need some more research beyond the PR most people see here. Brazil's methods aren't so great either. Yeah, you get more Ethanol from a ton of Cane but the way they grow etc leaves a hell of allot to be desired.
True. And as maryjane pointed out we don't have the rainforest levels of rainfall here either. But they've managed independence from imported oil, so while not everything they do may apply, it's a good idea to learn from what they've accomplished and hopefully avoid some of the problems they've had.
I want to know why all the shale oil we're sitting on that wasn't economically feasible to use when oil was $20/barrel is still left untapped. I recall hearing oil would have to pass $50/barrel before shale oil would break even. Well, we broke the hell outta $50 a while back. If we're going to be paying $100+/barrel, it might as well go to American suppliers first.
I want to know why all the shale oil we're sitting on that wasn't economically feasible to use when oil was $20/barrel is still left untapped. I recall hearing oil would have to pass $50/barrel before shale oil would break even. Well, we broke the hell outta $50 a while back. If we're going to be paying $100+/barrel, it might as well go to American suppliers first.
http://www.dailyreckoning.com/rpt/OilShale.html You ain't gonna like what you read there--the largest known shale oil reserve in the world belongs to----------the US Government. All 1 trillion+ bbls of it. At least that is what I got out of it--that and Exxon sunk $5 billion into it, and walked away.
IP: Logged
10:55 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37877 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by Formula88: If we're going to be paying $100+/barrel, it might as well go to American suppliers first.
Not my thinking. I have always thought that we should be using up the supply of others and keeping what we have for us, for when it's needed. Call it an investment. Not that I think we should sell it on the world market at a later date when it is more valuable. Not that I think we should use it to lower our costs per gallon. An investment in national security.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane: .....Exxon sunk $5 billion into it, and walked away.
When I first started drilling wells it was the boom of the late 70s early 80's. I did not know much but I did pay attention to the old timers. I was told that we drilled many a well within say 100 feet of pay zone and then capped the wells. The old timer's reasoning was to drill while it was profitable (due to other well production and at the cheaper costs of drilling that day than in the future). They also speculated that the oil companies were getting tax write offs calling them dry holes.
IP: Logged
11:35 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by cliffw: Not my thinking. I have always thought that we should be using up the supply of others and keeping what we have for us, for when it's needed. Call it an investment. Not that I think we should sell it on the world market at a later date when it is more valuable. Not that I think we should use it to lower our costs per gallon. An investment in national security.
I can agree with that point of view, but then the question becomes, when is it "needed?" There won't be a point in the foreseeable future where oil is not available. It's just going to get more and more expensive as time goes on, and eventually economies will change and people will use other fuel sources. Heck, by then it won't matter if we have a stockpile.
When I first started drilling wells it was the boom of the late 70s early 80's. I did not know much but I did pay attention to the old timers. I was told that we drilled many a well within say 100 feet of pay zone and then capped the wells. The old timer's reasoning was to drill while it was profitable (due to other well production and at the cheaper costs of drilling that day than in the future). They also speculated that the oil companies were getting tax write offs calling them dry holes.
Austin Chalk/Woodbine? 70s and early 80s the oil companies didn't need write offs--we had just weathered the embargo and there was a true shortage---a shortage which ended about 1984-'85 if I remember correctly. That's when operators switched from paying IADC rigs by the day and started writing footage contracts--which sucked big time.
I can agree with that point of view, but then the question becomes, when is it "needed?" There won't be a point in the foreseeable future where oil is not available. It's just going to get more and more expensive as time goes on, and eventually economies will change and people will use other fuel sources. Heck, by then it won't matter if we have a stockpile.
You never know. All it would take is one sour election in Mexico coinciding with some sort of upheaval in OPEC, and we would find ouselves with few places other than Canada to import from. Even a major hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico knocking out the offshore oil terminals off Louisiana &/or Texas, and we would be without a way to unload tankers or even siphon from our own wells in the Gulf of Mexico. OTOH, should we openly begin to develop a trillion+ bbl shale field here at home, OPEC, South America, and just about everyone else would likely at LEAST threaten to cut us off immediately--before development is anywhere near complete. They would not look kindly on seeing their best customer becoming their biggest competitor. But, I agree, shale oil fields should be developed now, if just to insure our chldren and grandchildren have energy.
IP: Logged
11:58 PM
Apr 24th, 2008
cliffw Member
Posts: 37877 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by Formula88: .....people will use other fuel sources.
I see and agree with your point also. I myself do not have a when. I would suspect that we will not really have another alternative fuel which is viable until after the military needs it. We might be the test market for said fuel. Surely the military has fuel in their long term strategies.
I see and agree with your point also. I myself do not have a when. I would suspect that we will not really have another alternative fuel which is viable until after the military needs it. We might be the test market for said fuel. Surely the military has fuel in their long term strategies.
a. The Strategic Petroleum Reserves. b. The shale oil is part of a decades old reserve plan earmarked for the military--specifically the US Navy. Usless in it's current environment.
In a national emergency, we at home would sacrifice to the bone so the military has fuel, just as there were fuel rationing cards for civilians back in WWII. You were only allowed to buy a few gallons of gasoline/month, and it was indeed very few.
IP: Logged
12:09 AM
fastblack Member
Posts: 3696 From: Riceville, IA Registered: Nov 2003
Why is that we in the U.S. are supposed to fell gulity for not helping the starving enough in the third world?
exactly, why not take care of problems here at home. i'm by no means saying 'screw those people in third world countries' but there are starving people right here in america...lets make sure we've got that taken care of THEN approach the rest of the world's problems.
i'm pretty sure the only way to be heard in a BIG way is another boston tea party, but who in their right mind would dump perfectly good oil off the side of a boat???
------------------ 1986 Fiero GT 1992 Chevrolet Beretta GTZ 2000 Chevrolet Blazer ZR2
" I guess I've learned that there's more to life than racing, but not much more." -Paul Menard
i'm pretty sure the only way to be heard in a BIG way is another boston tea party, but who in their right mind would dump perfectly good oil off the side of a boat???
OTOH, should we openly begin to develop a trillion+ bbl shale field here at home, OPEC, South America, and just about everyone else would likely at LEAST threaten to cut us off immediately--before development is anywhere near complete. They would not look kindly on seeing their best customer becoming their biggest competitor. But, I agree, shale oil fields should be developed now, if just to insure our chldren and grandchildren have energy.
Yeah. I think we need to seriously develope the oil shale, at least so the technology is developed enough to be able to use it if/when needed. What good is it if we decide we need it and there's a 15 year ramp up to production?
While OPEC, et al might threaten or even cut us off in that case, can you imagine what that would do to world oil prices? If you took out all U.S. oil imports, I wouldn't be surprised to see sub-$20/barrel prices. (of course, that would do us no good if we were cut off)
Holy crap! Even the lefties are starting to see that their ill thought out approaches to Kyoto maybe weren't such a great idea afterall. Amazing enough, this anti-kyoto / anti-ethanol report aired on CBC news, the most extreme left wing news source up here in Canada.
[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 05-06-2008).]
IP: Logged
11:59 PM
May 6th, 2008
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
Sorry, but its population control. Let governments take care of their own people. Its Darwin, if you cant survive on your own, you die off. It happens in nature every day.
IP: Logged
08:02 AM
DtheC Member
Posts: 3395 From: Newton Iowa, USA Registered: Sep 2005
Originally posted by Formula88: Yeah. I think we need to seriously develope the oil shale, at least so the technology is developed enough to be able to use it if/when needed. What good is it if we decide we need it and there's a 15 year ramp up to production?
I was just an idiot college kid during the early 70's, the Oil Embargo didn't mean much to me at the time, heck I didn't buy my first car till I was a Junior. My starter degree was "Earth Science", geology from a 'Fine Arts' school. 1976 - 79 I worked in Uranium Exploration. I was good, I helped find Cajillion Tons of the stuff. 'Three Mile Island' hapened, and I found out, that in 3 years I had found enough Uranium to last the US for at least 50 years, probably much longer. I helped Map the Coal Seams in Montana down thru Wyoming. We arn't going to use up that stuff in 100 years.
Canadian Oil Sands, and US Oil Shales IMHO could provide a stop gap remidy, but my gut feeling is that, in our childrens lifetime, Biofuels are going to win out.
Conventional Wisdom? Corn / Soy based fuels arn't the most efficient, but at least the Infra-structure is being developed. The Cellulosic folks are sitting pretty right now, up untill you ask about soil replenishment?
There ain't No such thing as a Free Sandwich.
Eating Beef isn't the most efficent use of energy, but I'm not saying that everyone 'Must convert" to Veganism
------------------ Ol' Paint, 88 Base coupe auto. Turning white on top, like owner. Leaks a little, like owner. Doesn't smoke....... OK, we're trying to quit.
Originally posted by DtheC: ... but my gut feeling is that, in our childrens lifetime, Biofuels are going to win out.
Al Gore and his liberal friends hope your right. Even though we may starve ourselves trying to fight this fictional war against global warming, in the end it all comes down to dollars and lefties such as Al Gore and David Suzuki have a significant financial investment in the biofuel industry.
Originally posted by loafer87gt: Al Gore and his liberal friends hope your right. Even though we may starve ourselves trying to fight this fictional war against global warming, in the end it all comes down to dollars and lefties such as Al Gore and David Suzuki have a significant financial investment in the biofuel industry.
I'm overweight, don't belive that mankind is more distructive than an average family of Beavers. We have a new Soy / Animal Fat / Mixed stock to Diesel Fuel plant here. It just went 'Online' last fall. Dambed right I scaped a litlle money to help build the plant. It means jobs and local taxes. Politics may change, the 'Farm Bill' (although most of the money is 'Food Stamps') is a jump ball! Most producers, around here and at this time, don't know which way to jump. Go ask your legislator why this has been bouncing around in the Air for over a year?
Less than 3 Cents of that box of Cornflakes goes to who provides the Corn Look elsewhere than the Producer, when you want to blame costs. $100 a Barrel Oil, Shipping Cost, is where I'd look first?
IP: Logged
09:27 PM
Fastback 86 Member
Posts: 7849 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Sep 2003
There's more than one flavor of BioFuel, don't lump them all together. Yes, some companies are using feed corn. Not good, we know. Others, however are working on ways to use anything from compost heaps to old tires and more, stuff that would otherwise just end up in a landfill. Like nuclear energy and other controversial topics, it's never cut and dried. Yes, there are some companies doing it the wrong way, and there are others doing it the right way. Don't ban baseball bats because they can kill people and don't fight BioFuel because some companies are using corn. Fight the specific problem, not the idea as a whole.
