BayAreaHorn;842531382 said:

---

They were wrong because they made the classic mistake of assuming zero progress in the way of technology and mankind's ability to deal with problems. The O&G industry didn't discover deposits or new methodologies out of a teacher's ability to strike fear in the heart of an 11 year old in elementary school; the industry did this in response to market conditions in which a projected shortage of crude led to higher prices, which provided the incentive to find new oil and new ways to get it.

---

Often times predictions are made given assumptions--"at our present rate of consumption we will exhaust proven reserved by 2050" in an effort to prevent that result from happening--changing the rate of consumption, finding new or different resources, etc. it doesn't mean the statement was wrong, it may have been effective.

BayAreaHorn;842531380 said:

---

I have no idea what this post means.

---

Global warming=scare tactic to get the left in line. Mexican rapists coming to America=scare tactic to get the right in line.

calumnus;842531424 said:

---

Often times predictions are made given assumptions--"at our present rate of consumption we will exhaust proven reserved by 2050" in an effort to prevent that result from happening--changing the rate of consumption, finding new or different resources, etc. it doesn't mean the statement was wrong, it may have been effective.

---

I understand your point - but it wasn't some teacher scaring me (and others) at a young age that led to improved techniques - it was the industry responding to market forces.

They were stating it as fact.

burritos;842531460 said:

---

Global warming=scare tactic to get the left in line. Mexican rapists coming to America=scare tactic to get the right in line.

---

understood now; however, I don't think (at the time) that those who were preaching that fossil fuels would be gone in 20 years consciously realized they were "lying" - I think they truly believed it

BayAreaHorn;842531463 said:

---

understood now; however, I don't think (at the time) that those who were preaching that fossil fuels would be gone in 20 years consciously realized they were "lying" - I think they truly believed it

---

I admit, I did buy into the peak oil theory. There is a peak somewhere, I no longer think it's in the immediate near future though and have no clue when it will be. That being said, I think we'll continue to scale solar.

BayAreaHorn;842531461 said:

---

I understand your point - but it wasn't some teacher scaring me (and others) at a young age that led to improved techniques - it was the industry responding to market forces.

They were stating it as fact.

---

I know what you mean Horn. For years, I've been hearing people state as a fact that Social Security is going to run out of money by the time I'm eligible to collect. I laugh every time.

burritos;842531494 said:

---

I admit, I did buy into the peak oil theory. There is a peak somewhere, I no longer think it's in the immediate near future though and have no clue when it will be. That being said, I think we'll continue to scale solar.

---

I certainly don't know either; I know that known nat gas reserves in the US (at present consumption levels) were estimated to be the equivalent of 100 yrs of usage (and this was before the explosion of oil shale production, which generates significant quantities of associated nat gas, so I would guess that estimate is now even longer than 100 yrs).

Solar is fine, and certainly cleaner than coal (which I think it will continue to displace production); solar has several issues (intermittency (sp?), storage, and the mfg process really isn't all that environmentally friendly either), and is still un-economic (but I think getting better) and thus needing subsidies. Solar is still a very small % of the US electricity portfolio; as it increases it will actually drive demand for more gas fired turbines as utilities will need a consistent source to back up intermittent producers like solar and wind.

BayAreaHorn;842531511 said:

---

I certainly don't know either; I know that known nat gas reserves in the US (at present consumption levels) were estimated to be the equivalent of 100 yrs of usage (and this was before the explosion of oil shale production, which generates significant quantities of associated nat gas, so I would guess that estimate is now even longer than 100 yrs).

Solar is fine, and certainly cleaner than coal (which I think it will continue to displace production); solar has several issues (intermittency (sp?), storage, and the mfg process really isn't all that environmentally friendly either), and is still un-economic (but I think getting better) and thus needing subsidies. Solar is still a very small % of the US electricity portfolio; as it increases it will actually drive demand for more gas fired turbines as utilities will need a consistent source to back up intermittent producers like solar and wind.

---

Your own conclusion on this point assume that technology for storing the solar/wind electricity will not be found quickly. I have been reading lately of great strides being made in storage technology. Not just at the large-plant level but at the level of the individual homeowner who has solar panels on his/her roof. My guess is that progress on that technology will go hand in hand with the develpment of better batteries for electric cars.

As for the issue of expense, I attended a meeting where Dan Kammen (one of the heads of Cal's green energy project) discussed technology that was already in existence that could dramatically reduce the costs of solar energy. The current issue is one of getting this technology into production quickly.

burritos;842531460 said:

---

Global warming=scare tactic to get the left in line. Mexican rapists coming to America=scare tactic to get the right in line.

---

I hope you are not trying to create an equivalency comparing "Global Warming" as a conscious plot by Democrats vs. "Mexican Rapists" as a conscious plot by Republicans.

The anti-immigrant scare tactic has been a staple of Republican Politics for 30 years or more. More and more money has gone into securing the borders, beefing up the Border Patrol and the INS/ICE, improving surveilance over immigrants. Undocumented immigration is at 10 year lows. But facts don't matter. There is never enough money being spent to satisfy the xenophobic politicians.

Global warming activists have come from various political persuasions. I started reading about global warming/global climate for over 30 years. During that time the evidence of global warming has been mounting. Scientists who were initially skeptical or on the fence have virtually all come to agree with the conclusion that the climate is getting warmer and the cause is overall human generated. The evidence is virtually irrefutable. The facts are the facts.
Donald Trump used to believe in global warming until he started his run for the Republican nomination. Likewise many other moderate Republicans also support that conclusion. Why therefore do you claim that global warming is a scare tactic to get the left in line.

I am moderately left. But I would prefer that global warming did not exist so that we could spend our money building up public education and aid to the poor.
The Republicans have made global warming a Republican/Democrat issue. When it does not need to be so.

BayAreaHorn;842531511 said:

---

I certainly don't know either; I know that known nat gas reserves in the US (at present consumption levels) were estimated to be the equivalent of 100 yrs of usage (and this was before the explosion of oil shale production, which generates significant quantities of associated nat gas, so I would guess that estimate is now even longer than 100 yrs).

Solar is fine, and certainly cleaner than coal (which I think it will continue to displace production); solar has several issues (intermittency (sp?), storage, and the mfg process really isn't all that environmentally friendly either), and is still un-economic (but I think getting better) and thus needing subsidies. Solar is still a very small % of the US electricity portfolio; as it increases it will actually drive demand for more gas fired turbines as utilities will need a consistent source to back up intermittent producers like solar and wind.

---

100 years ago we were barely using cars and planes, now look where we are today. I think the issues you bring up are real barriers but certainly not insurmountable. If we could ever get out of this dang drought, excess solar electricity can be stored as hydroelectric power.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-big-creek-20150823-story.html

In hundred years from now(I'll be dead no doubt), I think most of these issues will have been dealt with and people will be on to other issues.

68great;842531543 said:

---

Your own conclusion on this point assume that technology for storing the solar/wind electricity will not be found quickly. I have been reading lately of great strides being made in storage technology. Not just at the large-plant level but at the level of the individual homeowner who has solar panels on his/her roof. My guess is that progress on that technology will go hand in hand with the develpment of better batteries for electric cars.

As for the issue of expense, I attended a meeting where Dan Kammen (one of the heads of Cal's green energy project) discussed technology that was already in existence that could dramatically reduce the costs of solar energy. The current issue is one of getting this technology into production quickly.

---

I don't dismiss that there can/will be improvements in battery technology - that said, it is a problem that has been worked on aggressively for a VERY long time (by established industrial & technology companies, as well as well funded startups for 1-2 decades).

I also agree costs will come down over time - but they aren't there yet to compete on their own, hence the need for (a) direct govt subsidies, and (b) indirect subsidies in the form of mandates which essentially force the usage of these technologies.

burritos;842531552 said:

---

100 years ago we were barely using cars and planes, now look where we are today. I think the issues you bring up are real barriers but certainly not insurmountable. If we could ever get out of this dang drought, excess solar electricity can be stored as hydroelectric power.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-big-creek-20150823-story.html

In hundred years from now(I'll be dead no doubt), I think most of these issues will have been dealt with and people will be on to other issues.

---

I think you are right - our entire energy suite will look very different in 100 yrs than it is today. I believe, however, that market forces are the best way to get there - yes, I know there is a place for govt funded research, but prematurely forcing a technology into the portfolio by mandate (in response to "we are running out of fossil fuels" worries) doesn't strike me as the way that will deliver the best long term and sustainable technology. Yes, I know that just opened up a big box of issues in this thread...

burritos;842531494 said:

---

I admit, I did buy into the peak oil theory. There is a peak somewhere, I no longer think it's in the immediate near future though and have no clue when it will be. That being said, I think we'll continue to scale solar.

---

Think about it this way: without the alarm and urgency spread by people, would we ever invested in efficiency, conservation and technology to prevent them from happening? We may never know...

tommie317;842531750 said:

---

Think about it this way: without the alarm and urgency spread by people, would we ever invested in efficiency, conservation and technology to prevent them from happening? We may never know...

---

This makes sense.

1979bear;842531773 said:

---

This makes sense.

---

I think it absolutely does with respect to mileage standards. Improved mileage (driven both by economics but also by govt mandate) have gone a long way toward extending the horizon of petroleum.

Selling our two cars because we were moving from LA to NYC was one of the best feelings ever. That is all.

NYCGOBEARS;842531848 said:

---

Selling our two cars because we were moving from LA to NYC was one of the best feelings ever. That is all.

---

Passing the bus that I used to commute on every morning on my motorcycle is another one of those feelings.

NYCGOBEARS;842531848 said:

---

Selling our two cars because we were moving from LA to NYC was one of the best feelings ever. That is all.

---

Communist

burritos;842531552 said:

---

100 years ago we were barely using cars and planes, now look where we are today. I think the issues you bring up are real barriers but certainly not insurmountable. If we could ever get out of this dang drought, excess solar electricity can be stored as hydroelectric power.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-big-creek-20150823-story.html

In hundred years from now(I'll be dead no doubt), I think most of these issues will have been dealt with and people will be on to other issues.

---

Good information, thanks for the link. I never realize that Shaver Lake provided water (and energy) to LA. It is high above Fresno.

Bobodeluxe;842531874 said:

---

Communist

---

Go Bears!

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/12/03/458353036/as-saudi-arabia-battles-its-oil-rivals-prices-are-expected-to-stay-low?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=yourmoney

I don't get it, so Saudi Arabia is shooting itself in the foot to destroy U.S. supply? That's their long term strategy, especially with Iran looming?

burritos;842613205 said:

---

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/12/03/458353036/as-saudi-arabia-battles-its-oil-rivals-prices-are-expected-to-stay-low?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=yourmoney

I don't get it, so Saudi Arabia is shooting itself in the foot to destroy U.S. supply? That's their long term strategy, especially with Iran looming?

---

They have the largest reserves. They can afford to kill the competition and wait it out. Also. they've been smart with the vast amounts of profits they've made and diversified.

Since we've experienced $100/barrel oil prices and survived it, maybe we should implement a tax on oil($10/barrel) since it's so cheap and divert those funds and shift our portfolio more aggressively into renewables. We can limit the tax to end at say $70/barrel since high gas prices alone has the same effect of making renewables more viable. Just increasing consumption when oil is cheap without investing for a higher oil price environment may be short sighted.

NYCGOBEARS;842613211 said:

---

They have the largest reserves. They can afford to kill the competition and wait it out. Also. they've been smart with the vast amounts of profits they've made and diversified.

---

Not really. The largest oil reserves are in Siberia.
Also, Russia became the largest producer when the Saudi's withdrew many of the resources from production (2009 prox).
The US is also one of the three top producers, but has much fewer known reserves (so they say).

ISIS is supposedly funding its activities with oil sold on the black market from production in Kurdistan, etc.

Questions:
Who is purchasing this oil?

It's moved by truck convoys. Why can't the flow be stopped?

joe yaks;842613241 said:

---

ISIS is supposedly funding its activities with oil sold on the black market from production in Kurdistan, etc.

Question: Who is purchasing this oil?

---

Turkey for one

joe yaks;842613240 said:

---

Not really. The largest oil reserves are in Siberia.
Also, Russia became the largest producer when the Saudi's withdrew many of the resources from production (2009 prox).
The US is also one of the three top producers, but has much fewer known reserves (so they say).

---

They say that the reserves in the Arctic are huge, thankfully, right now it's too difficult to get at.

After 7 billion dollars, shell says no go.
http://www.planetizen.com/node/81325/7-billion-later-shell-withdraw-arctic-oil-drilling

burritos;842613244 said:

---

They say that the reserves in the Arctic are huge, thankfully, right now it's too difficult to get at.

After 7 billion dollars, shell says no go.
http://www.planetizen.com/node/81325/7-billion-later-shell-withdraw-arctic-oil-drilling

---

And see the Siberian Sea. With things thawing the formula is changing.

joe yaks;842613248 said:

---

And see the Siberian Sea. With things thawing the formula is changing.

---

What does it cost the Saudis per barrel vs pumping in Siberia?

joe yaks;842613241 said:

---

ISIS is supposedly funding its activities with oil sold on the black market from production in Kurdistan, etc.

Questions:
Who is purchasing this oil?

It's moved by truck convoys. Why can't the flow be stopped?

---

I read the French are bombing the trucks carrying the oil.

6bear6;842613257 said:

---

I read the French are bombing the trucks carrying the oil.

---

Nato on Nato. Nice!

NYCGOBEARS;842613251 said:

---

What does it cost the Saudis per barrel vs pumping in Siberia?

---

Interesting question:
http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/the-cost-to-produce-a-barrel-of-oil/index.html

United Kingdom$52.50
Brazil$48.80
Canada$41.00
United States$36.20
Norway$36.10
Angola$35.40
Colombia$35.30
Nigeria$31.60
China$29.90
Mexico$29.10
Kazakhstan$27.80
Libya$23.80
Venezuela$23.50
Algeria$20.40
Russia$17.20
Iran$12.60
UAE$12.30
Iraq$10.70
Saudi Arabia$9.90
Kuwait$8.50

The Chinese have oil?

burritos;842613265 said:

---

Interesting question:
http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/the-cost-to-produce-a-barrel-of-oil/index.html

United Kingdom$52.50
Brazil$48.80
Canada$41.00
United States$36.20
Norway$36.10
Angola$35.40
Colombia$35.30
Nigeria$31.60
China$29.90
Mexico$29.10
Kazakhstan$27.80
Libya$23.80
Venezuela$23.50
Algeria$20.40
Russia$17.20
Iran$12.60
UAE$12.30
Iraq$10.70
Saudi Arabia$9.90
Kuwait$8.50

The Chinese have oil?

---

There's your answer.

Vandalus;842447860 said:

---

The economist seems to think its a combination of A and B, with C being an added benefit (throw in Venezuela and Iran into that pool as well). Texas oil men have upped US production to 9 million barrels a day (one shy of saudi arabia) so we are importing less. The Saudi's can handle the lower rate of return and the flip side is that this hurts iran/russia who they don't like. If Saudi were to cut their own production in order to raise the price, it would benefit iran/russia, so they are cool with letting them suffer for a while.

I don't think Saudi is pumping more per se, they just haven't slowed down in the face of american production increases. what's interesting however is that oil production in the US (especially with the increase in fracking exploration) costs significantly more than what the saudi's pay per barrel, so while they can withstand lower costs, at some point the texas drillers are going to want to cut back because their whole price calculus for fracking depended on $110+ barrel oil.

---

I think this is right. OPEC is just a collusion among competitors to manipulate price by controlling production. However, Latin American members of OPEC may be able to hold out much longer at these low prices.

joe yaks;842613241 said:

---

ISIS is supposedly funding its activities with oil sold on the black market from production in Kurdistan, etc.

Questions:
Who is purchasing this oil?

It's moved by truck convoys. Why can't the flow be stopped?

---

The coalition forces (and Russia) have begun targeting the trucks in recent weeks in an attempt to hurt their finances. When we first started the air campaign we apparently only went after those refineries and storage areas that were confirmed in ISIS control. It's my understanding that they changed their tactics and started up with these long columns of trucks, and for months we weren't attacking them for humanitarian reasons.

Essentially there is a lot of collateral damage to consider when thinking about attacking infrastructure like this (or power, water, communications, etc.) In this case, the truck drivers are just the locals driving trucks who need to earn a living, and generally aren't AK-47 wielding hardened jihadists. If you live in an area that has come under ISIS control, you either pledge allegiance or get executed, so what would you do if you are just a regular guy and need to put food on the table? They tell you to be a truck driver, and hey, that's no so bad (certainly better than getting your head chopped off, or watching your daughter sold off into slavery) so you agree to do it. Does that mean that you are now an enemy combatant and liable to be killed indiscriminately?

To avoid that kind of collateral damage we have been dropping leaflets warning them of the potential attacks on their columns prior to dropping the actual bombs in the hopes that they will jump out of their trucks and run away. There's definitely a lot to consider - certainly a lot more than just "lets carpet bomb them until the sand glows" which sounds a lot like a veiled threat for the use of atomic weaponry.