I wrote: [quote]
Since it has been at least 25 years since a refinery was built, doesn’t it make sense that a new refinery would be more efficient, and produce a cleaner fuel? [/quote]
Gl;itch.e wrote: [quote]
maybe but then why havent they done it? that doesnt make sense… . how about they havent built any new refineries because thats not the problem. … [/quote]
The reason they haven’t done it is to drive up prices. It worked. Oil supplies are greater then last year, but gas supplies are lower. By slowing down refining they have caused the supply/demand to change to their benefit.
Gl;itch.e wrote: [quote]
thats no big deal whatsoever… . in fact its actions like those that give more credit to the peak oil crowd… . its obvious why this has happened… . in the old days those wells were capped because they werent worth spending the time on… . yes… . I agree… . thats because back in those days they were discovering the great big granddaddy fields… . those were the ones that were worth using… . and now that all the old ones are dying off they have to resort to the smaller lesser fields in order to keep overall production the same… . the obvious problem is that these small fields wont last the 50+ years that the big fields did… . they will have a quick productive run and then will become useless. … [/quote]
No big deal? If you follow the link, and do a little math, there were a total of 50,141 wells shut down. Is that a small amount? And how exactly do you know how big these oil fields are? It is correct that they were shut down because it was not profitable enough, and to slow the supply of oil entering the market.
That has changed, and now they are tapping those wells.
I should also point out one of the reasons they have not found those “granddaddy” fields recently is because nobody is really looking. We have had cheap energy for a while now, and the profit margin really made it worthless to go searching for large deposits of oil.
You do know people are searching for gold don’t you? Would they still look for it if gold dropped to 10 cents a pound? Would you?
This drop in extraction and search is actually common among mined commodities. Many have a set price where they quit looking.
Gl;itch.e wrote: [quote]
this I totally disagree with… . the peak oil movement is a lot more concerned with long term than you give it credit for… . yes its possible that a new technology can help out but relying on a hope like that is about as smart as refusing a heart transplant on the hope that sometime in your remaining 3 weeks to live someone might invent a new cure for your disease that is super fast working and has a 100% sucess rate… . hardly smart thinking. … [/quote]
Sorry you disagree with me, but your argument really does not hold water. You are comparing 3 weeks to a commodity that according to current estimates we haven’t even extracted a third of, and that assumes no new finds.
To hope for an advance in 3 weeks may be foolish, but hoping for an advance in the next 10 to 20 is not, and in fact should be expected. I guarantee that persons chances of survival are greater then 10 to 20 years ago.
Also the technology I am talking about is either already in use, coming into use, or in serious development. For example they are starting to use solar power to run the pumps instead of burning the oil they pump to fuel the pump. That will expand the supply.
You cannot predict the technology that will come in the next 10 years. And innovation is driven by necessity. I am surprised at the effect of switching from regular light bulbs to compact fluorescent has had on my electric usage.
I wrote: [quote]
I have heard from them that ethanol uses more energy in its production then the ethanol gives off, but that has been proven false. (Recent research.) Plus all the alternative forms of oil are never discussed, such as heavy oil, or oil shale, which technology is making cheaper and cheaper to produce and refine. [/quote]
Gl;itch.e wrote: [quote]
maybe not… . I havent read any recent writings on this matter… . but the truth is still obvious… . it will take more energy to produce ethanol for fuel than it currently does to drill a hole in the ground and get some oil out… .
http://www.physorg.com/news494…
thats a pretty new writing (june 2005) so Id like to see anything newer that proves it wrong. … [/quote]
Well ethanol.org argues this:
Research studies from a variety of sources have found ethanol to have a positive net energy balance. The most recent, by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, shows that ethanol provides an average net energy gain of at least 67%.
http://www.ethanol.org/talkingpoints.html
Also you link is about his findings, but not peer response to his findings.
[i]Though his work has been vetted by several peer-reviewed scientific journals, Patzek has had to deflect criticism from a variety of sources. David Morris, an economist and vice president of the Minneapolis-based Institute for Local Self-Reliance, has attacked the Berkeley professor’s analysis because he says it is based on farming and production practices that are rapidly becoming obsolete.
“His figures (regarding energy consumed in fertilizer production) are accurate for older nitrogen fertilizer plants, but newer plants use only half the energy of those that were built 35 years ago,” he said. He also cited the increasing popularity of no-till farming methods, which can reduce a corn farm’s diesel usage by 75 percent. “With hydrogen fuel, people are willing to say, ‘25 years from now it will be good.’ Why can’t we also be forward-looking when it comes to ethanol?”
Hosein Shapouri, an economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has also cracked down on Patzek’s energy calculations.
“It’s true that the original ethanol plants in the 1970s went bankrupt. But Patzek doesn’t consider the impact new, more efficient production technologies have had on the ethanol industry,” he said.
Shapouri’s most recent analysis, which the USDA published in 2004, comes to the exact opposite conclusion of Patzek’s: Ethanol, he said, has a positive energy balance, containing 67 percent more energy than is used to manufacture it. Optimistic that the process will become even more efficient in the future, he pointed out that scientists are experimenting with using alternative sources like solid waste, grass and wood to make ethanol. If successful on a large scale, these techniques could drastically reduce the amount of fossil fuel needed for ethanol production. [/i]
Also all of this does not mention waste product which that costs nothing to produce, but is thought to be a big boost to ethanol production.
I wrote: [quote]
Hubbert’s peak was supposed to be a decade ago, and that was a revision from his first prediction of the 70’s. (Though now they say it was just American reserves, and the new prediction was world reserves.) [/quote]
Gl;itch.e wrote: [quote]
yes his first prediction was for the 70s in america and he got it right… . his prediction for the world was around 1995… . which he got wrong… . but whose to say everyone else is wrong? [/quote]
You didn’t understand what I was saying. My understanding is that the first prediction was the original prediction, and was altered to say it was only American oil, and a new future date was chosen.
Also none of the oil prices of the 70?s had anything to do with a peak. It had to do with both the foolish policies of the American government of the time, (some pumps ran out of oil creating gas lines while others actually had a glut they couldn?t sell,) and attempts by OPEC to hurt America by cutting supplies.
What we are seeing now is nothing different then what has happened in the past, and will happen again in the future.
Let me clarify what I have said before.
I am not saying there will not be a peak. I am saying it is further off then the peak oil crowd likes to imply, and by the time it actually gets here, we will be using heavy oil, oil shale, alternate fuels, and fuel economy will go through the roof.
Hydrogen will become a functioning fuel.
