Lifestyle > Train of Thought

Very Very Interesting... Reason Why Our World Will End...Very...Very...Soon

<< < (4/6) > >>

lil layzie:
Well there were some Bible codes and a man found some codes for the years from 2000-20006 and the first 2 codes who said precise what will happen really happened one of them is 9/11,and it says that in 2006 the world will have its 3rd world war!

rafsta:

--- Quote from: Woodrow on April 13, 2005, 10:58:02 AM ---You little clown.

Do you know anything about oil? Crude, Sweet, Tar sands, shale?

Don't ever try and tell me that I don't have common sense when it's clear that you're a fucking moron.


Oil, Oil Everywhere . . .

BY PETER HUBER AND MARK MILLS
Sunday, January 30, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

The price of oil remains high only because the cost of oil remains so low. We remain dependent on oil from the Mideast not because the planet is running out of buried hydrocarbons, but because extracting oil from the deserts of the Persian Gulf is so easy and cheap that it's risky to invest capital to extract somewhat more stubborn oil from far larger deposits in Alberta.

The market price of oil is indeed hovering up around $50 a barrel on the spot market. But getting oil to the surface currently costs under $5 a barrel in Saudi Arabia, with the global average cost certainly under $15. And with technology already well in hand, the cost of sucking oil out of the planet we occupy simply will not rise above roughly $30 a barrel for the next 100 years at least.

The cost of oil comes down to the cost of finding, and then lifting or extracting. First, you have to decide where to dig. Exploration costs currently run under $3 per barrel in much of the Mideast, and below $7 for oil hidden deep under the ocean. But these costs have been falling, not rising, because imaging technology that lets geologists peer through miles of water and rock improves faster than supplies recede. Many lower-grade deposits require no new looking at all.

To pick just one example among many, finding costs are essentially zero for the 3.5 trillion barrels of oil that soak the clay in the Orinoco basin in Venezuela, and the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta, Canada. Yes, that's trillion--over a century's worth of global supply, at the current 30-billion-barrel-a-year rate of consumption.

Then you have to get the oil out of the sand--or the sand out of the oil. In the Mideast, current lifting costs run $1 to $2.50 per barrel at the very most; lifting costs in Iraq probably run closer to 50 cents, though OPEC strains not to publicize any such embarrassingly low numbers. For the most expensive offshore platforms in the North Sea, lifting costs (capital investment plus operating costs) currently run comfortably south of $15 per barrel. Tar sands, by contrast, are simply strip mined, like Western coal, and that's very cheap--but then you spend another $10, or maybe $15, separating the oil from the dirt. To do that, oil or gas extracted from the site itself is burned to heat water, which is then used to "crack" the bitumen from the clay; the bitumen is then chemically split to produce lighter petroleum.

In sum, it costs under $5 a barrel to pump oil out from under the sand in Iraq, and about $15 to melt it out of the sand in Alberta. So why don't we just learn to love hockey and shop Canadian? Conventional Canadian wells already supply us with more oil than Saudi Arabia, and the Canadian tar is now delivering, too. The $5 billion (U.S.) Athabasca Oil Sands Project that Shell and ChevronTexaco opened in Alberta last year is now pumping 155,000 barrels per day. And to our south, Venezuela's Orinoco Belt yields 500,000 barrels daily.

But here's the catch: By simply opening up its spigots for a few years, Saudi Arabia could, in short order, force a complete write-off of the huge capital investments in Athabasca and Orinoco. Investing billions in tar-sand refineries is risky not because getting oil out of Alberta is especially difficult or expensive, but because getting oil out of Arabia is so easy and cheap. Oil prices gyrate and occasionally spike--both up and down--not because oil is scarce, but because it's so abundant in places where good government is scarce. Investing $5 billion over five years to build a new tar-sand refinery in Alberta is indeed risky when a second cousin of Osama bin Laden can knock $20 off the price of oil with an idle wave of his hand on any given day in Riyadh.
The one consolation is that Arabia faces a quandary of its own. Once the offshore platform has been deployed in the North Sea, once the humongous crock pot is up and cooking in Alberta, its cost is sunk. The original investors may never recover their capital, but after it has been written off, somebody can go ahead and produce oil very profitably going forward. And capital costs are going to keep falling, because the cost of a tar-sand refinery depends on technology, and technology costs always fall. Bacteria, for example, have already been successfully bioengineered to crack heavy oil molecules to help clean up oil spills, and to mine low-grade copper; bugs could likewise end up trampling out the vintage where the Albertan oil is stored.

In the short term anything remains possible. Demand for oil grows daily in China and India, where good government is finally taking root, while much of the earth's most accessible oil lies under land controlled by feudal theocracies, kleptocrats, and fanatics. Day by day, just as it should, the market attempts to incorporate these two antithetical realities into the spot price of crude. But to suppose that those prices foreshadow the exhaustion of the planet itself is silly.

The cost of extracting oil from the earth has not gone up over the past century, it has held remarkably steady. Going forward, over the longer term, it may rise very gradually, but certainly not fast. The earth is far bigger than people think, the untapped deposits are huge, and the technologies for separating oil from planet keep getting better. U.S. oil policy should be to promote new capital investment in the United States, Canada, and other oil-producing countries that are politically stable, and promote stable government in those that aren't.

Messrs. Huber and Mills are co-authors of "The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy," just out from Basic Books.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006228

--- End quote ---

LOL at you insulting me first off, i imagined you would be more civilised than that due to your constant critisism of others...

before i go on, let me prove you wrong in one sentence, oil will run out eventually, maybe not in 30 or 40 years but it will run out - (that is common sense by the way).

lets use an example for you, there is a lake with a shitload of fish, a fisherman loves his discovery and there is enough fish to last him a lifetime, others find out about this and swarm to the lake, then all fish with the man, they catch the fish faster than they reproduce therefore the fish eventually run out, the people get hungry and start fighting over the remaining fish to survive... - does it make sense to you englewood ?

no-one has knowledge of how much oil is really out there, and there havent been any new oil discoveries since the 70's or some shit, and they also state the stupidest thing i have ever read "the world is bigger than people think".

peak oil isn't about the cost of extraction, it's about the fact that supply will not match demand, secondly extraction of the shale oil in Canada is not economical to extract, the profic margin is 1:1.5 unlike sandy oil or whatever the fuck it is the ratio is 1:15...

maybe you should read the other article maverick...

RuffRyder189:
good read.

Big BpG:

--- Quote from: Sikotic Don't Wait For The Game Cuz The Game Don't Wait on April 09, 2005, 06:26:29 PM ---Se what doesn't check out is the fact that there are alternative resources for energy. That whole persuasive essay right there acts as if all we have remaining in terms of energy is oil.

--- End quote ---

no, there are pages the discuss alternative energy, but a lot of research shows that they won't be as efficient, cost friendly and we simply are preparing ourselves to convert to such energy... if we ran out of oil, we would have to buy news cars... however, you can't expect the population to all go out and buy a new car on the same day... i couldn't buy one now, i just dont hvae the money... but the other fact is to create new power plants that use alternative energy, would require the use of oil because how are we going to make these power plants if our machinery that uses oil doesn't have it.

and the real fact is that OIL is not a resource that we will always have... we will run out one day... and the other fact is... if there other forms of energy... why don't we use those instead of creating a war to get oil? Because we are dependent on this resource, we know how to use and well, we don't have the patience or the desire to use alternatives.

It's like a snowball, it jsut gets bigger the longer it's rolling.

HK Mofo:
Fk that bullshit.  Some ppl want to give up and let our country end cuz they r dumb and soft, and locked in defeated thought.

I mean if Dre was forced to put his mind in the fuel lab to save the country we'd be ridin' strictly on beats.  Go ahead, cut the damm oil.  Just see how much better WE make it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page