6.8 Million paid for a #5 ...

gbeaumont · February 6, 2008, 1:07am

Regards

Gerry

gbeaumont · February 6, 2008, 1:15am

bwiley:

Somewhere I have an article from 2004 or 2005 written by Peter O’Dell of Erasmus University that states we have added 1500 billion barrels of oil to the world oil reserves since 1970, while world consumption over that time totaled 800 billion barrels. I could be incorrect, but I believe that Hubbert’s peak was also based upon our ability to recover only 20% of the oil from any given reserve, whereas today we can recover about 35% and some oil industry folks have stated that if oil is at 80 bucks a barrel it is then profitable to recover up to 55% or so. That amount of extra recovery would certainly add to the total reserves.

Agreed, thats where I started on this more oil doesn’t = cheaper prices

I also read an article some time back that oil companies (yes those dreaded bastards that make somewhere between 7 and 9 cents per gallon net profit) stated that they are finding that oil fields that were thought to be dry have actually been refilling. That may have been in the WSJ. In that case it may back up the 50 year theory that oil is not “fossil fuel” from dinosaurs, but rather an abiotic process from molten lava and other geologic stuff way on down there in the earth.

May or may not be proven, hasn’t been yet

China coming into the oil age will certainly increase usage over the next decades, but technology should also make it able to recover more oil from each well.

Yes but at an ever increasing price (unless there is a very major change in the cost centers of the way we produce)

I’m all for other types of energy, but ethanol ain’t one of them. When it becomes profitable for someone to “discover” an alternative fuel, you can bet it will happen quickly!

Agreed, ethanol is a sop to the liberals, it is not the answer, the yield per acre is much too small

Oh, and none of this helps the wallet at $3.43 for premium!

Get ready for much worse

Regards

Gerry

bwiley · February 6, 2008, 1:19am

Actually, Brazil was smart. They have an ethanol program that has made them energy independent.

The difference is that they don’t have to cater to the farm subsidy crowd, therefore the ethanol is from sugar cane. Sugar ethanol is much easier to produce, takes much, much less land, and is more efficient taking about 80% less energy to produce than corn based ethanol. Oh, did I say that it takes much, much less land?

Too bad we cant just do sensible things. Make the darn ethanol from sugar cane, and drop the price of my steak and tortilla chips back down!

mlarson · February 6, 2008, 1:19am

Originally Posted by mlarson
Not a cure but part of a multifaceted solution.

Back it up with some facts, or a least some good opinions

Oil will remain the the primary energy source along with coal until many more nuclear power plants are built. The alternatives are still very pricey and not cost competitive without government subsidies to support them.

If we don’t drill they(3rd world) will have no chance at prosperity.

Thats total crap, there are many viable, ie. sustainable reasourses out their, I don’t see the Western world rushing to bring the 3rd world into the developed world anytime soon do you???

What those viable sustainable resources?
Do you blame the Western world for third world poverty and lack of development?
You should know the real reason.

The present world economy will run on oil for at least the next century.

Says who?? support that with some recognisable marco economic data

Do the math Gerry. There is plenty of oil and even more coal and no viable alternatives in the near to midterm future. But if you think differently please explain.