Potentially 60BB of oil in Falklands waters.......

[addyguy]

Suprised this aspect of the dispute isn't getting more play - it woud be one of the largest finds of the century if it were true:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on...article1477023/

I'm aware they've said there is potentially nothing there, BUT, you don't send out a drill well unless you're pretty sure there is something there.

 

[Steve S]

With all the prospective finds the price of oil isn't dropping, as much as I would like to see and I drove 5,000 miles last year.

 

[Shannow]

addguy, I never thought that war was over 3 farmers and a handful of sheep.

Was in all the conspiracy sites 7 or 8 years ago.

 

[Gary Allan]

You mean it wasn't for the pride and integrity and sovereignty of the crown?

 

[fsskier]

" Could be as much as 60 billion barrels of oil....... or there might not be any oil"

I would not trade for a Guzzermobile just yet! Still, if 1/3 of 60 billion barrels was recoverable it would be a 240 day supply for the world..... every little bit helps!

 

[JHZR2]

Seriously?

World uses 85MM bbl/day. You are right, it is 240 days worth of consumption... Which is nothing a the end of the day, IMO. Delaying the inevitable by less than a year will just ensure that instability and obscene profits will exist longer.

 

[Gary Allan]

I really don't think anyone really grasps how energy intensive our lives are. Not just in what we take for granted in terms of lights and heat ..and liquid energy for our cars ..but they don't see how it's enabled an out of phase relationship between supply and demand to occur. It's like our recent massive expansion of credit and the goods that were produced and purchased with it.

In the same sorta relationship, we're expanding consumption (populations, needs, demands) under a "promise" of continued supply of not only the same level of production ..but an ever expanding level of production.

There are certain immutable things in physics that can never be trumped. You're going to need so many btu's ..and in a given concentration/production level to forge and cast metals. You're going to need so many btu's to cook food. While we've got unlimited amounts of truly free radiant energy bombarding our planet on a daily basis, I've yet to see how we can harness it in an unlimited manner. That is, you'll still need the fundamental resources to capture and convert it to useful energy ..and we're not nearly far enough along in the evolution and AT THE SAME TIME, are permanently depleting many of the core essential materials required to make the evolution.

Like take all those nice, energy efficient modern Nordic homes. Imagine the total tonnage of materials to make all the homes in the USA their equals? Not a chance. It would be urban and suburban renewal on a scale that defies comprehension at a cost that the entire globe could not afford ..let alone the other evolutions and revolutions required for "everything else".

I do not think that there will the proper combination of time and availability of resources to manage this.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I really don't think anyone really grasps how energy intensive our lives are.


I think that the problem is that people physically can't grasp the magnitude of our energy consumption, as the size involved is larger than anything that we can imagine.

Some years ago, I took a fairly senior dude out onto the plant, and explained that our two stations between them:
* burned enough coal per day to cover an area 100x100m, to 2.2M deep (say 330x330x7'3");
* and evaporated 40 Olympic swimming pools per day.

He shook his head, and said "that can't be right"... the numbers are overwhelming.

US uses a billion tonnes of coal per year.

If you showed people 3 cubic yards of coal and said "that's how much you use per year", it would make some sense to them.

If you said the country uses a lot 1 square mile, nearly 1/4 mile high, they will phase out, as it's beyond comprehension.

 

[Shannow]

and before anyone accuses me of picking on America, each Aussie owns about 6 cubic yards of coal (but we export a lot of that as aliminium)

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Seriously?

World uses 85MM bbl/day. You are right, it is 240 days worth of consumption... Which is nothing a the end of the day, IMO. Delaying the inevitable by less than a year will just ensure that instability and obscene profits will exist longer.

Really? Ban oil tomorrow and you don't think that whatever replaces it won't cause conflict and "obscene profits"?

What would you like to see replace oil?

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Seriously?

World uses 85MM bbl/day. You are right, it is 240 days worth of consumption... Which is nothing a the end of the day, IMO. Delaying the inevitable by less than a year will just ensure that instability and obscene profits will exist longer.

Really? Ban oil tomorrow and you don't think that whatever replaces it won't cause conflict and "obscene profits"?



So you have no objection to getting started right now? Good.

Quote:
What would you like to see replace oil?


What in your imagination CAN replace oil?? Give me one or two technologies that will produce IDENTICAL utility ..at ANY COST and are 100% perpetually sustainable.

For that matter, name one.

 

[Cutehumor]

I thought we would use hydrogen as a fuel source. after all the oil is gone

 

[Shannow]

Hydrogen isn't a fuel source, but a storage medium.

There aren't any hydrogen reserves, so the hydrogen has to be made out of some other energy source.

 

[labman]

+1 Amazing how many people don't that simple point.

 

[fsskier]

Hydrogen from water and dead batteries both represent an unlimited energy supply. All you have to do is charge em up and away you go!!!

Labman, maybe the above example will help those more scientifically challenged.... but I doubt it!

Gary Allan, your treatise was excellent. I have seen several people with an inheritance spend like crazy until it was gone... then face bankruptcy. It seems clear that we are doing the same with the world energy supply and I encourage any and all serious attempts to make renewable supplies and consumption come more into balance.

Still conservation is the easiest and cheapest.... in previous posts I noted "identical condo's" in our area - built to very different standards that used 1/4 the heating energy of the shoddier constructed. And better products, windows, etc could improve the good ones even more.

And, my top efficiency refrigerator, Central air, lighting, furnace blower, etc give me an average $35 a month electric bill, about $100 less than my neighbors. Certainly a reward of somekind. I am looking forward to LED lights next ... but they seem to be about the same lumens per watt as fluorescent.
Longer life should be a given!

Tempest, I am not sure why you are on here...... still, maybe your flames could someday become an energy supply of sorts!

 

[Shannow]

Conservation only works when you've got something to conserve.

Halving useage of whatever when you've got days to go gives you a couple of days. Halving it when you've got years to go gives you more years.

 

[fsskier]

OK, even attempts at conservation can cause humorous responses.

I live 3.5 miles from work, and often ride my bike - a 24 speed Trek. Some trails and sidewalks help, it is a fast and safe commute. This is more a source of personal enjoyment and a little exercise than any real attempt to conserve... but one day the topic came up at lunch.. home much energy would we save if everyone that lived 4 miles or less from work rode bikes when possible.

Our local agitator (Tempest, did you ever work at Rockwell International??) instantly attacked me with "that would not work because a lot of people are older"

Now, since I had 47 years of employment at Rockwell......LOL

And, my mother still rides her bike up town to get the mail.
No, she is not 100 yet, but trying to get there!!

 

[fsskier]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Conservation only works when you've got something to conserve.

Halving useage of whatever when you've got days to go gives you a couple of days. Halving it when you've got years to go gives you more years.


Well, yes but..... It does give us twice - or 4 times as long to find alternatives. And the alternatives would then only have to produce 1/4th as much....
You could pay 4 times more per KW and still get the same bill... that starts to make Wind, Solar, wave power, etc very competitive

A lot of base load issues would remain... but I think we would find heating, vehicle battery charging, etc would become much more adaptive to supply availability, and costs.

Photovoltaic panels that split water.... store the Hydrogen for reuse in fuel cells for nighttime energy delivery...
yes, we will need 50 years to get all this going.

 

[Gary Allan]

Yes, 50 years. But that view is only with current views. We're often sucker punched by a number of X factors. One that isn't so much of a wild card is that demand is going to skyrocket while supplies will be, at best, static. Now some may feel that this will JUST translate to price, but I personally feel that there will be further complications. You can't just perpetually pay your way out of an energy intensive existence.

Next time the movie Marooned comes around, watch it. There you can see how a time line points to one solution at getting home when you've got 3 breathing men and only enough oxygen for two.

 

[Shannow]

Who said anything about paying your way out Gary ?

Borrowing your way out is the modern way.