More Libertarian facts about oil

[Gil Hamilton]

No, your suggestions are weak. Using nuclear powered plants is utilizing the POWER OF THE ATOM?

I shall use thermoatomic initations to cook the oil shale into oil via buried multi-megaton devices; and smaller multi-kiloton devices to force limping wells to produce again.

These were all proposed during PLOWSHARE.

Ah yes, the Shep Energy Solution. Bomb the oil till it surrenders and comes peacefully out of the ground to negotiate.

[Patrick Degan]

No, your suggestions are weak. Using nuclear powered plants is utilizing the POWER OF THE ATOM?

I shall use thermoatomic initations to cook the oil shale into oil via buried multi-megaton devices; and smaller multi-kiloton devices to force limping wells to produce again.

These were all proposed during PLOWSHARE.

Ah yes, the Shep Energy Solution. Bomb the oil till it surrenders and comes peacefully out of the ground to negotiate.

Nevermind that rather inconvenient problem of the radionucleids you'd get in the oil, which would tend to render it a bit unusable.

[Surlethe]

Now I'm no expert on this situation, but I did hear on the radio (the BBC so presumably trustworthy ) that price rises have more to do with refining capacity than actual supply of oil. No new refineries have been built in at least a decade and those that exist can't quite cope with increased demand.

They have something to do with it. Have you ever asked yourself why the oil companies haven't built new refineries in the last decade, with demand and supply increasing exponentially?

[Kanastrous]

The miniature Libertarian sitting on my left shoulder just snarled OBSTRUCTIVE REGULATION!

[bobalot]

"OBSTRUCTIVE REGULATION!"

Nope, that wouldn't be it. It would be the oil glut of the 80's and 90's where oil prices collapsed. There was no financial incentive to build any.

[bobalot]

On top of that refineries have had their profit margins cut.

The talk about lack of refinery capacity being the only bottleneck driving up prices is a load of rubbish. It's a factor but the central one. Which is simply, the demand for oil is starting to outstrip supply. It is difficult to find substitues for the many uses of oil, which is why no 'alternatives' have simply popped up as prices have risen (As many libertarians have predicted).

As of May (in the US), refineries are running at 85% capacity.

It was at 81.4% capacity in April compared to 90.4% the year before.

Heres a link to where I got my refining figures from.
Link

The rising cost of oil is driving refineries to cut production as they are unable to pass on the cost.

[JN1]

There is an article in today's Times about the development of synthetic crude oil from algae; annoyingly I can't find it on the online version of the paper. However it did seem to suggest that production of synthetic petrol and diesel was not too far away in the future (possibly as soon as 2011).
Scientists in California and Japan seem very optimistic about the success of their projects.

[JN1]

Just checked the article again and it would be genetically modified bacteria that would be used to create gasoline essentially pump ready. The algae would be used to make diesel.
The petroleum would apparently be carbon neutral.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

"OBSTRUCTIVE REGULATION!"

Nope, that wouldn't be it. It would be the oil glut of the 80's and 90's where oil prices collapsed. There was no financial incentive to build any.

Oh, the oil companies know that the oil is going away and never coming back. Why engage in capital investment in a facility that will be useless in thirty years?

[JN1]

"OBSTRUCTIVE REGULATION!"

Nope, that wouldn't be it. It would be the oil glut of the 80's and 90's where oil prices collapsed. There was no financial incentive to build any.

Oh, the oil companies know that the oil is going away and never coming back. Why engage in capital investment in a facility that will be useless in thirty years?

Predicting exactly when oil will begin to run short is not an exact science as it is difficult to take into account things like improvements in extraction technology. For example in 1914 the USGS confidently predicted that there was only around ten years of oil reserves left. I also remember being taught at school that North Sea oil would run out just before the turn of the century.
Will oil have run short in 30 years time, or will we have found ways to extract more oil from existing reserves? I honestly don't know.

I believe it is possible to refine petroleum from oil, which there is still plenty of, though I don't know if refineries are needed for that purpose. If the bacteria and algae come good then refineries may be obsolete in 30 years as we'll be getting our petroleum products ready to use.

[Surlethe]

"OBSTRUCTIVE REGULATION!"

Nope, that wouldn't be it. It would be the oil glut of the 80's and 90's where oil prices collapsed. There was no financial incentive to build any.

Oh, the oil companies know that the oil is going away and never coming back. Why engage in capital investment in a facility that will be useless in thirty years?

Predicting exactly when oil will begin to run short is not an exact science as it is difficult to take into account things like improvements in extraction technology. For example in 1914 the USGS confidently predicted that there was only around ten years of oil reserves left. I also remember being taught at school that North Sea oil would run out just before the turn of the century.
Will oil have run short in 30 years time, or will we have found ways to extract more oil from existing reserves? I honestly don't know.

Requiring an exact date when oil peaks is a red herring; they can get pretty good estimates based on the data they have. Bear in mind that the oil flow from a field is not a function solely of the technology available; it is also a function of how much oil is left in the ground.

Think of it graphically. Production is a function of time, but it's parameterized by better extraction technology and - this is key - it's constrained so that the total area under the curve is constant -- the amount of oil in the well. So if extraction technology improves, the peak output will be higher, but it will also come sooner and fall off faster.

Here's a poor paintshop illustration:


Basic Hubbert curve - extraction technology remains constant


Production curve - extraction technology improves over time

I believe it is possible to refine petroleum from oil, which there is still plenty of, though I don't know if refineries are needed for that purpose. If the bacteria and algae come good then refineries may be obsolete in 30 years as we'll be getting our petroleum products ready to use.

Refine petroleum from oil? Don't you mean gasoline? Nonetheless, the point stands: oil companies have no incentive to invest in additional infrastructure.

[JN1]

Sorry meant to type coal. Oops!

[bobalot]

I have heard a lot of these magical fixes coming up. Apparent solutions to all our problems.

The problem with a lot of these technologies is they will never be able to produce oil at the quantities we need.

[Darth Wong]

I have heard a lot of these magical fixes coming up. Apparent solutions to all our problems.

Many of which are being promoted by pitchmen for startup companies whose stock prices go through the roof if Wall Street finds their story credible. Hmmm ...

[SirNitram]

I have heard a lot of these magical fixes coming up. Apparent solutions to all our problems.

Many of which are being promoted by pitchmen for startup companies whose stock prices go through the roof if Wall Street finds their story credible. Hmmm ...

My personal favorite has to be this con-job, for it's blatant impossibility and yet how much credibility Reuters and others give it. link

You see, the water is poured into the cracking device, which produces hydrogen and oxygen, which are then combined in the fuel cell for power! GENIUS!

[bobalot]

The only one that actually worked that I have heard of is Biogas. Which is using genetically modified bacteria to breakdown garbage and release methane, which is then used as fuel.

Not sure if its economically viable, but definitely can't be scaled up to meet the power needs of entire cities.

Many of which are being promoted by pitchmen for startup companies whose stock prices go through the roof if Wall Street finds their story credible. Hmmm ...

Usually starts with a lot of hype and then trails off and is never heard from again.

[JN1]

We'll just have to wait and see. People we pretty sceptical about flight about a hundred years ago, so maybe this is the next big thing.

[SirNitram]

We'll just have to wait and see. People we pretty sceptical about flight about a hundred years ago, so maybe this is the next big thing.

Not people who had studied Bernoulli.

Or been in an airship or hot-air balloon.

Please make this stupid bullshit claim stop.

[Resinence]

We'll just have to wait and see. People we pretty sceptical about flight about a hundred years ago, so maybe this is the next big thing.

Which doesn't even apply to the water car anyway, since there is this little roadbump in the way called conservation of energy. You won't get more energy out of combining H and O2 than what you originally used to separate them from each other in the first place (presumably through electrolysis). Infact, that car would be more efficient if you simply ran the motor from the generator they use for the electrolysis, oh wait thats basically just a convoluted internal combustion engine

[Surlethe]

We'll just have to wait and see. People we pretty sceptical about flight about a hundred years ago, so maybe this is the next big thing.

Which doesn't even apply to the water car anyway, since there is this little roadbump in the way called conservation of energy. You won't get more energy out of combining H and O2 than what you originally used to separate them from each other in the first place (presumably through electrolysis). Infact, that car would be more efficient if you simply ran the motor from the generator they use for the electrolysis, oh wait thats basically just a convoluted internal combustion engine

You could level that charge equally well against battery-powered cars. The use of 2H+O2 -> 2H2O reactions is that the power source is portable, not that it liberates extra chemical energy like gasoline combustion does.

[Darth Wong]

We'll just have to wait and see. People we pretty sceptical about flight about a hundred years ago, so maybe this is the next big thing.

I agree about waiting and seeing. I don't agree that one should be optimistic about every commercial boast just because pessimists do not have a perfect track record. It's not as if I can buy a ticket to one of the lunar colonies that people thought we'd have by the 21st century.

[JN1]

We'll just have to wait and see. People we pretty sceptical about flight about a hundred years ago, so maybe this is the next big thing.

I agree about waiting and seeing. I don't agree that one should be optimistic about every commercial boast just because pessimists do not have a perfect track record. It's not as if I can buy a ticket to one of the lunar colonies that people thought we'd have by the 21st century.

I'm just a natural optimist. I prefer to believe that the future will be better than today.
Imagining ways we're all going to be killed off, or how life as we know it will end seem to have become very fashionable in recent years; at least that is the impression I get.

Come 2011 I'll be quite happy to be proven wrong.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I have heard a lot of these magical fixes coming up. Apparent solutions to all our problems.

Many of which are being promoted by pitchmen for startup companies whose stock prices go through the roof if Wall Street finds their story credible. Hmmm ...

My personal favorite has to be this con-job, for it's blatant impossibility and yet how much credibility Reuters and others give it. link

You see, the water is poured into the cracking device, which produces hydrogen and oxygen, which are then combined in the fuel cell for power! GENIUS!

Oh I've seen another variant of this particular scam. In fact, the daily dose of Google-induced hilarity at the bottom of the page serves up their ads whenever there's an article mentioning oil. The ones that say ZOMG, Stick it to BIG OIL And Run Your Car Off WATER!!!11shift+1 (And a lot of electricity, which has to come from somewhere.)

Of course, what they don't tell people is that what they claim is, in fact, a blatant violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Energy In = Energy Out, no matter what. And when one considers that 80% of the energy gained by burning the liberated hydrogen is promptly lost as waste heat . . . well, the only people getting rich off the scheme are the scammers.

That isn't to say that this Japanese company is any better. Anyone with even a high school level of physics education (which many journalists probably lack) would be able to immediately recognize that their claims also happen to blatantly violate the laws of thermodynamics.

[Junghalli]

You could level that charge equally well against battery-powered cars. The use of 2H+O2 -> 2H2O reactions is that the power source is portable, not that it liberates extra chemical energy like gasoline combustion does.

Precisely, the advantage is that it allows cars to be ultimately powered from oil-free sources (nuclear, hydroelectric, solar etc.).