Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (121742)	12/17/2003 5:09:36 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 281500

Hubbert's prediction was(not may have been) correct as far as oil production in the US goes and the latest predictions are based on the rate of discovery of new fields and their size as well as the rate of change of oil consumption(demand) not on the production figures. Noel.. ONCE AGAIN, the original discussion was about global oil production, not merely one segment of an already heavily explored and exploited part of the planet (the US). Hubbert had the advantage of possessing well defined datum about US oil reserves and production, which made his ability to predict a US production peak easier. But there are substantial portions of the world which remain relatively unexplored for many reasons, most importantly the cost and available technology. The fact is that we're arguing apples and oranges here.. I'm NOT even attempting to claim that the US will ever resume previous production levels. I think that's a given. But even that could change if by some leap of technology we find it cost-effective to mine oil shale, or tap the tar sand deposits of Athabasca, where HUGE quanities of heavy hydro-carbons are located: mees.com For example, the Saudis have some 260 Billion barrels of proven reserves, and probably 1 trillion in ultimately recoverable reserves. eia.doe.gov Canada alone has 1.6 Trillion barrels in potentially recoverable reserves locked up in heavy oil and tar sands, with another 2 1/2 trillion locked up in Colombia and Russia: mees.com So are you REALLY going to sit there with a straight face and try and convince us that we're running out of oil? Sure.. we may not want to scar the countryside recovering it, or pay a cost higher than the traditional oil production we're accustomed to.. But the oil is there if and when the economics, political will, and technology converge to where it's profitable to exploit it when we're ready.. Which is what I was pointing about Hubbert's analysis. He appears to have based it upon the most readily exploitable reserves based upon a certain price range of commercial viability. But commericial viability depends upon the price that consumers are willing to pay for the oil, as well as the consequences of high energy costs upon the global economy, which would reduce demand. But I have also seen it postulated that economies such as exists in the US now, can sustain higher oil prices with less deleterious effects than would be the case in a newly industrializing economy. Futhermore, the US leads the way in developing alternative fuel technology such as fuel cells... But it faces a very major question in how it's going to produce large quantities of hydrogen and the network to distribute it (in part by using existing natural gas infrastructure).. I say nuclear power, but the political will doesn't yet exist to re-commence that option.. Bottom line.. the energy is out there.. What is blocking its exploitation is cost, and the attitude of a society which possesses a NIMBY or ABH (anywhere but here) mentality when it comes to energy self-sufficiency. Hawk The difference is that