What we really need to avoid Armageddon (Iran)

[AZ Jeff]

What "they" said in the 70s was that if trends continued as they were, we would begin to enter a phase of oil depletion around the turn of the century. QUOTE]
Actually, there were predictions in 1974 that, with the known supply of crude at that time, and the trend in consumption, we would be out of oil by 1994 (20 years).

I rememeber my Econ professor saying that this claim was total BS becuase it:
1. assumed that the cost oil would never justify more expensive recovery processes, and hence create a larger supply base
2. the cost of recovery would never go down.

Both of those have been proven to be incorrect assumptions, just as my Econ professor postulated.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

In fact, "they" were predicting overpopulation and mass starvation more than 100 years ago, coming soon to a civilization near you.

You could use that argument to try to make a lot of points. Take the Christian idea of the Apocalypse, for example--when Jesus lived there were many people who believed they were living in the end times. Ever since then there have been prophets proclaiming the end to be near. Today our world is filled with them. Some of them are even making international policy, both here and in Iran, based on such delusions. I say delusions because the one thing apocalyptic thinkers have had in common over all these millennia is that they've all been wrong. I can't see anything to indicate that the apocalyptic prophets of today are any less wrong than the millions of others who came before them.

But in the case of oil, we are approaching the end of easily recovered petroleum reserves. That end may come in decades or centuries; either way, it is just a moment in geographic time. We do know that we have achieved peak recovery in the U.S. decades ago, and that we may well be reaching the peak recovery in Saudi Arabia. That leaves Iran as the most productive oil fields going into the future.

We may not run out of oil anytime soon, but as it becomes more difficult to recover, it will also become more expensive. And the countries with the most easily recoverable reserves will become richer and more powerful.

 

[White Horseradish]

Electric transport will not happen - storage tech is not there and won't be barring a major breakthrough. You cannot have an electric car with range anywhere near that of an IC car that doesn't weigh like a loaded semi because of batteries. A rail network, maybe, but in US it's just not practical.

Ethanol and methanol are energy-intensive to manufacture and the plants stink something fierce. It's a maybe.

Energy satellites in space ain't gonna happen. Or, it will happen right up until one transmission beam gets knocked off target and microwaves a town like leftover chicken. Solar panels are kinda pricey, too.

Our best shot right now is turkey guts. Thermal depolymerization.
This will kill two birds with one stone - rid us of garbage and give us fuel. I really don't see a war for garbage, although we probably will start mining landfills if this takes off.

 

[Sindawe]

Now we HAVE to attack...

Iran has threatened to cut off a good chunk of the Western world's favorite drug!

Iranian official: UN sanctions may lead us to seal off Persian Gulf

By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent

A senior Iranian official threatened that Tehran may forcibly prevent oil export via the Straits of Hormuz if the UN imposed economic sanctions due to Iran's nuclear program, an Iranian news Web site said on Monday.

This is the first time an Iranian official makes military threats in a public statement on Tehran's recent disagreements with the West.

The news site, affiliated with the radical student movement in which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was once a member, quoted Mohammed-Nabi Rudaki, deputy chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission.

According to the report, Rudaki said that "if Europe does not act wisely with the Iranian nuclear portfolio and it is referred to the UN Security Council and economic or air travel restrictions are imposed unjustly, we have the power to halt oil supply to the last drop from the shores of the Persian Gulf via the Straits of Hormuz."

25% of the world's oil production passes through the Straits of Hormuz, which connect the Persian Gulf with the Indian Ocean. The meaning of Rudaki's threat is that not only will Tehran stop its oil production from reaching the West, it may also use force to prevent the other oil prodoucers in the region (the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait) from exporting to the West.

Raduki also warned that his country might quit from its membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/674159.html

 

[ArmedBear]

We may not run out of oil anytime soon, but as it becomes more difficult to recover, it will also become more expensive. And the countries with the most easily recoverable reserves will become richer and more powerful.

Gotta watch those straight-line models with only one variable.

The more expensive oil gets, the more alternatives there will be. The reason we use oil is not because Unocal holds a gun to our head. It's because it's cheaper to use oil for some important purposes than it is to use something else.

Also, the more expensive oil gets, the more oil we can recover from shale. We've got a lot of it, but it's not worth extracting until oil goes up more. Of course the hippies could stop this extraction, too, but I think their time is getting short.

 

[redneck2]

redneck, the Jews and many others may disagree that Hitler was attempting to "preserve" a way of life.

Say what?
...Funny how Mrs. Goldstein saw that just a little differently to you; and unlike you, she was there at the time.
Her gyspy neighbors, the confirmed bachelor down the way and a passel of political outsiders from the neighborhood didn't survive to report. Not a lot of way-of-life preservation going on for them, either.
The image of "The Fatherland" that was being promoted at the time had little to do with the actual way of life there. It was nothing but a fantasy.

You're missing my point. In Hitler's mind, he was "improving" Germany, at whatever cost. To the radical Muslims, you kill your enemies at whatever cost, even if it means killing yourself and your family. Therefore, you have nothing to lose as long as you kill enough of the enemy even if it means self destruction.

I say delusions because the one thing apocalyptic thinkers have had in common over all these millennia is that they've all been wrong. I can't see anything to indicate that the apocalyptic prophets of today are any less wrong than the millions of others who came before them.

You might consider a little Bible study. Then you'll start to understand. For the longest time I could never figure out why China would attack Israel. Makes sense now

 

[Herself]

Energy satellites in space ain't gonna happen. Or, it will happen right up until one transmission beam gets knocked off target and microwaves a town like leftover chicken. Solar panels are kinda pricey, too.

Bzzzt! Wrong!
I do this junk for a living. At work, we zap tight microwave beams across town all day long, packing several KW on a tight beam using one-meter dishes just to make with purty pictures -- and it won't even heat up your lunch! (Bummer. I carry an immersion heater).
The field strength -- energy density -- of a power-sat beam is too low to hurt anyone. The beam disperses like, I believe the technical term is, "like a mofo."
And it's got to, or it will boil rain clouds. At that point, you won't be gettin' any power at the collecting end.
The recovery antennas would take up quite a lot of room -- but manufacturing or low-income housing could be put underneath it. It could be a mesh (less that one-wavelength spacing!) like some old backyard satellite dishes, and would let enough sunlight through for some kinds of grazing, as well. The power-collecting would be distributed across the antenna; the usual term is "rectenna," a bunch of microwave crystal sets all hooked together.
It'd work. It cannot cook East Nowhere if the beam wanders; it's just not that beamy a beam!
Ain't no zap guns. Sorry, Buck. Sorry, James T.

Our best shot right now is turkey guts. Thermal depolymerization.
This will kill two birds with one stone - rid us of garbage and give us fuel. I really don't see a war for garbage, although we probably will start mining landfills if this takes off.

Yep -- though it may be even cheaper to boil down Canadian tar sands for awhile first.

--Herself

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I tend to be skeptical about alternative energies, but bio-diesel looks like it might be promising.

 

[Michigander]

Diminishing Oil Reserves?

Oil: What's Russia Really Sitting On?

NOVEMBER 22, 2004

As more oil becomes recoverable, reserve estimates are skyrocketing

With oil still hovering near $50 a barrel, the last thing people want to hear is that there's even less of the stuff out there than previously thought. This year investors in the oil industry have been shaken by the revelation that Royal Dutch/Shell Group (RD ) overstated its proven reserves by at least 23%, some 4.5 billion barrels, with more possible downgrades to come. There's growing disquiet that other major oil companies may also have inflated reserves.

But there's one place -- Russia -- where reserve estimates just seem to go up and up. In its annual statistical survey of world energy, BP PLC (BP ) has recently revised its estimates of Russia's total proven oil reserves to 69.1 billion barrels, 6% of the world's total, up from 45 billion bbl. in 2001. But according to auditors with a worm's-eye view of what's actually going on in the depths of Siberia, such estimates may just scratch the surface of Russia's real potential. According to a recent study by Dallas-based energy reserve auditors DeGolyer & MacNaughton, whose clients include leading Russian energy companies such as Gazprom and Yukos, Russia's true recoverable reserves are between 150 billion bbl. and 200 billion bbl. That's up from industry estimates of 100 billion bbl. a few years ago.

Why such a big gap in the estimates? Because it's one thing to be sitting on oil reserves, another to be able to exploit them commercially. In Russia's main oil-producing region in western Siberia, proven reserves represent just 18% to 24% of all oil in the ground, in contrast to about 45% in Western oil-producing regions such as Alaska and the North Sea. But as Russian oil companies adopt technologies, such as horizontal wells and computerized reservoir management systems, the estimated recovery rates are being revised. Thanks to new techniques, which make it possible to obtain oil even from apparently depleted fields, Russian oil companies already have managed to boost their output by 50% since 1998. "The biggest thing is the [new] technology being deployed in western Siberia. The results are beginning to show," says Martin Wiewiorowski, senior vice-president of DeGolyer & MacNaughton in Moscow.

This increasing recoverability, and not dramatic new discoveries of oil, explains why Russia's proven reserves keep shooting up. The leading Russian oil companies have all announced big increases this year, following independent international audits. Lukoil (LUKOY ), Russia's largest oil outfit, saw a boost of 4.7% in proven reserves both this year and last, according to Society of Petroleum Engineers SPE standards. No. 2 producer Yukos, meanwhile, jumped 13.2% this year, according to stringent standards set by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission.

The growth in Russia's proven reserves is mainly happening at existing fields in western Siberia, a supposedly "mature" region where production had been declining until recently. DeGolyer & MacNaughton predicts that western Siberia could boost its output to 10 million bbl. a day by 2012, up from less than 6 million at present, and keep production at that level for at least 10 years. The use of even newer technologies available by then means that western Siberian oil production may not decline for decades to come. Russia's reserve potential is vaster still when undeveloped regions, such as the Arctic, the Caspian, and in particular eastern Siberia, are factored in. And then there's Russia's plentiful supply of natural gas. It is already acknowledged as having the world's largest gas reserves, with 47 trillion cubic meters, or 26.7% of global reserves.

But tapping Russia's vast oil pool will require billions in investment, especially in export pipelines. Although on course for 8% growth this year, production gains could slow as export bottlenecks appear. But infrastructure investment is likely to go up in tandem with reserve estimates. If Russia finds a way to get all that lovely oil to needy international consumers, its days as a global energy powerhouse could be just beginning.

source: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_47/b3909079_mz054.htm

Here's some interesting reading on the subject: http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html

 

[redneck2]

For those that "think logically", click this link and read about the rogue submarine

http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com/

not everyone likes to play nice in the sandbox

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

It's too bad Russia is so unstable. Shutting off the natural gas tap to Europe a few weeks back shook things up a bit.

Improvements in recovery technology are some of the most important advances we can make when it comes to keeping the oil tap flowing, and at $67 a barrel, which is what oil closed at yesterday, these advances become more affordable.

But the upcoming war in Iran isn't just about oil. It's about protecting the hegomony of the petrodollar.

 

[Optical Serenity]

Iran, etc., will not pop a bomb on the US.

They will give one to an organization who will.

That's why it is called state-sponsored terrorism.

"You can't do anything to me, because I didn't do it, and you can't prove that I provided the thing either - maybe it was the french!"

+1



Very well said...Iran is clever, very clever...which also makes them very dangerous.

 

[carlrodd]

Our best shot right now is turkey guts. Thermal depolymerization.
This will kill two birds with one stone - rid us of garbage and give us fuel. I really don't see a war for garbage, although we probably will start mining landfills if this takes off.

isn't that how doc brown powered the enhanced DeLorian after his first trip to the future?

 

[BenW]

Go electric. Start with nuclear plants, just make sure they have enough funding to operate safely.

Which, had the same "Get Oil Out" protestors not also been protesting nuclear power since the 1970s (to the delight of oil producers), we could already be doing. We need more nuclear power and hydrogen production. Understanding nuclear power requires lots of logic and little emotion though, so we have a problem implementing it.

Just like we have a problem regarding oil drilling at Coal Oil Point off the California Coast, where the second largest oil seep in the world exists, over 300,000,000 cubic meters of gas are naturally leaked every year, and oil laps up on the beach every day. Thousands of gallons of oil naturally seep up here every day, while 6 miles away, in Federal waters, the oil rigs (grandfathered in before the "no drilling" moratorium) are fined $50K for spilling a gallon of oil. Lots of emotion, little logic. There is a stronger case for drilling here than in ANWR.

We have lots of safe domestic areas where we can drill for oil while we wean ourselves of the foreign stuff and build up infrastructure for more efficient fuels, like hydrogen.

 

[Sindawe]

isn't that how doc brown powered the enhanced DeLorian after his first trip to the future?

IIRC, that was stale beer and banana skins. But in the end its all the same thing, just carbon arranged in different ways.

There are a host of small things we could be doing as a nation to help wean ourselves off the oil as fuel addiction. Solar shingles on houses and buildings; smaller energy draining appliances for those who don't need the big jobs becoming the norm; regular use of compact fluorescent and LED lighting instead of incandescent; HEAVY tax breaks for consumers purchasing a vehicle powered by H2 instead of gasoline, as well as the freaking things not costing an arm more then the standard fuel types.

 

[middy]

How is hydrogen a source of energy? It's not like it's laying around in pure form like oil. It's more of an energy storage medium, you have to invest more energy into producing hydrogen than you get by burning it. It's really no more than a very efficient battery.

If we come up with a way to produce a whole lot of electricity (terawatts), like with lots of efficient and safe fission reactors, then I guess hydrogen would be a great way to store that energy for powering your vehicle. As it is now, you're just using hydrogen that was produced with electricity generated by burning lots of oil (and coal).

 

[BenW]

consumers purchasing a vehicle powered by H2 instead of gasoline, as well as the freaking things not costing an arm more then the standard fuel types.

I just read a couple of days ago (sorry, can't remember where) that hydrogen currently costs about three times more than gasoline, but will get you about three times as far on an "equivalent" amount. If true, this is really the "plateau" where vehicvle manufacturers and oil companies need to look to their futures and begin to retool and adapt.



I've also been really impressed with the progress solar cells and power storage have made. I plan on incorporating them into the "energy structure" of the house I build after I retire. Hopefully by then domestic use fuel cells will have advanced as well. A combination of the two would provide a powerful, reliable "off grid" power structure for a home.

 

[goosegunner]

Diminishing Oil Reserves?

Answer would be different depending on who you ask, even if they have the same numbers and calculations:

Oil producing nations (like Norway ) will find that there will be oil for 100 more years, as higher prices means more accesible oil, and we do not really care what the oil costs as long as we get profits. And as long as there is enough oil delivered that it is a main energy source prices will be nice (for us).

Oil consuming nations (like the U.S.A ) will find it to be verry limited time left with oil, not because oil is not avilable, but because the price gets so high it changes your way of life.

Ofcourse things may be comletely different, like if the U.N gets crazy(er) and listen to the tree-huggers we may have tons of cheap oil, but no one are allowed to use it (except U.N officials of course), some revolutionary new tecnology is discovered or we are to busy to die in an atomic-winter.

 

[IndianaDean]

We are not running out of oil

Read the book "Black Gold, Stranglehold" by Jerome R. Corsi and Craig R. Smith. They report in detail, with links to the sources to back them up, how oil is NOT a fossil fuel, we are not running out. Our world reserves are at an all-time high, and still going up. Russia has known since the 1950s it is not a fossil fuel when Stalin had his scientists do research on oil at the end of WWII. Thousands of scientific papers were written about it during that time and ignored by the west. The book proves in detail that oil is not a fossil fuel and is a renewable energy source.
I asked a friend who worked on oil barges in the Middle East in the 70s about it and he said Iraq and Saudi Arabia have known this since that time.
Oh, and oil is and still will be by far the cheapest energy source. Alternate energies like hydrogen, at least for now, would cost us 3 to 4 times as much to use, i.e. car prices, etc.

 

[Cosmoline]

A senior Iranian official threatened that Tehran may forcibly prevent oil export via the Straits of Hormuz if the UN imposed economic sanctions due to Iran's nuclear program, an Iranian news Web site said on Monday.

ROTFLOL

I'm trying to picture how long the mighty Iranian Navy would last against the combined naval powers of the western world. Ten minutes? Maybe less.

They stand absolutely zero chance of pulling something off like that. Less than zero.

 

[redneck2]

IIRC, the straits are 300 yards wide at the narrowest point.

Two tankers passing each other hit with one rocket would block the passage and equal 25% reduction in oil worldwide

Crude price doubled when there was a 4% shortage

 

[Biker]

Bingo. I suspect that even one tanker might do the job.
Biker

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I'm trying to picture how long the mighty Iranian Navy would last against the combined naval powers of the western world. Ten minutes? Maybe less.

They stand absolutely zero chance of pulling something off like that. Less than zero.

Cosmoline, I appreciate your posts and often learn something from them, but the above is a perfect example of the kind of short-sighted thinking that would cause us to lose a war against Iran. As pointed out, it would be fairly simple for Iran to shut down shipping in the Straights, and IIRC, they have the firepower there to do it. Their goal would be to shut the tap on oil. If we attacked them in return, we would certainly help achieve that goal. For all the blustery talk on all sides of this issue, I suspect that behind the scenes everyone involved is working mightily to prevent that sort of oil shock.

Misunderstanding and underestimating the forces you are up against is an example of the kind of hubris that caused Donald Rumsfeld to bugger the pooch in the occupation of Iraq. All politics aside, had Rumsfeld followed the advice of his best generals (the ones he fired because he disagreed with them) and the most credible experts in Iraq (rather than the self-serving con men who told him what he wanted to hear), many, many American lives would have been spared, and we'd possibly be looking at exiting a stable, democratic Iraq soon. There's nothing we can do to fix Rumsfeld's hubris in Iraq at this point, but we can make damn sure that we don't deal with the Iranian situation in the same manner.

 

[AZ Jeff]

Bingo. I suspect that even one tanker might do the job.
Biker

And how long would that sunken tanker sit in that location? Given the importance of flow of ships thru the Straights of Hormuz, I figure the US Navy would assume control of the straights (and the land adjacent) within 48 hours, and begin salvage operations immediately thereafter.

I am no expert on marine salvage but the straights would probably reopen within 2 months of such a sinking.

 

[Biker]

Could be you're right, I don't know. This is all speculation of course, but what would happen to oil prices in those two months and would Iran allow the operation to continue unchallenged?
Biker