However, there is more than one variable. Americans use more gasoline since fuel efficiency standards have been enacted because there are more drivers and also more miles per driver.

There are more drivers.  However, nobody has cited data showing that vehicle miles/driver has increased (VMT).  If you are making THAT claim, then it behooves you to back it up.  good luck

However, there is more than one variable. Americans use more gasoline since fuel efficiency standards have been enacted because there are more drivers and also more miles per driver.

There are more drivers. However, nobody has cited data showing that vehicle miles/driver has increased (VMT). If you are making THAT claim, then it behooves you to back it up. good luck

 

I already linked a source showing that gasoline consumption per capita has basically held flat since 2000.  Considering that fuel efficiency has gone up since then, that necessarily means that there have been more vehicle-miles per capita driven.  In addition, since the real thing you're trying to get at is fuel consumption, that link is also evidence that increasing fuel efficiency doesn't decrease fuel consumption.

Here is a chart from one of the links that Gramarye posted.

 

As an aside, note that vehicle miles driven decreased in 2008, the year that some are claiming is the peak date.

 

 

 

  The department of energy calculates miles per household instead of miles per driver:

 

  In 1988, the per-household average was 18,595 miles, compared with the 21,100 miles averaged in 1994.

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/chapter3.html

  "I think we'll see that in the next 10-20 years, with increasingly rapid adoption after that as fossil fuel prices rise."

 

    Today, it is more economical to drive a gasoline-powered car than a hybrid or electric car.

 

    A theme of yours is that as fossil fuel prices rise, other forms of technology will become more competitive.

 

    You are correct in that they will be more competitive, but at the same time they will be less affordable. It takes fossil fuels to produce solar panels, electrical equipment, and hybrid and electric cars.

 

    Today, 150 million Amercians drive. I expect that number to go down.

 

    Miles driven more than DOUBLED between 1970 and 2008. No one seemed to notice the difference. If the curve is symmetric about 2008, we will decrease back to 1970 levels by 2046.

 

A theme of yours is that as fossil fuel prices rise, other forms of technology will become more competitive.

 

You are correct in that they will be more competitive, but at the same time they will be less affordable. It takes fossil fuels to produce solar panels, electrical equipment, and hybrid and electric cars.

 

It does take fossil fuels to produce all of those things, but that's not all it takes, and the other elements can come down in price.  After all, it takes fossil fuels and petroleum products to produce computers, too, and those have come down substantially in price (and increased substantially in performance) since the ENIAC.  In addition, one of the reasons I consistently support and defend pro-growth policies is that it allows for a greater number of people to absorb those higher costs.  If an electric car costs $40,000 today and costs $50,000 in 2020, but our median household income has also increased 25% in the interim, we haven't lost ground--and, of course, if the price stays flat or comes down, we've actually gained ground.

 

After all, it takes energy to produce just about everything in the world.  This was one of the reasons energy costs drove up so many other costs in the commodity bubble before the bust.  Your argument is basically that everything will get less affordable as fossil fuels become scarcer.  There is, of course, truth in that--but I don't think it really takes anything away from what I've said here.

 

In addition, while an electric car may be more expensive up front, the costs of the electricity to charge it are substantially less than the cost of filling up a tank.  Coal is still our cheapest (and thus most widespread in use) energy source for electricity, so you are correct that we will still require fossil fuels to charge our cars.  However, enough electricity to take a Tesla Roadster 200 miles costs substantially less than the amount of gasoline necessary to take a Lotus Elise (basically the same chassis) 200 miles.  Even as electric cars inevitably get heavier, I don't see the marginal cost advantage getting lost--not unless the price of gas absolutely collapses (fat chance) or the price of electricity skyrockets, and since electricity can be generated from many sources, all of them would have to skyrocket, or the demand for electricity would have to skyrocket notwithstanding the retardant effect of the increased price, to make up the difference.

 

The unknown for me is maintenance costs.  I have seen some information suggesting that fully electric vehicles might be cheaper to maintain than traditional gasoline-powered ones because they need fewer moving parts.  That said, I don't have enough information on that topic, so I'll just flag it to return to it later for now.

 

    Then why don't we see more electric cars today?

 

    Electric cars have been around since about 1900. There are certain advantages: they are smooth and quiet. The don't use energy when they aren't moving, as opposed to a gasoline car that idles. They can be charged at night, during off-peak periods. Electric technology is very well developed.

 

    I don't believe there is any conspiracy by oil companies to prevent electric car technology.

 

    Maybe they don't have enough power to run the heat and A/C? Or the range is just too short? Perhaps they are more expensive?

 

    In any case, electric cars are NOT new technology. There must be a reason why they are not more popular NOW. What do you think that reason is?

 

   

 

   

   

I think you nailed it with the short range.  The energy-density-to-weight ratio of the battery is the critical variable that I'm looking at for improvement towards everyday viability.  Most of the weight of the Tesla, for example, is the battery.  Since the features like the heat and A/C run off the same power source as the actual propulsion in an electric car, using features shortens the range, too, so we need a capacitor with enough juice to handle those demands.

 

There may be more intricate explanations as to why we haven't seen more widespread adoption, but I think Occam's Razor leans in favor of the range issue.  (The recharge time issue is up there, too.)

We have no obligation to kill the engines of our economy (quite literally, by the demands of some environmentalists) in order to have a next-to-negligible effect on our need for oil. 

 

It appears you mistakenly assume that the economy can only grow if we use more energy.  According to the Rocky Mountain Institute:

 

"American oil savings were a gusher in 1977–85, but slowed to a trickle in the mid-1980s when we closed the main valve—light-vehicle efficiency. During 1975–2003, U.S. primary energy consumption per dollar of real GDP fell by 43% 220—in effect, creating the nation's biggest energy "source," now providing two-fifths of U.S. energy services, and equivalent to 1.9 times 2003 U.S. oil consumption, 5.1 times oil production, 3.4 times net oil imports, and 13.9 times Persian Gulf net imports. Per-capita U.S. primary energy use rose 0.6% while per-capita GDP grew 78%."

 

This also shows that increased fuel efficiency can and in fact did reduce oil use at one time.  Anyway,

The fact is we still waste a huge amount of energy, and the biggest, cheapest, and quickest to deploy source of energy at our disposal is still efficiency. 

 

Eighth and State:

Today, 150 million Amercians drive. I expect that number to go down.

 

It appears that it may have begun already.  Only time will tell:

 

U.S. Car Ownership Declines for the First Time Ever

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/ariel-schwartz/sustainability/us-car-ownership-declines-first-time-ever

 

Is Digital Revolution Driving Decline in U.S. Car Culture?

http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=144155

 

However, there is more than one variable. Americans use more gasoline since fuel efficiency standards have been enacted because there are more drivers and also more miles per driver.

 

And from the mid 1980's until recently, Americans switched from cars, which have more stringent CAFE standards to light trucks and SUV's which received less attention as far as fuel efficiency goes.  There was a period earlier in this decade when the average fuel efficiency of cars Americans were sending to the scrap yards was higher than what Americans were buying.  Yes, Americans were driving more, but we also stopped making fuel efficiency a priority back in the mid 1980s. 

 

 

 

  Waste is a matter of opinion. One man's dream vacation to Hawaii is another man's access to a job for an entire year.

 

  Waste is a matter of opinion. One man's dream vacation to Hawaii is another man's access to a job for an entire year.

 

Not in the context the context that the Rocky Mountain Institute talks about energy efficiency:  there is considerable room to save a lot of energy with no change in lifestyle.  This is the same context I am using. 

 

For example: through my job I get around to many industrial businesses.  I see a lot of energy waste.  I've seen many instances where businesses could have the same output with less energy and at a net cost savings.  Amory Lovins of RMI likes to say:  It's cheaper to save energy than to buy it. 

^I did some energy audits of churches, non-profits, nursing homes, elderly people's homes, etc. while in college and there are some very simple things that everyone can do to greatly reduce their energy consumption.  It's really all about education and making people understand that it's easy, affordable, and will save you money.

 

  True, but there is a cost, albeit small, associated with keeping track of energy use. It's easier, for example, to leave the lights on instead of constantly turning them on and off as needed.

 

    It's been said that Americans worrying about peak oil is like buying ten times as many groceries as one needs and throwing away 9 parts out of 10. Then again, if you have that much food available, why bother conserving?

 

   

 

 

Even I'll admit that that analogy is overly dismissive of the consequences of peak oil, and I'm one generally not worried about them: Food *is* renewable, at least as much as anything in the world is.  This country produces enough food every year to feed our population and more--even if our population were the size of China's, we probably be quite OK.  It may not all be Snowville Creamery and 2silos, but nevertheless, if we could just teleport food (i.e., if logistics were no obstacle), we could feed a large portion of the planet with the Great Plains alone.

 

Granted, of course, we use some petroleum products in fertilizers, but nevertheless, as a general matter, food grows back; oil doesn't, at least not at the rates we'd like.

 

  We use A LOT of petroleum products in food production.

 

  Look at old aerial photos from the 1940's. Besides the lack of sprawl, something that really stands out is the lack of forests. Basically, it takes 1/10 the amount of land today to grow food. Plus, so much agricultural land has been opened up by irrigation in the arid southwest.

 

    A lot of farms have become forests, and subdivisions.

 

    This is possible partly because of petroleum based chemicals, not to mention mechanized farming.

 

    Some pages back, Rob explained that old-fashioned farms were actually more energy-efficient, but with plenty of oil, why worry about energy efficiency?

True, but there is a cost, albeit small, associated with keeping track of energy use. It's easier, for example, to leave the lights on instead of constantly turning them on and off as needed.

 

With respect to lights, this is true.  In fact, many people deliberately leave some lights on when they leave.  (I don't know if this actually does deter burglars or not, but at least it's fairly cheap.)  The total cost of running a 100W light bulb for 10 hours is whatever 1 kW/h costs.  That's probably in the neighborhood of a dime.  If you want to know what really drains your power, look to your air conditioner and your heat (if it's electric).  Big-screen TVs can be hogs depending on whether you're watching them every minute you're home or just every now and then.  Ditto electric ranges.

 

I think people intent on the symbolic nature of being energy-conscious in their behavior miss the real differences between different efficiency-promoting acts.  Perhaps on a symbolic level, turning out the lights and turning down the air conditioner (i.e., raising the thermostat) are similar.  In terms of the actual energy they save, though, they're not.

America and big oil: We wish we knew how to quit you

Posted by Jon Talton

for The Seattle Times

 

On Tuesday, President Obama told the nation, "the tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America's innovation and seize control of our own destiny." Today he's in Columbus touting federal stimulus money going to...a road project.

 

Last year alone, the stim put more than $100 billion into highways and the auto industry. This as transit systems around the nation were suffering and cutting service, Amtrak remained a hostage to politics, and high-speed rail continued to be a dream to study -- even as our competitors already have it and are building more. It's been shown that road projects don't ease unemployment. It's not even true that "roads pay for themselves," even without factoring in the unfunded externalities such as the cost of sprawl, pollution and environmental damage.

 

Full op-ed at: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/soundeconomywithjontalton/2012150660_america_and_big_oil_we_wish_we.html?syndication=rss

Cross Posted.

 

This high concentration of methane from a very deep well is predicted by and strong evidence of the abiotic theory of catalytic reformation petroleum genesis: 

 

"NEW ORLEANS -- It is an overlooked danger in the oil spill crisis: The crude gushing from the well contains vast amounts of natural gas that could pose a serious threat to the Gulf of Mexico's fragile ecosystem.  The oil emanating from the seafloor contains about 40 percent methane, compared with about 5 percent found in typical oil deposits, said John Kessler, a Texas A&M University oceanographer who is studying the impact of methane from the spill.  That means huge quantities of methane have entered the Gulf, scientists say, potentially suffocating marine life and creating "dead zones" where oxygen is so depleted that nothing lives.  "This is the most vigorous methane eruption in modern human history," Kessler said."

 

More at http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/06/gulf_oil_full_of_methane_addin.html

 

 

 

DOE estimates 100-mile automotive batteries will cost just $5,000 in 2020

 

Take, for example, the government's chart on the "Forecasted Cost of a Typical Electric‐Vehicle Battery." In 2009, the DOE's Vehicle Technologies Program says, the cost was around $33,000. This will drop to $10,000 in 2015 and then keep sinking, all the way to around $5,000 in 2021 and $3,000 in 2030. The weight of a 100-mile automotive battery will drop significantly, too, the DOE predicts, from around 333 kilograms today to just 55 kg in the 2020-2030 timeframe.

 

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/07/20/doe-estimates-100-mile-automotive-batteries-will-cost-just-5-00/

 

Ethanol hardball

Industry trumpets Gulf oil spill as justification for federal help for 'clean' U.S. energy source

Wednesday, August 4, 2010  02:51 AM

By Jeffrey Tomich

 

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

 

A corn-covered fuel pump is on display at an ethanol industry conference in Denver.ST. LOUIS -- The ethanol industry has draped itself in the American flag for years, positioning itself as a cleaner, homegrown alternative to oil. Never has it made that argument more loudly than today.

 

With regulators and legislators poised to decide issues that will shape ethanol's future for years, the ethanol lobby increasingly is making the scene in the Gulf of Mexico, where millions of gallons of crude spilled from BP's deepwater well, a backdrop for the nation's energy debate.

 

"The choice between the dangers of our addiction to oil and the promise of American renewable fuels is as clear today as the contrast between the blackened estuaries of the Gulf Coast and the sparkling green fields of rural America," said Robert Dinneen, president of the Washington-based Renewable Fuels Association.

 

Fulllstory at: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2010/08/04/ethanol-hardball.html?sid=101

Corn ethanol is not the answer.  For every 1 unit of energy put into ehtanol production we only get 1.3 units in return.  With corn being one of our main food sources it doesn't make sense to use tons of corn to produce a nominal amount of ethanol while pushing up food prices in the process.  We need to be focusing on other sources for our ethanol production such as sugarcane and switchgrass which have a much more favorable energy balance (up to 1:20).

Want to see the impact of ethanol? Drive west from Lodi on U.S. 224 out into the vast farmland away from suburban Cleveland and Akron, past all the corn and soybean farms. You will notice something very strange:  lush, abundant and growing fields of corn and soybeans surrounding farmhouses that are abandoned and falling apart.

 

I asked my brother about this. He is the superintendent of a rural school district near Tiffin and therefore is very aware of the status of local properties (the source of most school funding in Ohio). He said family farms have been bought up by large companies to grow the feedstock for ethanol. So while the farms are very productive, no one lives on them anymore. They are now part of a very large factory floor.

 

Well, at least that's one way of stopping suburban sprawl....

^That's been a trend for a very long time.  Corporate entities will buy up the land and contract with local farmers to do the planting, spraying, and harvesting.  Sometimes it works out well because it reduces the local farmers risk and gives him/her a more stable income.  Of course that income is typically less than it would be if they owned their own land, but what can you do. 

^That's been a trend for a very long time. Corporate entities will buy up the land and contract with local farmers to do the planting, spraying, and harvesting. Sometimes it works out well because it reduces the local farmers risk and gives him/her a more stable income. Of course that income is typically less than it would be if they owned their own land, but what can you do.

 

Typically less, yes, but the stability is in itself a form of compensation, or at least a form of something valuable.  One down year can crush a family farm even if it's had more profitable years in the past, especially if the profits from those more profitable years in the past were just used for ordinary living expenses and not saved against a hard year.

 

    The average farmer in Ohio today farms 3000 acres and owns a million dollars worth of equipment. The family farm is practically gone as a profitable venture, although there are a few family farms and specialty farms left.

Actually, Ohio is seeing a resurgence of small family farms that are growing fruit & vegetables or raising livestock for meat or dairy products for local consumption.  Certainly not on a grand scale, but growing nonetheless.  But I digress....back to the Peak Oil discussion.

Seems like as good a place as any for this:

 

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/new-solar-method-080210.html

 

New solar energy conversion process discovered by Stanford engineers could revamp solar power production

 

Abstract: A new process that simultaneously combines the light and heat of solar radiation to generate electricity could offer more than double the efficiency of existing solar cell technology, say the Stanford engineers who discovered it and proved that it works. The process, called "photon enhanced thermionic emission," or PETE, could reduce the costs of solar energy production enough for it to compete with oil as an energy source.

 

Stanford engineers have figured out how to simultaneously use the light and heat of the sun to generate electricity in a way that could make solar power production more than twice as efficient as existing methods and potentially cheap enough to compete with oil.

 

Unlike photovoltaic technology currently used in solar panels – which becomes less efficient as the temperature rises – the new process excels at higher temperatures.

 

Called "photon enhanced thermionic emission," or PETE, the process promises to surpass the efficiency of existing photovoltaic and thermal conversion technologies.

 

"This is really a conceptual breakthrough, a new energy conversion process, not just a new material or a slightly different tweak," said Nick Melosh, an assistant professor of materials science and engineering, who led the research group. "It is actually something fundamentally different about how you can harvest energy."

 

And the materials needed to build a device to make the process work are cheap and easily available, meaning the power that comes from it will be affordable.

 

The last part remains to be seen: The article notes that part of the team's breakthrough involved coating a semiconductor with a thin coating of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesium">cesium</a>, which is pyrophoric, melts at 28 C/83 F, and is only three ppm of the Earth's crust.  Nevertheless, there are concentrated deposits of it in places (two thirds of the world's supply is estimated to be in Canada), which makes it much easier to extract than if it were distributed evenly around the world.

 

Notwithstanding the above, this remains a substantial breakthrough, even for just the proof of concept (i.e., that the same apparatus can be made to convert both light and heat to electricity).

Stanford engineers have figured out how to simultaneously use the light and heat of the sun to generate electricity in a way that could make solar power production more than twice as efficient as existing methods and potentially cheap enough to compete with oil.

 

That would be huge. PV cells are "feel good" attempts. They convert so little of the sun's energy at present that they're hardly worthwhile. The amount is so small that even doubling the conversion to electricity is barely worth getting excited. But if it can start to compete with oil, then it's huge.

 

While pv cells are not very efficient, if we put them on every roof in the US they would generate enough electricity to avoid building a power plant or two.  Certainly would help during summer a/c season, which seems to have been a lot longer the past few years.

 

    ^----- But how many power plants will it take to produce that many photovoltaics?

 

    Of course photovoltaics have the potential to convert huge amounts of solar power to electric power. That's not the question. The question is whether or not photovoltaics can generate more power than it takes to produce them.

 

 

  As a reality check, General Motors submitted a 700 page document to address the government bailout and some of their stockholder issues.

 

    A tidbit in that document that I noted was that GM admits that the Chevy Volt has not yet been proven commercially viable.

 

  ^----- But how many power plants will it take to produce that many photovoltaics?

 

Of course photovoltaics have the potential to convert huge amounts of solar power to electric power. That's not the question. The question is whether or not photovoltaics can generate more power than it takes to produce them.

 

Another thing to consider is raw materials.  Do we have enough of the materials (besides silicon) to make a ton of PV cells (cheaply)?

 

Same thing goes for hybrid/electric cars.  We don't have enough rare earth magnets or lithium to build an electric car for everyone.  At least not without invading Chile and Bolivia (lithium) and going to war with China (magnets)  :)

 

I'm still banking on supercapacitors.

Germany just came out with a peak oil report with similar conclusions the Pentagon released early this year:  oil price spikes within 3 years, depletion setting in after 2014.  This may be our last chance to start building an alternative to our oil-guzzling transportation system before the fecal matter hits the rotary oscillator.  Predictions are a tricky thing, though (Matt Simmons was going certainly going to lose his bet about $200/bbl oil this year, but he died of a heart attack last month).  Only time will tell. 

 

 

 

I didn't know Matt Simmons died!!! OMG! He was one of my peak oil heroes...

Peak oil won't happen anytime soon if we can figure out how to safely drill 5 miles below the Earth's crust. 

To do what? To reach that oil-filled nougat center??? We know where the oil is (discoveries have diminished to near zero), how much is left down there (the expensive half of the conventional reserves remain), and what it will cost to tap it (not just in money, but environmental, political, military etc). We also know certain oil reserves and near-oil substances (oil shale, sands etc) become too expensive and energy-intensive to reach and refine to be commercially usuable. We will never run out of oil because the last drops will be too expensive to burn.

Here's a thought.  If any of you are car guys, you know how a tiny little weight on your wheel can be the difference between it being balanced or not.  How much oil do we have to suck out of the ground before we throw the earth off balance.

 

J/K :) have a good holiday weekend.

Better and more serious question:  how much oil production can we suddenly take off-line before we throw the economy out of balance?

From my vantage point inside oil pipeline construction, Brazil, Austrailia and Indonesia are ramping up big time

To do what? To reach that oil-filled nougat center??? We know where the oil is (discoveries have diminished to near zero), how much is left down there (the expensive half of the conventional reserves remain), and what it will cost to tap it (not just in money, but environmental, political, military etc). We also know certain oil reserves and near-oil substances (oil shale, sands etc) become too expensive and energy-intensive to reach and refine to be commercially usuable. We will never run out of oil because the last drops will be too expensive to burn.

 

 

Abiotic oil. 

Cool. How much needs to be made to make a pinprick's difference in a 90-million-barrel-per-day oil consumption market? What state or states will we evacuate for the pools of abiotic oil necessary to make a meaningful difference? Seriously though, what's the cost per barrel? What are the impacts from emissions? What's the energy returned on energy invested? If these aren't any better than conventional oil, then why should we do it?

 

 

I didn't know Matt Simmons died!!! OMG! He was one of my peak oil heroes...

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-08-18/death-matthew-simmons

Cool. How much needs to be made to make a pinprick's difference in a 90-million-barrel-per-day oil consumption market? What state or states will we evacuate for the pools of abiotic oil necessary to make a meaningful difference? Seriously though, what's the cost per barrel? What are the impacts from emissions? What's the energy returned on energy invested? If these aren't any better than conventional oil, then why should we do it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

You need to do some more research.  Abiotic Oil. Not Biotic Oil. 

 

 

No, just having a senior moment. I'm familiar with it. I also remember this piece from one of my favorite sites.....

 

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/11/4/15537/8056

 

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/11/4/15537/8056

 

What is disturbing is that these abiotic oil arguments are presented in the mainstream media (MSM, here CNBC) without any critical analysis. In the short interview format TV allows, Simmons was unable (or unwilling) rebut Smith's claim. Many fantastic and unbelievable claims are being put forward now as people scramble around to dispute oil depletion--abiotic oil is one of these. It is perhaps the most insidious of these false claims with its implicit promise that, to paraphrase Duffeyes, everything is OK because "God [the deep hot biosphere] will put more oil in the ground".

The magazine, "Geotimes", which is the academic journal for news and trends in Geology concluded in 2005:

 

“The inorganic origin remains a hypothesis; it has not been proven to be a significant contributor to currently known economic petroleum accumulations.”

 

http://www.geotimes.org/oct05/feature_abiogenicoil.html

 

We can't bet our future on abiotic/abiogenic oil, not by a long shot. 

 

 

    Maybe the current thinking on the origin of petroleum is completely in error. However, it doesn't matter. Wherever oil comes from, empirical evidence suggests that petroleum production is peaking. Oil companies don't care how it got there; they just want to know if they can extract it economically.

The Pentagon certainly seems to think that oil comes from plants, not inorganic deep-Earth processes:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/13/algae-solve-pentagon-fuel-problem

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/cost-competitive-algae-jet-fuel.php

The magazine, "Geotimes", which is the academic journal for news and trends in Geology concluded in 2005:

 

“The inorganic origin remains a hypothesis; it has not been proven to be a significant contributor to currently known economic petroleum accumulations.”

 

http://www.geotimes.org/oct05/feature_abiogenicoil.html

 

We can't bet our future on abiotic/abiogenic oil, not by a long shot. 

 

 

2005 was a long time ago.  No one is suggesting that we "bet our future" on abiotic oil.  It is relevant to "peak oil" though.  Also, the Russians beleive in abiotic oil and are drilling the deepest wells by far. 

 

 

"The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge has been over for approximately two decades (Simakov 1986). The modern theory is presently applied extensively throughout the former U.S.S.R. as the guiding perspective for petroleum exploration and development projects. There are presently more than 80 oil and gas fields in the Caspian district alone which were explored and developed by applying the perspective of the modern theory and which produce from the crystalline basement rock. (Krayushkin, Chebanenko et al. 1994) Similarly, such exploration in the western Siberia cratonic-rift sedimentary basin has developed 90 petroleum fields of which 80 produce either partly or entirely from the crystalline basement. The exploration and discoveries of the 11 major and 1 giant fields on the northern flank of the Dneiper-Donets basin have already been noted. There are presently deep drilling exploration projects under way in Azerbaijan, Tatarstan, and Asian Siberia directed to testing potential oil and gas reservoirs in the crystalline basement. "

 

 

http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm

 

 

Whether 2005 was a long time ago or seemingly last week is irrelevant.

 

Isn't the fact that we're having to push our straws deeper into the glass and try harder at sucking out liquids from the corners an indication of declining supplies, higher expenses and greater difficulties for a world where demand for energy continues to grow? I think this is what's called being on a collision course with reality.

It would matter for the urgency of the problem, just like the quantity and extractability of existing reserves matters.

 

If oil is going to spike back to $140 a barrel in two years, it has very different consequences, and therefore demands a different response, than if it will reach that same level in 2025.

 

I have strongly argued for the "adapt, don't regulate" position on this thread (and elsewhere) because I believe that the pace of adaptation necessary is well within our grasp.  This is why I've invested time in finding and posting specific links to alternative energy news articles showing that we're getting close to grid parity with many alternatives, as well as developments in electric car technology that will allow us to translate those gains in coal replacement (our primary source for electricity today) into oil replacement as well (by using it for transportation).

 

That said, I don't buy the abiotic oil theory.  My position is that we've got the knowhow necessary to adapt as necessary given the rate of depletion of existing biotic reserves.  In fact, I think some of the cultural changes likely to attend a less petroleum-centric world would be quite positive, particularly if we let those cultural changes happen organically rather than predicting every detail of them in advance and trying to legislate them into existence now.

Whether 2005 was a long time ago or seemingly last week is irrelevant.

 

Isn't the fact that we're having to push our straws deeper into the glass and try harder at sucking out liquids from the corners an indication of declining supplies, higher expenses and greater difficulties for a world where demand for energy continues to grow? I think this is what's called being on a collision course with reality.

 

OK, here's the deal.  Biotic oil (e.g. fossil fuels) is a finite resource.  It is cheap to recover but limited in supply.  Abiotic oil is a renewable resource.  It is constantly being created by catalytic reformation of methane gas (created when anything biotic decomposes) probably at subduction zones in the Earth's crust.  However, recovering it will be extremely expensive and dangerous, at least initially.  What is really more important is the apparent empirical discovery that there is far more natural gas, again a renewable resource in such deep wells than we ever imagined.  Very deep wells (there are only a handfull of them in the world right now), which tap into abiotic "reactors" are producing 40% methane at high pressures whereas conventional oil wells only produce about 5% methane.  I think this is what happened in the Gulf, BP inadvertently tapped into such a "reactor".  All of this will factor into the cost of hydrocarbon fuels, the type of hydrocarbons we burn,  as well as the future markets for them which can have a significant impact on current prices. Rather than go on and on, I sugest you do some reading, especially form the Russian journals.