• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A scary strategic problem - no oil

Well it is a valid point,  little water droplets from our current cars are responsible for lots of the ice on the road - especially where cars stop and then go again. (Intersections) Now, as for "Big Oil"  there is one group that can in the intrest of public good scrap existing patents,  change the laws/tax structures and directly invest into infrastructure... this group can force big oil to do anything if it has the will to do so.  Who is this group? That would be us.... or more accurately our elected officials.  If enough people demanded it we could do it... (for 5 minutes before America invades us for being commie pinkos) But the point is we could do exactly what Brazil did with its ethanol solution.  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/04/60minutes/main1588659.shtml

Remember 30 cent a liter gas?  Well.... we could do it.  Imagine the economic stability of having independent energy source?  Not to mention the environmental bonuses think of the price stability and national pride.  We'd only need to trade for what we want,  not what we need. :)  (I swear I'm not just a tree hugging hippy,  there are sound economic reasons to switch to alternative energy)
 
Zell, there are also sound economic reasons that Brazil no longer attempts to  be energy self sufficient with ethanol (something about using five units of energy for every four units of energy contained in the ethanol), and very sound economic reasons that a "made in Canada" price strategy would only benefit organized crime (since the rest of us would be on some sort of rationing plan).

The short answer is that no one will work for a loss unless there is a greater opportunity cost for NOT doing so (i.e. Hugo Chavez sells oil domestically below cost because he needs to keep the mob quiet in Venezuela), so oil companies will slowly or quickly pack up and leave, resulting in the odd situation of Canadians having an oil shortage despite sitting on trillions of barrels of bitumen in Alberta. Not only would companies be hurt, but check your mutual funds; or don't you want to see the maximum rate of return for your own investments?

 
a_majoor said:
Zell, there are also sound economic reasons that Brazil no longer attempts to  be energy self sufficient with ethanol (something about using five units of energy for every four units of energy contained in the ethanol), and very sound economic reasons that a "made in Canada" price strategy would only benefit organized crime (since the rest of us would be on some sort of rationing plan).

The short answer is that no one will work for a loss unless there is a greater opportunity cost for NOT doing so (i.e. Hugo Chavez sells oil domestically below cost because he needs to keep the mob quiet in Venezuela), so oil companies will slowly or quickly pack up and leave, resulting in the odd situation of Canadians having an oil shortage despite sitting on trillions of barrels of bitumen in Alberta. Not only would companies be hurt, but check your mutual funds; or don't you want to see the maximum rate of return for your own investments?

I had no idea that Brazil was moving away from the ethanol plan.  I thought that it was an realistic energy source. (Basically solar energy in chemical form thanks to our little friends the plants) The next time this topic comes up I would like to be better informed.  Where did you read that "  Brazil no longer attempts to  be energy self sufficient with ethanol (something about using five units of energy for every four units of energy contained in the ethanol)"  I ask because I get conflicting data whenever I read up on this, almost as though anyone with a tendentious agenda could come to any conclusion that they want.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/energy/ethanol.html has near the bottom of the article an example of this.
"A Cornell University study that appeared in the journal Natural Resources Research in July 2005 found that producing ethanol from plants such as corn, sunflowers and soybeans uses more energy than the fuel generates.

In terms of energy output compared with the amount of energy required to produce ethanol, the study found:

Corn requires 29 per cent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
Switch grass requires 45 per cent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
Wood biomass requires 57 per cent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.

Critics of the Cornell study argue that the researchers used outdated data to come to their conclusions. One of the researchers — Prof. David Piementel — had looked at ethanol's energy efficiency in the past and concluded it wasn't worth the effort. However, there's also a long list of studies that have found that the production of ethanol results in a net gain in energy — between 34 and 75 per cent. "



http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817    <-- The Wall Street Journal, 16 January 2006 Has the best overview I've seen

And I have to agree with you 100%.  If we choke off free market forces and remove the incentives it would destroy the economic infrastructure that delivers goods at a somewhat reasonable price and somewhat efficiently. It would lead to an increase in the underground economy and of course an increase in organised crime.  I'm not someone who advocates central planning,  however I do see a role for a little long term thinking.  CEOs are only looking at the next dividend they can declare for their bosses,  the shareholders.  Government can take the lead and help to encourage the economy to develop along certain lines.  Tax breaks,  business grants, land grants and so forth to encourage desirable  progress.

I still say Canada could become energy independent.  If we were to simply build a few more refineries up here, (a few land grants, secured business loans and a road or two and we could) it would create jobs and increase our market stability. Insted up pumping it down south to get refined then shipped back up here.  But I think we should focus on long term solutions,  things that can sustain us not for 100 years, but for the next 10,000.  I'm sure we'll develop newer better technology that will create new energy sources,  but when dealing with the wealth and prosparity of my country... I'd perfer to ensure food will be there insted of hoping some wonder technology will suddenly replace the depleating resource. 

 
Zell_Dietrich said:
CEOs are only looking at the next dividend they can declare for their bosses,  the shareholders.  Government can take the lead and help to encourage the economy to develop along certain lines.  Tax breaks,  business grants, land grants and so forth to encourage desirable  progress.

I am no economics guy, but it strikes me that most companies have been better at planning and implementing than the government is.  Companies come up with plans, and actually stick to them.
 
The various levels of government in this country also seem to work against each other.  Case in point, Dolton McGuinty's push to conserve electricity in Ontario. 

While he is trying to convince everyone to use less electricity the reality is that it is the cleanest form of energy we currently have.  So, that being the case, to be environmentally friendly we should be heating our homes with electricity yet the provincial government is telling us not to.

At the same time, the alternative is usually natural gas which emits greenhouse gases and has rapidly dwindling reserves.  Some estimates say that we will run out of natural gas in 20 years.  And the Federal government wants us to cut down on it's use.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/business/05cnd-oil.html?ex=1157601600&en=e30fa890ddd4fe84&ei=5087%0A

By JOHN HOLUSHA
Published: September 5, 2006
What could be a major discovery of domestic oil in the Gulf of Mexico was announced today by a trio of companies led by Chevron Corporation.

The discovery, in the deepest water yet explored in the Gulf, could be the biggest domestic oil field since the northern Alaska field opened a generation ago.

The news pushed the price of crude oil to a five-month low of $68.38 a barrel in midday trading, although tensions in the Middle East and the threat from hurricanes remained as concerns for traders.

The new field’s location near the coast of the United States makes it particularly attractive, said J. Larry Nichols, the chairman of Devon Energy Corporation of Oklahoma City, which holds a 25 percent interest in the find. The discovery “could not have happened in a better place,” he said in a news conference.

The prospective yield of the area, called the lower Tertiary, could approach six billion barrels of oil, Devon said. The other owner, with a 25 percent interest, is Statoil of Norway. Chevron owns 50 percent.

Statoil said the test results were “very encouraging and may indicate a significant discovery.” It said the company and its partners plan to drill another well in the area next year to try to determine the extent of the field.

Chevron said the well, known as Jack #2, and located 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, produced a “sustained flow rate of more than 6,000 barrels of crude oil per day” in a production test. The company said it found the oil producing formation about 20,000 feet below the bottom of the Gulf, with the well drilled to a total depth of 28,175 feet.

“More than half a dozen world records for test equipment pressure, depth and duration in deep water were set during the Jack well test,” Chevron said.
 
Chevron said the well, known as Jack #2, and located 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, produced a “sustained flow rate of more than 6,000 barrels of crude oil per day” in a production test. The company said it found the oil producing formation about 20,000 feet below the bottom of the Gulf, with the well drilled to a total depth of 28,175 feet.

That is freakin amazing.  When I read stuff like that, it really makes me wonder how oil is actually formed.  I mean- 5 miles deep to sounds a bit deep, even for hundreds of millions of years of plankton, algae and plants building up.  Stories like this are making me question a "biological" only origin for petroleum products.  Does this mean that hydrocarbons may be way more plentiful than we ever suspected?
 
...or does the earth start to crumble beneath us as we suck out its core?
 
"Stories like this are making me question a "biological" only origin for petroleum products.  Does this mean that hydrocarbons may be way more plentiful than we ever suspected?"

- Could the earth be producing 'deep oil' as fast as we use up the surface stuff, you mean?
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Chevron said the well, known as Jack #2, and located 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, produced a “sustained flow rate of more than 6,000 barrels of crude oil per day” in a production test. The company said it found the oil producing formation about 20,000 feet below the bottom of the Gulf, with the well drilled to a total depth of 28,175 feet.

Clearly, it is located on a native sacred burial ground, and should be immediately surrendered to the people from whom it was stolen from.   ::)

In other oil news, has anyone heard much about this Iranian oil bourse?  Got a hold of these two articles:

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_16543.shtml

http://www.321gold.com/editorials/petrov/petrov011706.html

I have no idea as to the veracity of the sources, and I also know diddly about economics, so hopefully one of the bigger brains will be able to ferret out what the implications of Iran being a major oil player will be.  Any chance all the sabre rattling bullshit the last few months out of Iran was a strange sort of advertising gimmick?  "We can destroy you all, or you can buy our oil at favourable rates.  Your choice..."   ???
 
I recall there was a big thing about the abiological origin of oil and natural gas a few years ago, but until I read that post, Bruce, test wells attempting to prove the theory have always come up dry. This dosn't mean there are not true believers: http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

Zell, the data for ethanol is ferociously manipulated by both sides in order to score points. Since the recent ethanol plant opened in Ontario cast about $100 million to build, has a garunteed market due to government fiat (regulatory requirments to blend all gasoline sold in Ontario with ethanol) and of course never ending subsidies, you can see what the stakes actually are for the winners.

Being a big fan of CSI, I will provide proof by inference: if ethanol was "all that", then it would have been on the market a long time ago, and without any government subsidies. Since we know this is not true, we can infer that the figures demonstrating ethanol consumes more energy to produce than the end user gets by burning it, thus confirming the Cornell University study.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
That is freakin amazing.  When I read stuff like that, it really makes me wonder how oil is actually formed.  I mean- 5 miles deep to sounds a bit deep, even for hundreds of millions of years of plankton, algae and plants building up.  Stories like this are making me question a "biological" only origin for petroleum products.  Does this mean that hydrocarbons may be way more plentiful than we ever suspected?
Actually the "Lower Tertiary" as the article calls it is only about 60 million years old.  If you divide 20,000ft of sedimentary rock by 60,000,000 years, you end up with about 0.1mm accumulation per year.  If you think about how long it takes to accumulate 0.1mm of dust on your shelves, it suddenly doesn't seem very odd for several miles of sedimentary rock to accumulate over geological time (which is very very long).

If this discovery is as large as Prudhoe Bay, it's going to be very interesting to see how they develop the field.  When I was working in Prudhoe (about 20 years after development started), there were about 5000 people working there at any one time, and thousands of wells.  The challenges of conducting a similar operation in  deep water offshore are tremendous.
 
Interesting look at another alternative technology for converting coal to liquid fuel. The comments section is good as well, and I include one which pretty much sums up why we are not seeing liquid coal, ethanol, bio-diesel or other magic solutions just yet:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2006/09/proven-way-to-lessen-dependence-on.html

A Proven Way to Lessen Dependence on Foreign Oil
This Article was originally published by the American Thinker

Until recently, the plan (such as it is) for reducing America (and the world’s) dependence on oil from foreign sources, mainly in the Middle East, has been to find more sources of domestic oil and oil from friendlier, non-OPEC countries. This hasn’t been a terrible strategy in theory, but the political left has hampered this effort by refusing to allow drilling in such places as ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico. But the number of undiscovered or untapped oil resources close to home does not appear to be not as abundant as we would hope.

America still remains the third largest producer of oil in the world behind Saudi Arabia and Russia, but its thirst for oil cannot be quenched by domestic supplies alone. America now imports more oil from Canada than from any other country, but that still is not enough.
But all is not gloomy. In fact, a technology was developed in the 1930’s – by the Nazis – to produce oil from coal. Coal is one of the most abundant fossil fuels in the world and can be mined relatively easily. Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Montana have huge reserves of coal.

And now, the governor of Montana wants to take that old technology and use it in America to produce oil for less cost and from domestic sources. “Gov. Brian Schweitzer believes Montana could produce oil and other petroleum products from the millions of tons of coal reserves it owns in southeastern Montana.”

Montana has 2.4 billion tons of coal, which could produce mass quantities of oil for years to come. The cost is relatively reasonable too, about $30-$35 per barrel of oil from coal. That’s a lot more reasonable than $70 from Saudi Arabia, especially when it probably only costs them $5 to produce, leaving a healthy profit to donate to extremists around the world.

But get this, ”[t]he coal-conversion process produces no air pollution, uses no water and creates electricity as a byproduct. The petroleum fuels produced could be shipped out of state by pipeline.” (interpolation: the F-T process, or some variation of it requires coal to be converted to gas, then reacted over catalysts to produce liquid fuel. A "water shift" reaction is often needed to convert the methane from coal gas into Carbon Monoxide and Hydrogen. This is energy intensive, and does require water, especially if you are making oil in industrial quantities)
What are we waiting for? I’m not one for conspiracy theories, by any means, but if governments in Canada, the US, and Europe don’t jump all over this then I’ll start believing in a huge conspiracy with Exxon Mobile, BP, Shell, and every other company that’s been milking us on high gas prices for the last few years.

Of course, there will be detractors and opposition to this new source of energy. Global Warming Theorists will tell us that the coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels and that we need other cleaner options, or that coal mining will destroy environmentally sensitive areas, yadda yadda yadda. But the fact remains that alternatives to oil are not available at this point in history. While it would be great if we could all use fuel cells, wind and solar power, and bio-diesel, the feasibility of using such energy sources is not great in quantities sufficient to make a big difference. An option now exists that is comparable or cleaner to traditional oil refining that can free us from foreign sources, and that’s a start.

So how does coal liquefaction work? “What you do first is the coal gasification process,” Gov. Schweitzer said. “You crush the coal up, heat it and get your gas. From there, it’s a chemical reaction. You have a big tank and use either cobalt or iron as the catalyst. What you get out of that is the building blocks to make fuel. You get carbon monoxide and you get hydrogen. With those two, you can make any fuel you would like to make – diesel, gasoline, heating fuel, plastics, fertilizer or pure hydrogen.”

Its not just Schewitzer who finds this interesting, the Chinese do as well. China plans to launch a coal-liquefaction program in the next 5 years. “Generally speaking, 2 tons of coal can turn out 1 ton of oil,” explained Shu Geping, a senior engineer of the China Coal Research Institute.

In South Africa, they’re already making it work: “South Africa, whose structure of energy reserves is similar to China’s, has established three coal liquefaction manufacturers with total investment of US $7 billion in 1950. In 1999, these manufacturers registered a profit before tax of US $610 million."

So we have a proven technology that works and will save us money. The refining process does not pollute, and we can eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern energy. What are we waiting for? Such possibilities should result in a national effort to change the way we produce energy. This is essential for our future security and the well being of future generations. Not only that, but not having to buy oil from corrupt regimes in the Middle East would eliminate huge amounts of money that are funneled to terrorists each year.

The benefits would extend to South America as well, the Chavez government would have less money to sustain its corrupt political machine and might be replaced by a pro-American government which believes in free trade and integrity in government. Russia and China would have less need to appease the tyrannical regimes in the Persian Gulf for the sake of their own energy security; they could start their own coal liquefaction programs since both nations have huge reserves of coal. Germany, Britain, France, and other European nations would no longer be tied to Arab oil either, and the Japanese could buy from Russia, America, Canada, Britain, Germany, or other coal-rich country.

The potential for a new world exists with this old technology. Whether that world would ultimately be safer than our current reality is unforeseeable, but I think it’s worth a try. The status quo of energy dependence on OPEC and corrupt Gulf States does not have to continue. There is a way out, with old but proven technology.

Ronald Reagan once said, “I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.”

Coal liquefaction might help make terrorism and Islamic-fascism obsolete by choking the manner in which they are fed. What better way to promote a new Middle East?
posted by The Strong Conservative @ Monday, September 04, 2006     

10 Comments:
 
At 10:54 PM, Otodo said…

My Understanding is that the dilemma faced by corporations is that - sure its profitable at $30-$35 a barrel but then the Saudis can pump oil at $10 a barrels for years, and thus bankrupt competition.

The Saudis were pumping at prices in the $10-$20 range through much of the nineties - though it was beginning to bankrupt them - not the Saudi oil production company but the corrupt, inefficient govt. They have a large, useless govt teat dependent population and are otherwise largely revenueless (not as well invested relatively as the Kuwaitis).

These structural problems tend to point towards a $20-$25 long range target as comfortable and most other oil producers would probably fall in that range.

Montana coal gassification producer would be s$%& out of luck - no way they could compete.

The South Africans (and Nazis before them) made it work as they were disconnected from the world market and subsidized the endeavor - not allowed to fail economically.

Would the US Govt be ready to subsidize the cost differential once a massive coal gassification supply caused a price collapse? Out of what taxes? Would Americans swallow this?

I think the only hope is to get production costs down to $10 a barrel then the US Govt could feasibly say - yes, we will subsidize the production cost for the next 30 years if prices sag below, say, $12 a barrel. The US could afford that.

New oil shale and tar sand technology, and polymerization technology (only a partial solution but significant - 20% of current US consumption)) could reach the above production cost goal. Coal gasification looks a stretch currently.

A Conspiracy? I'll be glad to build a plant producing oil for $35 a barrel - will you promise to buy the oil for $38 a barrel for 30 years even if the global price lowers to $15?
 
Some more about ethanol

http://www.damianpenny.com/

The ethanol scam
Once again an important piece is buried in the Globe and Mail's business section (full text not officially online).

How do you convince consumers that what's bad for you is good for you? You feed them a load of bull, and hope they don't catch on. So it is with the Ontario and federal governments, which are spinning their pro-ethanol campaigns as consumer-friendly solutions to our energy and environmental problems.
Ontario's new ethanol pamphlet is a masterpiece of creative propaganda. The pamphlet is to be distributed at gas stations between now and January, when gas containing 5-per-cent ethanol -- that's the law -- arrives at a pump near you...

...Nowhere does it say your car's fuel economy will suffer because of the ethanol content. And guess what? Ethanol is generally not cheaper than gas -- sometimes it's far more expensive, as it was in the summer -- so the drop in fuel economy won't be offset by lower prices at the pump...

In a cover story called The Ethanol Myth, the October issue of Consumer Reports magazine provides a clue. Its editors tested two Chevy Tahoe SUVS, one which ran on gas, the other with a blend of 85-per-cent ethanol and 15-per-cent gas (known as E85). The average fuel economy of the E85 Tahoe was 27 per cent less than that of the gas-powered version. The driving range fell from 440 miles to about 300 miles. Acceleration also suffered. Science provides the answer. The energy content of ethanol is far less than that of gas, so you have to burn more ethanol to go the same distance...

...While there is no doubt that burning ethanol emits less smog-causing pollutants and greenhouse gases than burning gasoline, several respected scientists have shown that making ethanol is an energy-intensive process that may actually increase emissions if you measure the energy inputs from the corn field (fertilizer, diesel fuel to power tractors and the like) to the retailer...

Thanks to Consumer Reports and other publications, Americans are starting to get the message that ethanol is a dead loss for consumers, a disaster for taxpayers because of the endless billions in subsidies and, at best, of marginal benefit to the environment. Yet in Canada, you will not find a politician who will even discuss ethanol's shortcomings...
 
Yet in Canada, you will not find a politician who will even discuss ethanol's shortcomings...

Because if they speak it out loud, they will lose their subscription to The Kyoto Herald and have to give back the free sweater vest.  ::)
 
All of these guys stand to benefit financially from creating the perception that there's an increasing scarcity of oil ...

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1741419.htm

Broadcast: 14/09/2006

Oil supply conjecture grips industry
Reporter: Mike Sexton


KERRY O'BRIEN: Motorists around the country are enjoying welcome relief from high petrol prices with the cost of fuel easing in the past week - still high, though. The price fall follows a drop in world prices of almost $10 a barrel after the announcement of a massive oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico. While it is a welcome impact on the hip pocket, the great fear, of course, is that in the end it just postpones the inevitable for a finite resource. The theory of peak oil suggests that the planet already has used more than half the reserves and so in the near future demand for oil will inevitably outstrip supply. That Doomsday view was challenged this week by the Australian boss of Exxonmobil who believes there's been an over reaction to high oil prices and that there are still enormous reserves of oil and gas. But the record high prices paid for oil this year have created an urgency within the industry, as companies big and small look to cash in. Mike Sexton reports.

MIKE SEXTON: Each day more than 80 million barrels of oil goes up in smoke. It's estimated 1 trillion barrels of oil have been burnt since the first cars hit the road, leaving many to ask just how much is left.

DON HENRY, AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: There's very good science out there that says particularly for oil we may be at peak or we may be coming up to it.

MIKE SEXTON: The peak oil theory suggests at one point the world will have used more than half the oil and future demand will outstrip supply, leading to dramatic changes to our society. But big oil isn't buying it.

MARK NOLAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, EXXONMOBIL AUSTRALIA: These peak oil theories have been around since the 1920s, particularly in times of high oil prices. Our view is that the world has abundant energy resources and that there is no peak oil theory of value.

MIKE SEXTON: Exxonmobil Australian's CEO Mark Nolan is one of those who dismisses the theory. Speaking at the Asia Pacific oil and gas conference in Adelaide this week, he argued when it comes to energy needs, oil will be the main game for a long time to come.

MARK NOLAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, EXXONMOBIL AUSTRALIA: According to the US geological survey, the Earth currently has more than 3 trillion barrels of conventional recoverable resources and so far we've produced 1 trillion of that. Conservative estimates of heavy oil and shale oil push the total recoverable resource to over 4 trillion barrels.

MIKE SEXTON: But Don Henry from the Australian Conservation Foundation is deeply cynical about the comments. He believes running out of oil is a secondary issue when compared to the damage greenhouse gas emissions are doing to the environment.

DON HENRY, AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: Exxonmobil is a global vandal. They've invested millions of dollars in to trying to confuse the public and muddy the science on climate change. They're a big global greenhouse polluter and they have ruthlessly pursued short-term profits at the expense of the planet.

MIKE SEXTON: But the world's addiction to oil shows no sign of waning. US Government energy statistics forecast consumption will increase by almost 50 per cent in the next 25 years. That, combined with recent record high prices, means the rush for black gold has never been stronger, including Australia where 40 per cent of oil is imported.

TINO GUGLIELMO, STUART PETROLEUM: The industry is awash with a lot of money, a lot of cash flow.

MIKE SEXTON: Tino Guglielmo runs Stuart Petroleum, a tiny company with holdings in the Cooper Basin that straddles the South Australia/Queensland border. It on sells most of the 750,000 barrels of oil it produces to the multinational Santos. When Stuart Petroleum began in 1999, oil was under US$20 a barrel. At its height this year it was selling for almost 80.

TINO GUGLIELMO: This is a great time to be a producer, particularly a pure producer of crude oil, which is ourselves. It has actually had a bit of a down side so there is a lot of competition for materials and equipment and, of course, people.

MIKE SEXTON: Like everyone else in this industry, Stuart Petroleum is desperately looking for the next barrel.

TINO GUGLIELNMO: There's been a lot of competition for those deals on acreage that has been thought to be prospective and some of the prices that have been paid for some of that acreage is frankly astounding.

MIKE SEXTON: But making money in oil and gas means more than just fining a reserve and drilling. For two decades the oil industry had stable prices and so to lift profit margins, an estimated 2 million people worldwide were retrenched. Now staff are in demand. How competitive is it to get the right people at the moment?

EVE SPRUNT, SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS: It's very much a technical experts market at this time. You hear some rather amazing stories about the types of job offers people are getting around the world.

MIKE SEXTON: Many areas being pursued in Australia are not new, but rather reserves that were previously unexploited because they were too small or too hard to reach. New technology means in many cases the oil and gas can now be accessed. While in others, the oil was always there and it is now worth spending the money to get it out.

JOHN DORAN, ROC OIL: We've just brought a field down in Western Australia, which I can guarantee would never have been brought on if the oil price hadn't risen.

MIKE SEXTON: John Doran is CEO of the Sydney based Roc Oil company, which has holdings on four continents worth almost $1 billion. He believes that Australia remains under explored because it only has 1 per cent of the world's known reserves.

JOHN DORAN, ROC OIL: With all of this high-cost oil, there is more impetus to explore. The trouble is the world is available now, so you don't have to just explore in Australia.

MIKE SEXTON: Last month the Federal Government injected $135 million into data collection to assist companies find oil fields. This money will probably help with so called frontier projects, mostly under sea beds that are too expensive for the small players.

TINO GUGLIELMO, STUART PETROLEUM: The government is promoting access and information in frontier areas and offshore, either in unexplored or under explored basins and potentially in deep water. These are areas that are not really - because
of our size, they can't really be explored by a company, such as Stuart.

MIKE SEXTON: At the moment, there is relief at the bowser as oil prices drop on the back of a discovery this month in the Gulf of Mexico. There, US company Chevron claims to have a new field capable of producing 15 billion barrels of oil. While the price has eased, no-one can forecast the future in these volatile times.

JOHN DORAN, ROC OIL: Next week I don't know what the oil price is so when you make planning decisions three years out, you have to have a lot of testosterone or whatever to say, "OK, I'm going to go for the high oil price." Most of us would be more conservative view with the oil price.

KERRY O'BRIEN: It is getting increasingly unpredictable in the Gulf of Mexico, too. Mike Sexton with that report.
 
Hummm Fuel Cells eh? 

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/09/22/army-takes-delivery-of-equinox-fcv-as-project-driveway-kicks-off/

PRESS RELEASE:
U.S. Army Takes Delivery of GM's Latest Fuel Cell Vehicle Army First Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell Vehicle Customer

Washington, D. C. - The U.S. Army became the first customer of General Motors Corp.'s latest fuel cell technology today as the automaker deployed the first vehicle of its next generation Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell vehicle fleet.

U.S. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a champion of fuel cell technology, and Larry Burns, GM vice president of research and development and strategic planning, gave the Equinox Fuel Cell keys to Army Maj. Gen. Roger A. Nadeau, commander of the U.S. Army's Research, Development and Engineering Command.

On Sunday, GM announced "Project Driveway", a comprehensive market test to place 100 Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell vehicles with consumers in three key U.S. regions: California, Washington, D.C. and the New York City metropolitan area. A variety of drivers, including individual consumers, will begin driving the vehicles in the fall of 2007. The fuel cell vehicle the Army received today is a vehicle which will enable a direct performance assessment of GM's latest generation of fuel cell technology.

"The delivery of this vehicle today illustrates what is possible with the powerful collaboration of industry and government," said Sen. Levin. "The Army's involvement with this important program demonstrates the military's commitment to develop and test alternatives that will offer tremendous potential to reduce our dependence on oil on the battlefield. This vehicle also highlights the important work occurring in our domestic auto industry to move toward fuel cell vehicles, and the Army provides an important test bed for this technology."

The Army's fuel cell vehicle will be used for non-tactical transportation purposes, primarily on military bases in Virginia and California. It is powered by GM's fourth generation fuel cell propulsion system, offering significantly improved performance, refinement and range as compared with earlier generation vehicles. The Army's vehicle is a four-passenger crossover vehicle, with 186 miles of petroleum-free operating range. Safety features include driver and passenger airbags, anti-lock braking system (ABS) and OnStar.

"GM is demonstrating its commitment to hydrogen fuel cells as the answer for taking the automobile out of the environmental debate and reducing our dependence on petroleum," Burns said. "The U.S. Army is an important partner in validating GM's fuel cell technology in real use operation. Delivery of this vehicle is an important milestone in the Equinox Fuel Cell vehicle program announced last week, and in our ongoing relationship with the U.S. Army."

GM has a history of working with the Army on demonstrating and evaluating fuel cell vehicles. In April 2005, the U.S. Army took delivery of the Chevrolet Silverado Fuel Cell truck, the world's first compressed-hydrogen fuel cell pickup, for demonstration and evaluation in different climates and locations around the U.S. In addition to using the Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell vehicle to evaluate the performance of GM's latest fuel cell technology, the military will continue to obtain first-hand experience with the operation, maintenance and logistics of fuel cell vehicles. This vehicle is an engineered prototype of the 100 vehicle Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell market test fleet that GM will deploy to various customers beginning in the fall of 2007.

The U.S. Army has one of the largest fleets of vehicles in the world and GM produces more than half of the non-tactical U.S. military vehicles purchased each year. Improving fuel economy and reducing the logistics of the fuel supply chain could save millions of dollars.

General Motors Corporation

General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM), the world's largest automaker, has been the global industry sales leader for 75 years. Founded in 1908, GM today employs about 327,000 people around the world. With global headquarters in Detroit , GM manufactures its cars and trucks in 33 countries. In 2005, 9.17 million GM cars and trucks were sold globally under the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, HUMMER, Opel, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn and Vauxhall. GM operates one of the world's leading finance companies, GMAC Financial Services, which offers automotive, residential and commercial financing and insurance. GM's OnStar subsidiary is the industry leader in vehicle safety, security and information services. More information on GM can be found at www.gm.com.

U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM)

The U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command gets technology out of the laboratories and puts it into the hands of warfighters as quickly as possible. RDECOM manages eight laboratories and research, development and engineering centers, plus the U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity, System of Systems Integration, international technology centers, and capability and technology integrated process teams. RDECOM maintains liaisons to the field, hundreds of international agreements, and engineer and scientist exchange programs. RDECOM has more than 17,000 military, civilian and direct contractor personnel, a multi-billion dollar annual budget and is responsible for 75 percent of the Army's science and technology objectives. RDECOM provides direct support of the technical base to Future Combat Systems and Future Force, ensuring the nation has the protection it needs for the 21st century and beyond. More information on the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command can be found at www.rdecom.army.mil.

 
Oil is not the problem...major corporations make big coin off of oil and they are not stupid. I am sure that they have plans to release new energy's. such as using ethanol, or using hydrogen....but we wont see those in mass production until oil really starts to run out because these big companies will still make money....did you know that Brazil is the only country to be 100% self reliant. They do not need imported oil because over 90% of the country uses ethanol........Canada and the USA could do that easily, why don't we???Because the oil companies want to make there money....
 
:)  Well ethanol has good points for sure.  (It came up a while ago in this thread)  And Canada is already self-reliant.  We pull out of the ground around 4 times more oil than we consume.
 
Back
Top