“There is a cap on the price we pay because there are viable alternatives as the price increases”
Where was the cap as oil was approaching $200 a barrel though Boxy? Where were the alternatives? I don’t for a minute disagree that there are alternatives but at this point in time, there is nothing quite like petroleum. Biofuels require significant petroleum inputs (fertilizers, fuel to harvest, process and then transport the fuel) and take up large tracts of good agricultural land better used for food production. Other alternatives are promising but they aren’t quite there yet. Hundreds of millions (perhaps more) of petroleum engines of all sizes and purposes drive national economies and the global economy, transporting people and a massive array of goods and services each day. Suddenly take away petroleum or make it unaffordable and all this would rapidly collapse. How long would it take to replace all petroleum usage if we started in earnest today? And could we supply enough of the alternative cheaply enough so that trade, commerce and day to day living were unaffected?
We have large oil shale and tar sand deposits but they are a very inefficient source of petroleum – the shale oil plant in my Town of Gladstone went bust several years ago. They just couldn’t make it viable. These things have a very low EROEI – Energy Returned On Energy Invested. You end up putting almost the same amount of energy into the process (often from petroleum!) as you get back out. The big, high quality oilfields that were discovered decades ago often had and EROEI of around 100:1 - you only had to use 1 barrel of oil (equivalent) to get back 100 barrels. Nothing quite like these have been discovered for quite a while.
Check out “The oil drum” – I haven’t been there for quite a while but it was a very informative site.
Government to tell oil giants to use it or lose it
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
-
freediver
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Government to tell oil giants to use it or lose it
http://www.ozpolitic.com/polanimal/view ... 63ecbb9eb0
Only certian biofuels require high levels of petroleum inputws. This is a specific criticism of corn based ethanol in the US, not a general problem with biofuels.Leftofcentresalterego wrote:“There is a cap on the price we pay because there are viable alternatives as the price increases”
Where was the cap as oil was approaching $200 a barrel though Boxy? Where were the alternatives? I don’t for a minute disagree that there are alternatives but at this point in time, there is nothing quite like petroleum. Biofuels require significant petroleum inputs (fertilizers, fuel to harvest, process and then transport the fuel) and take up large tracts of good agricultural land better used for food production. Other alternatives are promising but they aren’t quite there yet. Hundreds of millions (perhaps more) of petroleum engines of all sizes and purposes drive national economies and the global economy, transporting people and a massive array of goods and services each day. Suddenly take away petroleum or make it unaffordable and all this would rapidly collapse. How long would it take to replace all petroleum usage if we started in earnest today? And could we supply enough of the alternative cheaply enough so that trade, commerce and day to day living were unaffected?
We have large oil shale and tar sand deposits but they are a very inefficient source of petroleum – the shale oil plant in my Town of Gladstone went bust several years ago. They just couldn’t make it viable. These things have a very low EROEI – Energy Returned On Energy Invested. You end up putting almost the same amount of energy into the process (often from petroleum!) as you get back out. The big, high quality oilfields that were discovered decades ago often had and EROEI of around 100:1 - you only had to use 1 barrel of oil (equivalent) to get back 100 barrels. Nothing quite like these have been discovered for quite a while.
Check out “The oil drum” – I haven’t been there for quite a while but it was a very informative site.
Again, it is better to let the economy decide what the best use of the land is.and take up large tracts of good agricultural land better used for food production
Why replace it all at once? It's not like peak oil is going to take us by surprise.How long would it take to replace all petroleum usage if we started in earnest today? And could we supply enough of the alternative cheaply enough so that trade, commerce and day to day living were unaffected?
-
Leftofcentresalterego
re Government tells oil giants to use it or lose it
“Same thing”
Not really but whatever.
“Crap. There are always alternatives including not using it”
What’s that supposed to mean? It can’t be literal because at this point in time, the literal interperatation would be crap. Without petroleum, the modern world would just stop. Until enough highly viable alternatives are solidly in place - we are not remotely near that situation – cheap transportation energy (petroleum) is crucial to the normal functioning of modern societies and their economies.
“If you sell something to someone else, you give up your right to exploit it”
We sold nothing tangible to anyone. We rented out our property on the understanding that it would be developed in a way that would mutually benefit both parties. The ground and the stuff under it have always remained the property of the Commonwealth of Australia. And why would it automatically be economical for those sitting on the leases to develop them just because we decided that we needed it? That’s what this whole issue is about and that’s why the government is talking tough, otherwise it would be a non-issue. That was a nonsense statement you made Freediver.
“No it isn’t. You sound like you’re regurgitating communist propaganda”
I didn’t realise that concepts like national interest and common good were automatically communist propaganda. I approve of universal health care and strong public education even though the market could provide these things to those with enough in their pocket. Is that communist propaganda as well?
Not really but whatever.
“Crap. There are always alternatives including not using it”
What’s that supposed to mean? It can’t be literal because at this point in time, the literal interperatation would be crap. Without petroleum, the modern world would just stop. Until enough highly viable alternatives are solidly in place - we are not remotely near that situation – cheap transportation energy (petroleum) is crucial to the normal functioning of modern societies and their economies.
“If you sell something to someone else, you give up your right to exploit it”
We sold nothing tangible to anyone. We rented out our property on the understanding that it would be developed in a way that would mutually benefit both parties. The ground and the stuff under it have always remained the property of the Commonwealth of Australia. And why would it automatically be economical for those sitting on the leases to develop them just because we decided that we needed it? That’s what this whole issue is about and that’s why the government is talking tough, otherwise it would be a non-issue. That was a nonsense statement you made Freediver.
“No it isn’t. You sound like you’re regurgitating communist propaganda”
I didn’t realise that concepts like national interest and common good were automatically communist propaganda. I approve of universal health care and strong public education even though the market could provide these things to those with enough in their pocket. Is that communist propaganda as well?
-
Leftofcentresalterego
Re: re Government tells oil giants to use it or lose it
Only certain biofuels require high levels of petroleum inputs. This is a specific criticism of corn based ethanol in the US, not a general problem with biofuels”
As I understand it, it is a criticism of biofuels in general. They are simply not overly efficient. It does not remotely compare with drilling a hole and having tens or hundreds of thousands of barrels per day gush to the surface under (initially) it’s own pressure.
“Again, it is better to let the economy decide what the best use of the land is”
A broad blanket statement. It would not be a good situation if the majority of farmers abandoned growing food and fibre if they could make higher returns from growing biofuels and this has already caused food shortages in some poorer places. The free market does not always lead to optimum outcomes.
“Why replace it all at once? It’s not like peak oil is going to take us by surprise”
I have some suspicions that peak oil is already here or nearly here. The true reserves of many major oil producing countries and companies are unknown and they have regularly been accused of exaggerating their reserves for their own benefits. We are running at nearly $80 a barrel during a serious global recession (the long term average in inflation adjusted terms is around $20-$25 a barrel). Granted that the $USD has suffered and the Arabs may have done some supply squeezing. But I remain a little concerned.
As I understand it, it is a criticism of biofuels in general. They are simply not overly efficient. It does not remotely compare with drilling a hole and having tens or hundreds of thousands of barrels per day gush to the surface under (initially) it’s own pressure.
“Again, it is better to let the economy decide what the best use of the land is”
A broad blanket statement. It would not be a good situation if the majority of farmers abandoned growing food and fibre if they could make higher returns from growing biofuels and this has already caused food shortages in some poorer places. The free market does not always lead to optimum outcomes.
“Why replace it all at once? It’s not like peak oil is going to take us by surprise”
I have some suspicions that peak oil is already here or nearly here. The true reserves of many major oil producing countries and companies are unknown and they have regularly been accused of exaggerating their reserves for their own benefits. We are running at nearly $80 a barrel during a serious global recession (the long term average in inflation adjusted terms is around $20-$25 a barrel). Granted that the $USD has suffered and the Arabs may have done some supply squeezing. But I remain a little concerned.
-
boxy
- Posts: 6748
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:59 pm
Re: re Government tells oil giants to use it or lose it
Dude... significant petroleum inputs can be replace by significant biofuel inputs, and guess what. In the last year or two it was indeed happening. Agricultural transport companies were investing in biofuel as diesel fuel prices skyrocketed... putting a cap on what people were willing to pay for their diesel. And the diesel/petrol price dropped again, and they went back to the cheaper alternative. There is a clear cap on prices, and when the fuel price increases again, as it must, food crops will be replaced with fuel crops. Supply and demand, in it's purest form.Leftofcentresalterego wrote:“There is a cap on the price we pay because there are viable alternatives as the price increases”
Where was the cap as oil was approaching $200 a barrel though Boxy? Where were the alternatives? I don’t for a minute disagree that there are alternatives but at this point in time, there is nothing quite like petroleum. Biofuels require significant petroleum inputs (fertilizers, fuel to harvest, process and then transport the fuel) and take up large tracts of good agricultural land better used for food production. Other alternatives are promising but they aren’t quite there yet. Hundreds of millions (perhaps more) of petroleum engines of all sizes and purposes drive national economies and the global economy, transporting people and a massive array of goods and services each day. Suddenly take away petroleum or make it unaffordable and all this would rapidly collapse. How long would it take to replace all petroleum usage if we started in earnest today? And could we supply enough of the alternative cheaply enough so that trade, commerce and day to day living were unaffected?
"But you will run your fluffy bunny mouth at me. And I will take it, to play poker."
-
Leftofcentresalterego
re Government tells oil giants to use it or lose it
"Dude... significant petroleum inputs can be replace by significant biofuel inputs, and guess what. In the last year or two it was indeed happening. Agricultural transport companies were investing in biofuel as diesel fuel prices skyrocketed... putting a cap on what people were willing to pay for their diesel. And the diesel/petrol price dropped again, and they went back to the cheaper alternative. There is a clear cap on prices, and when the fuel price increases again, as it must, food crops will be replaced with fuel crops. Supply and demand, in it's purest form.
boxy "
Boxy, you're engaging in pure speculation here. The most recent figures I have been able to track down with a few minutes of searching was that the total world biofuel production of all types for 2004 totalled 130 million barrels. In the same year, crude oil output totalled 73 million barrels per day. There's simply no comparison - biofuels in the last big petroleum price hike counted for rather less than 1% of total fuel consumption.
A site championing their use admits that if every single scrap of available farmland on Earth were turned over to biofuel production - the world stopped growing food altogether - , the output would only be 20% of current total fuel consumption. Ever had a vege garden? You do not just say "Tomorrow I will plant potatoes and from the next day I will begin harvesting 50kg a day". That is one of the chief limitations of biofuels. Long production times coupled with high inputs of fertilizer and water if you want to make them a little quicker and more productive.
"Supply and demand in it's purest form"
No, unrealistic and idealistic speculation in it's purest form. Biofuels cannot replace and have never replaced any significant portion of petroleum demand, especially not in a short space of time. Demand cannot magically create all the supply of a resource that we need.
boxy "
Boxy, you're engaging in pure speculation here. The most recent figures I have been able to track down with a few minutes of searching was that the total world biofuel production of all types for 2004 totalled 130 million barrels. In the same year, crude oil output totalled 73 million barrels per day. There's simply no comparison - biofuels in the last big petroleum price hike counted for rather less than 1% of total fuel consumption.
A site championing their use admits that if every single scrap of available farmland on Earth were turned over to biofuel production - the world stopped growing food altogether - , the output would only be 20% of current total fuel consumption. Ever had a vege garden? You do not just say "Tomorrow I will plant potatoes and from the next day I will begin harvesting 50kg a day". That is one of the chief limitations of biofuels. Long production times coupled with high inputs of fertilizer and water if you want to make them a little quicker and more productive.
"Supply and demand in it's purest form"
No, unrealistic and idealistic speculation in it's purest form. Biofuels cannot replace and have never replaced any significant portion of petroleum demand, especially not in a short space of time. Demand cannot magically create all the supply of a resource that we need.
-
Jovial Monk
Re: Government to tell oil giants to use it or lose it
And you are forgetting the penny dreadfuls sitting on leases that could be productive but the penny dreadful company doesn't want to drill a single hole because that might just destroy their share price!
Way back when when I was punting on the sharemarket a penny dreadful (Clarence River NL????) announced it was going to drill into the top of a domeshaped feature, I bought some shares quickly and tho some spoilsport journalist
pointed out that drilling into the top of a feature was useless as it said nothing about reserves I still made a quick few bucks on my punt--as a recent geology graduate I knew what that pesky journalist wrote about
So good reasons to get companies to actually drill a few holes. It is our resources, not the exploration companies'!
Way back when when I was punting on the sharemarket a penny dreadful (Clarence River NL????) announced it was going to drill into the top of a domeshaped feature, I bought some shares quickly and tho some spoilsport journalist
pointed out that drilling into the top of a feature was useless as it said nothing about reserves I still made a quick few bucks on my punt--as a recent geology graduate I knew what that pesky journalist wrote about So good reasons to get companies to actually drill a few holes. It is our resources, not the exploration companies'!
-
Leftofcentresalterego
re Government tells oil giants to use it or lose it
"So good reasons to get companies to actually drill a few holes. It is our resources, not the exploration companies'!"
Seconded!
Seconded!
-
freediver
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Government to tell oil giants to use it or lose it
It's quite simple really. There are many options. For example you could ride a bike, take the train, use a more fuel efficient car, live closer to work, use biofuels, extract it from coal, use hydrogen, etc. These are just a few options off the top of my head. There are endless possibilities. The world would not stop. The doomsayers just have no grasp at all of human ingenuity. We use oil because it is easy and cheap, not because we are somehow bound to it.What’s that supposed to mean? It can’t be literal because at this point in time, the literal interperatation would be crap. Without petroleum, the modern world would just stop.
-
Jubial Priest
Re: Government to tell oil giants to use it or lose it
Such simple solutions for a simple man. You were never the brightest economics student were you?It's quite simple really. There are many options. For example you could ride a bike, take the train, use a more fuel efficient car, live closer to work, use biofuels, extract it from coal, use hydrogen, etc. These are just a few options off the top of my head. There are endless possibilities. The world would not stop. The doomsayers just have no grasp at all of human ingenuity. We use oil because it is easy and cheap, not because we are somehow bound to it.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 77 guests