Military warns oil could start running short by 2015

[Badbeams3]

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/u-s-military-warns-of-oil-shortage-as-early-as-2015/19442647/

I find it odd that it would be the military to make such a claim :thinking:

 

[Diesel_Bomber]

Who knows.

There are plenty of alternatives. When the pinch really hits and the alternatives are cheaper than $25/gal gasoline, we'll see more of them become mainstream. There won't be any other choice.

Where's Darrel? Need him to peddle his butt over here and help me figure out how many solar panels and windmills I'll need to keep my truck charged. :nana:

 

[jtr1962]

Actually, it would be more accurate to say the economically viable sources of oil will start to run low soon. There may well be trillions of barrels of oil deep underground, but it'll cost hundreds or thousands of dollars per barrel to extract it. In many cases, the energy required to extract it would exceed the energy gained through combusting it, making extraction pointless.

Anyway, I'm not surprised. People have been saying this for years but apparently nobody has been listening. Now is the time to go wholesale towards alternatives while we still have ( relatively ) cheap oil to manufacture them.

Finally, it's necessary to take this report with a grain of salt. I don't doubt that cheap oil will run out, but the time frame is still speculative. We could indeed face shortages in 2015, or next year, or perhaps not until 2030. Nevertheless, it's an eventuality for which we have no option but to prepare, and the sooner the better.

And yes, where's Darell when you need him?

 

[LEDninja]

I guess we need to sign up at CPFGreen.

 

[Diesel_Bomber]

Nevertheless, it's an eventuality for which we have no option but to prepare, and the sooner the better.

This is exactly my opinion as well.

 

[DaFABRICATA]

Here's an interesting email I got last week that pertains to this subject:





READ THIS and IT WILL BOGGLE YOU MIND!


There is a link at the bottom that substantiates this email!

Here's an interesting read, important and verifiable information :

About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together." Please read below.

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big.
It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota , western South Dakota , and extreme eastern Montana .... check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil.. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5..3 trillion.

"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.." says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.

"This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years," reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the WillistonBasin , but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' It stretches fromNorthern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from 2006!

U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006 Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. OnAugust 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it's all right here in the Western United States .

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

Got your attention yet? Now, while you're thinking about it, do this:

Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices - by doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain.

-------- Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.

By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!

GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It will blow your mind.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

 

[John_Galt]

Here's an interesting email I got last week that pertains to this subject:





READ THIS and IT WILL BOGGLE YOU MIND!


Snip... For shorter posts...

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

This, plus the oil in ANWR, and off our coasts should be opened. Then we'd be fine...

They probably meant that the current open fields would begin to run dry (in the middle East), or that other nations' needs would begin to substantially increase, possibly leading to fights over the cheapest resources.

 

[LuxLuthor]

Here's an interesting email I got last week that pertains to this subject:

But how could that be, when according to jtr1962, "it'll cost hundreds or thousands of dollars per barrel to extract it"?

Note that the Cap and Tax...err...Trade legislation is again now on a fast track to be ramrodded through....in addition to the EPA already giving itself jurisdiction over regulating greenhouse gas emissions....fat chance this will ever be developed and used like it should.

 

[tarponbill]

Two points

We will run out of oil quicker if we don't drill for any new oil finds

Do people know you can make liquid transport fuel(gas and diesel) from coal, at about $30 a barrel oil equicvalent? Yes they just demonstrated a pilot facility at UT, cost was under $29 a barrel oil equivalent.

So why would the country with the world's largest coal reserves, not be doing what China is now right doing, turning coal into fuel?

I remember Pres Jimmy Carter telling the nation that every last drop of oil would be gone by the year 2000 ... sigh, and people actually believed him.

 

[MarNav1]

DeFab I'm not going to say alot because it will send this underground but the powers that be don't want cheap oil. There are capped wells off Gull Island that have been capped for years. As to the reasons why, I'm not going to argue. It's easily found on the net. The conclusions are obvious. Lemme just say fear makes a great prybar in geopolitics.

 

[baterija]

If you take a look at the actual reference the short term assessment is:
- based on outside evaluations, not directly a "US military" assessment.
- more about supply restrictions based on lack of investment in extraction/shipping/refining capacity coupled with expected growth in demand (increasing industrialization, population growth, and increased demand coming out of recession)

 

[1138]

Here's an interesting email I got last week that pertains to this subject:

Read the USGS link. There's 3 to 4.3 billion barrels of "technically recoverable" oil. The rest of the "2 trillion" in that email is not accessible to current technology. Oh, by the way, 4.3 billion barrels will last the US about 7 months if you extract it fast enough to meet daily demand.

But "technically recoverable" doesn't even mean "proven reserves" and it also doesn't say anything about the extraction rate. You can have a hundred trillion barrels of oil but if you can only extract it at 1 million barrels per day, it won't be enough to supply a country that uses 20 million barrels a day. Technically recoverable means you can extract it out, but it doesn't tell you how hard it is to extract.

Bakken, oil shales, ANWR and tar sands (which doesn't even belong to you, it belongs to Canada) cannot meet all the demand. They might have a lot of oil, but the production rate isn't going to be fast.

Coal to liquid might get you out of an immediate oil crunch, but there are limits on coal reserves as well. Revised estimates are 100 years at the CURRENT consumption rate. If you use coal to displace oil, that goes down. And if you want to grow your economy as well, that goes down, too.

And for those who understand the science, we also know that burning fossil fuels is a bad thing.

Really, you'd have to be deluded to think that we can continue relying on oil and coal. The switch to alternatives like nuclear and electrified transport should have happened starting in the 70s. Any delay now is just dumb.


By the way, let's look at that email:

However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from 2006!

Enough crude to last 2041 years? Never mind that they're throwing around a grossly exaggerated number for recoverable oil reserves (you can't get all of it), a grossly exaggerated number for production rate (you can't extract it fast enough to meet daily demand), the math isn't even right!

Let's see:

US demand of oil is about 20 million barrels / day [1].

At the current consumption rate, 500 billion barrels would last: (500e9 barrels / 20e6 barrels per day) / 365 days per year = 68 years. Not anywhere close.

OK, maybe the author's just a bad writer and means the 2 trillion number quoted later on. At the current consumption rate, 2 trillion barrels would last: (2e12 barrels / 20e6 barrels per day) / 365 days per year = 274 years. Not even close again.

Is he using the other definition for trillion / billion? No, because then the numbers are too big.

[1] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html

 

[jtr1962]

Read the USGS link. There's 3 to 4.3 billion barrels of "technically recoverable" oil. The rest of the "2 trillion" in that email is not accessible to current technology. Oh, by the way, 4.3 billion barrels will last the US about 7 months if you extract it fast enough to meet daily demand.

Exactly what I meant with my comment of hundreds or thousands of dollars per barrel to extract, if indeed it's feasible to extract at all.

Really, you'd have to be deluded to think that we can continue relying on oil and coal. The switch to alternatives like nuclear and electrified transport should have happened starting in the 70s. Any delay now is just dumb.

+1. Even if oil were bubbling to the ground just waiting to be used, it wouldn't make sense to use it. The pollution costs of continued fossil fuel reliance are staggering. I'm not talking about the "debateable" parts. I'm talking about the stuff we see and treat in hospitals, like cancer and asthma. And the general decline in quality of life from foul-smelling air. Add in the whole economic/geopolitical angle, and it becomes clear the switchover to electrified transport should have happened 30 years ago.

 

[1138]

By the way, considering US only oil is kind of short sighted. Other countries use oil too, and in fact, with the move of manufacturing to other countries, US has actually displaced some of it's consumption to other countries. What this means is that even if you have enough oil to meet your daily demand now (and you don't, due to production rate), if no other country does, then the US will lose all the things it imports.

If you think that's not a problem, well, consider that if you need those imported things but every other country can't make it for you, you need to make it yourself. That means you'd have to use more energy. So you're still in the hole with regard to energy: either you do without a lot of goods, you trade your oil for goods or you make the goods yourself. In the latter two cases, it means you have to supply not just the current demand for oil, but more than that if you want to keep your standard of living.

In any of those cases, you'll find reliance on oil to be a bad thing. Any number based on the US current consumption rate is going to be suspect, simply because the rate will increase over time unless you make a conscious effort to switch to alternatives.

 

[Empath]

Threads introduced with nothing more than a link to conflict generating articles, should probably be sufficient enough to merit advising the poster to take it to the Underground. Instead, I let it stand awhile.

Sure enough, someone had to post a piece of spam received as a "forwarder" in his email, suggesting an unnamed person watched an unnamed news show with earth shattering revelations. A search on Google shows it used extensively by different agenda driven opinionated sites, several even claiming the contents of the email as their own.

Looking for a neutral source of information, not so much on the piece of spam, but on the subject matter, I found Snopes to be a reasonable source.

With all that controversy, no doubt the Underground is the proper place to continue the conversation.

Badbeams3, the Underground contains a collection of forums dedicated to headline news. Since you seem to like creating threads for their discussion, you might find it an interesting place. Particularly, considering that such threads in the Cafe will likely hereafter be closed immediately.