Hybrid Lovers Read This and Lament

With a complete analysis all costs are labor.

 

With a complete analysis all costs are labor.

Welll...

Raw materials and fuel is hardly all labor

Most of the costs are sales, marketing, profiteering

The prices can theoretically come down quite a lot

The price of oil is one of the cost most obvious to the ordinary
customers

The use of alternative energy is obviously favored by the high costs of
oil

For last thirty 30 years we have been getting warnings that the prices
of oil would be going up steeply but most people have ignored it

Finally now the price of oil is noticable for most people

There have been alternatives available for a long time but they are
still a long way off at replacing oil altogether but it seems that the
higher costs now will speed things up

The old companies rely on inertia and slow changes

The old companies management have missed out on doing these neccessary
changes and there is also a question of the authorities to help create
the infrastructure for the new energies

The authorities should put a lot of taxes on oil and stimulate use of
fuel cells

If they did that the changes will go even quicker and the need to
invade more countries to get more oil would be less

 

Invading countries for oil??!! You've been listening to the wrong people!!!

 

Maybe, but I am more inclined to think Bush set the whole thing up
because Saddam pissed him off. On top of that, there was no question
that the US had the "shock and awe" to beat up on them.

 

In the name of the father the son invaded to get the whole of the
oilghost

 

Grin, Have to agree with you on this one.

The labour costs of "administering" an oil fiefdom tend to be the
highest costs per hour of expended labour of any labour in the whole
process

 

I do believe that the Iraq invasion was to establish a military
presence in an unstable region that seems bent upon the acquisition of
nuclear arms more than it was to access oil.

Oil from Canada would have been much cheaper and much more plentiful
than anything in Iraq and they haven't come North to free Canadians
from our elected Dictatorship.

As for alternative energies? If they were truly viable don't you
think Microsoft would buy them and get yet another Monopoly?

'nuff said.

 

joe schmoe said "Oil from Canada would have been much cheaper and much
more plentiful
than anything in Iraq..."

Joe, I'm not sure where you are getting your information or what you've
been smoking, but at last check, the U.S. had 2.1% of proven Oil
Reserves, Iraq had 10.9% and Canada had a measley 0.4%. Only Saudi
Arabia, with 25.5% had more Oil Reserves than Iraq. Canada's oil supply
could not even come close to meeting thehuge U.S. demand. It would be a
waste of time for the U.S. to tap into Canada's supply. Iraq is "much
more plentiful"! ;-)

 

Your figures are just a bit off, in fact you seem to be about 20 years
out of date. >

Canada's Alberta oil sands alone equal Saudi Arabia's reserves at only a
10% recovery, which is too low for todays improving technology.
SA is maturing as an oil source, Canada is just getting going.
The difference is SA had very low production costs. With increasing
prices much more oil is economically recoverable.

An example of this is the $140 million Nexen of Canada, with several
other partners, just spent to drill the world's deepest commercial oil
well. It's in the Gulf of Mexico, I assume in the USA part of the Gulf.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051221/R
NEXEN21/TPBusiness/?query=nexen+oil+well

As for supplying the USA with imported energy, SA is third,
Canada is first and that guy Bush and Pat hate is second.
Canada currently supplies about 30%.
So for a number of years very significant quantities of oil, natural gas
and electricity have been flowing south to the USA.

 

Spam Hater said "Your figures are just a bit off, in fact you seem to
be about 20 years
out of date. > "

You may want to check out this link Spam Hater:
http://www.azgs.az.gov/Winter2001.htm

Fortunately I bookmarked this site when I came across it a couple of
years ago. The information is admittedly 5 years old (not 20!) but you
will note therein that "Saudi Arabia contains an estimated 260 billion
barrels of oil, or about one-fourth of proved global reserves (Radler,
2000). " while Canada had an estimated 4 billion barrels of oil or 0.4%
of world reserves.

Spam Hater also said : " Canada's Alberta oil sands alone equal Saudi
Arabia's reserves at only a 10% recovery,".

In this regard, you may wish to check this link Spam Hater:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

This report was posted in October of 2005 but please note that it has 2
very significant qualifications:
1. " BP p.l.c., BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2005, except
United States.

2. " Proved reserves are estimated quantities that analysis of geologic
and engineering data demonstrates with reasonable certainty are
recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions."

The 1st qualification appears to imply that the figures shwoing for the
U.S. are incomplete. The 2nd qualification merely defines "Proved
Reserves".

You will note that this report very clearly shows that Saudi Arabia has
substantially more reserves than Canada, no matter whose figures you
use.

The BP Statistical Review shows Canada with reserves of 16.8 Billion
barrels VS. 262.7 Billion barrels for Saudia Arabia.

The Oil & Gas Journal shows Canada with reserves of 178.8 Billion
barrels VS. 261.9 Billion barrels for Saudia Arabia. As explained in
Footnote 3. : " Oil & Gas Journal's oil reserve estimate for Canada
includes 4.3 billion barrels of conventional crude oil and condensate
reserves and 174.5 billion barrels of oil sands reserves."

The World Oil Organization shows Canada with reserves of 4.7 Billion
barrels Vs. 262.1 Billion barrels for Saudi Arabia.

This information would appear to be at odds with your information Spam
Hater and particularly your claim that "Canada's Alberta oil sands
alone equal Saudi Arabia's reserves at only a 10% recovery." Would you
be so kind as to provide us with links that might shed some light on
the accuracy of your figures. Thanks S.H.

 

You made all that up. And besides, we could free them from the Totalitarian
Rule of Quebec.

 

Uh-huh. Except that Saudi Arabia makes up their "reserves" as they go
along, so there's no way of knowing how far off their assertions are from
reality.

 

hate to disagree but
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/oil.html
(July 2004))
"Alberta sits atop the biggest petroleum deposit outside the Arabian
peninsula - as many as 300 billion recoverable barrels and another
trillion-plus barrels that could one day be within reach using new
retrieval methods. (By contrast, the entire Middle East holds an
estimated 685 billion barrels that are recoverable.) "

Seeing as you won't believe that here's a few other links to read:

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/102spring2002_Web_projects/M.Sexton/
http://www.answers.com/topic/tar-sands
http://www.eenews.net/specialreports/tarsands/sr_tarsands3.htm
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/tarsands/



The US needs ot be in Iraq to limit the proliferation of Nuclear
technology from Pakistan. Oil is a minor added benefit/excuse.

If oil was the reason why not invade Venezuela? Easier, cheaper and
closer.

 

joe schmoe apparently chose not to believe Cool Jet's sources when he
said: "Seeing as you won't believe that here's a few other links to
read: ".

Okay Joe, let me consider this - will I believe data provided by
reputable sources from within the oil industry, i.e. The BP Statistical
Review, The Oil & Gas Journal, The World Oil Organization OR should I
believe your sources, i.e. Wired Magazine; a paper written by student,
Matt Sexton, Physics 102; an unnamed author at AnswersdotCom; some
unknown reporter (Mary O'Driscoll) from an unknown eenews organization;
another unknown source called hubbertpeakdotcom. Hmmm, I think I'll
stick with the well-known authorities within the oil industry. Joe, if
you had taken the time to read the report at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

you would have read Footnote 1. which states "Proved reserves are
estimated quantities that analysis of geologic and engineering data
demonstrates with reasonable certainty are recoverable under existing
economic and operating conditions."

Joe, we are talking "proved reserves" here. Reserves that are
economically feasible to recover now. Not 100 years from now!

Incidentally, even though the links you provided were from
non-reputable sources, I have to point out the following:

Wired News article states: "Alberta sits atop the biggest petroleum
deposit outside the Arabian peninsula - as many as 300 billion
recoverable barrels. . .(By contrast, the entire Middle East holds an
estimated 685 billion barrels that are recoverable.)". Joe, this
verifies my position, not yours! And while the tar sands oil is said to
be recoverable, much of it cannot presently be recovered on an
economically feasible basis.


Your "AnswersdotCom" link provides no support whatsoever to your
position and in fact bolsters my position when it says: "Extracting the
oil from these sands is difficult and expensive."

Your "eenews" link also supports my position, not yours. The article
focuses principally on developing cost effective ways of exploiting the
tar sands. In other words, it is not presently cost effective!

Your "hubbertpeak" link states "the reserve considered to be
technically recoverable". That speaks for itself Joe - it's technically
recoverable, but it's not economically feasible at the present time.
And that's what we're talking about here Joe - reality in the
here-and-now!

Do you need any more proof Joe? Those were, after all, your sources!

 

Read the articles carefully or read other articles. You might just
see that the "reserves" exist, just as the Gulf of Mexico and North
Sea reserves existed long before they were being drawn from.

With regards to Middle East reserves being so large and easily
accessible? You might want to read up on what the Saudies are
resorting to of late so that they can meet pumping targets

Keep in mind every time you hear of a non western reserve calculation
that the BreX Minerals gold reserves were "verified" and touted long
before the "salting" allegations came up.

In the grand scheme of things I don't really care one way or another.
Mankind will move past oil long before we run out of it. But if it
will make you feel better "I agree with you, you are probably right".

 

joe schmoe stepped up to the plate and said: "But if it will make you
feel better "I agree with you, you are probably right". "

'Nuff said. I feel much better, thank you Joe. I'll sleep tonight. ;-Þ