Let's talk about oil as a strategic resource

[hoot72]

Another area that is quite hot is the spartyl islands in the south china sea.

Vietnam, China, Malaysia, Philippines and Brunei are laying claim to the group of atolls out there...apparently alot of oil down there but the ASEAN council is looking into a solution to avoid a confrontation, as was the case in the past between Vietnamese and Chinese forces.

Lives were lost in those gun battles out at sea.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Originally Posted by hoot72

Another area that is quite hot is the spartyl islands in the south china sea..

Oil is only part of the challenge with the Spratly Islands. Disruption of the SLOCs in that are would have a huge impact on the worlds shipping and freight movement and has been considered a critical choke point for many years.

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SF_98/forum98.html

[incommin]

This isn't about oil....oil is energy. Light crude is cheap energy. Americans like cheap energy. THIS IS ABOUT ENERGY; CHEAP ENERGY.

When I was in high school..... (in 1961 or 2) the talk was that we would run out of oil in 30 to 50 years....... didn't happen. Last week I read a report that the latest analysis is there is 3X the oil reserve everyone thought was available a year ago. If and when we run out of light crude, there will be heavy crude to extract and oil shale from which to obtain ENERGY.

Nuclear power or energy is cheaper than fighting wars to insure supplies of light crude. When the pact was made with the Saudis (we will protect you for a lasting supply of light crude) the use of nuclear power wasn't available.

I think that what I am slowly getting to is that with a mixed supply of energy resources (light crude and shale oil from our own continental shelf, nuclear power, wind power, and solar power) supplies of crude from around the world becomes much less important and loses is strategic importance. And we could tell the rest of the world to go pound sand.


Jim

[Surf n Turf]

Originally Posted by incommin

This isn't about oil....oil is energy. Light crude is cheap energy. Americans like cheap energy. THIS IS ABOUT ENERGY; CHEAP ENERGY.

I think that what I am slowly getting to is that with a mixed supply of energy resources (light crude and shale oil from our own continental shelf, nuclear power, wind power, and solar power) supplies of crude from around the world becomes much less important and loses is strategic importance. And we could tell the rest of the world to go pound sand.


Jim

incommin,

Agree that this is about ENERGY ---- But not the shortage of energy --it is about politics, money, politics, the environment, politics, power, --- and POLITICS.

The United States currently has about 250 years of coal reserves (High / Low Sulpher) --- Can't mine the coal --- can’t burn the coal – it would irritate the environmental movement.

The United States currently has a +/- billion barrel “identified” oil field reserves off of the coast of Florida, Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of California, and much of Alaska (beyond ANWAR) --- can’t drill them, even to find out just how big they are -- it would irritate the environmental movement.

(Note – China is drilling off the coast of Cuba, 50 miles from Key West)

The United States has the Nuclear Technology (starting in the 1970’s) to use “Breeder Reactors” that produce enough fuel to fuel new reactors – (sort of Perpetual motion on the fuel side) ---- Babcock & Wilcox, Combustion Engineering, Foster Wheeler, Deutsche Babcock, etc – went broke fighting to produce these Reactors – can’t build them --- Nuclear power is bad, and it would irritate the environmental movement.

So, until we get serious – or the public gets mad – We are going to buy Foreign (including ME) oil, and continue in a state of semi-blackmail.
SnT

[soldierdoc_2005]

Originally Posted by Surf n Turf

incommin,

Agree that this is about ENERGY ---- But not the shortage of energy --it is about politics, money, politics, the environment, politics, power, --- and POLITICS.

The United States currently has about 250 years of coal reserves (High / Low Sulpher) --- Can't mine the coal --- can’t burn the coal – it would irritate the environmental movement.

The United States currently has a +/- billion barrel “identified” oil field reserves off of the coast of Florida, Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of California, and much of Alaska (beyond ANWAR) --- can’t drill them, even to find out just how big they are -- it would irritate the environmental movement.

(Note – China is drilling off the coast of Cuba, 50 miles from Key West)

The United States has the Nuclear Technology (starting in the 1970’s) to use “Breeder Reactors” that produce enough fuel to fuel new reactors – (sort of Perpetual motion on the fuel side) ---- Babcock & Wilcox, Combustion Engineering, Foster Wheeler, Deutsche Babcock, etc – went broke fighting to produce these Reactors – can’t build them --- Nuclear power is bad, and it would irritate the environmental movement.

So, until we get serious – or the public gets mad – We are going to buy Foreign (including ME) oil, and continue in a state of semi-blackmail.
SnT

Well put!

It always drives me nuts to hear greenie-weenie LLib's rant on about "oil independence..."

My standard reply is, "Great! I agree. Now, let's start drilling in ANWAR and the Gulf tomorrow."

Usually, this is greeted with, "Oh no! That's bad for the environment!"

Pick your poison Green Peace, et al,...and singing "Cumbayah" around a camp fire ISN'T an option :-)

~Eric

[tk27]

Originally Posted by soldierdoc_2005

Well put!

It always drives me nuts to hear greenie-weenie LLib's rant on about "oil independence..."

My standard reply is, "Great! I agree. Now, let's start drilling in ANWAR and the Gulf tomorrow."

Usually, this is greeted with, "Oh no! That's bad for the environment!"

Pick your poison Green Peace, et al,...and singing "Cumbayah" around a camp fire ISN'T an option :-)

~Eric

You ain't gotta be a tree-hugger to be against drilling in ANWR, the economics ain't there. There's a reason why BP, Conoco-Phillips and Chevron-Texaco have all pulled there lobbying efforts from ANWR.

Nor do you have to be a progressive-lib to call for energy independence, former DCI Woolsey (by no means a lib) and his wife both drive hybrids. And is on the board of The Set America Free Coalition with a number of prominent conservatives and liberals.

[x SF med]

Originally Posted by tk27

You ain't gotta be a tree-hugger to be against drilling in ANWR, the economics ain't there. There's a reason why BP, Conoco-Phillips and Chevron-Texaco have all pulled there lobbying efforts from ANWR.

Nor do you have to be a progressive-lib to call for energy independence, former DCI Woolsey (by no means a lib) and his wife both drive hybrids. And is on the board of The Set America Free Coalition with a number of prominent conservatives and liberals.

tk-
Don't get me started on hybrids - long term they'll do more damage to the environment than straight fossil fuel vehicles - how are you going to dispose of the 8 batteries at a time without huge damage to the environment? Biofuels are a better answer - no sulfur, and fully renewable. I drive a diesel car and would love to have better availability of biodiesel. Plus it can be produced from rapeseed, soy, and a few other nuts and legumes. Hydrogen Technologies are another decent 'future' energy source, as are solar, wind and geothermal.

[tk27]

X-SF,
I don't disagree. I was trying to make a point that it is not just libs who are into energy independence. Fair enough?
Biofuels have great promise.
What do you think about methanols potential?

[x SF med]

for Methanol, engine technology has to change - it is destructive to current auto parts, and gums badly, plus the thermal efficiency is very low in octane based combustion, especially alcohol burn with extremely low flash points - cetane based (compression/combustion) fuels, esp. biofuels are more thermally efficient, a 90 hp/165 ftlb diesel engine is not uncommon - most diesel engines produce close to 2:1 torque/hp ratios, where gasoline/octane (spark/combustion) engines are more likely to produce about 1:1 torque/hp. You may buy hp - because it's sexy, but you drive torque 90% of the time. I am a diesel driver for a lot of reasons - thermal efficiency, lower emissions (in well designed engines - like mine, it got wanded and passed for a Tier II bin 1 vehicle - LEV levels - off the lot and 3 yrs old at the time - the guy could not believe it was a diesel), and ease of production of biofuels for them. Plus, at 80 mph, I still get 44 mpg turning about 2500 rpms - at 125 mph, I get about 35 mpg turning about 3800 rpm and can stay there all day, even uphill, with room to kick it up, and no speed loss uphill even up the mountains on I26 from Tn into NC). My range is about 700 miles/tank, and I could squeeze a little more out of it if I needed to.

***diesel rant over for now***

[incommin]

"There's a reason why BP, Conoco-Phillips and Chevron-Texaco have all pulled there lobbying efforts from ANWR."

What reasons????????

Got to agree with x_sf........diesel is the way to go. We can produce lots of bio-diesel. Save the crude for making plastic toys.....

Jim

[Karl.Masters]

Originally Posted by x_sf_med

Plus, at 80 mph, I still get 44 mpg turning about 2500 rpms - at 125 mph, I get about 35 mpg turning about 3800 rpm and can stay there all day, even uphill, with room to kick it up, and no speed loss uphill even up the mountains on I26 from Tn into NC). My range is about 700 miles/tank, and I could squeeze a little more out of it if I needed to.

***diesel rant over for now***

x_sf_med,

What kind of ride is this? Those numbers on 45 Cetane? Turbo or intercooler on this diesel? Proliferation of this kind of efficiency could change the demand numbers/economics....

Karl

[x SF med]

Karl-
Those numbers are on an average of about 41 cetane LSD/ULSD, genrous use of Diesel Kleen (4-6 oz /tank, more if It feels dirty) 4cyl, injected, VNT 17 turbo, intercooler, auto trany (could get 50+ w/ manual), fuel cooler for the recirc (maintains about 80*C). I've done better when I can get 45 cetane, but that's rare around here, I usually get it in VA when I travel through.

It's a 2002 VW Golf TDI, 1.9l - ALH engine, not the Pumpe-Duse or Common Rail, built on the Audi A4 frame, suspension is all Bilstein, handles like a dream on michelin MX4+ 165/90 R15 H82s @40#. Oh, yeah, I've been offered more than what I paid for it, ain't gonna happen. Oil/filter changes every 10K w/ 505.00 full syn 5-40, air filter every 35-40k, fuel filter every 20-30k. Easy to work on, and quiet. I go 0-60 pretty quickly, never timed it, but from a toll booth to the lane compression I'm usually at 60 or 70.

No shit about changing the demand numbers - look at Europe, 53% of all passenger vehicles sold are diesel - from the 2 or 3 cyl Skoda/Peugeot/VW/Audi/MB city cars (up to 85 mpg - not fast, not sexy, but good cars) all the way up to the V-10 VW Taureg (30+ mpg, 350 hp, 550 ftlb torque - full time awd), and everything in between. Audi has racing diesels that are smoking (pun intended) gassers on 1/4 mi and long distance racing.

What's killing diesels in the states is the old 70's idea of the American diesels - slow, smelly, noisy, no pickup, and CARB rules. CARB should be less of an issue with the new Urea catalytic scrubbers that decrease the NO and particulates.

Damn, brother, you got me started again on the diesel rant. Ask TS about my car, he's ridden in it - didn't get to do any AT-Eva driving, but he was surprised it was a diesel, very surprised.

***end diesel rant part deux***

[tk27]

Originally Posted by incommin

What reasons????????

The money ain't there to be made. Chevron and BP had the only exploratory well drilled in the refuge from the '80's. The results from it is a closely held secret and was not even shared with the govt. Had the results been encouraging they would have continued political lobbying.
They could drill wells in Central Park for all I care, but I think the case of ANWR is more a political lightingrod than anything else. The greens concentrating all their political capital in one polarizing case and industry (Exxon-Mobil) fighting back for fear that successful opposition here will lead to successful opposition to other domestic exploration.


x_sf_med, feel free to share your diesel rants with me anytime. They are informative.

[vsvo]

I am also with x_, diesels are the way to go. Gasoline-electric hybrids are a fad. The technology is unproven, and if you run the numbers comparing the fuel savings against the price premium, economically they don't make sense. Besides, the simple fact that millionaire Hollywood actors love to haughtily drive their Toyata Priuses around is reason enough not to buy the damn things.

Ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) is here. Technology exists to make diesels 50 state legal, even under Tier II Bin 5. The EPA will soon release guidelines for urea injection, which the Euros are using in BlueTec. Honda has announced it will release within three years a clean diesel that will not depend on urea injection. Toyota just paid almost $400 million for an almost 6% stake in Isuzu, a pittance for a company generating billions in cash. Toyota figured it was better (faster) to buy diesel technology than further develop it itself - this from a leading manufacturer of hybrids.

I don't understand why folks aren't rushing to embrace modern diesels. Diesels will allow Americans to resume their love affair with large SUV's and pickup trucks without having to take a big hit to the wallet. Perhaps this is where the manufacturers need to push the technology to the consumer. I can easily find E85 in my area. I tried to use it often in my Tahoe, but the mileage penalty was crippling. I look forward to getting back into a diesel.

[tk27]

X-SF,
What do you think about biodiesel production from algae feedstock? I like the yields I'm looking at there.