Re: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
- Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 18:53 Subject: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq Puuh, sweat, sweat, Dear Greg, Good, I suppose that you must know your boolean algebra and the basis for computers to make this definition of multiplication and division. So we do not have to waste time on this as long as you do it right. I've always had a hard time with algebra (other than the basic algebra anyway), but, to me it just seams make sense. Obviously you need some help with the numbers and I will try to explain the issues as good as I can. To start with, the source which is generally regarded as comprehensive, interesting and quite accurate is at the following link, http://www.bp.com/downloads/1087/statistical_review.pdf Confusion time. On Pg. 4 they list Mexico with N. America, but, on Pg. 5, the map shows Mexico as being included with S. central America as far as the graphs. Which is correct? This cast doubt on the graphs on Pg. 8 and others that are based on the information from Pgs. 4 5. I'm not being argumentative, just confused. I am kinda suprised by the map on Pg. 19, I would think that the U.S. would try and get more oil from Africa, it being closer, than from the middle east. To explain Known Oil Reserves versus speculations about the Total Oil Reserves, it will save space in this email if you read what I wrote about it on the following link, http://energy.saving.nu/resources/oilreserves.shtml Another stumbling block I'm having is the differance between Proven Reserves, Estamated Reserves of a known oil source and Speculation of unknown reserves. To me this is 3 seperate things, akin to Known, Most likely and a wild ass guess. I read the link above, but, like I said, to me I'm seeing 3 seperate things rather than just ' Proven ' and ' Speculation '. To add some background to this, is that the only unknown larger oil reserves that might be in US, are maybe to be found in Alaska. Iraq, which have known oil reserves that amounts to half of Saudi Arabia (the largest in the world) is the second largest. Together they represent around half of the worlds known oil reserves. It is however expected that when Iraq is fully explored, it will be as large as Saudi Arabia and maybe larger. With known oil reserves, it is known oil reserves also for US. A discussion of single fields is therefore academic and fruitless as arguments. The only thing that might be open for discussions are the unknown oil reserves. Your confusions could come from that in some US estimates, it is included oil imports. In R/P values for the whole world, production is equal to consumption, but for local areas the consumption are used. The R/P value for US is therefore the US known oil reserves divided by its yearly consumption and that is how they get 10.7 years, the number does not even include estimates of a rise in consumption. Bluntly said, with current known oil reserves, without imports and with current consumption, US will have oil for 10.7 years. Obviously US must import oil or rapidly find very large new oil reserves and if non of this is available US would be in a crisis situation. This helps. Therefore US decided many years ago to build a storage reserve, mainly from imports. The storage reserve, if it is full, give US a year or two in combination with own oil reserves. This storage reserve is mainly used for stabilizing prices and at the moment it is around 50% of its capacity. It should not be necessary, but I will anyway point out that US already now is in a very sensitive situation. Since when is Mexico US? Do you have plans of invading them too? I have not heard about that, it is a complete surprise. Regarding Mexico, see the first link I gave you, where you can find detailed data for the whole world. You will find Canada and the Central/South American countries also. No, I'm not planning on invading mexico, but, I have talked about the U.S. buying Baja Califorina from them a few times, but, that is an entirly different subject. I tossed in Mexico as part of the World Numbers, I know, I should of seperated it from the US numbers, but I didn't. Sorry. For NG it includes WY, since it is 2001/2002 numbers, but the same as I said about R/P values for oil is also valid for NG. Your point about multiple cycles for nuclear is very valid, but for various safety reasons the normal reactors are one stage. I have not heard that multiple stages would take care of the waste problems to any larger degree and balanced with the other safety concerns, it does not look as an advantage. By taking the spent reactor fuel, and reprocessing it, you reduce the amount of new fuel you use and the total amount of spent fuel that becomes waste. I don't know the exact numbers, but, I have been told that in a spent fuel rod, somewhere between 80% and 90% of the fuel would
Re: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
Greg, I am glad that you found the numbers interesting and that it obviously enhanced your view. Your stumbling block regarding the maps is nothing, compared when some Americans try to make maps of the world. The individual numbers are the most interesting anyway. Regarding known (proven) reserves, it is not much to say. Estimates are founded on geological data and some of the are made by economists. This explains the range of numbers. I call it speculations, since they vary between 2 to 4 times the known. We could make 3 or more groups out of them, but it does not really change the over all picture. I like your idea of known, estimates and wild speculations, but my point in the article was that it is really not serious to fight about if it is me, my children or my grandchildren that will suffer. I like to see future generations span more the 3 generations and ideally see a sustainable situation. When you deal with this figures and draw the consequences, it is ludicrous to say that it is not about oil. If you the see who are getting development contracts in Iraq and who is not getting them, it fits well with the groupings on the war issue. It is only Spain, who have tentative agreement with Iraq that is acting without logic. I am not surprised about that at all, but maybe they have been promised a larger stake from US/UK. During the late 60's and early 70's, it was many numbers flying around. The most serious analyses was Hubbert's presentation to the US Congress in mid 70's. Since I was very much involved in energy questions already then, I remember the important ones. It is quite possible that you had some doomsday prophets that was talking about 30 years, but I do not remember it. If they did, it was irrelevant anyway in the circles that I was working in. I can not take this as a serious argument, since I did not supported such estimates. Known oil reserves for 50 to 60 years was what we talked about and that was quite correct. We were also aware that that new discoveries would push that numbers forward. In that sense I would say that the numbers we discussed was maybe more optimistic than todays. Nuclear is a subject that I try to avoid, since it is a very infected area with many unqualified opinions. We were involved in designing of PA systems and in the control calculations of stress and fixations of piping in the two last built Nuclear Plants in Sweden. I am not in starch opposition to nuclear, but some of the plants built and operated today are outright dangerous. I would like to see the idea of low temperature mini reactors for hot water production for heating picked up again, it would be much safer and minimum of dangerous waste. As it is, fusion have a long way to go if it ever will be an alternative. Hakan At 12:26 AM 2/18/2003 -0700, you wrote: - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 18:53 Subject: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq Puuh, sweat, sweat, Dear Greg, Good, I suppose that you must know your boolean algebra and the basis for computers to make this definition of multiplication and division. So we do not have to waste time on this as long as you do it right. I've always had a hard time with algebra (other than the basic algebra anyway), but, to me it just seams make sense. Obviously you need some help with the numbers and I will try to explain the issues as good as I can. To start with, the source which is generally regarded as comprehensive, interesting and quite accurate is at the following link, http://www.bp.com/downloads/1087/statistical_review.pdf Confusion time. On Pg. 4 they list Mexico with N. America, but, on Pg. 5, the map shows Mexico as being included with S. central America as far as the graphs. Which is correct? This cast doubt on the graphs on Pg. 8 and others that are based on the information from Pgs. 4 5. I'm not being argumentative, just confused. I am kinda suprised by the map on Pg. 19, I would think that the U.S. would try and get more oil from Africa, it being closer, than from the middle east. To explain Known Oil Reserves versus speculations about the Total Oil Reserves, it will save space in this email if you read what I wrote about it on the following link, http://energy.saving.nu/resources/oilreserves.shtml Another stumbling block I'm having is the differance between Proven Reserves, Estamated Reserves of a known oil source and Speculation of unknown reserves. To me this is 3 seperate things, akin to Known, Most likely and a wild ass guess. I read the link above, but, like I said, to me I'm seeing 3 seperate things rather than just ' Proven ' and ' Speculation '. To add some background to this, is that the only unknown larger oil reserves that might be in US, are maybe to be found in Alaska. Iraq, which have known oil reserves that amounts to half of Saudi
Re: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
Hi, I've watched this discussion for a while and there appears to be no reference to methane hydrates, which are well distributed throughout the world and are well positioned to readily serve the coastal U.S. population when developed. While there are a variety of data sources, I will leave compilation to those so inclined. In the meanwhile a reasonably non-contentious starting source might be http://www.fe.doe.gov/oil_gas/methanehydrates/ Rgds, G.R. Hakan Falk wrote: Greg, I am glad that you found the numbers interesting and that it obviously enhanced your view. Your stumbling block regarding the maps is nothing, compared when some Americans try to make maps of the world. The individual numbers are the most interesting anyway. Regarding known (proven) reserves, it is not much to say. Estimates are founded on geological data and some of the are made by economists. This explains the range of numbers. I call it speculations, since they vary between 2 to 4 times the known. We could make 3 or more groups out of them, but it does not really change the over all picture. I like your idea of known, estimates and wild speculations, but my point in the article was that it is really not serious to fight about if it is me, my children or my grandchildren that will suffer. I like to see future generations span more the 3 generations and ideally see a sustainable situation. When you deal with this figures and draw the consequences, it is ludicrous to say that it is not about oil. If you the see who are getting development contracts in Iraq and who is not getting them, it fits well with the groupings on the war issue. It is only Spain, who have tentative agreement with Iraq that is acting without logic. I am not surprised about that at all, but maybe they have been promised a larger stake from US/UK. During the late 60's and early 70's, it was many numbers flying around. The most serious analyses was Hubbert's presentation to the US Congress in mid 70's. Since I was very much involved in energy questions already then, I remember the important ones. It is quite possible that you had some doomsday prophets that was talking about 30 years, but I do not remember it. If they did, it was irrelevant anyway in the circles that I was working in. I can not take this as a serious argument, since I did not supported such estimates. Known oil reserves for 50 to 60 years was what we talked about and that was quite correct. We were also aware that that new discoveries would push that numbers forward. In that sense I would say that the numbers we discussed was maybe more optimistic than todays. Nuclear is a subject that I try to avoid, since it is a very infected area with many unqualified opinions. We were involved in designing of PA systems and in the control calculations of stress and fixations of piping in the two last built Nuclear Plants in Sweden. I am not in starch opposition to nuclear, but some of the plants built and operated today are outright dangerous. I would like to see the idea of low temperature mini reactors for hot water production for heating picked up again, it would be much safer and minimum of dangerous waste. As it is, fusion have a long way to go if it ever will be an alternative. Hakan At 12:26 AM 2/18/2003 -0700, you wrote: - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 18:53 Subject: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq Puuh, sweat, sweat, Dear Greg, Good, I suppose that you must know your boolean algebra and the basis for computers to make this definition of multiplication and division. So we do not have to waste time on this as long as you do it right. I've always had a hard time with algebra (other than the basic algebra anyway), but, to me it just seams make sense. Obviously you need some help with the numbers and I will try to explain the issues as good as I can. To start with, the source which is generally regarded as comprehensive, interesting and quite accurate is at the following link, http://www.bp.com/downloads/1087/statistical_review.pdf Confusion time. On Pg. 4 they list Mexico with N. America, but, on Pg. 5, the map shows Mexico as being included with S. central America as far as the graphs. Which is correct? This cast doubt on the graphs on Pg. 8 and others that are based on the information from Pgs. 4 5. I'm not being argumentative, just confused. I am kinda suprised by the map on Pg. 19, I would think that the U.S. would try and get more oil from Africa, it being closer, than from the middle east. To explain Known Oil Reserves versus speculations about the Total Oil Reserves, it will save space in this email if you read what I wrote about it on the following link, http://energy.saving.nu/resources/oilreserves.shtml Another
Re: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
Hi G.R. Maybe not in this particular thread, but there's quite a lot about it in the archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Search for methane hydrate (with quotes). Also coalbed methane. Best Keith Hi, I've watched this discussion for a while and there appears to be no reference to methane hydrates, which are well distributed throughout the world and are well positioned to readily serve the coastal U.S. population when developed. While there are a variety of data sources, I will leave compilation to those so inclined. In the meanwhile a reasonably non-contentious starting source might be http://www.fe.doe.gov/oil_gas/methanehydrates/ Rgds, G.R. Hakan Falk wrote: Greg, I am glad that you found the numbers interesting and that it obviously enhanced your view. snip Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
Additionally, try this: http://nnytech.net/~archive2/index.php?keywords=methane+hydratelist=bio fuelbrowse=1 I apologize for such a long list of results, this is the beta website - I'll put it on my list of to-dos :) --- Martin Klingensmith infoarchive.net [archive.nnytech.net] nnytech.net -Original Message- From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 12:19 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq Hi G.R. Maybe not in this particular thread, but there's quite a lot about it in the archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Search for methane hydrate (with quotes). Also coalbed methane. Best Keith Hi, I've watched this discussion for a while and there appears to be no reference to methane hydrates, which are well distributed throughout the world and are well positioned to readily serve the coastal U.S. population when developed. While there are a variety of data sources, I will leave compilation to those so inclined. In the meanwhile a reasonably non-contentious starting source might be http://www.fe.doe.gov/oil_gas/methanehydrates/ Rgds, G.R. Hakan Falk wrote: Greg, I am glad that you found the numbers interesting and that it obviously enhanced your view. snip Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
No one is sure if the hydrates can be harvested safely. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology: http://www.green-trust.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Gary Rempel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq Hi, I've watched this discussion for a while and there appears to be no reference to methane hydrates, which are well distributed throughout the world and are well positioned to readily serve the coastal U.S. population when developed. While there are a variety of data sources, I will leave compilation to those so inclined. In the meanwhile a reasonably non-contentious starting source might be http://www.fe.doe.gov/oil_gas/methanehydrates/ Rgds, G.R. Hakan Falk wrote: Greg, I am glad that you found the numbers interesting and that it obviously enhanced your view. Your stumbling block regarding the maps is nothing, compared when some Americans try to make maps of the world. The individual numbers are the most interesting anyway. Regarding known (proven) reserves, it is not much to say. Estimates are founded on geological data and some of the are made by economists. This explains the range of numbers. I call it speculations, since they vary between 2 to 4 times the known. We could make 3 or more groups out of them, but it does not really change the over all picture. I like your idea of known, estimates and wild speculations, but my point in the article was that it is really not serious to fight about if it is me, my children or my grandchildren that will suffer. I like to see future generations span more the 3 generations and ideally see a sustainable situation. When you deal with this figures and draw the consequences, it is ludicrous to say that it is not about oil. If you the see who are getting development contracts in Iraq and who is not getting them, it fits well with the groupings on the war issue. It is only Spain, who have tentative agreement with Iraq that is acting without logic. I am not surprised about that at all, but maybe they have been promised a larger stake from US/UK. During the late 60's and early 70's, it was many numbers flying around. The most serious analyses was Hubbert's presentation to the US Congress in mid 70's. Since I was very much involved in energy questions already then, I remember the important ones. It is quite possible that you had some doomsday prophets that was talking about 30 years, but I do not remember it. If they did, it was irrelevant anyway in the circles that I was working in. I can not take this as a serious argument, since I did not supported such estimates. Known oil reserves for 50 to 60 years was what we talked about and that was quite correct. We were also aware that that new discoveries would push that numbers forward. In that sense I would say that the numbers we discussed was maybe more optimistic than todays. Nuclear is a subject that I try to avoid, since it is a very infected area with many unqualified opinions. We were involved in designing of PA systems and in the control calculations of stress and fixations of piping in the two last built Nuclear Plants in Sweden. I am not in starch opposition to nuclear, but some of the plants built and operated today are outright dangerous. I would like to see the idea of low temperature mini reactors for hot water production for heating picked up again, it would be much safer and minimum of dangerous waste. As it is, fusion have a long way to go if it ever will be an alternative. Hakan At 12:26 AM 2/18/2003 -0700, you wrote: - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 18:53 Subject: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq Puuh, sweat, sweat, Dear Greg, Good, I suppose that you must know your boolean algebra and the basis for computers to make this definition of multiplication and division. So we do not have to waste time on this as long as you do it right. I've always had a hard time with algebra (other than the basic algebra anyway), but, to me it just seams make sense. Obviously you need some help with the numbers and I will try to explain the issues as good as I can. To start with, the source which is generally regarded as comprehensive, interesting and quite accurate is at the following link, http://www.bp.com/downloads/1087/statistical_review.pdf Confusion time. On Pg. 4 they list Mexico with N. America, but, on Pg. 5, the map shows Mexico as being included with S. central America as far as the graphs. Which is correct? This cast doubt on the graphs on Pg. 8 and others that are based
Re: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
Hi G.R. Ready for use technology? Safe shot? Otherwise a good idea for the uncertain future. Hakan At 08:25 AM 2/18/2003 -0700, you wrote: Hi, I've watched this discussion for a while and there appears to be no reference to methane hydrates, which are well distributed throughout the world and are well positioned to readily serve the coastal U.S. population when developed. While there are a variety of data sources, I will leave compilation to those so inclined. In the meanwhile a reasonably non-contentious starting source might be http://www.fe.doe.gov/oil_gas/methanehydrates/ Rgds, G.R. Hakan Falk wrote: Greg, I am glad that you found the numbers interesting and that it obviously enhanced your view. Your stumbling block regarding the maps is nothing, compared when some Americans try to make maps of the world. The individual numbers are the most interesting anyway. Regarding known (proven) reserves, it is not much to say. Estimates are founded on geological data and some of the are made by economists. This explains the range of numbers. I call it speculations, since they vary between 2 to 4 times the known. We could make 3 or more groups out of them, but it does not really change the over all picture. I like your idea of known, estimates and wild speculations, but my point in the article was that it is really not serious to fight about if it is me, my children or my grandchildren that will suffer. I like to see future generations span more the 3 generations and ideally see a sustainable situation. When you deal with this figures and draw the consequences, it is ludicrous to say that it is not about oil. If you the see who are getting development contracts in Iraq and who is not getting them, it fits well with the groupings on the war issue. It is only Spain, who have tentative agreement with Iraq that is acting without logic. I am not surprised about that at all, but maybe they have been promised a larger stake from US/UK. During the late 60's and early 70's, it was many numbers flying around. The most serious analyses was Hubbert's presentation to the US Congress in mid 70's. Since I was very much involved in energy questions already then, I remember the important ones. It is quite possible that you had some doomsday prophets that was talking about 30 years, but I do not remember it. If they did, it was irrelevant anyway in the circles that I was working in. I can not take this as a serious argument, since I did not supported such estimates. Known oil reserves for 50 to 60 years was what we talked about and that was quite correct. We were also aware that that new discoveries would push that numbers forward. In that sense I would say that the numbers we discussed was maybe more optimistic than todays. Nuclear is a subject that I try to avoid, since it is a very infected area with many unqualified opinions. We were involved in designing of PA systems and in the control calculations of stress and fixations of piping in the two last built Nuclear Plants in Sweden. I am not in starch opposition to nuclear, but some of the plants built and operated today are outright dangerous. I would like to see the idea of low temperature mini reactors for hot water production for heating picked up again, it would be much safer and minimum of dangerous waste. As it is, fusion have a long way to go if it ever will be an alternative. Hakan At 12:26 AM 2/18/2003 -0700, you wrote: - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 18:53 Subject: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq Puuh, sweat, sweat, Dear Greg, Good, I suppose that you must know your boolean algebra and the basis for computers to make this definition of multiplication and division. So we do not have to waste time on this as long as you do it right. I've always had a hard time with algebra (other than the basic algebra anyway), but, to me it just seams make sense. Obviously you need some help with the numbers and I will try to explain the issues as good as I can. To start with, the source which is generally regarded as comprehensive, interesting and quite accurate is at the following link, http://www.bp.com/downloads/1087/statistical_review.pdf Confusion time. On Pg. 4 they list Mexico with N. America, but, on Pg. 5, the map shows Mexico as being included with S. central America as far as the graphs. Which is correct? This cast doubt on the graphs on Pg. 8 and others that are based on the information from Pgs. 4 5. I'm not being argumentative, just confused. I am kinda suprised by the map on Pg. 19, I would think that the U.S. would try and get more oil from Africa, it being closer, than from the middle east. To explain Known
Re: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
crisis situation. Therefore US decided many years ago to build a storage reserve, mainly from imports. The storage reserve, if it is full, give US a year or two in combination with own oil reserves. This storage reserve is mainly used for stabilizing prices and at the moment it is around 50% of its capacity. It should not be necessary, but I will anyway point out that US already now is in a very sensitive situation. It has been said that Bush Sr. made a mistake in not releasing reserves sooner during the Gulf war, so as to bring down prices. Then the country had a recession. Whether this criticism is valid, I don't know, but I have been surprised Jr. hasn't released some, given the problems in Venezuela, and now Nigeria, neither of which has the slightest thing (that we're aware) to do with any war in the M.E., i.e., they're just normal events for which you'd think the reserve would have helped. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
