> I think the Department of Energy must be referring to conventional oil reserves
http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/oil/
"THE OIL RESERVE FALLACY
Proven reserves are not a measure of future supply"
An oil reserve figure is not the same thing as an in-place figure. The total oil in-place is currently estimated to be 2.1 quadrillion barrels, or ~70,000 years' worth at current consumption rates.
> Of course, if Thomas Gold was right, and oil is abiogenic
Off topic.
I worked for ARAMCO form 1978 to 1984. In 1984, ARAMCO estimated Arabia had 45 years of proven reserves at then current production rates(about 9 million barrels/day). When I returned to Arabia to work for the Saudi Electric Company in 1990, the cartel decided to limit members production to a percentage of each states reserves. Unfortunately, they didn't limit the word "reserves" to PROVEN reserves, so the cartel members promptly re-estimated their "reserves" to include "estimated" reserves, so their percentages allowed them to pump nearly twice as much oil. By that criteria, Arabian "reserves" then became enough to pump another 45 years(from 1990),,,but estimated reserves include oil that is very thick and requires active injection of water, sometimes including super heated steam to liquify the below ground oil so it can flow thru the interstices of oil bearing sand stone. That is a very expensive recovery mode,,,
GAry 7
> estimated reserves include oil that is very thick and requires active injection of water, sometimes including super heated steam to liquify the below ground oil so it can flow thru the interstices of oil bearing sand stone. That is a very expensive recovery mode,,,
> Sure, world unconventional reserves may far exceed current proven reserves, but if they're really energy intensive to retrieve, that will inevitably lead to a much higher price/barrel.
Nope. Since nuclear fuel only costs 1 penny per barrel of oil energy equivalent, oil that requires 100 barrels of energy to produce only costs one dollar in nuclear fuel.
> Chemical energy as our only energy source is ludicrous for a high tech society.
It mainly isn't the energy that is valued. It is the packaging. We know this because nuclear fuel is sold for only one penny per barrel of equivalent oil energy:
http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx
Weekly Spot Ux U3O8 Price
as of March 23, 2009
$42.50
> The ONLY open ended, constant cost energy source is the sun
It's only "constant" because it happens to be gradually meted out. If and when civilization can control the sun...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere
...its power flux will no longer be constant -- without civilization pretending it is constant. The same pretending can be done in regard to any other fuel. What makes solar-pretending special?
> and as retrieval tech improves [...] the production costs will go down.
Ditto for gas, oil, coal, and uranium/thorium.
> Power sats allow us to directly access that big old fusion plant in the sky for the next few billion years.
...Not if someone directly mines the fuel, effectively turning out the light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting
> Why does that not take priority over any chemical storage system in your world view???
Chemicals might be economically convenient, for the time being. See:
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource
Well, that was fun but you're beginning to remind me of my ex and that's just a waste of my time. None of this has anything to do with facilitating SSP and that's all that interests me on this Sig. Thanks for the exercise,,,
Gary, thats because hitssquad has no interest in SSP; hes just a shill for the nuclear power industry, who makes outlandish claims to discourage any competition for his masters.
GAry 7
Gentlemen, please, in our statements, let's just stick to the facts: hitsquad advocates nuclear.
Mike Combs
Gary, thats because hitssquad has no interest in SSP; hes just a shill for the nuclear power industry, who makes outlandish claims to discourage any competition for his masters.
Well, that was fun but you're beginning to remind me of my ex and that's just a waste of my time. None of this has anything to do with facilitating SSP and that's all that interests me on this Sig. Thanks for the exercise,,,
GAry 7
Mike, advocating nuclear is one thing. Deriding SSP and wasting my time quite another.
GAry 7
>> Of course, if Thomas Gold was right, and oil is abiogenic
Hmm, the possibility that your entire argument is moot is off topic. I see. Thanks for playing h____d, you're not worth talking to anymore.
Ed