Why the oil industry has buried the idea of "peak oil"

[ralfy]

Wow, that's a lot!

Even a KSA official stated in one article that we've used only 25 pct of world oil reserves. The catch is the energy requirements needed to extract and process what remains as well as the rate of extraction compared to the increase in demand. In this case, a 4-6 mb/d addition to production for the next two decades compared to something like an increase of up to 2 mb/d each year to maintain global economic growth.

[pstarr]

If we are awash in oil why do we need cold fusion?

It would be way, way cheaper. Even if oil were $30/bbl, it would be way cheaper.

How much is way, way cheaper? You quote $30. How about $5/barrel? Would it be cheaper than that?

...and it would solve the global warming problem (if there is one).

Would it solve the peak phosphorus problem? How about ocean acidification from carbolic acid?

...plus, we wouldn't need a power grid.

Is that because we would carry the cold fusion around with us? If so, are the radiations dangerous?

[Rune]

[How much is way, way cheaper? You quote $30. How about $5/barrel? Would it be cheaper than that?

Here's rough estimate until we know more:
Oil to Nickel: The E-Cat Energy Equivalence

In a nutshell, pretty f*****g cheap.

1.25 grams of nickel = 5 barrels of oil energy equivalent.

Would it solve the peak phosphorus problem? How about ocean acidification from carbolic acid?

No one understands enough about ocean processes to know how they recover from acidification. But I imagine they would if we quit burning coal.

Are We Running Out of Phosphorus?

'Peak phosphorus'
Some scientists, notably Dana Cordell and Stuart White of the University of Technology in Sydney, Australia, believe phosphorus supplies could begin running out in 30 to 40 years, threatening long-term, worldwide famine. See their research here.

The idea was fleshed out by White and another researcher, James Elser of the University of California, in an article in Foreign Policy. "Our dwindling supply of phosphorus, a primary component underlying the growth of global agricultural production, threatens to disrupt food security across the planet during the coming century," claim the authors. "This is the gravest natural resource shortage you've never heard of." Click here for the full story.

Then the New York Times picked up on this and ran a bit in their "Idea of the Day" blog back in April last year.

But "Peak phosphate" is baloney, say others.

“World Phosphate Rock Reserves and Resources,” a study released in September by the IFDC, a public organization focused on international food security, estimates that global resources of phosphate rock suitable to produce phosphate rock concentrate, phosphoric acid, phosphate fertilizers and other phosphate-based products will be available for several hundred years.

"There is no evidence of a peak phosphorus event," says Steven J. Van Kauwenbergh, principal scientist and leader of IFDC’s Phosphate Research and Resources Initiative.

Steve Jasinski agrees. "I don't think there is a peak phosphorus situation to be concerned with at this time," says Jasinski, mineral commodity specialist at the U.S. Geological Survey. "Phosphate resources are large. The (peak phosphorus) assumptions were based on older reserve estimates and didn't take into account improvements in processing, higher prices, and other factors."

"The running out of phosphate in 30 years is a complete lie, pushed by a bunch of academics with an environmental axe to grind," adds Barrie Bain, an analyst with Fertecon, an industry tracking organization.

Who controls what "Rather than peak phosphorus, there should be more emphasis on future supply patterns, with Morocco controlling most of the world's reserves," Jasinski told me.

Most phosphate mines, including those in the U.S. which own 17% of global resources, have been in decline for the past decade, hindered in part by environmental regulation. So companies must look farther afield to find supplies.

According to the IFDC report, Morocco is sitting on about 50 billion tons of phosphate rock – a 300 to 400 year supply and possibly 80% of world reserves.

Is that because we would carry the cold fusion around with us? If so, are the radiations dangerous?

Yes. And No.

[pstarr]

Why I wasted my and your time, I will never know. Dude, IFDC sells phosphorus. Not objective.

[Rune]

Why I wasted my and your time, I will never know. Dude, IFDC sells phosphorus. Not objective.

I tend to go with the USGS.

If the IFDC sells phosphorus, they have an interest in keeping supplies low and prices high. Not the other way 'round.

http://www.ifdc.org/

IFDC is a public international organization addressing critical issues such as international food security, the alleviation of global hunger and poverty, environmental protection and the promotion of economic development and self-sufficiency. IFDC focuses on increasing productivity across the agricultural value chain in developing countries. This is achieved by the creation and transfer of effective and environmentally sound crop nutrient technology and agribusiness expertise.

IFDC is governed by an international board of directors with representation from developed and developing nations. The non-profit Center is supported by bilateral and multilateral aid agencies, private foundations and national governments. The Center was established in 1974 in response to global food and energy crises. To date, IFDC has provided assistance in nearly 100 countries.

[pstarr]

If the IFDC sells phosphorus, they have an interest in keeping supplies low and prices high. Not the other way 'round.

Yes, you have described the conventional wisdom of resource cartels. But these are not conventional times; rather they are peak-resource times where preemptive conservation/hoarding by consumers and suppliers is more problematic than mere market monopoly.

[Rune]

If the IFDC sells phosphorus, they have an interest in keeping supplies low and prices high. Not the other way 'round.

Yes, you have described the conventional wisdom of resource cartels. But these are not conventional times; rather they are peak-resource times where preemptive conservation/hoarding by consumers and suppliers is more problematic than mere market monopoly.

It's a non-profit organization, pstarr. jesus christ.

[kublikhan]

Would it solve the peak phosphorus problem?

Unlike oil, phosphorus is not consumed and gone forever. It gets recycled back into the food chain. It seems to me peak phosphorus will cause a shift from using predominantly chemical fertilizers to using organic fertilizers. Perhaps once we start using organic fertilizers for actual food production instead of plowing huge amounts of chemical fertilizers in the land we will stop seeing destructive algae and jellyfish blooms that thrive on the increased phosphorus we are pumping into the food chain.

Synthetic fertilizer is likely to become significantly more costly for US farmers. This trend will make manure a valuable commodity once again (as it was prior to the 1950s). cheap synthetic nitrogen fertilizer - something cash crop farmers in North America have counted on for over a half century - will gradually become less of a given in coming years. More on the closely related fertilizer phosphorus peak and overall societal impacts is presented below.

There are several fairly obvious implications of more expensive chemical fertilizers. One of the more fascinating and plausible ones is that animal manure, particularly the large volumes of manure stored in concentrated animal feed lot (CAFO) lagoons, will increase greatly in value, to the point where it becomes a reliably profitable commodity rather than a waste no one wants. The trend toward increasingly valuable manure is discussed in Why Farmers Are Flocking to Manure, recently published in The Atlantic.

Here are some other very plausible potential primary and secondary impacts of this trend. Order does not denote importance or chronological precedence.

* Owners and operators will want cash crop acreage contiguous to their CAFO's, so that manure is cheap to use (no long haul shipping needed) and logistics easily integrated with overall operations.

* The so-called 'green revolution' is ending. Developing nations will need to shift back to traditional crops and methods, but with modern organic production methods integrated as appropriate.

* Organic farming will become more competitive; and banks will be more willing to give organic producers preferred rates.

* Food will cost more.

* Commercial composting, especially of organic solid waste (a.k.a. food waste), will become a valuable and profitable service for restaurant chains and waste management companies.

"Peak Fertilizer" To Make Manure A Valuable Commodity

Freshwater algal blooms are the result of an excess of nutrients, particularly phosphorus. The excess of nutrients may originate from fertilizers that are applied to land for agricultural or recreational purposes. They may also originate from household cleaning products containing phosphorous. These nutrients can then enter watersheds through water runoff. Excess carbon and nitrogen have also been suspected as causes.

When phosphates are introduced into water systems, higher concentrations cause increased growth of algae and plants. Algae tend to grow very quickly under high nutrient availability.

Brittany, in France, in 2009 was experiencing recurring algal blooms caused by the high amount of fertilizer discharging in the sea due to intensive pig farming, causing lethal gas emissions that have led to one case of human unconsciousness and three animal deaths.

Algal bloom

In a new study appearing in Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Richardson and colleagues explore the causes behind the jellyfish infestation and the need for swift, decisive action to stem the jellyfish take-over. Jellyfish explosions are linked directly to human actions, including over-fishing, the input of fertilizer and sewage into the ocean, and climate change.

Will jellyfish take over the world?

[Rune]

Science will probably come up with some carbon nanotube filtration system or something. Or genetically engineered algae or other organisms will sequester phosphorus out of waste streams for us. Something like that will happen.

Technology never stands still.

Besides, that 300 - 400 year phosphorus supply is not a static number, the report said. That's just what we know about at present.

You can also get it out of deep seawater - if you have a whole lot of cheap, cheap energy. But it will probably never have to come to that.

At any rate, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

[pstarr]

Would it solve the peak phosphorus problem?

Unlike oil, phosphorus is not consumed and gone forever. It gets recycled back into the food chain.

Yes it does recycle through the food chain, but not on land, and not in concentrations available to humans. Phosphorus enters waterways as a nutrient load, and is then gone, essentially forever.

Phosphorus is a scarce finite resource on earth and due to its non-gaseous environmental cycle has resulted in alternative means other than mining being unavailable.

Interestingly all that mined phosphorus was originally in sea bird and bat guano concentrated in a nesting colonies, even the ancient metamorphized stuff. Today, all agriculture (including organic) relies on depleting reserved mined at greater and greater costs. Just like peak oil. I don't expect we can revert back to seaweed collecting to feed 7 billion.

[Rune]

There's 50 billion tons of it in Morocco. I don't GAF about it.

[pstarr]

There's 50 billion tons of it in Morocco. I don't GAF about it.

You should. Those 50 billion tons represent 85% of the world's reserves. And of those 50 billion, only 10 billion are economic to mine. The USA has 1.4 billion tons. The entire world uses 200 million per year. Okay now use Hubbert's method to figure when we run out completely. Then get back to me and start GAF.

[Rune]

There's 50 billion tons of it in Morocco. I don't GAF about it.

You should. Those 50 billion tons represent 85% of the world's reserves. And of those 50 billion, only 10 billion are economic to mine. The USA has 1.4 billion tons. The entire world uses 200 million per year. Okay now use Hubbert's method to figure when we run out completely. Then get back to me and start GAF.

I'll get back to the USGS if it should ever become bothersome, thank you.

That 300-400 year supply, they said, is not a static number - just like oil. It's a moving target. But we don't have to frantically search because we got gobs of it.

You don't know the damn future, pstarr. Remember this?

Oh, right. as for the original question. how do we get energy out of shale? Well the best way is to throw the shale into a camp fire and watch it burn. That is the best way. And the only thermodynamically and economically feasible way.

You can then roast marshmellows over the burning shale. They wouldn't taste good however.

You're always so sure of your doomerism. You're always so sure of the future. What a joke!

I'm always sure I can completely ignore you because you're a highly-biased chicken little and you set yourself up to BE wrong. You depend on a static view of things - resources, technology, everything. Innovation is a dirty word to you. I don't have any respect for that.

[Lore]

We're going snake eyes on so many resources we once took for granted, it's hard to keep up.

Helium shortage could spell disaster

At the rate that our world is burning through helium, we could run out of the gas within 30 years. While that might bring some sad faces to balloon lovers, it could spell disaster for the medical community and other industries.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/201203 ... ri-120324/

[Rune]

Remember this, pstarr?
Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
by pstarr » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:32 am

Wikipedia wrote:
The Barnett Shale is known as a "tight gas" reservoir, indicating that the gas is not easily extracted. The shale is very hard, and was virtually impossible to produce gas in commercial quantities from this formation until recent improvements were made in hydrofracture technology (and recent price increases in natural gas prices made the technology economically feasible).

I know it pisses you off that I don't have your fancy degree and that I get my information free from the internet. But for sake of debate, just explain how the extra work (energy) to hydrofract the shale is not lost to the productive economy.

Maybe you could answer your own question now, pstarr.

And you know what? You'll continue to be wrong about the future because we all are. It nearly ALWAYS surprises.So don't talk to me like you have a crystal ball. You don't. No one does.

and what was it that f****d-up your wet dream? Oh yeah... innovation!

[Rune]

We're going snake eyes on so many resources we once took for granted, it's hard to keep up.

Helium shortage could spell disaster

At the rate that our world is burning through helium, we could run out of the gas within 30 years. While that might bring some sad faces to balloon lovers, it could spell disaster for the medical community and other industries.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/201203 ... ri-120324/

That's another chicken-littleism that will go the way of the Dodo should this LENR thing pan out. We'll have gobs of Helium.

[Tanada]

Rune, your responses were insulting, derogatory, off-base and plain wrong. You are a loser. So **** you.

You know, some people... I just don't want them to like me. 'Cause I don't respect them.

You are a classic groupthinker.

The groupthink syndrome

This consists of three main categories of symptoms:

1. Overestimate of the group’s power and morality, including “an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their actions.”

2. Closed-mindedness, including a refusal to consider alternative explanations and stereotyped negative views of those who aren’t part of the group’s consensus. The group takes on a “win-lose fighting stance” toward alternative views.[5]

3. Pressure toward uniformity, including “a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view”; “direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes”; and “the emergence of self-appointed mind-guards … who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.”[6]

I hate groupthink.

[Tanada]

So once again. **** you and I want you out, troll.

Yeah, because you are a groupthinker and that's the sort of thing that a groupthinker would say.

3. Pressure toward uniformity, including “a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view”; “direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes”; and “the emergence of self-appointed mind-guards … who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.”[6]

I think I'll go with the USGS assessment of Phosphorus resources, thank you.

[Rune]

Carl, I am sick that you have hijacked this web site to promote your cold-fusion scam. It is disgusting.

I don't care what you think. I have no respect for your thoughts.

[Tanada]

Okay folks lets clear the air. Swearing has been removed and so long as you are disagreeing with each others viewpoints and not attacking each other as people everything runs a lot smoother here.

Groupthink is a real problem but I highly recommend you start a new thread about it instead of discussing it here except as it relates to people refusing to see why the oil industry has buried the idea of peak oil and how Groupthink has been used to make that possible. For the wider ranging discussion on how it effects posters in websites please start a new thread.