<p>Now that’s worth going after. 3 year supply for the world.</p>
<p>[Bloomberg.com:</a> Canada](<a href=“Bloomberg Politics - Bloomberg”>Bloomberg Politics - Bloomberg)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Then on the other hand, it may not.</p>
<p>But rest assured that sooner or later, when we really start seriously running out of oil, they’ll go get the oil out of the arctic. Nothing will make people forget about the pristine Arctic wilderness faster than say waiting all day in a gas line for $40.00/gallon fuel and then not being able to get any when they finally get to the head of the line. When those days come we’ll be grateful will still have the Arctic to plunder - that we didn’t foolishly burn it all up now while oil is still relatively abundant.</p>
<p>Athabasca, Canada has<br>
1,700,000,000,000 barrels of proven crude bitumen oil. (300B recoverable w/ today tech.) vs
—90,000,000,000 barrels of maybe oil that is closer to Russia than USA and must cross Alaska or Canada. </p>
<p>[Athabasca</a> Oil Sands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Oil_Sands]Athabasca”>Athabasca oil sands - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Canadian military force 62,000 standing.
US military force, 1,400,000, standing plus another 1,400,000 reserves.
:)</p>
<p>And the Green River Formation (covering parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming) contains 1 trillion barrels of oil from shale oil.
If Norway can drill off shore in the deep north Atlantic, why can’t we drill off shore in our shallower coastal waters? Aren’t they enviromentally conscious?
If Brazil can convert from gasoline to ethanol, why can’t we move toward bio-butanol (not corrosive like ethanol so can use existing gasoline infrastructure and has closer energy density to gasoline than ethanol, also can be burned safely in all gasoline engines AND NOT made from our food sources)?
If France can get most of their power from nuclear energy, why can’t we?
Wind and solar power are undependable dreams. Windpower is hyped like ethanol and will soon be recognized as foolishness. Hydropower is maxed out. Geothermal is almost untapped. Let’s use it!
Indiana is building a $2 billion coal gasification plant, New York just cancelled theirs. Let’s put some money into clean coal too!</p>
<p>I’m holding out for the car in Back to the Future that can run on banana peels and other organic waste.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are at least two new fuel sources in testing that meet this criteria. One is Jatropha which is grown in climates like Florida. Another is algea which is found everywhere in the sea and probably has the most promise at this time. Time will tell.</p>
<p>Go get ANWR oil. Build solar and wind alternatives plus supporting infrastructure starting today. </p>
<p>The mere discussion and perhaps approval by authorities of more aggressive oil exploitation (and maybe alternatives) has already eroded the rise of the cost of oil.</p>
<p>Seriously acting on Pickens’ plan would also cause the cost of oil to roll back, I offer.</p>
<p>Oil in the Arctic? How can that be? I thought it was too cold for plants to grow up there - unless, of course, at some point the climate was much warmer in that area. But that couldn’t be because man causes global warming and man wasn’t around then.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do people feel compelled to spew such hysterical non-sense? </p>
<p>What is the basis to consider solar power (wind energy is also solar) an undependable dream? What are we measuring? If it works? How efficient is it? How costly it is? </p>
<p>Here’s the reality: when CORRECTLY factoring the total costs over the various life cycles, wind and solar energy are often the cheapest available sources of energy. We are in today’s mess because we have been playing with smoke and mirrors for generations by hiding the true costs of energy. What is the cost of nuclear energy? Half a century someone said it would be too cheap to meter … then we start accounting for safety risks and add (partially) the cost of decommissioning. Different math! One can go down the line and recalculate the TRUE cost of delievering energy to the population and the economics simply show that we have been underpricing it via a large set of subsidies and incomplete accounting. </p>
<p>As far as windpower being hyped like ethanol, I would suggest spending some time educating yourself on an industry that has finally overcome the sheer economical ignorance of its detractors. This was not accomplished in a few years!</p>
<p>In the end, everything is based on finding a better balance to reduce our addiction to fossil fuels and our obsession to finding the cheapest SHORT TERM solution as we hide the environmental costs. Alternatives sources of energy do not have to provide baseload power or REPLACE conventional power to make perfect sense. We need to GRADUALLY incorporate renewable sources as we deplete our natural resources, and we need to start realizing that paying too LITTLE for everything will end up costing us much more in the future.</p>
<p>^ well said. Billions are being invested by private sector in wind energy.</p>
<p>Unfortunately most of us live in the short term if you mean the next 10-20 years. In 20 years I fully expect to be just about ready for the nursing home or already no longer in need of any carbon. Alternatives are fine but we are at least that far out from having them as the major power sources. In the meantime we still need to explore all avenues including adding to our oil sources as much as possible.</p>
<p>Standrews–:-)</p>
<p>You do know that wind and wave electrical generation will slow down the rotation of the planet, don’t you? Tidal locking is just around the corner…</p>
<p>“Unfortunately most of us live in the short term if you mean the next 10-20 years…Alternatives are fine but we are at least that far out from having them as the major power sources. In the meantime we still need to explore all avenues including adding to our oil sources as much as possible.”</p>
<p>That is true, but the easy source of fossil energy source is almost exhausted. Oil Shale, ANWR or Arctic development will also take quite a long time. Tar is the most promising right now, but infrastructure (things+people) to process it isn’t there.In many cases the technology does not exist today. For example, few years back CVX discovered a very huge oil reserve in the Gulf. They won’t be able to produce it for a while because it is in ultra deep waters. Also, many of the developments require sustained high oil prices to be profitable. Tar is not profitable unless oil is more than $50, Oil shale is not profitable unless oil is at $70. Bottom line - do your part and reduce your own energy dependence and forget $2 gas.</p>
<p>I think ANWR could be online in 10 or fewer years as they have most of the infrastructure done nearby. Also offshore drilling in Cali and Florida could be donme within the 10 year window. Then we can start switching to shale, sand and the tougher to do stuff.</p>
<p>Educate yourself: does the wind blow continuously anywhere on earth? No. Ergo, undependable.
Nuclear energy for example can be available around the clock. Therefore it is dependable.</p>
<p>
I agree. BP planned their asset relatively well in their infrastructure placement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nothing is more devastating to R&D for new technologies than the magnitude of the price cycles. At one point in time, oild and gas exploration came almost to a halt in the US because prices were too low, and this was not so long ago. Even in those days, experts were discussing the need to correctly price the FUTURE costs of finding and bringing oil to markets. Part ot this equation should have included the costs of political instability. Here, for instance, one can factor all or a part of our adventures in Iraq or simply decide it’s not relevant. </p>
<p>It’s rather interesting to go back in time and read “projections” of energy use and prices in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Many of the assumptions were not very different from today: it almost never “pay” to invest in the future. Of course, factor the $150 of ten days ago, or the $500 some predict, or even a more sensible $50-$80, and you have quite a different scenario. </p>
<p>If our government can find the trillions of dollars needed to export of vision of democracy to the Middle East in the name of security, one could hope that the government could also use its vast resources to create a domestic market where energy is traded within a fixed range. A range that is MUCH higher than we used to pay and probably lower than we could be paying in the near future. The government does NOT have to jump into corporate welfare based on pure research … let the corporations invest their own money! However, what is needed are clear incentives to PRODUCE new sources. Since “tar is not profitable unless oil is more than $50, Oil shale is not profitable unless oil is at $70” let the government guarantee floor prices of $80.00 for an extended period of time. The industry WILL respond and private investors WILL assume the risks for a reasonable return. </p>
<p>It is not too late, but it would have cost us a WHOLE lot less had we done it 10 years ago. For instance, people might be really surprised to learn at what *levelized *costs wind energy was sold in the 1990s, and how little of a production tax credit it took to transform the commercial applications of wind energy in the US from a giant bust to a resounding success. </p>
<p>Little wonder that profiteers a la Boone Pickens are licking their chops!</p>
<p>If you watch the Ice Road Truckers show on History Channel on Sunday nights, you will see how difficult and dangerous it is to even get the equipment up there to drill, let alone the chance of hitting anything. They work within a short timeframe every winter when the locations are accessible.</p>
<p>So let’s go colonize! Hoorah!</p>