Slashdot Mirror

Are you that ignorant?

BP Ultimate fuel questions
Q. Why five tankfuls to clean up a dirty engine?
A. With increased detergency, Amoco Ultimate from BP will clean up engines with deposits in about 1,500 miles of use at an average of 300 miles per tank. Those five tankfuls will restore the engine to its previous level of performance, and with continuous use, Amoco Ultimate will keep that engine running cleanly.

Q. Why don't you apply the increased detergent additive in all three grades?
A. We offer customers a choice. Many customers have told us they want the enhanced performance that is possible in a premium gasoline.

Castrol Motor Oil basics
Additives

Base oil alone is not enough to properly protect your engine. Motor oil needs to perform a wide variety of functions under a wide range of engine operating conditions. Therefore several additives are incorporated into the formulation:

Detergent/dispersant additives - used to maintain engine cleanliness, keeping the various contaminants in a fine suspension and preventing them from settling out on vital engine components.

Since they never do anything like that on their own...

I think you make some great points. But some of your facts seem a bit off.

From your post, someone might come to the conclusion that China is OPEC's biggest customer; while in fact it isn't even close. Alternatively, you may have meant that the EU plus China combined would be OPEC's biggest customer; and, were it not for the role of Russia in European imports, this would likely be so. Nevertheless, I support your conclusion that the potential role of euros in central bank holdings has worrying implications for the ability of the US to acquire cheap oil. However I suspect that oil production will peak long before the euro threat becomes an issue.

For detailed information on imports and exports, the standard reference is the BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2004.

Also, you might want to check those population figures for china and the US. A good reference is the CIA World Fact Book 2004.

You can find it on the BP website and specifically look here: BP reports

While there is a LOT of energy falling on planet earth and alternate energy forms can yeild a significant source, it is unlikly that these sources combined with reduced wastage can make the kind of difference we need.

The BP reports show 2002 oil ouput in ALL middle eastern countries has been in decline since 2000 and that Norway and North Sea have been in a rather serious decline since 1999.

The 2004 report showing 2003 production is expected shortly. What I hope this report shows is an increase in production in certain countries like Saudi Arabia. I suspect it will not show this. This will put us more than 3 years past the peak.

If within the next couple years we do not see an increase in world oil ouput then I supect we can conclude that looking through the rear veiw mirror we have seen the Peak of World Oil Production. THere is a lot of information to be found at the Hubbert Peak Website

If one assumes a 5% reduction per year and this might be generous, then consider how much the world consumption is cut back within say 10 years or 20...

I am sure slashdotters can do this math and can add the number of years to their age. The bottom line is they may be growing old in world without oil.

However you slice it, do not expect Alberta to be able to pick up much slack with Tar Sands, even though we have about 1.8 trillion barrels in resources. The trouble is our tar sands reserves are only about 300 billion barrels and our TOTAL natural gas supplies (which are needed to supply hydrogen so the bitumin can be chemically lightened) are not even sufficient for 10% and North America is already in a Natural Gas crisis.

WE NEED nuclear plants (CANDU, not enriched, because CANDU burns natural uranium unlike the stoopid USA enriched reactors which I think were designed that way to justify enrichment facilities so bombs could be made)

Not only this, we needed to start building them 10 years ago. We are going to have some major power problems over the next few years.

You can find it on the BP website and specifically look here: BP reports

While there is a LOT of energy falling on planet earth and alternate energy forms can yeild a significant source, it is unlikly that these sources combined with reduced wastage can make the kind of difference we need.

The BP reports show 2002 oil ouput in ALL middle eastern countries has been in decline since 2000 and that Norway and North Sea have been in a rather serious decline since 1999.

The 2004 report showing 2003 production is expected shortly. What I hope this report shows is an increase in production in certain countries like Saudi Arabia. I suspect it will not show this. This will put us more than 3 years past the peak.

If within the next couple years we do not see an increase in world oil ouput then I supect we can conclude that looking through the rear veiw mirror we have seen the Peak of World Oil Production. THere is a lot of information to be found at the Hubbert Peak Website

If one assumes a 5% reduction per year and this might be generous, then consider how much the world consumption is cut back within say 10 years or 20...

I am sure slashdotters can do this math and can add the number of years to their age. The bottom line is they may be growing old in world without oil.

However you slice it, do not expect Alberta to be able to pick up much slack with Tar Sands, even though we have about 1.8 trillion barrels in resources. The trouble is our tar sands reserves are only about 300 billion barrels and our TOTAL natural gas supplies (which are needed to supply hydrogen so the bitumin can be chemically lightened) are not even sufficient for 10% and North America is already in a Natural Gas crisis.

WE NEED nuclear plants (CANDU, not enriched, because CANDU burns natural uranium unlike the stoopid USA enriched reactors which I think were designed that way to justify enrichment facilities so bombs could be made)

Not only this, we needed to start building them 10 years ago. We are going to have some major power problems over the next few years.

One of the first sources quoted by the reviewer is the International Energy Agency, a forum for 26 industrialized countries. For those wo want to tap deeper there are a lot more - and diverse - statistics out there. For example the IEA's statistics on world consumption vs reserves are different from those of OPEC, and even different from state-run BP's Statistical Review of World Energy, which I consider more moderate than either of the two previous sources. The US Energy Information Agency site is also very comprehensive. Check out their Country Profiles section for comprehensive info on oil operations the world over.

http://www.energyspot.org

A major part of this prosperity depends on trade with the West.

At the moment - China's internal market is growing explosively as are neighbouring countries such as India and Russia.

Also, it's silly to suggest that Middle East oil will ever be "practically all that is left." If anything, that's the oil which will run out first. South and Central America are practically floating on the stuff.

You reckon? Okay here goes...

According to no less an authority than BP, North America (including Mexico) contains 4.8% of global oil reserves, Central and South America a further 9.4%, giving the entire Americas a grand total of 14.2%.

Saudi Arabia alone contains - wait for it - 25% of the World's oil. The Middle Eastern region sits on nearly 2/3 of reserves.

Since their draw-down rate is lower the fields will continue to flow long after the US runs dry. US oil production peaked in 1970 and has been in almost continuous decline since then. Much of the Middle East has yet to peak.

Best wishes,
Mike.

It really bothers me that people wrap themselves in a flag and refer to Kyoto and how CO2 is destroying the environment when they know DICK ALL about it and have not even done the most basic research.

If you read chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) The Scientific Basis you will find that water vapour is typically ignored in most models. Yet it is ove 100 times more significant than CO2 is.

I quote: These aspects have been explored only to a limited extent in climate models. No studies deal with true intensity of rainfall... ...Accordingly, it is important that much more attention should be devoted to precipitation rates and frequency, and the physical processes which govern these quantities.

In fact a change of about 1% (or less) in average water vapour on the planet will have more impact on global warming than all the CO2 put together. Meanwhile we have massive irrigation projects and aquifer mining projects going on all over the planet - and these UNDOUBTABLY have had a significant impact on increasing atmospheric H2O.

One of the arguments against H2O's impact is the idea that H2O is short lived in the atmosphere. That may well be the case but at the same time the introduction of additional H2O is very constant.

So this is like saying my humidifier won't work because its effect is short lived. That may be true but I can refill it often and personal experiance tells me it actually does work.

We have similar bad science going on in the nuclear industry. ITER is decades away. In the mean time mankind is going to have to re-vitalize Nuclear Energy. So we hear disinformation all over the place about how fusion will be so safe and fission is dirty.

Fusion is a neutron source and it is these neutrons we are looking for to burn Uranium and Plutonium. Clearly the ITER core will be irradiated and clearly it will create high level wastes. But the most important fact is that we cannot count on it being available any time soon.

We will need a new energy source about as fast as we can bloody well build it and that is even if we fast track it. North American Gas prices are at a high and Oil is also high; meanwhile it was only a few short months ago the USA petroleum stocks were reported at a 27 year low.

The BP Statistical Review of World Energy shows North American gas production peaked in 2001 and that the North Sea feilds peaked in 1999. In fact it shows Saudi Arabian output is down since 2001 as well - but this might not be supply side. Long before new power plants are built there will likely be very serious blackouts and industrial shutdowns. The North AMerican Nitrogen fertilizer industry is the first of many examples to follow.

So lets start doing some real research and start checking facts instead of parotting the disinformation and bad science that is constantly spewed around in the media.

>> BP's figures clearly disprove that.
> What do they say? I can send you a number of links that say "over half"
> or "50%" or similar numbers EU consumed

According to this table, Europe gets around 27% of its total imports from the ME, which is far less than "over 50%". The point being that here in the US the interests of Europe in Iraqi oil under Saddam have been greatly exagerated as a whole. Even if France stood to gain some, Germany certainly didn't at all. If anything, certain members of the "coalition of the willing" have much higher interests in the new Iraqi oil order, such as Poland, whose president last week freely acknowledged that Poland was participating in the campaign in the hope of gaining a piece of the oil pie. Anyway, enough of that topic.

> around 30% of German electricity comes from nuclear sources
> US is under 20% nuclear

Well, we're talking 19 reactors versus 104, so percentages can be deceptive. Nuclear waste is an extremely serious problem that unfortunately isn't as scaleable as most other things. Even with just 19 reactors Germany is barely able to deal with its waste, with massive public protests against it each time a transport takes place. The US certainly doesn't have an easier time of it. One of the more recent National Geographic editions had the cover article on the nuclear waste problem. Fission is really not a long-term solution and should definitely be only treated as a stop-gap measure. If fusion ever takes off, that might work, otherwise orbital solar production plus renewable terrestrial sources will probably remain the main long-term future options.

> You sound as I slapped you for suggesting that European oil usage would increase

No, I was amused at your suggestion that Europe's stampeding use of oil is the real problem, not the US's. Both raw numbers and per-capita usage clearly show the US to be the great internal combustion engine of this planet.

> Personally I'm glad we're having a falling out with SA.
> I don't think we should have dealings with any bad regime like that.

Well, we do agree on one thing.

> look to Europe. almost all european oil comes from the middleeast

Your Magic Hat of Figures and Numbers must be defective. According to BP, actual oil trade movements are a bit different. Sure, a significant part of European oil comes from the ME (about 40% more than in the US), but hardly "almost all"--even more comes from Russia and Africa combined. In fact, by far the biggest takers of Arab oil are Asian countries, but nobody's mad at them for that.

Shell and BP have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in hydrogen storage and production technology. Indeed, BP, formerly British Petroleum, has rebranded itself Beyond Petroleum.

Solar cells (cost) - once again, solar cells are an energy transport mechanism. Because the energy investment in lifecycle support (mining, production, distribution, maintenance, recycling) is greater than the lifetime energy output. Efficiencies would have to be far higher to offset this. Don't forget that you have to produce all the energy that we currently consume + all of the energy consumed to produce the energy.

Proven oil reserves in "thousand million barrels":

Canada:
1981: 8.5
1991: 8.0
2000: 6.4

Total Middle East:
1981: 362.6
1991: 661.6
2000: 683.5

Source: BP statistical review of world energy - Oil and Gas Journal posts very similar numbers, and World Oil posted numbers varying by somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.05%, by my quick off-the-cuff glance. It's true that Canada may potentially have much more oil, but statistics about unproven reserves are even less reliable for comparison's sake.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that Canada has 4.7 billion barrels of reserves, and is the No. 3 supplier of crude oil to the US, behind Saudi Arabia and Mexico.

The US gets somewhere between 25% and 45% of its oil from the Middle East, depending on where you look. Not that the statistics are the end-all and be-all, anyway... the real question is, is there a compelling strategic need to maintain a reasonable amount of control over current oil production (even "less than 20%" as you claim is a very substantial amount of oil), is there a staggeringly humongous amount of money to be made by the oil industry in the Middle East and Central Asia, and do George Bush, Dick Cheney, the S.S. Condoleeza Rice, Hamid Karzai, and others have substantial investments, holdings, and interests in the oil industry? Will these people likely continue with or go back to the oil industy after their term is up? Are most of their backers, family, family friends, and business associates from the oil/energy industries?

The US already uses its political leverage to increase oil production in Canada. You may notice they don't need to send the 101st Airborne to do so, as they may in more unruly parts of the world. If you do even the slightest bit of research, you might find that some Canadians feel that NAFTA and other agreements has already basically ceded their oil to US interests. And the US managed to do that without having support a coup, as they did, whaddaya know, just recently in Venezuela.

Your facts are wrong and your reasoning is faulty. If you truly want to be better informed, take a look at The Economist or the BBC, for starters.

The U.S. get the critical last fourth of its oil from the Middle East, te expensive fourth that drives our policy. The other 3/4, mostly domestic, is taken for granted. We also import from Nigeria and Venezuela, getting caught up in their politics, too. Then there's the rising star of Kazakhstan. It leads to conflicts of interest, to put it mildly.

The Times published a map a week or two ago showing int'l reserves and annual production by country -- wish I could find it, they did a nice job. Iraq has 1/10 of the reserves, and Saudi Arabia far more -- all easily extracted oil. (Another DOE chart.) Kuwait has about as much as Iraq, or Iran, and so on. Here is some of the data. Canada, like the U.S., doesn't have that long a future at current extraction rates. The USGS also has a detailed int'l map of projected reserves.

The Middle East, meanwhile, has a staggering amount of oil untapped. It makes me wonder why Iraq's Hussein doesn'y just kick back and get rich, buying the affection of his people. He has the oil. There's something missing, perhaps just his sanity.

The U.S. needs some long-term planning. One of these days we should just invade an oil-rich country and make a colony or something out of it. It fact, I think such plans are in the works as we speak.

Obviously I have an opinion or two... none of this means Canada is irrelevant, it's just too peaceful for us to get all worked up about and bomb or something. Disappointed?

I have heard many arguments that the US adopting the Kyoto protocol for the reduction of greenhouse gasses is too expensive, unsafe, or inconvienent. For example, BP has already met the conditions of Kyoto in 4 years and in fact is now saving money because of it. DuPont has made even better progress, reducing their contribution of greenhouse gasses by 50%!

Cutting greenhouse gasses is not necessarily that difficult. For example, last year I added more insulation to my home. I saw a 25% reduction in natural gas because of this, and with various other improvements I have made over the last few years I am sure my home consumes far less energy than it did in 1991. The net result of these improvements to my house is that I spend less money on heating and lighting and in only a few years all of the changes will more than pay for themselves. Not only that, but with the added insulation my house is more comfortable.

Everyone seems to think that increasing the milage of cars is the most important step. While it is important and I believe easily doable with todays technology, many other areas are even easier.

How many of your homes have old furnaces and sub-standard insulation?

Perhapse if we had to pay the true cost of energy things would change. Here in California where we are stuck with outragiously high electricity costs (my bill is over $0.20/kwh) and very high gas prices, many people have taken advantage of methods to reduce energy usage. The state has helped as well by offering rebates. For example, it is now not unusual to buy a 100 watt equivelent compact flourescent light bulb for less than $1.

One doesn't have to be a rabid environmentalist to see the benefits from reducing greenhouse gasses. It also makes sense in the pocket book.