Everything you've heard about fossil fuels may be wrong

An interesting opinion piece from Michael Lind on Salon.com talking about natural gas, fracking, and the implications for future energy use.

If gas hydrates as well as shale gas, tight oil, oil sands and other unconventional sources can be tapped at reasonable cost, then the global energy picture looks radically different than it did only a few years ago. Suddenly it appears that there may be enough accessible hydrocarbons to power industrial civilization for centuries, if not millennia, to come.

The U.S., Canada and Mexico, it turns out, are sitting on oceans of recoverable natural gas. Shale gas is combined with recoverable oil in the Bakken "play" along the U.S.-Canadian border and the Eagle Ford play in Texas. The shale gas reserves of China turn out to be enormous, too. Other countries with now-accessible natural gas reserves, according to the U.S. government, include Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Chile, France, Poland and India.

www.salon.com...

reply to post by incrediblelousminds
Yes but at what cost? No one ever seems to calculate the environmental cost when looking at this.

Originally posted by fairone98501
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

Yes but at what cost? No one ever seems to calculate the environmental cost when looking at this.

I agree that the author does not take into account the environmental costs associated with these technologies. But that's beside the point in terms of reality. No one is actually going to stop extracting resources because of environmental cost as long as there is a demand. And there is an ever-growing demand.

The article merely points out how 'peak oil' doesnt appear to take into account new technologies and if true, this information is important for people to re-adjust their understanding of the broader topic of 'peak oil'.

shale oil and fracking is a way of ruining our environment, the oil companies don't care they are just looking for short term returns.

I did read read an interesting thing somewhere on the web " oil is a byproduct of clay and pressure within the earth and is not a limited resource" this is something the oil companies don't want anyone to know. I don't have a link for this but if someone finds it could you pass it on to everyone else

thanks

Do you yourself have an opinion of his opinion piece? You do not have much of an OP there, other than saying that someone else's opinion was "interesting".

As far as I know, most "unconventional" sources of oil and natural gas were formerly considered to be "unconventional" due to the low quality of the oil/gas, environmental impact, or cost. Take a look at the Tar Sands in Canada. Would you like for large swaths of the American countryside to look like that? Just so that we can "power industrial civilization for centuries, if not millennia, to come" with hydrocarbons?

There are many people here on ATS with fresher and more detailed data than I do, but I think I may have made a few valid points.

I shall refrain, though, from ranting excessively about how much this sort of propagandist opinion article schtick gets under my skin. Just to let you know, though, others may not be as polite about how they feel about more land being opened up for exploitation.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

No one is actually going to stop extracting resources because of environmental cost as long as there is a demand. And there is an ever-growing demand.

What? Yes they are.

How about the Gulf of Mexico, where Obama has forbidden drilling? Or Alaska, where Obama has forbidden drilling?

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

The article merely points out how 'peak oil' doesnt appear to take into account new technologies and if true, this information is important for people to re-adjust their understanding of the broader topic of 'peak oil'.

Quite so.
All one needs to do is read the last couple of Congressional Reports on the subject to see that the U.S. has more oil, natural gas, etc. than any other country on earth. Unfortunately most of them are not easily recoverable...at the moment.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c062011fbc74.jpg[/atsimg]
Link to Chart.

reply to post by sigil23


Why are you under the impression I am condoning such activity when I am merely presenting information for discussion?

Yes, these technologies are indeed destructive. Do you really think that means this isn't the trajectory the world is on?

The point of the article is to re-define our understanding of when fossil fuel production will 'peak'. What he is saying is much of our understanding of energy policy is based on severely outdated data. One can't make an accurate picture of where we need to go if one doesn't have the right data. Discussing this data is not condoning the activity that goes along with it. Try and remain a bit more objective. You might learn soemthing you didnt know.

Originally posted by makeitso

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

No one is actually going to stop extracting resources because of environmental cost as long as there is a demand. And there is an ever-growing demand.

What? Yes they are.

How about the Gulf of Mexico, where Obama has forbidden drilling? Or Alaska, where Obama has forbidden drilling?

Those are not long-term trends. The long term trend is towards extraction. To deny this is to deny that the world consumes massive amounts of energy and will continue to.

Are you saying you disagree with "Obama forbidding" drilling?

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


Are you saying your backing off your statement that nobody will stop extraction due to environmental issues?

You seem to be. Changing it to a conditional "long term" statement is like moving the goal posts of your statement, doncha think?

At any rate, I don't disagree with the rethink on peak oil, since there is obviously more than we've even tried to tap into yet due to our lack of technological ability.

Originally posted by makeitso
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

Are you saying your backing off your statement that nobody will stop extraction due to environmental issues?

You seem to be. Changing it to a conditional "long term" statement is like moving the goal posts of your statement, doncha think?

No, not at all. And to obsess over it seems quite off topic, but if you insist...

yes, i still maintain that no one is going to stop extracting resources because of environmental concerns. you provide two accounts of TEMPORARY bans. Obviously, at some point when industry finds it profitable, such TEMPORARY restrictions will indeed be lifted. Considering the two examples you give have both been recently lifted, your entire argument fails at the start.

fossil fuels, fuel the fires of hell. that's why politicians, governments and greedy oil exec's want to drill as many places as possible and pump as much of it out as they can.

it'll make hell a little bit more bearable for them.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

The big question remains: Can we afford to continue burning hydrocarbons to provide most of our energy?

They're great for making plastics, but even a lot of those have toxicity problems.

We've got to work towards a cleaner and more sustainable way to live on this planet if we want to keep it, don't we?

Originally posted by l_e_cox
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

The big question remains: Can we afford to continue burning hydrocarbons to provide most of our energy?

They're great for making plastics, but even a lot of those have toxicity problems.

We've got to work towards a cleaner and more sustainable way to live on this planet if we want to keep it, don't we?

Totally agree. Now, can you connect that thought with the information in the article? Or not? Because this IS the peak oil forum, I believe. Not the 'let's all pretend that the world is moving towards sustainability despite all actual evidence to the contrary' forum.

//shakes head in disgust and unsubscribes from his own thread....

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


To be honest, I started typing my reply before a second post had been made in this thread, and I was not sure initially of what your stance was on the efficiency or sustainable applicability of the practices described in the article.

I apologize for being so easily annoyed, though, as I cannot blame you for seeing in my tone that I may have just been assuming that you were just blindly supporting the views of the article. I now realize that you were trying to start a neutral discussion of the facts; i.e. that there are untapped reserves of bitumens in the soil in certain areas, the seemingly endless supply of "oil" (synthcrude) that can be processed out of this soil/strata.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


I agree with you that the author doesn't take account of the environmental impact...the technology to extract the oil will always take precedence over the potential outcomes...and indeed, as we move further, it would be silly to say that the "dying oil" arguments of ten years ago can be further argued as we discover such new technologies.

ColoradoJens

reply to post by ColoradoJens


thanks .. glad to see at least some here arent hand-wringers.