For all the environmental wackos out there and the ones that think they might be

The second to last comment says 1% recoverable, or about 3.5 bbl. That's assuming that there are 350 bbl in the ground to begin with. The juries very much still out on this one. That oil's not gonna be cheap at that level of recoverables. The production rate is also likely to be pathetic. We'll see I suppose. Production is still years away regardless.

 

Well, that's imprecise. I'll try one more time.

You sound like you know a lot about the oil industry, so I assume you know the difference between proved (proven?) reserves and total estimated oil in the ground. Proven reserves are the oil that can be extracted, without economic losses, using known technology.

That's the only difference between the 100B plus estimate and the 4B estimate. The USGS provides both estimates. Both estimates are in the cite I listed. The proven reserves there are estimated at 4B bbl. That's the oil that can be recovered without economic losses using existing technology.

So your last post is imprecise. It implies that there are wildly and arbitrarily varying estimates of the oil there, and so either one could be right. That's not correct. AFAIK, there's only one set of estimates, suggesting 100B bbl of oil (or more, if you wish), of which 4B bbl is proven reserves.

If we want to count all oil-like deposits, regardless of whether they are usable or not, then shoot, let's count the US oil shale and declare that we have more oil than almost anybody. Might be a boost for our collective morale. But it won't do anything for the price and availability of oil.

NOT that this doesn't happen. Canada is listed as #2 in the world, for proven reserves, because they decided to count the tar sands. Because they can actually turn those into oil on a commercial scale. So I'm not suggesting that the definition of proven reserves is immutable. But it's up to people who know what they're doing to make that determination.

Regardless, nobody counts all the oil projected to lie within a given structure as reserves. It's all a question of what fraction of the oil you can get out.

US proven reserves are typically listed at 23B bbl or so. So finding 4B more is a major event. It's a good thing. But it's imprudent to suggest that this solves our oil supply problems for the next generation. Until and if somebody ever figures a way to get some portion of the rest of the oil out of that rock at a profit.

 

Nah, it's an insignificant amount of fuel. Enforcing better fuel economy standards would be a much better use of our time and effort. Then, all of the people traveling to the event would use less fuel, which would save us a lot more fuel than the event wastes.

 

So the argument is that we must require perfection or we can not do anything about the problem (degradation of the environment) at all?

That's an interesting viewpoint.

 

Some of us like motor racing. I have been to the Indy 500 at least 20 times and have been to at least 10 NASCAR races. And by the way Indy Cars run on Ethanol, not gasoline.

 

But you started the thread. If you didn't want to generate contrary opinions (be preached to), maybe you should have chosen a less provocative title.

If someone is "brainwashing" children than that should stop. But if they are teaching them about their impact on the planet, that seems like a good thing for them to be aware of.

I think you have the right to live whatever lifestyle you would like as long as you are not infringing on my right to live whatever lifestyle I would like. I'd like to have breathable air as part of my lifestyle.

I'm not sure what your livelyhood is, but if it degrades the environment, then it can't be very heathy for you either.

 

I have over 4000 passes at drag strips under my belt, 45 wins, two season championships, and a have instituted a few rule changes to improve safety.

What I have learned though my experience has translated to my being a more efficient and safer driver on the street. The details of vehicle performance and handling, and how a driver interacts with that vehicle are measured in hundredths of a second at a drag strip.

Additionally, since I started racing a decade ago I have not had a single speeding ticket. It just isn't worth it to speed on a public road.

Drag strips provide a reasonably safe environment for people to race their cars and compete. Someone with a Prius, if they know how to drive, could go home from a local event with a trophy and cash in their pocket.

I plan on racing a Prius at several bracket racing events this year. I can think of no better way to demonstrate hybrid technology to automotive enthusiasts than to show it to them in person. I expect to actually go a few rounds into competition and heck, maybe even win something myself.

Motorsports is responsible for many technologies that make driving safer and more economical for the public. To dimish that research and development is a dis-service to us all. If anything the "treehuggers" should be opening a mutually beneficial dialogue with the hot rodders to enhance existing technologies that can save fuel and emissions for all of us.

Just putting headers, cat back, and cold air filter on an average 4000 pound V8 "beater" sedan can improve gas mileage by 2-4 miles per gallon if... And this is a big if... it is properly driven.

I'm also playing with an all electric car this year which I hope to have in competition by mid summer. Now if some "treehugger" wants to help with sponsorhip I could have it ready earlier...

 

Austin, Your comments about walking the walk are silly. I mean, you seem to shrug off pollution and environmental degredation but I'm pretty certain that you wouldn't choose to walk the walk and live in a highly polluted area. I'm also pretty sure that it's only because you've benefited greatly from the work of environmental whackos that you take the cause so lightly and with such little regard. If you had cancer from polluted water or weren't able to draw your life's wage due to highly polluted land, you may find proper legitimacy in the cause.

There are plenty of areas in which life existence in polluted areas remain a reality and that's exactly the point behind many of the posts saying that these resources should be more expensive. The additional income derived by the increased costs of resources wouldn't exist as profit, it would exist as an expense realized for the environmental clean up. Of course this dynamic would take a renewed send of accountability and who better to see this through fruition than a whacko.

 

Just want to make sure you know that is total BS.

As shown below, US gasoline stocks have been fairly constant for the last 20 years within +/- 10% or so. They are currently slightly above the 20 year average, after having been ~10% above average back in February. The price of gasoline, on the other hand is up more than 3X over the same period.

All data plotted from:
Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

Rob

 

Ah, the Paradoxes of life.

Hunters and Fishermen are often the most ardent and involved conservationists, and arguably do more to preserve nature than a billion polititians talking. (Of course who doesn't do more than a billion politicians talking, I guess that was a bad analogy.)

The Military and Space Programs develop tons of commercial spin-offs that improve life and the environment. Consider the Computer (Grace Hopper anyone?)

Solar Cells - Think Satellites. Of course it goes without saying that Satellites and all their communicationy goodness started life with the Military.

GPS - Yeah, that darned military.

ABS - Military Aircraft (You think you have skidding problems when braking at high speed!)

Modern Fuel Injection? - Perfected to keep gasoline airplane engines from stalling out during high speed combat maneuvers in WWII. Same with Modern Turbo-Chargers, except they allowed planes to fly higher.

If you look at things like the devlopment of modern Trauma Surgery, they've saved many many lives (Gotta love MASH).

Auto Racers care more about Safety and Efficiency than the average driver, and have bucks to put into it. Crash Proof Fuel Cells, Crumple Zones, Wind Tunnels for Auto Testing, Hell, even Seat Belts come from racing.

Keep in mind that there used to be Factory Race programs, and that even though Freds Racing Team may not have developed a safety or efficiency innovation, huge research in those areas were carried out by the Manufacturers, not because they care for you Joe Consumer, but because they wanted to win races. You just got the benefit.

Traction Control - Those darned fast cars. Slow cars don't really spin the wheels much on takeoff.

Danica Patrick just became the first female to win an Indy Car race because of - Fuel Mileage.

Superchargers? - Yeah, Racing.

Safer Tires? - Racing

Reliable Disc Brakes? - Jaguar C Type Racer

Know what? - Highway Guard-Rail design is being highly influenced by Racing Barrier design.

It's one of the delicious ironies of life that out of situations that the average person might consider 'extreme' come so many things that benefit everyone.

When you think about it, it's obvious. Anyone who pushes the envelope in any field of endeavour, or cares passionately about something, is going to 'improve the breed'.

Without the extremes, we might all be safer in the mushy middle but technological and environmental progress would be much slower.

Hard Problems lead to Good Solutions, and Life and Death situations have this strange way of very effectively focusing the mind on the problem at hand.

 

Already did it.

Now go take some of those classes.... Judging by your attitude you either lied to me when you said you took them or you fell asleep during class.

 

I don't actually know how much pollution can be attributed to organized motor sports. Do you have any figures? I tend to agree with Tripp; I think that there are other larger sources that could be tackled first. I do think a TESTA electric car racing organization would probably be better than the current NASCAR with respect to promoting clean motor sports.

Well, I chose to drive a vehicle that pollutes less than most others that are available. And I keep my other vehicles in good running condition with all of the emission equipment working as intended. I don't throw plastic bottles out the window when I'm done with them. We try to recycle as much as possible.

Do I pass the environmental wacko test or am I a sinner?

Well, I saw the writing on the wall a few years ago w/r/t rising gas prices, so I bought a car that gets the best mpg currently available. So I'm using less gas, and my demand has gone down. That should help the cost of gas for others go down in some miniscule fashion. You're welcome.

I'm really sorry that the Washington Post found a confused little kid to interview so they could write an article about the environment. And that you don't agree with Al Gore. Do you have a source for the statements that Al Gore made so that I can judge for myself?

Even if Al Gore is full of crap, that doesn't negate the need to wean ourselves from the oil "teat". Its destroying our economy, our security and our environment.

I guess I'm a wacko now.

 

Awww Gezzz, I missed all the fun on this thread.

 

Al Gore would be the source of those.

 

An article, book, link, movie; which thing specifically am I looking for?

I don't know what statements were made, which ones you agree with, which ones you don't, and why that is important anyway.

If Al Gore totally fabricated the whole global climate change theory, how do you explain the other people who believe it is happening?