
Other companies and even governments have hyped up the estimates of how much oil they have, which is a vital factor in measuring their economic health. If exaggeration proves to be widespread, it would have an immense impact on the Middle East, whose economic weight is almost totally dependent on oil and natural gas.
Geologists and analysts have been saying for some time that estimates of global oil reserves may be dangerously exaggerated. If you take oil prices currently at around US$37 a barrel, the highest for nearly 15 years, US petrol prices at record levels and you add terrorist attacks and diminishing supplies, you have a recipe for inflation and economic slowdown. The question of reserves becomes a much more important factor.
Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that internal documents and other data indicated that Shell had over estimated its proven oil reserves in Oman by as much as 40 per cent. But that seems to have been done because everyone hoped that the latest drilling techniques would reach more deposits than in the past and merit upgrading the estimates of reserves.
Full Story @ Janes Information Group
*Muddy's Update* If you want to run your car on water instead of gas check out this link
Posted by Muddy at April 21, 2004 04:55 PM | TrackBackOne thing the article doesn't mention is that they recently discovered in Colorado, an oil shell which contains more oil thanthe rest of the proven oil reserves COMBINED. Not to mention there are many areas with a high likely hood of containing oil where we currently are not allowed to drill.
Posted by: skywalker at April 21, 2004 05:31 PMDitch oil man, we can run cars on water for crying out loud!! :-( %$#@! our government pisses me off sometimes.
Posted by: muddy at April 21, 2004 05:39 PMOh one other thing: if oil prices remain at $34 per barrell or higher, then it will be cheaper for auto companies to pursue alternative sources of energy thant o keep relying on oil.
Posted by: skywalker at April 21, 2004 07:38 PMit's less to do with out government than auto companies bro.
Posted by: skywalker at April 21, 2004 07:39 PMThat water idea sounds like an interresting idea but I wonder how long it would take to futher deplete our water resources that way. I mean, if one day (most likely a faaarrrr day from now) we would completely switch from gas cars to water cars, then we would just most likely put ourselves in the same possition that we're in now with the oil...AND depleting our water resourses would be more devestating considering all life on earth could not continue to sustain life with*out* water. So I don't know. Would it be so much harder picking a resourse that constantly kept replacing (for lack of a better word I'm looking for right now) itself without the worry or danger of being depleted?
Posted by: mrs. muddy at April 21, 2004 09:00 PMNot an issue Mrs. Muddy. 2/3 of the world's surface is water. The single most common element is hydrogen, oxygen is pretty much up there too.
PErsonally? Hydrogen fuel cell cars are the future. They produce more HP and torque than electric cars, they're cleaner than hybrids and they rely on something that we will never run out of.
The scientifically illiterate will be the death of us!
There is energy in the H-O bonds of the water molecule. However, we can only access that energy through an increase of local entropy - the water car will not work here. The same goes for hydrogen: obtaining it from a high entropy state (water) requires a substantial input of energy. Where is the energy going to come from? Creating ethanol requires a substantial reduction of local entropy which again requires energy. All of these alternative fuels require energy to produce and the production process is very inefficient (large enrgy losses) for ethanol and somewhat less so for hydrogen.
These alternatives are not a solution to an energy crisis which is what we are facing given that 40% of the worlds energy comes from oil and oil production is peaking now.
You should have listened more carefully during science class.
Mitch
Posted by: Mitch Covell at May 22, 2004 11:37 AMMitch, there are far more alternatives than the small sample you provided. As for running your car on water, it's not only been proven to work but has been done. The American car companies killed the man who was selling and installing the kits to convert cars to water because he would not sell his patents and research with them. If memory serves me right he charged about 1 or 2k for the kit and the install. So if you think about buying a 20k car and paying say 2k more to convert it to run on water. Think of the savings. I have a acquaintance who is converting his saturn to run on water, I'm not up to date on his progress but last I heard he was close.
Posted by: muddy at May 22, 2004 02:07 PMMitch: I'm an engineer, I know a little bit about this and I must say that you're a little out of date on production processes. Hydrogen cars have been going for a while now. The problem is that there is no where to refuel them. It's a chicken and egg problem.
Hydrogen is without a doubt the way of the future, it's common, cheap and can produce ALOT of power.
Posted by: skywalker at May 22, 2004 09:41 PM