| Submit your comments on this article |
| International |
| Top 10 Nations With Proven Oil Reserves |
| 2003-08-11 |
A look at nations with the top 10 proven oil reserves as of the end of 2002, based on their percentage of the world’s total known reserves. The figures were published by British Petroleum (www.bp.com) and based on estimates from the Oil & Gas Journal. The level of freedom in those nations is measured by the independent Freedom House organization (www.freedomhouse.org). The rankings are from 2000.Country - Known Oil Reserves - Freedom Level.So of the top ten, only one is free -- us -- a few are partly free, and the rest are run by thugs and scumbags. Kuwait, the UAE and Iraq are going to get better. Can’t say that about the rest. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #15 We are (government subsidized, at that). There are many gas stations in US selling ethanol blends of petrol. There are real and perceived performance issues, but the real problem as mentioned in other contexts here, is scale. You have to grow a lot of corn to move a car. You have to grow a tremendous amount of corn to move all, or even a bunch of cars. There are various calculations floating around which are probably all bogus, but it still requires a great deal of energy and resources, not to mention real estate, to grow enough corn to matter. Some maintain that ethanol consumes more energy (in the agricultural production process) than it yields. It has been said, though hardly proven, that it would require 97% of the US land mass just to grow enough corn to replace current gasoline consumption. Still, I would rather drive across 3000 miles of cornfields than 3000 miles of free range turkeys. This could also lead to an unfortunate Soylent Green type of scenario that might best be left unexplored.... |
| Posted by: Mark IV 2003-8-11 11:19:11 PM |
| #14 Steve White: Hopefully the government also has a workable idea about converting support of "nuclear power" from being a political third rail or it won't go anywhere (but I hope it does). At this point even irradiated food is out, let alone a new Nuke Plant. |
| Posted by: SPQR 2755 2003-8-11 4:17:53 PM |
| #13 Lucky and Frank: the turkey-entrail converter (and such minded devices) doesn't scale very well. To put it simply, there aren't enough turkey entrails to matter :-) Steve Den Beste has written extensively on the scaling issue. He also thinks hydrogen won't work for the reasons noted: it's an energy carrier, not an energy source. Nuclear is our best bet for the forseeable future, and the government may actually have a workable idea, in new-technology, standardized light-water reactors combined with expedited permitting and licensing. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-8-11 2:59:16 PM |
| #12 I've read that article - the machine's amazing - garbage/crap to sweet lite crude. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-8-11 1:55:28 PM |
| #11 I've been hearing about some technology that takes carbon based mater and turns it into sweet crude. It's currently being used with turkey entrails and whatnot. But from what I've heard it can take anything. Dump it into the hopper on one end and Wa-La. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2003-8-11 1:38:45 PM |
| #10 But Brian, who would he have nuked? As you may have noticed I'm as bloodthirsty as the next ·com, but the only way a nuke could've been used was if the foe was a sovereign countries' military, or if they hit us with one. I'm just guessing, but I bet there's plans drawn up for same, and I trust GWB, Condi and Rumsfeld to do what's right |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-8-11 11:56:05 AM |
| #9 We have no idea where the Tokamak spinoffs have gone and I'm sure that "bottle" technology could have some military applications. Presuppose that we cancel our imports of Saudi or whatever oil. What would that do? Turn a sh!thole into a larger sh!thole? It would turn the ME into Central Africa, in essence. The underlying problem is that Bush may have created a credibility gap which feeds into AQ's hands; if we have the world's (second?) largest nuclear arsenal and we don't use it when 3000 die, when will we use it? When 4000 die? 5? Just going after the oil isn't enough, we need to go after their hearts and minds, if not by irradiation then by shock and awe... |
| Posted by: Brian 2003-8-11 11:48:52 AM |
| #8 Nukes work best for the energy grid, IMO. And I do like nukes, and as a matter of fact, I damned near do have one in my backyard; I'm within the initial vaporization radius of San Onofre. I'm just not sure it's a practical retrofit for my Subaru. The Dodge, maybe.... Hydrogen may contribute to an alternative energy future. If it does, the contribution is probably 20+ years off, by any reasonable estimate. I can accept that. I don't think it will be cheap, soon, or free. There are a few other options (some are just boronic) but it is smart to work on them now, if for no other reason than Tom's suggestion, to keep them busy and exercised until we need a new mullah-selective MOAB. Or something. |
| Posted by: Mark IV 2003-8-11 11:46:32 AM |
| #7 Cold fusion aside, do you remember all the hype 20 years ago about "hot" fusion in "magnetic bottles." [There's still a huge lab near Princeton, NJ still researching it.] The hydrogen hype is similar. I see it as just a good welfare program to keep government scientists busy and their infrastructure in place until we need them for other serious business. |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-8-11 11:33:07 AM |
| #6 Free the US from the despots and idiots. Nuclear Power. Nuclear Power. Nuclear Power. |
| Posted by: SPQR 2755 2003-8-11 11:28:30 AM |
| #5 Thanks for the link, but it didn't dampen my wild-eyed unfounded enthusiasm much. There are half-measures to get there, and the biggest objection is the $30 trillion infrastructure already in place for petro. Dunno what the infrastructure for horses was, in constant dollars, but as a percentage of the world economy in 1890 I'll bet it was pretty high. Ford has an interesting new hybrid. Anyway, I get the same satisfactory lift from contemplating a hydrogen future that I do from buying a Lotto ticket... the ability to daydream until the ticket expires. Thank your stars I didn't buy into the cold fusion thing instead. Some of those guys make Wahabists look level-headed. |
| Posted by: Mark IV 2003-8-11 11:27:36 AM |
| #4 Alas, hydrogen is not free. It takes energy to separate it from water, or even from natural gas. What's worse: most fuel cell design is focused on using natural gas, and there are already natural gas shortages looming because many electricity producers are slowly shifting away from coal. Sorry,guys, but -- hydrogen and fuel cell hype aside -- there's no quick fix coming. |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-8-11 11:23:08 AM |
| #3 Here's an article from TCS dated 6/30 that sorta let the air outta hydrogen for me. The numbers aren't good. Sigh. Gotta bite the bullet someday, though. |
| Posted by: ·com 2003-8-11 10:12:15 AM |
| #2 Once again, I gotta put in a link to Petroleum Pete, a great site for energy-related issues. |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-8-11 9:49:20 AM |
| #1 This is what's turning me into a hydrogen If fuel cells are available by 2010, with widespread US adoption by 2015-2020, how will the world change? At least 6 of the places on the list revert to being unpleasant deserts with no other resources than pistachios and an overpriced lubricant. A couple others will merely be unpleasant. Wisely, their leadership prepares for this bold new future by filling personal checking accounts in foreign banks, developing nerve gas and nuc-U-lar bombs, and being careful not to upset the most conservative nutjobs in the state religion. There must be something in the Koran that can be interpreted as prohibiting hydrogen fuel cells. Yes, progress comes at a fearful cost. I suppose a bankrupt ME with a 14th century outlook (unenhanced by our western Xray sunglasses) would be dangerous, unstable, and violent. We'll have to prepare for that.... |
| Posted by: Mark IV 2003-8-11 9:26:18 AM |