http://www.forbes.com/markets/2008/12/01/opec-oil-update-markets-commodities-cx_ll_mlm_1201markets36.html

What are the actual effects if they, OPEC, continues to lose cohesion? With member countries actually either outright running counter to supposed OPEC decisions or simply failing to achieve said decisions what will be the short/long term effects?

Effectively they, OPEC, has been price fixing for decades right? Will there be a naturalization of actual prices that'd be affected by supply and demand or would there be a rampant cost spikes/dips?

I'm curious after I read a few articles today suggesting that they might collapse as an actual power

We can make it happen fairly quickly by continuing towards non-fossil fuel energy sources.

I understand that, but are there ramifications we need to be aware of if it happens now?

I also read OPEC would like to draw Russia into it's coop. Eh, guess it's really not important in todays climate. Guess I'm musing over nothing.

They only control 40 percent of the world's oil supply, soon to be less as more of the arctic is divided up between us and the Russians and Chinese. Not exactly a monopoly anymore and they realize they can't price fix as much as before.

The prices now are very much what the market can bear given the global depression. If the economic climate changes they may be able to jack the prices some, but not significantly.

They only control 40 percent of the world's oil supply, soon to be less as more of the arctic is divided up between us and the Russians and Chinese.



By us do you mean Canada and North America? I think Canada may have a better claim than the U.S., but I may be mistaken.

By us do you mean Canada and North America? I think Canada may have a better claim than the U.S., but I may be mistaken.

"Us" was those of us who read the forums, Europeans and North Americans.

Canada will certainly be in the lead in Artic exploitation.

The arctic will be divvied up by Russia grabbing the biggest share followed by Canada with the second largest chunk, then the remainder claimed by the US, Denmark and possibly Norway.

I shudder to think what happens if it is determined there is oil under Antarctica too.

The arctic will be divvied up by Russia grabbing the biggest share followed by Canada with the second largest chunk, then the remainder claimed by the US, Denmark and possibly Norway.

I shudder to think what happens if it is determined there is oil under Antarctica too.

The Antartic is rock, and lots of it, buried under ice ... its a lot harder to get to. I also don't see why you'd leave China out because proximity doesn't necessarily mean anything. Britain laid claim to India and the United States a long time ago ... and while my geography is sketchy at best but I was pretty sure they aren't next to each other.

What would have decomposed under either pole to create significant oil deposits?

What would have decomposed under either pole to create significant oil deposits?

That is honestly one of the dumbest things you've ever written Sanchek. You should rethink that.

They're hoping the North Pole might hold 10% of the world's undiscovered oil. Even if that were off the coast of Rhode Island, it wouldn't be a game changer. Being in one of the world's least accessible areas and expected to be divvied up a half dozen ways, it's much less hype-worthy than some would have us believe.

There's no fossil record to suggest that the poles, even when thawed, were ever places where we should expect to find huge amounts of oil. Not sure why that's confusing to you.

What would have decomposed under either pole to create significant oil deposits?

The various continental plates were not always where they are now, and there is a very active arctic ecology in any case, and always has been. Additionally, the earth has been periodically much warmer than it is now, particularly towards the end of the Permian era when many of the major oil deposits were engendered. (for those of you who like to latch on statements like "periodically warmer" to deny global warming I would like to remind you that ~90% of all life on Earth went extinct at the end of the Permian).

I understand that and had taken it into account.

I don't disagree about the potential value of any Arctic deposits but if we're pulling as much oil and gas as we are out of the North Sea, it's a hop-skip-and-jump into ocean beds that are merely less explored, not empty.

Trying to recall where I read this but....

Wherever there is sufficient aquatic life for an extended period of time there are good chances for carbon deposits. Infact I believe the piece I was reading suggested it was actually the layers and layers and layers of single cell organisms piling up on the sea floor that is believed to lead to oil instead of the larger life forms.

So this would suggest that both the North and South pole areas should yield oil desposits no?

Yes, and they will, but not in the same quantities that we've found in areas that have been tropic or temperate more often in the past. It's not irrelevant, but definitely a case of fighting over the last remaining table scraps.

I'm late for lab, but just FYI re Antarctica, it was covered in temperate forests throughout the Mezozoic and should actually be a pretty good candidate for having significant deposits of fossil fuels. Getting to the continental mass itself has been an issue because of the ice deposits, but that is becoming less of an issue now ;). And what Malse is referring to (the mass extinction event that ended the Paleozoic) is often called, in biologist slang, the 'Big Burp', speaking of greenhouse gas levels rising...

Regards,
Nydia

Hmm, I guess I'm just wrong about that. Ignore me and carry on!

So Nydia , the extinction event followed up with a cosmic antacid to help calm the big burp?

Hardly the remaining table scraps. The bulk of the planet's oil deposits are just too difficult to get at (namely miles and miles below the ocean).

Don't forget the billions of fish, marine mammals, birds, wolves, caribou, polar bears and massive amounts of plankton and algae and vegetation is kind of mind boggling. Add a few million years and you've got plenty of organic material through which natural gas and oil and diamonds can form. Pre-ELE the current North Pole may very well have not even been a Pole, as well.

*edit* Wow, I think this is the first time I've ever seen Sanchek admit being wrong. This thread should live on in infamy forever! :P

But in reality the earth being 6000 years old would show that it takes a very small amount of time to create oil which means that there is more and more created everyday so we will never run out.

So Rover today's landfills and graveyards are soon to be oil deposits? Yes I note the sarcasm in the previous post ;P

He's not entirely that far off, though ... we've already seen a lot of scientific advances like genetically modified bugs that literally eat trash and shit out oil. And we've seen people using their own poop to power their homes. My house is 30% powered through the burning of methane gas collected in landfills. Nature just has had a funny way of taking a long freaking time to get the oil / coal / natural gas made that we're not quite able to replicate yet.

Ah I thought Rover was having fun with the fanatically religious amongst us.

There's also a development I read in Pop Science, or was it Pop Mechanics, that has a machine taking used tires and such and breaking it down to oil and basic components so we get 100% renewable trash!

Here we go, was pretty sure Pop Science had their material available online.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/innovator_2.html

Ah I thought Rover was having fun with the fanatically religious amongst us.

There's also a development I read in Pop Science, or was it Pop Mechanics, that has a machine taking used tires and such and breaking it down to oil and basic components so we get 100% renewable trash!


I was! The burning shit thing has merit, one night my dog had diarrhea like I've never seen and I considered burning my house down and walking away from it rather than deal with what turned out to be an adventure in bio-chemical hazardous cleanup that went on for hours...the best part was watching a whole houseful of people dry heave in unison.

Being a dog lover myself, yes my minidaschund is a dog!!, I feel your pain.

I don't know how something so tiny, he's all of 9 lbs at 3 years old, can make such caustic messes.

Reading through the article I linked above has me curious. Why haven't we heard more about this? Is it a fluke or psuedo science?

The Antartic is rock, and lots of it, buried under ice ... its a lot harder to get to. I also don't see why you'd leave China out because proximity doesn't necessarily mean anything. Britain laid claim to India and the United States a long time ago ... and while my geography is sketchy at best but I was pretty sure they aren't next to each other.

So called "rights" to areas like the Arctic seabed are based on connection to the continental shelf of the nation closest in proximity according to international law. Russia cuts off China from the arctic, hence China has no viable claim there. The only reason the US can claim any is because of Alaska's proximity. Denmark owns Greenland so has a claim and Norway is also in close proximity, though it will have to squabble with Russia to get its fair share.

So called "rights" to areas like the Arctic seabed are based on connection to the continental shelf of the nation closest in proximity according to international law. Russia cuts off China from the arctic, hence China has no viable claim there. The only reason the US can claim any is because of Alaska's proximity. Denmark owns Greenland so has a claim and Norway is also in close proximity, though it will have to squabble with Russia to get its fair share.

That is only applicable for the first 200 miles, as far as I know the rest is still very much disputed.

Indeed....but only by the surrounding Arctic countries, not by others like China. Russia is trying to argue the sea mountain chain that runs beneath the pole is a continuation of the chain originating in their territory. Other countries are disputing this claim saying it is not the same geologic chain.