Hi all I wrote a report about this back in 2012 and revised it several times and was permitted to make part of it public in 2013 a substantial proportion of the report in a rough edited version was made available on Sifferkol's website last year: http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/a-must-read-guest-post-by-ian-walker-the-end-of-the-fossil-fuel-age/
A couple of things to take away in relation to the above discussion: 1) the advice to Saudi Arabia was to move to a market decline strategy and to lower the price of oil both to kill off their competitors by stacking it high and selling cheap thus gaining the same profits by moving from high margins on low volume to low margins on high volume. 2) To slow the uptake of LENR by dropping the price to a level that made the cost of switching to LENR less attractive. On another matter out of what will oil be worth without using oil as a fossil fuel, do a Google search for "What is in a Barrel of Oil" Looking through those you can see oil will still have a residual value for things such as Lubricants, Asphalt, petrochemical feedstock for plastics etc about 7% to 15% of a barrel of oil is not used for fuel, and in fact several new markets may be possible due to LENR enabling new technologies and markets. So oil will drop to 15% of its expected value from that 2014 high. I have of course, as has Sifferkol; made it clear that the Markets have already largely discounted oil on the threat of LENR. My understanding is that Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia are all prepared to drop oil to the $1 per barrel mark to kill off the majority of their competitors. Then they will be all the remaining 15% of the oil market. Kind Regards walker On 14 March 2016 at 20:50, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > > I suspect that the transportation of oil as well as its production cost >> would make it desirable to find local sources for the elements needed in >> those related products. > > > As far as I know, the only thing you want in plastic feedstock is "pure > hydrocarbon polymers." Hydrogen and carbon. Anything else is contamination. > That's what I have read, anyway. I expect that it will eventually be > possible to synthesize pure hydrocarbons from water and carbon rather than > refining oil, which is rather dirty stuff. Coal may be a good source of > carbon if there is not enough organic garbage or recycled plastic, or if it > is not convenient to extract carbon from atmospheric CO2. There are still > mountains of coal left. A small fraction of the coal mined today would > suffice. > > Here is one source for the "pure" part: > > http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/hamman1/ > > Energy for plastic > > . . . To begin, not all plastics are chiefly composed of hydrogen and > carbon like polyethylene. For example, PET is about 33% oxygen by mass > while PVC is about 57% chlorine by mass. [13] These additives come from > non-hydrocarbon feedstocks. To account for the hydrocarbon feedstock > energy, observe that three of the five most widely produced plastics, > namely polyethylene, polypropylene and polystyrene, together account for > nearly 60% of all plastics production. [4,5] Both polypropylene and > polystyrene are pure hydrocarbon polymers with similar heats of combustion > as their feedstock counterparts and polyethylene. . . . > > > - Jed > >
