I personally don't know of any oilfields which have been exhausted, aveli.  Maybe someone else does.

My comment about rate of usage of oil versus rate of discovery of new fields is a slightly different topic.  I got that information from a very interesting documentary on BBC2 a while back, about the future of farming and food production.  And that is, seriously, all I am going to say on the subject, because it is very depressing and most people don't want to think about it.

aveli666:

i read in the past that richard branson had some connections in a company which had developed high performance bio fuel and he wanted to convince the fia in adding bio fuel to f1 fuel and i wonder why should they add bio fuel to f1 fuel? if bio fuel has better performance why don't they use bio fuel, or does the combined fuel have better performance?

Hi

This was another of Mad Max’s ideas.

It was to try to make F1 look green.

It gives no advantage against STD F1 fuel, and as most bio fuel is produced from food crops or crops that have replaced food crops, with ¼ of the world’s population starving, it is immoral and quite obscene for us to “burn food”

This is “band wagon” politics at its worst.

Sorry rant over, but this is “green” gone mad.

Regards

Racer111

aveli666:

better still pedekay, how many countries have been removed from opec list since 1970 and how many have been added since 1970? have a look and you will notice that the list is growing rather than shrinking.

Sorry aveli, I said that is all I am going to say, and I meant it.  No more.

pedekay:

I personally don't know of any oilfields which have been exhausted, aveli.  Maybe someone else does.

My comment about rate of usage of oil versus rate of discovery of new fields is a slightly different topic.  I got that information from a very interesting documentary on BBC2 a while back, about the future of farming and food production.  And that is, seriously, all I am going to say on the subject, because it is very depressing and most people don't want to think about it.

you don't have to believe the documentary. most information is available on line, you can look at the facts and then decide what you think of it. as far as i know, the opec list has grown very quickly since the 1970's. canada recently discovered huge oil deposits in sand, estimated to be of equivalent to deposits in saudi arabia. russia has recently discovered deposits of oil gas and coal now they supply most of europe gas.

the north sea oil was discovered in 1965 and was meant to be exhausted after 5 yeaars and it is still going strong and more deposits are being found in the same region.

yes bio fuel is not really any more efficient than  'normal' fuel due to productions costs and emmisions .. F1 jumped on the bandwagon thats why it was implemented. We might all know the truth and ask the right questions but 'joe soap' doesnt, F1 is no different to any other big business and will do what is perceived to be customer/media friendly rather than what actually IS environmentally friendly.

Im not sure if bio fuels are more efficient in terms of running a racing engine, I do know that in certain types of engine they will aid the engine in producing greater horse power but then so does nitrous oxide and that will eventually destroy your engine.

I think that if F1 is going to do anything with fuels it should lead and not follow but its a question of whether the petroleum companies would follow and I doubt that they would, Shell, BP, Petronas et al are invested in keeping the status quo ie. massive oil production (even though we have reached or are at the point of Peak Oil) They merely wish to give the impression that they care about the environment.

racer 111:

aveli666:

i read in the past that richard branson had some connections in a company which had developed high performance bio fuel and he wanted to convince the fia in adding bio fuel to f1 fuel and i wonder why should they add bio fuel to f1 fuel? if bio fuel has better performance why don't they use bio fuel, or does the combined fuel have better performance?

Hi

 

This was another of Mad Max’s ideas.

 

It was to try to make F1 look green.

 

It gives no advantage against STD F1 fuel, and as most bio fuel is produced from food crops or crops that have replaced food crops, with ¼ of the world’s population starving, it is immoral and quite obscene for us to “burn food”

 

This is “band wagon” politics at its worst.

 

Sorry rant over, but this is “green” gone mad.

 

Regards

 

Racer111

 

i agree with you completely racer111, so many people out there are creating panic amongst people with the sole purpose of making many out of it. don't forget the millennium bug, bird flu and recently swine flu. imagine stocking all the pharmacies and hospitals with antiviral drugs in the uk alone.

twinkle_toes22:

yes bio fuel is not really any more efficient than  'normal' fuel due to productions costs and emmisions .. F1 jumped on the bandwagon thats why it was implemented. We might all know the truth and ask the right questions but 'joe soap' doesnt, F1 is no different to any other big business and will do what is perceived to be customer/media friendly rather than what actually IS environmentally friendly.

Im not sure if bio fuels are more efficient in terms of running a racing engine, I do know that in certain types of engine they will aid the engine in producing greater horse power but then so does nitrous oxide and that will eventually destroy your engine.

I think that if F1 is going to do anything with fuels it should lead and not follow but its a question of whether the petroleum companies would follow and I doubt that they would, Shell, BP, Petronas et al are invested in keeping the status quo ie. massive oil production (even though we have reached or are at the point of Peak Oil) They merely wish to give the impression that they care about the environment.

bio fuel is less efficient because it is less volatile and slow burning so it cannot be more efficient than petrol, may be diesel. 

Wow, I really don't know where to begin.  This whole thread is like a misinformation contest. 

raikkster:

Wow, I really don't know where to begin.  This whole thread is like a misinformation contest. 

 

is that all you have to add? please correctly inform. 

raikkster:

Wow, I really don't know where to begin.  This whole thread is like a misinformation contest. 

I apologise, raikkster, I wasn't quite correct in my statement.  I said that prior to the 1970s we were finding new oil fields faster than we could use up the oil, and now that was the other way round.  This is not exactly correct, I was relying on my memory.

What I should have said was, that prior to 1980, new oil fields were being discovered at a greater rate than the rate of production.  The graph lines for the two figures have crossed at about 1980, and now the rate of discovery of new oil fields is lower than the rate of production of oil.

This is of course only the easily obtained oil, that obtained by conventional and economically efficient means.  New oil fields are being found but it's not easily obtainable oil, for instance it's in sand, shale etc.  Some of the new finds could well be way too expensive to be retrieved, it simply would not be economic.

My source is a website for the Post Carbon Institute, and they probably have a bias one way.  I find that this is the big problem with the whole global warming, climate change, environmental issues stuff.  Everybody has a different opinion and gives different information.  How are we supposed to know who to trust?

pedekay:

raikkster:

Wow, I really don't know where to begin.  This whole thread is like a misinformation contest. 

I apologise, raikkster, I wasn't quite correct in my statement.  I said that prior to the 1970s we were finding new oil fields faster than we could use up the oil, and now that was the other way round.  This is not exactly correct, I was relying on my memory.

What I should have said was, that prior to 1980, new oil fields were being discovered at a greater rate than the rate of production.  The graph lines for the two figures have crossed at about 1980, and now the rate of discovery of new oil fields is lower than the rate of production of oil.

This is of course only the easily obtained oil, that obtained by conventional and economically efficient means.  New oil fields are being found but it's not easily obtainable oil, for instance it's in sand, shale etc.  Some of the new finds could well be way too expensive to be retrieved, it simply would not be economic.

My source is a website for the Post Carbon Institute, and they probably have a bias one way.  I find that this is the big problem with the whole global warming, climate change, environmental issues stuff.  Everybody has a different opinion and gives different information.  How are we supposed to know who to trust?

 

i appreciate that pedekay, but there are some facts which are universal. there has never been a country eliminated from the list of opec but more are being added. if they say the oil is running out then why has it not run out in some countries at least?

Up to page 2 alredy.

I think it will be hard to beat 16.

Mr.Woody:

Up to page 2 alredy.

I think it will be hard to beat 16.

why 16 mr woody?