[Y3a]

of those listed in the title, who is most responsible for the high gas prices?

Gas Companies sell it based on the speculation of good or bad happening.
The government sets up regulatons that cost money.
Environmentalists get the politicians to enact laws that cost gas companies $.
We elect politicians who cave to the environmentalists and we pay for our poor judgement at the pumps.

I blame politicians(us) and environmentalists for our current problems. We SHOULD HAVE developed safe ways to get oil from Alaska, and ways to refine more crude with MORE REFINERIES.
Environmentalists cost us money! Where are their methods to get the energy we need? I guess they are all over at the global warming protests or somesuch.

I'm sending my congressional rep, and Senator nasty letters every day for a while about the situation.

[Dakar]

1. OPEC
2. Gas companies
3 (Tie). Environmentalists & Government taxes
4. Regulations

[Helmling]

As an environmentalist, I saw we SHOULD HAVE gotten off oil after the first gas crisis. There were all sorts of DoE projects that were killed when Reagan came into office.

We can kick the oil habit in a generation. Now that even the Republicans are admitting the threat of global warming, THAT should be our goal right now...not cheaper oil.

[SpaceMonkey]

1. Global supply.
2. Global demand.

While we don't know precisely how much oil is in ANWR, most experts agree that it would not provide significantly enough extra supply to provide more than a temporary respite in oil prices.

I, personally, welcome these naturally high oil prices. It's pretty much the only way to motivate the development of the alternative energy sources that we're going to need in 50 years.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

1. Global supply.
2. Global demand.


I, personally, welcome these naturally high oil prices. It's pretty much the only way to motivate the development of the alternative energy sources that we're going to need in 50 years.

I agree 100% with you. A 50$ tank of gas isn't going to hurt me that much, but it is fun watching everyone else whine about it.

If anything it will force people to:

A: Drive slower
B: Drive less
C: Carpool
D: Maybe bike ride to places that are close

All are great solutions, I've started to use a feather touch on the throttle with results in the 18-19 mpg range in a vehicle rated for 15-17. No big shakes, but it helps. Driving slower than 85-90 mph on the highway would be a great start too.

[Doofy]

I love it when Americans go on about "high gas prices".

As for who's causing it? Well... Supply and demand states that if there's less demand for something, the price will go up. So, it's everyone who isn't driving around in a Hummer who's causing it.

[Ganesha]

1. US - we the people, as long as people prefer buying cars that get under 20 MPG, for solo commuting...

2. The US Government - With the right laws we could easily discourage fuel inefficient cars, leaving of course loopholes for people who actually have a need for them...

3. Gas Companies - Because #2 didn't stop them from gobbling up each other, there are only a handful of gas producers. Limited competition == higher prices.

4. Environmentalists - Let's face it, they may be noisy but they really don't have much power. If they did, we would of enacted higher fuel standards long ago and be a member of the KYOTO treaty.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by sek929

I agree 100% with you. A 50$ tank of gas isn't going to hurt me that much, but it is fun watching everyone else whine about it.

Well thas pretty shitty of you. You think its fun for the little guys who depend on their vehicles for their income? Caterers, newspaper guy, pizza boys and the like? How about when your netflicks subscription doubles?

How funny will it be when it costs $250 to fill your tank? It won't hurt the dude driving the beamer that much, but he will probably have fun listening to you whine about it.

Man, maybe the southpark episode about hybrid/environmentalists was true. The smug levels are waaaay too high. Nothing wrong with wanting higher standards and efficiency but some people might think you a prick for taking delight in the pain of the little guy. But I'm with you when a hear 4ft women in Expeditions complaining about fuel costs...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Well... Supply and demand states that if there's less demand for something, the price will go up. So, it's everyone who isn't driving around in a Hummer who's causing it.

I think you have that a bit in reverse. As price goes up, demand goes down, but lesser demand doesn't cause a price to go up. Otherwise everyone would sell thier old 286 PCs with 16 megs of RAM for $1000.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

I think you have that a bit in reverse. As price goes up, demand goes down, but lesser demand doesn't cause a price to go up. Otherwise everyone would sell thier old 286 PCs with 16 megs of RAM for $1000.

It works both ways.

If the quantity used goes down and the price remains the same, the oil companies aren't matching their previous revenues. And that means either laying people off (with the usual accompanying union problems), reducing infrastructure (and assets) or the boss having to fly around in a Learjet rather than a BBJ.

1,000 people in 10 mpg cars driving 1,000 miles @ $1 gallon = $100,000 revenue.
1,000 people in 20 mpg cars driving 1,000 miles @ $1 gallon = $50,000 revenue.

...so...

1,000 people in 20 mpg cars driving 1,000 miles @ $2 gallon = $100,000 revenue.

You don't really think the oil companies are going to stand for losing revenue because a bunch of hippies told you to drive hybrids instead of Hummers, do you?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by pooka

Well thas pretty shitty of you. You think its fun for the little guys who depend on their vehicles for their income? Caterers, newspaper guy, pizza boys and the like?

That's a ridiculous and stupid excuse, and self-fulfilling. Without a rise in gas prices, these people will not be motivated to buy energy-efficient vehicles, or increase the demand for energy-efficient transportation. Nothing will change, because no one will have to change.

I think this thread topic is ridiculous. People are complaining about the high cost of gas, and advocating cheaper prices by drilling in Alaska?! That's hilarious. Without a rise in price, consumption will stay at current levels – and at our present rate, all the oil in Alaska wouldn't last the US more than a few years I imagine. Silly people.

The concept of "finite resource" doesn't seem to get through to many of you, does it? I really marvel at that.

greg

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy

It works both ways.

If the quantity used goes down and the price remains the same, the oil companies aren't matching their previous revenues. And that means either laying people off (with the usual accompanying union problems), reducing infrastructure (and assets) or the boss having to fly around in a Learjet rather than a BBJ.

1,000 people in 10 mpg cars driving 1,000 miles @ $1 gallon = $100,000 revenue.
1,000 people in 20 mpg cars driving 1,000 miles @ $1 gallon = $50,000 revenue.

...so...

1,000 people in 20 mpg cars driving 1,000 miles @ $2 gallon = $100,000 revenue.

You don't really think the oil companies are going to stand for losing revenue because a bunch of hippies told you to drive hybrids instead of Hummers, do you?

Monopolies are fun!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

The concept of "finite resource" doesn't seem to get through to many of you, does it? I really marvel at that.

It's not like there weren't scientists back in the 20's telling us that we were going to run out of oil by the 30's now, is it?

Prove that it's a finite resource. Otherwise it's just your politics getting in the way of your clear thinking, ain't it?

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Doofy

It's not like there weren't scientists back in the 20's telling us that we were going to run out of oil by the 30's now, is it?

Prove that it's a finite resource. Otherwise it's just your politics getting in the way of your clear thinking, ain't it?

Well the earth is a finite environment, so yes there is a finite amount of oil around.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by villalobos

Well the earth is a finite environment, so yes there is a finite amount of oil around.

Bad argument. That assumes that there's also a finite amount of rainwater around.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Bad argument. That assumes that there's also a finite amount of rainwater around.

[smacintush]

I blame the oil companies, and to a smaller degree the government, for allowing the the gas prices to stay so low for so long, that when it when up to the PERFECTLY F*CKING REASONABLE price it's at now it causes people to panic.

That being said, more refineries would make the gas prices lower and more importantly more stable. You can blame the greens for the lack of refineries all you want but it was the oil companies decision to close refineries, and they haven't exactly been beating down the governments doors trying to build any new ones. Why should they? More supply = lower price, lower price = less profit.

[stevesnj]

After years and years of Democratic urging to start switching and investing in alternative fuels and alternative powered vhicles it seems like all those opposed should be ashamed of themselves and apologize to those who wanted alternative vehicles. Seems you all were wrong!! Dumb oil loving greedy Republicans

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Bad argument. That assumes that there's also a finite amount of rainwater around.

hmmmm, well yes there is at any given moment. It's kinda late out in UK isn't it? Think you should hit the bad, you ain't thinking clearly right now.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by villalobos

hmmmm, well yes there is at any given moment. It's kinda late out in UK isn't it? Think you should hit the bad, you ain't thinking clearly right now.

I'm thinking perfectly clearly. Rainwater starts when it leaves the cloud and ends when it hits the water table and/or rivers and/or sea. It's part of a constantly-replenishing cycle and is thus infinite.

How do you know that oil ain't part of a cycle? We've made the stuff in labs (presumably in less time than it took for evolution to happen), so how do you know that somewhere in the Earth's core there aren't the exact same conditions as in the labs? Or other conditions which create "fast" oil? How do you know that it isn't being produced as quickly as we're consuming it? How do we know that it isn't part of a cycle? We don't. It's that simple.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I'm thinking perfectly clearly. Rainwater starts when it leaves the cloud and ends when it hits the water table and/or rivers and/or sea. It's part of a constantly-replenishing cycle and is thus infinite.

How do you know that oil ain't part of a cycle? We've made the stuff in labs (presumably in less time than it took for evolution to happen), so how do you know that somewhere in the Earth's core there aren't the exact same conditions as in the labs? Or other conditions which create "fast" oil? How do you know that it isn't being produced as quickly as we're consuming it? How do we know that it isn't part of a cycle? We don't. It's that simple.

what you are talking about is called abiotic oil and it has been postulated but never proven. what has been proven is that oil, coal and gas come from the decomposition of plant material subjected to heat and pressure (in the earth's crust) over millions of years. the production of oil is a cycle coupled with plate tectonics. it is not coming back any time soon.

rain water is not an infinite resource. if you took the rainwater that fell and sequestered it, after a while there would be no rainwater.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I'm thinking perfectly clearly. Rainwater starts when it leaves the cloud and ends when it hits the water table and/or rivers and/or sea. It's part of a constantly-replenishing cycle and is thus infinite.

How do you know that oil ain't part of a cycle? We've made the stuff in labs (presumably in less time than it took for evolution to happen), so how do you know that somewhere in the Earth's core there aren't the exact same conditions as in the labs? Or other conditions which create "fast" oil? How do you know that it isn't being produced as quickly as we're consuming it? How do we know that it isn't part of a cycle? We don't. It's that simple.

No water is not infinite. There certainly is a recycling of the water but there is also a loss of water. Real slow so it should not affect us in the short-medium term. There still is a finite amount of it. Just like oil : except the burning of oil is fast, really fast. And yes there is some forming somewhere somehow although it is known that the formation is real slow and limited in amount. So the fact that is is finite will probably affect us in the short term. Yeah, nothing is 100% sure, but that is fairly known.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

what you are talking about is called abiotic oil and it has been postulated but never proven.

Never been disproved either.

Originally Posted by black bear theory

what has been proven is that oil, coal and gas come from the decomposition of plant material subjected to heat and pressure (in the earth's crust) over millions of years.

No. The time frame has been postulated, not proven.

Originally Posted by black bear theory

rain water is not an infinite resource. if you took the rainwater that fell and sequestered it, after a while there would be no rainwater.

And how does one intend to stop all of this sequestered water from evaporating?

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Never been disproved either.

good point. neither have faeries, gnomes or unicorns.

And how does one intend to stop all of this sequestered water from evaporating?

a roof? it's a hypothetical situation.

water on earth is an finite resource. no water is entering or leaving the system, except for maybe the stray comet hitting the atmosphere. rainwater, being a part of the water cycle on earth is therefore finite. that's not to say a molecule of water won't pass through the cycle millions of times.

[Dr Reducto]

With Gasoline prices rising, Canadians should be celebrating, tar shale in Canada apparently has around 1.2 trillion gallons of oil trapped in it.

Of course it's not economically feasible to extract it until the price goes above $70 a gallon, but we've hit that mark. If it stays, Canada is rich biyotch

[pooka]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

That's a ridiculous and stupid excuse, and self-fulfilling.

So? You argue with abe. We all have faults, bud.

Look, I'm ALLLLLLL for greater conservation, efficiency and turning the thumbscrews on stoopid, fat americans' asses. We're oil pigs. Oink.

All I did was point out what a DICK that other dude was for stating so smuggly how little high gas prices affected him. little low little high high.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

water on earth is an finite resource. no water is entering or leaving the system, except for maybe the stray comet hitting the atmosphere. rainwater, being a part of the water cycle on earth is therefore finite.

You're confusing "water" with "rainwater".

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Doofy

You're confusing "water" with "rainwater".

*sigh*

i talk about rainwater. rainwater is part of the water cycle.

water on earth is an finite resource. no water is entering or leaving the system, except for maybe the stray comet hitting the atmosphere. rainwater, being a part of the water cycle on earth is therefore finite. that's not to say a molecule of water won't pass through the cycle millions of times.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

*sigh*

i talk about rainwater. rainwater is part of the water cycle.

*sigh* yourself. It's obviously pointless talking with you, as you fail to understand that the water cycle generates infinite rainwater from finite water. Because it's a cycle.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy

It works both ways.

Not really...

...so...

1,000 people in 20 mpg cars driving 1,000 miles @ $2 gallon = $100,000 revenue.

...so...

1,000 people in 10 mpg cars driving 1,000 miles @ $2 gallon = $200,000 revenue.

If I can get $2 a gallon in low demand, I can damn sure charge it (and more) in high demand.

Higher demand= higher price. Right now demand for oil is very high.

You don't really think the oil companies are going to stand for losing revenue because a bunch of hippies told you to drive hybrids instead of Hummers, do you?

No, but then those "hippies" use just as much oil as everybody else, they just kid themselves a lot that they don't, or that what they use doesn't count.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Doofy

*sigh* yourself. It's obviously pointless talking with you, as you fail to understand that the water cycle generates infinite rainwater from finite water. Because it's a cycle.

i understand the cycle. that is why i mentioned it. i guess my infinite is bigger than your infinite

moving on, it's a bad analogy in the context of oil, since rainwater can possibly fall, evaporate hundreds of times in a year. it is a very simple molecule but doesn't bode well for comparison with oil. you can doubt the exact amount of time needed for fossil fuels to form, but trust that they do not do so naturally in any timeframe that is significant to our civilization. there is a reason that they are referred to as non-renewable.

i'd be interested in this lab work that produces oil. is it in any significant quantity to do any good? generally oil forms underneath 4-5 km of bed rock while being heated to hundred's of degrees for many years. they can replicate those conditions in labs but on objects that would probably only produce a few ml's of oil. can they do it on a scale that would be economically of any use?

[dcmacdaddy]

E.) All of the above

• US consumers need to change our ways of using petroleum products so that we use less-in our cars, in our plastic-wrapped packages, in our whole culture of single-use disposable products (Why don't we sell milk in glass bottles anymore?)
• US government needs to force automobile manufacturers to make more fuel-efficient engines and needs to force petroleum-based energy plants to become more energy efficient
• US government needs to spend as much money subsidizing the wind- and solar-power industries as they do the oil production/consumption industries (Why the state of Arizona doesn't mandate solar panels on home and/or business rooftops is incomprehensible to me?)
• Government at EVERY level (local/state/federal) needs to increase spending on mass transit and for providing support for alternative means of travel (sidewalks, pedestrian walkways in/through/around cities, bikeways that are well-maintained)
• Oil producers and refiners need to produce more refining capacity; From everything I have read on this issue the current price increase is due to a shortage of refining capacity, partly due to after-effects of Hurrican Katrina in the Gulf region and partly due to their reluctance to build new refineries which would reduce their current high profit-margins on what they produce now
• Environmentalists needs to give a little bit in some of their extreme stances on certain issues; While oil drilling in ANWR is NOT a solution to our energy needs, environmental opposition to windmill farms and solar energy arrays is also NOT a solution to our energy needs (A surpising number of environmental groups are opposed to these measures)

[sek929]

Originally Posted by pooka

All I did was point out what a DICK that other dude was for stating so smuggly how little high gas prices affected him. little low little high high.

I have a very limted budget dude, and yes, gas prices with affect everything in my daily life.

I'm a carpenter, I NEED a truck to carry supplies and lumber, so I am indeed one of the poor souls you listed to make me look bad. Only difference is I have seen this coming for many years, and Doofy chuckled earlier because gas has been 5+ dollars a gallon for a while in his country, I think it's about time we get a little punished here in the US, it will bring about change.

Try again. I'm not high and mighty, just a realist. If it ever takes 250 dollars to fill my tank I guess I'll just take a bus to and from the lumber yard. But it's not going to up THAT much (the price of a vehicle has escalated far more than fuel) so If i spend $200 extra a month on gas, so be it, somehow those in the UK get around

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Prove that it's a finite resource. Otherwise it's just your politics getting in the way of your clear thinking, ain't it?

Are you...serious?!?

This may well be the most hilarious stance I have ever seen. Are you saying oil is actually not a finite resource?? Do you have any idea how oil is formed, or what the components are that are needed for formation? Do you have any links for proposed mechanisms for oil formation in the earth's core? Actually, now that I think about it, that doesn't even make any sense, if you consider the nature of oil/coal/gas formation and the nature of internal earth processes as I think we currently understand them.

Your argument/comparison with the water cycle seems to indicate you have no idea what you're talking about. Weird, that.

greg


Now Playing: Air – Radian

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Are you...serious?!?

Read this.

Then ask yourself: "If the oil companies are going to run out of product shortly, why aren't they heavily investing in diversification so as to safeguard their companies' futures?"

And I mean heavily investing. Not the pathetic stuff they're doing at the moment which is simply to supply alternative demand to the "early adopters" of the myth.

I'm currently heavily into politics, so constantly see the wool which is going to be pulled over your eyes being knitted. For example, the residents of the UK recently sat through a leadership election of the UK Conservative party. I knew who was going to be win that election months before it took place (it was a done deal from the word go), but to everyone else it looked like a proper election. 'Twas quite amusing watching the old man do a running commentary on the polls while I constantly said "it's going to be that guy".

And the wool being pulled over your eyes is so very, very thick. I'm surprised you can actually see to type, to be honest.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

If you think a semi-crackpot article on some intarweb conspiracy-theory website is going to convince me that oil is "self-replenishing," then it's time you seriously considered getting your head checked.

The article doesn't make sense, and YOU don't make any sense. Please, for the love of God and baby Jebus, go look up the processes involved in oil/coal/gas formation, and the chemical properties involved. Some sort of mythical "self-replenishing" oil source is simply a ridiculous concept. Oil may be leaching in from somewhere, but that doesn't mean the oil is "replenishing" – it means they found another nearby source. There are still finite oil resources, no matter how many new sources we find, and there is absolutely no way on earth that you can possibly believe that oil is somewhere being created at a rate anywhere close to what we're taking out of the earth.

Your comment on the actions of oil companies are simply hilarious, given your stance on the subject. Oil will be a profitable business long into the forseeable future, especially as market prices rise. Why should they be currently wasting money heavily investing into alternative technologies which show no signs of "taking off" and which deliver a fraction of the profit of oil-based industry?!? It's called "profit today" – and it's the exact same attitude displayed in this thread by people arguing for cheap oil.

Much as in the greenhouse gas/climate change/environmental threads, you really don't know what you're talking about. You can talk about politics and wool all you want, but the simple fact is that on the subject of oil, finite resources and the current knowledge we have of their workings, you don't know much at all besides a couple intarweb articles you've scanned.

Forgive me if that leads me to take your opinions with large grains of salt.

greg


Now Playing: Radiohead – High and Dry

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

The article doesn't make sense, and YOU don't make any sense. Please, for the love of God and baby Jebus, go look up the processes involved in oil/coal/gas formation, and the chemical properties involved. Some sort of mythical "self-replenishing" oil source is simply a ridiculous concept. Oil may be leaching in from somewhere, but that doesn't mean the oil is "replenishing" – it means they found another nearby source. There are still finite oil resources, no matter how many new sources we find, and there is absolutely no way on earth that you can possibly believe that oil is somewhere being created at a rate anywhere close to what we're taking out of the earth.

Prove that it isn't. C'mon - you're a scientist (or claim to be), let's have you eliminating possibilities via proof. Truth is you ain't got the slightest clue what's happening ten miles under our feet - it's all just guesswork. For all you know there could actually be little Irish leprechauns converting Guinness to oil down there.

Your sort said we were going to run out of oil by the 1930s. We didn't then and we won't now.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Your comment on the actions of oil companies are simply hilarious, given your stance on the subject. Oil will be a profitable business long into the forseeable future, especially as market prices rise. Why should they be currently wasting money heavily investing into alternative technologies which show no signs of "taking off" and which deliver a fraction of the profit of oil-based industry?!? It's called "profit today" – and it's the exact same attitude displayed in this thread by people arguing for cheap oil.

Companies of that magnitude don't operate on a hand-to-mouth basis. Simply doesn't happen.

And if this myth about peak oil is true, why has no government on Earth raised their tax rate by a couple of points with the specific intention of throwing everything they have at researching alternative energies? You'd think that they'd have at least started seriously doing something by now, no?

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Much as in the greenhouse gas/climate change/environmental threads, you really don't know what you're talking about. You can talk about politics and wool all you want, but the simple fact is that on the subject of oil, finite resources and the current knowledge we have of their workings, you don't know much at all besides a couple intarweb articles you've scanned.

I know perfectly well what I'm on about. I observe. I make deductions based on the available evidence. You can be a sheepie all you want. But do yourself a favour... ...print this thread. In 50 years when we still have plenty of oil and global warming hasn't happened, take a look at that printout and fondly remember just how blindly stupid you were.

[itai195]

I'm not sure I know enough to determine who is most responsible. It's a combination of a lot of factors. I'd hesitate to blame 'environmentalists' too much, they're valuable because oil companies don't exactly have stellar environmental records.

However, I don't enjoy seeing people being smug over high gas prices just because they don't drive an SUV and/or can afford the higher prices. In the long term maybe some good will come out of this in the form of decreased dependence on gas, more money for alternative energy sources, etc. But for the foreseeable future, high energy prices will cause pain for everyone by driving inflation higher.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Your sort said we were going to run out of oil by the 1930s. We didn't then and we won't now.

this is the first i've heard of predictions in th '30's. there were predictions later (the club of rome? 1956?) that US domestic oil (often misquoted as world oil) would peak in 1970. it did.

Originally Posted by Doofy

And if this myth about peak oil is true, why has no government on Earth raised their tax rate by a couple of points with the specific intention of throwing everything they have at researching alternative energies? You'd think that they'd have at least started seriously doing something by now, no?

sweden? see the link earlier in the thread.

Originally Posted by Doofy

I know perfectly well what I'm on about. I observe. I make deductions based on the available evidence. You can be a sheepie all you want. But do yourself a favour...

...do yourself a favor too. you should take anything alex jones says with a large dose of salt. i listened to him and watched his show when i lived in texas. he does a good job of scouring the news services, but his analysis is a bit off. tin foil hat*? yeah that's him.

a healthy heap of skepticism is good, but from what other evidence do you deduce that peak oil is a fraud? (i'm taking stuff from your link since you don't speak of any specific examples)

one case where a shallow reservoir is replenished by a deeper one? not that unlikely since as the shallower reservoir is removed, it reduces the overburden for the lower reservoir allowing migration along a fault. but that's just distracting geo-science babble. let's see how well this well has been producing since...

...not so hot now huh?
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...free_pt2.shtml

every major OPEC country increased their proven reserves in 1988 by nearly double (abu dhabi tripled!). it's a fact. but, that increase was largely political since OPEC was revamping it's quota system. the more oil you 'had' the more you could produce, hence more money. and so, to no ones suprise, lots of countries had more capacity overnight.
http://planetforlife.com/oilcrisis/oilreserves.html - check the table

and some big ones have since ownded up to the lie.
http://today.reuters.com/business/ne...&imageid=&cap=

even discounting the idea that these reserves were artificially inflated, production has fallen since then. oil companies, owned by stockholders, make estimates on how much oil they will produce. it makes the stockowners feel good about how much money they'll make. for the last several years, actual production has been lower than estimated.

even saudi arabia has said that if they are to keep up with the global demand for oil (they are really the only country that can accomodate extra production) their reservoirs, the largest in the world, will peak in twenty to thirty years. since they have the largest reservoirs, all other countries will have already peaked by then.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040300808.html - a link you've seen before

so i've layed some evidence out on the line. feel free to move back to your Attention hippies: No peak oil. thread if you want - there's already lots of good info there. and please provide some more counter-evidence than one alex jones prison planet website article.

(*jones believes that 80% of the US population will be imprisoned (hence the website's name) and forcibly sterilized soon. he also believes that recent US presidents have performed ritual sacrifice at the altar of a great owl. maybe it's true?)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

this is the first i've heard of predictions in th '30's. there were predictions later (the club of rome? 1956?) that US domestic oil (often misquoted as world oil) would peak in 1970. it did.

The predictions were in the early 20s for a run out by the 30s. They're out there somewhere.

Originally Posted by black bear theory

sweden? see the link earlier in the thread.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Originally Posted by black bear theory

...do yourself a favor too. you should take anything alex jones says with a large dose of salt. i listened to him and watched his show when i lived in texas. he does a good job of scouring the news services, but his analysis is a bit off. tin foil hat*? yeah that's him.

a healthy heap of skepticism is good, but from what other evidence do you deduce that peak oil is a fraud? (i'm taking stuff from your link since you don't speak of any specific examples)

Right. I don't read sites like those. My evidence is from listening to those around me, from contacts (i.e. an oil company guy in the North Sea: "Not within your grandkid's lifetimes"), from recognising the tell-tale signs of high-level BS from governments when I see it, from looking at business performance and decisions.
The site there just happens to coincide with my findings through these "other" methods.

Originally Posted by black bear theory

one case where a shallow reservoir is replenished by a deeper one? not that unlikely since as the shallower reservoir is removed, it reduces the overburden for the lower reservoir allowing migration along a fault. but that's just distracting geo-science babble. let's see how well this well has been producing since...

...not so hot now huh?

Depends on if the production fizzled out or was cut back.

Me, I'd be inclined to wonder why most of the major oil fields are right next to major plate margins and be wondering how hydrogen, carbon and the like becomes subducted... ...and the chemical process going on under there.

Originally Posted by black bear theory

even discounting the idea that these reserves were artificially inflated, production has fallen since then. oil companies, owned by stockholders, make estimates on how much oil they will produce. it makes the stockowners feel good about how much money they'll make. for the last several years, actual production has been lower than estimated.

There's that supply and demand thing going on again.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Doofy

The predictions were in the early 20s for a run out by the 30s. They're out there somewhere.

that's nice from a historical perspective but does little to advance your argument. we can trot out example after example of bad predictions. bill gates comes to mind.

Originally Posted by Doofy

I'll believe it when I see it.

sorry it was in another thread.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4694152.stm

Originally Posted by Doofy

Right. I don't read sites like those. My evidence is from listening to those around me, from contacts (i.e. an oil company guy in the North Sea: "Not within your grandkid's lifetimes"), from recognising the tell-tale signs of high-level BS from governments when I see it, from looking at business performance and decisions.
The site there just happens to coincide with my findings through these "other" methods.

i guess the question i have for you is: "how old is your grandkid now?"

i know a fair amount of petroleum geologists currently working in the field, and they have said that things are going to change pretty soon in the oil business.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Depends on if the production fizzled out or was cut back.

Me, I'd be inclined to wonder why most of the major oil fields are right next to major plate margins and be wondering how hydrogen, carbon and the like becomes subducted... ...and the chemical process going on under there.

saudi arabia, iraq, kuwait are moving under iran. your theory doesn't explain their oil reserves.

saudi arabia lies opposite sudan, chad, egypt and libya over a divergent boundary. subduction doesn't occur there, yet there's oil.

western africa (nigeria) lies closest to a divergent boundary.

the north slope of AK is on a passive margin.

texas and the gulf coast have not been geologically active in several million years.

i don't think it's subduction zones. it's the rocks - marine sediments.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy

The predictions were in the early 20s for a run out by the 30s. They're out there somewhere.

Right. I don't read sites like those. My evidence is from listening to those around me, from contacts (i.e. an oil company guy in the North Sea: "Not within your grandkid's lifetimes"), from recognising the tell-tale signs of high-level BS from governments when I see it, from looking at business performance and decisions.
The site there just happens to coincide with my findings through these "other" methods.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Pardon me while I laugh at that. Pure weakness.

"I have no proof or background research; I'm just saying whatever fits my internal model of the world."

Originally Posted by Doofy

Me, I'd be inclined to wonder why most of the major oil fields are right next to major plate margins and be wondering how hydrogen, carbon and the like becomes subducted... ...and the chemical process going on under there.

Again, it's pretty easy to find out – do some "research." Read a "book." You know, all those things you don't do? I could tell you why based on what we currently think/know about oil formation, but as has been shown in the climate change thread that would be a waste of my time – it'll just simply be ignored, and you'll move on to another argument that conveniently fits your theory.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Prove that it isn't. C'mon - you're a scientist (or claim to be), let's have you eliminating possibilities via proof. Truth is you ain't got the slightest clue what's happening ten miles under our feet - it's all just guesswork. For all you know there could actually be little Irish leprechauns converting Guinness to oil down there.

Again, it's just kinda sad. You clearly choose to remain ignorant, as you said – you "don't read sites" that have, you know, actual information or knowledge in them. And yet, you expect us to defend our arguments by using scientific data and explaining the model of oil formation?!? Wow, that's a great tecnhnique – keep making up crackpot theories, and then sit around and wait while the other "side" collects the evidence to refute your claims; after all, you'll have 3 or 4 more by the time they're done!

And finally, of course I don't claim to be a scientist. That would be an insult to every other scientist in the world. I'm a science student who won't even finish his B.Sc until next semester. At least I've put in an effort to learn a little about the things that interest me, however. It's unfortunate the same can't be said about you.

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Pardon me while I laugh at that. Pure weakness.

"I have no proof or background research; I'm just saying whatever fits my internal model of the world."

Riiiiiiiiiight. Prove that oil is running out and it's not just a supply/demand tactic of the oil companies. Prove that oil is only created over millions of years and isn't in a state on constant renewal.

I've been asking you this all the way through the thread Greg. But you haven't done it. I wonder why.

You can't even prove that there's not a big bunch of leprechauns swilling Guinness and pissing crude 10 miles under our feet as we speak. You're presenting guesses as fact, simple as that.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Riiiiiiiiiight. Prove that oil is running out and it's not just a supply/demand tactic of the oil companies. Prove that oil is only created over millions of years and isn't in a state on constant renewal.

I've been asking you this all the way through the thread Greg. But you haven't done it. I wonder why.

You can't even prove that there's not a big bunch of leprechauns swilling Guinness and pissing crude 10 miles under our feet as we speak. You're presenting guesses as fact, simple as that.

I edited my post immediately after I wrote it and gave some answers to your questions.

greg

[smacintush]

Well, I'm no scientist but it is perfectly plausible that there is FAR FAR more oil underground than we can possibly know of that could, theoretically, continually seep into existing oil fields from an unknown, adjacent oil field or from the ground itself.

Oil exploration isn't exactly a perfect science and we don't REALLY know enough about what is going on under there to know for sure how much oil there is. It is sheer arrogance to assume the we have a clue when it will run out.

[olePigeon]

Doofy forgot his most compelling argument: The Magic Oil Fairy.

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Well, I'm no scientist but it is perfectly plausible that there is FAR FAR more oil underground than we can possibly know of that could, theoretically, continually seep into existing oil fields from an unknown, adjacent oil field or from the ground itself.

Oil exploration isn't exactly a perfect science and we don't REALLY know enough about what is going on under there to know for sure how much oil there is. It is sheer arrogance to assume the we have a clue when it will run out.

There is a lot more oil. The problem is that so far, we have only been grabbing the "low hanging grapes".

It's going to get a lot more expensive/difficult to get more oil in time. Of course, a lot of this can be mitigated through technology, but basic economics teaches us that as the price climbs, alternatives will become more and more valuable

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Riiiiiiiiiight. Prove that oil is running out and it's not just a supply/demand tactic of the oil companies. Prove that oil is only created over millions of years and isn't in a state on constant renewal.

OTOH, you can't prove that it is either. so what is your point?

the only evidence you've provided hasn't proved that oil does regenerate. moving from one reservoir is not regenerating as was the case with eugene island. it's simply replenishing one reservoir and depleting another.

oil formation is a process so it's safe to say it's happening somewhere, but from what petroleum geologists have found over 100 years, regeneration is not anything that we should really worry about. it's a slow process.

a sapling grows into a tree. there is no doubt about that process, but you'd be in a lot of trouble if you relied on that sapling to grow high enough to save you from a flood.

the time-scales are completely off.

i suggest you get off the peak oil stuff and concentrate on the globalists manipulating the supply/demand side of the argument, though i've never seen a corporation, who put anything above making more money. if they can do it, why wouldn't they? i'm no economist, though.

afterall, that is what the thread is supposed to be about.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

And finally, of course I don't claim to be a scientist. That would be an insult to every other scientist in the world. I'm a science student who won't even finish his B.Sc until next semester. At least I've put in an effort to learn a little about the things that interest me, however. It's unfortunate the same can't be said about you.

Actually Greg, by the time I'd got to your age I'd already been a professor for four years in the subject which interests me. That took some learning.

As for peak oil interesting me? Not really. It's just fun to argue with you hippies who blindly follow "faith" evidence and try to present it as absolute fact.

Originally Posted by smacintush

Oil exploration isn't exactly a perfect science and we don't REALLY know enough about what is going on under there to know for sure how much oil there is. It is sheer arrogance to assume the we have a clue when it will run out.

Yep. That's the main point of my argument.
My economic viewpoint of it (and observation of what the oil companies are doing) doesn't tally with the scientist's viewpoint of "we're all going to run out by July!".

Originally Posted by black bear theory

OTOH, you can't prove that it is either. so what is your point?

That's the point. Nobody can prove any of it either way, so it's all just politically-fuelled BS.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Doofy

That's the point. Nobody can prove any of it either way, so it's all just politically-fuelled BS.

you asked to prove two things in your last post. i was addressing the second one.

the first proof you asked for is to prove that oil is not being used up.

i think the simplest way is as follows.
1. we find oil in the ground.
2. we remove that oil and use it.
3. there is no oil there anymore.

i've posted several links to where this has happened. the fields are dead. oil is used, oil is gone. you've posted nothing. what more proof do you want? if you choose to ignore the evidence, let me know so i don't waste any more of my time.

you can state that the oil companies are hiding the real truth from the public, the "real" numbers, but that makes it into a conspiracy, and then you linking the alex jones website is not so shocking anymore. you'd have the geologists complicit, the managers complicit, the CEO's complicit, and finally the SEC complicit, among thousand of foriegn companies in on the hoax too. it's ten times more ludicrous than the whole of NASA complicit in a moon landing hoax, and no one has said peep since then? hell, our own CIA, the most secret of them all, can't even keep a secret...

why would US corporations move out of the US into foriegn countries which are huge security risks, just to perpetuate a myth that 'there is no more domestic oil here. that's why we need to raise prices.' why not just stay here and save billions of dollars in oil tankers, security arrangements with foriegn countries, and all things associated with the oil business? it doesn't make sense to me.

but now that i mention it, i have never seen an oil tanker... maybe the condaleeza rice is just CGI?