Oh, come on, just because the oil is extracted within the country, it doesn’t mean much for the fuel prices. As soon as one refinery has a minor problem, it’s widely publicized and prices go up across the nation for two months, even if there’s only a 0.001% reduction locally, and even if only lasts three days until it’s fixed.
Occam
Occam, the article mentions that the increase in production will likely do little to reduce oil prices:
“The increase in production hasn’t translated to cheaper gasoline at the pump, and prices are expected to stay relatively high for the next few years because of growing demand for oil in developing nations and political instability in the Middle East and North Africa.”
Write4U - 24 October 2012 05:07 PM
We have less than a 100 years, a single generation. This is of National importance. We can pay it now or we can pay it later at a higher cost.
Prove it. People have been saying for decades that we only have such-and-such amount of time left. The estimates are always wildly varied and never seem to come true. Look, I don’t doubt that we’re going to run out eventually. (Probably sooner rather than later.) But doomsaying contributes nothing constructive.
Sources and info:
•World Proved Reserves of Oil and Natural Gas, Most Recent Estimates - Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Data from BP Statistical Review, Oil & Gas Journal, World Oil, BP Statistical Review, CEDIGAZ, and Oil & Gas Journal.
Prove it. People have been saying for decades that we only have such-and-such amount of time left. The estimates are always wildly varied and never seem to come true. Look, I don’t doubt that we’re going to run out eventually. (Probably sooner rather than later.) But doomsaying contributes nothing constructive.
Agreed, some people still believe Malthus and the Club of Rome despite human experience otherwise. Hardly rational science.
Ok, let me put this in perspective, @ 1% growth we will be using as much oil in 70 years as we have used in ALL of previous history. Do you think we can find and develop as much new oil as we have used in all of previous history?
What kind of technology? Burning oil more efficiently? That would not change the outcome. This century we will be running out of oil. We have one generation to replace an entire oil and coal based energy infrastructure with new technologies.
And sadly, until it is economically profitable to replace oil with alternative fuel, no one will develop it. This is a governmental responsibility. If we leave this to free enterprise development, we will always be behind the curve.
I quit trying to guess what type of technologies are going to develop years ago. It’s an impossible task. What did Malthus know about genetic development in agriculture? Or the gasoline engine? I have faith in our current abilities of science and technologies to resolve most of our physical problems. (The problems of human & cultural relationships science isn’t so good at.) People have been predicting doomsdays at least since Revelations was recorded these doomsday predictions are IMO just the some non-believers version of that.
My points which I think that you have all ignored, is that no one is going to resolve any of these problems by continuing to keep by keeping a large part of the world’s population in poverty, that if the US can reduce its dependence on foreign fuel sources it gives us the ability to ignore all the corrupt dictators, etc. out there. We can treat the petty tyrants that are using the control of oil to their personal benefit. This is politics people; deal with the problem from that standpoint as well as the stand point of the Malthusian myth.
Yes< I have a strong belief that science will be able to resolve these problems.
I quit trying to guess what type of technologies are going to develop years ago. It’s an impossible task. What did Malthus know about genetic development in agriculture? Or the gasoline engine? I have faith in our current abilities of science and technologies to resolve most of our physical problems. (The problems of human & cultural relationships science isn’t so good at.) People have been predicting doomsdays at least since Revelations was recorded these doomsday predictions are IMO just the some non-believers version of that.
My points which I think that you have all ignored, is that no one is going to resolve any of these problems by continuing to keep by keeping a large part of the world’s population in poverty, that if the US can reduce its dependence on foreign fuel sources it gives us the ability to ignore all the corrupt dictators, etc. out there. We can treat the petty tyrants that are using the control of oil to their personal benefit. This is politics people; deal with the problem from that standpoint as well as the stand point of the Malthusian myth.
Yes< I have a strong belief that science will be able to resolve these problems.
While I agree with everything you have said, I doubt that this historic paradigm shift will go smoothly. I am comparing it with whaling. They will never stop whaling until the last whale is gone. We are a parasite who kills its host.
Let me make myself clear. I am not a doubter in the fact that global warming is occuring and that humans are a major contributor to this
What I am saying is that the solutions we have come up with at this point are inadequate. We cannot solve this problem by letting poorer areas of the world pay for the rich world’s life styles.
Also particularly with oil but along with other natural resource exploitation that a way to control the various elites that control those resources need to be dealt with. This last may not be directly related to global warming but it is and IMO one of the major problems that we humans need to deal with.
As an example of how relatively unrelated technology may help deal with this problem see this article from the Economist. http://www.economist.com/news/business/21564821-carmakers-are-starting-take-autonomous-vehicles-seriously-other-businesses-should-too.
It doesn’t deal directly with the fuel use, but as I was thinking about it I began to think it would also possibly result in at least a small reduction in fuel consumption. IE. No more getting lost; the ability to avoid traffic tie-ups, etc.
But I think the most important thing we could do is to introduce a carbon tax and use the proceeds to fund development of clean technology, the more expensive we make dumping carbon into the environment the quicker people will come up with ways to reduce the dumping.
If it really goes bad, it is time to get out of the Southwest and leave it as the desert it is, not steal water from other areas. Maybe we should start buying property around Hudson Bay as several people I know have done (for much different reasons of course ( )
As Darwin pointed out it is adaptation that is the key to survival and these are ways to do that that do not entail the destruction of the technology that we have built the materially richest and broadest civilization upon. The object is to improve not end it. If we cannot do this then science and technology is just another evolutionary dead end
I think we all recognize that extracting energy from carbon based compounds (oil, gas, coal, and even wood) has a number of major problems. However, more basic is that we need quitre a bit of energy for each of us and a hell of a lot of it for our civilization. Essentially all of it comes from the sun. We can get it through solar panels, wind, tidal, and from plants. But it’s doubtful that we’ll be able to satisfy our present desires. It seems to me that we’re going to have to severely reduce our needs for energy. I can think of quite a few ways we can do that, but I’m not sure if we can do enough, so we may be forced to have a significantly reduced population. Since we won’t be killing off people or preventing most births, we’re liable to have some sort of global event that does it for us. All I can say is, good luck to you young’uns.
Write, you’ll have to forgive me if I’m less than impressed about the EIA’s findings. It’s not that I have anything against them per se, it’s just that I am deeply, deepy skeptical of any predictions of the future. Even ones based on thorough research and whatnot. There are just too many factors: technological refinements and innovations, new deposit exploitations, shifting social mores and trends, etc. I find puting a time stamp on it ludicrous.
Also, doomsaying like, “We’ll be out of oil in 100 years!” strikes me as little more than pointless hystrionics. As I said before, it contributes nothing useful.
Also, doomsaying like, “We’ll be out of oil in 100 years!” strikes me as little more than pointless hystrionics. As I said before, it contributes nothing useful.
That strikes me as a very long time considering the amount of the stuff we use, My gut feel is it won’t last anything like that long (not that my gut feel counts for anything).
I don’t see this as doomsaying at all, we need to move to other sources of energy because oil is running out and because of the negatives of using it.
So the challenge is to get on with making that transition and meeting our needs.
Let me be blunt…. you are dreaming if you think that we will…” just move to a nicer cleaner fuel, one that gives us everything but asks for nothing in return….no pollution no poor people no baldness or human suffering..” Reality with oil and gas and dirty coal and nasty nuclear is better than reality powered by any and all other energy sources together. That was last century. We cannot go back. Notice how all the bad people have guns too not just the good honest resource sharing people…..same thing will happen to energy….cant put the genie back in the bottle folks. Your survival depends on using any and all the resources of this planet. I will do not consider mankind a parasite that kills its host. That is boo-hoo tree hugging greenie minded bull excrement.
I may be guilty of hyperbole….If you don’t like it you may comment on it….This is just a little bit of opinion sharing not a scientific forum….relax ...have fun .....engage…....
Write, you’ll have to forgive me if I’m less than impressed about the EIA’s findings. It’s not that I have anything against them per se, it’s just that I am deeply, deepy skeptical of any predictions of the future. Even ones based on thorough research and whatnot. There are just too many factors: technological refinements and innovations, new deposit exploitations, shifting social mores and trends, etc. I find puting a time stamp on it ludicrous.
Also, doomsaying like, “We’ll be out of oil in 100 years!” strikes me as little more than pointless hystrionics. As I said before, it contributes nothing useful.
We have pretty well located all the major oil deposits on earth. A large percentage is not recoverable. These are not guesses and moreover they are based on today’s production levels.
It is true we may develop more efficient technology, but it does not alter the outcome. Does it make a difference if we run out in 60, 70, 80, 100 years?
Even if we can show a negative growth and use less, we are still depleting a “finite” source. The end of oil will come, without doubt.
Whereever we can utilize natural predicrible forces. Wind power, Solar Power, Tidal Power, Thermal Power are abundant, dependable, free natural resources. We need to learn to harvest and store excess power, unlike we do now.
That strikes me as a very long time considering the amount of the stuff we use, My gut feel is it won’t last anything like that long (not that my gut feel counts for anything).
I don’t see this as doomsaying at all, we need to move to other sources of energy because oil is running out and because of the negatives of using it.
So the challenge is to get on with making that transition and meeting our needs.
Stephen
1) To an individual 100 years is a long time. In terms of civilizations, and getting them to radically change, it’s not.
2) There are downsides to the use on any power source. Solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal can be unreliable, aren’t available in all locations, and aren’t exactly free of environmental impact. And if we, through some miracle, invent usable fusion tomorrow it has problems as well. An out of control reaction at a fusion plant would be catastrophic for the local area. But yeah, fossil fuels, pollution, carbon, I know.
We have pretty well located all the major oil deposits on earth. A large percentage is not recoverable. These are not guesses and moreover they are based on today’s production levels.
It is true we may develop more efficient technology, but it does not alter the outcome. Does it make a difference if we run out in 60, 70, 80, 100 years?
Even if we can show a negative growth and use less, we are still depleting a “finite” source. The end of oil will come, without doubt.
In many cases “A large percentage is not recoverable” should be “A large percentage is not economically feasable to extract.” Others pretty much are unrecoverable with our current methods.
Does it make a difference? Yes and no. In terms of making what are essentially the same empty statements over and over with the times slightly altered, no. Now, if we knew precisely how much oil was left and just how long it would last, then yes.
And I’ve never denied the oil age wouldn’t end. I’ve long assumed it would. My problem lies with people making statements about oil running out in such-and-such a timeframe to try and scare or shock people into action. If you want to do that, you should get a sandwich board and accost passersby on the street.
)
