If oil's running out...

[Redfish]

Norway and Sweden have very generous welfare states, but far cry from the USSR. Same with Denmark and Netherlands. However, Australia, Canada, Switzerland and New Zealand are all very capitalistic free market countries.

The fact is economies of most successful nations are strongly rooted in capitalism and socialism. Communist is socialism taken to the extreme and it just doesn't work. Capitalism taking to the extreme as in a number African countries, is also a failure. The right mix of socialism and capitalism is the unstated goal of most nations and it will forever be a source on contention.

compassionate conservatism.

 

[Vox]

Norway and Sweden have very generous welfare states, but far cry from the USSR. Same with Denmark and Netherlands. However, Australia, Canada, Switzerland and New Zealand are all very capitalistic free market countries.

The fact is economies of most successful nations are strongly rooted in capitalism and socialism. Communist is socialism taken to the extreme and it just doesn't work. Capitalism taking to the extreme as was the case in a number African countries, was also a failure. The right mix of socialism and capitalism is the unstated goal of most nations and it will forever be a source of contention.

wrong. "communist" countries are the examples of pure socialism and why it does not work.
what you consider "socialism" has absolutely NOTHING to do with socialism, those are old good CAPITALIST free market economies with generous social policies.
But that is not even close to what socialism is.

 

[Vox]

We are not running out of oil any time soon. In the 1970's the "experts" said that all of the world's oil would be gone by the year 2000.

The same experts said that the arctic would be ice free last summer.

The same experts in the 1960's predicted an ice age by 2000.

The point? The "experts" are always wrong. Probably because their real agenda has nothing to do with the truth.

let's start with the point that the theory that oil is a "fossil" fuel which has been proven wrong.

it's abiogenic.


http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil/309294/

 

[Flopper]

We are not running out of oil any time soon. In the 1970's the "experts" said that all of the world's oil would be gone by the year 2000.

The same experts said that the arctic would be ice free last summer.

The same experts in the 1960's predicted an ice age by 2000.

The point? The "experts" are always wrong. Probably because their real agenda has nothing to do with the truth.

let's start with the point that the theory that oil is a "fossil" fuel which has been proven wrong.

it's abiogenic.


What If We Never Run Out of Oil? - Charles C. Mann - The Atlantic

It's a theory with some evidence to support it.

 

[Antares]

If global supplies of oil are running out that we need to drill for new reserves in Anwar, and invade oil-rich countries to steal their's, and such, why are vehicles in the US still being made that can greatly exceed the maximum speed limit anywhere in the US? If we made vehicles only capable of reaching say 75mph, the reduced engine size and power would surely save quite a bit of fuel. Instead of raising MPG standards, just cap engine performance. Would help law enforcement out in addition. Law enforcement and emergency vehicles could get exemptions obviously. And vehicles made for racing. But just as California's smog requirements result in vehicles for California, vs those for other states came to be, why not vehicles which can't exceed the highest speed limit anywhere in the country? If it saves fuel, helps law enforcement, reduces emissions, etc. why not do it.

'cuz that would put socialism in cars

Better a little socialism now than totalitarianism later when the oil shortage becomes more pronounced. Weaken engines and we can extend how long we can drive cars at all. Ignore the problem until there's gas lines again (I was around for those) and solutions will be much more draconian.

There is no shortage.

 

[Vox]

We are not running out of oil any time soon. In the 1970's the "experts" said that all of the world's oil would be gone by the year 2000.

The same experts said that the arctic would be ice free last summer.

The same experts in the 1960's predicted an ice age by 2000.

The point? The "experts" are always wrong. Probably because their real agenda has nothing to do with the truth.

let's start with the point that the theory that oil is a "fossil" fuel which has been proven wrong.

it's abiogenic.


What If We Never Run Out of Oil? - Charles C. Mann - The Atlantic

It's a theory with some evidence to support it.

not worse than a fossil theory.
and it has lately been proven much more possible, than fossil one.

 

[Unkotare]

If global supplies of oil are running out .

They are not. Next?

 

[Unkotare]

invade oil-rich countries to steal their's.

We haven't. Next?

 

[Freemason9]

If global supplies of oil are running out .

They are not. Next?

As a petroleum geologist, I'm sure you would know.

You DO have a background in science, right? LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

We have seen the price of oil go from $13 a barrel to $100 a barrel. That vastly increases the reserves that can economically be recovered. It does not increase the amount of oil in the ground by even 1 barrel. At $500 a barrel, there will be even more reservers economomically recoverable. However, how many of us can afford to pay $50 a gallon?

 

[Katzndogz]

Oil is a renewable resource.

 

[Freemason9]

Oil is a renewable resource.

Ah, another scientist. Please explain how oil is renewed as it is used.

Thanks!

 

[BlindBoo]

Oil is a renewable resource.

And the Universe is in a constant state too!

NOT

The fact remains that the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis has zero credibility for economically interesting accumulations. 99.9999% of the world's liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter derived from organisms. To deny this means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.
1.The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.
2.The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).
3.The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).

With many more at: homework - Abiotic oil vs the traditional theory of oil deposit formation - Physics Stack Exchange

 

[Redfish]

Oil is a renewable resource.

Only if we have a real long time to wait.

 

[Unkotare]

If global supplies of oil are running out .

They are not. Next?

As a petroleum geologist, I'm sure you would know.

You DO have a background in science, right?

No, I don't. I do, however, know how to read.

 

[Unkotare]

Oil is a renewable resource.

Ah, another scientist.

You must be a highly accomplished scientist yourself to keep repeating this. Please do share so we can all be impressed.

 

[Nyvin]

Cheap oil is most definitely running out, it's the entire premise on why it's economically feasible to extract fossil fuels from crazy expenses sources like deep water and fracking and tar sands. If there were enough cheap stuff like the kinds found in Saudi Arabia or old Texas wells then someone trying to extract from deep water wells or tar sands would be nuts and bankrupt because it wouldn't make any profit at all.

It's kinda interesting to think how long we can keep this going....we run out of cheaper sources, so we move on to more expensive sources, and then the expensive sources run out, so we move on to crazy expensive sources. The higher prices are all translated onto the economy through things connected with fossil fuel (everything...). I just think at some point there's got to be a tipping point where we can't rely on the expensive sources anymore and it's just not worth it to dig it up. Even if there isn't a tipping point it's still not a workable system indefinitely.

 

[Redfish]

Cheap oil is most definitely running out, it's the entire premise on why it's economically feasible to extract fossil fuels from crazy expenses sources like deep water and fracking and tar sands. If there were enough cheap stuff like the kinds found in Saudi Arabia or old Texas wells then someone trying to extract from deep water wells or tar sands would be nuts and bankrupt because it wouldn't make any profit at all.

It's kinda interesting to think how long we can keep this going....we run out of cheaper sources, so we move on to more expensive sources, and then the expensive sources run out, so we move on to crazy expensive sources. The higher prices are all translated onto the economy through things connected with fossil fuel (everything...). I just think at some point there's got to be a tipping point where we can't rely on the expensive sources anymore and it's just not worth it to dig it up. Even if there isn't a tipping point it's still not a workable system indefinitely.

Yes, we need to be working on alternate energy sources. You know who does that best? Private industry. Did the government develop the oil, gas, and coal industries? Nope.

I do see a role for government in nuclear power, just because of the cost and safety regulations that are required. But solar, wind, bio, tidal, etc get the govt out of it and let the profit motive go to work.

 

[Flopper]

Cheap oil is most definitely running out, it's the entire premise on why it's economically feasible to extract fossil fuels from crazy expenses sources like deep water and fracking and tar sands. If there were enough cheap stuff like the kinds found in Saudi Arabia or old Texas wells then someone trying to extract from deep water wells or tar sands would be nuts and bankrupt because it wouldn't make any profit at all.

It's kinda interesting to think how long we can keep this going....we run out of cheaper sources, so we move on to more expensive sources, and then the expensive sources run out, so we move on to crazy expensive sources. The higher prices are all translated onto the economy through things connected with fossil fuel (everything...). I just think at some point there's got to be a tipping point where we can't rely on the expensive sources anymore and it's just not worth it to dig it up. Even if there isn't a tipping point it's still not a workable system indefinitely.

I think that is a key point. The cost of oil production is rising along with demand. For those that can afford it, there will always be an abundant supply of oil. There was a time when oil bubbled from the ground and all one needed was a bucket or crude pump to meet demand. Today, oil wells are drilled as deep as 7 miles.

 

[Flopper]

Cheap oil is most definitely running out, it's the entire premise on why it's economically feasible to extract fossil fuels from crazy expenses sources like deep water and fracking and tar sands. If there were enough cheap stuff like the kinds found in Saudi Arabia or old Texas wells then someone trying to extract from deep water wells or tar sands would be nuts and bankrupt because it wouldn't make any profit at all.

It's kinda interesting to think how long we can keep this going....we run out of cheaper sources, so we move on to more expensive sources, and then the expensive sources run out, so we move on to crazy expensive sources. The higher prices are all translated onto the economy through things connected with fossil fuel (everything...). I just think at some point there's got to be a tipping point where we can't rely on the expensive sources anymore and it's just not worth it to dig it up. Even if there isn't a tipping point it's still not a workable system indefinitely.

Yes, we need to be working on alternate energy sources. You know who does that best? Private industry. Did the government develop the oil, gas, and coal industries? Nope.

I do see a role for government in nuclear power, just because of the cost and safety regulations that are required. But solar, wind, bio, tidal, etc get the govt out of it and let the profit motive go to work.

In general, I agree with you but there are times when the break even point for an investment in research and development is far enough into the future that alternative investments will be more profitable. I think this is particularly true if there is no established market for a product. Most big R&D spenders are not really seeking innovations. They spend most of their R&D money on improvements or modification of existing products to be sold in other markets.