Edstock Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 In less than 10 years, everything is going to grind to a halt because we will not be able to produce enough oil to keep it going. You really are hard-of-thinking. The gang that run the Alberta Tar Sands have stated they have something like 50+ years of reserves, and then there are the Saskatchewan tar sands, and a giant new field off the coast of Greenland. As well, cellulosic alcohol developments are moving right along as are bio-diesel efforts, thanks to the DNA research you don't know anything about. There will be no TV. What a beautiful future! No more Fox! Think of all the reading you'll be doing. It has happened many times in the earth's history, and it will happen many more. After you've adjusted your tin-foil hat, please list the specifics on how "it has happened many times in the earth's history". Boogity-boogity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 What a beautiful future! No more Fox! Think of all the reading you'll be doing. Hey hey, Fox News Can go, but Fox TV has House. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Hey hey, Fox News Can go, but Fox TV has House. And Homer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Ha, I think Homer has lost a great deal of his funniness. It's hard to do more when you've done it all already. Family Guy on the other hand has went from terrible to pretty good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 You really are hard-of-thinking. The gang that run the Alberta Tar Sands have stated they have something like 50+ years of reserves, and then there are the Saskatchewan tar sands, and a giant new field off the coast of Greenland. As well, cellulosic alcohol developments are moving right along as are bio-diesel efforts, thanks to the DNA research you don't know anything about. What a beautiful future! No more Fox! Think of all the reading you'll be doing. After you've adjusted your tin-foil hat, please list the specifics on how "it has happened many times in the earth's history". Boogity-boogity. This oil is no good to us in the ground. It will be years until the oil sands reach their peak of 4 million barrels a day. It takes two barrels of oil worth of energy to extract three barrels of oil from the tar sands. We need 80 million barrels of oil per day globally. At present, we can do it, but in the near future we will not, as new discoveries need more energy to acquire the oil. The net gain is lower. Soon, the requirement for oil will be greater than our ability to pump it. That is probably what all this global warming bs is all about. They don't want us to know the real reason for reducing oil consumption because it would cause a world panic. "Peak oil" is a real, but little discussed world crisis. If you understand the numbers, it is all too real. Look it up if you don't believe me. Previous catastrophes in the earth's history were a mass extinction several hundred thousand years ago that killed off all life down to and including shellfish. Then there was the one that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Whether you believe in Nibiru, or not, great cataclysims occur at regular intervals of about 3600 years. There was the Fall of the Roman Empire which led to the Dark Ages. There was King Phillip's War, the American Revolution, The War of 1812, The Civil War, The two World Wars and the Great Depression. Just look around you at the landscape. You see cliffs of sedimentary rock broken and tilted. Sedimentary rock is created by remaining stationary and level at the bottom of the ocean for millions of years. What is it doing all broken up? Look at the continents on a map. They seem to have once been joined. In school, they tell you about "continental drift". The only way this much "drift" could have happened is if something knocked a big chunk off the planet, and the land broke up to fill the gap, and re-form into a sphere. Evidence of this also exists in the deep "trench" at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. That is the scar left behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 (edited) This oil is no good to us in the ground. It will be years until the oil sands reach their peak of 4 million barrels a day. It takes two barrels of oil worth of energy to extract three barrels of oil from the tar sands. You sure keep trying. Right now, the oil sands output is sufficient for the North American market, especially when cellulosic alcohol can be used to make E-85. We need 80 million barrels of oil per day globally. No, we don't need 80 million barrels of oil per day, the rest of the world needs 80 million barrels of oil per day. We have enough for North America, and with dilution to E-85, there is probably enough for another 100 years. What the rest of the world is going to do about it, I really don't much care. At present, we can do it, but in the near future we will not, as new discoveries need more energy to acquire the oil. Like the new giant fields off the coast of Greenland? Think of it as an even bigger Hibernia. This new field will not need "more energy to acquire the oil". Soon, the requirement for oil will be greater than our ability to pump it. When that happens, we will be making cellulosic alcohol, and bio-petroleum, thanks to the DNA research you are ignorant about. That is probably what all this global warming bs is all about. They don't want us to know the real reason for reducing oil consumption because it would cause a world panic. Your hat needs more tin-foil. "Peak oil" is a real, but little discussed world crisis. If you understand the numbers, it is all too real. Look it up if you don't believe me. I believe you. It's the new buzz-word for "the sky is falling!" environmentalists. I also believe, that for North America, the Peak Oil monster is irrelevant. Alberta has 50+ years of reserves, Saskatchewan is un-tapped, and there are other deposits in the Candian Arctic. Lots of oil, sufficient until we don't need it anymore. Previous catastrophes in the earth's history were a mass extinction several hundred thousand years ago that killed off all life down to and including shellfish. "a mass extinction several hundred thousand years ago that killed off all life down to and including shellfish" — what comic book did you get that from? Do check out Olduvai Gorge, where hominid remains going back 2 million years have been found that are the direct precursors of homo sapiens. The point is, there was no such extinction. Go check out a coelecanth, and get back to me. Hint: it's really, really old — and it's still around, and it's way bigger than shellfish. Here's a picture of one: Then there was the one that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Congratulations, that one was real. Whether you believe in Nibiru, or not, great cataclysims occur at regular intervals of about 3600 years. I believe in archaeology, and "great cataclysims" like the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, and the extinctions that happened in the Permian and Cambrian eras, roughly 300-500 million years ago did not happen "at regular intervals of about 3600 years". The only way this much "drift" could have happened is if something knocked a big chunk off the planet, and the land broke up to fill the gap, and re-form into a sphere. Ah, the old Velikovsky "Worlds in collision" theory. And your point is? You do have a point? Edited November 1, 2009 by Edstock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 The one mass extinction should have been "several hundred million years ago". Obviously it happened before the one in the Yucatan. We are not self-sufficient in oil, no matter how much there is in the ground. The tipping point is coming within a decade, and could be only a few years away. With China becoming industrialized, the demand for oil is increasing at an accelerated pace. No new oil refineries are being built, even though they will be required to meet the demand, because oil companies know that there will not be enough additional oil for them to refine. It takes years for new discoveries to come on stream. The problem may not be how much oil is in the ground. It is how to get it out now. Demand for oil is increasing each year. Supply of oil is decreasing. Even more importantly, our capacity to produce oil is limited. The oil we are finding now is harder to get than oil discovered in the past. We need to produce this oil at a faster pace to supply the increased demand. The new discovery in the Gulf, for example, is six miles beneath the bottom of the sea. We would not have even bothered with this oil 20 years ago. As we near peak oil, the price will skyrocket. Before peak oil happens, we will be fighting other countries over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 I had to add this. I am not an environmentalist. I don't believe any of their crap, especially "Global Warming". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 The Dow dropped 250 on Friday, and the Futures are down another 239. This could be the beginning. Happy Hallowe'en. Hmm. Dow is up 25 right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang84isu Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 All of that sounds good. Too bad it is going to take more than 10 years to get it off the ground. Right now, oil is our lifes-blood. Oil consumption is increasing by 3% a year. Our ability to produce oil is decreasing by a similar amount. In less than 10 years, everything is going to grind to a halt because we will not be able to produce enough oil to keep it going. We will be too busy scavenging for food to develop any space ships. There will be no TV. In two generations, all of the marvels that we now enjoy will be like fairy tales. The population of the earth will decimate. It will be thousands of years before we get back to where we are now. This is nothing new. It has happened many times in the earth's history, and it will happen many more. I don't know where you are getting your conspriacy theories. Oil reserve life in various countries: Saudi Arabia: 72 years Canada: 149 years Iran: 95 years Iraq: 150 years Kuwait: 110 years UAE: 93 years Venezuela: 88 years Libya: 66 years Kazahkstan: 59 years Qatar: 46 years Nigeria: 41 years Russia: 17 years Algeria: 15 years Brazil: 14 years Mexico: 9 years US: 8 years In 10 years, oil prices will likely be higher, but we will have also continued our shift toward alternative forms of energy. Nearly everything you have said is paranoid conjecture with no evidence to back it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I don't know where you are getting your conspriacy theories. Oil reserve life in various countries: Saudi Arabia: 72 years Canada: 149 years Iran: 95 years Iraq: 150 years Kuwait: 110 years UAE: 93 years Venezuela: 88 years Libya: 66 years Kazahkstan: 59 years Qatar: 46 years Nigeria: 41 years Russia: 17 years Algeria: 15 years Brazil: 14 years Mexico: 9 years US: 8 years In 10 years, oil prices will likely be higher, but we will have also continued our shift toward alternative forms of energy. Nearly everything you have said is paranoid conjecture with no evidence to back it up. Once you reach the half-way point of an oil well, it takes more and more energy to extract the oil. It works on a bell curve. At the same time, the population is increasing, and the requirement for oil is going up. Our ability to acquire and refine oil is limited and it is shrinking by between 3% and 13% per year, depending on who you believe. This number will rise as oil becomes more and more inaccessable, and the energy needed to produce it increases. At some point, it becomes uneconomical. At the same time, the demand, or need for oil is increasing by 3% per year, especially with China increasing its demand. When we reach the point where we are not able to meet demand, we will be in big trouble. Remember back in the 70s when there were line-ups at the pumps because many stations were out of gas? This was caused by a temporary 5% shortfall. Imagine what would happen if there was a permanant and increasing shortfall. We are using 9 barrels of oil for every new barrel we are discovering. The only way for the US to keep its engine running for an extended period is to take some other countries out of the picture. These other countries are looking at this from their perspective. War for oil is just one of many major problem on the horizon. The world is so complex now that it is like a computer. What happens to a computer when you input a lot of crap? The same thing will happen to civilization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Once you reach the half-way point of an oil well, it takes more and more energy to extract the oil. It works on a bell curve. At the same time, the population is increasing, and the requirement for oil is going up. Our ability to acquire and refine oil is limited and it is shrinking by between 3% and 13% per year, depending on who you believe. This number will rise as oil becomes more and more inaccessable, and the energy needed to produce it increases. At some point, it becomes uneconomical. At the same time, the demand, or need for oil is increasing by 3% per year, especially with China increasing its demand. When we reach the point where we are not able to meet demand, we will be in big trouble. Remember back in the 70s when there were line-ups at the pumps because many stations were out of gas? This was caused by a temporary 5% shortfall. Imagine what would happen if there was a permanant and increasing shortfall. We are using 9 barrels of oil for every new barrel we are discovering. The only way for the US to keep its engine running for an extended period is to take some other countries out of the picture. These other countries are looking at this from their perspective. War for oil is just one of many major problem on the horizon. The world is so complex now that it is like a computer. What happens to a computer when you input a lot of crap? The same thing will happen to civilization. If I lived life that pessimistically, I would shoot myself now and get it over with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted November 3, 2009 Author Share Posted November 3, 2009 There could be a lot more oil than what you are being led to believe by the oil companies. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/26/science/...?pagewanted=all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 The only way for the US to keep its engine running for an extended period is to take some other countries out of the picture. These other countries are looking at this from their perspective. War for oil is just one of many major problem on the horizon. You sure are persistent. The only way for the US to keep its engine running for an extended period is to develop replacements for petroleum. These are being developed. If the US decided to, it could be 100% self-sufficient for all its fuel needs within a decade, two decades at most. But you seem to be ignorant about a lot of technological developments, and thus we keep receiving your wisdom and insight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 You sure are persistent. The only way for the US to keep its engine running for an extended period is to develop replacements for petroleum. These are being developed. If the US decided to, it could be 100% self-sufficient for all its fuel needs within a decade, two decades at most. But you seem to be ignorant about a lot of technological developments, and thus we keep receiving your wisdom and insight. If it weren't for me, this thread would be dead by now, so what's the difference? Let's have a fun discussion. I have read a bit about this, and can't find any flaws in the logic. You know that this ship can't turn on a dime. There is an iceburg dead ahead. We are being kept in the dark. Put two and two together. Just before the 1929 stock market crash, the official word from the government and financial community was that everything was rosy. Ditto for the 2008 crash. Just suppose that there really is a crisis. Imagine what you would do if you were in charge, considering that the majority of the people are oblivious. Compare that to what is actually happening now. We are being asked to cut down on gasoline usage, not because we are running out, but because we are causing "global warming". What a load of crap! I have been around long enough to know that the government lies. Many people always believe that the government is the guiding light, and stay fixated. When the lie becomes aparent, the re-set button is pressed, and they forget and fixate on the next lie. We are being given false hope that we can switch over to alcohol. It takes more oil to produce alcohol than the amount of energy that is acquired from burning it. We use oil for many other things besides fuel. Our civilization runs on oil. When our ability to produce refined oil is less than demand, our civilization collapses. Pies in the sky will not alter that hard fact. If there was any way to avoid this, the government would be pulling out all the stops. All they are doing, instead is calming us to prevent panic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 It takes more oil to produce alcohol than the amount of energy that is acquired from burning it. No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 No. Alcohol is for drinking, not for using as fuel. How much petrol does it take to grow corn? It has to be planted, tended, harvested, processed, delivered. As a replacement for gasoline, it is not viable. Look it up if you do not believe me. It is more efficient to feed the corn to a horse to generate "horsepower". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 Alcohol is for drinking, not for using as fuel. You better tell the gang running the Indy 500. Then again, there are about 3,000 Britons who might agree with you — they were killed by the alcohol-fuelled V-2 rocket. How much petrol does it take to grow corn? It has to be planted, tended, harvested, processed, delivered. As a replacement for gasoline, it is not viable. Look it up if you do not believe me. It is more efficient to feed the corn to a horse to generate "horsepower". Now you know why they are developing processes to make cellulosic alcohol. Currently the estimates are 2.2 to 7 times the energy necessary to make it, depending on the process, with improvements pending. "Look it up if you do not believe me" — the intellectual exercise will be good for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 Alcohol is for drinking, not for using as fuel. How much petrol does it take to grow corn? It has to be planted, tended, harvested, processed, delivered. As a replacement for gasoline, it is not viable. Look it up if you do not believe me. It is more efficient to feed the corn to a horse to generate "horsepower". Corn is not the most efficient source for alcohol production. Brazil uses sugar cane which is a much better starting point. Why does the U.S. use corn? The Politics of the Iowa Caucaus and the power of the farm lobby and Agri-business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 Corn is not the most efficient source for alcohol production. Brazil uses sugar cane which is a much better starting point. Why does the U.S. use corn? The Politics of the Iowa Caucaus and the power of the farm lobby and Agri-business. How many acres of corn or sugar, or whatever would it take to replace a sizable portion of our oil dependence? It is just not practical. If you compare the output of an oil refinery to that of an alcohol distillery, or planting and harvesting a crop to pumping oil out of the ground, there is no comparison. As the population increases, more land is going to be needed to grow food. Windmill farms and solar panels are also a waste of time and energy. They are just giving people false hope. There are viable alternatives to oil, but we will not be able to make the switch in time. Once civilization breaks down, and it becomes survival of the fittest, physical and animal instincts will win the day. That's why they call it "the third world". Technology as we know it will decline and disappear for centuries, if not millenia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 How many acres of corn or sugar, or whatever would it take to replace a sizable portion of our oil dependence? It is just not practical. Are you brain-dead? Cellulose from non-food vegetation will be used to make all the alcohol we can use. As the population increases, more land is going to be needed to grow food. Alcohol will be made from cellulose. Population growth in North America is slow. And your point is? Windmill farms and solar panels are also a waste of time and energy. That's your opinion. With no facts to back it up, it's just a brain-fart. The government of Germany disagrees with you. Somehow, they probably know more than you do. Also, companies like Nanosolar. Technology as we know it will decline and disappear for centuries, if not millenia. Brain-fart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 How many acres of corn or sugar, or whatever would it take to replace a sizable portion of our oil dependence? It is just not practical. If you compare the output of an oil refinery to that of an alcohol distillery, or planting and harvesting a crop to pumping oil out of the ground, there is no comparison. As the population increases, more land is going to be needed to grow food. Windmill farms and solar panels are also a waste of time and energy. They are just giving people false hope. There are viable alternatives to oil, but we will not be able to make the switch in time. Once civilization breaks down, and it becomes survival of the fittest, physical and animal instincts will win the day. That's why they call it "the third world". Technology as we know it will decline and disappear for centuries, if not millenia. It must be incredibly depressing to live in your post apocalyptic world. 1. Alcohol can be distilled from many different non-food sources including waste products of farming, seaweed, celulose, etc. There is no need for food to compete with fuel. Brazil generates much of its fuel needs with alcohol without starving its people. 2. Wind and Solar are not a waste of time nor are they false hope. We have vast aresa of land available for wind farms and solar farms in the southwestern desert. We need to commit to building the electric grid infrastructure to transmit the energy to populatino centers. The technology certainly exists. Moreover, solar cell technology is advancing in its efficiency. Hydrogen fuel cells may not be useable for private cars yet but it is certainly adaptable to stationary power needs. 3. Technology is spreading not disappearing. The "third world" is catching up in its use of technology. Look at the growth in Africa of computers, cell phones and machinery. 4. We are not going to run out of oil, natural gas or coal anytime soon. The best reason to move toward renewable energy now is that we won't have to import our needs from places that don't like us. The savings that could be realized from cutting our oil needs by just 25% would drive the world price down substantially thus putting less money into the pockets of oil despots. Think of the savings that would appear if we just switched our public transit and school busses to electric power or natural gas. Cheer up Trim, It isn't as gloomy as you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 Think of the savings that would appear if we just switched our public transit and school busses to electric power or natural gas. Electricity and natural gas would go up then just like everything with corn went up after our government mandated ethanol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Greene Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 If we drastically increase our use of natural gas, I doubt if price would go up a huge amount. We have vast reserves of nat gas. People in the business say you can almost stick a straw in the rocky mountain area and find nat gas....then you give jobs to Americans. However....my answer is to buy US natural gas companies as an investment. Check out CHK. Keep the money in the US. Buy US energy and invest in US energy companies that create wealth and jobs for us. No need to send money to Mid East. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.