Traditionally, denunciations of speculators come from the left of the political spectrum. In the case of oil prices, however, the most vociferous proponents of the view that it’s all the speculators’ fault have been conservatives — people whom you wouldn’t normally expect to see warning about the nefarious activities of investment banks and hedge funds.
The explanation of this seeming paradox is that wishful thinking has trumped pro-market ideology.
After all, a realistic view of what’s happened over the past few years suggests that we’re heading into an era of increasingly scarce, costly oil.
The consequences of that scarcity probably won’t be apocalyptic: France consumes only half as much oil per capita as America, yet the last time I looked, Paris wasn’t a howling wasteland. But the odds are that we’re looking at a future in which energy conservation becomes increasingly important, in which many people may even — gasp — take public transit to work.
I don’t find that vision particularly abhorrent, but a lot of people, especially on the right, do. And so they want to believe that if only Goldman Sachs would stop having such a negative attitude, we’d quickly return to the good old days of abundant oil.
Again, I wouldn’t be shocked if oil prices dip in the near future — although I also take seriously Goldman’s recent warning that the price could go to $200. But let’s drop all the talk about an oil bubble.
www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12...rugman.html
Traditionally, conservatives hold that the markets are self-regulating; If someone gives out too many sub-prime mortgages, he will simply go bankrupt, and the markets will adjust. If the price of oil is too high, people will buy less and produce more, and the markets will adjust. This is all so obvious . . . in theory . . .
One problem with this theory is that unregulated economies go through cycles of boom and bust, as the U.S. did through much of the 19th and early 20th Centuries, culminating in the Great Depression. These cycles of depression led to the creation of regulatory agencies which are supposed to smooth out the bumps and prevent ruinous abuses which take away people's homes and livelihoods. But existing regulation proved inadequate to prevent the sub-prime crisis, particularly because the government was under the control of a party which holds that "government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."
Another weakness of the free-market theory is the assumption that supplies are infinitely expandable and demand is infinitely compressible. This seems very clear to people who understand the economy from charts and graphs, less so to those who are trying to scrape up $60 for a tank of gas. The plain fact is that the supply of oil is not infinitely expandable, it is limited. Some economists hold that oil production has already peaked . . . but demand just continues to grow. Meanwhile, it seems inevitable that further price increases will have severe side-effects: People just live too far from work and from the supermarket, and public transit is inadequate.
Ignoring these problems will not make them go away. The laissez-faire theories that got us into this mess cannot get us out. If government is not the solution, then there is none.
The explanation of this seeming paradox is that wishful thinking has trumped pro-market ideology.
After all, a realistic view of what’s happened over the past few years suggests that we’re heading into an era of increasingly scarce, costly oil.
The consequences of that scarcity probably won’t be apocalyptic: France consumes only half as much oil per capita as America, yet the last time I looked, Paris wasn’t a howling wasteland. But the odds are that we’re looking at a future in which energy conservation becomes increasingly important, in which many people may even — gasp — take public transit to work.
I don’t find that vision particularly abhorrent, but a lot of people, especially on the right, do. And so they want to believe that if only Goldman Sachs would stop having such a negative attitude, we’d quickly return to the good old days of abundant oil.
Again, I wouldn’t be shocked if oil prices dip in the near future — although I also take seriously Goldman’s recent warning that the price could go to $200. But let’s drop all the talk about an oil bubble.
www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12...rugman.html
Traditionally, conservatives hold that the markets are self-regulating; If someone gives out too many sub-prime mortgages, he will simply go bankrupt, and the markets will adjust. If the price of oil is too high, people will buy less and produce more, and the markets will adjust. This is all so obvious . . . in theory . . .
One problem with this theory is that unregulated economies go through cycles of boom and bust, as the U.S. did through much of the 19th and early 20th Centuries, culminating in the Great Depression. These cycles of depression led to the creation of regulatory agencies which are supposed to smooth out the bumps and prevent ruinous abuses which take away people's homes and livelihoods. But existing regulation proved inadequate to prevent the sub-prime crisis, particularly because the government was under the control of a party which holds that "government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."
Another weakness of the free-market theory is the assumption that supplies are infinitely expandable and demand is infinitely compressible. This seems very clear to people who understand the economy from charts and graphs, less so to those who are trying to scrape up $60 for a tank of gas. The plain fact is that the supply of oil is not infinitely expandable, it is limited. Some economists hold that oil production has already peaked . . . but demand just continues to grow. Meanwhile, it seems inevitable that further price increases will have severe side-effects: People just live too far from work and from the supermarket, and public transit is inadequate.
Ignoring these problems will not make them go away. The laissez-faire theories that got us into this mess cannot get us out. If government is not the solution, then there is none.
posted by:
|
Oregon
|
-
Re: The Oil Nonbubble
Mon, May 12, 2008 - 1:58 PMThe USA is sitting on more than 8 times the oil that Saudi Arabia ever had. -
-
Re: The Oil Nonbubble
Mon, May 12, 2008 - 2:34 PMProven oil reserves:
Saudi Arabia: 260 billion
United States: 21 billion
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves -
-
Re: The Oil Nonbubble
Mon, May 12, 2008 - 3:36 PM***********Proven oil reserves:*********
A subjective term if ever there was one. It's only proven after you pump the last drop.
********Saudi Arabia: 260 billion
United States: 21 billion
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves**********
Ahh yes Wiki the most reliable source anywhere.
Ans I say that the US has several times the oil the Arabs ever had.
tinyurl.com/6m5g4r New reserves found under the Dakotas that dwarfs Saudi Arabia
tinyurl.com/6d3dkp Sakatechewan oil
And lest any one forget:
tinyurl.com/ylyyez more than TRILLION barrels of oil inside the US boundaries right now and that is more than
• 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
* 18-times as much oil as Iraq
* 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
* 22-times as much oil as Iran
* 500-times as much oil as Yemen
The area is the Green River Formation — a barren stretch of land covering portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Each acre holds 2 million barrels of oil. That's why the government quietly put restrictive legislation, deeming this Federal land, in 1930, and forbidding anyone from using it. tinyurl.com/5zhdrx -
-
Re: The Oil Nonbubble
Mon, May 12, 2008 - 4:16 PMYou are not referring to oil, but to shale tars. Some points to remember about shale tars:
Shale tars contain far less energy than petroleum.
There is no commercial exploitation of shale tars in the United States today.
An experimental shale tar refinery in Canada burns natural gas, that is, it requires an external energy source.
The oil companies abandoned shale tars about 20 years ago on the grounds that they were not comercially exploitable. This could change with the higher oil price, but it remains a very costly proposition.
Extracting oil from shale tars requires three barrels of water for each barrel of oil produced.
It also produces huge amounts of greenhouse gases and leaves behind it a lunar landscape.
www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom...80320.cfm
For these reasons, any serious effort to develop a shale tar industry would face huge public opposition. But even in the best case, if the nation were committed to develop shale tars, it would take at least ten years to bring them online.
Even under the optimistic projections of the Bush administration, shale tar production by 2035 would still not make up more than a fraction of oil imports.
www.unconventionalfuels.org/publ...y.pdf
-
-
Re: The Oil Nonbubble
Mon, May 12, 2008 - 6:42 PMThis has already been discussed in the Peak Oil tribe and an explanation given by a petroleum geologist. There is a vast amount of oil under the Dakotas. It is locked in a type of rock that does not allow the oil to be pumped out with existing technology or with any technology on the horizon. In the paste it was suggested that nuclear detonations deep underground would fracture the rock to allow more to be pumped out but thank goodness that insanity has passed. -
-
Re: The Oil Nonbubble
Mon, May 12, 2008 - 9:08 PMOf course there are some people who constantly in denial about the oil having reached its peak. Let them suffer.
-
-
Re: The Oil Nonbubble
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 6:45 AM*********You are not referring to oil, but to shale tars. Some points to remember about shale tars:
Sahle tars contain far less energy than petroleum.*********
Correct in part and wrong in part. Shale oil is oil no matter how you found it or refine it. The oil in shale will cost between $70 and $80 a barrel to extract and the product is just as energetic as any other petroleum product. .
********There is no commercial exploitation of shale tars in the United States today.*********
And that is a grievous shame.
**********An experimental shale tar refinery in Canada burns natural gas, that is, it requires an external energy source.******
Yah ya gotta heat the shale to extract the oil. The problem with that is what?
You wanted it free?
************The oil companies abandoned shale tars about 20 years ago on the grounds that they were not comercially exploitable. This could change with the higher oil price, but it remains a very costly proposition.**********
Exactly correct. In the last few decades the global cost of oil has tripled and the commercial viability is suddenly upon us.
*******Extracting oil from shale tars requires three barrels of water for each barrel of oil produced.********
Water I remind you is the single most plentiful thing on the planet. And once polluted it can be cleansed.
*********It also produces huge amounts of greenhouse gases and leaves behind it a lunar landscape.*********
Oh poor baby the "Anthropogenic climate change myth" to the rescue.
I am confused: What exactly do you think you can get without cracking a few eggs?
********For these reasons, any serious effort to develop a shale tar industry would face huge public opposition. But even in the best case, if the nation were committed to develop shale tars, it would take at least ten years to bring them online.*********
Hunger will change that.
**********Even under the optimistic projections of the Bush administration, shale tar production by 2035 would still not make up more than a fraction of oil imports.**********
Technology will change that.
Shale oil is a reality.
As an aside the fear and loathing with which the ignorant leftists approach all petro-harvesting is old dead news lost in the last half century.
When oil was an infant technology no one gave a rat's ass about how much of a mess you made getting it our of the ground and refining it.
Those days have long since gone by and the new technologies and methods have changed everything but, the left is still singing off a sheet that was out of date more than 40 years ago.
Perto products can be cleanly harvested. However if the idiot left forces a situation that has people absolutely desperate and in a wild rush o get at it you will have also forces another whole era of reckless pollution intensive exploration and harvesting because the desperation will cause people to cast aside the caution and care that would otherwise be easy to impose as regulatory schemes.
When you idiots force the people to reject you all because they are starving you will have no say at all. You will be cast aside by the mob and the mob will demand oil now at any price no matter how disasterous for the land. And you know the politicians (in whom you formerly trusted) will give the people whatever they want.
You know this I know this and yet you insist on living in the past. -
-
Re: The Oil Nonbubble
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 11:48 AM>>Shale oil is oil no matter how you found it or refine it.
The problem of refining it is highly relevant: Each TON of shale yields about 0.7 barrel of oil. The extraction process leaves behind a lot of pollution and huge piles of tailings. This is a very different problem than simply pumping oil out of the ground.
>>Yah ya gotta heat the shale to extract the oil. The problem with that is what?
A normal oil refinery itself produces the energy it needs to operate. If additional energy inputs are required, these must be subtracted from what is available for homes and industry.
>>Water I remind you is the single most plentiful thing on the planet.
There is a growing water shortage in the U.S., which is particularly acute in the mountain states, where the shale is located. The shale industry will have to compete for water with the needs of people and of farms.
news.thomasnet.com/IMT/arch...tage.html
>>What exactly do you think you can get without cracking a few eggs?
Trust me, living without clean air and water is a LOT worse than just "cracking a few eggs."
>>Hunger will change that.
If hunger is a problem, we should concentrate on agriculture. Siphoning off irrigation water for the shale industry will not help.
>>You know this I know this and yet you insist on living in the past.
I prefer living in the present, where I am enjoying riches derived from the sale of petroleum, which according to all indications, will remain a a major source of energy for the rest of the century. On the basis of my long experience in the business, I do not foresee a lot of opportunities in shale. But if you are so much more clever than I am, you should sell your property and invest in real estate in the shale-rich regions, where you anticipate a new oil boom. Get it while it's still dirt cheap . . .
-
Re: The Oil Nonbubble
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 1:39 PMLook, Canada has made a horrid mess of this and its only going to get worse. If you really want to ruin the entire mid-west by going after this stuff, you'll have to do it before the natural gas runs out and if you live to see it develop, you will regret the mess you have left behind for your remaining days of driving.
500 ducks say otherwise:
www.cbc.ca/canada/edmon...ks-follo.html
Growth of the Tarpits by Satellite Map
oilsandstruth.org/growth-tarpits
Pollution and water shortages threaten communities and wildlife along the Athabasca River
www.straightgoods.ca/ViewLetter.cfm
Effects of the Tar Sands: Fort Mackay, Alberta
www.youtube.com/watch
Cancer rate in Fort Chipewyan cause for alarm: medical examiner
www.cbc.ca/canada/edmon...20060310.html
By the way, this doctor has been silenced by our right-wing Bush wannabe gov't through Health Canada who prohibit him from speaking to the media in future.
-
-
Re: The Oil Nonbubble
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 7:00 AM*************** Look, Canada has made a horrid mess of this and its only going to get worse.************
You are thinking and looking backwards. CA has made plenty of oversteps and mistakes in its search for salable commodities. However, while it was making errors it was also learning things and making gains in how to manage it's resources and how they are harvested.
Stop looking back on the errors of the past. That conduct only prevents you from looking forward.
********** 500 ducks say otherwise:
www.cbc.ca/canada/edmon......html**********
500 ducks is not a particularly moving thing. Will you refuse to farm wheat on the sole thesis that your farming displaces some animals?
***********Growth of the Tarpits by Satellite Map
oilsandstruth.org/growth-tarpits************
Like I said: backward looking. If all you can do is focus on what mistakes of the past did then you will fail to apprehend how newer methods can avoid them.
*********Pollution and water shortages threaten communities and wildlife along the Athabasca River
www.straightgoods.ca/ViewLette...**********
And they are just going to have to learn how to deal with it aren't they~?
*********Effects of the Tar Sands: Fort Mackay, Alberta
www.youtube.com/watch***********
Backward looking and based on anecdotal material from a person whose ability to speak on such things is unverified and suspect - at best.
If I were living where BoZo (AKA Al Gore) has his open pit mine ( and he does have one) and one day I realized that it was expanding and wrecking my water I'd get the hell out.
*********Cancer rate in Fort Chipewyan cause for alarm: medical examiner
www.cbc.ca/canada/edmon.....l**************
Backward looking. If you are paralyzed by mistakes of the past you can not move forward.
**********By the way, this doctor has been silenced by our right-wing Bush wannabe gov't through Health Canada who prohibit him from speaking to the media in future.************
I rather suspect that only the doctor's histrionic unfounded unproven conclusory accusations have been squelched.
Ya see while I don't disparage the positions of the people who say that pollution is bad and should be curtailed and eliminated at every hand I also don't find myself ( as are so many of them) paralyzed into immobility by the mistakes of the past.
I approach energy differently from the leftists. In fact differently from most people not part of the energy or conservation movements in general. However, the end results are similar. I'm merely in a different path with different emphasis on different elements.
Leftists and the lay folk who have been misled by the leftists are looking at energy are thinking the following
1.) We must unhitch our economy from foreign oil solely by conservation.
2.) We must reduce all emissions from energy consumption across the board
3.) If we produce energy domestically using non polluting tech our costs should go down.
4.) If we look to domestic fossil fuels we will continue to pollute.
(The reasons most folks invoke to justify these notions includes global warming & other pollution related issues and a fear that our dependence on foreign oil especially oil from people who hate us is dangerous in many ways.)
5.) Anthropogenic CO2 is the great Satan and must be eliminated.
I look at the energy issues and think that
1.) Energy is costly and reducing costs due to energy consumption is necessary.
2.) Energy consumption must be reduced because no amount of domestic production will insulate us from the global energy market.
3.) Energy is a fungible commodity and if China or others are willing to pay high prices for it then I will be in direct competition with them which will drive my costs up. This is true even if all our energy is domestically produced no matter how it is produced.
4.) That our GDP is directly linked to energy costs, and conservation is necessary to maintain a healthy economy.
5.) That Prudhoe bay and America's other oil fields are near depletion which will increase domestic energy costs.
6.) Anthropogenic CO2 is not an issue on any level especially as compared to naturally produced CO2 from sources such as volcanic and geological activity.
7.) Domestic oil is a good thing and should be exploited while technology for alternate power is developed.
8.) Alternative power development should not be forced upon the oil companies nor should they be forced to pay for it but, rather should be undertaken by private concerns interested in undertaking the work and subsidized by research grants by government.
In the end I think we all get to the same place - sort of - This because I want to conserve reduce & consumption which will reduce pollutants across the board (including CO2). However, I want to do it because it makes sound fiscal policy as well as being sound ecological policy. I think the hype about the effects of CO2 are entirely over stated and if attended to will result in monumental economic problems.
The global warming crowd sees a desired end result that is physically similar in many ways as my vision but they are leaning on an ideology built around a myth of CO2 to drive things while I prefer to follow the money.
(((((((((question: Why does the left seem to alway invoke the means and methods of the Leninist and Marxist who seek to drive change with ideology and not principled fundamentals? I think I know: It's easier to sell an ideal to a bunch of ignorant lay folk than it is to explain complex matters. So the lies and half truths are justified on the thesis that expediency makes it all OK. Then, once the left starts lying to everyone it fails to see that it is also lying to itself and believes its own propaganda. )))))))))))
We consume about 20 million barrels each day. Over half of the oil we use is imported from Islamist nations and tyrannical dictatorships. From a national security and strategic posture this is madness.
In theory we have enough coal to produce adequate coal based diesel and Gas for the next 200 years. If we went to diesel and gas made from U.S. coal we could cut two million barrels of imported oil per day.
If we brought ethanol to full capacity we might have enough to eliminate another 2 million barrels a day. Ethanol’s benefits of course being offset by the attendant cost to produce.
If we bring nuclear to capacity it's possible to eliminate several billion barrels of imported oil.
That would leave us needing very little oil from Arabs and tyrants. With those alternates in place we could conceivably go 400 years at current consumption rates only importing a few million barrels per day. .
Yet the left rejects all of this out of hand and at the same time the left has not one damn thing to offer.
Some project a 70% increase of importation against domestic production to occur over the next 20 years.
To learn what companies are importing oil - -
Go here: www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/pe...ts/cli.html
and here: www.eia.doe.gov/neic/exper...experts.htm
and here: www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_ga...ry2005.html
Good news:
The reliance of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on foreign oil has dropped by about 50% over the last 30 or so years. The GDP's relationship to oil is direct. To make any product one needs energy. Oil and the GDP are inextricably linked. This reduction of dependence is due almost entirely to advances in efficiency and changes in the economy at the fundamental or structural level. Consumer level conservation has contributed but the increase in consumption due to population increases and consumptively rich personal lifestyles (hyper-consumerism) tend to naturalize each other.
A reduction in outward oil dependence should tend to lessen the harm caused by sharp spikes in oil process.
Businesses in the US have been acting on the fiscal wisdom of using increased conservation in the means and methods of producing products thereby reducing their exposure to energy price spikes.
John Kerry and others have insisted that we take immediate and substantial measures to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. It would stand to reason that this is a good idea. Eliminating US dependence on a strategic commodity which we get in large part from people who hate us is a highly attractive idea for many reasons that reach well beyond insulating ourselves from financial over exposure to oil price spikes.
However, the mere fact that we might in the near future have somehow eliminated foreign oil price exposure by somehow creating all four energy domestically is not insurance against financial exposure. This is because energy in any form is fungible. It matters not whether the energy is from domestic sources such as alcohol, coal, nuclear, solar wind or hydro. The cost of an erg of energy is set on the global market and even if we were to isolate ourselves entirely from all foreign energy products we'd still pay the going global price.
Or stated another way: The prices for energy are set by the global market and not the domestic. The fungible nature of energy makes it possible to ship it to whoever on the planet is offering the highest price. So if The Saudis run low and the Russians won't step in and take up the slack energy prices world wide will spike. Even in Russia steps in they will be able to name their price. Russia needs money and they are sitting on the world's largest known oil reserves on the planet. The smartest policy would be one that reduces consumption substantially while imposing higher taxes on imported oil. Taxes, I think, should be at about $10.00 per barrel higher than they are currently.
Reducing the dependence of the GDP upon energy (irrespective of its source) coupled with targeted taxation is a sure way to reduce the GDP's vulnerability to energy price spikes. I think that making aggressive use of the Strategic Oil Reserve (SOR) is foolish because tanks can only store so much. No matter how much we attempt to store it will be finite and ultimately insufficient. Using the SOR to off-set oil price spikes must, in the end fail, as a policy because OPEC has only to wait for us to run out.
-|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||-
Oil consumption that Most of us don't consider.
1 Bowl of oatmeal: 4 ounces of crude oil.
1 Serving of red berries: 1 ounce of crude oil.
1 pat Butter, a serving of milk and salt: 1 ounce of crude oil.
1 cup of coffee: 2 ounces of crude oil.
1 Pound of coffee: One quart of crude oil, 30 cubic feet of natural gas, or about 2 1/2 pounds of coal.
Energy required to produce one week's worth of breakfast for one person: More than 2 quarts of crude oil.
These costs in energy include agricultural, trucking & shipping, manufacturing, packing and retailing. Yet more is consumed in household refrigeration and cooking.
Chad Heeter ©2006 San Francisco Chronicle
Source: www.energybulletin.net/14416.html
-||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||-
These guys have other perspectives:
archive.greenpeace.org/climat...ub.html
Mathew Simmons thinks that the world’s largest oil fields are about the fail.
He says that the price of a barrel of oil could hit the high triple digits within a few years.
www.grist.org/news/maindi...s/index.html
Mat Simmons is correct that those oil fields are in depletion phases but he is not looking at new fields being discovered.
As of 2004 the following countries were the top 24 oil producers
The stats are as follows
Country -------- Est' Reserves ----------- 2004 Production
---------------(billion barrels, 2006)-------------------------
-********************************************-
1. Saudi Arabia -----267 billion bbl ---------10.4 mb/d
2. Russia ------------ 60 ----------------------- 9.3 mb/d
3. USA ------------- 21 ---------------------- 8.7 mb/d
4. Iran ------------- 132 --------------------- 4.1 mb/d
5. Mexico ----------- 13 -------------------- 3.8 mb/d
6. China ------------ 18 --------------------- 3.6 mb/d
7. Norway ---------- 8 ---------------------- 3.2 mb/d
8. Canada ---------- 179 ----------------- 3.1 mb/d
--------------(includes tar sands)
9. Venezuela --------- 79 ---------------- 2.9 mb/d
10. United Arab Emirates ---- 98 --------- 2.8 mb/d
11. Kuwait ---------- 104 ---------- 2.5 mb/d
(some sources say Kuiate is 48 billion - the difference is 5% of world reserves)
12. Nigeria ---------- 36 ---------------- 2.5 mb/d
13. United Kingdom -- 4 ---------------- 2.1 mb/d
14. Iraq ---------------- 115 ---------------- 2.0 mb/d
15. Other FSU
Kazakhstan &
+ Azerbaijan ------------ 47 ---------------- 1.9 mb/d
16. Algeria --------------- 12 ---------------- 1.7 mb/d
17. Brazil ---------------- 11 ---------------- 1.5 mb/d
18. Libya ---------------- 39 ---------------- 1.5 mb/d
19. Indonesia --------------- 4 ---------------- 1.1 mb/d
20. Angola ---------------- 6 ---------------- 0.9 mb/d
Source: www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/inter...serves.html
tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/...imus1a.htm
www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/pe...udeoil.html
www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_ga...df/appb.pdf
ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/a...2stats.pdf
The world's biggest Gas producers are as follows
Country -------------------------- Reserve estimate
-*******************************************-
World ------------------------- 6,300 trillion cubic feet
1. Russia ----------------------- 1,680 trillion cubic feet (some say 2,300 tcf)
2. Iran --------------------- 940 trillion cubic feet
3. Qatar ----------------------- 910 trillion cubic feet
4. USA ------------------------ 265 trillion cubic feet
5. Saudi Arabia ----------------- 235 trillion cubic feet
6. United Arab Emirates -------- 212 trillion cubic feet
7. Nigeria ----------------------- 176 trillion cubic feet
8. Algeria ---------------------- 161 trillion cubic feet
9. Venezuela ---------------- 151 trillion cubic feet
10. Iraq ------------------------ 110 trillion cubic feet
11. Kazakstan ---------------- 106 trillion cubic feet
12. Turkmenistan ---------- 102 (maybe 535) trillion cubic feet
13. Indonesia ---------------- 90 trillion cubic feet
14. Malaysia ---------------- 87 trillion cubic feet
15. Norway ---------------- 84 trillion cubic feet
16. China ---------------- 79 trillion cubic feet
Source: www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/inter...serves.html
tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/...imus1a.htm
www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/pe...udeoil.html
www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_ga...df/appb.pdf
ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/a...2stats.pdf
-
-
-
-
Re: The Oil Nonbubble
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 1:24 AM>>Ans I say that the US has several times the oil the Arabs ever had. <<
This is wildly inaccurate. Go to any of the links you provided, copy some of the text containing figures (such as the Saskatchewan oil article), then erase the amounts, and google the remaining sentence fragment. If you really do have trouble with wikipedia, look at absolutely any other source in the world. -
-
Re: The Oil Nonbubble
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 6:51 AMWell there ya go: the world's greatest PhD in Googology has spoken. So it must be so.
Parasite
-
-
Re: The Oil Nonbubble
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 8:11 PM<A subjective term if ever there was one. It's only proven after you pump the last drop.>
Wrong. It's a technical term based on statistical probability from drillhole information and geophysical data. -
-
Re: The Oil Nonbubble
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 7:09 AM******************Wrong. It's a technical term based on statistical probability from drillhole information and geophysical data.************
The words "proved" and "proven" are not mere probabilities. Things based on what you articulate would be theory not proofs.
Still in that ESL class? -
-
Re: The Oil Nonbubble
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 12:21 PMThe words "reserve" and "resource" are based on statistical probabilities. The specific nomenclature exists regardless of your disdain for it.
Don't make me "proofed" that I can kick your ass! -
-
Re: The Oil Nonbubble
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 12:24 PMI assume that the use of "proven" is a redundancy of diction preceeding "reserves" indicating they've actually stuck a drill on it... -
-
Re: The Oil Nonbubble
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 1:41 PMThe use of a word "proven" so insist that a discovery such as the one in Brazil that was made just this week that is supposed to be a stupendously large reserve that'll come on line in maybe 5 - 9 years is simply error.
It ain't proven or dis-proven till it's pumped then of course, it's over.
The point I made was and remains, that there's oil all over the world. The fact that it was found and obtained in the middle east means nothing. People who see Saudi oil and other reserves that were discovered during the last 75 or so years as some how - all there is - are just fucking nuts.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: The Oil Nonbubble
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 1:42 PMOn the subject of future energy sources, here's one I like a lot better than shale:
Two decades from now Americans could get as much electricity from windmills as from nuclear power plants, according to a government report that lays out a possible plan for wind energy growth.
The report, a collaboration between the Energy Department research labs and industry, concludes wind energy could generate 20 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030, about the same share now produced by nuclear reactors.
Such growth would pose a number of major challenges, but is achievable without the need of major new technological breakthroughs, said the report released Monday.
"The report indicates that we can do this nationally for less than half a cent per kilowatt hour if we have the vision," said Andrew Karsner, the Energy Department's assistant secretary for efficiency and renewable energy.
enews.earthlink.net/article/top
Here's the original report:
www1.eere.energy.gov/windand...1869.pdf -
-
Re: The Oil Nonbubble
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 2:26 PMAlternative are real just underdeveloped and unfunded.
The idea of cultivating pond scum to create a carbon neutral diesel is fabulous. And pond scum can be grown in monstrously huge facilities in the most unlikely of places such as the desert.
And there is tidal power generation as well as wave generation.
And of course NUUUQQUUUULLLER power is probably the most and best alternative to coal and oil for power generation there is - and barring real Fusion - the best there will ever be.
For the life of me I can't understand why so many dinosaurs from the left are anti nuke.
The left is like stuck in this odd place where unless an energy production method is without any imaginable negative they reject it.
Their bleatings include
Wind power kills the birds
ocean turbines kill the fish
Pond scum towers improperly shade land that wants the sun
Next they'll insist that solar power sucks up all the sun.
-
