Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Told you...

by EdHannigan / November 25, 2009 11:46 AM PST

And George Will agrees.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112002619.html

For many years, most oil was used for lighting and lubrication, and the amounts extracted were modest. Then in 1901, a new well named for an East Texas hillock, Spindletop, began gushing more per day than all other U.S. wells combined.

Since then, America has exhausted its hydrocarbon supplies. Repeatedly.

In 1914, the Bureau of Mines said that U.S. oil reserves would be exhausted by 1924. In 1939, the Interior Department said that the world had 13 years' worth of petroleum reserves. Then a global war was fought, and the postwar boom was fueled. In 1951 Interior reported that the world had . . . 13 years of reserves. In 1970, the world's proven oil reserves were an estimated 612 billion barrels. By 2006, more than 767 billion barrels had been pumped, and proven reserves were 1.2 trillion barrels. In 1977, scold in chief Jimmy Carter predicted that mankind "could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade." Since then the world has consumed three times more oil than was then in the world's proven reserves.
------------------------
We will NEVER run out. NEVER.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Told you...
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Told you...
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
(NT) Have a good Thanksgiving Ed
by grimgraphix / November 25, 2009 1:14 PM PST
In reply to: Told you...
Collapse -
RE: We will NEVER run out. NEVER.
by JP Bill / November 25, 2009 1:49 PM PST
In reply to: Told you...

Of course WE won't WE'll be dead.

Our future generations will.

Collapse -
(NT) That's the end result of liberalism
by James Denison / November 25, 2009 5:51 PM PST
Collapse -
Only infinite supplies ...
by Kees Bakker / November 25, 2009 6:00 PM PST
In reply to: Told you...

will NEVER run out. Finite supplies will run out in the long run. Alas, infinity is only a mathematical abstraction.

The sun, for example, will run out in some 5 billion years. That's not NEVER. That's in 5 billion years. We're nearly half-way (from the start of the earth 4.5 billion years ago).

It all depends on how short-sighted you prefer to be.

Kees

Collapse -
Comets
by James Denison / November 25, 2009 6:02 PM PST

Comets crash into the sun and keep adding hydrogen to it. Nothing to say that couldn't continue forever, thereby reaching NEVER.

Collapse -
Even the supply of comets isn't infinite.
by Kees Bakker / November 25, 2009 6:10 PM PST
In reply to: Comets

And most circle (ellipse might be better, but I don't think it's a verb) the sun in stead of falling into it.

There is, however, a rather big supply of white dwarfs, nova's and supernova's telling that stars can and do die. So our sun would be quite an exception (I might even say: a miracle) to stay alive for trillion or quadrillion years.

Kees

Collapse -
Nope...
by EdHannigan / November 25, 2009 9:53 PM PST

It has nothing to do with finite or infinite supplies. Think...

If we stop using it, which will happen (already is), we will never run out. You assume we'll always be using it, but that is a foolish assumption. Supplies will far outlast usage in the long run.

IF (very unlikely) no substitute energy sources are ever found, prices will rise to the point where alternate forms will be necessary and consumption will fall off. I doubt it will happen this way though. More likely that cheaper energy sources will become economically viable and people will use them. No rationing or government involvement necessary. In fact government intervention, as always, would be detrimental.

Collapse -
More likely that cheaper energy sources
by JP Bill / November 25, 2009 10:34 PM PST
In reply to: Nope...

More likely that cheaper energy sources will become economically viable

Wouldn't they already be economically viable?

More likely that presently more expensive energy sources will become economically viable

Collapse -
What tickles me is....
by James Denison / November 26, 2009 2:11 AM PST
In reply to: Nope...

....how they talk about oil running out and it only being renewable from millenium of covered vegetable mass, etc. Yet probes sent to planets that have probably been lifeless forever, at least nothing more than microbial, show evidences of carbon based elements like methane and other possible petroleum derivatives. There have also been expiraments here on earth where crude oil was created by chemical only means mimicking the forces within the earth itself. I doubt the last book on how crude is created has yet been written.

Collapse -
whoops, here comes more oil!
by James Denison / November 26, 2009 2:23 AM PST
In reply to: What tickles me is....

This is happening in other oil wells too. Wells thought to be played out are being revisted and found to be filling up again.

http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm

Something mysterious is going on at Eugene Island 330.

Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330's output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels a day.

Then suddenly -- some say almost inexplicably -- Eugene Island's fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago. All of which has led some scientists to a radical theory: Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth's surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be.

Collapse -
(NT) Sounds like other dry wells should be reviewed
by Diana Forum moderator / November 26, 2009 2:57 AM PST
Collapse -
Lots to discuss here.
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / November 26, 2009 4:21 AM PST
In reply to: Told you...

I like a good discussion! Happy

"We will NEVER run out. NEVER". I believe that was your quote. Yep. I just double checked.

Aside from the false premise of that stated fact, (infinite resource, and all that), your post later appears to contradict you. You're contradicting your self?

In your post here you tell us to think... If we stop using oil, which will happen and already is, we will never run out. Is that why you posted the original post? If so, then I fully agree with you, if we don't use the resource, it will never run out. Of course, 'never' is dangerous here because with plate tectonics, internal heat, external factors, (like the sun going nova), geological things like that, we could never say never, because that resource could change, or just disappear.

But reading your first post again, I believe you were out to prove a point, that America has had such fuel shortage reports countless times in the past, and has always managed to find more resources. You wanted to show that the 'scare mongers' were wrong in the past, and will likely be wrong again this time.

Am I right? Or was your original intention to provoke debate about other sources of energy in your post here?

In your later post, your own thinking seems muddled. You say;
"IF (very unlikely) no substitute energy sources are ever found, prices will rise to the point where alternate forms will be necessary and consumption will fall off."

So, if no substitute energy sources are found, alternate forms will be necessary? How does that work if there are no substitutes?

James posted a good article. The self-renewing oil well. That's intriguing. However, reading further down the article, I saw the following;

"What Dr. Anderson noticed as he played his time-lapse model was how much oil PennzEnergy had missed over the years. The remaining crude, surrounded by water and wobbling like giant globs of Jell-O in the computer model, gave PennzEnergy new targets as it reworked Eugene Island. What captivated scientists, though, was a deep fault in the bottom corner of the computer scan that was gushing oil like a garden hose. "We could see the stream," Dr. Anderson says. "It wasn't even debated that it was happening.""

So it seems better technology has found further sources in that same well. And I believe that holds the answer to your original post. Technology has improved, and that is why more oil has been found. May be that will continue. I don't know.

Good. Nice discussion.

Mark

Collapse -
Not getting it.
by EdHannigan / November 26, 2009 4:50 AM PST
In reply to: Lots to discuss here.
Aside from the false premise of that stated fact, (infinite resource, and all that), your post later appears to contradict you. You're contradicting your self?
What false premise? I never said there was an infinite resource. Never. That's NOT what this is about.

Things like the sun going nova are irrelevant. If we all die, then we cannot run out of oil, can we? When I said never, I meant never.

Yes, the scare mongers are wrong and always have been. We should not pay any attention to them and we don't need any of their "solutions".

No, my thinking is not muddled, though yours may be. There already ARE several alternate sources of energy. NOT quite the same as a substitute, is it? What we are talking about is ALTERNATIVES becoming SUBSTITUTES (which they are not now because they are not cost-effective).

My original intention was quite plain. It is what it is. We will never run out. That's it.
Collapse -
Ahh sorry.
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / November 26, 2009 5:04 AM PST
In reply to: Not getting it.

I can only read what you type. "Never" dictionary definition, "Not at any time or not on any occasion". That seems pretty infinite to me. In fact you emphasised it, We will NEVER run out. NEVER.

Not sure who needs more lessons here. Me in reading your mind, or you in expressing yourself properly.

However, I agree with you fully, completely, wholeheartedly. There already are alternative sources of energy. Some might call them substitutes. "I substitute my gas driven vehicle for an electrically driven one". But in that post your 'muddled' typing suggested that if no substitutes were found, we would have to use alternatives.

There's those lessons again.

Mark

Collapse -
"Not at any time or not on any occasion".
by EdHannigan / November 26, 2009 5:21 AM PST
In reply to: Ahh sorry.

Does NOT mean we have infinite resources, does it? It can (and does) mean at some point we will not need what finite resources we have left, because we will have moved on. I thought I made that clear.

"If we stop using it, which will happen (already is), we will never run out."
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6130_102-0.html?messageID=3184265#3184265

I'm sure you can think of some resource we don't use any longer and therefore have not run out of. At one time people predicted disaster because in theory we would not be able to feed or house enough horses to meet future transportation needs. Horses are no longer a vital transportation resource.

Collapse -
Rqather than quibble over silly semantic differences...
by EdHannigan / November 26, 2009 5:28 AM PST
In reply to: Ahh sorry.

consider this: "environmentalists" and politicians (including the current Presaident) have made careers out of insisting that the sky is falling because we are running out of oil, etc. They want to raise taxes and cause great harm to society based on this faulty idea, We should rebuff and reject them completely. They are quite simply, WRONG.

This needs to be understood.

Collapse -
From what I read ...
by Kees Bakker / November 26, 2009 5:39 AM PST

the USA will run out of water before they run out of oil ;-).

It helps to make that statement true that Obama promised to reduce the CO2 emissions by 2020 this week, because that will surely postpone the running out of oil.

Kees

Collapse -
??
by EdHannigan / November 26, 2009 7:39 AM PST
In reply to: From what I read ...
"Obama promised to reduce the CO2 emissions by 2020 this week, because that will surely postpone the running out of oil"

Kees

What the heck does that mean?
Collapse -
Re: C02 reduction
by Kees Bakker / November 26, 2009 4:16 PM PST
In reply to: ??
Collapse -
Explain...
by EdHannigan / November 26, 2009 9:32 PM PST
In reply to: Re: C02 reduction

HOW is he going to do this? By raising the prices by raising taxes, hmmmm...??

It's a fraud. There is no need to make coal and oil stocks "last longer". This is what I was talking about. Grabbing more power and hurting all of us.

Sheep to the slaughter.

Collapse -
I only read the headlines.
by Kees Bakker / November 26, 2009 10:21 PM PST
In reply to: Explain...

Not the details. But I understood he'll first make promises in Copenhagen, then try to get it through the Congress. By that time, surely more details will be known. Just wait and see if you like it. If you're interested you might be able to find more info in your favorite newspapers, magazines, Internet sites or TV News right now already.

By the way, the Copenhagen meeting isn't about oil or coal supplies. It's about CO2 emission. You shouldn't confuse things.

Can you explain why it should hurt you to use sun-made or wind-made electricity if it becomes cheaper than oil-made or coal-made electricity? It's the same electricity and it save money by that time.
Or do you mean to say "Electricity from the sun will NEVER be cheaper than electricity from coal and oil, NEVER"? That's a new aspect to the discussion.

Kees

Collapse -
You shouldn't confuse things.
by EdHannigan / November 26, 2009 10:31 PM PST

Right. You shouldn't. YOU are the one who brought up coal supplies.

Making promises im Copenhagen mneans nothing at all.

Can you explain why it should hurt you to use sun-made or wind-made electricity if it becomes cheaper than oil-made or coal-made electricity?
When did I say that or anything remotely resembling that?

Or do you mean to say "Electricity from the sun will NEVER be cheaper than electricity from coal and oil, NEVER"? That's a new aspect to the discussion.
A new aspect which you made up. I never said any such thing. Where are you getting this?

Collapse -
Please start reading.
by Kees Bakker / November 26, 2009 10:48 PM PST

Your first post in this thread was about supplies. Oil in stead of coal, indeed, but for running out or not that doesn't really matter.

Somehow, I got the impression that you don't like CO2-reduction. Might be my fault. That let me to think you don't like solar power either. You were the one who used the word "hurt" when referring to reducing CO2 emission (for which solar power obviously is a possible means). I only cited you. So there must be another reason why it would hurt you. You forgot to tell.

Kees

Collapse -
Many leaps of illogic.
by EdHannigan / November 26, 2009 11:03 PM PST
In reply to: Please start reading.

The soundest reasoning leads to the wrongest conclusions when the premises are false.

Somehow, I got the impression that you don't like CO2-reduction.
Did I actually SAY that? You seem to be under the apprehension that Obama can actually reduce carbon emissions by making promises. No wonder we're in trouble.

You might think you know what I mean, but you don't seem to know what I actually said, so what's the point of talking to you?

Collapse -
Hurt
by EdHannigan / November 26, 2009 11:56 PM PST
In reply to: Please start reading.

Obama can't reduce carbon emissions, but he can attempt to raise taxes and make energy more expensive. That would hurt the economy substantially.

You've got to stop believing the unbelievable statements of politicians and "environmentalists".

Collapse -
I'm glad Obama is going to reduce CO2 emissions.
by Desperado JC / November 26, 2009 10:12 PM PST
In reply to: From what I read ...

That will take the pressure off Congress which seems distinctly disinclined to move forward with current proposals to make energy more expensive. Perhaps Obama plans to get credits from Europe. Kind of a reverse Marshall Plan, and Europeans seem quite enamored with Obama.

Collapse -
He's going to quit flitting around the world?
by James Denison / November 26, 2009 10:55 PM PST

That will certainly help him save some CO2, and us some tax money. I suspect he and Michelle are already lining up their next vacation though. He's probably practicing his bows right now.

Collapse -
Read this:
by EdHannigan / November 26, 2009 5:37 AM PST
In reply to: Told you...
Collapse -
It's just like trying to tell a teenager something
by JP Bill / November 26, 2009 5:46 AM PST
In reply to: Read this:

You don't know anything and they know everything.

Collapse -
They got you over the barrel
by JP Bill / November 26, 2009 5:44 AM PST
In reply to: Told you...

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

FALL TV PREMIERES

Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!