Oil Crisis

Status
Not open for further replies.
Golgo 13,

Yes, the oil is going to end. However, if we would invest in renewable energy, we won't have any problem. Unfortunately, the oil people- that is, the richest people in the world- don't want any of that to happen, because they want to keep being richer than everyone else....
 
Well lets not blame the rich, they are rich because they worked for it. There is no harm in that. The corporations have brought us this technological wonder, and have also expanded our livelihoods with goods and services that were not available a mear 100 years ago. I for one enjoy all that I see, and have the ability to afford buying. New gadgets! hell yea! bring them on.

Sure there's corruption, name one period of our human history were there were no such thing as corruption.

Mysticism, is not only religious, and about chosts, or spirits of beyond. No Mysticism is the creation of problems were there is none.

Over population?

That's a myth.

Finite resourses?

Another myth.

Air itself is bountifull, water, earth, the the sun so far has been with us for billions of years.

Yet your limited mentality of doom and gloom! continues.
How pathetic.

Oh! was Eastern Island the end of humanity?

Then what the hell are we, if it was?.

Eastern Island was not the end of us all, we are still here. As long as the sun gives light each day, we will still be here. Learn and advance is what humanity will continue to do, it has seeked it out, it's in their imagination. Fantacy stories of space travel beyond our galaxies are our fantacies of today. Fantacy of just going to the moon was fantasies 150 years ago. Today it's reality. Tomorrow we could perhaps be traveling the speed of light or faster to outher galaxies. Space is bountifull with energy. This is all within our grasp. To understand reality, to expand human knowledge, to literally have biological immortality, is all with in the grasp of the human consciousness.

But what keeps us, ingnorant, what keeps us bickering, confused, uncivilized, is the diseas of the mind, and that diseas is mysticism.

Godless.
 
Godless said:
Mysticism, is not only religious, and about chosts, or spirits of beyond. No Mysticism is the creation of problems were there is none.

You also have those that continue to ignore the problem, even though it's reached the congressional level.

Over population?

That's a myth.

Elaborate please. The Earth has approx. 6.5 billion people on it. I posted figures earlier that showed the colossal growth rate of the human population.

You can't have a population increase exponentially with a rapidly dwindling finite supply of the resources that enabled that very same growth.

If the only resource you're looking at when considering overpopulation is space, then you are missing the issue.

Finite resourses?

Another myth.

Explain how coal, nuclear, and oil can be renewed, since they make up almost all of world energy and are incapable of being regenerated.

If finite resources are a myth, then why did the U.S. peak as an oil privince in the 70's and has relied on foreign imports ever since?

Could it possibly be because oil is a finite resource?

Air itself is bountifull, water, earth, the the sun so far has been with us for billions of years.

And they provide 1/10'th of 1% of world energy use and don't provide power all the time like cheap and reliable fossil fuels.

Yet your limited mentality of doom and gloom! continues.

The facts are no less relevant by any other name.

Oh! was Eastern Island the end of humanity?

Of course not.

Eastern Island was not the end of us all, we are still here. As long as the sun gives light each day, we will still be here.

People will still be here. It is possible to live without fossil fuels, just not in numbers in any way comparable to what they are now.

Learn and advance is what humanity will continue to do, it has seeked it out, it's in their imagination. Fantacy stories of space travel beyond our galaxies are our fantacies of today. Fantacy of just going to the moon was fantasies 150 years ago. Today it's reality. Tomorrow we could perhaps be traveling the speed of light or faster to outher galaxies. Space is bountifull with energy. This is all within our grasp. To understand reality, to expand human knowledge, to literally have biological immortality, is all with in the grasp of the human consciousness.

More of this technology as a religion stuff.

I don't want emotional faith-based appeals to intangible romanticism, I want working prototypes producing real results that will allow us to continue running what we're running today, have good EROEI ratios, and utilize energy sources that will not deplete.

No such technology exists.

Nixon said when he was in office that hydrogen would have replaced our need for foreign energy long before now. It didn't happen (it's technically impossible), we're still in the same boat, and people are still preaching the same pseudoscientific nonsense and flat-earth cornucopian heresy that has kept us here since the 70's.
 
Last edited:
You also have those that continue to ignore the problem, even though it's reached the congressional level.

Mostly mystics, they use political means to usurp power from ingnorant masses. I understand your ploy, but they will soon fail, as chaos settles and they loose power.

Elaborate please. The Earth has approx. 6.5 billion people on it. I posted figures earlier that showed the colossal growth rate of the human population.

You assume no one dies. The death ratio of the earth has gotten a great blow, first the Tsunami in asia killed apx. 200.000 or even more whith diseas will soon die. Earths population issue has been a mystical bs, for several decades. The recent wars has also dwindled many thousands of lives under US guns alone, take that in consideration of wars around the globe, that the isanity of mysticism easily allows, and the number of death multiply. The birth rate of infants in the western hemisphere is good and dandi, compared to the low numbers of infants surviving their first three years of life in third world countries. Do you assume the continuing wars, natural disasters will not do anything to dwindle the numbers of lives on earth?.




You can't have a population increase exponentially with a rapidly dwindling finite supply of the resources that enabled that very same growth.

Pure mysticism tought to you in schools, and rationalized by your lack of imagination. Not your fault really! You've been programed to doom and failure to use your brain to solve problems and only dwell on the problems.


If the only resource you're looking at when considering overpopulation is space, then you are missing the issue.

It is not my fault you lack imagination. Apparently this seems to be a huge problem world wide as most people world wide are mystics.

Explain how coal, nuclear, and oil can be renewed, since they make up almost all of world energy and are incapable of being regenerated.

The diseas of mysticism clouds the mind, of millions. If the human race can combine resourses and use it to get even more power, from those same resourses we have the potential for a few hundred years more, the longer we learn and discover new ways to produce energy from those resourses and others as yet to be discovered, the longer the human race would survive. That is ofcourse wishfull thinking because the human race as yet to rid itself from the diseas of mysticism.


If finite resources are a myth, then why did the U.S. peak as an oil privince in the 70's and has relied on foreign imports ever since?

Greed and Power.




And they provide 1/10'th of 1% of world energy use and don't provide power all the time like cheap and reliable fossil fuels.

Without the diseas of mysticism, human counsciousness would perhaps find a way to increase those numbers, however you nor I can explain as yet how this would be done, we lack the knowledge. But what about 100 years from now?.

Of course not.

Then why even mention it?.



People will still be here. It is possible to live without fossil fuels, just not in numbers in any way comparable to what they are now.

Mysticism, you dwell on the problem instead of a pontential solution.



More of this technology as a religion stuff.

Laughs at your irrationality. And apparent brain washed mystical ideal.



I don't want emotional faith-based appeals to intangible romanticism, I want working prototypes producing real results that will allow us to continue running what we're running today, have good EROEI ratios, and utilize energy sources that will not deplete.

Faith based? I suppose you've not looked at my name. I'm an atheist, and romanticism is not part of my character. However I don't dwell on the problems of humanity, I look for potential solutions. Sadly I'm no scientist, nor an engineer, nor an I am inspired to become one. My aim is to inspire those that are.

No such technology exists.

Yet!

G.
 
No such technology exists yet, and we need it like right now.

World's thirst for oil makes falling output worse

More bad news. In addition to Ghawar (largest oil field in the world which I elaborated on earlier), the world's second largest oil field is officially slated to go into terminal decline this year.

Either we're going to find a brand-new Saudi Arabia worth of oil, which can be ruled out due to the discovery trend:

30.gif

Yellow line shows drilling.

this nonexistent technology that isn't even theoretically feasible yet is going to spring up overnight and save us until we outgrow it's capacity, or a massive petroapocalyptic energy crisis is coming soon.
 
Last edited:
No such technology exists yet, and we need it like right now.

Keep your chin up Golgo. This is not far away!.

click

click

Spray on solar power cells.
click

click

Automobiles that run on hydrogen:

click

Damn seemst these fucking oil companies see the trouble coming! No wonder they keep lying about "fuels shortages" so they can raise the price, before the technological inavations of our times make oil, a second favorite fuel.

Godless.
 
Yes, indeed....

And the important thing about those new forms of energy is that they are not only efficient, but they are also very decentralized. Anyone could have them at home.... :eek:

I wonder how fusion would work without high temperatures, tough.....
Would it be with high pressure? But that is not easy to do.... :confused:

Anyways... here's my 2 cents:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/01/10/thin-solar-panel050110.html



Btw... those "quantum dots" and high tech nanotechnology are doing A LOT.... :eek:!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Godless said:
Damn seemst these fucking oil companies see the trouble coming! No wonder they keep lying about "fuels shortages" so they can raise the price, before the technological inavations of our times make oil, a second favorite fuel.

US Department of Energy, the International Energy Agency, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Matthew Simmons who is the energy advisor to the President, Deutsche Bank Research, the former Vice president of Saudi Arabian oil giant Aramco, and Former CIA director James Woolsey and Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force policies of '99 and 2001 are all reporting the facts.

Bush was explicitly clear when he said "What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of energy in America. We can do a better job in conservation, but we darn sure have to do a better job of finding more supply. We can't conserve our way to energy independence.". He didn't sugar-coat it.

He also hasn't sugar coated his supply-acquiring solution (*cough*Iraq*cough*) was either.

For this 'Oil depletion is a conspiracy' nonsense to make any sense, you have to revise petroleum history so that the U.S. never peaked as an oil province in 1970 like it did and right on target with Dr. M. King Hubbert's depletion model, you have to believe that every energy authority and geology expert in the world is forging petroleum data, that oil companies are deliberately holding back spare capacity at a time of record demand when they could release more while keeping the price of oil the same and making that much more of a killing.

It makes no sense. If this was some vast international conspiracy to make money, then they would be releasing more oil now that demand is at the highest level ever.

I use a good ol' fashioned Occam's Razor when evaluating competing theories. Cut out the bullshit, and keep a strict 'Just the facts' policy, with minimal speculation.

With that in mind:

Indonesia considers leaving Opec

Crude oil exports have declined by 70% in the past two years

The petroleum facts are explicitly clear. OPEC nations falling off the map isn't exactly incon-fucking-spicuous now, is it?

When you leave OPEC, you don't come back. It means you're busted, you're depleted, and you've gone over the bell curve.

Now if you take all this in with the fact that the first and second largest oil fields in the world going into terminal decline, what does that spell?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on.
 
Last edited:
Considering your choises of ref. you should have no trouble collecting $1000.00

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr52.html

http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html

http://www.infowars.com/gunther.html

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr49.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645

Are we to trust the US gov?. aren't these the same sob's who claimed WMD's in Irag?. aren't these the same sob's who stole the Election Twice!.

Most of all the ref. you pointed are in the payroll of BIG OIL COMPANIES!!.

Godless.
 
Government or independent or whatever the source you have a problem with, it still does nothing to change the fact that the United States peaked as an oil province in 1970 (proof of peaking concept right there) and these Middle Eastern nations are following suit.

If you accept the facts that:

1. Oil is a finite resource

2. The U.S. peaked as an oil province in 1970 despite people not thinking it possible.

and

3. All oil producing nations ultimately and irreversibly peak and then go into terminal decline.

Then the situation becomes fairly irrefutable.

The government actually has a history of covering this stuff up. The US Geological Survey had to explain before Congress why they didn't see the domestic production peak like M. King hubbert did all the way back in the 1950's.

The latest ASPO (Founded by independent petroleum geologist Dr. Colin Campbell) newsletter contains item 504 from the US Department of Energy. They admit to peak in plain language & to the likely consequences:

http://216.187.75.220/newsletter51.pdf

The US Department of Energy addresses Peak Oil.

For the foreseeable future, electricity-producing technologies, e.g., nuclear and solar energy, cannot substitute for liquid fuels in most transportation applications. Someday, electric cars may be practical, but decades will be required before they achieve significant market penetration and impact world oil consumption. And no one has yet defined viable options for powering heavy trucks or airplanes with electricity.

Analysis of the simultaneous implementation of all of the options showed that an impact of roughly 25 million barrels per day might be possible 15 years after initiation. Because conventional oil production decline will start at the time of peaking, crash program mitigation inherently cannot avert massive shortages unless it is initiated well in advance of peaking. Specifically,

* Waiting until world conventional oil production peaks before initiating crash program mitigation leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for two decades or longer

* Initiating a crash program 10 years before world oil peaking would help considerably but would still result in a worldwide liquid fuels shortfall, starting roughly a decade after the time that oil would have otherwise peaked.

* Initiating crash program mitigation 20 years before peaking offers the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.

Without timely mitigation, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), accompanied by huge oil price increases, both of which would create a long period of significant economic hardship worldwide.

Oil peaking discussions should focus primarily on prudent risk management, and secondarily on forecasting the timing of oil peaking, which will always be inexact. Mitigation initiated earlier than required might turn out to be premature, if peaking is slow in coming. If peaking is imminent, failure to act aggressively will be extremely damaging worldwide.

World oil peaking represents a problem like none other. The political, economic, and social stakes are enormous. Prudent risk management demands urgent attention and early action.

Notice that the article says crash program mitigation would need to begin 20 years before peak oil production to avoid massive shortages.

By their estimates we need at least 20 years to prepare for a "soft landing". So if ASPO is correct at a peak around 2008, we're screwed badly (which makes sense considering current world events).

Next to dealing with the immediate consequences of peak oil, It doesn't get any more transparent and abundantly clear than this, folks.

If "conventional wisdom" is right with a peak around 2015; we might be fortunate enough to simply be in for a really rough ride if the world acts like right now.

Expert: Saudi oil may have peaked

Energy investment banker Matthew Simmons, of Simmons & Co International, has been outspoken in his warnings about peak oil before. His new statement is his strongest yet, "we may have already passed peak oil".

Speaking exclusively to Aljazeera, Simmons came out with a statement that, if proven true over time, could herald by far the biggest energy crisis mankind has known.

He's Chairman and CEO of Simmons Company and International. It's the largest energy investment bank. He advises the Presidency on energy issues. When they need information, they come to him because he knows what he's talking about.

Godless said:
Are we to trust the US gov?. aren't these the same sob's who claimed WMD's in Irag?

To go in there and get the oil because they recognized the urgency of production peak.

The Government is a sectioned apparatus. The lies you see coming out of the White House have nothing to do with the Department of Energy.

Even R. James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said the following.

"I fear we're going to be at war for decades, not years. It will last a long time and it will have a major ideological component. Ultimately we will win it but one major component of that war is oil."

- REA
 
Last edited:
You are caught in a web of deceit! and you have bought the whole enchilada.
http://educate-yourself.org/mc/

If there were no oil, the fascist elite would stop its growth. Believe me, I would rather have "NO OIL" than to let these fascist dominate the world.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/davemcgowanstalinandabioticoil05mar05.shtml

THere's plenty of oil, don't buy the BULL SHIT
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/davemcgowan59newsletter13apr04.shtml

Then again you can't help it, you've been "BRAIN WASHED".

Godless.
 
growingGap.gif


^ Here we have 2 graphs on 1 scale. We have in the vertical bars the annual discoveries of oil each year, and in the horizontal line is the annual production of oil each year. And notice since the 1980's, we've been producing about twice as much as we've been finding.

Yet you've seen and heard and read statements from Ph.D. non-scientists that "We have greater resources now of petroleum than ever before in history".

What in the world are they smoking?!

If there were no oil, the fascist elite would stop its growth.

It's not that there is 'no oil'. There will be oil in the ground long after humans are no longer around. The problem is that oil is having diminishing returns. It's taking more and more energy to pull the oil out of the ground, and eventually oil will cease having an energy profit ratio and stop being an energy source altogether. Couple that with the fact that less and less oil can be produced, and you have a serious problem.

I know you go to infowars and you know all about the elite and all of that and how they want to reduce the population to a few million. Well guess what? If Alex Jones is right about the whole illuminati/NWO thing and their population reduction plan, then this is going to be their greatest opportunity to finally achieve that goal.

When the U.S.S.R. collapsed in 1991, North Korea was almost completely dependent on Soviet oil. When the chaos factor, hit, the agricultural production of the NK's went off a cliff. People started to starve, for their food, as nearly all food production in the world is, was dependent on oil.

HELLO!!!! If it can happen in NK, it can happen in the beautiful United States. If we simply cruise along like we've been doing, we're screwed. Majorly and utterly. There is no denying this fact.

Some more recent developments for those of you that insist on denying reality:

US report acknowledges peak-oil threat

It has long been denied that the US government bases any policy around the idea that global oil production may be in terminal decline.

But a new US government-sponsored report, obtained by Aljazeera.net, does exactly that.

this brand new senior-level report on "peak oil" is unprecedented in US government circles. It is not just the existence of the report itself that is such a landmark in the current oil debate. Its conclusions also pull no punches.

"World oil peaking is going to happen," the report says. Only the "timing is uncertain".

"The development of the US economy and lifestyle has been fundamentally shaped by the availability of abundant, low-cost oil. Oil scarcity and several-fold oil price increases due to world oil production peaking could have dramatic impacts ... the economic loss to the United States could be measured on a trillion-dollar scale," the report says.


Remember when I cited Petroleum geologist Dr. Kenneth Deffeyes a few pages back?

"We were always afraid, 'What would it be like to live after the Hubbert peak with world oil declining?', and I have this list of things:

- 7 trillion dollars lost out of the U.S. stock market
- 2 million jobs lost in the United States
- Federal budget surplus gone
- State budget surpluses gone
- The middle class dissappearing"


Now this official report is saying the same exact thing he warned us about 2 years ago.

The report then takes three possible scenarios and outcomes. Firstly that energy replacement solutions, or "mitigation" as the report states, are started 20 years before any "peak". Secondly that solutions are only enacted 10 years before any peak and, thirdly, that solutions are only put into practice as the peak becomes apparent.

In what some may see as an optimistic assessment, the authors believe 20 years is enough time to limit damage from any peak. However, they point out that "if mitigation were to be too little, too late, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction".

Demand destruction is a modern way of saying catastrophic recessions and shortages. But as well as these predictions, the report lays out "signals" it believes will be apparent in the run-up to any peak. This is perhaps the most worrying aspect of the report, as it seems to describe the very events that are taking place at the moment.

But in its conclusion the report makes troubling reading, noting that "the world has never faced a problem like this[/size][/i]. Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions were gradual and evolutionary. Oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary."

Oil prices confound experts

"World oil supply fell by 645,000 bpd in January to 83.6 million barrels per day, mainly on declines in Opec supply," said the Paris based organisation. "Non-Opec supply from Canada, Norway and the US Gulf of Mexico remained curtailed and Russian output fell for a fourth month."

In other words Opec did not cut it's supply, but the supply simply "declined".

That would be consistent with passing the peak.

Presentation of Peak Oil in the the U.S. House of Representatives:


56K modem streaming RealVideo

128K broadband streaming RealVideo


(requires RealOne Player or higher)

Here is a Windows Media stream (needs Windows Media Player 9 or higher). The quality is not quite as good as the RealPlayer versions.

56K modem streaming Windows Media

At least the issue is becoming more mainstream now and is being acknowledged as unimpeachable reality.

C'mon, Godless. Oil is a finite resource. Finite resources are subject to depletion. Oil is subject to depletion. Oil is depleting. This is not a hard concept to grasp.

Even a little kid in grade school science class can tell you that oil will not last indefinately. Since oil is a finite resource, it's depletion is simply a function of time. We've been using oil for over a century and a half now, and been using more with every passing year. We've been using more that we've been discovering and it had to catch up to us someday.

Ever since the beginning of the oil age, people knew that this prosperous oil era would not last forever. They knew that one day oil production would peak and go into decline once geologists patterned depletion modeling. We've known that the more you use of the stuff, the less that will be there later on. We've known that exponential rates of growth in consumption of resources cannot possibly be sustained. And we've known that one day, our overconsuming greed-driven profit-motivated capitalist practices that pawn the consequences of current actions on future generations would one day finally catch up to us. We knew that sooner or later, one day we'd have to pay the piper.

And that day has finally come.
 
Last edited:
Golgo, I know oil is a finite resourse, wether it be anbiotic or fossil. However my argument is that it's not running out any time soon. This is the same crap that I heard in the 70's and now again 30 odd years latter. Same lies, same rhetoric, by oil corporations to milk the public out of BILLIONS of dollars. Oil by my experience working "oil fields" in the US, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, is a resource that is not "running out any time soon"

Godless.
 
Seeing as the world consumes so many tens of billions of barrels of oil a year, It's really no suprise that all the hard, empirical, corroborative, factual geological material supports this conclusion from a multitude of independent sources such as former (and thus disinterested) petroleum geologists.

I've already explained what the whole situation in the 70's was. Back then they just took the amount of oil they had then, divied it by the amount of resource they had already discovered, compensated for growth in consumption of the resource (Which was 7%. If you calculate the doubling time [T2 = 70/P where P is the percent growth per unit time] then you see that rate of consumption has a doubling time [time it takes to increase by 100%] of a mere decade), and came up with their figure.

The thing is, with the way they were doing it, compensating only for the amount of resource already disovered, then they had to make a new calculation every time a new signifigant discovery was found.

What we do with depletion modeling today is use that same method, but we calculate for the discovered and undiscovered reserves. We're now talking about all of the oil.

You need look no futher than this to get a clear picture of where we're heading:

peakforecast.jpg


It is generally estimated that the world has has around 2,000 billion barrels of oil ever since we started using it. Now that is a very uncertain figure, plus or minus 50%.

This figure here charts different estimates for the URR (Ultimate Recoverable Reserves) of oil.

On the conservative end, we have that 2,000 billion barrel figure which puts us at peak oil like right now. On the high end, we have 3,000 billion, and on the uber extreme high end, we have twice the amount we ever expect, which is exceedingly unlikely given the discovery trend of the resource, which I have shown numerous times.

The United States Geological survey gives the conservative estimate a 90% chance of being correct, with the second estimate being something like 7%, and the final one 3%.

But no matter how you look at it, you will live to see the peaking of world oil. And you have to ask yourself, "What's life going to be like with world energy in decline?"

Think about it.
 
Last edited:
Godless said:
Oil by my experience working "oil fields" in the US, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, is a resource that is not "running out any time soon"
Oh, how impressive. I suppose working "oil fields" in the US, UK, Norway, Algeria, Nigeria, Egypt, Malaysia and Indonesia, makes me more 'experienced' than you. Of course it doesn't. Read and understand Golgo's post. He isn't relying on anecdotal 'experience', he is using hard facts. Now wake up.
 
It’s funny. I have noticed certain types of people don't believe in Peak Oil. They seem to think that oil companies conspire and hide all of those zero-point energy machines that keep popping up. The oil companies want to suppress the "free energy" in order to keep making money.

I find it quite odd that people will believe in fantasies with no scientific basis to back up the claims, but as soon as science is used to prove that our way of life is fleeting, they immediatly reject it and choose to continue to believe in thier false cornucopian flat-earth delusions.
 
Godless said:
Golgo, I know oil is a finite resourse, wether it be anbiotic or fossil. However my argument is that it's not running out any time soon. This is the same crap that I heard in the 70's and now again 30 odd years latter. Same lies, same rhetoric, by oil corporations to milk the public out of BILLIONS of dollars. Oil by my experience working "oil fields" in the US, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, is a resource that is not "running out any time soon"

Godless.

Same crap you heard in the 70's, so therefore it is STILL the same crap now ?? I don't understand that logic, that seems to display a DANGEROUS narrow-minded vision of things.
 
Marsoups said:
I don't understand that logic...

It's pretty simple.

Someone made a calculation about a finite resource such as oil in the past. The calculation was wrong, therefore all calculations are wrong.
 
Golgo, I would even question whether the calculations were wrong.
a) Some calculations dating from the 60s and 70s considered only US domestic oil production. That did indeed peak, just as King suggested it would.
b) All calculations (the reputable ones anyway) come with stipulations of the assumptions made. Once the predictions are filtered through the media and popular culture, only the headline, panic inducing, 'the sky is falling' message survives. The assumptions are lost and forgotten.

On topic, but different issue. How we deal with it when it happens, whether that is in one year or twenty? I am much more optimistic about this than some posters on this thread. We have multiple means available to us. The four best ones, in my view, are
a) Nuclear fusion - technical problems solvable by appropriate investment
b) Coal - sequester carbon dioxide at point of combustion
c) Reduced Energy Demand - smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles; more intelligent construction.
d) Methane clathrates - at least one and possibly two orders of magnitude more energy than from all the oil and gas produced/unproduced and discovered/undiscovered.
 
Wake up?..LOL..

Golgo only concentrates as if “oil” is the only energy source, and the sky is falling. Now even you know that there are alternatives.

In every endeavor of oil drilling there are geologists on hand, and if you truly have been there in “drilling rigs” you should know that they are on location only to determine if indeed there’s oil in the well. So facts!! do come in from oil geologists at those sites I was fortunate to work at.

And I suppose that this article http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645 is also done by geologists, are facts! so WAKE UP!!

Godless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top