It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by thehamsamiam
The problem is oil tycoons have too much power in the national government and any movement to switch to bio-fuels will be stomped out. Also the price of this stuff is too high now because there is no large scale production of this stuff, all that will change especially when gas at the pump hits $4 a gallon.
This is a typical problem of the left, you believe the crap you type like a programed robot.
Originally posted by thehamsamiam
First of all we are not having a crisis. china and India are bidding for the oil along with us, europe and Asia. Now that is why oil is so high.
Originally posted by thehamsamiam
I will not contest the greed of an oil barron but as far as alternitive fuels I would have to say that when the time comes it will be the same oil companies you hate now that will be suppling the new fuel to you. They own the gas stations and pipe lines to distribute fuel. Why would it make a difference to mobile or sunoco if they sold bio disiel or fosil fuel if they made the same money or more in the end? It is easier to get to corn then build a platform in the ocean and drill for oil.
Originally posted by thehamsamiam
The reason we had relitivly cheaper gas during the clinton years is he tapped into the nations reserves to offset the problem we see today. Bush spent 4 years refilling the reserves because they are for national emergencies, war and not for times like these.
Originally posted by thehamsamiam
I hate paying these prices as much if not more then most. Owning 4 dump trucks a while back I used to spend 200 a day or more on fuel. Stop crying and do something to help. You want to save money start car pooling.
Originally posted by MrJingles
I think you might want to read the entire article.
The article is rhetoric, it'd've been better to highlight and explain the best supporting evidences. From what I gather of his pages, it looks like he simply states that oil is going to get too expensive to withdraw from the ground. IE, it will require more effort to take it out than to put it in. Problem is, this is based on there not being new oil fields, and there are, such as the anwr and the cuban fields, plus who knows what else. And if, and i stress if, oil is infact produced abiotically, then its all a moot point anyway. I doubt that tho.
Plus, he claims that the US government has known for decades about this, nad that its plan is to hasten the looming disaster, 'because its better to have it happen right when you expect it than not', which doesn't make sense, to make sure that a disaster happens in the here and now, rather than proloning its comming.
don't look at it as something bad, maybe something like, getting back to our roots.
If what this guy says is in fact true, then it'd be the worst disaster known to mankind. It'd result in the destruction of civilization, and a return to a sick primitive existence. It won't be a good thing.
We survived thousands of years without oil
And look at teh horrors of those years. Now there is at least the possibility of something better.
Originally posted by silentlonewolf
the oil wells in the gulf of mexico are refilling themselves.
There is also a rock known as oil shale, i believe, that basically has oil solidified into it.
Originally posted by silentlonewolf
I know this was mentioned earlier, about the theory that oil is actual made by a process within the earth., which is relatively new i believe. One of the reasons this theory has actually recieved some recognition is because the oil wells in the gulf of mexico are refilling themselves. There is also a rock known as oil shale, i believe, that basically has oil solidified into it. However the tech needed to extract the oil is not quite available yet.
Also to note the price of oil is often said to be related to the strength of the currency as well as the overall supply and demand.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Originally posted by MrJingles
I think you might want to read the entire article.
The article is rhetoric, it'd've been better to highlight and explain the best supporting evidences.
The article cannot be "highlighted" because every single page is stuffed with brain pounding info. You have to take the free time and read it all.
Originally posted by Nygdan
From what I gather of his pages, it looks like he simply states that oil is going to get too expensive to withdraw from the ground. IE, it will require more effort to take it out than to put it in. Problem is, this is based on there not being new oil fields, and there are, such as the anwr and the cuban fields,
Man, read every single page. Even if it takes you 2 weeks, read every page. The guy lists how much oil the US alone uses in 1 year! Then there's the fact that US consumption is increasing every year!
Oil fields in Cuba are nothing to what the US need for just 1 month of consumption! LOL!
Originally posted by Nygdan
plus who knows what else. And if, and i stress if, oil is infact produced abiotically, then its all a moot point anyway. I doubt that tho.
The guy in that article covers this "arguement" too! The "oh there might be something else we don't know about that will take care of everything". Heheheh.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Plus, he claims that the US government has known for decades about this, nad that its plan is to hasten the looming disaster, 'because its better to have it happen right when you expect it than not', which doesn't make sense, to make sure that a disaster happens in the here and now, rather than proloning its comming.
And what's your point?
Do a google search for "SUV Taxbreaks".
You post what he said, then you don't post any tries at rebutting it.
Do you agree? Disagree and why?
Or maybe you're terrified at this thought, and its taking time to sink in. Don't worry, you still have 8 to 50 years left before the current American, and world lifestyle drastically changes back to how it was in the 1700s.
(Only difference is back then there were 50% less people.) So you'll have insane numbers of people dying off.
Originally posted by Nygdan
don't look at it as something bad, maybe something like, getting back to our roots.
If what this guy says is in fact true, then it'd be the worst disaster known to mankind. It'd result in the destruction of civilization, and a return to a sick primitive existence. It won't be a good thing.
We survived thousands of years without oil
And look at teh horrors of those years. Now there is at least the possibility of something better.
No it won't be the worse ever disaster. It will be just another disaster in the history of disasters. And as always, those who prepare for it, have the best chances of surviving it. Or if they die, at least they'll know why they died. They can die not being in a panic.
"OMG! What's going on?! What's going on! Somebody help meeeeee!!!"
vs...
"Ahhh, it finally happened. And I know why. Ah well, it was good while it lasted."
Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
The article cannot be "highlighted" because every single page is stuffed with brain pounding info.
Man, read every single page.
And what's your point?
No it won't be the worse ever disaster. It will be just another disaster in the history of disasters.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
The article cannot be "highlighted" because every single page is stuffed with brain pounding info.
If there is an arguemnt for Peak Oil, that oil resources are running out very quickly and that extraction will cost more than can be garnered from the oil, then it can't be a 'diffuse' argument. Its got to be one that can be succinctly presented.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Man, read every single page.
I will not. I did not see anything that warrants that. What from the pages warrant that?
Originally posted by Nygdan
And what's your point?
IF Peak Oil is real and unsolvable and the 'government' knows about it, they are not going to go to extremes in order to ensure that the oil economy crashes 'now' rather than later,
Originally posted by Nygdan
and they certainly aren't going to go to war to get more of the limited oil, especially when the author even states that the war wasn't 'cost effective'. It simply doesn't make sense. IF peak oil was real they'd've invaded Iran when teh shah was overthrown and hussein would be in power today with american rather than soviet tanks and working quickly to pump more oil over to his american masters. The US would've done everything in its power to ensure that they have all the oil, stored up in their country, not sit back and allow it to be sold on the open market.
Originally posted by Nygdan
And they'd certainly've made sure that siberian and other russian oil fields were up an running to make sure that, 20 years from now, Russian ships aren't patroling the world's oceans and russian tanks aren't rumbling past the residents oxcart in DC.
Originally posted by Nygdan
No it won't be the worse ever disaster. It will be just another disaster in the history of disasters.
The global population is in the billions because of oil. In the immediately pre-industrial times, cities were lucky to number in the millions. If Peak Oil is true, its the greatest human catastrophe, except perhaps bested by the 'great bottleneck' that almost wiped out the species.