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.

 

the real oil reserves

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 10:45 PM
link   
A new oil field in Canada was opened for exploration venture capital recently. The sell-off was a significant opportunity for both the oil giants and also some so-called prospector companies.
This is all good news for global economies since Canada is fair and transparent about its deals.

What struck me was the scale of this 1 sell-off. There are enough 'confirmed' resources there to satisfy worldwide demand for 50 years, at current levels. This is a new find.

How much must there be in Russia and the Arab nations which have always been known to have the largest reserves? Enough for 1000 years, 2000?

I think it's great that little financially rich but resource poor nations are pushing forward these alternative energy plans. They will probably become useful 40 generations down the line. But they are currently so hideously uneconomical in terms of finance and local impact that we need to think very carefully before implementing them. Perhaps in 100 years time (a tiny fraction of the oil reserve), the could be in some way technologically viable.

Right now, do not think that the magnetic polar shift can ever be addressed by wasting money on banning SUV's and building ugly wind turbines.




posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I don't see this as a surprise, at all. It just shows how ignorant the World can be sometimes.

The US, has enough oil in the Alaskan Pipeline & in Texas to fuel the rest of the World for the next 150 years alone, or more.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Consuming 80 Million Barrels a day is NOT SUSTAINABLE, even under Abiotic Oil Hypothesis(and I hesitate to even call it that, more like Wishfull Thinking) we would start running out eventually as we squander it left right and center.

The Earth is Finite. Human Arrogance unfortunately is not.



What struck me was the scale of this 1 sell-off. There are enough 'confirmed' resources there to satisfy worldwide demand for 50 years, at current levels.


Demand is growing rapidly(due to China, India, Eastern Europe and Brazil), have you taken that into consideration?

Also LINKS will help as well.... hearsay is just that hearsay.

It's a moot point anyhow as Combusting ANYTHING produces toxic byproducts and we should do our best to get off of the Black Crack as soon as possible.

[edit on 19-12-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
It is true that there is still oil in the ground for more than 150 years. BUT the rate of production is limited, and will peak within the next two decades. (several experts conclude it already has).
There is a major difference between oil in the ground and oil production. If there really is so much oil left in Texas, as SpartanKingLeonidas stated, than why did the US lose control over the global oil prices in the 70's and why does the US have to import 2/3 of the oil it consumes from abroad?

US oil production peaked in the early 70's, it is impossible to produce more of it.

The oil sands in Canada can never produce enough to meet demand. It is also A LOT more expensive to produce oil from the sand.



Oil sands are deposits of bitumen, a heavy black viscous oil that must be rigorously treated to convert it into an upgraded crude oil before it can be used by refineries to produce gasoline and diesel fuels.

Until recently, Alberta's bitumen deposits were known as tar sands but are now referred to as oil sands.

Bitumen is best described as a thick, sticky form of crude oil, so heavy and viscous that it will not flow unless heated or diluted with lighter hydrocarbons. At room temperature, it is much like cold molasses.

Oil sands are substantially heavier than other crude oils. Technically speaking, bitumen is a tar-like mixture of petroleum hydrocarbons with a density greater than 960 kilograms per cubic metre; light crude oil, by comparison, has a density as low as 793 kilograms per cubic metre.

Compared to conventional crude oil, bitumen requires some additional upgrading before it can be refined. It also requires dilution with lighter hydrocarbons to make it transportable by pipelines.

Bitumen makes up about 10-12 per cent of the actual oil sands found in Alberta. The remainder is 80-85 per cent mineral matter - including sand and clays - and 4-6 per cent water.

www.energy.gov.ab.ca...

The way to produce oil out of the sand is to wash the material with superheated water. It is estimated that 20% of Canada's natural gas production is needed to support the oil production for tar sands. After the sand has been washed the water is poured back into a river, causing major ground water pollution.

As you can imagine, the sand doesn't gushes out of the ground like normal oil does. It also can't be pumped out of the ground. It has to be dug up, in an open pit mine. So it is far moe expensive, and a lot slower to get the stuff out of the ground. Only 10-12% of all material that has been dug up can be used to produce oil out of (the bitumen). Those bitumen are usually 400 metres below the surface. Around 80% of the Alberta tar sands are too far below the surface for the current open-pit mining technique. Producing a single barrel of oil from tar sands emits no less than six times more carbon dioxide than producing a barrel of conventional oil.

The list is endless. Tar sands can never replace the oil imports, remember the US alone uses 21 million barrels of oil every day.

Read something on the subject:
www.energybulletin.net...
www.pastpeak.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.energy.gov.ab.ca...
www.feasta.org.../panel1.html



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
why did the US lose control over the global oil prices in the 70's


Nixon took us of the gold standard



The way to produce oil out of the sand is to wash the material with superheated water. It is estimated that 20% of Canada's natural gas production is needed to support the oil production for tar sands. After the sand has been washed the water is poured back into a river, causing major ground water pollution.

As you can imagine, the sand doesn't gushes out of the ground like normal oil does. It also can't be pumped out of the ground. It has to be dug up, in an open pit mine. So it is far moe expensive, and a lot slower to get the stuff out of the ground. Only 10-12% of all material that has been dug up can be used to produce oil out of (the bitumen). Those bitumen are usually 400 metres below the surface. Around 80% of the Alberta tar sands are too far below the surface for the current open-pit mining technique. Producing a single barrel of oil from tar sands emits no less than six times more carbon dioxide than producing a barrel of conventional oil.

The list is endless. Tar sands can never replace the oil imports, remember the US alone uses 21 million barrels of oil every day.

Read something on the subject:
www.energybulletin.net...
www.pastpeak.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.energy.gov.ab.ca...
www.feasta.org.../panel1.html




while it may take natural gas to start the upgrade to syn-crude, once the process is under way it produces its own fuel gas and plenty of it.

the upgrade process uses a coker to break down the heavy tar and a byproduct is fuel gas for the plant. once you run it through treatment to remove the h2s



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I was hoping we'd never tap into our Canadian oil. We should have been setting the precedent and saying "Yes, we have oil, but you cant have it..." and then do something as radical as change our own transportation system into a purely hydrogen, or electric system.

And I know alot of you will fire back and say, but hydrogen and electric cars arent ready yet, or arent efficient enough. Anyone trying to argue that point is either Ignorant, or running on data from the 1950's.

Hydrogen is FAR more efficient than gasoline now. Problem remains the oil industry.

Ooh... interesting side fact. Did you know the electric car was invented BEFORE the gasoline car? Yup. But at the time, gasoline was a waste product, and in abundance. Mr. Ford was quoted as saying, "There will never be enough cars to make pollution a problem". Man, if he could see us today.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
Hydrogen is FAR more efficient than gasoline now. Problem remains the oil industry.


After I listen to this guy: www.globalpublicmedia.com...

I no longer believe that we will be save by Hydrogen car.

As far as having fossil fuel for 150 years, I don't believe that either (sure there will be fuel still left in the ground in 150 years) but it will soon be to costly (or too polluting to extract).

My estimation is 25 to 40 years max before the end (maybe less than 15 years to truly feel the pain).



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Consuming 80 Million Barrels a day is NOT SUSTAINABLE,


It's just a number and why do you think it's not sustainable? Do you know that the world's oil reserves have been growing steadily ( 5 barrels found for every 3 used) despite comparatively little infestment effort?


even under Abiotic Oil Hypothesis(and I hesitate to even call it that, more like Wishfull Thinking) we would start running out eventually as we squander it left right and center.


We are certainly wasting it ( Non of what we burn actually contributes a single watt to our power lines) but that does not mean it will simply run out. Abiotic theory is just that and from your comments so far i suggest you say no more!


The Earth is Finite. Human Arrogance unfortunately is not.


The average guy is a pretty humble creature and it took a long and concerted effort to get the greed based cultures we see today going.


Demand is growing rapidly(due to China, India, Eastern Europe and Brazil), have you taken that into consideration?


China's demand is not growing rapidly at all ( and certainly not when taking their massive economic growth into consideration) and most countries are doing their best to limit their dependence on oil.


Also LINKS will help as well.... hearsay is just that hearsay.


I have plenty of them and his statements are easily defensible.


It's a moot point anyhow as Combusting ANYTHING produces toxic byproducts and we should do our best to get off of the Black Crack as soon as possible.


No argument from me on that score!

Stellar



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
It is true that there is still oil in the ground for more than 150 years.


Well it could actually be much longer than that. Lots of claims are made but conservative claims has always fallen by the wayside and not by small margins. The petroleum engineers either have no idea what their doing or they are trying to create fears where non should exsist.


BUT the rate of production is limited, and will peak within the next two decades. (several experts conclude it already has).


The rate of production has nothing to do with availability and everything to do with manipulation and making maximum profit for the smallest investment possible. The experts you wish to quote are a rather small crowd and chances are i can debunk their claims from my HD archive. Feel free to list their names and their claims so i can get started on any new arrivals to this scam.


There is a major difference between oil in the ground and oil production.


It's not major but actually rather massive. They are drilling ( in the US) 2 dry holes for every 1 that gives ANY oil ( the profitable one's are not numerous) and that is with the best technology and understand that they can apparently bring to bear. Even with such huge wastage global oil reserves are growing rapidly despite this drill success rate being close to the best.


If there really is so much oil left in Texas, as SpartanKingLeonidas stated, than why did the US lose control over the global oil prices in the 70's and why does the US have to import 2/3 of the oil it consumes from abroad?


It's cheaper to import it ( 1 dollar to get a barrel above ground in SA and 6 in Russia for instance) and without the dependence on foreign oil explaining away the massive expenditure on middle east "security" ( 50 billion USD per anum) would be far harder to do. It's all one big shell game ( no pun intended) and the benificiaries are not just playing to line their own pockets.


US oil production peaked in the early 70's, it is impossible to produce more of it.


It is very possible and not all that expensive. It is however easier to build aircraft carriers ( a oil rig can not launch planes and intimidate other oil rigs) with wich to secure a cheap oil supply from elsewhere. Developing infrastructure cost a great deal and it's simpler to use your money buying the office and then exploit the infrastructures of other nations.


The oil sands in Canada can never produce enough to meet demand. It is also A LOT more expensive to produce oil from the sand.


It can even with private funds if such private interest were not blocked from trying to invest in such projects. I will not even go into what could happen if the American government decided to make itself independent of foreign oil by exploiting it's own. It would probably be no more costly than farming subsidies and imagine all the money that could be saved on security spending wich tends to mostly go into securing resources anyways.


www.energy.gov.ab.ca...

The way to produce oil out of the sand is to wash the material with superheated water. It is estimated that 20% of Canada's natural gas production is needed to support the oil production for tar sands.


These estimations tends to be wrong as energy and resources are invested to make the exploitation cheaper. Even if it is really that bad it's a small price to pay for national energy independence imo.


After the sand has been washed the water is poured back into a river, causing major ground water pollution.


That depends on how much money you are willing to invest in cleaning it up. You can turn it back into drinking water if you wanted. These costs are never as large as claimed and the speculation as aimed only to discourage these ideas.


As you can imagine, the sand doesn't gushes out of the ground like normal oil does. It also can't be pumped out of the ground. It has to be dug up, in an open pit mine.


And why exactly is this such a big problem? There is no need for exploration wich is by far the most expensive cost related to oil production.


So it is far moe expensive, and a lot slower to get the stuff out of the ground.


What is more expensive? How many cents or dollars more per gallon in your knowledge? Would they make 500% profit instead of 600%?


Only 10-12% of all material that has been dug up can be used to produce oil out of (the bitumen). Those bitumen are usually 400 metres below the surface. Around 80% of the Alberta tar sands are too far below the surface for the current open-pit mining technique.


The Russians are putting up offshore drilling rigs in Columbia that rise 500 meters above the sea and go down many miles. I reckon extracting tar sands are relatively simply.


Producing a single barrel of oil from tar sands emits no less than six times more carbon dioxide than producing a barrel of conventional oil.


The sun is responsbile for global warming and whatever we are currently contributing will not have a comparative effect on the global ecosystems.


The list is endless. Tar sands can never replace the oil imports, remember the US alone uses 21 million barrels of oil every day.


I like reading so i enjoy lists.
Tar sands should not have to replace oil imports ( I would rather have our governments fund extracting energy from the active vacuum) but since this seems to be government policy we can just aswell try limit the damage the do to our pockets and general health.

Nice list btw....

Stellar



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
Ooh... interesting side fact. Did you know the electric car was invented BEFORE the gasoline car? Yup. But at the time, gasoline was a waste product, and in abundance. Mr. Ford was quoted as saying, "There will never be enough cars to make pollution a problem". Man, if he could see us today.


I have some information indicating that Tesla drove a electric car a couple hundred miles at 90 miles a hour without recharge or any such crap. It apparently happened back in 1897 but i am still trying to find a source i wont have to spent energy defending. Feel free to look for yourself.


Stellar



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX


I have some information indicating that Tesla drove a electric car a couple hundred miles at 90 miles a hour without recharge or any such crap. It apparently happened back in 1897 but i am still trying to find a source i wont have to spent energy defending. Feel free to look for yourself.


Stellar



The story was fiction, and Tesla did not write it.

You were duped.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

The rate of production has nothing to do with availability and everything to do with manipulation and making maximum profit for the smallest investment possible. The experts you wish to quote are a rather small crowd and chances are i can debunk their claims from my HD archive. Feel free to list their names and their claims so i can get started on any new arrivals to this scam.

Of course the rate of production has something to do with the availablility of oil products! US domestic production peaked in 1970, they didn't start to import oil because that was cheaper. the US lost control of the global oil prices, after the US oil production peaked they lost control of that to the OPEC countries.



They are drilling ( in the US) 2 dry holes for every 1 that gives ANY oil ( the profitable one's are not numerous) and that is with the best technology and understand that they can apparently bring to bear. Even with such huge wastage global oil reserves are growing rapidly despite this drill success rate being close to the best.

How are global oil reserves growing rapidly?? You're not talking about abiotic oil, are you?! That's the biggest nonsense I've heard in my life. There is no way to get around the FACT that the discovery of new oil fields peaked in the 60's of the last century.



It's cheaper to import it ( 1 dollar to get a barrel above ground in SA and 6 in Russia for instance) and without the dependence on foreign oil explaining away the massive expenditure on middle east "security" ( 50 billion USD per anum) would be far harder to do. It's all one big shell game ( no pun intended) and the benificiaries are not just playing to line their own pockets.

Isn't that what Peak Oil is all about; the end of CHEAP oil. Russian oil production will peak after 2010 (source). Saudi Arabia's ammount of oil is highly overestimated, what is they too peak about 2010? Where will the US than get it's 21 million barrels of oil per day from, for an affordable price?



It is very possible and not all that expensive. It is however easier to build aircraft carriers ( a oil rig can not launch planes and intimidate other oil rigs) with wich to secure a cheap oil supply from elsewhere. Developing infrastructure cost a great deal and it's simpler to use your money buying the office and then exploit the infrastructures of other nations.

There are many oil well that have been closed in the 1960's, those could be reopened. But why were the closed back than? Because producing oil out of those wells becamse too expensive. So the US could produce more oil, but at a much higher price per barrel. Older oil wells produce oil of less quality, which many refineries can't even refine.


It can even with private funds if such private interest were not blocked from trying to invest in such projects. I will not even go into what could happen if the American government decided to make itself independent of foreign oil by exploiting it's own. It would probably be no more costly than farming subsidies and imagine all the money that could be saved on security spending wich tends to mostly go into securing resources anyways.

Many experts agree that the estimated 10 million barrels of oil, produced out of the tar sands by 2020, is highly overestimated. (source).


That depends on how much money you are willing to invest in cleaning it up. You can turn it back into drinking water if you wanted. These costs are never as large as claimed and the speculation as aimed only to discourage these ideas.

Again, that would make a barrel of tar sand oil more expensive, wouldn't it?


And why exactly is this such a big problem? There is no need for exploration wich is by far the most expensive cost related to oil production.

An open pit mine can never extract the same ammount of oil containing material, as an oil well. It also requires a lot more heavy equipment, to move the stuff around. You can't transport it via a pipeline.



What is more expensive? How many cents or dollars more per gallon in your knowledge? Would they make 500% profit instead of 600%?

Just think about the difference between an oil well + pipeline and an open-pit mine with dump trucks moving material to a washing/ extracting factory. You'll need huge ammounts of natural gas to heat up the water or washing the soil. There are even plans to build a dedicated nuclear reactor for the tar sand oil industry. How can this not be far more expensive?



The Russians are putting up offshore drilling rigs in Columbia that rise 500 meters above the sea and go down many miles. I reckon extracting tar sands are relatively simply.

But they can still pump up the oil. The material that needs to be mined only contrains 10-12% of usable material, not very efficient, don't you agree?


The sun is responsbile for global warming and whatever we are currently contributing will not have a comparative effect on the global ecosystems.

Hey I agree with you on that one
But there are many scientist who believe humans are the cause of global warming. I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.



I like reading so i enjoy lists.
Tar sands should not have to replace oil imports ( I would rather have our governments fund extracting energy from the active vacuum) but since this seems to be government policy we can just aswell try limit the damage the do to our pockets and general health.

Nice list btw....

Stellar

Tar sands cannot replace oil imports completely. What active vacuum are you talking about?

Regards,

ZM



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Thankfully the answer is very simple, those without want to save the world and save the forrest and save the bloody whales.

While those with everything want to burn, hack, kill or digging it all up to make more.

Its funny what matters in life when thats all you have.

No guessing how many of the haves are posting their concerns here.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
The story was fiction, and Tesla did not write it.

You were duped.


Well as i said i was not sure if it really happened and thus did not state it as fact. Next time please do keep your opinion to yourself when my statements are so clear.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Next time please do keep your opinion to yourself when my statements are so clear.


This is a discussion board!

People are allowed to post their opinions whether you agree with them or not.

There is room on these boards for discussion of the abiotic oil theory. I and other mods have not shut down the discussion on this topic, but when you make wild assertions like "we find 5 barrels for every 3 consumed" you WILL give links to credible sources or find yourself on the wrong end of a T&C violation for posting false or misleading information.

Your "everybody is stupid except me" attitude is wearing very thin around here.

.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
Of course the rate of production has something to do with the availablility of oil products!


Well people tend to claim that till i start giving figures at wich point they tend to stop responding. Your free to try introduce new figures if you are that confident that there is a shortage of oil on world markets.

How much oil and natural gas i left?



US domestic production peaked in 1970, they didn't start to import oil because that was cheaper. the US lost control of the global oil prices, after the US oil production peaked they lost control of that to the OPEC countries.


The Us has never lost control of the oil prices as it is still traded in dollars. The US needed to let oil prices rise as that was the only way to create a global demand for dollars wich would enable the Us government to deficit spending it needed to do after basically declaring itself bankrupt by going off the gold standard. There are still plenty of oil left in the US but it is comparatively easy to get and would not allow for high oil prices wich was needed to stimulate growth.


How are global oil reserves growing rapidly?? You're not talking about abiotic oil, are you?!


No i am sinply quoting the WSJ and other reputable sources who tells us that global oil reserves are growing hand over foot. The origin is actually quire irrelevent considering the massive manipulation that is creating the current high prices and shortages.


That's the biggest nonsense I've heard in my life. There is no way to get around the FACT that the discovery of new oil fields peaked in the 60's of the last century.


Actually all facts show exactly that and if you are unaware of them you can continue to post for as long as your pride can survive the beating.

BP: World oil and gas reserves still growing at healthy pace


Isn't that what Peak Oil is all about; the end of CHEAP oil. Russian oil production will peak after 2010


Russian production is still going up despite all claims that it must peak any moment now since the middle 90's. The are actually the leading producers of oil. Well if you consider 6 dollars expensive then i do not know what you must think of the 60 dollar price tag countries have to pay on the two main markets...

english.pravda.ru...]Russian production 2002


Saudi Arabia's ammount of oil is highly overestimated, what is they too peak about 2010? Where will the US than get it's 21 million barrels of oil per day from, for an affordable price?


Saudi Oil Is Secure and Plentiful, Say Officials

Here isGreenspan saying that "we are not running out of oil" six months after being present at the above mentioned conference. He also suggested high oil prices is nothing but an additional tax on US citizens.

Well they can it get from Alaska if they really want to go that far or they can just get it from all the capped oil wells all over Texas, Oregan that according to some sources contains enough oil to provide in American needs for another 150 years.

english.pravda.ru... And Pravda after all means "The truth".



There are many oil well that have been closed in the 1960's, those could be reopened. But why were the closed back than?


Because the oil prices were falling too far and you could not make a large enough profit( 1000% aint plenty in some eyes) on whatever you were selling. So when this happens oil producers will try conspire to drive up prices all of them thus profiting and saving on infrastructure expenditure.


Because producing oil out of those wells becamse too expensive. So the US could produce more oil, but at a much higher price per barrel. Older oil wells produce oil of less quality, which many refineries can't even refine.


As i suggested above there was far too much oil available and it was cheaper to hike prices and try invest the money gained in cheaper to exploit oil fields in the middle east. This way you make massive short term profits and use them to invest in even larger future profits.


Many experts agree that the estimated 10 million barrels of oil, produced out of the tar sands by 2020, is highly overestimated. (source).


Tar sands are but one way to get oil and certainly not the cheapest. You have made far broader claims now and tar sands are not even worth talking about considering your other claims.


Again, that would make a barrel of tar sand oil more expensive, wouldn't it?


Yes it would make it more expensive. I reckon their profit on a barrel might fall by as much as 20% even they choose not to just make a deal with the government and pass on the added expense to the consumer.


An open pit mine can never extract the same ammount of oil containing material, as an oil well. It also requires a lot more heavy equipment, to move the stuff around. You can't transport it via a pipeline.


How do we know what it can extract and can not extract?All the equipment used for moving are duel used and will not have to be designed and made for one industry only. Fact is we know where the stuff is and that is a huge cost covered right there. No foreigners and/or oil tankers involved sounds like a good deal to me.


Just think about the difference between an oil well + pipeline and an open-pit mine with dump trucks moving material to a washing/ extracting factory. You'll need huge ammounts of natural gas to heat up the water or washing the soil.


But it will all be under national control with no foreign speculation and control. Even if it has to be subsidised it will be worth in in trade security terms.


There are even plans to build a dedicated nuclear reactor for the tar sand oil industry. How can this not be far more expensive?


The new modular types are not all that expensive and the power can be used in any way you want. Once again A nuclear reactor is infrastructure that does not go to waste if oil suddenly becomes less expensive on the world market.


But they can still pump up the oil. The material that needs to be mined only contrains 10-12% of usable material, not very efficient, don't you agree?


There is simply no comparison in the money outlay required in these projects. Digging is not exactly a complex science compared to erecting skyscrapers.


Hey I agree with you on that one
But there are many scientist who believe humans are the cause of global warming. I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.


Well the many scientist are obviously wrong if they think we can have the same effect as the sun. You do not have to agree with me as i am just quoting sources who states that the sun must be heating up for all the planets in our solar sysem to show the same signs of heating up.



Tar sands cannot replace oil imports completely. What active vacuum are you talking about?

Regards,


Well i think it could and would work out cheaper in the long haul as Canada can disengage from security operations in oil rich countries. Once tar sand exploitation is under government control it will become possible for them to regulate it and prevent speculating and massive profit taking in public interest. That is at least POSSIBLE under a government policy but not so in a open market with so many forces speculating on acting in their own interest.

Well i am currently reading about the known scientific principles that makes extraction of energy from the vacuum possible.

For more information if your interested
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Stellar

[edit on 26-12-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
People are allowed to post their opinions whether you agree with them or not.


Not when they make false claims and insult me based on it i hope.


There is room on these boards for discussion of the abiotic oil theory.


Why should'nt there be?


I and other mods have not shut down the discussion on this topic, but when you make wild assertions like "we find 5 barrels for every 3 consumed" you WILL give links to credible sources or find yourself on the wrong end of a T&C violation for posting false or misleading information.


Why do i have to do all the work when that fact is no secret? Why should i be held responsible for the ignorence of others? People should not go around calling others liars without first making sure the facts favour their statements.

BP: World oil and gas reserves still growing at healthy pace

How Much Oil and Natural Gas is Left?

Oil Experts to Seek a Deeper Meaning

"Doomsayers to the contrary, the world contains far more recoverable oil than was believed even 20 years ago. Between 1976 and 1996, estimated global oil reserves grew 72%, to 1.04 trillion barrels."

There are more and if you want the exact '5 barrels found for 3 used' quote i will have to dig abit deeper. These percentages do however reflect that fact in different form.


Your "everybody is stupid except me" attitude is wearing very thin around here.

.


I just stick to the facts as best i know them and if that makes others look stupid or ignorent i can not help them anymore than they could apparently help themselves. I resent the fact you you as a moderator have chosen to treat me in this fashion.

Stellar

[edit on 26-12-2005 by StellarX]

[edit on 26-12-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   
There is more proven oil in western Queensland than there was originally in
Texas and they have hardly touched it!
Regards
PeterMack



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by PeterMack
There is more proven oil in western Queensland than there was originally in
Texas and they have hardly touched it!
Regards
PeterMack

*sigh*
If that was true, why has the US been importing more and more oil from abroad, for the past three decades. Why wage war in Iraq to create stability in the region, when you have planty of oil at home?

The US passed it's peak in oil production in 1970, PERIOD.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
*sigh*
If that was true, why has the US been importing more and more oil from abroad, for the past three decades.


I laid out why i think that is happening in response to another post of yours in this thread. To sum it up you can not police the world with oil rigs and it's far better to invest resources in a massive military machine that can be used for more than one thing. Oil from the middle East is not only far cheaper but also provides an excuse for the American military presence in this extremly strategically important ( wich it would be even with no oil) region.


Why wage war in Iraq to create stability in the region, when you have planty of oil at home?


Cause the idea is to always keep the region slightly unstable so that high oil prices and the American presence can be explained.


The US passed it's peak in oil production in 1970, PERIOD.


As i explained previously there is really no basis in fact for this claim. Many things happened in the early 70's but it does not include the US oil fields suddenly drying up and exploration not finding fields to replace it.

Stellar




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join