the real oil reserves, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 2-1-2006 @ 05:48 PM by StellarX
Originally posted by Zion Mainframe

I'm sorry, but that is utter nonsense. Everybody know the US (and every other industrialised country) is in that area because of the oil.


Well i did not disagree as suggest alternative and nation specific reasons for spending more on security than the value of the oil coming from there. The US is in the area currently because of oil but that is imo only to make sure that the region stays unstable and oil production does not rise much. There is no shortage of oil and this is the kind of measure nations will go to when they benefit by shortages of a certain resource. Please stay civil as that will be less embarrasing for you in the long run.

With the oil price currently at $60 a barrel, it isn't that cheap at all, is it.


Circular reasoning of the worse kind. So because you see high oil prices you assume oil scarcity? Why are you on this forum if you just believe without investigation? Did the world oil reserves suddenly halve in the last two years because the price doubled? There is STILL no shortage on the market ( there is enough oil to satisfy all demands) and the high prices is because of Nymex and IPE control over oil pricing.

The Saudi heavy sour oil is bad oil, many refineries can't even handle it.


Kind of my point and in open contradiction to what you said so far.

Please give me the name of an oil company or scientist who claims the US hasn't peaked... The fields didn't suddenly dry up, it was predicted in the early '60's by Hubbert (who as ridiculed for it).


Well Hubbert suffered ridicule because he suggested stuff that was plainly untrue at the time. He either knowingly or not gave the American government and oil industry a chance to move oil production to the middle east thus making their massive military presence there acceptablet. Middle east oil will always be cheaper for the oil industry to exploit and it makes perfect sense for them to go there and make a killing profit wise while creating instability to help raise the prices. You must be forgetting the massive oil glut that happened just before OPEC raised prices to the 30 dollar range. America never peaked and believing that is in fact playing right into their hands. Look at the ANWR? Why is tehre no drilling taking place in those massive oil rich fields? Why is the alaskan pipeline transporting only half it's capacity?


It is absolutely utter nonsense to suggest the US hasn't peaked, this shows you're not very well informed. I suggest you read a few book on the subject, and then come back.


Well it really is not nonsense and calling it take will not make defendind your point of view easier.You really do not need to be very well informed to understand the nature of this deception and why it's been done. I suggest you go back and read abit more about what happened to world oil prices in the early 70's. While your busy read abit about the Bretton woods agreement falling by the wayside and all that had to be done to create a new demand for US dollars.

As always i suggest you keep this civil as as insulting me wont help you or endear you to the mods.

Stellar


reply posted on 5-1-2006 @ 08:45 AM by InTuneToDoom
Abiotic oil... Honestly, some people are so stupid it's beyond belief!

Check out today's post at the-oil-drum.

Stellar, it seems to me that you are adding 2 and 2 to get 5. I appreciate that the whole peak-oil situation is shrouded by economical and political agendas but even these agendas -- however secret and brilliant or otherwise -- will not stop global oil peaking.

[edit on 1/5/2006 by InTuneToDoom]


reply posted on 5-1-2006 @ 01:38 PM by StellarX
Originally posted by InTuneToDoom
Abiotic oil... Honestly, some people are so stupid it's beyond belief!


Some people most certainly are.

Check out today's post at the-oil-drum.


Nice thread and good links and reading material. It is ironic that i could add so much of those links to those i allready have ready to support my views.

Stellar, it seems to me that you are adding 2 and 2 to get 5.


That's what you said last time but as i recall you dissapeared after you realised you just saw a five when my typing was rather clear.

I appreciate that the whole peak-oil situation is shrouded by economical and political agendas but even these agendas -- however secret and brilliant or otherwise -- will not stop global oil peaking.


Well that depends entirely on the true oil supply and everything we know now seems to indicate abundant supplies ( especially at 60 dollars a barrel) for at least another 50 years. There is no reason to panick about oil supply , other than trying to raise prices, but i would hope we get rid of oil based economic growth far sooner than that.

Do yourself a favour and look at just the last few threads in this forum and you will see how obvious and massive global oil supples still is despite lack of exploration and all the other measures to reign in global supply and refinement.

Stellar

[edit on 5-1-2006 by StellarX]


reply posted on 5-1-2006 @ 05:00 PM by StellarX
Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
I'm not insulting you, I'm just saying you're talking nonsense. I've done my research, I highly doubt you did yours.


Where i come from telling someone they are talking nonsense is considered a insult. You may have done some reading but if you had done research you would not believe in peak oil. They have been predicting a world peak since 1980 and were still swimming in oil.

You should read the book 'Blood and Oil' by Michael Klare. Its an excellent book about the history of the US oil industry and America's depencance on foreign oil.


And what does the fact that America is now dependent on foreign oil have to do with how much oil there is in America? Once again your connecting issues wich you should first prove is at all economically related.

The book is, according to the Economist, 'A thoughtful and well-researched history of oil and geopolitics.'


Well i am not in the habit of questioning sources but if you do not see why the economist will want to help propagate the American peak oil myth i can see why it's going to be hard for you to see what's really happening.

You keep saying I'm wrong about the fact that the US has peaked, which book do you recommend me to read, that supports that suggestion?


Well if you look back at my activity in this section of the forum you should get some idea of my sources and ideas. I can certainly not quote one book ( and i dont think that it's wise either way) but i can provide some online sources.


wyden.senate.gov...

What you should do is bring me the names of the peak oil proponents so that i can show you exactly where they are wrong.

Hubbert worked at the Shell Oil research laboratory in Houston where he analyzed the oil reserves of the major oil companies. Why on earth should we believe him him in the first place? How many peok oil proponents have never worked for the oil industry? How could he have accurately predicted something as totally unpredictable as oil exploration anyways? Even today they are drilling dry holes in abundance with the best technology with fields sometimes giving 20 times their originaly estimated reserves. There is no way any human being could have predict an American peak based on any science in exsistence at the time. The only reason he could give the 1965-1970 timeframe is because he was told that that was when American oil production would be moved east to massively cut cost. It's a perfectly nice duel strategy of making profit and changing public perception to benefit your bottem line.

Stellar
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^