those numbers are way off. they don't account for the oil sands in Canada and Venezuela, or the oil shale here in the states. it doesn't account for russia's Sakhalin Island fields one of which has 40 billion bbls.

you can tell from the numbers they give

the site list 2002 as it's last update, but those i have listed were known long before 2002, so the site is suspect

Thanks for the reply but why would the site delibretely leave this info out? Why make it seem like there is a greater shortage of oil than there is?
If your right maybe its just sensationalism. But could it be more sinister? Personally I wouldn't have thought they would be campaighning for exploration of Alaska (judging by their overall political tone that is).

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

maybe they own stock in companies who would profit from rising prices.
(note to mods.... line one)
maybe you own stock in a company who would profit from rising prices
(note to mods.... looky looky line two.)

They also don't take into account that higher prices will eventually slow demand.

I dont think the oil sands are going to save us.

The big picture is affordable oil.

unless gas in the U.S. goes to 4.25 a gallon nationaly we as a nation will not see fit to change from gas to something else.

Too bad we can't motivate the corn producers in the midwest, and wherever corn is grown to start converting their excess into ethanol. We have the technology and resources we just don't have the drive.

We could be energy dependant if we truly wanted to, unfortunately the average american only thinks with his checkbook.

[edit on 15-4-2006 by Low Orbit]

Originally posted by Low Orbit


Too bad we can't motivate the corn producers in the midwest, and wherever corn is grown to start converting their excess into ethanol. We have the technology and resources we just don't have the drive.


[edit on 15-4-2006 by Low Orbit]

we don't need corn. lets work on converting current waste to ethanol. every pulp mill in the us can produve ethanol. up untill 2001 only one did and it was a very small pulp mill. it produced 20k gallons a day of 190 proof and 20k gaoolns a day of 200 proof. now its gone and there are none using waste to ethanol

now thats just a small amount but it was also from a 700 ton a day pulp mill. do a little research on the total number of tons of pulp produced each day and roughly do the 40k gallons by 700 tons conversion and see how much ethanol could be produced

you will be supprised

Originally posted by Liberal1984

Thanks for the reply but why would the site delibretely leave this info out? Why make it seem like there is a greater shortage of oil than there is?

Crisis is the fuel of government and without their agents going around to causing new 'problems' they will simply run out of problems that need solutions with their failure to address the old artificial one's becoming even more apparent. Without crisis or general problems and shortages we simply do not need government or centralization of power as those are only required when there are 'enemies at the gates' who will 'beat us there'.

If your right maybe its just sensationalism. But could it be more sinister? Personally I wouldn't have thought they would be campaighning for exploration of Alaska (judging by their overall political tone that is).

Those who seek to control us need a crisis 'a week' like human beings need oxygen to survive and if they can not find a crisis scary enough ( the better off the people the worse the crisis you must invent for them to need you) they will create them by whatever means they can.

Stellar

Originally posted by Low Orbit
unless gas in the U.S. goes to 4.25 a gallon nationaly we as a nation will not see fit to change from gas to something else.

If the US government chose to pursue such a strategy it would not be hard to sell so the fact that it is not suggests that it likes things as they are.

Too bad we can't motivate the corn producers in the midwest, and wherever corn is grown to start converting their excess into ethanol. We have the technology and resources we just don't have the drive.

The government subsidies everything anyways and if they wanted to force farmers to take such actions it would be a very simply thing to do. They do not so it will not happen.

We could be energy dependant if we truly wanted to, unfortunately the average american only thinks with his checkbook.

I assume you meant to say energy independent as that would be quite easy to arrange had the rulers of America ever cared to make their people independent. When America was independent it was simply far harder for any American government to get American citizens/interests involved in foreign adventures ( remember the founding fathers saying that for true independence no lasting alliances -dependence- should ever be acceptable?) and since power wants power they managed to find a way to make America dependent on the world at large thus making their foreign engagements acceptable. The aim of dependence is to involve everyone in everyone else's business so that one can interfere as much as they like based on the then logical premise that your life depends on it and it is as all great scams rather simply.

Stellar