Only 18% Of Oil Reserves Tapped, page
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 14-9-2006 @ 07:59 AM by vor78
Same story, different site.

www.cbsnews.com...

I don't doubt that he's correct. It all depends upon which measure of oil reserves he's using. Typically, the media reports proven reserves, which is the most conservative number available. Ultimately recoverable reserves, which vary depending upon the probability estimate used, are still much higher than proven reserves.

Its also worth noting that neither figure includes tar sands, oil shale or coal, all of which can be used to make synthetic oil and supplies of which are enormous.



reply posted on 15-9-2006 @ 04:11 AM by BitRaiser
Originally posted by steve99
Originally posted by BitRaiser
I seriously cannot take anything stated by Fox at face value.

do you have another source to support these claims?



If you can't take what Fox says at face value, what news agency do you trust....CNN, MSN,CBS which one. Or do you believe the phony web sites.

I generally don't believe anything.
Not until I've done some digging and heard from some of what I consider more reliable sources.

The BBC is generally fairly good.
Local (Canadian) news isn't too bad.
The Globe and Mail is a very good moderate paper we get up here. Web Site
You might be suprised at what Harpers has to say: Click Me

Fox, tho... I always feel like I'm watching a comercal for "The Offical Story". There's so little actual information in their reports and SO much opinion, it's impossible to make a good personal judgment based on their reporting.

Take that artical you posted. There's too many references to "at current production" without any accounting for future demand. They wax poetic about future oil discoveries, but they've been looking hard without turning up all that much.

The fact that they'd even mention Canada's Tar Sands is an alarm bell. Yes, it's oil. Sorta. The reason it hasn't been exploited is because it's crap to work with. Recovery from Tar Sands is messy, difficult, and energy costly. All this adds up to more expensive production costs. Any good business man will tell you that you don't go for an expensive, low-yeild investment if there is ANY other option.

Ofcource the oil producers would want to spin this in a "don't worry, be happy" light. They want you to keep buying oil. They pay lip service to alternative-energy, but unless they own a huge piece of the action, they aren't interested (as shown by Exxon's VERY poor (CNN) investment history). They don't want you to start thinking about how to give them less money.

I hope somewhere in this rant I've given you some extra information are another perspective.

Parting thought: Might I suggest you need to start looking for information instead of looking at Fox News.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^