Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Running out of oil faster than expected. War looms in the distance. zzzzz

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
This is another one of my "We're not focusing on the right issue" threads. The peak oil forum seems to have slowed to a crawl. Occasionally I'll see whispers in other threads. Faint glimpses that someone is getting it but for the most part, the members here hit the snooze button every time the alarm goes off. Just look at the number of replies to my most recent thread in this forum. They don't want to wake up and face the reality that the world is running out of oil. Not running out in the sense that we won't have oil tomorrow. We're running out as in winding down. The amount of oil the world can produce is tapering off while demand is increasing.

Today I would like to point out an article that I saw linked on the Drudge Report. The article is titled World oil supplies are set to run out faster than expected, warn scientists. This news article makes some astounding points. Points such as how BP denied for over 2 years that their British North Sea reserves had peaked and were declining. This same company today wants you to believe that we have 4 decades of oil left. They are lying now just as they did back then.

My favorite quote from this article comes from Dr David Campbell, a former chief geologist and vice-president for several major oil companies. He personally believes we have already passed the peak of easily obtainable oil.



Dr Campbell, is a former chief geologist and vice-president at a string of oil majors including BP, Shell, Fina, Exxon and ChevronTexaco. He explains that the peak of regular oil - the cheap and easy to extract stuff - has already come and gone in 2005


Why is he saying this now? Dr Campbell states "When I was the boss of an oil company I would never tell the truth. It's not part of the game." Do any of you honestly believe that we're not being lied to? What further proof do you need?

I know you people here are hard to please and sometimes overly skeptic, so let me give you more evidence. Let's look at the world's oil production rates in the last few years. If we're not running out of oil then petroleum companies should be increasing supply to keep up with demand or at the very least keeping supply on the same level. Oddly though, when we look at the production rates we see that production is actually tapering off.




source - Oil Watch Monthly, June 2007

The petroleum industry is either reducing production to increase prices, or we're seeing an actual problem with their ability to get oil out of the ground. Neither explanation is comforting. These charts back up Dr Campbell's claim that 2005 was the peak year. The alarm bells are ringing loud a clear but will any one hear them?

One group of individuals who obviously hears the alarm quite well is the much hated Bush administration. You don't honestly believe that we invaded Iraq to stabilize and secure a source of dates and palm trees? We're clearly not concerned with mass genocide. Why do you think that Sudan gets ignored when millions there die from internal struggle. Of course the real reason we invaded the Middle East is because 2/3 of the world's remaining oil supply is located there. Jump over to your favorite news site and see how many of today's stories are centered around Iran and the Persian Gulf.

When the U.S. attacks Iran, and they will attack Iran, you'll hear all about how Iran was invaded to stop their nuclear ambitions. Oddly enough N. Korea got away with creating nuclear bombs and thumbed their noses at the world. Did we see 3 aircraft carriers flock to the region to keep things stable? No, the U.S. doesn't really care about N. Korea having bombs anymore than they care about Iran having bombs. I suspect that Iran has as many nuclear bombs as Iraq had chemical weapons. Fortunately for the Bush administration, you don't need proof to attack. Just a good story to scare everyone into action.

Before we start to bash the Republican party, let's think about how good their ratings will be once OPEC announces that they can't keep up with demand. Which country is going to get short-changed. I doubt it will be the one with 3 carrier groups and 300,000 troops on the ground in the middle east. They'll probably manage to persuade OPEC to sell them all the oil they can even if it means the Chinese will have to walk to work.

There you have it folks. I've just leaked the big secret to why everything seems to be going crazy all at once. Now go back to your little groups and argue if a plane or a missile hit the Pentagon. Keep arguing about the symptoms and ignore the causes. It makes it much easier for the oil companies to keep you in the dark.

zzzzz *snore* zzzzzz

[edit on 14-6-2007 by dbates]




posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
shiek vs slaugher
The iran situation's been brewing since the 70's with that oil crisis. They could just settle it like sheik and slaugher, but no. Sadly things are about to blow up...

[edit on 6/14/2007 by acegotflows]



posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
One more reason for the American people to start demanding for alternative fuel to stop the madness of our corporate ridden government of using our military to pursue wars in the name of oil.

We the people are the biggest consumers while the oil barons makes the profits.

We the people are the ones supplying the blood for the wars that the lack of energy resources are fueling around the middle east.

But like Dbates said it could be just a hoax to bust oil prices.


[edit on 14-6-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I bet you didn't know hemp can produce a much longer lasting and stronger(I'm talking 30w90), cleaner oil than crude black oil. Not to mention you can grow the plant in your own home and produce the oil your self. And thats not even the best part.... you could make rope, clothes, shoes, paper, and sever other useful products that the most people go to buy at the store, free of charge. But the government probably didn't want you to know.



posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
best thing about hemp is it replenishes the soil instead of draining it. The sme tract can be used over and over. But anything that challenges the complex gets demonized or killed off. Tesla, hemp, alternative energy sources, etc...



posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   
THREAD TOPIC:
» Peak Oil » Running out of oil faster than expected. War looms in the distance. zzzzz


While the viscous properties of hemp oil may be of interest, I think it's quite clear that the Original Post was Not intended for the discussion of such.


Please respond to the Many questions and views put forth in the opening post.


Thank you.



We now return you to:
» Peak Oil » Running out of oil faster than expected. War looms in the distance. zzzzz Post Reply


 

[edit: bbcode]


[edit on 14-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   
What are your thoughts on technology advances in refining bitumen. Previously in oil sands they could only extract less than half of the oil. With new developments we are hearing that in Alberta we will soon be able to extract 70 or even 80 percent of the oil there. Will these new more efficient refining and drilling techniques slow down the inevitable end?



posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Oil sands fall into the category of expensive oil. Sure we may be able to extract more than we once did, but even with newer technologies, it's still difficult to extract compared to light crude oil. As crude oil supply slips oil sands can make up some of the difference, but at a high cost. I'm sure we'll continue to use oil even at a higher price, but the economy is going to suffer a devastating blow.

Here's a recent video of Matt Simmons on CNBC talking about this very subject.





posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Actually, we've all known for some time that supply was limited. The fact of just how fast this is happening is all that is up for debate. The 'oil embargo' of the 70s was the wake up call.

I say that it would be better to bite the bullet now, develop new technologies, and move on. Much like a smoker quitting cigarettes, just quit. It would be hard, there would be withdrawal, and for a while life would be rough. Then we would adjust.

Nuclear power for electricity, bio-fuels, and public transportation could take up much of the slack. Lifestyle changes would be made, not because we wanted to, but because we had no choice.

As long as war is a choice, we will take that over giving up our SUVs and our AC. And as long as someone else trades blood for oil, we will cling to the old way as long as we can. Humans are by nature selfish.

I see the Middle East as a battleground, until there is no gain left there. When the constant war, and our own actions at home, speed us to this final few gallons of oil, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

It is not that people don't want to hear the message, that they snooze through the warnings. It is because they fear facing a future that will be radically different than their past. They don't post much on these issues because in their hearts they know that a portion of the blame for all of this is on their own shoulders.

Yes, our leaders are scum, but that scum is doing what we want, giving us oil at the price of blood. The next time you fill the truck and tie on the 30' boat, in your mind see that the gas is as red as the blood in your own veins. We share the guilt for this war, and that knowledge cannot be totally shifted to our leadership, no matter how hard we try.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
This is another one of my "We're not focusing on the right issue" threads.


This is my response to a 'there is no issue' threads.



The peak oil forum seems to have slowed to a crawl. Occasionally I'll see whispers in other threads.


I would like to imagine that this is due to the fact that the ATS community have managed to see trough this particular scam...


Faint glimpses that someone is getting it but for the most part, the members here hit the snooze button every time the alarm goes off.


Plenty of alarmist on this forums and when they are not getting alarmed that might in fact indicate that they are not always fooled.



Just look at the number of replies to my most recent thread in this forum. They don't want to wake up and face the reality that the world is running out of oil.


Well the world is not in fact running out of oil so in this particular instance i guess the ATS contributors and readers deserves some praise!


WASHINGTON, DC, June 21 -- BP PLC tried recently to quell renewed concerns by some industry observers that world oil reserves are running out sooner than expected.

"2003 was a turbulent year in the world's energy markets, with supply disruptions, strong growth in both demand and production of oil and coal, and the highest prices in the oil and gas markets for 20 years," said BP Chief Economist Peter Davies.

However, he said, "The high prices were not driven by fundamental resource shortages: In 2003, the world's reserves of oil and natural gas continued their long term trend of growing faster than production."

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



At 2003 consumption levels [2], the remaining reserves represent 44.6 years of oil and 66.2 years of natural gas. Does this mean that the world will be out of fossil fuels in 50 years or so? That theory has been around since the 1970s. In fact, the figures for years of remaining reserves have remained relative constant over the past few decades as the industry has replaced consumption with newly discovered oil and gas deposits and has developed technologies to increase the amount of oil and gas that can be recovered from existing reservoirs.

No one can know for certain how much oil and gas remains to be discovered. But geologists sometimes make educated guesses. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducts periodic assessments of U.S. mineral resources. In its most recent assessment (1995), the USGS estimated that the onshore U.S., including Alaska, has undiscovered, technically recoverable resources of 112.3 billion barrels of oil and 1,074 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In a separate assessment of offshore resources completed in 2000, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) estimated that 75 billion barrels of oil and 362 trillion cubic feet of natural gas underlie the areas off the coasts of the U.S. The USGS and MMS resource assessments make clear that, despite being a very mature producing area, substantial resources still exist in the U.S.

World oil resources to 2025 may be more than two times current reserves, based on an estimate from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) using USGS data. Reserve growth of 730 billion barrels accounts for new discoveries and the expansion of what can be recovered from known reservoirs due to advances in technology and improvements in economics. But EIA estimates that in 2025, countries around the globe will still have more than 900 billion barrels of oil remaining to be discovered. EIA estimates total world oil resources at more than 2.9 trillion barrels of oil.

www.spe.org...



But today crude is selling for $55 per barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The price rise has just started to hit consumers in the form of higher gas prices. On Friday, Greenspan added his voice to the chorus, noting oil prices adjusted for inflation were still not as high as they were in the early 1980s and that, no, the world is not "running out of oil."

The chairman concluded: "So far this year, the rise in the value of imported oil--essentially a tax on U.S. residents--has amounted to about three-quarters of one percent of gross domestic product. The effects were far larger in the crises of the 1970s. But, obviously, the risk of more serious negative consequences would intensify if oil prices were to move materially higher."


Greenspan



The new data estimate total world oil reserves at 1.15 t barrel, about 10 % higher than previously reported for 2002. Additionally, global oil reserves have increased almost continuously over the past 30 years, BP officials said. World reserves now represent 41 years of production at current rates.
By comparison, in 1980 reserves equivalent to only 29 years of production were known. The world has now produced some 80 % of the oil reserves that were known in 1980; yet exploration success and application of technology has led to current reserves that are 70 % higher, BP said. The company has published its statistical review of world energy for 53 years.

Looking at natural gas, BP reported global reserves of 176 tcm, 13 % higher than those previously reported for 2002. The company said that gas reserves have more than doubled since 1980 as a result of exploration, new technology, and the "unstranding" of gas reserves through LNG and other technologies.
BP Group CEO John Browne emphasized that oil and gas are not being depleted at an accelerated rate.
"The data [illustrate] the continued growth in reserve volumes across the world," Browne wrote in the review's introduction. "At current levels of consumption, there are sufficient reserves to meet oil demand for some 40 years and to meet natural gas demand for well over 60 years."

www.gasandoil.com...



Not running out in the sense that we won't have oil tomorrow. We're running out as in winding down. The amount of oil the world can produce is tapering off while demand is increasing.


Proven oil and gas reserves are in fact increasing world wide, they have been finding about five barrels found for every three used since the 80's, and history has proved that these proven reserves numbers are MASSIVELY conservative.


Today I would like to point out an article that I saw linked on the Drudge Report. The article is titled World oil supplies are set to run out faster than expected, warn scientists.


Colin Campbell has not made a accurate prediction so far and until he does manage to get it right , for reasons i will then explain, i don't think we should spend much time on him. Peak oil has been around for a number of decades and since they never did employ the type of science that could yield accurate predictions or got 'lucky' in any sense of the word i think we should wait until their theories pan out and do not require quite as much massaging of data.

If you look at the list at the end of that article you will quickly discover that the peak -freaks are all doom and gloom and rarely offer any solutions beside possibly using the last reserves to make enough caves for whichever parts of humanity survives; these people not only lie about the peak oil but are hell bent on convincing us that there are no real alternatives either.


This news article makes some astounding points.


But not many accurate one's....


Points such as how BP denied for over 2 years that their British North Sea reserves had peaked and were declining. This same company today wants you to believe that we have 4 decades of oil left. They are lying now just as they did back then.


Well did the North Sea reserves in fact peak or did it's exploitation just peak?


An independent oil company says that more than ten billion barrels of North Sea oil could remain untapped.
Paul Blakely, who works with Talisman Energy, says that large energy corporations are no longer interested in extracting and selling the reserves.

The UK Offshore Operators Association has said there are plans to extract less than half the oil thought to be left in the North Sea.
Currently, they prefer to drill for oil in more common locations and industry experts say that exploration in the North Sea is at an all time low.

Insiders also say under-used assets have not been sold on to smaller companies keen to exploit them in new ways.
If methods are not discovered soon to get at the remainder of supplies in the North Sea, the infrastructure that brings it to the surface will be too old to use.

www.energybulletin.net...


So while we keep catching the oil companies doing their best to pay off people like mister Campbell to fear monger they are doing their damnest to ensure that prices rise as oil PRODUCTION stay at around consumption levels.


"As one of the largest North Sea discoveries in the last decade, the Buzzard field will significantly boost overall UK oil production," said Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

"The field beginning production is good news for the industry and our economy. We know there are still between 15 and 20 billion barrels in the North Sea, and, with Buzzard, the UK should return to being a net exporter over the next couple of years."

Charlie Fischer, president and chief executive of the major shareholder, the Canadian energy giant Nexen, added: "The Buzzard development is a key component of our North Sea growth strategy."

thescotsman.scotsman.com...


Continued

[edit on 30-6-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   
And if there are still such finds to be made i am not buying into even north sea peak stories just yet. The most probable reason for the North sea slump is probably the fact that the world oil prices fell so sharply in the 90's and that North sea production is in fact far, FAR more expensive than ME oil and more in fact more so than most other places; if any region is to decline due to plentiful supplies elsewhere we can expect it to happen there first and the recovery to take some time.


My favorite quote from this article comes from Dr David Campbell, a former chief geologist and vice-president for several major oil companies. He personally believes we have already passed the peak of easily obtainable oil.


He also believes we should already be paying 150 -180 dollars per barrel of oil.




Dr Campbell, is a former chief geologist and vice-president at a string of oil majors including BP, Shell, Fina, Exxon and ChevronTexaco. He explains that the peak of regular oil - the cheap and easy to extract stuff - has already come and gone in 2005


By employing graphs that do not correspond to observed reality...


Why is he saying this now? Dr Campbell states "When I was the boss of an oil company I would never tell the truth. It's not part of the game." Do any of you honestly believe that we're not being lied to? What further proof do you need?


Oh the oil companies are doing their best to deceive us but since they have long since noted that few believe them anyways they are now telling the general truth about reserve numbers and instead have themselves 'exposed' by former employees thus still manipulating us into paying trough our teeth for the same old plentiful crude. Don't bother wondering if i 'trust' the oil companies as i sure as hell do not!


I know you people here are hard to please and sometimes overly skeptic, so let me give you more evidence. Let's look at the world's oil production rates in the last few years.


Why should we look at the worlds oil production rates? Would the decline of farming land mean that the Earth is shrinking? What does production volumes really have to do with oil in the ground in a world were 25 000 people are still starving to death each day despite the worlds food production exceeding a , generous, allocation of food for every person per day? What is being done is that a great many people are simply ASSUMING that oil will be extracted in the quantity that is being demanded and at affordable prices despite the fact that we know how gold and diamond prices have been manipulated for centuries.


If we're not running out of oil then petroleum companies should be increasing supply to keep up with demand or at the very least keeping supply on the same level.


Why should they when prices fall to eight dollars per barrel ( it reach that in the mid late 90's) when they flood the market with amounts of oil they can really produce? Should we assume the oil companies are stupid and not doing their best to make a killing; no pun intended?


Oddly though, when we look at the production rates we see that production is actually tapering off.


Well if some governments insists on bombing so many countries and disrupting oil production in so many others what are we to expect to happen to oil production? Why are some of the most disrupted countries also those with the greatest potential, that tends to fall outside the sphere of western influence, to increase their production those that gets invaded or threatened with such?


The peroleum industry is either reducing production to increase prices, or we're seeing an actual problem with their ability to get oil out of the ground.


Well we know reserves are fast rising and that oil were still being sold for less than ten dollars a barrel less a decade ago so how can it be argued that some of the 'last' oil will be sold so very cheaply in the name of deceiving the public?


The real price of gasoline (in inflation adjusted 2005 dollars) remains below the 1981 peak.

www.eia.doe.gov...


Now that's a fact as much as the blue sky is and once one takes that into account the peak oil deception falls flat on it's face.


Neither explanation is comforting. These charts back up Dr Campbell's claim that 2005 was the peak year. The alarm bells are ringing loud a clear but will any one hear them?


I don't hear them but i suppose i have the filters running.
The charts do back up his claims but if you give me some crayons a ruler and 'facts' of my choosing i can make some interesting graphs myself. Given the proper 'inspiration' i believe i can prove that the world has already run out of oil and that 'they' are simply lying to us, somehow.


One group of individuals who obviously hears the alarm quite well is the much hated Bush administration. You don't honestly believe that we invaded Iraq to stabilize and secure a source of dates and palm trees?


No i do not and given the reduction Iraqi oil production i am quite sure they went there ,as elsewhere, to interrupt the worlds oil supply thus creating a global need for more dollars while also preventing the Iraqi's from accepting Euros, crushing Saddam's efforts to spend at least some oil money on Iraqi's, aiding some European governments in creating energy shortages and generally sending the message that other social orders are simply not going to be allowed.


We're clearly not concerned with mass genocide. Why do you think that Sudan gets ignored when millions there die from internal struggle.


Because the casualties are largely incidental ( these types of people do not care about genocide either way as long as they get what they want) and it seems that Sudan is largely serving US and CIA interests in the region by spying on the Iraqi resistance and doing the CIA all kinds of other favours. .


Of course the real reason we invaded the Middle East is because 2/3 of the world's remaining oil supply is located there.


I would correct you by saying that two thirds of the worlds very very cheapest oil comes from the ME and that such cheap oil will once again drive down prices to the 15-25 dollar range. This the US government can not allow so they are doing their best to allow the insurgency to continue thus keeping a potential 2-3 million bpd of the world market. Coupled with with other intervention strategies in Afghanistan, Nigeria, Venezuela and elsewhere there is not only the every increasing refining shortage but a actual , slowly growing, physical oil 'shortages' in that the global demand grows far slower than it otherwise would.


Jump over to your favorite news site and see how many of today's stories are centered around Iran and the Persian Gulf.


As with all good propaganda you have to keep drowning out alternative views while reinforcing your own lies...


When the U.S. attacks Iran, and they will attack Iran, you'll hear all about how Iran was invaded to stop their nuclear ambitions.


The US can probably not invade Iran at this time without Iraq literally going up in flames so while a large scale air campaign and ballistic/cruise missiles exchanges might start late this year or the next i don't see a ground invasion any time soon....


Oddly enough N. Korea got away with creating nuclear bombs and thumbed their noses at the world. Did we see 3 aircraft carriers flock to the region to keep things stable? No, the U.S. doesn't really care about N. Korea having bombs anymore than they care about Iran having bombs.


North Korea does not have the type of oil reserves that could soon make a it a net exporter hence the lack of US interest in that particular state.


I suspect that Iran has as many nuclear bombs as Iraq had chemical weapons. Fortunately for the Bush administration, you don't need proof to attack. Just a good story to scare everyone into action.


Oh the Iraqi's had plenty of chemical and biological weapons , the US&allies supplied it or the infrastructure&technology to produce it, but it was all taken apart after the first gulf war as both the CIA, the IAEA and other agencies well understood by 2001 and certainly 2003.

Continued



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Before we start to bash the Republican party, let's think about how good their ratings will be once OPEC announces that they can't keep up with demand.


Well it's been ages since the GOP serves US interest ( to say nothing of it's citizens interests) so why does anyone believe that they are in fact trying to create a free flow of oil to the US? If the US spent just a fraction of it's 'defense' budget on development of continental oil reserves the US could be self sufficient for a few hundred years to come within a few years. This is not about oil in the ground shortages but about creating such shortages by almost any and all means possible.


Which country is going to get short-changed. I doubt it will be the one with 3 carrier groups and 300,000 troops on the ground in the middle east. They'll probably manage to persuade OPEC to sell them all the oil they can even if it means the Chinese will have to walk to work.


But the aim has never been to 'force' OPEC to do anything given the fact that OPEC has so little power to start with. It's been a long time since OPEC set oil prices and back then OPEC was very much run by western corporations.


There you have it folks. I've just leaked the big secret to why everything seems to be going crazy all at once.


Bah. Try not to injure yourself while you are reaching around to pat that back of yours.


Now go back to your little groups and argue if a plane or a missile hit the Pentagon.


People still argue about this?


Keep arguing about the symptoms and ignore the causes.


The 'symptoms' are there but the cause is not peak oil or very fast depletion but stems from the implementation of a global plan to restrict the worlds energy supplies so robbing the small sections of the world that have in fact gained some hard fought for freedoms.


It makes it much easier for the oil companies to keep you in the dark.


Thinking and investigation is no guarentee that one has arrived at the truth and if you wish to defend the peak oil scam feel free to continue as i have recently had some more time to uncover informating that destroys such theories.

Stellar

[edit on 30-6-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Just imagine, the hundereds of billions of dollars wasted in Iraq, could of gone to technolgoy and scientific discoveries for a renewable energy source.

just another reason why the year 2000 turned out to be the turning point for mankind... we we all looking at the y2k bug, pitty we were looking at the wrong aspect.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
Actually, we've all known for some time that supply was limited.


Some have for some time said that it was but they have been lying so far.


The fact of just how fast this is happening is all that is up for debate.


Nope, sorry.


The 'oil embargo' of the 70s was the wake up call.


There is a reason they called it a 'embargo' and not 'peak oil'.


I say that it would be better to bite the bullet now, develop new technologies, and move on.


And by the world i am 100% sure you mean poor Chinese,Africans and Indians right?


Much like a smoker quitting cigarettes, just quit.


As if a a few hundred thousand Americans might not freeze to death every year without central, gas, heating...


It would be hard, there would be withdrawal, and for a while life would be rough. Then we would adjust.


Lol. When you have spent a few years in a cave i might join you but only to observe the lunacy and most certainly not to deprive myself of what is ours and could be every one's with ZERO pollution.


Nuclear power for electricity, bio-fuels, and public transportation could take up much of the slack.


Sure but why are some of the most influential people and governments in the world doing their best to ensure that our energy is becoming harder to come by while going out of their way to convince us that there is simply too little energy to go around?


Lifestyle changes would be made, not because we wanted to, but because we had no choice.


You first and don't wait for me.


As long as war is a choice, we will take that over giving up our SUVs and our AC.


Nonsense. Americans want war no more than anyone else and they are mostly certainly not signing up because they think it's the only way to get oil! Don't let yourself be deceived by CNN who 'alludes' to the 'reality' that we must have the oil. Americans do not really want war and it took lies about weapons of mass destruction AND two very large towers and 3000 lives to get them moving in that direction. People do not want war and or destruction and the volumes of propaganda and indoctrination required to get at least some of them there speaks volumes as to that reality.


And as long as someone else trades blood for oil, we will cling to the old way as long as we can. Humans are by nature selfish.


People would love a new way but those who attempt to implement it are 'handled' in many ways if they can not just be assassinated or disappeared. If you have a problem with humanity i suggest you address it in private and stop telling us about your disdain for your fellow human beings.


I see the Middle East as a battleground, until there is no gain left there. When the constant war, and our own actions at home, speed us to this final few gallons of oil, we have no one to blame but ourselves.


There is plenty of blame to go around and all i ask is that you reserve as much blame for yourself as you like and leave the rest of us out of it. Why would most people imagine that their government as actively doing it's damnest to rob them of cheap energy? Do you even understand that reality and why should the average person be blamed for not comprehending such a twisted inhuman plan?


It is not that people don't want to hear the message, that they snooze through the warnings.


Leave 'the people' out of this and speak for yourself.


It is because they fear facing a future that will be radically different than their past.


Sure people are apprehensive about the future but will they go to war to get oil if they understood that America has in just a few states enough oil for the next few centuries?I can prove that they would not and the fact that you are so inclined to blame the American public for not being able to see trough something as devious as that is quite beyond me.


They don't post much on these issues because in their hearts they know that a portion of the blame for all of this is on their own shoulders.


Lol..... A honest to god conspiracy theory!


Yes, our leaders are scum, but that scum is doing what we want, giving us oil at the price of blood.


Only after fooling the people into believing that the oil rich people also have womd, that the world does not have much oil left, that Iraq were somehow involved in 9-11 and wants to kill Americans just for sport. How can you blame the majority of Americans for not seeing trough this deception before the invasion?


The next time you fill the truck and tie on the 30' boat, in your mind see that the gas is as red as the blood in your own veins.


You drama-queen you.


We share the guilt for this war, and that knowledge cannot be totally shifted to our leadership, no matter how hard we try.


I am doing very well at shifting the blame to those who are truly responsible while doing my best to inform masochist such as yourself that you are not solely responsible for all the evils in the world and that you should not include the rest of us in your rather twisted version of reality.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
More cracks in the dam. Not only has global oil production peaked. (Fact unless production increases), it seems that the light, sweet crude output has peaked for the world as well. The light crude is the oil that most easily refined and what the refineries prefer to run through their cat crackers since it's requires much less effort to get a final product.

What is my source for this knowledge? It's not some far-out peak oil forum, it's straight from OPEC. Look at page 4 of the report. While OPEC did make some increases in sweet crude from 2000 - 2004, the rest of the world lost much more sweet crude than OPEC could make up for.


In 2000, non-OPEC crude output was 66 mb/d and the split of
non-OPEC crude production by light (>35 API), medium (26 to 35 API), and heavy (



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
More cracks in the dam. Not only has global oil production peaked. (Fact unless production increases),


Global production has not peaked ( it's rising and one does not have to take into account many of the wide range of factors) and i don't understand why anyone claims this. Where is the evidence?


it seems that the light, sweet crude output has peaked for the world as well. The light crude is the oil that most easily refined and what the refineries prefer to run through their cat crackers since it's requires much less effort to get a final product.


Where is the evidence that light sweet has peaked?


What is my source for this knowledge? It's not some far-out peak oil forum, it's straight from OPEC. Look at page 4 of the report. While OPEC did make some increases in sweet crude from 2000 - 2004, the rest of the world lost much more sweet crude than OPEC could make up for.


That means that light sweet production is declining in some areas and i would like to understand the connection between that and the claims that there are no more light sweet crude.




In 2000, non-OPEC crude output was 66 mb/d and the split of
non-OPEC crude production by light (>35 API), medium (26 to 35 API), and heavy (



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 02:10 AM
link   
There's more than enough oil for the next many centuries, we just haven't found it yet! An example is that there has recently been found massive amounts of oil in Ecuador and it's believed that mayor areas of Russia contains loads of oil, so I'm not exactly conserned with the amount of oil left.
What bothers me is how we use the oil - that's the problem and that's where our focus should be!



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by kglarsen
There's more than enough oil for the next many centuries, we just haven't found it yet!

Yes, and there's lots of undiscovered gold in Colorado, but you can't claim your land there as a gold-mine and use it as collateral to buy a mansion just because you believe that there's gold underground in the area. It's all just speculation. You can't use oil you haven't found yet either.

One of the big misunderstandings about Peak Oil is that no one is denying that there's new oil out there we haven't tapped into yet. There are probably billions of barrels still waiting to be found. The problem is that it takes time and the investment of billions of dollars to get to this oil. Also the oil that is left is not as easy to get to as the large oil fields we currently use today. Put together a growing demand for oil, with a flattened or slightly decreasing production supply and you get disaster.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   
The lattest fad of the day has run dry. Despite what any article or entity may say about the current status of exactly how much oil "we" have left, the past three years of oil and subsequent gas price increase (by nearly triple in original amount prior to 2004) has keeled over due to the economic term "inflation". Not until the United States experiences the exact same market event can people come back to this fad.

For the time being, no one is going to give a damn over speculation such as they did for the past 3 years. Wars will arise over oil and the American population is going to be untilted in their reaction due to a lack of economic impact at the home pump. In little more than a simple summation: no one cares anymore.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Yes, and there's lots of undiscovered gold in Colorado, but you can't claim your land there as a gold-mine and use it as collateral to buy a mansion just because you believe that there's gold underground in the area. It's all just speculation. You can't use oil you haven't found yet either.


That's true but we have in fact found enough proven reserves to last us fifty years at current consumption rates. As history has showed us so clearly global proven reserves have always been massively underestimated and the US has basically used up twice it's 'proven' reserves of the 60's. If they say 'proven' it really means it's there and not only that it means it's extractable at 'economic' rates right this moment.


One of the big misunderstandings about Peak Oil is that no one is denying that there's new oil out there we haven't tapped into yet.


Some peak freaks are doing just that.


There are probably billions of barrels still waiting to be found.


Trillions.


The problem is that it takes time and the investment of billions of dollars to get to this oil.


Yet the oil companies profits are rising ever faster and posting massive profit margins. How does that 'prove' that the world is running out of oil? Did they stop investing in exploration and if so why did the hiring rates of exploration rates go up by 500%? Is it not more logical that whoever owns many of these rigs would rather not have anyone find very much more oil? In at least a dozen countries ( don't quote me but that's what i remember) a barrel of fresh water is still worth and harder to get than a barrel of oil so excuse me if i am not breaking out in oil scarcity induced sweat just yet.


Also the oil that is left is not as easy to get to as the large oil fields we currently use today.


Which MUST explain why oil prices dropped to eight dollars per barrel in 1997-98', right? Why is oil still cheaper at 60 dollars per barrel today than it was in 1981 a quarter century ago? Why are so many being taken in by this blatant scam?


Put together a growing demand for oil, with a flattened or slightly decreasing production supply and you get disaster.


There are plenty of more credible looming disasters ( a dozen or so 2012 scenarios for instance) in our near and to worry about oil running out is in my not so humble-on-this-issue opinion self deception at best and deception at worse.

Stellar





new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join