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.

 

Are you prepared for the Oil crash and the end of our current way of life?

page: 8
47
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by MegaMind
 

.... Although a solution to the matter isn't going to be easy or for that matter civil.


I agree. This is the NWO excuse for wanting to cull the "useless eaters". I say we should recognize the problem and at the same time let the current management know they have done a pathetic job so far and we won't accept their solutions anymore. They may very well be repressing technologies in order to exacerbate the problem to force THEIR solution, that only benefits them, onto the rest of us.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opponents of the NWO will make a serious mistake if they don't realize that populations cannot continue to grow forever. Just because the TPTB use this argument as justification for their nefarious designs doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. They have simply seized upon a real problem in order to make a case for their own plans. Ignoring the problem or throwing it out with the NWO won't make it go away.
edit on 19-11-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


The fed dumped a few billion dollars into the economy making the existing dollars worth less. The next day gas prices went up...



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by MegaMind
 


I agree MegaMind, that is pretty friggin grim. People are better than this, smarter than this! We just need to wake the heck up!



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Bagel
 


You might be interested in this link Oil Consumption by Country

using your analogy for how much oil 12,000,000 bbl/day really is lets do consider China and India

China and India combined in 2001 were 6,700,000 bbl/day

China and India combined in 2007 were 10,300,000 bbl/day

that is only 6 years and an increase of 53%!!!!

How long do you think it will be before China and India surpass 12,000,000 bbl/day? That data is 3 years old already, I bet they already have or will exceed that in the next year. If these two combined continued to grow at the rate they did between 2001 and 2007 then this would follow:

2001 - 6,700,000 bbl/day
2007 - 10,300,000 bbl/day - change of 3,600,000 from 6 years before
2013 - 15,759,000 bbl/day - change of 5,459,000 from 6 years before
2019 - 24,111,270 bbl/day - change of 8,352,270 from 6 years before
2025 - 36,890,243 bbl/day - change of 12,778,973 from 6 years before

China and India would be using 30,000,000 bbl/day more than they did in 2001 in the year 2025.

So now how many more Iraq oil fields of 12,000,000 bbl/day would have to be discovered by 2025 to feed these two giants? The answer is 2 more. That is just 15 years from now. They better get busy. But just think 6 years after 2025 if the rate of consumption continues to grow as it did between 2001 and 2007 we will need a new Iraq oil field every 6 years. This doesn't even touch the idea of the Iraq oil field hitting a peak and declining at some point. See the problem?

That data shows countries like the US do not grow nearly as fast as China and India, that we have leveled out somewhat by comparison, but what will world oil consumption be when China and India catch up? The US in 2007 was nearly 21,000,000 bbl/day.

What we have here is climbing consumption against declining production. Yikes!

edit: my math was wrong. fixed it.
edit on 19-11-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-11-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Well Brazil has it's own oil reserves and loads of hydroelectric power. And they are doing great by cutting rain forests and degrading soil. So don't set Brazil as an example. Yeah they maybe produces some little percent of their energy with ethanol. No. They produce ethanol with oil powered machines on land that used to be rain forests. And know rain is destroying that soil and turning once lush, fertile forests into dessert. Don't try and teach me geography.

They don't import oil. Well of course they don't do that because they have more oil than they consume. It has nothing to do with ethanol.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Project-Sign
reply to post by starless and bible black
 





It is apparent that you buy the dinosaur spiel handed out in schools and by the media and of course the oil companies?



Typically ignorant nonsense.


Fossil fuels are mostly made up of prehistoric fossilised plants, fossilised sea plankton and some fossilised animal remains too.

Please, learn something about the topic before you add to the discussion.
edit on 19-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)


I believe oil to be abiotic, which means not derived from life forms, which decayed. I did my time in this topic years ago, hence the fear mongering won't work. Have fun though! You're only a kid once.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
The last i heard they said that we would never run out of oil, because they found out you can make oil out of just about anything.
They were even making oil out of crap, and I'm sure we will have enough of that, to last forever.
edit on 19-11-2010 by googolplex because: ,



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
We have been talking about this issue in the Western World for 40 years now, yet we seem to have done very little to protect ourselves from the inevitable decline of oil.

More than a few times, I have wondered if this is the real conspiracy. A Western conspiracy to extend our dominance through the use of our technological superiority. Not with bombs and bullets, not with bribes, not with trade deals but with a deficit of energy and all the other uses for petroleum.

IF, for the sake of argument, we were to have solved this issue decades ago, finding a process by which we can artificially produce oil or an equivalent, would we perhaps chose to hide that reality and continue to suck the oil fields dry? What would be the result of the world running out of this precious commodity and only a select group of nations having an answer to the problems, already in hand?



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I'd suggest the 'evidence' of abiotic oil is simply down to oil migration. Also, given the volatile nature of plate techtonics on Earth, how can anyone be sure that an area that's 30,000 feet deep now was 30,000 feet deep millions of years ago when the oil was formed? The Earth's crust is always moving and changing.

Whether Oil is abiotic or not is really irrelevant. Reserves we have now are in decline regardless, and a few replenishing Oil fields in Texas are not going to solve the problem. There are thousands of Oil fields dry, drying, and staying dry. Let's just say Oil is abiotic. Over a geological timescale, it does our generation and many of the following generations no good, there still won't be Oil.

Of course, all of this depends on whether you believe the Oil companies and governments are lying about what they have to bump up oil prices or not.
Funny that both are spending billions upon billions researching and carrying out difficult undersea drilling in hard to reach places. Not much point in sending up those Oil prices if you're going to throw all that money away with apparently needless drilling, wouldn't you say?

There really are a lot of irrational thinkers here, but carry on.

edit on 19-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
"The Modern World, as we know it, is going to end in the next few decades"
Thats 20 years ...20 years...who really cares..people live for the "now"..and don't give a damn about the future...because people will still drive there gas guzzling cars...and continue to consume oil and its by products, because they don't give a damn about the future...because they believe in 20 years technology will sort things out for them... having said that..maybe it will..we have the technology so we may as well screw oil an pollute as much as we like ...for now....technology will save us!!



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Funny to see this I just saw a preview last night for are local news that is showing a entire town that is changing to no longer have to use oil at all.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by minigunner
Explain how the U.S. has peaked in oil production when we haven't even tapped into the largest majority of our resources. This is due in part to Obama, Bush and Clinton Restricting Oil Refining in the U.S. coburn.senate.gov... d099b51c966&Group_id=00380921-999d-40f6-a8e3-470468762340


The peak is US production is viewed as a numeric peak And here is how those numbers played out..........

In 1970, we were pumping 12 million barrels per day -- the highest amount (or the "mountain peak" amount) in our nation's history.
In 1971 we were pumping 11 million barrels per day -- we fell down a notch, and we just couldn't seem to get back up to the prior year's record.
In 1972 we were pumping 10 million barrels per day -- again, we were slipping, we couldn't get it up again.
In 1973 we were struggling to keep things steady at 9 to 10 million barrels per day, we were having to import oil for the first time in our history, and THAT was when the Oil Embargo hit us. The first true energy crisis struck and it sent our nation into a tail spin.

Those are the numbers. The highest point on the mountain top (the "peak") was 12 million barrels per day. We have never achieved it since. Ever.

Today we are at about 6 million barrels per day. And that's all we can manage to eek out of the ground of US soil of the present day.



Your question about the remaining untapped reserves is valid. So let me give this answer: the whole problem posed by Peak Oil is NOT about what is still in the ground. Instead the real conundrum is over how difficult it now is to get it out of the ground. We can (with a lot of effort) lift 12 million barrels out of the ground in a 2-day period. But we can no longer do it in a 1-day period. We can (with much intensive effort and lots of whiz-bang-neato-keen technology) lift 60 million barrels out of the ground in a 10 day period. But we can no longer do it in a mere 5-day period. You see, this is a problem centering upon the ease of extraction (or the lack of ease). It isn't easy anymore because the easy oil is pretty much all gone now. Only the super tricky stuff is left. And that will spell the demise of our easy way of life.




edit on 19-11-2010 by Plot Device because: typos, sorry

edit on 19-11-2010 by Plot Device because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Fiberx
 
They can make oil out of just about anything, the cost right now is $10. per barrel, the material suppy is the endless amount of garbage going in to the land fills.

The process is so simple is joke, all you need is heat and water, and the garbage, plastic, any organic material, what you end up with is gas that burns like natural gas, and light crude, cost $10.00 a barrel.

You could own one of these machine or your city could own big ones.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Project-Sign
 


I'm not necessarily saying we SHOULD use oil forever, however I don't agree in "peak" oil as a "limited" resource. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that it is a natural resource that is produced far below the earth's crust that renews itself over time. Kind of like a lubrication for the movement of the crust so to speak.

We should be using a more efficient energy source than oil though for sure, the funny thing is though the more EFFICIENT the energy is the CHEAPER it should be, but considering the pattern of the past and now present, I suspect it will be more expensive for more efficient fuel, and they will try to convince the masses its extremely rare and hard to produce.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by Fiberx
 
They can make oil out of just about anything, the cost right now is $10. per barrel, the material suppy is the endless amount of garbage going in to the land fills.

The process is so simple is joke, all you need is heat and water, and the garbage, plastic, any organic material, what you end up with is gas that burns like natural gas, and light crude, cost $10.00 a barrel.

You could own one of these machine or your city could own big ones.



How much oil/gas could be produced? I assume the 10.00 a barrel includes the heat energy to produce it. Where does the heat energy come from? Coal? Nuclear?

Also do you have a link about this? I would like to check in on it.
edit on 19-11-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one
reply to post by Project-Sign
 

I'm not necessarily saying we SHOULD use oil forever, however I don't agree in "peak" oil as a "limited" resource. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that it is a natural resource that is produced far below the earth's crust that renews itself over time. Kind of like a lubrication for the movement of the crust so to speak.


How fast is the renewal? If it renews as fast as we use it the it is a renewable resource that is sustainable. If it is slower than we use then the current use is not sustainable.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
40 years ago when i was a kid pumping gas, everyone was saying same thing,, been there done that,, boring,,,



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by Fiberx
 
They can make oil out of just about anything, the cost right now is $10. per barrel, the material suppy is the endless amount of garbage going in to the land fills.

The process is so simple is joke, all you need is heat and water, and the garbage, plastic, any organic material, what you end up with is gas that burns like natural gas, and light crude, cost $10.00 a barrel.

You could own one of these machine or your city could own big ones.



First of all, it is NOT a mere $10 per barrel to synthesize oil. It's more like $90.

Second, you are sadly correct that "all we need is heat and water," but heat and water are themselves a colossal problem. I will first address the problem of water. Then I will address the problem of heat.

Water is a crucial necessity to life itself. And right now only about 1% of all the water on Earth is drinkable and usable for life --called "potable water," and more generically called "fresh water." There are many oil synthesizing programs right now which are in need of FRESH water inputs to make the man-made oil, but those oil synthesizing programs are coming into severe conflict with the water rights of farmers and the drinking water of communities. Colorado in particular is having a difficult battle with water rights because of the current shale oil programs there which need massive inputs of fresh water to work.

As for heat ...

Heat is just another form of energy. So here you are saying "We can get plenty of oil energy by simply creating oil via energy." Which REALLY means you are saying "Energy is easy to make! All we need is some energy!" And by saying that, you are missing the point of one of the absolute scariest facts concerning our impending oil-crisis doom. Specifically, you are missing out on the unmerciful math behind ERoEI. The concept of ERoEI separates the men from the boys in understanding energy. And sadly, I'd wager that more than 50% of the folks in Washington have no concept of what ERoEI is, nor how dangerous it is to overlook it. ERoEI stands for "energy returned on energy invested." And that means that in order to harvest energy (oil or coal or nuclear or solar or wind or whatever), you always have to invest some energy up front. And then hopefully at the back end you will come out with more energy than what you started out with. If not, you sadly come out at an energy loss. Your scenario of converting garbage waste into oil is one that always results in a net energy loss. You always wind up with less energy on your hands than what you started out with at the beginning. The math is pretty solid. The scientific studies have been done. And those waste-to-syncrude undertakings always prove to be energy sinks, never energy bonuses.


edit on 19-11-2010 by Plot Device because: typos, again



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BobAthome
40 years ago when i was a kid pumping gas, everyone was saying same thing,, been there done that,, boring,,,


40 years ago the peak referred to was the US. We did that in the 70's and look what happened in the 70s. Things improved when imports caught up to our demand. Now we are reaching the same point globally. We haven't been there and done that yet, but you'll know it when we do - that I guarantee.
edit on 19-11-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Sly1one
 


I appreciate you sharing your opinion. Far more pleasant than many replies so far in this thread. Abiotic Oil has been mentioned quite a bit already. It's plausible, but I pointed out a few posts above yours why I think biotic Oil is still more likely. Either way, it's just opinion. More importantly, I pointed out why it doesn't matter which it is. If Oil does replenish itself, it's not going to be quick enough to avoid a massive shortage.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join