"DSK" wrote in message
...
Clue- oil is non-renewable. No matter how much exploration is done, we
will run out eventually.


Bert Robbins wrote:
When we, everyone on the entire planet, start to really run out of oil we
will be forced to find other means of producing energy and goods from
oil.

Hello? Hello?

I'm here now. I have to work during the day and can't sit around and post on
USENET like Dougie K and Bassie.

There are already other means of producing energy. In fact, our President
gave a speech earlier this year on the wisdom of expanding them.

What means are there for producing energy for automobiles and trucks that
don't require an extension cord? And, are those means as efficient and cost
effective as oil?

And nobody is being "forced" to do anything about oil or alternatives.
It's a matter of cost & profitability. Oil has been very cheap for a long
time... that is changing as oil supply declines and demand goes up.

The supply is not declining, OPEC can increase the supply at will but, the
demand is increasing. The known "reserves" are described as declining.



But, until that time we will continue to drill, pump and burn oil.

Are you under the impression that there will be oodles & oodles of oil,
until one morning in the distant future, there will suddenly be none?

I thought that was your position. I believe that we are 100 years away from
running out of oil. But, your ilk are of the consensus that we will be
running out of oil in a couple of years.

That's not the way it works. As with many other things in nature, the
amount of oil which can be pumped out of the ground follows a bell curve.

No, the current methods of pumping oil out of the ground may follow a bell
curve. Next year there may be a technological advance that will allow us to
pump oil out of wells that are not cost effective to continue pumping today.

Look it up for yourself, don't listen to me.
Google "Hubbert Peak" and see.

One man opinion.

... There is not economic incentive to switch away from oil, there is
only an emotional desire on the part of some.


You're disagreeing with President Bush's speech?

President Bush and I disagree on many issues. What make this issue special?

The economic incentives are clear
1- avoid pollution

If we reduce our use of oil it will just mean that there is more oil for
China and India.

2- make profits on other sources of energy

I don't understand what you are saying? An economic incentive is clear
because we can make profits form other sources of energy?

What sources of energy are you talking about?

3- avoid economic dislocation & disruption as oil becomes

Huh, there is an economic incentive to avoid economic dislocation and
disruption as oil becomes what?



A very smart scientist... who made a lot of money in the oil business...
named King Hubbert worked out the math of global oil supply a long time
ago.


Really? I thought that the supply of oil was going to run out in 30
years,

Do you know exactly what day? I will want to sell short that morning,
thanks.

No, your side of this issue wouldn't tell us the exact day.

with the clock startign to click in the late 1970's.

The U.S. (which used to be an oil exporter) hit it's oil peak in the
1970s, which was accurately predicted by Dr. Hubbert in the 1940s. The
global oil supply/demand situation is a bit more complex. However, it
seems likely that Hubbert's math was still pretty good.

We hit what oil peak in the 1970's?

Pretty good at what? Has technology improved in the last 60 years? Myabe
someone should do another study.

Now, bonus question: do you suppose that with the ramping up of China and
the other Pacific Rim economies, that world oil demand is higher or lower
than Hubbert plotted from a vantage point of approx 50 years ago?

What does it matter? According to you we will just run out sooner. Would you
say 30 years from now is about right?

Of course, you haven't liked any of the FACTS introduced into this thread
so far, and you won't like these FACTS either because they prove you're
wrong.


Ice age. Global warming. What's next.

I thought you knew?

You reactionary liberals are the best at fear mongering. What is the next
great potential global demise we face?


One thing is for sure, the retardo-fascists will be screaming that it's
all the fault of liberals. And ignoring any facts they stumble over.

If you want to blame yourselfs that is ok with me.

Hello? Hello?


Bert Robbins wrote:
I'm here now.

In spirit? Is the light on?



There are already other means of producing energy. In fact, our President
gave a speech earlier this year on the wisdom of expanding them.


What means are there for producing energy for automobiles and trucks that
don't require an extension cord? And, are those means as efficient and cost
effective as oil?


Sure, many. People have been running cars on methane, coal
gas, and such, for decades... in fact, that's how Jacque
Cousteau invented the aqualung: he adapted a pressure
regulator commonly used on cars.

As for cost effective... you can get methane for free. Hard
to beat that.



And nobody is being "forced" to do anything about oil or alternatives.
It's a matter of cost & profitability. Oil has been very cheap for a long
time... that is changing as oil supply declines and demand goes up.


The supply is not declining, OPEC can increase the supply at will

Actually, they can increase up to the limit of reserve
capacity... which is decreasing every day.


Are you under the impression that there will be oodles & oodles of oil,
until one morning in the distant future, there will suddenly be none?


I thought that was your position.

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

... I believe that we are 100 years away from
running out of oil.

Wrong. We will probably NEVER "run out" of oil. However, we
will get far enough out on the bell curve that the oil
supplies will get smaller & more expensive... to the point
where everything depending on oil comes to a halt.




... But, your ilk are of the consensus that we will be
running out of oil in a couple of years.


Who exactly is "my ilk" again?

You seem to be determined to make as many wrong statements
as possible.


That's not the way it works. As with many other things in nature, the
amount of oil which can be pumped out of the ground follows a bell curve.


No, the current methods of pumping oil out of the ground may follow a bell
curve.

Yep.
And so do all possible methods of pumping oil out of the ground.

... Next year there may be a technological advance that will allow us to
pump oil out of wells that are not cost effective to continue pumping today.


That may be true, but the supply will still follow a bell
curve. Increasing technology shifts the curve but does not
change the nature of the relationships.



Look it up for yourself, don't listen to me.
Google "Hubbert Peak" and see.


One man opinion.


Oh yeah, like the law of gravity is one man's opinion.



President Bush and I disagree on many issues

Then why did you vote for him? Are you a self-destructive fool?




If we reduce our use of oil it will just mean that there is more oil for
China and India.


That's a great attitude... "let's waste more of it first!"

How about thinking a little bit- if we move to renewable &
cleaner energy sources, then we'll be in a commanding
position while they are stuck with diminishing & costly oil
supplies.

Do you have to be a dog in the manger, or can you think
constructively?



2- make profits on other sources of energy


I don't understand what you are saying? An economic incentive is clear
because we can make profits form other sources of energy?

What sources of energy are you talking about?


Many.
What part of "make profits" did you not understand? Are you
a Communist?




3- avoid economic dislocation & disruption as oil becomes


Huh, there is an economic incentive to avoid economic dislocation and
disruption as oil becomes what?


Sorry, typo. But it would seem obvious, since what we are
talking about is decreasing oil reserves.




Really? I thought that the supply of oil was going to run out in 30
years,

Do you know exactly what day? I will want to sell short that morning,
thanks.


No, your side of this issue wouldn't tell us the exact day.


Funny thing, this issue doesn't really have sides. It's not
like our President is going to save up a special oil supply
just for the Bush-Cheney Cheerleaders. When we run low on
oil, we *all* run low.



The U.S. (which used to be an oil exporter) hit it's oil peak in the
1970s, which was accurately predicted by Dr. Hubbert in the 1940s. The
global oil supply/demand situation is a bit more complex. However, it
seems likely that Hubbert's math was still pretty good.


We hit what oil peak in the 1970's?


(talking slowly) In the 1970s, U.S. oil production peaked.
That means the amount of oil pumped out of the ground
increased intil that time, and afterward decreased.


Pretty good at what? Has technology improved in the last 60 years? Myabe
someone should do another study.


Hello? Hello? Is there anything other than a dial tone at
the other end?

What do you think the oil companies have been doing for the
past 60 years?



Now, bonus question: do you suppose that with the ramping up of China and
the other Pacific Rim economies, that world oil demand is higher or lower
than Hubbert plotted from a vantage point of approx 50 years ago?


What does it matter? According to you we will just run out sooner. Would you
say 30 years from now is about right?


I don't know when the oil supply will get scanty enough to
be considered to have "run out." You don't really learn
much, do you? Have you understood anything at all about this
discussion so far? Who has said that oil will "run out"?

Frankly, I don't have much faith in predicting these kinds
of things... the data is too uncertain and the biggest
variable is human behavior, which is a total wild card. I
expect the petro-fueled economy to go on for at least
another ten years, but not for fifty. In ten years, the
price for a barrel of crude oil might be $300, it might be
$30,000.

But, considering that there is definitely a finite amount of
oil in the ground, we *will* get to a point where it is too
scarce & expensive to fuel our civilization. Therefor, we
either need a different source of energy or we just give up
on civilization. Take your pick.




You reactionary liberals are the best at fear mongering.

I'm a "reactionary liberal" now? Gee, last week I was a
moonbat. Are you neo-cons good at anything other than
anme-calling?

DSK

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:25:17 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


Look it up for yourself, don't listen to me. Google "Hubbert Peak" and
see.

One man opinion.

You just don't get it. The Hubbert Curve is not an opinion, it is
science. US continental production did peak in 1971-72. That is a fact.
Hubbert predicted it would peak between 1965-1970. He also predicted
world production would peak in 2000. As it takes several years for a true
peak to become apparent, it is not now known if he was accurate, but there
are many that believe the peak was in 2004. Whenever the true peak
occurs know that, at that time, 1/2 the world's oil supplies will be gone.
Also know that the world will never run out of oil, it will run out of
economically obtainable oil, and I don't mean expensive. If it takes
more oil to find, transport, and process, than is recovered, the field is
abandoned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:25:17 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


Look it up for yourself, don't listen to me. Google "Hubbert Peak" and
see.

One man opinion.

You just don't get it. The Hubbert Curve is not an opinion, it is
science. US continental production did peak in 1971-72. That is a fact.
Hubbert predicted it would peak between 1965-1970. He also predicted
world production would peak in 2000. As it takes several years for a true
peak to become apparent, it is not now known if he was accurate, but there
are many that believe the peak was in 2004. Whenever the true peak
occurs know that, at that time, 1/2 the world's oil supplies will be gone.
Also know that the world will never run out of oil, it will run out of
economically obtainable oil, and I don't mean expensive. If it takes
more oil to find, transport, and process, than is recovered, the field is
abandoned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak

You're preaching to the same type of audience who also has severe problems
understanding Supreme Court transcripts, in which the justices & lawyers use
"straw man" arguments (a sin here, but a universal tool for legal scholars)
to get to the bottom of a legal problem. It makes the audience's brains
hurt.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:25:17 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


Look it up for yourself, don't listen to me. Google "Hubbert Peak" and
see.

One man opinion.

You just don't get it. The Hubbert Curve is not an opinion, it is
science. US continental production did peak in 1971-72. That is a fact.
Hubbert predicted it would peak between 1965-1970. He also predicted
world production would peak in 2000. As it takes several years for a true
peak to become apparent, it is not now known if he was accurate, but there
are many that believe the peak was in 2004. Whenever the true peak
occurs know that, at that time, 1/2 the world's oil supplies will be gone.
Also know that the world will never run out of oil, it will run out of
economically obtainable oil, and I don't mean expensive. If it takes
more oil to find, transport, and process, than is recovered, the field is
abandoned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak

Science is consensus that is often proved to have been "wrong" when arriving
at the next consensus.