Myth: The World is Running Out of Oil (Peak Oil Theory)

[TangerayMusic]

Paid for by BP

This is complete crap

[4aSteadyStateEconomy]

Stossel's ilk ignores the difference between hypothetical reserves and ones that are AFFORDABLE to extract, i.e. with high enough net-energy.

U.S. kerogen shale is a classic example, with its nil EROEI. The wet Bakken shale can be fracked, but still has low EROEI vs. crude oil.

Anyone who looks at the flow-rate production curves of fossil fuels can't help noticing how many fields have already peaked. It's historical fact, yet it still draws denial. Some people just can't handle evidence.

[Vulcan750L]

@4aSteadyStateEconomy

The EROEI is very affordable. Read the arguments on here concerning that. I don't want to keep repeating myself. Same repetitive argument, different idiot.

Crude oil is very easy to get and therefore, cheaper than dirt. Anything compared to that will be "expensive" and "difficult".

But even the most expensive oil, deep ocean ($70/bbl), is still cheap enough, and profitable.

Shale and Tar Sands is much cheaper at less than $20/bbl. That's pretty damn cheap!

[NewUser21111]

Actually oil is used for EVERYTHING!!! from making consumer goods, to pesticides, transportation, plastics etc. The Tar Sands sound good but they are very expensive and in a capitalist economy where growth is needed everyday even a drop in oil supply will hurt the economy.

[Vulcan750L]

@NewUser21111

Yes, I know. But that is mostly from the byproducts and "leftovers" from making gasoline and diesel fuels. Many different types of fuels and byproducts are derived from the same barrel of oil.

I didn't want to get too technical and get bogged down on the details and confusing the point of the argument.

[Vulcan750L]

@NewUser21111

"Expensive" is a relative term. Tar sands sands costs about $5 to $10/bbl. Deep sea drilling costs about $70/bbl. "Expensive", compared to what?

As long as the cost of extraction is more than $10 below the market price for crude, it is economically viable. It doesn't really matter what the cost of extraction is, we pay the same market price for both "cheap" and "expensive" oil.

[PontiousPilates]

Using other fossil fuels as the energy used for extraction doesn't help the equation - as they are not properly priced either. You are just shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. And several leaked Military reports show the extraction ratio nearing 1 to 1. All the easy cheap oil is running out or being hoarded.. The problem with most modern economics related to Fossil Fules is the externalities are never properly priced.

[PontiousPilates]

@Vulcan750L - You are correct there are still huge amounts of oil that have been untapped. But the energy expended extracting it is the key. You now have to expend about one barrel's worth of oil of energy to get another barrel of oil. So we have hit the peak in its usefulness as an energy source. Its not about COST/PRICE - if that were true then yes - Oil companies wouldn't bother. But the price is totally divorced from supply & demand. All governments are subsidizing the oil industry.

[PontiousPilates]

The price of oil is totally divorced from the reality of supply and demand. Its traded on the commodities markets and turned into derivatives. There is no cost discovery mechanism left. Its all about managing perceptions and squeezing what we can out of the existing infrastructure. This is extremely short term thinking, but not surprising. This century had a great opportunity to use the cheap oil to invest in the next energy source but we've blown it.

[Vulcan750L]

@PontiousPilates

You keep repeating that BS. It DOES NOT take 1 barrel of oil to get 1 barrel of oil. Show me some proof of that.

[Vulcan750L]

@PontiousPilates

Oil is primarily used for transportation and that is what is in short supply, not because we are running out of it but because we are not using what we have. We have an abundance of coal and natural gas as well, which isn't used much for transportation. So it makes sense to use those to get more of the oil. So no, it's not just like rearranging deck chairs, because they are not all deck chairs. They are different things and have different uses.

[Vulcan750L]

@PontiousPilates

All governments DO NOT subsidize the oil industry. In Europe, they tax the hell out of it. There, they have no interest in keeping the price of gasoline cheap. Do you just make up shit as you go along?

I can't find any info on European oil subsidies, probably cause there is none.

The energy cost of extracting oil from shale and tar sands has not gone up and will improve with better technology and innovation. It is still a 1 to 3 ratio.

[failblorg]

1. the planet is Infinite in size. THEREFORE

2. we have an Infinite amount of Oil.

strangely enough though the price of oil keeps going up. hmmm....

oh well. Drill baby Drill !!! :P

[Vulcan750L]

@failblorg

Your attempts at sarcasm is pathetic.

[failblorg]

@Vulcan750L how is this sarcasm?? : /

it's a valid statement. Didn't God(jesus) say in so many words "it's your planet you can do with it as you please"

besides i mean it's oil. and like anything else on this planet there's an infinite supply of it.

so what could possibly go wrong if we drilled for it??? i mean it's happening now and there's nothing wrong going on with the planet because of it. so explain your statement.

[Vulcan750L]

@failblorg

I don't know what statement you want me to explain.

The oil supply is not infinite. But it will be a very long time before we run out of it. We will be off of oil long before we come close to running out of it.

I'm confused by your comments. Now, it sounds like you are pro drilling. I'm not against drilling for more oil, and I'm not against developing shale and tar sands.

[failblorg]

if we invaded canada and uh... you know. brought them democracy, we could get our hands on some of this oil ;)

[permacultureli]

human population will dramatically decline due to the coming climate change...down to 1 billion at best by 2100.....so....the very unfortunate burning of oil will not continue at its present levels anyway....no matter what uninformed people choose to debate.

[seeker0707]

What an asshole. We can only get about 1 million barrels worth per day from tar sands as compared to the 86 million barrels we use per day worlwide. That's not enough. Yes, we are running out of oil. Remember, we've only been using oil for a little over 150 years...about half of what is recoverable in the last 100, and the rate in which we are using it up is increasing. It is just stupid to say we are never going to run out of a finite, no-renewable source. We have reached our end point.

[Vulcan750L]

@seeker0707

Tar sands isn't the only source of oil in the world, so it doesn't need to produce 86m barrels a day. Tar sands is currently being processed at a rate of 2m/day and is going to be increased to 7m/day within the next 10 or 20 yrs. At that rate, we will still be processing tar sands a thousand years from now, assuming we still use oil, but I doubt it.

He was just making a point that there is plenty of oil there.

[zirbat16]

peak oil is not means running out of oil it just means "The point in time when the global production of oil will reach its maximum rate, after which production will gradually decline" and this is not a myth

[Vulcan750L]

@zirbat16

We all know what "Peak Oil" means.

It is a myth that cheap oil is our only option and that it is the only oil we can use. As the price of  "cheap" oil gets more expensive, "expensive" oil is replacing it.

Cheap oil is also being replaced by alternatives and unconventional oils. This is already taking place and has been for decades. It is nothing new.

There is also an emerging green revolution that will soon put an end to our use of fossil fuels.

Peak oil will never happen.

[PontiousPilates]

@Vulcan750L - Peak Oil has already happened. Its a simple mathmatical curve and we are already on the downslope. It now costs around a barrel of oil's worth of energy to extract 1 barrel of oil. Now imagine if you actually factor in the hidden costs of oil - wars, environmental damage, climate change.....that cost benefit ratio goes even further south. Oil is no longer an energy source. Its government subsidies shield it from basic free market economics.

[Vulcan750L]

@PontiousPilates

Peak Oil hasn't happened because there is still trillions of barrels of oil untouched. We are not running out of oil. Our delay or unwillingness to tap into these reserves is the reason for the decline or stabilizing in production numbers.

[Vulcan750L]

@PontiousPilates

If it really did cost 1 barrel of oil to extract 1 barrel of oil, they wouldn't be doing it. Oil companies are not stupid.

The Canadian government subsidizes their oil companies?

It takes equivalent to 1 barrel of oil energy to get 3 barrels of oil. But the energy will probably come from burning natural gas or coal, not from burning oil.

[reedy93]

@Vulcan750L regular conventional peak oil 2005 - 68mbd Freddy hutter charts put peak at 2033 all liquids .check video for future problems even with ultra deep oil, tar sands and shale oil

Puru Saxena Money printing & peak oil

[Tadgh78]

The tar sands of Alberta might last a 100 years at current rates of consumption, the rate of consumption is increasing at an exponential rate, so they will probably not last 30 years.

[showmeyourtonsils]

1. It takes 2 barrels worth of energy to get 3 barrels worth out of tar sands, turning that 100 years worth of energy into 30 years, and that's without an increase in consumption.

2. The Wikipedia article on Canadian oil reserves also includes tar sands in the estimates, even though it isn't oil, but the article still shows tar sand production peaking at 2020, and that's if we can still continue to refine it after oil is depleted.

[showmeyourtonsils]

@showmeyourtonsils Also the more popular post of this video filters comments and apparently didn't like what I have to say. Interesting that other comments were allowed to post as long as the video uploader had an immediate rebuttal

[Vulcan750L]

@showmeyourtonsils

1. It DOES NOT take 2 barrels worth of energy to get 3 barrels worth out of tar sands. It's a 1 to 3 ratio.

The energy used for extraction and processing comes from natural gas or coal, not from burning oil. So no oil has to be used to extract oil.

Only about 1% of oil goes to making electricity in the US and is being phased out of energy production.

Oil is primarily used for transportation and is currently being replaced by electric cars and other alternatives.

[TangerayMusic]

@Vulcan750L Nice, so we really have 40 years! Sweet! Let's destroy the earth!!!!

Not very logical....

[Vulcan750L]

@showmeyourtonsils

2. The Wikipedia article on Canadian oil reserves DOES NOT show tar sands peaking in 2020. It shows that tar sands production will increase till AT LEAST 2020 using conservative estimates based on CURRENT prices and CURRENT technology.

There are 2 more massive oil reserves in the form of shale greater or equal to the Canadian Tar Sands in the US that has barely been touched yet. It wasn't even mentioned in this video. (Green River Formation and the Bakken Oil Fields)

[claudelebel55]

Interesting that this is getting so many dislikes when the speaker is being so 'reassuring'.

[MiranUT]

@claudelebel55 - Probably because most of us can smell BS. Notice the edits: One guy saying "We will never run out of oil". What was cut? "But the cost of extracting oil is going up, so prices at the gas pump will too." No one wants to hear this. Most Americans just want to live in their fantasy debt world of artificially elevated lifestyles.

[Vulcan750L]

@MiranUT

No. It's because most people like yourself never bother to do any of your own research and readily buy into popular myths and misunderstandings.

Yes. The AVERAGE cost of oil production is going up because more and more of the "expensive" oil is replacing the dwindling cheap oil.

But, "expensive" is a relative term. Even the most expensive oil (deep ocean) is only about $70/bbl, far below $100/bbl.

At $100/bbl, oil is cheaper than water at $2.38/gal.

[claudelebel55]

Yes we are running out of cheap oil but once we cross the line where it costs more to take it out of the ground than we get out of it once it's processed, it's a loosing proposition. It's not about running out. Such oversimplification begs the real questions. Over time, the demand is increasing while production can hardly keep up and prices are skyrocketing for a reason. Peak Oil is not a myth but people love to be told that everything is gonna be alright .... give it a year or two.

[Vulcan750L]

@claudelebel55

Yes, it is a complicated issue so you should read more than 1 or 2 of my responses and comments before you make a comment. I don't want to have to repeat everything I've already said over and over again. I do enough of that already. Getting tired of it.

The truth is often unpopular. It just proves there are more ignorant people than enlightened people out there. The truth is not based on a popularity contest. It is what it is.

[Vulcan750L]

@redhat123456789

"And now because you can't refute anything you resort to call me a troll . . . "

You were the first one to start calling me a "troll". I was just pointing out that you are the one that fits that definition. I wasn't even actually calling you a troll at first.

It is interesting that you think people do that cause they don't have an argument and resort to calling someone a troll. LOL

What a fucken hypocrite and too stupid to see it.

[Vulcan750L]

@redhat123456789

You obviously don't know what "troll" means. Even after I explain it to you, you still don't GET IT.

You keep accusing me of lying. What am I lying about and what do you have to support your claims other than your refusal to accept reality?

I haven't contradicted myself on anything. You apparently have poor reading comprehension skills, and a poor understanding of logic and are easily confused.

Why don't you go troll somewhere else. You're a moron!

[Vulcan750L]

@redhat123456789

Do you even know what "troll" is?

It's people like you that go around to other people's channels to pick pointless fights and arguments. They call that trolling. So which one of us is doing that? You're on my channel, MORON!!!

[Vulcan750L]

@redhat123456789

I don't see what you seem to think is the contradiction.

UNCONVENTIONAL oil is no more expensive or difficult than SOME conventional oil, such as deep ocean wells. What is the problem with that statement? I don't see any contradictions there.

And where did I say that oil companies lost money on either of those, conventional or unconventional? They are ALL profitable or the oil companies wouldn't be doing it. Whether they make a profit of $30 or $90/bbl, it's all profit.

[Vulcan750L]

@redhat123456789

You seem to have missed the point here. They are drilling deep sea wells because it is profitable to do so, or they wouldn't be doing it. Correct?

So you think that China, Brazil, Estonia, and Canada have not been developing shale and/or tar sand for decades? It is all a lie? And what do you base your disbelief on? Why don't you look it up, or watch my playlist on the subject and educate yourself.

You come to my channel to argue and you are calling me a troll? LOL

[Vulcan750L]

@redhat123456789

Unconventional oil IS OIL!  There is no difference between the two except for where it comes from. It is cheaper to extract and produce than deep sea drilling of conventional oil.

Unconventional oil is already a part of the world's oil supply mix and has been since the early 1900's. It is nothing new or exotic. So to exclude it from the world’s oil supply as if it has little or no contribution is an attempt to skew the debate and misrepresent the real situation.

[Vulcan750L]

@redhat123456789

Are you and TheBoomshaker one and the same?

Noe Van Hulst lies through his teeth? How would you know? Do you have any proof of that?

"Difficult" is a relative term. Deep sea and ocean drilling are indeed more difficult than what squirts out of the ground in the Middle East. But it isn't anything we can't do or that it is so difficult and expensive that it is impractical. If it was, the oil companies wouldn't be doing it, would they? They like to make money, not lose it.

[Vulcan750L]

@redhat123456789

Watch this other video. It's an interview with Noe Van Hulst, the Secretary General of the International Energy Forum. It's in my Peak Oil Myth playlist. Or copy and paste the link below into the YouTube address following the ( .com/ ).

watch?v=tErajh96lqk

[Vulcan750L]

@redhat123456789

Shale and tar sands became profitable when oil hit $40/bbl. Cost of extraction is between $5 and $20/bbl, much less than what it costs to drill deep at sea and we've been doing that for years.

Who said we were fighting for oil? Was Vietnam about oil? Was WW1 and 2 about oil? Was Korea about oil? Was the first Gulf War about oil? Is Afghanistan about oil? What makes you think Iraq is about oil?

You've been watching too many YouTube conspiracy videos.

[TheBoomshaker]

@Vulcan750L Do your self good. Go read Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky. Unless you have an agenda.

[Vulcan750L]

@TheBoomshaker

What is my "agenda"?

Noam Chomsky is one of those liberal propagandists. He talks a lot of typical liberal nonsense.

Do yourself a favor. Think for yourself and stop reading his crap.

[TheBoomshaker]

@Vulcan750L Well well mr. Sense... If facts are propaganda and "liberal nonsense" you must clearly have some intrest toward defending this system that we're living in. Calling Chomskys arguments nonsense is plain stupid and arrogonat. I'd like more constructive argumentation. Maybe you could you debunk some of them in comment's or a video? Perhaps you could even debunk his Hegemony or Survival chapter by chapter?

[Vulcan750L]

@TheBoomshaker

Why don't you start by having some kind of an argument instead of referring me to some book. You have said nothing so far, so there is nothing for me to argue about.

Calling me stupid and arrogant for calling Chomsky's book and liberal point of view nonsense is rather hypocritical, don't you think? Maybe you are the one that is stupid and arrogant.

[Vulcan750L]

@redhat123456789

Shale and tar sands are very profitable at $100+ per barrel. Canada is making a killing. Estonia, Brazil, and China have been developing shale since the early 1900's. It is a liberal hoax that shale and tar sands is impractical or unfeasible.

As far as environmental impact . . . it is no worse than any other kind of mining, such as coal, precious metals or minerals, that the US and the rest of the world has been involved in for over a hundred years.

[Cally200233]

What a rubbish video

[Vulcan750L]

@Cally200233

Can you back that up?

[chillaxative]

What this snooty video fails to address is the undeniable fact of overpopulation that we face as a race, and that the real problem in our future is a lack of space not only for the people we're creating, but also for the resources we require.

I would like to see some facts and figures too, because at present this is nothing more than propaganda (Shell is NOT a trustworthy spokesperson for the future of oil reserves) and is dangerous media. Viewers beware.

[Vulcan750L]

@chillaxative

What you fail to notice is that there is a green revolution going on and the exponential growth of green technologies. Electric cars, cheap thin film solar panels, and new breakthroughs in geothermal power production are going to end our dependence on oil. So to assume that our demand for oil will only increase over time is a faulty assumption.

The numbers you seek are in the arguments on my other videos about peak oil if, you bother to read them.

[Vulcan750L]

@chillaxative

It is not in the best interest of the oil companies to tell everyone that we have an abundance of untapped oil. This is why it is a little known fact. That would only make oil cheaper. Shortages make oil more expensive.

Look up the Green River Formation and Bakken oil fields.

[goaa0802]

But if we take into consideration economic growth those tar sands, that would last 100 years at current consumption rate, would last much less based on simple mathematics.

We are running out much faster than people choose to believe. But as everyone knows, "ignorance is bliss."

[Vulcan750L]

@goaa0802

That's just 1 major source of oil. There are 2 more massive reserves equal to, or greater than the Alberta tar sands. The US hasn't even begun to develop those reserves.

Look up Green River Formations and Bakken oil fields.

Now, take into consideration the exponential growth of green technologies and electric cars. Our oil dependency will be declining soon. It is faulty to think that our oil dependency will only increase and not decrease.

[TheJUNGLESURFER]

this video is disinformation

[Vulcan750L]

@TheJUNGLESURFER

Did you even watch the video?

[Vulcan750L]

Foss' peak oil theory hinges on the misconception that light crude oil is the only oil there is. I would call that pretty damn ignorant.

She does mention the existence of unconventional oil but doesn't factor that into her peak oil theory as if it plays no role. She writes it off as too expensive and impractical because of it's lower return on investment. She ignores the fact that tar sands and shale is being developed profitably and economically and is being added to the world's oil supply.

[reedy93]

tar sands is a way of using stranded gas and turning it into syn crude watch Nicole Foss aka Stoneleigh - A Century of Challenges - Peak Oil & Economic Crisis. I hope your optimism holds out

[Vulcan750L]

@reedy93

Nicole Foss sounds pretty ignorant or she is purposely misrepresenting the facts to push her "green" agenda or peak oil theory.

She speaks as if the vast quantities of heavy oil and unconventional oils do not exist. We also have vast quantities of coal and natural gas. She is also ignorant of the fact that there is a green revolution going on and the explosion of renewable energy and technologies.

Her argument is full of misrepresentations and ignorance. Just a bunch of crap!

[reedy93]

@Vulcan750L the last thing I would call Nicole Foss is ignorant,Try this guy he shoots from the hip and tells it like it is. Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil - Dr. Goodstein - 1/6 .sounds like your ok with vast amounts of coal and natural gas.We in britain had as much coal in energy as Saudi has in oil almost gone now,we peaked in oil 1999 and we peaked in natural gas in 2000 both are going down fast.

[Vulcan750L]

@reedy93

The US has an abundance of coal and natural gas. We also have more oil than all the oil in the middle east many times over in the form of heavy oil, shale, and tar sands, enough to last us for hundreds of years. This is also something Foss ignores or is unaware of. If she is ignoring it than she is stupid. If she is unaware of it, then she is ignorant. Take your pick.

[reedy93]

@Vulcan750L PS Her academic qualifications include a BSc in biology from Carleton University in Canada (where she focused primarily on neuroscience and psychology), a post-graduate diploma in air and water pollution control, the common professional examination in law and an LLM in international law in development from the University of Warwick in the UK. She was granted the University Medal for the top science graduate in 1988 and the law school prize for the top law school graduate in 1997.

[reedy93]

@Vulcan750L PPS Foss runs the Agri-Energy Producers' Association of Ontario, where she has focused on farm-based biogas projects and grid connections for renewable energy. While living in the UK she was a Research Fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, where she specialized in nuclear safety in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, and conducted research into electricity policy at the EU level.

[Vulcan750L]

@reedy93

Well, thats great! But that doesn't change anything I said. All my previous statements hold true.

Just because she has a lot of job titles doesn't mean she doesn't have an ideology and an agenda. If your argument is that she isn't ignorant, then she is purposely misrepresenting the facts to push her peak oil theory.

Watch my other video called "Peak Oil" is a Myth! by Noe Van Hulst.  He has a lot of job titles too. He is the Secretary General of the International Energy Forum.

[reedy93]

@Vulcan750L everybody has an ideology and an agenda all your videos are saying there is no peak oil and it will be business as usual with perpetual growth all I am trying to say is are you 100% sure which you can't be to need to post them and discuss.what Nicole Foss and others like Chris Martenson are saying is as the easy cheap oil goes there will be no money spare for wind turbines solar panels and electric cars.I think the world is heading for double dip recession with $100+ oil

[Vulcan750L]

@reedy93

My ideology is whatever the truth is. I don't work for an oil company or the government or have anything to gain or lose by what you or anyone else believes one way or the other. So no, I do not have an agenda other than to dispel a popular myth.

They are rolling out solar panels and wind turbines at record pace. New factories are being built to increase production of green technologies to meet demand.

We've had recessions before. What is the big deal?

[Vulcan750L]

@reedy93

Foss is ignorant if she really believes what she is telling everyone. I don't care how many job titles she has that would imply her superior knowledge of the subject. There are other experts that disagree with Foss. And their arguments make much more sense than hers because they don't ignore certain facts that she does and they seem to have a better understanding of things.

[Vulcan750L]

@reedy93

One of the things Foss said that I thought was stupid or ignorant is her belief that solar panels do not add anything to the public system. She doesn't seem to understand that for every kilowatt not taken from the public system is in effect adding to the public system.

If half the homes and businesses installed solar panels to meet their total energy needs, we would have to shut down half the power plants in this country, even if none of the solar panels were hooked up to the grid.

[ZombieKiller222]

@Vulcan750L solar panels arent really the answer because they use silver so what happens when we use all the silver

[Vulcan750L]

@ZombieKiller222

We have a long ways to go before we run out of silver. A lot of it is also being recycled. Anyway, aren't you talking about the old solar technology?

There is no silver in the new thin film solar technology as far as I know. It is this new breakthrough in solar technology that has "changed the game". It can be produced cheaply, 1/10 the cost of traditional crystalline solar panels.

[bdist]

@Vulcan750L Lol no, Norway is not ruled by a king, neither is Sweden or Denmark, how american of you.. :) Anyway, the problem with shale and tar sands is that they require resources to be extracted. Looots of heat and water. It's practically imposdible for the US to get more than 1 million barells/day from such sources. Look no further than Canada for the devastating effects tar sand production brings, and they will never go over 4 million barells/day from tarsands.

[Vulcan750L]

@bdist

The only thing hindering production of shale and tar sands are restrictions and lack of will. It is not economics or technology. This could change but it will probably require a major crises and a huge increase in price.

Canada is increasing their output every year. Their goal is to increase production to 3 barrels a day and there is even talk of 5 barrels a day from tar sands.

The US still needs to get off it's ass and start developing our own abundant resource.

[bdist]

@Vulcan750L "It is not economics or technology." It's both. Oil extraction from tarsands and shale differs a lot from conventional oil. Mostly because of the needed Energy and Water. Why do you think Canada is pondering building five nuclear reactors and use them to make steam to reach the level of production you mention? Even if Canada would reach 5 mbpd from tar (which I hope they dont because of major irreparable environmental & health dmg) that would not offset the loss from Norway + Mexico.

[bdist]

@Vulcan750L Could you be wrong? Have à look at Norways production. It's been going down since year 2000. It's à democratic marketdriven economy. Why would they secretly impose production restrictions? Simplest explanation is: the easy to get to oil has been extracted already. Also check out Mexico, Great Brittain.

[Vulcan750L]

@bdist

Isn't Norway ruled by a king?

Anyway, what does Norway have to do with us?

Who said anything about secretly imposing restrictions?

We are running out of light crude oil. We are not running out of heavy oil, or oil from tar sands, or shale oil. We currently get 0 barrels per day from tar sand or shale due to government restrictions, thanks to the environmentalists, liberals, and democrats.

The heavy oil is barely tapped but is coming online more and more.

[ronpaulbot]

Peak oil is a fact. Here's why:

If you assume that oil is a non-renewable resource (in anything less than geologic time), even if our consumption rose very slightly (essentially flat), we would eventually use up everything that is economically feasable to get out of the ground. Even if we could keep up by inventing technology and be able to get every last drop, we will run out of economically feasable oil. It could happen in a couple hundred years or in a couple of years but it will happen.

[Vulcan750L]

@ronpaulbot

I agree with you. And this video also says the exact same thing. Of course everyone knows that oil will run out eventually, unless you believe in Abiotic oil, which may be true, but I'm not bringing that into the argument.

The "Myth" is that it will happen soon and that the "shit will hit the fan" because of it.

There is one assumption you shouldn't make. Our dependency on oil will not continue to increase with all the renewable energy and electric cars coming online.

[ronpaulbot]

@Vulcan750L Actually, I disagree with what you are saying. Although I know cars won't just be abandoned on the highways, the reduced production will cause a spike in price at the pumps due to the fact that oil is still incredibly cheap right now (at $105 a barrel, its only something like 15 cents a cup), and the demand is quite inelastic (est: -0.4). So people won't significantly reduce consumption unless prices go much higher.

As for renewables, I disagree that they can keep up. (More)

[ronpaulbot]

@Vulcan750L (con't) Nuclear takes forever to even start construction of the plant, solar and wind are a drop in the bucket, and even if they could be scaled up, they won't provide liquid fuel for our existing infrastructure. One of Obama's goals in his SOTU adress was 1 million electric vehicles by 2015. Even if they can manage that, this is much less than 1% of US cars.

So my prediction will be: moderate to severe inflation, gas shortages/rationing, poverty and starvation in the US. Enjoy!

[Vulcan750L]

@ronpaulbot

You're a pessimist.

Wind and solar is a drop in the bucket at the moment but all that is changing. Green technologies is still in it's infancy. Everyone is making the move to green technologies. Every new power plant is a green one. People aren't building coal or oil plants anymore.

Boone Pickens and Shell Oil are independently working on two large wind farms in Texas. Every major auto manufacturer has a hybrid, electric, or alternative fuel vehicle offering. . . (cont.)

[Vulcan750L]

@ronpaulbot

The problem with Solar power has always been the cost of the panels. But, with nanosolar, thin film solar, the cost of production is 1/10 conventional crystaline panels. Currently the price is still high due to supply and demand, but once they start mass producing this stuff, the price will drop significantly. And the fact that the demand is so high is indicative of changing times.

Chinese solar and wind products will be flooding our markets soon and will drive down prices.

[Vulcan750L]

@ronpaulbot

We will still need to burn carbon based fuels for some things. Airplanes and ships can't run on batteries. Nor, can heavy equipment used in construction and earth moving or most military vehicles.

But the fuel does not have to come from oil. We can make enough bio-diesel or ethanol from algae to supply those needs.

[ronpaulbot]

@Vulcan750L Its hard to disagree with what you say. However I think it boils down to whether we can ramp up alternatives to account for decrease in cheap oil fast enough to cover the difference before the economy is crippled. Had we started a serious effort in the 1970's after the first oil shocks, we would have been half way there, but instead the oil glut in the 80's discouraged any serious investment in alternatives.  We may be too late to avoid the pain of really expensive oil.

[Vulcan750L]

@ronpaulbot

Current prices of $70 - 100, and the realization that the cheap oil is running out, is making everyone rethink our energy situation including the oil companies. Oil companies are investing in "green" energies. New start-up companies in green alternatives are emerging. Oil and shale are being looked at more seriously. Heavy oil is playing a bigger role in the market. There are many forces occurring right now that will prevent any real long term "peak oil" catastrophe.

[hitssquad]

@ronpaulbot "the reduced [oil] production will cause"

What reduced oil production?

[hitssquad]

@ronpaulbot "It could happen in a couple hundred years or in a couple of years but it will happen."

How many years is 2.1 quadrillion barrels divided by 80 million barrels per day?: google. com/search?q=duncan+swanson+oi­l+2.1+quadrillion

[465160]

liked it!

[arialattack5]

wow, this guy is an idiot. peak oil is the end of cheap oil and half way to the end of viable oil

[Vulcan750L]

@arialattack5

Look up "Green River Formation" and Bakken Oil Fields.

[florin604]

@Vulcan750L bakken is not oil, it is not fluid => very expensive & very slow production daily flow

[bdist]

@Vulcan750L Oh we know about Bakken. There's plenty of oil there, but at what rate can you extract it? a lot lower than the population demands. That's the problem...

[Vulcan750L]

@bdist

The rate of production is due to restrictions imposed on the oil companies. It is not due to the lack of oil in this country. We could theoretically triple our domestic oil production, more than we need. The excess could be exported to China.

This is something I would like to see happen. It would get our money back from the Chinese and solve the trade imbalance.

Cost per per barrel is $10 - 20, same as oil from deep ocean oil rigs.