Oil Myths, Oil Facts

[Stringyheads]

More should really be done on the recycling Effort for oil and metals Period. Just because its there today does not mean it is ours, Its important to reserve for the future.

[Stringyheads]

Everybody should have to ride a motorcycle Oh or a camel. A Lot of people just drive around for the hell of it. Personally i couldn't give a shit if it goes up in price. In fact i think it should to stop people wasting it. It has to be saved for the future generations. Allot of people shouldn't have cars.

I think there needs to be a lease put on how many process operations can operate at any one time also with the mining Minerals and metals sector.

all students on scooters in the cities.

[w96725]

Foolishness! If we were going to run out oil the wealthy would look somewhere else to rob us.

[ctb619]

This entire video: PARTIAL MYTH.

[LilFaerl]

Probaganda crap!

[ClarksonsinUSA]

Oil shale in USA 75% OF WORLD SUPPLY,as well as the Tar Sands in Canada...New tech break through,expansion over next 3 years will be massive...

[Blackwater200]

I think that if every home in the cities was ran by it's own power source, we would not need power plants to burn coal anyways. But money and greed keeps us depended on power companies.

[walter0bz]

How will our lives change ?

they will end.

[Jpdeveau0]

52111 very good. Yes im well aware of that. Now. I believe my comment was 3 years ago. Get a life.

[MrKovlad]

Useless video, the only interesting part is 3:01 other than that its just rubbish that everybody knows, not what everybody should know. And I have given up explaning what it is long ago. Believe what u want.

[noktisvallis]

peak bison occured 1875? peak passenger pigeon 1900? peak redwood tree harvest 1920? peak north atlantic cod 1930? peak west coast sardines 1940? peak south african gold mines 1960? peak usa oil production 1971??......

peak WORLD OIL 2010? history treats those who forget history WITHOUT MERCY........  big changes coming to society next twenty years..... PEAK WORLD POPULATION 2012????

[steviewonder417]

this is b.s. oil is of abiogenic origins if you dont kno what that means look it up dont be a slave!

[Standuble]

@steviewonder417 Does the "abiotic process" produce 84 million barrels a day of oil? If not then its not going to really make any difference. We will be taking out more than is created!

[steviewonder417]

@Standuble I really don't care...I just want the real informatio to be available to the public so that we the people, the masses can decide what course of action to take!

[Standuble]

@steviewonder417 Fair game if you don't care about my point, but would you care if your viewpoint about abiotic oil turned out to be bullshit, if not completely useless to the oil problem? Maybe the masses already have the real information about oil origin and it would be brainwashing them.

In either case I will leave you be.

[steviewonder417]

@Standuble dude there is no argument to be won here. The real issue is disclosure! whether or not enough oil can be produced by abiogenic processes to meet current demand is only important to a person who has the knowledge of the process in the first place. not to mention recovered wells will be producing alongside current ones.. undoubtedly production would rise with new tech. like DWT. Im not sure how having the real information would be brainwashing, the truth is a pos. thing

[steviewonder417]

@Standuble and to be fair I'm not sure what your point is. you should know by know the majority of people are not aware of recent findings in the industry as well as the socio-economic influences on the disclosure of pertinent info. people in the general sense dont know squat about oil and will blissfully fall prey to the peak oil scam without ever picking up a book or requesting information. that is what is most worrisome to me. so tell me how is acess to the truth brainwashing?

[Standuble]

@steviewonder417 My point I made on the recent reply was how do you prove that abiotic oil is the truth? For if its not true and the fossil fuel theory is correct then you have only convinced people to believe in something that doesn't exist. That was the point I was making.

If abiotic oil is the truth though, would you tell the public how fast or how slow it works? Would you tell them e.g. if abiogenics only created 0.5% the amount of oil they consume in a day or would you keep it from them?

[steviewonder417]

@Standuble Lets get on the same page here... Im not a geologist or in the industry, and I would venture to guess you are not either. So the reality is I wouldnt have the slightest clue if abiogenic oil is a reality for consumption purposes.  heres what we do know, Some of the oil we use today was created with the formation of the earth. We know this because of the presence of hydrocarbons on other heavenly bodies. There is also the discrepency of how decaying matter on the surface

[steviewonder417]

@Standuble of the earth seeps down into pressures exceeding 100,000 lbs. per square inch. also there have been instances of wells that have been shut down due to low yields, and later reopened to discover they are producing again. Knowing this information does not make me an expert nor to I pretend to be one. I am questioning the validity of peak oil theory. Im not sure what you were trying to say with your last statement, If i'm reading it correctly I would have to say a .5% return a day

[steviewonder417]

@Standuble is quite good. My guess is I'm probally not understanding your statement. Let me be clear, oil as we know it todaay has several sources, this is not up for debate in the eyes of academia. Fossilized organic compunds do turn to "oil" over time, but we are also aware of other sources. Now as for proving to the public what the facts are well that might be impossible at this point. Im just glad people like you and me can have some open discourse on the subject.

[52111centrumcz]

@Standuble

Well to find out if abiotic then you would want to find oil where it is igneous rock. So if you find oil where there are no fossilizing rocks, then you find evidence of abiotic oil.

[Standuble]

@52111centrumcz IMHO abiotic oil is a borderline unfalsifiable theory. Thats why I don't attempt to disprove it, I merely enquire about its worth. We can sit here and argue about its existence all day, that's fair enough. But if it can't serve humanity in any way (e.g. providing as much oil worldwide in a year to fuel a single car for a year) then it can't be relied upon. Everything is very interdependent on everything else these days and abiotics many not be able to hold the infrastructure up.

[52111centrumcz]

@Standuble But the SOURCE of oil IMHO is irrelevant to supply...in fact it doesn't matter which theory is correct, as supply is dependent on exploration and reserves, which are not in any manner dependent on the manner of origin of the oil!

Therefore wheter oil is abiotic of origin or not is irrelevant, and the sources are.

[Standuble]

@52111centrumcz I agree with you completely, its completely obvious that if you want a supply of something you need to know where to find it!

I don't even know why you are mentioning my point because my argument is wholly orientated towards the anti-PO angle that the supposed abiotic origin of oil is enough to provide an unlimited amount of oil to meet humanity's growing demands, therefore making PO a scam. I was merely disputing that IF abiotics was true it would be far too little.

[52111centrumcz]

@Standuble AHA there lies the argument. But then we are talking about the possible abiotic rate of generation, which the theory does not answer at all (yet, if ever).

I would say PO is possible, because rate of extraction is limited (as all industrial processes are limited by scale/concentration of sources).

[yourmajezty]

this is untrue. we have oil for 500 years

[Huttate1]

@yourmajezty 500 years? That would mean you know of recoverable reserves of around 30 Trillion barrels. If they are in your garden could you let the DOE know because they left them off the data set.

[HorseCents]

Only God can decide when the wells will dry up, for He created oil in the first place.

[newstairway1]

peak oil is a lie

[235RB]

@newstairway1 your a fuckin moron. how is it a lie? when 4/5 top procducing countries have peaked.

[VoiceOurNoise]

IT MEANS WERE FUCKED. THATS WHAT IT

means

[xXROADROGUEXx]

All this stuff is complete Bs

[philWynk]

Oh, "peak oil" my patoot. His reserve figures are imaginary. We have TRILLIONS of barrels of oil; it's in shale, and new in situ techniques should cost around $25/bbl. Yes, it takes a lot of energy -- but it yields 6 times what it takes. Plus there's the Bakken, which he doesn't mention. All told, shale, tar, and sand oils around the world exceed "reserves" by a factor of 6 or 7. And then there's coal oil... Peak oil is a myth.

[Huttate1]

@philWynk Not really. The world is unlikely to ever produce more oil yearly than it currently does. QED Peak Oil.

Also, the DOE figures suggest that 40% of a couple of trillion barrels may be recoverable and it would require new techniques to achieve that level.

900 billion barrels of new oil would supply the world for a whole extra 30 years.

So, Peak Oil is a fact.

And Oil becoming very expensive and in short supply in our lifetimes looks certain.

[philWynk]

@Huttate1 And you base this assessment on... what?

Known reserves are just that -- what we know is available given current price and technology. These change every year. "Peak oil" has been predicted repeatedly since the 1920s, but has NEVER been correct, and it's not correct now. It's the hysterical screeching of mindless idiots.

That 900 billion bbl figure is one oil field out of a dozen. Comparing it against the world's entire demand is a game played by liars -- which you apparently are.

[OUTOFGAS88]

@philWynk the lower 48 peaked at 11.5 barrals a day in 1970 , mr hubberd my that prediction in 1956.

[philWynk]

@OUTOFGAS88 Hubbert assumed maximum recovery of in-ground resources at 50%, which is the efficiency rate that was current in the 1950s. That rate has been increasing steadily. Recoveries in the Saudi oil field are now closer to 65% of in-ground oil, and rising as technology improves.

But the real key is that oil prices will rise on their own as resources fall off, making alternatives more attractive. So the right thing to do about peak oil is... nothing. Even if you Chicken Littles are correct.

[chadberry75]

@philWynk and u are?...

[philWynk]

@chadberry75 "and (sic) u (sic) are?...(sic)"

...way better informed than the fearful prognosticators here who are predicting the future based on ignorance about what the numbers mean that they're throwing around.

An MBA with a minor in economics who's been studying the energy industry for 45 years.

And also capable of writing a 3-word English sentence without making 3 errors. Criminy.

Why? Looking for a lame excuse to ignore the facts?

[walter0bz]

industrial civilization has a limited lifespan.

there's only so much we can dig up.

[Aphidboy]

Hamster Power! Too long overlooked? Or too good to be true. You decide.

[baihbalm]

Nuclear could and will be a huge help if more research and investment goes into it, the rest of the arguements in this video I mostly agree with.... perfecting magnetic motors and introducing them to the public could also help significantly. Most politicians are stalling this to protect their special interest friends... so much for representation.

[jimfun71]

@baihbalm You cant just dig up enriched uranium from the ground. When it's mined the bulk of it is 238. It needs to be enriched to 235 or 234 before it can be fisionable. The process of enrichment costs more energy that you get from it. The whole point of enrichment is so you can release it at will. If you had a million tons of coal you can't just release all the energy at will it must be burned slowly. Enriched uranium is like a battery. It stores energy, it's not a fuel source.

[baihbalm]

@jimfun71 I know a lot of what you said. Yet I did not know that it was not cost effective to enrich uranium. I tried to look up some sites on the energy input for enrichment vs the fuel cell output.  I could find all sorts of data on the output, yet so little is divulged on the enrichment process that I could not find out how much energy is used for enrichment. Guess I'll go ask someone smart, thanks for info jimfun. Perhaps a trip to the moon and we could settle for fusion instead? :)

[hitssquad]

@jimfun71 "The process of enrichment costs more energy that you get from it."

Then how could the fabricated-fuel cost only 0.57 cents / kWh?:

nei. org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_­statistics/costs

.

Source?

[jimfun71]

@hitssquad I'm not sure I understand your coment. Are you saying that nuke power is .57 cents per KwH? If so you should look up the cost of coal because it's like .045 cents per KwH. The diffrence is because nuke power is 100% emmision free at the point of consumption except for all that nasty waste that will take 10,000 years to become safe. The real cost of nuke power is the mega watt upon mega watt of energy it takes to enrich urainum. If you don't believe me look it up on the iternet.

[hitssquad]

@jimfun71 "The real cost of nuke power is the mega watt upon mega watt of energy"

A megawatt is not a unit of energy.

.

"energy it takes to enrich urainum."

Source? This one says it takes only around 1% of the electricity produced to not only enrich the uranium, but also for "construction of the plant, mining the Uranium [...] converting it to fuel, disposing the waste and decommissioning the plant":

nuclearinfo. net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergy­LifecycleOfNuclear_Power

[hitssquad]

@jimfun71 "If you don't believe me look it up on the iternet."

Where?

.

Show. Me. Your. Source.

[Halo4Lyf]

@hitssquad I was going to say... how much energy can it take to run a few thousand centrifuges?

[philWynk]

@jimfun71 Do you have the slightest idea how little refined uranium is required to run a nuclear power plant? If if took that much electricity to refine that uranium, the cost of the plant would exceed the profits of running it, and nobody would ever want to build a nuclear power plant. FAR more costly than the uranium are the 7 or 8 layers of environmental impact studies they have to pass before they can build. You're a LOON.

[52111centrumcz]

@jimfun71

Actually, the 10000 years half-lifes touted by politicians is because no research money has been put forward for fuel recycling. If you remove the plutonium and other actinides, the fuel is radioactive for only 300 years at any significant level. Make a power plant that runs on secondary artificial actinides, and you close the fuel cycle. But artificial scarcity is the name of the game, and cheap power is a no-no.

[philWynk]

@jimfun71 You're talking nonsense. Uranium is nothing like a battery. Enriched uranium merely generates heat when it divides. In a power plant they use it to boil water, and the steam turns a turbine.

Nuclear fuel costs in US nuclear plants runs roughly 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. About half that cost is from refinement. So the energy to refine uranium costs no more than 1.25 cents/kWh. That is NOT more energy than you get from it.

[52111centrumcz]

@jimfun71

? WTF?! You are really confused. Read about what you are talking about first, isotope composition of natural ore, and required enrichment levels for power plants. There are also heavy water plants made by AECL that run on natural uranium, requiring no enrichment, but require heavy water production.

[noname7913]

Every energy source has a downside some more obvious than others. This may include high costs, availability of resources and inefficiency such as fuel that requires high energy to produce. I once thought about using sewage as a fertilizer for algae to make oil for PPO or biodiesel fuel. The algae would also be fed co2 from fossil fuel power plants to increase productivity. Still I'm sure in spite of all the sewage we produce this wouldn't come close to diesel consumption. Oh well.

[mastior]

FACT: 1 acre swimming pool Does create 150k gallons @ 98% Octane Gasoline in 1 year from Algae

[mikez565]

oil prices reaching the stratisphere? You have no clue how high it can go.

[SatoTM3]

that last wasn't myth you stupid not-global-warming-believing american. you caused this shit.

[ChristophInns]

Nobody mentioned the Elephant in the Room, that America would have to stabilize its population and stop growing. Nobody wants to face up to that.

[RIEKSONE]

@ChristophInns

actually watch demographic winter

human population is declining

[Montgisard]

@RIEKSONE

Wrong, the rate of growth of human population is declining.

[GSfreebooks]

Very simple problem. What has the same energy in the same space and does not make you glow? Let me know what you come up with the replacement for oil. Pop control anyone? Marching backwards in time. Seen any real growth in the last few years? Just numbers crooks. Surprised this made the air. Facts are hard to find on TV. As for OPEC well duhhh... the unemployed & under employed drive less. Plus factory shut downs.

[losaface4]

wtf?! Where are all the facts.

[SpiceSE90]

If oil production peaked, then why did OPEC have to cut production in order to shore up prices?

Answer = Oil hasn't peaked yet.

[ALP5050]

@SpiceSE90 Becuase due to the global recession demand was crushed but is slowly rising again. And we will keep repeating what happened in 2008 over and over again.

[ALP5050]

The month and year this video was posted what the exact month and year global oil production peaked.

[Montgisard]

@ALP5050

Wrong, global oil poduction has been flat for the last 5 years at the same time that per/barrel prices have increased.

[woodystrength]

hemp oil!!!

[Drawzey]

LoL ??? eny idea howmeny power people can generate with nuclear power?xD

We can't fill the gap?

well you have no choice ... you should fill the gap...

[seanotube85]

There are so many different forms of alternative energy out there, how can this jackass say it's a myth? Because it won't rake in billions of dollars for the oil execs? Because it will cost too much to research? I'm pretty sure it'll cost WAY more in the long run to NOT invest in a new source of energy.

[Siddis33]

The only way US will be oil independant is to drastically reduce the oil consumption.

[jpd1235]

Even if we did switch 100% to nuclear... we would have 10 to 20 years supply of u235, uranium. A bridge at best.

[proaudiohd]

The oil americans burn every day is equal to the energy from 750 nuclear power plants. And yeah, there's not much uranium around even if we magically built all those plants. Even if we did that, we have 300 million combustion engine cars that don't use electricity. We need to make 300 million new battery electric cars in the coming years before we worry about the power plants to replace all that oil energy. I think we'll start burning coal at a collossal rate.. not that we dont already.

[ImperialOrwell]

@proaudiohd Ahh, right. And where would the electricity come from? Wind? Nope, too difficult to transport. Solar? Nope, same problem PLUS it's way too weak. Ethanol? Nope, again too difficult to transport. Coal is the answer, which is also a dreaded "greenhouse gas." Currently, nuclear power constitutes roughly 20% of our power needs. In France, their energy is almost entirely taken from nuclear power; in Japan, even more so.

[Montgisard]

@ImperialOrwell

Wrong, at 5% growth annually there is only enough coal in the ground to last 41 years and that assumes we can mine 100% of what's in the ground.

[wollin20]

@Montgisard At last, someone who knows facts!

[52111centrumcz]

@jpd1235

That's why uninformed people like you should look at LTFRs, and BN800 breeder reactors before talking about nuclear power like its a blind alley. In fact, currently only about 1% of the energy of mined uranium is used!!! Incredibly wasteful, and all only because politicians are worried about fuel reprocessing proliferating (which enables any country that masters it to produce nuke weaponry, making them uninvadable conventionally because of threat of nuclear response)

[ccricers]

"Also Hubbert originally said we would hit peak oil between 1965 and 1970. Not only didn't this happen but Hubbert's supporters have pushed back the peak by at least 35 years."

Wrong there. Hubbard was predicting the peak for the US only...and it did occur, in 1970. He predicted the world peak to be somewhere between 1990 and 2000, but this was before the 70s oil crisis. Political affairs remain the biggest wildcard in predicting peak oil

[deltapunk21]

Regulations, taxes, ugh and also more regulations and prophibitions on exploration and most importantly drilling.

[boundtogetdown]

in ecology this is known as overshoot and dieoff i bet that when the world population hits 7 billion people we are going to start killing each other off in food riots; its exactly what happens when large animals overgraze; kill or starve

[wwood14]

As I understand it, Peak Oil issue does not involve running out of oil, but rather world wide demand is out stripping new oil production, meaning the price must go up.

[marcbelisle]

As news reports go, I found this one to be very weak: too little info, no proof offered and seems to me like basically a mixture of views.

[X3r4ph]

Why do you say the "green" alternatives won't work? Ofcourse it is hard to wrap your head around it, but here in Denmark wind power alone powers 20% of our country.

Point is, america is a big place, you should have plenty of room for wind power or solar power.

It could work, only, if politics and money weren't involved.

[SpongeGFA]

The problem is that the amount of wind power required is a tremendous amount, enough so that it can actually effect wind patterns. And the corporations don't see solar power as profitable. Each source has its ups and downs, we just need to find the right mix.

[X3r4ph]

Now, don't take this the wrong way. :D

I find it ironic that possible change in wind patterns is the main concern. I mean, that is nothing compared to the possible risks of burning fossil fuels or constructing nuclear power plants.

I feel like it is a question of money. And right now, oil is profitable bussiness, very profitable. If wind power could do more than just make energy, I am sure you would hear no complaints about wind patterns.

[SpongeGFA]

Oh yeah, I hear you lol. That's why we haven't done aything yet, because Americans do not want to lose money on a danger that isn't completely certain, which is a shame because I would like to have my grandchildren fly in a plane some day... :(

[aviomaster]

USA - in IRAQ ,,, has secured IRAQI OIL fields , 250.000.000.000 barrels of easily extracted OIL , Americans need to not worry ,,  they are secured for 40 years ,,, but only who is willing to die for OIL.

[rams392]

curde oil is of abiotic origin. we'll never run out of oil.

[SpartanOnFire]

Cite your sources please

[rams392]

gasresources net

[guitark3]

False scarcity- all monetary systems are based on this. If its abundant its free like air and water. There are plenty of resources for everyone. No matter what we did in the past 100 years since we started pumping crude oil and mining fossil fuel is not enough to put the smallest dent in this planets resources 100 years simply is'nt long enough to even study this. If this planet find humans to be a burden it will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. The End

[symmetry08]

don't become emotional people. There are more oil out there than you think BUT it is not gonna be cheap AS before. With each passing years it will go up and UP, all the time.

[Trapster99]

Yes, that is the major drawback to Nuclear Power. That and the issue of where to store the radioacticve waste for the next 30k years. However, the new reactor design, using very small self contained sphires, appear to be very safe. In fact, those new reactors are designed so as they can never go 'critical'.

[52111centrumcz]

@Trapster99

actually, pyroprocessing can reduce radioactivity to acceptable levels to roughly 300 years, at the same time producing plutonium and other actinides for fast neutron reactors like the BN800.

[Trapster99]

You want a real and workable alternative solution to the burning of 'Fossil Fuel'? Simple, construct 100 nuclear power plants across the USA. That was happening in the 1970's until Three Mile Island power plant was sabotaged. The 'green' alternatives will not work.

PS. Now Confirmed 60-70% of the price of Oil this summer was due to Banker Speculation.  When the Bankers recover from their losses we will see the price spike agan.

[dangerouslytalented]

The biggest problem with nuclear, is that when something goes wrong in a coal fired plant, the worst that could happen is a locally contained fire. If something goes wrong in a nuclear plant, then it could leak, it could explode, it could collapse, and if ANY plutonium gets into the atmosphere, thousands die from cancer. And if it is deliberate sabotage, they would do something that would cause COLOSSAL damage.

[SpongeGFA]

Well the problem with nuclear is where are you going to put all the nuclear waste? Not to mention that we can't throw all our eggs in one basket like we did with oil. 150 years ago, humanity thought that oil would support us for centuries and it would never run out. We need a mix of nuclear, wind, solar, etc.

[Trapster99]

The nuke waste can be put into super deep storage. It is an engineering issue, really.

Nuclear, wind, solar, conservation....all are good things. We can even replace gasoline powered engines with ones that run on water, and we can do that within 10 years.

But, what are you going to do on the days when it's not windy, or there is too much wind? On the days when it's cloudy? Or at night?

That's right, nuclear (4th generation) is the way to the future.

[dkw12002]

True. We are running out, just not quickly. On the other hand, 1,000 years isn't so long as the globe turns. Then what? Solar, tides, wind are the only renewable energy sources we know about, and that technology is only so-so for now. Looks like our progeny will be back to subsistence living. Oh, there could be some technological breakthrough, but I doubt that will occur. Most likely, just little improvements, which wouldn't replace all the cheap oil. We're screwed. We just don't know it yet.

[Maximara]

This doesn't explain WHY alternative energy will not fill the gap. Also Hubbert originally said we would hit peak oil between 1965 and 1970. Not only didn't this happen but Hubbert's supporters have pushed back the peak by at least 35 years. Also look at how far the price of oil has fallen as the world economy tanks. OPEC is trying to reduce production to drive UP the price.

[TheCZMan]

Something like peak oil cannot be reached straightwards. It will be reached through stable periods. Each stable period has sent and will send signals of oil being a limited commodity.

People giving brackets of time can be:

-people trying to developp a predictive model (scientists)

-people thinking that you must take a decision when you can not when you have to (preparing the after oil will be easier if you start still having oil)

-people wanting to make money, developping a cult...

[TheCZMan]

Opec trying and failing to play the supply and offer game might an evidence that the market does not grasp the difference between produced goods and finite collected commodities.

Oil prices might stay nearly the same no matter you are eating the first quarter of the world oil reserve or being already eating the last quarter of the reserve.

And this is somehow bad news because steep prices could have bought time, steady prices wont...

[TheCZMan]

As to alternative energy, well, humanity is already very experienced in using them: wind, tide, solar energy derived forms have all been used already. Now either you believe that the leap in technology was such that they can now outcompete coal or oil or consider the possibility that people shifted from these energy forms to other energy forms they consider superior.

[nickranes3]

LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES!!!!!!!!! We have so much oil in the world its not even funny, remember, we have only been burning it a few decades, swamps were around creating this oil for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS. BYYYYYyyyyyyeeee. (1:14 seconds of my life down the drain, thanks Eyewitness LIES)

[OUTOFGAS88]

you need to read more my friend books like, A THOUSAND BARRELS A SECOND, AND ,EATING FOSSIL FUELS,yes its a fact that there will always be some oil in the ground, the problem is that the currently demands 87million barrels a day,the demand will only increase,while the supply will start to drop.

[nickranes3]

WHEN? Not anytime soon. "Do the math" These are lies and rough guestimations AT BEST!

[OUTOFGAS88]

you talk about rough guestimations, but that's what your doing guessing, i would rather get my information from people who know the subject people like, Collin cambell,Mathew Simmons, even T,Boone pic kens are all saying the same thing,the world is running out of ABUNDANT , CHEAP, EASILY ACCESSIBLE OIL.these guys are paid to know this are you?

[nickranes3]

First off. People who study this stuff arent all saying this. Second off, T Boone talks about wind and solar power like he is serious about it. He also seems to be part of the Global Warming crowd who base radical theories on faulty science and then turn around and say there is a scientific consensus when there clearly is not.OUTOFGAS yeah wild THEORIES like this enable speculation and projected demand graphs and B.S. to drive the price of oil through the roof so I become broke and run OUTOFGAS

[chavrecycler]

Oh, you people aren't serious! You are not really debating with migraines3????? NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Don't bother. migraines3 is a kid. A hoax; a thick one!

[nickranes3]

Oh "a hoax;" huh? HAHAHAHA! chavrecycler hahahaa.....

[OUTOFGAS88]

now you sound like the NUT i was trying vary hard not to call you if people like T BOONE are trying to drive the price of oil threw the rough why has the price of oil gone down by more the 65% in less them eight months?? please tell US OH NUTTY PROFFESOR

[nickranes3]

Oh a "NUT" huh? OUTOFGAS Do you think speculation (like the idea of a finite supply of oil) is good for the price of oil? Second off, OUTOFGAS why did the price of Oil go down 65% in less than 8 months? Thats a good question. WHY? Indeed. Lets hear your theory. :) 3rd off, Fuck you. I dont like you and I think you are full of shit. So lets keep the insults to a minimun. Kay? Dont let you emotions get in the way of an edumacationing.

[OUTOFGAS88]

NICKRANES3 fuck you back,your the un-edumacted A-HOLE becoming emotional, about this issue,and yes you sound like a FUCKING NUT when you accuse respected scientist of being involved in a conspiracy to drive oil prices up.

[nickranes3]

When you start and finish explaining why you think the Oil prices went down, I'll consider your next accusation. (that I am "becoming emotional")

& again here is a remider, "I dont like you and I think you are full of shit, so lets keep the insults to a MINIMUM KAY?"

[chavrecycler]

What's "remider"?

[nickranes3]

Is that the only one? (yawn) kay.. cause Im about to hit the hay. Hey but let me know either way Chode, cause um I like having you as my slave zombie spell checker. I think this will work out fine. For the both of us Yeah! Air Bump! ca'ch! Laugh at you little later......:)

[OUTOFGAS88]

HAHAHA thats all i can say about your last comment,which proves what a complete ASS-HOLE you are, you say you don't like me "YOU" "DON'T" "EVEN" "KNOW" "ME" "A"-"HOLE"

maybe you just don't like people who don't agree with your DUMB ASS comments.

[nickranes3]

When you start and finish explaining why you think the Oil prices went down, I'll consider your next accusation. (that I am "becoming emotional")

[newculture]

This one was okay. I don't think that the myth-buster worked very well, example: one sentence on oil futures doesn't explain what is going on.

Also, I doubt that refiners are making 99 cents on every gallon of gasoline. They've got expenses, and I've read that they are having trouble passing on higher prices to distributors.

Probably better than nothing, but certainly not great reporting.

[falldownhard]

It is true Exxon Mobil has no incentive to increase production with these absurd profits. However - their production is falling and at some point it will get to the point where no price will make up for the shortage. Oil is a finite resource and regardless of human profit manipulation it will run dangerously short of supply and we will see some horrific realities within 10-20 years maximum, I think much sooner. I WANT to believe we have more oil - but I just don't think we do.

[Iconoclast421]

go go lil hampster dude, thats the solution

[HighAway]

Hence PEAK OIL!

[Trapster99]

Peak Oil is a lie.

Have you ever seen a gas station recently with a sign: 'No Gas'?

1# Rule in the Oil World The lower the supply, the higher the price.

[bustermk2]

So why don't we raise the amount of oil we produce and lower the price?

Oh that s right we can't ... because production has peaked.

[Trapster99]

No, it's not in the interests of those who CONTROL the production to increase production. What would be the incentive for them? They (Exon/Mobil/Standard) are making record profits. It's nice to have a $300 million retirement when you are a CEO. Look who is making the really big profits: Wall Street Speculators. And don't count on the Government...they have been paid off by Big Oil. Wake up, you are being ripped off.