Oil at all time record

[yakuruto]

I don't think nuclear power is much more environment friendly than fossil fuels because even if it has virtually no emissions while producing energy, the residues are way more dangerous and take a lot of time to deactivate.

Since almost nothing in this world moves without a profit involved I really doubt serious investments will be made on alternate energy sources until we really have the water up to the neck or higher on an oil-deficit situation and desperately need something else, oil producers and refiners don't care that much about environment to cut their profits by supporting a new energy source while they still can make lots and lots of money using oil.

For cars and the like, hydrogen is a good option, but compatible engines and hydrogen production is not the only problem, distribution is also an issue we have to sort out (I'm not really sure if the same pipes used to distribute gasoline and diesel can be used for hydrogen).

 

[Beerdude26]

Nope, it's only 1 cubic decimeter, roughly more than 1/4 gallon.

(1 gal ≅ 3.785 liters)


/me hugs his metric system too :cheese::bounce:

Dammit you are correct good sir

/me goes back to learning converting between metres and litres

 

[Raziaar]

any small car is fuel efficient just by the very nature that they're small

They're still not fuel efficient. You buy any small older car(cheaper) in this country, and you still only have a fuel economy of around 15-25 miles per gallon, which isn't very fuel efficient at all. And you'd have to be damn lucky to find any much beyond 20mpg that people are still selling for a cheaper price. Especially in these times.

 

[Terminator]

My current car is mapped for high octane fuel so i have to buy premium stuff.

?1.15 a litre.. (thats $10.5 a gallon)

Thankfully i only drive on average 5 miles a day, still i'm looking for alternative vehicle, a small aerodyanamic diesel with 6 gears or something.

 

[CptStern]

They're still not fuel efficient. You buy any small older car(cheaper) in this country, and you still only have a fuel economy of around 15-25 miles per gallon, which isn't very fuel efficient at all. And you'd have to be damn lucky to find any much beyond 20mpg that people are still selling for a cheaper price. Especially in these times.

honda civics get around 30mpg ..they're a dime a dozen so you should have no problem finding one under $10k

 

[Terminator]

A euro ford escort 1.1 popular of 1986 we had did 40mpg....
If you can find one OVER ?300 i'd be suprised.

A second hand car for a grand could easily be in the over 40mpg range, ok so it's gonna be just over a litre displacement but as long as you're not doing highway crusiing it's fine.
If you're doing highways a good diesel is the option.

 

[Beerdude26]

Hooray Short Recoil is back \/

I demand several epic stories after your long absence.

 

[Rico]

You just debunked your own statement. Of course it's cheap in venezuela. It's also cheap all over the middle east, why? They produce it, they keep it. It's when they can't afford to keep it cheap for themselves that we're all screwed. That's when they'll jack up the costs or stop exporting.

You don't see how there's not a shortage of oil based on your own statements?

If there was a noticeable oil shortage like you say there is, countries would be hoarding their oil, regardless of how much they have compared to everyone else.

 

[PvtRyan]

I don't think nuclear power is much more environment friendly than fossil fuels because even if it has virtually no emissions while producing energy, the residues are way more dangerous and take a lot of time to deactivate.

The waste doesn't disappear into the atmosphere however, it can be dealt with. As a matter of fact, fossil fuels emit lots radioactive waste directly into the environment, through combustion of isotopes like C14.

The whole "takes millions of years to decay" is complete and utter bullshit. If something takes millions of years to decay, it's probably less radioactive than the house you're living in (the stones in houses emit Radon gas which is radioactive and causes tens of thousands of deaths a year). You can put a bar of uranium 238 into your pants and walk around like that for a week and still have perfectly normal kids with two arms and two legs (especially because U238 releases alpha radiation which won't even penetrate skin, but the point stands, this was just an example). Despite it (or rather: because of it) having a half-life of more than 4 billion years, a number that would instantly make any Greenpeace member yell out "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" and drop dead.

The longer something takes to decay, the less dangerous it is. If something contains a billion atoms, and it has a half-life of 10.000 years it means it will release 500 million gamma rays over 10.000 years, which is decidedly less radioactive than the same billion atoms having a half-life of 10 hours which means it will release those same 500 million rays in just 10 hours.

Making sure a site where radioactive material is stored is safe for more than 10.000 years in the freaking desert (or wherever secluded) in the middle of fucking nowhere seems like a complete joke when you consider all the other dangerous things which DO kill thousands of people a year (air pollution in cities kills shitloads of people). Hell, background radiation is far more harmful than any long-term nuclear waste. To bitch about the sugarcube sized piece of radioactive waste that is produced each year per person using nuclear energy is plain crazy in the light of living near a busy road equaling smoking a pack a day.

Besides, do you know where radioactive material is currently being stored? In a lot of cases, it's being stored at the site of the nuclear plant. No matter what you think of nuclear power, that stuff needs to go somewhere, so a solution for waste is needed regardless of whether you want to continue using nuclear energy or not. And if there is a solution available, you might as well continue to use it, no?

The waste argument is a non-argument. Plan and simple.

 

[Beerdude26]

Unfortunately, nuclear power can't be used to run vehicles. Well, at least I haven't heard of it. So while it might be a good idea for electricity, it's still not an oil replacer.

 

[PvtRyan]

Unfortunately, nuclear power can't be used to run vehicles. Well, at least I haven't heard of it. So while it might be a good idea for electricity, it's still not an oil replacer.

Use the electricity to generate hydrogen. Or switch to electric cars.

 

[Terminator]

Unfortunately, nuclear power can't be used to run vehicles. Well, at least I haven't heard of it. So while it might be a good idea for electricity, it's still not an oil replacer.

Electric vehicles are coming on in leaps and bounds.

 

[CptStern]

till they run out of juice ..then it's 15km of pushing ..all uphill too!!!

 

[Beerdude26]

Use the electricity to generate hydrogen. Or switch to electric cars.

Haha I was about to edit my post to suggest this

I am so getting an electric car. Current models can do 300km (around 155 miles) until they need a full recharge (although you can quickcharge it to 2/3rds limit in fifteen minutes) and they're slightly more expensive than conventional cars.

EDIT: Also Terminator my post on the top if this page still stands

 

[PvtRyan]

till they run out of juice ..then it's 15km of pushing ..all uphill too!!!

That's merely a warming-up exercise for Short Recoil

 

[Terminator]

True, electric car batteries of present are expensive to produce and lack energy density of petrol but with mass production and development they could easily compete with fossil fueld vehicles, especially with increasing prices.

It's basically all down to the batteries and charging methods really as aerodynamic/efficient drive has already been near 'perfected'.

The tesla roadster or the eliica are examples of what electric vehicles can be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliica
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lJgIs5D6XSM&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=m_SukHloP5w&feature=related

Oh and beerdude, no magnificent quests i'm afraid just a year or studying, working and self improvement.

 

[MiccyNarc]

You don't see how there's not a shortage of oil based on your own statements?

If there was a noticeable oil shortage like you say there is, countries would be hoarding their oil, regardless of how much they have compared to everyone else.

You don't understand how the oil and energy economy works. Why don't you do some actual research instead of depending on hearsay and then come back to discuss.

 

[repiV]

How exactly would using electric cars help?

I don't understand how consuming oil in order to generate electricity which is then used to power cars could ever be more efficient than just using oil to power cars.
Not to mention the performance drawbacks and safety issues (ie. silence) associated with electric vehicles. I wouldn't ride an electric motorbike if you paid me to, talk about a death sentence.

 

[Rico]

You don't understand how the oil and energy economy works. Why don't you do some actual research instead of depending on hearsay and then come back to discuss.

My dad worked with OPEC and was in the oil industry as the head of Finance for Petroleos De Venezuela (Venezuela's largest oil corporation, also owned by the govt. ).

I was in a program in high school in which we were being prepared to go work in the oil industry as a career.

I am from Venezuela and I went there last October.

Boy I bet you feel like a dummy now.

 

[PvtRyan]

How exactly would using electric cars help?

I don't understand how consuming oil in order to generate electricity which is then used to power cars could ever be more efficient than just using oil to power cars.
Not to mention the performance drawbacks and safety issues (ie. silence) associated with electric vehicles. I wouldn't ride an electric motorbike if you paid me to, talk about a death sentence.

It's always a delight to read your posts that somehow always manage to mention motorbikes in a victim's position in one way or another. You've truly developed it into an art.

Anyway, cars don't run on oil. Cars run on diesel/gasoline/gas which is distilled from oil, which takes energy. Then it takes energy to transport the fuel to wherever it's needed. There's some loss of energy through transportation through wires, but not nearly as much as with the transportation of fuel.

It also rids you of your dependency on oil, making it possible to power your car on wind/solar/nuclear power.

With an electric car, it's possible to do 1 eurocent / kilometer. A fairly efficient car (1 L / 15 km) will do it for ten times as much at current prices.

 

[repiV]

It's always a delight to read your posts that somehow always manage to mention motorbikes in a victim's position in one way or another. You've truly developed it into an art.

Hardly. I mentioned it because it's relevant. Electric vehicles make no sound. That's incredibly dangerous especially in terms of accidents involving pedestrians, and the danger factor is astronomically higher with motorbikes because people don't see them in traffic as it is.
I don't drive a car, I have no interest in cars whatsoever - it's hardly surprising that I'm going to see things from a biker's point of view now, is it?

Anyway, cars don't run on oil. Cars run on diesel/gasoline/gas which is distilled from oil, which takes energy. Then it takes energy to transport the fuel to wherever it's needed. There's some loss of energy through transportation through wires, but not nearly as much as with the transportation of fuel.

It also rids you of your dependency on oil, making it possible to power your car on wind/solar/nuclear power.

Indeed, but most electricity is still generated via fossil fuel. The concept of electric cars at this stage is of questionable benefit.

With an electric car, it's possible to do 1 eurocent / kilometer. A fairly efficient car (1 L / 15 km) will do it for ten times as much at current prices.

Yes, but their performance and range is so limited as to preclude them from being a viable alternative.

 

[MiccyNarc]

My dad worked with OPEC and was in the oil industry as the head of Finance for Petroleos De Venezuela (Venezuela's largest oil corporation, also owned by the govt. ).

I was in a program in high school in which we were being prepared to go work in the oil industry as a career.

I am from Venezuela and I went there last October.

Boy I bet you feel like a dummy now.

No, I just think you're full of shit. My dad runs a nuclear reactor. See I can make up shit too!

Regardless, you're still wrong, and are in dire need of doing some research before posting again. Try looking at some oil production figures. Try researching hubbert's curve. Try pulling your head out of your ass. Then come back and we can talk.
If dick cheney says there's a shortage, I'm going to believe him, and not average joe on the internet #5,043.

Don't believe he said that?:

. . . there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day.

http://www.peakoil.net/Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf

Holy shit sources!

 

[Terminator]

Hardly. I mentioned it because it's relevant. Electric vehicles make no sound. That's incredibly dangerous especially in terms of accidents involving pedestrians, and the danger factor is astronomically higher with motorbikes because people don't see them in traffic as it is.
I don't drive a car, I have no interest in cars whatsoever - it's hardly surprising that I'm going to see things from a biker's point of view now, is it?

Sound is such a trivial matter i'm suprised you mentioned it.

If you want sound you can hook up a sound generation module, you could even make it sound identical to a normal motorbike.

Anyway a lot of modern cars are very soundproofed with people often playing loud music, so unless you are driving a harley (which are too loud/noise pollution) or something it's pretty irrelevant anyway!

In a world of electric vehicles you could still run your old bike a la 'i robot' for pleasure, motorbikes are a minority and relatively efficient so they are not such a big deal as cars anyway.

 

[ríomhaire]

gas is $1.08/Liter ....WTF im not made of money and i travel over 100km a day, 5 days a week with my 2.0L golf.

Oh boo-hoo. It's more than 1.08 euro per litre over here.

 

[repiV]

Sound is such a trivial matter i'm suprised you mentioned it.

If you want sound you can hook up a sound generation module, you could even make it sound identical to a normal motorbike.

The question is though, would good sense prevail and this become mandatory?
I can just see the NIMBY brigade who want peace and quiet winning out over safety aspects here.

Anyway a lot of modern cars are very soundproofed with people often playing loud music, so unless you are driving a harley (which are too loud/noise pollution) or something it's pretty irrelevant anyway!

I use a racing exhaust system, it's respectable enough at low revs but at the higher end of the rev range I'd imagine it's louder than a Harley. Ever since I got it fitted, car drivers have been far more aware of my presence. When filtering/lane-splitting I knock it down into first gear just to make sure I'm heard.
I do take your point - but the biggest factor here is pedestrian safety. They're idiots at the best of times, add in silent cars...and well, you can see what would happen.

In a world of electric vehicles you could still run your old bike a la 'i robot' for pleasure, motorbikes are a minority and relatively efficient so they are not such a big deal as cars anyway.

Aye. I doubt that whatever replaces the petrol engine will be anywhere near as exciting, but it's certainly fun to imagine what the machines of 2030 will be like...heads up displays, computers that warn when you're nearing the limits of traction, the ability to reprogram the fuelling on the fly...? Endless possibilities...

 

[Seppo]

i don't use oil

 

[Terminator]

i don't use oil

If you don't use oil, directly and indirectly that would be very impressive.

Is this what you meant or did you mean you don't use it directly?

 

[MiccyNarc]

i don't use oil

Do you eat?

 

[Sulkdodds]

The question is though, would good sense prevail and this become mandatory?
I can just see the NIMBY brigade who want peace and quiet winning out over safety aspects here.

National shock as repiV advocates road safety legislation!

You make a good point, although I'm not sure how much sound would matter as many cars these days are pretty damn quiet.

I'd like to see if it's possible to know exactly how much less energy electrical cars would use than petrol cars. It seems like even if you got rid of the oil you were directly using in transport, you'd still be dependent mainly on that substance until a viable alternative fuel (perhaps algae biofuel) that could be made directly into electricity was found.

 

[yakuruto]

Heh, I never said it takes millions of years for radioactive material to decay, I said it takes a lot of time, and for human lifespan a hundred years is quite a while, my friend.

I'm aware that nuclear plant wastes are easier to deal with fir the simple and plain reason that they're mostly (but not exclusively) solid wastes that can be easily confined, and in that respect is kinda safer than its oil-produced cousin; we agree on that point. What I meant in my previous post is that even if those wastes are confined, there is a potential risk (as with everything) and in case of a disaster, the consequences (unforeseen or not ) can be as bad or even worse than the damage done by current oil-based energy production methods.

I never said I was against nuclear power, I just stated that I don't think is much more "green" than oil, and I still think that way, whether you like it or not.

 

[Terminator]

The energy problem isn't an easy one to solve, especially with environmental considerations, thankfully however i believe that humans have the ability to adapt quickly if they have to and the environment can spring back from big problems, this does not give us an excuse to lay back and do nothing tho as it will only cause us suffering in the long run.

-We must reduce our energy wastage and increase efficiency, this needn't mean less enjoyment of life.

-We must embrace atomic energy, with improved technology this will be key to future energy supplies and reasonable space travel/colonisation (unless a breakthrough technology is developed), i believe there is merit in fusion devices in the next 20 years, until then we must ration our use of fossil fuels.
Whilst atomic energy is a touchy subject, there is simply no other way until we develop something better, that is of course if we all still want to live our modern lives with electronic entertainment and not live in the dark living off carrots grown on the abandonned football pitches.

-Renewable energy is fair enough but i belive is more useful on a situational smallscale rather than attempting to have huge renewable 'power stations'
If every house in the street is getting it's domestic electricity through a local rewnewable source then it's one less street to worry about, people could work together on such things.

-Development of biofuel 'crops' is rediculous, utilisation of food crop waste into biofuels is fantastic.

-Transportation can be much more efficient than it is today, it simply takes logistical development for goods, solar barges, wind barges, such individual things are slower but like i say with correct logistics no problem whatsoever.
Personal transportation, as above can be more efficient.

etc etc etc etc etc.

I don't personally think we are '****ed' i just think we'll need to adapt, as we have done in the past.

 

[yakuruto]

Your last sentence sort of resumes what i think is your point, and if it is, I agree: If things go on the way they are now, we're definitely ****ed.

Must of theoretically possible alternatives aren't applicable today because of insufficient or inefficient technology, eg. mechanical methods disperse a lot of energy as heat, electrical vehicles aren't as efficient and powerful as those running on hydrocarbons. On top of that, the environmental issue is always present, but I agree with you that we're still on time to do something about our energy problems before we're really ****ed.

And yeah, fusion reactors might be a good alternative and hopefully they'll be available in a few years, regardless of that old joke told among scientists "fusion reactors have been decades away for a few decades now".

 

[Rico]

No, I just think you're full of shit. My dad runs a nuclear reactor. See I can make up shit too!

Regardless, you're still wrong, and are in dire need of doing some research before posting again. Try looking at some oil production figures. Try researching hubbert's curve. Try pulling your head out of your ass. Then come back and we can talk.
If dick cheney says there's a shortage, I'm going to believe him, and not average joe on the internet #5,043.

Don't believe he said that?:

http://www.peakoil.net/Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf

Holy shit sources!

You must be really desperate to quote Dick Cheney as proof of your statements, considering the US is not a major oil exporter or producer.

Educate yourself:

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

I bet you've never even heard of that. Its ok to be ignorant, but to refuse to learn its a whole different business.

Venezuela
According to the Oil and Gas Journal (OGJ), Venezuela had 77.2 gigabarrels of proven conventional oil reserves as of 2007 (80 years of future production), the largest of any country in the Western Hemisphere. In addition it has non-conventional oil deposits similar in size to Canada's - at 1,200 billion barrels approximately equal to the world's reserves of conventional oil. About 267 billion barrels of this may be producible at current prices using current technology.[citation needed] Venezuela's Orinoco tar sands are less viscous than Canada's Athabasca oil sands ? meaning they can be produced by more conventional means, but are buried deeper ? meaning they cannot be extracted by surface mining. In an attempt to have these extra heavy oil reserves recognized by the international community, Venezuela has moved to add them to its conventional reserves to give nearly 350 billion barrels of total oil reserves. This would give it the largest oil reserves in the world, even ahead of Saudi Arabia. In October 2007 the Venezuelan government said its proven oil reserves have risen to 100 billion barrels. The energy and oil ministry said it has certified 12.4 billion additional barrels of proven reserves in the country's Faja del Orinoco region.[25]
Venezuela?s development of its non-conventional oil reserves is mainly limited by political unrest. In late 2002 and early 2003 a strike at the state oil company PDVSA resulted in a dramatic drop in Venezuelan oil production and the firing of most of the oil company?s workers. This has significantly limited its ability to develop and produce oil.[26]
Estimates of Venezuelan oil production vary. Venezuela claims its oil production is over 3 million barrels per day, but oil industry analysts and the U.S. Energy Information Administration believe it to be much lower.[citation needed] In addition to other reporting irregularities, much of its production is extra-heavy oil, which may or may not be included with conventional oil in the various production estimates. The U.S. Energy Information Agency estimated Venezuela's oil production in December 2006 was only 2.5 million barrels per day (approx 0.9 gigabarrels annually), a 24% decline from its peak of 3.3 million in 1997.[citation needed] Notwithstanding that, Venezuela continues to be the second or third largest supplier of oil to the United States, sending about 1.5 million barrels per day to the U.S. Venezuela is also a major oil refiner and the owner of the Citgo gasoline chain.

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

Bolded some parts for your reading pleasure. Of course, politics has nothing to do with rising oil prices, it's an oil shortage!

Go ahead and read up on Venezuela's current political situation. Notice how oil prices have risen as political relations with Venezuela have gotten worse? Since Chavez came into power, Venezuela has been producing less oil, due to his firing of most skilled workers in the petroleum industry, and through his hostile foreign policy. If you do some further "research" on your part, you will find that most of Venezuela's refining equipment and infrastructure for mining oil came from foreign powers, such as the US. SInce Chavez started nationalizing all oil production, it has significantly dwindled in comparison to before he came into power. There is still a LARGE amount of untapped oil in Venezuela alone. Based on reserve figures for Venezuela alone, the oil we have RIGHT NOW will last us for 100 years. That does not even include the oil being currently produced and any oil produced in the future.

So before you start throwing around insults, I recommend you pull your own head out of your ass first. Your quote does not even prove your point, all it says is this "OMG oil will eventually run out, and people will use more oil in the future than they do right now". Well, no shit sherlock, it's called industrial growth and countries continuing to develop. It does not correlate to your statement of "The reason oil prices are going up is because of the oil shortage, that is the main reason". There is no oil shortage, there is an increase in price due to economic and political reasons

 

[AiM]

I think the best thing to do is for USA to give China nuclear power plants (I'm pretty sure china have nukes, so its not an Iran style situation), and then take the funding from Iraq and move it to alternative fuels.

But its not gonna happen, esspecially since the Yanks are too deep in the shit in Iraq.

Huh? China already has many nuclear plants scattered across the country, hell they even have a few relatively near their major cities (e.g. Hong Kong). I'll assume you mean it's better to just shove Nuclear power plants in foreign countries so you can reap the benefits without it posing a risk to your immediate country, in which case, shame on you son.

It's funny you mention Iraq, since it obviously doesn't possess any oil reserves, right? :angel:

Heh, I never said it takes millions of years for radioactive material to decay, I said it takes a lot of time, and for human lifespan a hundred years is quite a while, my friend.

I'm aware that nuclear plant wastes are easier to deal with fir the simple and plain reason that they're mostly (but not exclusively) solid wastes that can be easily confined, and in that respect is kinda safer than its oil-produced cousin; we agree on that point. What I meant in my previous post is that even if those wastes are confined, there is a potential risk (as with everything) and in case of a disaster, the consequences (unforeseen or not ) can be as bad or even worse than the damage done by current oil-based energy production methods.

I never said I was against nuclear power, I just stated that I don't think is much more "green" than oil, and I still think that way, whether you like it or not.

Compared to petroleum, it's by far a more 'green' resource of fuel. You realize the main exhaustion results in what basically amounts to steam right? Whereas oil combustion typically involves dangerous elements like lead, co2, co, hydrocarbons, etc. that not only promotes global warming but also is hazardous to your everyday health. Diesel is arguably even worse since it directly contributes to acid rain.

As far as the consequences are concerned, a nuclear meltdown would be devastating for the environment and everything within it's vicinity. However, when you compare the constant deaths already associated with air population (e.g. in major cities), the deaths that amount from radioactive meltdown would be minuscule compared to petroleum exhaust-related deaths.

And yeah, fusion reactors might be a good alternative and hopefully they'll be available in a few years, regardless of that old joke told among scientists "fusion reactors have been decades away for a few decades now".

That's probably a bit too much optimism, off the top of my head, I remember the chief concern was how to overcome the ridiculous initial heat-barrier that needed to be pass in order to fuse atoms together even with the weakest compound(50 million C.?) The ridiculous energy inefficiency aside, fusion isn't feasible since it's currently impossible for it to generate enough energy to cover the costs needed to create fusion, let alone have it become a stable and reliable source of energy.

 

[yakuruto]

Nope, not probably, it's in fact a bit too much optimism

Yup, with our current technology and knowledge fusion reactors are just a dream.

as for the current oil-nuclear power comparison, I know that nuclear is a good (provisional?) option, but my point is that it's also very potentially dangerous. The way I see it, oil based power production releases the residues to the environment and that's it (with all the damaged associated like greenhouse gases, health problems, etc.) but nuclear power stores residues, and the more power it produces, the more residues it stores, building a potential disaster zone. So yeah, the damage is potential damage, not actual damage, but even so I don't see it as green energy (not even greener than oil).


In the end everything has a consequence and all we can do is hazard management.

 

[MiccyNarc]

Rico, all you've established is that venezuela has alot of oil. Congratulations. I knew as much. But their production is declining. And even if they could produce at maximum capacity it wouldn't solve the world's oil problems, especially since most of it is thick heavy crude that needs refining.

Stop looking at one aspect and applying it to the whole. The folks at ASPO have alot more knowledge than any of us on these issues, why don't you see what they have to say and take it up with them.

Your posts reek of "I have preconceived notions and I'm only going to look at evidence that reinforces them". You need to lose that attitude.

Anyway, oil's up to $110.

 

[Rico]

All oil needs to be refined, or did you think you could pour down a barrel of oil into your gas tank and have it magically refine into gas?

You're the one arguing the point here, it is up to you to support your claims, not me. Don't send me to "ASPO" and claim that I'm the one getting a sore butt from people disagreeing with my views when it's the other way around. I'm very open to new ideas, but when someone says something completely ignorant and refuses to agree that there might be more to it than "OMG TEH OILZ THEY ARE TEH GOEN!1" then of course I;m going to call them on it, specially when they make it a point to personally attack me for putting forth my point of view.

And Venezuela is the 2nd largest producer of oil WITHOUT the "super thick crude". Its reserves would be #1 if that number were included.

The point from that (as I already stated in my prior post which you didn't bother to read I guess) is that if now new oil were to be discovered, ever again, we would still have enough oil to last us 100 years from Venezuela alone. I wouldn't call that a shortage, and I doubt anyone else would either.

 

[MiccyNarc]

All oil needs to be refined, or did you think you could pour down a barrel of oil into your gas tank and have it magically refine into gas?

You're the one arguing the point here, it is up to you to support your claims, not me. Don't send me to "ASPO" and claim that I'm the one getting a sore butt from people disagreeing with my views when it's the other way around. I'm very open to new ideas, but when someone says something completely ignorant and refuses to agree that there might be more to it than "OMG TEH OILZ THEY ARE TEH GOEN!1" then of course I;m going to call them on it, specially when they make it a point to personally attack me for putting forth my point of view.

And Venezuela is the 2nd largest producer of oil WITHOUT the "super thick crude". Its reserves would be #1 if that number were included.

The point from that (as I already stated in my prior post which you didn't bother to read I guess) is that if now new oil were to be discovered, ever again, we would still have enough oil to last us 100 years from Venezuela alone. I wouldn't call that a shortage, and I doubt anyone else would either.

Venezuela could not support the entire globe for 100 years. That's ridiculous and laughable.

Seriously, I'm not going to post what amounts to about a years worth of daily research on my part (I have studied this zealously since I first learned of PO). I'm leaving that up to you. You're clearly ignorant on this topic and have some preconceived notions that you need to dispell, and I honestly don't have the time or energy to do it.

 

[yakuruto]

I'm interested in you guys' sources, because if you take your shortage info from alarmist sites, detractors of oil and such, it's obvious that they'll say that oil is running out, but I wouldn't believe very much in Venezuela having enough oil to supply the whole world for over 100 years only from info generated and distributed by Venezuela's government, specially with Chavez there...

 

[Bob_Marley]

Last week I read a most interesting article in "New Scientist" about a process to turn Carbon Monoxide into Liquid hydrocarbon fuel (and its proven to work, it was employed by the South Africans during the oil embargo due to aparthied and the Nazis to ensure that they had enough fuel inspite of a lack of access to normal sources) and a new process, currently under development by a couple of teams to convert Carbon Dioxide into Carbon Monoxide through the use of some very clever solar based technology. Perhaps not the awnser to all the problems, but it could at least suppliment other alternative sources of fuel/energy. And of course has the added advantage of allowing the current infrastructure and technology we use for cars and whatnot to continue to be used and refined.