Oil Lies Everywhere

[tiptap]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15715744/?GT1=8717

HOUSTON - World oil production will not begin to fall for at least another 24 years, contrary to doomsday theories that supply is already in terminal decline, a prominent energy consulting group said Tuesday.
Cambridge Energy Research Associates said in a report that the world has some 3.74 trillion barrels of oil left -- enough to last 122 years at current consumption rates and triple the amount estimated by “peak oil” theorists.
The world consumes nearly 85 million barrels of oil per day, with the United States using about a quarter of that, according to the Department of Energy.
The “peak oil” idea was first proposed by the late geologist M. King Hubbert in 1956, who correctly predicted a 1970 peak in U.S. production in the lower 48 states. Hubbert followers have carried forward the theory, applying it to global supplies.
Actual production has exceeded “peak oil” predictions by 15 billion barrels in the United States alone, and such contrary data has caused advocates of the idea to keep shifting the predicted peak year into the future, Jackson said.

excerpts from the article offered to the public

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


Hubbert correctly predicted that production of oil from conventional sources would peak in the continental United States around 1965-1970 (actual peak was 1971). Hubbert further predicted a worldwide peak at "about half a century" from publication.

In 1974, Hubbert projected that global oil production would peak in 1995 "if current trends continue" [1]. However, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, global oil consumption actually dropped (due to the shift to energy efficient cars[2], the shift to electricity and natural gas for heating[3], etc), then rebounded to a lower level of growth in the mid 1980s (see chart on right). The shift to reduced consumption in these areas meant that the projection assumptions were not realized and, hence, oil production did not peak in 1995.

Colin Campbell of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) has suggested that the global production of conventional oil peaked in the spring of 2004 albeit at a rate of 23-GB/yr, not Hubbert's 13-GB/yr. During 2004, approximately 24 billion barrels of conventional oil was produced out of the total of 30 billion barrels of oil; the remaining 6 billion barrels coming from heavy oil and tar sands, deep water oil fields, and natural gas liquids (see adjacent ASPO graph). In 2005, the ASPO revised its prediction for the peak in world oil production, from both conventional and nonconventional sources, to the year 2010[11].

Another peak oil proponent Kenneth S. Deffeyes predicted in his book Beyond Oil - The View From Hubbert's Peak that global oil production would hit a peak on Thanksgiving Day 2005 (Deffeyes has since revised his claim, and now argues that world oil production peaked on December 16 2005[12]).

[tiptap]

Is oil a limited resource or do you believe that oil creation is taking place at a rate that can sustain our present consumption?

[banyon]

enough to last 122 years at current consumption rates

There's your key right there.

China might have a say in whether we stay at "current consumption rates" or not.

Also, if you understand how oil deposits occur geologically, then your question in post #2 answers itself.

[Jenson71]

Yes, China and India as well, are making the demand large and the separation between the production of oil and the consumption is increasing. For every barrel we produce, we consume two.

[tiptap]

The United States Geological Survey claimed at one time that there are enough petroleum reserves to continue current production rates for 50 to 100 years[16]. That is countered by an important Saudi oil industry insider who says the American government's forecast for future oil supply is a "dangerous over-estimate."[17] Campbell argues that the USGS estimates are methodologically flawed [18]. One problem, for example, is that OPEC countries overestimate their reserves to get higher oil quotas and to avoid internal critique.

Chairman of Simmons & Company International, said on October 26, 2006 that global oil production may have peaked in December 2005, though cautions that further monitoring of production is required to determine if a peak has actually occurred. [4]

Chevron states that "oil production is in decline in 33 of the 48 largest oil producing countries". [19] Other countries have also passed their individual oil production peaks.

World oil production growth trends, in the short term, have been decreasing over the last 18 months. Average yearly gains in world oil production from 1987 to 2005 were 1.2 million barrels per day (mbbl/d) (1.7%). Global production averaged 84.4 mbbl/d in 2005, up only 0.2 mbbl/d (0.2%), from 84.2 mbbl/d (13.4 million m³/d) in Q4 2004 (see figure at right). Production in Q2 2006 was 85.1 Mbbl/d, up 0.4 mbbl/d (0.47%), from the same period a year earlier [20]. Yearly gains in the last 8 years ranged from -1.4 mbbl/d, (-1.9%; 1998-1999) to 3.3 mbbl/d (4.1%; 2003-2004)[21].

Of the three largest oil fields in the world, two have peaked. Mexico announced that its giant Cantarell Field entered depletion in March, 2006 [22], as did the huge Burgan field in Kuwait in November, 2005 [23]. Due to past overproduction, Cantarell is now declining rapidly, at a rate of -13% year over year. [24] In April, 2006, a Saudi Aramco spokesman admitted that its mature fields are now declining at a rate of 8% per year, and its composite decline rate of producing fields is about 2%[25], thus implying that Ghawar, the largest oil field in the world, may have peaked [26]

[tiptap]

It is interesting to note that the US transition from a creditor nation to a debtor nation roughly follows first the peak and then the fall in US oil production.

Both Global Warming and more importantly our economic health would improve if we were to try to live upon our own oil production.

If we would FIRST reach reductions to match our production we could then think about developing or finding new reserves within our resource borders.

[tiptap]

The first oil crisis during the Carter Administration, saw oil consumption rate drop. That is part, the drop in rate consumption, that moved Hubbert prediction from 1995 to 2005 (I think it is more like 2010 but what do I know). What is important here is that conservation has the biggest immediate impact of any action we can take. And it is capable of actually changing the dynamics. But it does take planning. Markets may point the direction that needs to be pursued. But the details of planning and coordination are not invented by the market. Those are human activities.

[Laz]

doesn't really matter .......


we need to find a cleaner, renewable energy source that will be more environmentally friendly and reduce the power of the middle eastern wackos.

the amount of oil still in the ground is irrelevant

[InChiefsHell]

doesn't really matter .......


we need to find a cleaner, renewable energy source that will be more environmentally friendly and reduce the power of the middle eastern wackos.

the amount of oil still in the ground is irrelevant

I came across this a couple of years ago:

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Oil-From-Turkey8jun03.htm

It's called Anything into Oil, and its a process called Thermal Depolymerization. Seems to be the solution, if it's real. I just can't believe it's not being talked about. They even have a plant in Missouri...

[Bowser]

doesn't really matter .......


we need to find a cleaner, renewable energy source that will be more environmentally friendly and reduce the power of the middle eastern wackos.

the amount of oil still in the ground is irrelevant

Hydrogen is the way to go.

And what about corn? Isn't it Argentina that produces their own oil from corn grown in their country? And gas is like .25/gal down there. (This is off the top of my head, so please don't anybody come flying in with 'Bowser is and idiot. Gas is .39/gal in Argentina'. Thank you.)

[InChiefsHell]

Hydrogen is the way to go.

And what about corn? Isn't it Argentina that produces their own oil from corn grown in their country? And gas is like .25/gal down there. (This is off the top of my head, so please don't anybody come flying in with 'Bowser is and idiot. Gas is .39/gal in Argentina'. Thank you.)

Seems like that is being tried here in the form of Ethanol, but there is alot of sqwawking about how much it really cost, etc. I would think that Argentina is getting oil from Venezuela, but don't they have their own oil too? I dunno.

I still say my link above provides the perfect solution, but I never hear anyone talking about it...

[noa]

We should use Brazil as a model. They are completely energy independent. It would be a long process, but one that would help our economy and our security.

[Bowser]

Wow. 200 tons of turkey waste a day? That's a shitload of turkey!

Interesting concept. I need to research that some more.

[patteeu]

We should use Brazil as a model. They are completely energy independent. It would be a long process, but one that would help our economy and our security.

How do we grow enough sugar to satisfy our energy need? Or do we just switch our dependence from foreign oil to foreign sugar?

[Radar Chief]

Hydrogen is the way to go.

Not until a better form of extraction than electrolysis is found.

And what about corn? Isn't it Argentina that produces their own oil from corn grown in their country? And gas is like .25/gal down there. (This is off the top of my head, so please don't anybody come flying in with 'Bowser is and idiot. Gas is .39/gal in Argentina'. Thank you.)

Ethanol has it’s own set of problems. The main one probably is that we can’t produce enough of it to sustain transportation, even with the agricultural abilities we have.

There is no single, readily available, “answer” to gasoline. It may take a combination of several “answers”. :shrug:

[Donger]

Is oil a limited resource or do you believe that oil creation is taking place at a rate that can sustain our present consumption?

Yes, it is limited.

[noa]

How do we grow enough sugar to satisfy our energy need? Or do we just switch our dependence from foreign oil to foreign sugar?


Well, we would have to find a good substitute for sugar, but if a reasonable one isn't possible, I would rather become dependent on foreign sugar than give money to OPEC.

[Donger]

It is interesting to note that the US transition from a creditor nation to a debtor nation roughly follows first the peak and then the fall in US oil production.

Both Global Warming and more importantly our economic health would improve if we were to try to live upon our own oil production.

If we would FIRST reach reductions to match our production we could then think about developing or finding new reserves within our resource borders.

I'm all for reducing our demand. But don't forget that oil is a global commodity. Just because we reduce or demand, that doesn't mean that other consumers will do the same.

We need a long-term alternative to gasoline, and we'd better start working on it NOW.

[Bowser]

There is no single, readily available, “answer” to gasoline. It may take a combination of several “answers”. :shrug:

I'll go with that. The next question would be - "Why isn't this more of a priority to find viable answers?"

[Donger]

I came across this a couple of years ago:

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Oil-From-Turkey8jun03.htm

It's called Anything into Oil, and its a process called Thermal Depolymerization. Seems to be the solution, if it's real. I just can't believe it's not being talked about. They even have a plant in Missouri...

Isn't that the one that puts out 400 barrels a day?

[Donger]

Hydrogen is the way to go.

And what about corn? Isn't it Argentina that produces their own oil from corn grown in their country? And gas is like .25/gal down there. (This is off the top of my head, so please don't anybody come flying in with 'Bowser is and idiot. Gas is .39/gal in Argentina'. Thank you.)

You're thinking of Brazil? They produce ethanol from sugar cane.

[Bowser]

You're thinking of Brazil? They produce ethanol from sugar cane.

Possibly. That sounds right.

I still have the thought of a South American country having absolutely no need for foreign oil due to corn. I could be wrong.

[InChiefsHell]

Isn't that the one that puts out 400 barrels a day?

I don't know about that. But it would seem that being able to recycle waste into fuel this cheaply would be very attractive, and you could build hundreds of plants nation wide. It also mentions that the mechanism can be made small enough to carry on the back of a pickup truck, implying that people would be able to use their own garbage waste to "create" their own heating oil.

This makes alot of sense to me, and it kills a couple birds with one stone. But, since I heard of this about 3 years ago and it still seems like it is not taking off, there must be something wrong with it. I just don't know what...

[InChiefsHell]

Isn't that the one that puts out 400 barrels a day?

I guess the article in the link says that this plant produces 600 barrels a day...

[Donger]

I don't know about that. But it would seem that being able to recycle waste into fuel this cheaply would be very attractive, and you could build hundreds of plants nation wide. It also mentions that the mechanism can be made small enough to carry on the back of a pickup truck, implying that people would be able to use their own garbage waste to "create" their own heating oil.

This makes alot of sense to me, and it kills a couple birds with one stone. But, since I heard of this about 3 years ago and it still seems like it is not taking off, there must be something wrong with it. I just don't know what...

It's fine, I guess. But we presently import 10 million barrels of oil per day.

Obviously, we need something else.

[InChiefsHell]

From a different article:

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm

Unlike other solid-to-liquid-fuel processes such as cornstarch into ethanol, this one will accept almost any carbon-based feedstock. If a 175-pound man fell into one end , he would come out the other end as 38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as 123 pounds of sterilized water. While no one plans to put people into a thermal depolymerization machine, an intimate human creation could become a prime feedstock. "There is no reason why we can't turn sewage, including human excrement, into a glorious oil," says engineer Terry Adams, a project consultant. So the city of Philadelphia is in discussion with Changing World Technologies to begin doing exactly that.

Anything will work, not just Turkey offage. Why is this not absolutely being raved about??

[InChiefsHell]

It's fine, I guess. But we presently import 10 million barrels of oil per day.

Obviously, we need something else.

...oh. Well, there is that...when you see the numbers I get what you mean. But I still say it's a start, I mean, how many tons of garbage goes into landfills daily that could be used like this? If nothing else, to supplement the oil supply?

[Donger]

From a different article:

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm



Anything will work, not just Turkey ofRump Rangere. Why is this not absolutely being raved about??

Because of the mathematics.

[Donger]

...oh. Well, there is that...when you see the numbers I get what you mean. But I still say it's a start, I mean, how many tons of garbage goes into landfills daily that could be used like this? If nothing else, to supplement the oil supply?

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for these gadgets. But they are supplements, not replacements. What we need, as a country, is a viable replacement of gasoline. Viable with regards to economics and production/distribution.

[Bowser]

...oh. Well, there is that...when you see the numbers I get what you mean. But I still say it's a start, I mean, how many tons of garbage goes into landfills daily that could be used like this? If nothing else, to supplement the oil supply?

It could work, definitely.

[AustinChief]

Because of the mathematics.
15,000 of these "plants" could service the US oil needs... and if we continue to move toward higher ethanol mixes in gasoline... I'm sure that number could go down to 10k easily. Not a LONG term solution but a viable medium term one

[Donger]

15,000 of these "plants" could service the US oil needs... and if we continue to move toward higher ethanol mixes in gasoline... I'm sure that number could go down to 10k easily. Not a LONG term solution but a viable medium term one

That 10 million is only what we import, by the way.

Sure, it could work, but what would building 15,000 of these plants cost?

One of the nasty things about gasoline is that it is, still, cheap. And relatively efficient as a power source. That's why it was chosen. As long as oil hovers where it is now, I don't think there's the impetus to seriously go after an alternative.

[banyon]

LOL at "Dongless". Who's effing with your name?

[InChiefsHell]

It could work, definitely.

EXACTLY! Truth is stranger than fiction... :)

[Calcountry]

Yes, China and India as well, are making the demand large and the separation between the production of oil and the consumption is increasing. For every barrel we produce, we consume two.Pronger will be along to tell you that we need an alternative fuel, and soon.

[Calcountry]

That 10 million is only what we import, by the way.

Sure, it could work, but what would building 15,000 of these plants cost?

One of the nasty things about gasoline is that it is, still, cheap. And relatively efficient as a power source. That's why it was chosen. As long as oil hovers where it is now, I don't think there's the impetus to seriously go after an alternative.There you are now.

[Calcountry]

That 10 million is only what we import, by the way.

Sure, it could work, but what would building 15,000 of these plants cost?

One of the nasty things about gasoline is that it is, still, cheap. And relatively efficient as a power source. That's why it was chosen. As long as oil hovers where it is now, I don't think there's the impetus to seriously go after an alternative.I think the oil producing countries, and oil companies know this. When Gas hit 3 dollars a gallon, all of a sudden the number of these high efficient vehicles started showing up on the roads. Not critical mass, but enough that you notice them on a daily basis.

Then the gas comes back down to about 2 fitty, just like that.

It's a Conspiracy by Bush because the price went up 20 cents a gallon the day after teh election.

[Laz]

One of the nasty things about gasoline is that it is, still, cheap. And relatively efficient as a power source. That's why it was chosen. As long as oil hovers where it is now, I don't think there's the impetus to seriously go after an alternative.

that's why we need someone to look beyond the bottomline dollar and push for the future.

as long as the president is asking the oil companies what he should do we won't ever get there.

[Calcountry]

I'm all for reducing our demand. But don't forget that oil is a global commodity. Just because we reduce or demand, that doesn't mean that other consumers will do the same.

We need a long-term alternative to gasoline, and we'd better start working on it NOW.THis implys that we(the people) are not working on it NOW.

[Calcountry]

that's why we need someone to look beyond the bottomline dollar and push for the future.

as long as the president is asking the oil companies what he should do we won't ever get there.What are the Democrats going to NOW do?

[Laz]

What are the Democrats going to NOW do?
i don't know that they are going to do anything.


it will take a strong leader to push us off of oil and i'm not sure i see anyone from either party that is willing/capable of doing it.


actually i take that back...


Democrats = not capable of doing it

Republicans = not willing to do it

[InChiefsHell]

i don't know that they are going to do anything.


it will take a strong leader to push us off of oil and i'm not sure i see anyone from either party that is willing/capable of doing it.


actually i take that back...


Democrats = not capable of doing it

Republicans = not willing to do it

We're going to be using oil until we can't be use it anymore, for whatever reason. There will be people who will make political hay over it every 2 years, but just like most things in DC, it's all bullshit. Dems take as much money from big oil as they can get, I guarantee it. And they DO get money from them, just like Republicans get money from the Attorneys...

[Donger]

LOL at "Dongless". Who's effing with your name?

One of the mods, I guess.

[Donger]

I think the oil producing countries, and oil companies know this. When Gas hit 3 dollars a gallon, all of a sudden the number of these high efficient vehicles started showing up on the roads. Not critical mass, but enough that you notice them on a daily basis.

Then the gas comes back down to about 2 fitty, just like that.

It's a Conspiracy by Bush because the price went up 20 cents a gallon the day after teh election.

ROFL

[frazod]

One of the mods, I guess.

It's refreshing to see that, unlike certain people here, you're not crying like a little girl over it.

[Donger]

THis implys that we(the people) are not working on it NOW.

By 'we,' I meant our government. I do believe that the government should have an Apollo-scale program to decide upon, assist develop and help get to market a viable replacement to gasoline.

The oil companies will probably never do it by themselves.

[Donger]

that's why we need someone to look beyond the bottomline dollar and push for the future.

as long as the president is asking the oil companies what he should do we won't ever get there.

And that's why I say that the government has to be involved. The oil companies are in business to make a profit, not save the world. They are public companies, beholden to their shareholders.

[Donger]

It's refreshing to see that, unlike certain people here, you're not crying like a little girl over it.

Wouldn't make much sense to me. I know who I am.

[Donger]

We're going to be using oil until we can't be use it anymore, for whatever reason. There will be people who will make political hay over it every 2 years, but just like most things in DC, it's all bullshit. Dems take as much money from big oil as they can get, I guarantee it. And they DO get money from them, just like Republicans get money from the Attorneys...

Crude oil is going to rule until it becomes too expensive, period.

[Laz]

By 'we,' I meant our government. I do believe that the government should have an Apollo-scale program to decide upon, assist develop and help get to market a viable replacement to gasoline.

The oil companies will probably never do it by themselves.
exactly

[Calcountry]

i don't know that they are going to do anything.


it will take a strong leader to push us off of oil and i'm not sure i see anyone from either party that is willing/capable of doing it.


actually i take that back...


Democrats = not capable of doing it

Republicans = not willing to do itTherefore, Democrats = Republicans.

"Step right up, and play the shell game my man".

[Calcountry]

Crude oil is going to rule until it becomes too expensive, period.I like my Crude Light and Sweet.

[Calcountry]

It's refreshing to see that, unlike certain people here, you're not crying like a little girl over it.I think they should change it to Pronger.

[Donger]

I think they should change it to Pronger.

I don't get it. Why?

[InChiefsHell]

Therefore, Democrats = Republicans.

"Step right up, and play the shell game my man".

Ding ding ding! We have a winnaaahh! :thumb:

[Velvet_Jones]

From a different article:

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm



Anything will work, not just Turkey offage. Why is this not absolutely being raved about??
I heard that the problem with most alternative sources, such as this, is it takes as much energy to produce as it makes. Thats the problem with ethonal. Most ethonal plans are methonal fired. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[InChiefsHell]

I heard that the problem with most alternative sources, such as this, is it takes as much energy to produce as it makes. Thats the problem with ethonal. Most ethonal plans are methonal fired. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

That's the thing though, this process is supposed to be 85% efficient...in other words for every 100 btus of energy produced, it only takes 15 btu's to produce it. I think Donger hit the nail on the head, it's about production volumn and such. We import 10 million barrels a day, the plant in Missouri only produces 600. Maybe building them on a more massive scale winds up being less efficient or something, or you would just have to build thousands of them and that would be cost prohibitive. Who knows. If we can build all these Wal Marts and McDonalds, one would think we could build as many of these as we would need. Hell, build them out by every landfill in the nation and just divert garbage to them instead of the landfill. Who knows...

[Laz]

Hell, build them out by every landfill in the nation and just divert garbage to them instead of the landfill. Who knows...

you'd think that making them part of every landfill would be good

1. make landfill last longer because of reduced "fill"

2. make money since dealing with the garbage is already in place.



sounds like it makes sense to me

[banyon]

I heard that the problem with most alternative sources, such as this, is it takes as much energy to produce as it makes. Thats the problem with ethonal. Most ethonal plans are methonal fired. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.



USDA study boosts fuel conversion efficiency rating for ethanol

Rural Cooperatives, Sept-Oct, 2004 by Stephen Thompson

The viability of ethanol as an alternative fuel continues to improve. New research by USDA economist Hosein Shapouri show's a marked improvement in the energy efficiency of ethanol from five years ago.

In the July-August 2004 issue of Rural Cooperatives, we reported that Shapouri's research had refuted claims by ethanol opponents that it costs more energy to produce ethanol than it yields. His study showed the net energy, balance of ethanol at 36 percent in 1996, an improvement on the 24 percent figure reported in 1991. That means that 1.36 BTUs worth of ethanol requires only one BTU of energy to produce.

The results of Shapouri's latest research, using data from 2001, were released in June. They show an even greater improvement than that of the previous five-year period, with ethanol's net energy balance growing to an impressive 67 percent. The continuing improvement, he says, is due to technological advances both in farming and manufacturing.

"Crop yields per acre have increased, fertilizer is more energy efficient and ethanol plants are more efficient," he says. "So the net energy value of ethanol improves."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFU/is_5_71/ai_n6331811

[Radar Chief]

you'd think that making them part of every landfill would be good

1. make landfill last longer because of reduced "fill"

2. make money since dealing with the garbage is already in place.



sounds like it makes sense to me

Sounds good to me.
Hell, even if they only produce enough energy to be self-sufficient it’d at least be a cheap way to help get rid of the massive amounts of garbage we produce. :shrug:

[InChiefsHell]

you'd think that making them part of every landfill would be good

1. make landfill last longer because of reduced "fill"

2. make money since dealing with the garbage is already in place.



sounds like it makes sense to me

Totally. Although, I guess you would have the sorting of garbage issue, but I'm sure that could be worked out. I guess almost anything can be turned to oil using this process, but there are probably some things that can't.

[InChiefsHell]

Sounds good to me.
Hell, even if they only produce enough energy to be self-sufficient it’d at least be a cheap way to help get rid of the massive amounts of garbage we produce. :shrug:

That's a good point. Never thought of it that way.

[Laz]

Sounds good to me.
Hell, even if they only produce enough energy to be self-sufficient it’d at least be a cheap way to help get rid of the massive amounts of garbage we produce. :shrug:
yeppers...


it's sort of a eco-system type situation that i like ..... a close loop.


i think we need to incorporate more stuff together like this.

[Calcountry]

That's the thing though, this process is supposed to be 85% efficient...in other words for every 100 btus of energy produced, it only takes 15 btu's to produce it. I think Donger hit the nail on the head, it's about production volumn and such. We import 10 million barrels a day, the plant in Missouri only produces 600. Maybe building them on a more massive scale winds up being less efficient or something, or you would just have to build thousands of them and that would be cost prohibitive. Who knows. If we can build all these Wal Marts and McDonalds, one would think we could build as many of these as we would need. Hell, build them out by every landfill in the nation and just divert garbage to them instead of the landfill. Who knows...The other problem with ethanol, is that it doesn't pipe well. It is very expensive to transport it to market.

I am sure Dongulation covered this.

[Hydrae]

The other aspect to keep in mind with any article like this is what kind of oil they are talking about. There is a crapload of oil still in the ground but it is tied up in shale that makes it much harder to extract. So when some expert starts throwing around numbers like this take it with the proper amount of salt grains unless they are very specific about just what they are talking about.

[InChiefsHell]

It said light sweet crude...isn't that the stuff that gets pumped out of the ground? I seriously don't know.

[Hydrae]

Honestly, I did not follow the link to the article, just read the excerpt posted here. I see no reference to sweet light crude but I believe you are correct in that that would limit the kind of reserves being discussed.

[Braincase]

If I were an oil company and my wages and my employees wages were dependent upon maintaining my customer base, I'd do whatever I could to convince my customers that there was no shortage and no urgent need to look elsewhere for a more reliable and renewable energy source.

[noa]

If I were an oil company and my wages and my employees wages were dependent upon maintaining my customer base, I'd do whatever I could to convince my customers that there was no shortage and no urgent need to look elsewhere for a more reliable and renewable energy source.


If I were the head of an oil company, I'd do two chicks at the same time.

[tiptap]

We have had this discussion about "oil shale." It is neither oil or shale. It can be cooked into something that will burn. It has to be mined. There is a lot of bulk gravel waste beyond the carbon dioxide. There are other methods that can transform COAL into oil that the Germans used in WW2. They are a better option. But you could just burn coal and run electric cars along with trying to actually decrease the absolute production of carbon dioxide.