Too bad the person writing the article relies mainly on faith in God to determine how much oil there is.

I'd feel a lot more certain of his conclusions if he had reference even one...geologist.

Or, even better, a series of energy/geology thinktanks that work for both the oil industry and other energy industries. Too bad that when you look at what they have to say, they do not agree with Mr. Steltzer, who has no stated degrees and is a "business analyst" or something at an nth rate economics policy "research" center.

Dollar to a donut that Mr. Steltzer is the only person at that think tank.

By this guy's logic, famine and drought are impossible as well.

Sorry Atypical, I don't agree with your conclusions.

First of all, understand that we will never run out of oil. As scarcity of a good increases, the relative cost of switching to alternatives decreases. Once cost of a good surpasses this point you pretty much quit using it. This is why we don't use whale oil anymore. We will have long since switched to alternative energy sources before running out of oil is even remotely possible.

Also, I believe he was trying to make a broader point by referencing God, rather than a proclamation of faith.

And while I agree he doesn't increase his points credibility with citations from think tanks and industry insiders, have you not noticed the other articles on here about how we just found a "Brazillion" barrels worth of oil in Brazil. Or the other articles about how the refineries are actually cutting production to increase their margins. I think if you reread what he wrote you will find that he is actually saying that oil prices are being driven up not due to scarcity but due to other factors.

Unless new oil is being produced, it's got to be running out.

whatshisname: Unless new oil is being produced, it's got to be running out.

This is true, but it is not what the author is saying. He is not saying that it is impossible to use up all the oil on the planet, he is saying that "enough oil will be found so that it can remain a primary source of energy for the foreseeable future."

Which is a different argument than we are physically using up all the oil.

Atypical Person Reading Fark: I'd feel a lot more certain of his conclusions if he had reference even one...geologist.

Yep. It took a research geologist in the 50s to say "look, US oil production will start to decline in 1970 or so". The suits said, "oh no, we'll just keep drilling, because people need oil". And they drilled like hell. More wells drilled in Texas and other US oilfields in the late-60s/early-70s than had been drilled in the previous 50 years. And America's oil production has declined every year since 1970, just like the geologist said it would.

As a planet, we've been extracting more oil than we've been recording as "discovered" each year since the mid-1960s. This is possible because of some big finds in the past (Ghawar, Burgan). But, that deficit doesn't keep going on forever. Meanwhile, the demand keeps growing and the new finds keep getting smaller or more difficult (the Brazilian one of uncertain size under two miles of ocean and over a mile of salt seafloor).

We will have oil for a while. It will be a primary fuel and chemical feedstock for the lifetime of most Farkers. But, the era of it being the foundation of cheap 'endless' growth, as it has been for the last 75 years, is over.

Well, that's a relief. For a moment, I was getting worried.

God's mistake was putting all that oil under religious fundies feet. You know you who are. All oil rightfully belongs to the US, no matter where it is.

Man if he believes this stuff I've got health insurance to sell him.

Atypical Person Reading Fark: Too bad the person writing the article relies mainly on faith in God to determine how much oil there is.

You friggen moron.

one of the constraints is liberals and democrats who don't want any new sources of oil found because it messes up their narrative about how they need to control the rest of us.

delux247: whatshisname: Unless new oil is being produced, it's got to be running out.

This is true, but it is not what the author is saying. He is not saying that it is impossible to use up all the oil on the planet, he is saying that "enough oil will be found so that it can remain a primary source of energy for the foreseeable future."

Which is a different argument than we are physically using up all the oil.

But...I....I can't say "no blood for oil" to that. I...don't understand.

/This will either be an intellectual flamewar, or a very confused one by people that don't know what they're talking about.
//I don't think it's time to resort to that first one just yet...

FTFA: Irwin Stelzer is a business adviser and director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute.

Oh, another intellectual whore from a rightwing think tank. How fabulous!

Approves of this article.

...unless this guy drank it up already.

delux247: Sorry Atypical, I don't agree with your conclusions.

First of all, understand that we will never run out of oil. As scarcity of a good increases, the relative cost of switching to alternatives decreases. Once cost of a good surpasses this point you pretty much quit using it. This is why we don't use whale oil anymore. We will have long since switched to alternative energy sources before running out of oil is even remotely possible.

I agree, if we're smart, we'll switch to something new BEFORE we run out of oil. However, it is far more likely that we would run out of that than something like whale oil, which isn't abundant but is renewable to a degree. Oil, on the other hand, is utterly non-renewable (unless you are immortal and can wait millions of years for more), and thus we can theoretically run out. I think we're smart enough to switch to something new before that happens (please say we're smart enough).

All I gotta say is if I have to pay $4 a gallon, I'll go to Alaska and start beating baby seals with Orphans to clear a way for drilling.

I personally like our policy in the US of keeping our much oil reserves under the ground or water as long as possible, but holding off on drilling. We can all feel good about ourselves and say that it is for environmental purposes but when the major oil producing countries of this world start running our, we will have all the oil left. I might not be around, when all this goes down, but I think that passing on a whole bunch of untapped oil reserves is a great gift to future generations.

If our gasoline prices go way up will it make our prescription prices go down?

docweasel: one of the constraints is liberals and democrats who don't want any new sources of oil found because it messes up their narrative about how they need to control the rest of us.

2/10. That's just weak.

docweasel: one of the constraints is liberals and democrats who don't want any new sources of oil found because it messes up their narrative about how they need to control the rest of us.

I'm sorry but saying something like that is a violation of the Patriot Act, which we all know was a measure passed by liberals to control free speach. Liberals, nobody else. They're the ones that want to control us. By the way, you haven't been participating in any sort of homosexual interaction, using a condom, getting an abortion, or burning a flag, have you? Because you know how liberals frown on those sorts of freedoms.

/Becuase if we're going to say stupid shiat anyway...

Heroic Poser: All I gotta say is if I have to pay $4 a gallon, I'll go to Alaska and start beating baby seals with Orphans to clear a way for drilling.

I thought it was moose that we didn't want to hurt and thus slowed plans? Despite the fact that they like to fark by the oil lines?

/May have been some other animal. I just think "Moose" when I think Canada.

jdmac: I personally like our policy in the US of keeping our much oil reserves under the ground or water as long as possible, but by holding off on drilling. We can all feel good about ourselves and say that it is for environmental purposes but when the major oil producing countries of this world start running our, we will have all the oil left. I might not be around, when all this goes down, but I think that passing on a whole bunch of untapped oil reserves is a great gift to future generations.

opsies

Oil reserves are like diamond reserves. The only issue is, who can interrupt the flow. Therein lies the power.

HMS_Blinkin: delux247: Sorry Atypical, I don't agree with your conclusions.

First of all, understand that we will never run out of oil. As scarcity of a good increases, the relative cost of switching to alternatives decreases. Once cost of a good surpasses this point you pretty much quit using it. This is why we don't use whale oil anymore. We will have long since switched to alternative energy sources before running out of oil is even remotely possible.

I agree, if we're smart, we'll switch to something new BEFORE we run out of oil. However, it is far more likely that we would run out of that than something like whale oil, which isn't abundant but is renewable to a degree. Oil, on the other hand, is utterly non-renewable (unless you are immortal and can wait millions of years for more), and thus we can theoretically run out. I think we're smart enough to switch to something new before that happens (please say we're smart enough).

I'm immortal and got a kick out of your post.

/will fill my Jeep up in a million years
//keep it in good condition for me while I hibernate

::Were awash in oil. There's oil that we haven't touched(gulf of Mex, Cal coast, Alaska, Dakota north and south Utah) to name but a few. Explain why we don't go after it? Technology has made it possible to cleanly drill for it why won't we? The costs too much argument doesn't fly anymore...

::What the fark are we waiting for?

HMS_Blinkin: I agree, if we're smart, we'll switch to something new BEFORE we run out of oil. However, it is far more likely that we would run out of that than something like whale oil, which isn't abundant but is renewable to a degree. Oil, on the other hand, is utterly non-renewable (unless you are immortal and can wait millions of years for more), and thus we can theoretically run out. I think we're smart enough to switch to something new before that happens (please say we're smart enough).

well as we run out of it the costs will rise higher and higher to get it, so we'll switch. It isn't about preference, it's basic economics. Unless there is absolutely no alternative, we won't completely run out of oil, we'll just switch to the cheaper alternative.

Texas Tea.

RandomExcess: Oil reserves are like diamond reserves. The only issue is, who can interrupt the flow. Therein lies the power.

I agree with this, but I mostly wanted to post this:

A version is my wallpaper.

When I was in elementry school, our text books said that oil wasn't going to run out until the end of the 21st century, early 22nd century. Then, about the time of the Green movement, we're suddenly running out of oil.

I agree with the statement that it's a myth that we're running out of oil. There's still plenty of it in Alaska as well as Brazil and oil wells in Texas and the U.S. Southwest. Eventually, we will run out, seeing as how it's not a renewable resource. $3.50/gallon doesn't mean we're running out of oil, it's just a reason to pursue other energy sources (like my plan to find a way to re-write, or at least, bypass the laws of physics, create a perpetual motion device that will give me unlimited free energy). By the way, we'd see lower gas prices if congress would get rid of alot of the unneeded taxes that they've created, such as the Corporate Tax. We'd also start to see a lower cost of living with the removal of the Corporate Tax and putting an end to the fantasy of turning corn into gasoline.

Atypical Person Reading Fark: Too bad the person writing the article relies mainly on faith in God to determine how much oil there is.

Uh, yeah. You might want to pull that stick out of your ass.

It's entirely possible, and more than likely, that he was referring to God in a facetious, rhetorical sense.

There's one instance of God in the article, no instances of Christ or any variant, no instance of faith, no instance of religion, and no instance of pray.

There's a lot of talk of geopolitical situations, but no talk of God.

Most people, most people, would understand that to mean the same thing that it means when an atheist shouts "God damn it!" It's just one of those things you say because it has a bit of euphemistic punch to it, regardless of your beliefs. Then they might way the instance of the word God with the rest of the sentence it appears in ... say, "black gold". I guess he's an alchemist, or a Beverly Hillbilly, because oil isn't gold. But, you know, that's just me.

But no, not you.

He's also Jewish, so I think that rules out the sort of evangelic faith I think you're professing he has.

Dollar to a donut that Mr. Steltzer is the only person at that think tank.

Irwin M. Stelzer (born 1932) is an American economist. He is the U.S. economic and business columinst for The Sunday Times (UK), The Courier-Mail and a contributing editor of The Weekly Standard. He has served as a managing director of the investment banking firm of Rothschild Inc and was founder and president of National Economic Research Associates, Inc which became NERA Economic Consulting. He is a signatory of the Henry Jackson Society, a senior director and fellow of the Hudson Institute and has edited and introduced a book on neoconservatism. Prior to joining the Hudson Institute, Dr. Stelzer was resident scholar and director of regulatory policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Stelzer received his bachelor and master-of-arts degrees from New York University and his doctorate in economics from Cornell University.

So, lulz I guess.

Even if it were true that we have plenty of oil it is still a very good idea to invest in alternative energy sources like wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear power so that we can meet energy needs of the future.

Lawnchair: Atypical Person Reading Fark: I'd feel a lot more certain of his conclusions if he had reference even one...geologist.

Yep. It took a research geologist in the 50s to say "look, US oil production will start to decline in 1970 or so". The suits said, "oh no, we'll just keep drilling, because people need oil". And they drilled like hell. More wells drilled in Texas and other US oilfields in the late-60s/early-70s than had been drilled in the previous 50 years. And America's oil production has declined every year since 1970, just like the geologist said it would.

As a planet, we've been extracting more oil than we've been recording as "discovered" each year since the mid-1960s. This is possible because of some big finds in the past (Ghawar, Burgan). But, that deficit doesn't keep going on forever. Meanwhile, the demand keeps growing and the new finds keep getting smaller or more difficult (the Brazilian one of uncertain size under two miles of ocean and over a mile of salt seafloor).

We will have oil for a while. It will be a primary fuel and chemical feedstock for the lifetime of most Farkers. But, the era of it being the foundation of cheap 'endless' growth, as it has been for the last 75 years, is over.


And since the 50's have there been any reserves discovered but unused? Maybe around Florida, the Gulf? Possibly the Midwest? Even Alaska?

We've got huge oil reserves we aren't allowed to tap, naturally production is going to drop.

Along that same logic, we're all out of lead because I can't get lead paint anymore.

Didnt expect this to go green..

Atypical Person Reading Fark: Mr. Steltzer is the only person at that think tank.

You can also catch Irwin Stelzer at
• Resident scholar and director of regulatory policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.[1]
• A contributing editor of The Weekly Standard[2]

Plus
• Dr Irwin Stelzer, the US economist, right-hand man of Rupert Murdoch and close confidant of the two most powerful men in British politics. Given his ties to Murdoch and allegiance to Reaganomics, Thatcherism and neoconservatism, Stelzer's influence in Downing Street will unsettle many Labour supporters.'I see them when they want to see me if there's a specific issue I know about ... I might call up and say I have an idea, and if it's worth listening to me we'll have a cup of coffee.'[3]

Speaking of neoconservatism, feel free to look over his boks on the subject [4] [5]

/Is there no bounds on the stupid from these guys?

HMS_Blinkin:

I agree, if we're smart, we'll switch to something new BEFORE we run out of oil. However, it is far more likely that we would run out of that than something like whale oil, which isn't abundant but is renewable to a degree. Oil, on the other hand, is utterly non-renewable (unless you are immortal and can wait millions of years for more), and thus we can theoretically run out. I think we're smart enough to switch to something new before that happens (please say we're smart enough).


We will switch from a petroleum based economy as soon as it is more expensive than alternatives. Just like we switched from a whale oil based energy economy to a petroleum based economy right around the time of the industrial revolution. It really has nothing to do with smart, it has more to do with cost of alternatives.

AntmaN: ::Were awash in oil. There's oil that we haven't touched(gulf of Mex, Cal coast, Alaska, Dakota north and south Utah) to name but a few. Explain why we don't go after it? Technology has made it possible to cleanly drill for it why won't we? The costs too much argument doesn't fly anymore...

::What the fark are we waiting for?

The reason that was explained to me isn't the ability to get the oil, it's the quality of the oil. The best oil in the world is in the Middle East. It requires the least amount of refinement to make it usable, compared to the oil found in the rest of the world. It's kind of like comparing cooking oil to sludge. Oil from the middle east is like cooking oil, the rest of the world's oil is simply just sludge.

I'd be scared as hell if I were these oil exporting countries. The countries to which they're exporting have a huge brain trust that is theorizing constantly of new ways--not just to consume less resources for more utility--but to replace material wealth with information wealth. I've seen about a dozen viable scenarios where developed countries will replace fossil fuels with homemade energy in the next 10-20 years, let alone predictions of a technological singularity that will allow (developed) humanity to transcend conventional economic scarcity. The question for these third world potentates, and the masses they rule over, is what happens when the developed world gets tired of trading for beads and trinkets with the natives, and are able and/or willing to follow the technological world in the "rapture" that may soon follow.

Lawnchair: But, that deficit doesn't keep going on forever. Meanwhile, the demand keeps growing and the new finds keep getting smaller or more difficult (the Brazilian one of uncertain size under two miles of ocean and over a mile of salt seafloor).


This observation is key to understanding the future of the global oil supply. As the price of oil rises, reservoirs that were previously economically infeasible to drill will be drilled. Countries like Bolivia (and even, possibly, the western US) could become important sources of oil. However, these deposits are in geologically complicated areas (fold-thrust belts) and, as a result, are much harder/more expensive to drill and also are much much smaller than the deposits in the Persian Gulf. We may never run out of oil, but, as Delux247 pointed out it may be replaced with another source(Uranium?).

His assertion that high oil/gas prices cannot drive inflation is dead wrong. The business I work for just raised prices in a direct response to the increased cost of shipping our raw materials to us.

Great Janitor: When I was in elementry school, our text books said that oil wasn't going to run out until the end of the 21st century, early 22nd century. Then, about the time of the Green movement, we're suddenly running out of oil.

It'th a conspirathy.

/I stopped there because the rest of your post was even more retarded than that, which is saying a lot.

delux247: First of all, understand that we will never run out of oil. As scarcity of a good increases, the relative cost of switching to alternatives decreases. Once cost of a good surpasses this point you pretty much quit using it. This is why we don't use whale oil anymore. We will have long since switched to alternative energy sources before running out of oil is even remotely possible.

As a young farker it is my concern that this conversion to alternative fuels will not be as quick and timely as it should. It seems that the "powers that be" are making such a killing off this increase oil price the conversion will be slow and grueling. I believe it is this additional pressure from energy prices that is making the current economic situation even more difficult.

Unfortunately, people keep looking at the energy problem as an economic problem of profitability rather than a dire situation for the overall well-being of the American economy.

The oil thing is a market bubble. Oil is currently over valued. We come up with ways to make due without liquid gold, it loses value and the market crashes. People will do it when it is cost effective, not sooner.

As far as oil being a limited commodity, yes, it is limited like diamonds or any such. However, like most organic compounds, it is constantly being created in a subterranean pressure cooker. Hydrogen & carbon? Sounds like a byproduct of some manner of cellular respiration to me. I just don't buy it's rotten dinosaur carcass despite the smell.

From TFA: Mexico's president, Felipe Calderon, wants to revive Petroleos de Mexico (Pemex), the world's third-largest oil producer, by contracting with foreign companies to introduce modern methods of extracting more from existing fields and finding new ones. But legislation is stalled by left-wingers who have seized and are sleeping at podiums in both houses of congress.

...

OH NOES!1!!!1 ITS TEH LIBRULS AND TEH COMMIES R 2 BLAME!1!!!11!!

bring on clean, nuclear electricity to f*ck OPEC in the ass

docweasel: one of the constraints is liberals and democrats who don't want any new sources of oil found because it messes up their narrative about how they need to control the rest of us.

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly comin' to a middle."

/i see i'm going to get a lot of use out of this quote.

What I don't get about all this is: the disagreements seem to be over WHEN we'll run out of oil, not if. Its a pretty solid fact that the amount of oil in the world is finite. Whether or not not we have enough for the next 25, 50, 100, 1000 years, eventually, we will run out.

Seems wise to start cutting our dependance on it sooner rather than later.

Barakku: I agree with this, but I mostly wanted to post this:
www.cs.helsinki.fi

OK, I LOLed.

I'm The Foot Farking Master: You friggen moron moran.

/Sorry, pet peeve.
//Two cliches in one!

Dr. Mojo PhD: Atypical Person Reading Fark: Too bad the person writing the article relies mainly on faith in God to determine how much oil there is.

Uh, yeah. You might want to pull that stick out of your ass.

It's entirely possible, and more than likely, that he was referring to God in a facetious, rhetorical sense.

There's one instance of God in the article, no instances of Christ or any variant, no instance of faith, no instance of religion, and no instance of pray.

There's a lot of talk of geopolitical situations, but no talk of God.

Most people, most people, would understand that to mean the same thing that it means when an atheist shouts "God damn it!" It's just one of those things you say because it has a bit of euphemistic punch to it, regardless of your beliefs. Then they might way the instance of the word God with the rest of the sentence it appears in ... say, "black gold". I guess he's an alchemist, or a Beverly Hillbilly, because oil isn't gold. But, you know, that's just me.

But no, not you.

He's also Jewish, so I think that rules out the sort of evangelic faith I think you're professing he has.

Dollar to a donut that Mr. Steltzer is the only person at that think tank.

Irwin M. Stelzer (born 1932) is an American economist. He is the U.S. economic and business columinst for The Sunday Times (UK), The Courier-Mail and a contributing editor of The Weekly Standard. He has served as a managing director of the investment banking firm of Rothschild Inc and was founder and president of National Economic Research Associates, Inc which became NERA Economic Consulting. He is a signatory of the Henry Jackson Society, a senior director and fellow of the Hudson Institute and has edited and introduced a book on neoconservatism. Prior to joining the Hudson Institute, Dr. Stelzer was resident scholar and director of regulatory policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Stelzer received his bachelor and master-of-arts degrees from New York University and his doctorate in economics from Cornell University.

So, lulz I guess.

The Weekly Standard is a well-known right-wing rag, and the AEI is well-known right-wing think tank. This is like bragging that your columnist has appeared on Fox News.