What's the writer's point? The article points out that the API doesn't claim that the USA has enough oil and gas for all its needs, but merely a fraction of that, and even allocates 60 years as a reasonable timeframe for extracting it instead of a unreasonably shorter time. It looks like the writer is whining about the fact that there aren't any lies for him to complain about. What do you call "we won't be able to get enough, so let's go ahead and deliberately reduce the vital supply still further"? Nihilism?

I could be wrong, the writer might be an earnest proponent of nuclear power or other practical energy source replacements; unfortunately conservation and increased energy efficiency, though vital, can never hope to do the job alone. Still, hydrocarbon sources will remain less of a carbon burden than the other "clean coal" option.

I didn't RTFA (and won't), but those ads are misleading.

Yeah, becasue CommonDreams wouldn't say it if it wasn't so.

There's lots of oil. There's just not a lot of cheap light, sweet crude.

SwiftFox: What's the writer's point?

Wasting our time?

Our own life... the ultimate non-renewable resource.

/I want more life... F**KER.

Oil decide on my own whether life in the future will be a gas.

What would be the point about lying about the small size of future oil reserves? I don't understand how this would benefit the oil companies, in fact I would argue a better lie would be that we're running dry. Then oil companies could rake in the big bucks.

/Not that they aren't already.

-Oil will never 'run out'; it will become so expensive to get that it's uneconomical , that's the problem...

Amigajoe is right. We will never actually run out of crude oil.

Most likely scenario, like whale oil, it will become so expensive to actually extract, that a cheaper alternative will be used.

Not sure what we'll use for jetliners though.

Amigajoe: -Oil will never 'run out'; it will become so expensive to get that it's uneconomical , that's the problem...

and when that happens, some other energy source will be exploited to take it's place.

whats the big deal people?

bloatboy: Amigajoe is right. We will never actually run out of crude oil.

Most likely scenario, like whale oil, it will become so expensive to actually extract, that a cheaper alternative will be used.

Not sure what we'll use for jetliners though.

We won't need jetliners. People will be so fed-up with incompetent and rude airline employees that they'll just give up on air travel.

bloatboy: ..it will become so expensive to actually extract, that a cheaper alternative will be used.

Soilent Oil?

Effluvium candles?

Bunk like this is what gives liberals a bad name. To some extent the API *is* full of crap, but so is the writer of this 'article'.

I watched an interview with some chemical engineer working for Chevron on the Discovery Channel a few days ago - when Discovery asked him when he thought we would start seeing a dip in production because we were running out of oil, his honest to god answer was that, "we won't because we're not running out of oil, and we never will."

Have these people become so diluted that they can not understand the basic concept of a finite resource?

DarkSkyForever: diluted

Awesome.

I find it amusing that some Americans assume that Canadian and Mexican gas/oil deposits automatically belong to the United States.

The oil is there. The libs are full of chit. So, let's just quit oil now and we can all walk to work. Wah wah wah, we can't do it. We can't do it. Why?? Because of lib thinking, that's why. I heard on a pundit show this morning where a dem senator said the high price of gas is a 'gift' to the American people, so we will use alternative fuels. A 'gift'. Now that's some smart thinking there. Dems never cease to amaze me with their absolute BS while they drive around in their Suburbans and try to figure out a new way to fool people every day.

/Wah wah wah, we can't do it
//It'll take 10 years
///Wah wah wah
////Windmills won't let you take a trip to grandma's house.

flushdepot: I heard on a pundit show


Well there's your problem.

flushdepot: The oil is there. The libs are full of chit. So, let's just quit oil now and we can all walk to work. Wah wah wah, we can't do it. We can't do it. Why?? Because of lib thinking, that's why. I heard on a pundit show this morning where a dem senator said the high price of gas is a 'gift' to the American people, so we will use alternative fuels. A 'gift'. Now that's some smart thinking there. Dems never cease to amaze me with their absolute BS while they drive around in their Suburbans and try to figure out a new way to fool people every day.

/Wah wah wah, we can't do it
//It'll take 10 years
///Wah wah wah
////Windmills won't let you take a trip to grandma's house.

DarkSkyForever:

Gotta agree with you there. But he still said it. Just another dem 'thrown against the wall to see if it will stick in the future' talking point.

Amigajoe 2008-06-22 12:14:27 PM
-Oil will never 'run out'; it will become so expensive to get that it's uneconomical , that's the problem...


If you ask environmental extremists and Globa; Warming alarmists, they say that's not the problem, that's the solution. I think all of these whiners and complainers should quit wasting their time criticizing oil as an industry and get crackin' on all of these grand ( plentiful AND affordable ) alternatives they keep yapping about.

bloatboy

Most likely scenario, like whale oil, it will become so expensive to actually extract, that a cheaper alternative will be used.

Not sure what we'll use for jetliners though.

You've heard of the epidemic of obesity in America? And you've heard of liposuction?

Soylent Jet Blue is PEOPLE!

flushdepot: The oil is there. The libs are full of chit. So, let's just quit oil now and we can all walk to work. Wah wah wah, we can't do it. We can't do it. Why?? Because of lib thinking, that's why. I heard on a pundit show this morning where a dem senator said the high price of gas is a 'gift' to the American people, so we will use alternative fuels. A 'gift'. Now that's some smart thinking there. Dems never cease to amaze me with their absolute BS while they drive around in their Suburbans and try to figure out a new way to fool people every day.

/Wah wah wah, we can't do it
//It'll take 10 years
///Wah wah wah
////Windmills won't let you take a trip to grandma's house.

Your well thought out, fact-based, and rational argument has convinced me. As an added bonus, I also feel the urge to follow the Nascar circuit and place a clever "Calvin Pissing on the Chevrolet Logo" sticker on my Dodge Ram Super-Duty.

If more people were like you, we wouldn't need to go to heaven, because we'd already be there.

High Karate:

You made my day!!

CigaretteSmokingMan: Squidgilum
We won't need jetliners. People will be so fed-up with incompetent and rude airline employees that they'll just give up on air travel.

Super high speed mag lev rail system. Build new nuclear plants to power them. Air travel would be so 20th century.

Have these people become so diluted that they can not understand the basic concept of a finite resource?

As noted above, the engineer in question obviously understands about how resources work, and you apparently don't.

When you have a finite-but-large amount of something, and it gets progressively harder to extract, it never actually runs out, it just gets more expensive, until the point where alternate resources start being used to replace it.

...and according to some fairly well-proven theories, there's a LOT more oil down below than most of the models predict - literally thousands of times as much - which is very, very deep down, and which will slowly seep upwards to replenish what's been used. Look up "abiogenic oil" and "deep biotic oil."

Just another dumb article that uses lazy assumptions to make a quick point to discredit someone they don't agree with. And people wonder why meaningful legislation and a comprehensive energy plan always seems to get bogged down in political haggling. Both sides are complicit and we will continue to see the same old ball and chain until we get past this petty nonsense.

Guess what folks, we are going to need oil and lots of it, we are going to need development of coal, nuclear, wind, solar, hydroelectric sources. We are going to need continued funding for R&D into algae to biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol and other second and third generation alternative fuels. Right now, there is no silver bullet to this problem and narrowing your focus to one specific "fix" is stupid.

flushdepot: DarkSkyForever:

Gotta agree with you there. But he still said it. Just another dem 'thrown against the wall to see if it will stick in the future' talking point.

On a related side note: many conservatives say we shouldn't push alternative energy, that we should let the market decide where and what we should use for a fuel source.

Aren't high oil prices the market's way of telling us to start looking?

brewssuds:

So glad you agree.

cirby: As noted above, the engineer in question obviously understands about how resources work, and you apparently don't.

When you have a finite-but-large amount of something, and it gets progressively harder to extract, it never actually runs out, it just gets more expensive, until the point where alternate resources start being used to replace it.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote.

Me: Discovery asked him when he thought we would start seeing a dip in production because we were running out of oil

He said we wouldn't ever see a dip in production, that our production would steadily increase forever.

It's not news, it's an interest group press release FARK.com!

Seriously, subby.

plainlyclueless: and when that happens, some other energy source will be exploited to take it's place.

whats the big deal people?

Shell Hydrogen. Shell Ethanol. Shell

If I may quote that wonderful British poet Peter Townshend:

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

DarkSkyForever: On a related side note: many conservatives say we shouldn't push alternative energy, that we should let the market decide where and what we should use for a fuel source.

Aren't high oil prices the market's way of telling us to start looking?

Do you realize there are hundreds of private and public companies investing in technologies that are investigating ways to produce alternative fuels and power in an economical manner. Some of these are even headed by *gasp* conservatives. While some are funded by the goverment, many of them are being financed outside of govermnent's influence. I would suggest that this just may be the free market working.

HeadLever: DarkSkyForever: On a related side note: many conservatives say we shouldn't push alternative energy, that we should let the market decide where and what we should use for a fuel source.

Aren't high oil prices the market's way of telling us to start looking?

Do you realize there are hundreds of private and public companies investing in technologies that are investigating ways to produce alternative fuels and power in an economical manner. Some of these are even headed by *gasp* conservatives. While some are funded by the goverment, many of them are being financed outside of govermnent's influence. I would suggest that this just may be the free market working.

k.

DarkSkyForever:

The market will find its place. It shouldn't be herded by government.

flushdepot: DarkSkyForever:

The market will find its place. It shouldn't be herded by government.

How much of the high oil prices we are dealing with now are because of the government, though?

I'd say the weak dollar and increased demand from India and China are more likely suspects, since just last year oil was around $60 a barrel. One year of us not drilling off shore and in ANWR wouldn't cause prices to double.

DarkSkyForever:

Well, of course the fed tax on gas for one.

The weak dollar and demand from India and China also probably contribute. And the oil speculators too. I wish I knew the answer, but we gotta get off our asses in the interim and recover OUR reserves. The government and the oil companies know where the oil is, geeze, let us drill. It won't happen overnight, but let's get going.

What ever happened to the nuclear industry ads during the first Iraq war about our glowing future?

//Nuclear was so safe when terrorists didn't exist.

The oil companies have to make big profits. That quadruple chin on the former Exxon CEO didn't grow on air...

legion_of_doo: SwiftFox: What's the writer's point?

Wasting our time?

Our own life... the ultimate non-renewable resource.

/I want more life... F**KER.

Eyes... I just do eyes...

/Tyrell. He knows such things.

-The problem with these kind of threads is that the majority of posters know nothing about the subject and just parrot partisan talking-points they heard somewhere. Hint: if you have to call people you disagree with juvenile names as part of your masterful riposte, I'm probably talking about YOU...

DarkSkyForever 2008-06-22 12:58:16 PM
flushdepot: I heard on a pundit show


Well there's your problem.


Better to read it on fark I suppose?

Actually there are some similarities between TV pundits and farkers. Both have opinions, and both like to argue with those who they disagree with. The difference is that TV pundits ( generally ) have some basis for their views, like oh, I don't know...KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE.

In addition, I've never heard a TV Pundit call someone a troll simply because they have no response to a question or a point made.

flushdepot: DarkSkyForever:

Well, of course the fed tax on gas for one.

The weak dollar and demand from India and China also probably contribute. And the oil speculators too. I wish I knew the answer, but we gotta get off our asses in the interim and recover OUR reserves. The government and the oil companies know where the oil is, geeze, let us drill. It won't happen overnight, but let's get going.

If you were *really* interested in having the market solve the problem, you'd be in favour of a carbon tax. That way, the real costs of production would be included in the price of the product. As it stands today, you are subsidizing the environmental cost of production and consumption of fossil fuels against your will. As it stands right now, you're subsidizing oil. That's what communists do.

Not a big fan of $4 fuel? Reflect the real (and all) cost of production in the price of the product, and it'd probably be $8+. The market is going to make you have to change your life pretty dramatically, don't forget to thank Adam Smith when it does.

I'm not just some hippie that thinks we should quit oil and it'll be all rainbows and unicorns, but I am a pragmatist. I grew up and live in Alberta, oil/gas central. We have oil sands the size of the state of florida. I and many of my family members owe our livelihood to the energy industry.

But even we recognize that business-as-usual is simply not sustainable, and incredibly stupid. As good as attitudes as yours are for business, they're ultimately killing us all.

If you believe that you can somehow drill your way out of the current situation, you are completely delusional. This move on the APIs part is a shallow ploy to capitalize on your insecurity in order to get access to your public land. Don't fall for it.

Amigajoe 2008-06-22 02:11:19 PM
-The problem with these kind of threads is that the majority of posters know nothing about the subject and just parrot partisan talking-points they heard somewhere. Hint: if you have to call people you disagree with juvenile names as part of your masterful riposte, I'm probably talking about YOU...


THIS

I would add to that:

if you have to call people you disagree with juvenile names OR A TROLL as part of your masterful riposte, I'm probably talking about YOU...

yes, there is an incentive for oil companies (and OPEC) to overstate existing reserves. it's so people will continue buying oil instead of investing in alternative fuels

another thing is, oil companies in the US currently have tons of land that they are permitted to drill on and legislation to free up more isn't going to change much. iirc the bottleneck is a lack of drilling rigs. but it doesnt matter much in the end since the amount of total recoverable oil in the US isn't that much anyway

finally, for all of those complaining that oil companies or saudis or w/e are getting super rich off the high price of oil, do you really think there would be enough oil for everyone if it was priced at $60/barrel?

unyon:

Well thought out.
Carbon tax? Another tax?? That's just feelgoodism.
We CAN drill our way out of this. The oil is there. We are America and we can do it. Not overnight, but not by sittin' on our fat asses either.
What else is one to do in the interim? Wish and hope?

/Let's drill and go for it.
//$4 a gallon gas is not a 'gift' according to some libs

cirby:

When you have a finite-but-large amount of something, and it gets progressively harder to extract, it never actually runs out, it just gets more expensive, until the point where alternate resources start being used to replace it.


I can agree with the progressively getting more expnsive part, I don't see how alternate sources will magically spring up to replace oil to make up the difference. At the very least they won't be available at the same price and in the same quantity as oil currently is. To get new sources of energy when we will need them we will have to start investing into them now.


...and according to some fairly well-proven theories, there's a LOT more oil down below than most of the models predict - literally thousands of times as much - which is very, very deep down, and which will slowly seep upwards to replenish what's been used. Look up "abiogenic oil" and "deep biotic oil."

'fairly-well proven'? According to whom? As far as I know it is only a fringe theory with some controverisal ideas about how it could happen but no evidence that it actually is happening.

Amigajoe: -The problem with these kind of threads is that the majority of posters know nothing about the subject and just parrot partisan talking-points they heard somewhere. Hint: if you have to call people you disagree with juvenile names as part of your masterful riposte, I'm probably talking about YOU...

No, you're wrong. Shut up you brain-dead hick.

American Petroleum Institute ads are full of fertilizer. They use crude facts to extract and distill beliefs that there is enough oil for the future needs

Well, duh. It's in the best interest of the American Petroleum Institute that we don't start to conserve energy and find alternative fuel and energy sources to end our dependence on oil. If nobody buys their product, they don't make money.