Skip to main content

WARNING!

This video is only for those who truly want to expand their knowledge...it's not for those who have a political axe to grind.

He get's to oil at about the 1:30 mark...notice how through out "experts" have been declaring how soon we would run out of oil. But yet the known reserves keep growing.

Also pay special attention to the conclusion at the end...resources are best regulated by prices, producers and consumers...not by artificially restricting them by government.

**************************

The Constitution. Every Issue, Every time. No Exceptions, No Excuses.

 

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."---Thomas Jefferson

 

"That's what governments are for... get in a man's way."---Mal Reynolds Capt. of Serenity, "Firefly-Class" spaceship

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
WARNING!

This video is only for those who truly want to expand their knowledge...it's not for those who have a political axe to grind.

He get's to oil at about the 1:30 mark...notice how through out "experts" have been declaring how soon we would run out of oil. But yet the known reserves keep growing.

Also pay special attention to the conclusion at the end...resources are best regulated by prices, producers and consumers...not by artificially restricting them by government.



What video?

Why do we subsidize the oil companies when they are making record profits?
Last edited by Mr.Dittohead
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
quote:
WARNING!

This video is only for those who truly want to expand their knowledge...it's not for those who have a political axe to grind.

He get's to oil at about the 1:30 mark...notice how through out "experts" have been declaring how soon we would run out of oil. But yet the known reserves keep growing.

Also pay special attention to the conclusion at the end...resources are best regulated by prices, producers and consumers...not by artificially restricting them by government.



What video?

Why do we subsidize the oil companies when they are making record profits?


The one above your post. Sober up!
The video's argument is self contradicting. He explains how we found a substitute for copper in a new technological breakthrough. Eventually, maybe not in my lifetime, we will run out of certain resources including oil. I mean, anybody can understand oil is being generated much slower than we are currently using it. Decay isn't that fast. And the size of the Earth is limited. The atmosphere is only so big so we can only chug so much pollution into it. As such, we should be searching for a substitute that is less polluting. But we can still stick our head in the sand and let future generations worry about it. Unless we are so greedy we actually think the world ends when we die. It only goes to show that we haven't evolved that far from the belief that the world is flat.
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Renegade, no matter how much oil we do or don't have, and no matter what anyone's political stance is, don't you think the idea of cheaper, cleaner, renewable energy is a good one?



quote:
Originally posted by AlabamaSon:
As such, we should be searching for a substitute that is less polluting. But we can still stick our head in the sand and let future generations worry about it. Unless we are so greedy we actually think the world ends when we die. It only goes to show that we haven't evolved that far from the belief that the world is flat.



You guys are both missing the actual point...(Maybe it's that political axe grinding)...

The actual point, if you listen carefully and unbiasedly, is that no one is against finding and developing new, cleaner and cheaper resources...The point is that the market and prices drive consumers, producers and innovators to find, develop and use new or different resources.

As opposed to governmental force trying to drive an unwanted and unprofitable technology/resource.

Electric and hydrogen cars would be great, but it's not going to happen until there is a profit incentive to do so...Real profit incentive as opposed to "tax break" incentives that just mask and subsidize unprofitable ventures.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
How much does it cost each year, in lives and treasure, for the US to try and maintain peace in the middle east so that our oil supply remains stable? $400billion?



Probably...at least...but that's not the issue addressed.

I believe we should get out of the middle east...but that's not the issue either...

If you want to make it a pissing contest, I guess I could say we have to be in the middle east and forfiet lives and treasure because some narrow minded alarmists block any attempt at developing our own resources.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Oil is a finite resource. We dont have enough in North America, especially with worldwide demand increasing every day. The long term solution is not oil.


Maybe... but the solution isn't engineering or simply allowing "fortuitous" events to drive the costs of petroleum high enough to make the alternatives seem more plausible either.
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Oil is a finite resource. We dont have enough in North America, especially with worldwide demand increasing every day. The long term solution is not oil.


Maybe... but the solution isn't engineering or simply allowing "fortuitous" events to drive the costs of petroleum high enough to make the alternatives seem more plausible either.


Your paranoia is showing. On one is controlling events that are driving the price higher. The people of the middle east are just availing themselves of the information available to them that demonstrates that their standard of living sucks. When the oil reserves of the middle east are in the control of the people instead of a few despots, the market price for a barrel will probably double, ie $200/barrel. Imagine if all the poor folks of Libya, Saudi, Jordan, Syria, etc. all were going to be part of price equation.
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Juan is right. At the current rate of use, we have about two years worth of very hard to get at oil.


I'll think about this in two years, and smile.


Why? The fact is, a lot of the US land that has the oil is leased to FOREIGN companies anyway. But IF we drilled it all and KEPT it all for US use only, it would only last about two years. Think about how short a time two years really is. Where were you two years ago? Hasn't the time flown? It'll fly just as fast and then we'll be right back where we started.

The fact is, we need to start NOW, trying to find a good alternative source of energy. If we had taken it seriously decades ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Juan is right. At the current rate of use, we have about two years worth of very hard to get at oil.


I'll think about this in two years, and smile.


Why? The fact is, a lot of the US land that has the oil is leased to FOREIGN companies anyway. But IF we drilled it all and KEPT it all for US use only, it would only last about two years. Think about how short a time two years really is. Where were you two years ago? Hasn't the time flown? It'll fly just as fast and then we'll be right back where we started.

The fact is, we need to start NOW, trying to find a good alternative source of energy. If we had taken it seriously decades ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.


Because I think you're wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by AlabamaSon:
The video's argument is self contradicting. He explains how we found a substitute for copper in a new technological breakthrough. Eventually, maybe not in my lifetime, we will run out of certain resources including oil. I mean, anybody can understand oil is being generated much slower than we are currently using it. Decay isn't that fast. And the size of the Earth is limited. The atmosphere is only so big so we can only chug so much pollution into it. As such, we should be searching for a substitute that is less polluting. But we can still stick our head in the sand and let future generations worry about it. Unless we are so greedy we actually think the world ends when we die. It only goes to show that we haven't evolved that far from the belief that the world is flat.


Wealthy societies have better environments. The Soviet Union was a disaster ecology-wise. Suggest a visit to Beijing, someday. But, not if you have asthma.

Paul Ehrlich, the Population Bomb, made a bet with economist, Julian Simon. Simon had Ehrlich choose five of several commodity metals. Ehrlich chose copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Simon bet that their prices would decrease between 1980 and 1990. Ehrlich bet they would increase. Ehrlich ultimately lost the bet. Over the years, Ehrlich lost so many such bets, he quite.

During the earlier 1800s, whaling provided the US with its main source of light and plastic. When the great herds of whales begin to vanish, newspapers predicted a return to the dark ages, literally. Candles were expensive and only the rich could afford to light use more than one. The discovery of petroleum in Pennsylvania occurred just as whale oil was disappearing. Government management had no part in that.
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Juan is right. At the current rate of use, we have about two years worth of very hard to get at oil.


I'll think about this in two years, and smile.


Why? The fact is, a lot of the US land that has the oil is leased to FOREIGN companies anyway. But IF we drilled it all and KEPT it all for US use only, it would only last about two years. Think about how short a time two years really is. Where were you two years ago? Hasn't the time flown? It'll fly just as fast and then we'll be right back where we started.

The fact is, we need to start NOW, trying to find a good alternative source of energy. If we had taken it seriously decades ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.


That oil, pumped by the foreign companies, stays in the US. Your argument is bogus.
When the supply of light crude does get scarce, there is another oil resource in the wings to replace it, if the politicians don't get in the way.

quote:
Heavy Oil Becomes More Appealing As Light, Sweet Crude Runs Out

Posted on: Jun 3rd, 2009 | By Byron King | Filed under Oil Investment & Alternative Energy

When most people think of oil, they think of light, sweet crude that comes up out of little holes in the ground. You describe oil by its API gravity. For example, oil like Brent crude or West Texas Intermediate has an API gravity of 38-40. The oil that Col. Drake pulled from the ground at Titusville, Pa., in 1859 had API gravity near 60. These types of oil are relatively easy to pump from a reservoir, lift to the surface and transport via pipeline to the refinery.

The Shift to Heavy Oil, with an “Energy Microsoft” at the Forefront

But a significant portion of the world’s oil is much lower quality than the light, sweet stuff. Indeed, most oil that’s found in nature is a heavy, viscous hydrocarbon with the consistency of cold molasses. This heavy oil – defined as API gravity 22.3 or less – is difficult and costly to produce and refine. That’s why people have pumped and burned the light, sweet oil for the past 150 years. Throughout its history, the oil industry has usually bypassed the heavier oil fractions. Why go to the trouble and expense, right?
http://www.contrarianprofits.c...crude-runs-out/17486
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Juan is right. At the current rate of use, we have about two years worth of very hard to get at oil.


I'll think about this in two years, and smile.


Why? The fact is, a lot of the US land that has the oil is leased to FOREIGN companies anyway. But IF we drilled it all and KEPT it all for US use only, it would only last about two years. Think about how short a time two years really is. Where were you two years ago? Hasn't the time flown? It'll fly just as fast and then we'll be right back where we started.

The fact is, we need to start NOW, trying to find a good alternative source of energy. If we had taken it seriously decades ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.


That oil, pumped by the foreign companies, stays in the US. Your argument is bogus.


Can you provide links from REPUTABLE sources that state that? I just Googled it, and all of the sites I found said that they can sell that oil to anyone they want to.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Oil is a finite resource. We dont have enough in North America, especially with worldwide demand increasing every day. The long term solution is not oil.



quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Juan is right. At the current rate of use, we have about two years worth of very hard to get at oil.



Good grief...you guys didn't even watch the **** video...good going at missing the entire point of the arguement.
No, it's just that if you compare the video to the article from Scientific American that I just posted, you will see that the gentleman in the video presented a very simplistic view.

You see, one cannot use common sense when dealing with large amounts of money to be made. You have seen this over and over again in all walks of life. Did you read the article? Oil companies make a LOT of money by just holding on to leases. It would cost them to drill and find out if there actually IS oil on the land they are leasing. Why go to all of that trouble and expense when they can make so much by just holding on to the leases and doing nothing? When SPECULATORS come into the picture, common sense goes out the window.
O No-

Your rebuttal has nothing to do with the claims made in the video. We don't have cheaper, cleaner, renewable energy because it doesn't exist yet. It will when it becomes profitable. Any distortions that do exist in the energy markets exist because of government intervention, not because the market is choosing to use "the wrong" energy sources.
One of the claims made in the video is that we won't run out of copper because we have found an alternative. Well, we may not run out, but the price keeps going up because speculators are hording it!

http://www.ibtimes.com/article...-in-2011-yardeni.htm

What I am saying is that the gentleman in the video sounds like he has been paid to paint a rosey picture. The fact is, whether we run out of oil sooner or later, the price is NOT dictated by supply and demand.

Sure, when we find a better source of energy speculators will manipulate the price on that too, but at least it will hopefully be cleaner and renewable.
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
No, it's just that if you compare the video to the article from Scientific American that I just posted, you will see that the gentleman in the video presented a very simplistic view.

You see, one cannot use common sense when dealing with large amounts of money to be made. You have seen this over and over again in all walks of life. Did you read the article? Oil companies make a LOT of money by just holding on to leases. It would cost them to drill and find out if there actually IS oil on the land they are leasing. Why go to all of that trouble and expense when they can make so much by just holding on to the leases and doing nothing? When SPECULATORS come into the picture, common sense goes out the window.


OK, genius, how do the oil companies make money by paying rent for land and not pumping oil?

Please don't say speculation, because that represents trading in oil futures. If you wish to identify those evil speculators, you might wish to look in the mirror. If, you have a state, city or county pension, you might be a speculator! If, you own an annuity, life insurance, a 401(k), an IRA or a defined pension from a private company, you probably are a speculator!
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Juan is right. At the current rate of use, we have about two years worth of very hard to get at oil.


I'll think about this in two years, and smile.


Why? The fact is, a lot of the US land that has the oil is leased to FOREIGN companies anyway. But IF we drilled it all and KEPT it all for US use only, it would only last about two years. Think about how short a time two years really is. Where were you two years ago? Hasn't the time flown? It'll fly just as fast and then we'll be right back where we started.

The fact is, we need to start NOW, trying to find a good alternative source of energy. If we had taken it seriously decades ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.


That oil, pumped by the foreign companies, stays in the US. Your argument is bogus.


Can you provide links from REPUTABLE sources that state that? I just Googled it, and all of the sites I found said that they can sell that oil to anyone they want to.


I see you didn't learn logic in school. You don't prove a negative! You stated a point and must now back it up with fact. Except, for a small export of gasoline, usually to Mexico, during off seasons, the US is not an exporter of petroleum. They can export, but they don't. As the market in the US can absorb all they pump and refine, with the noted exception, to do so would not be cost worthy. Also, in the extreme, the US government can stop such exports.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
No, it's just that if you compare the video to the article from Scientific American that I just posted, you will see that the gentleman in the video presented a very simplistic view.

You see, one cannot use common sense when dealing with large amounts of money to be made. You have seen this over and over again in all walks of life. Did you read the article? Oil companies make a LOT of money by just holding on to leases. It would cost them to drill and find out if there actually IS oil on the land they are leasing. Why go to all of that trouble and expense when they can make so much by just holding on to the leases and doing nothing? When SPECULATORS come into the picture, common sense goes out the window.


OK, genius, how do the oil companies make money by paying rent for land and not pumping oil?

Please don't say speculation, because that represents trading in oil futures. If you wish to identify those evil speculators, you might wish to look in the mirror. If, you have a state, city or county pension, you might be a speculator! If, you own an annuity, life insurance, a 401(k), an IRA or a defined pension from a private company, you probably are a speculator!



Actually, I have none of the above. No pension, no IRA, not even life insurance. I have no family to leave anything to, and I own my own business. That's how I make my living.


But it seems you either didn't read the whole Scientific American article I posted, or perhaps you missed this part that explains how just holding leases is very profitable for oil companies:

"Oil company stocks are valued in large part based on how much proved reserves they have," says Robert Kaufman, an expert on world oil markets and director of Boston University's Center for Energy and Environmental Studies. Translation: just having more promising leases in hand would be worth billions of dollars.
"I see you didn't learn logic in school. You don't prove a negative! You stated a point and must now back it up with fact. Except, for a small export of gasoline, usually to Mexico, during off seasons, the US is not an exporter of petroleum. They can export, but they don't. As the market in the US can absorb all they pump and refine, with the noted exception, to do so would not be cost worthy. Also, in the extreme, the US government can stop such exports."


OK, try this for logic. Foreign oil companies drill here in the US. They can sell what they produce to anyone they want to. They can even sell it BACK TO US! Yes, that's right, instead of leasing US land exclusively to US companies, we lease to plenty of foreign companies who SELL OUR OWN OIL BACK TO US. OR, they can sell it to other foreign companies. Don't you get it?

Let's say I rent chickens from folks in Alabama, and also in Mississippi, and also in Louisiana. Now, when those chickens lay eggs, those eggs belong to me. I can sell them for any price the market will bear, and I can sell the Mississippi eggs to Alabamans, or I can even sell them to folks in Florida. How can you tell a Mississippi egg from an Alabama egg? You can't. They all go into the large pool of eggs that I own.

Even if there were a law stating that I must sell as many Alabama eggs to Alabamans as my Alabama chickens produce, are they really Alabama eggs?

What's more, if there are a limited number of people who own those eggs, we can set the price anywhere we want to. We can sell you back your own eggs at a much higher price than those eggs would cost if you raised your own chickens.

Do you see what I'm getting at? The point to remember is that ALL of the oil a foreign company produces, no matter where their wells are, goes into one big pool. Do you deny that foreign oil companies sell oil to other countries? Some of that oil was undoubtedly drilled in America. It is going overseas. And what they do sell back to America, they sell at a huge profit.
OK, here's a guy who explains it much more eloquently than I did, AND without the use of chickens! Smiler


http://www.consumerenergyrepor...rican-leaders-media/


The bias in our terminology towards energy security is so commonplace that it permeates even in the most basic terminology we use to describe oil. For example, in our single supply and demand curve global oil market, there is no such thing as “foreign” oil. The term “foreign” before the word “oil” encourages people to view oil supply and the companies that acquire it from a flawed lens since it would have us implicitly assume that there could be a national role in the pursuit of oil resulting hopefully in a two price and supply structure: foreign and domestic. Nothing could be farther from reality and more impossible. First, there is only one kind of oil: not foreign, not domestic. Second, in an age of globalization, U.S.-based multinational companies are not American anymore since they belong to stockholders who may be from any nation around the world. Their profits, successes, and losses do not belong to the American people.

The oil market operates almost exactly the way a perfectly working market would in an economics textbook. With thousands upon thousands of individual players in the global oil market, we all purchase oil from the same exact global pool regardless of where it is produced. Thus, the market is out of the control of any single government or oil company, even Saudi Aramaco.
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
"I see you didn't learn logic in school. You don't prove a negative! You stated a point and must now back it up with fact. Except, for a small export of gasoline, usually to Mexico, during off seasons, the US is not an exporter of petroleum. They can export, but they don't. As the market in the US can absorb all they pump and refine, with the noted exception, to do so would not be cost worthy. Also, in the extreme, the US government can stop such exports."


OK, try this for logic. Foreign oil companies drill here in the US. They can sell what they produce to anyone they want to. They can even sell it BACK TO US! Yes, that's right, instead of leasing US land exclusively to US companies, we lease to plenty of foreign companies who SELL OUR OWN OIL BACK TO US. OR, they can sell it to other foreign companies. Don't you get it?

Let's say I rent chickens from folks in Alabama, and also in Mississippi, and also in Louisiana. Now, when those chickens lay eggs, those eggs belong to me. I can sell them for any price the market will bear, and I can sell the Mississippi eggs to Alabamans, or I can even sell them to folks in Florida. How can you tell a Mississippi egg from an Alabama egg? You can't. They all go into the large pool of eggs that I own.

Even if there were a law stating that I must sell as many Alabama eggs to Alabamans as my Alabama chickens produce, are they really Alabama eggs?

What's more, if there are a limited number of people who own those eggs, we can set the price anywhere we want to. We can sell you back your own eggs at a much higher price than those eggs would cost if you raised your own chickens.

Do you see what I'm getting at? The point to remember is that ALL of the oil a foreign company produces, no matter where their wells are, goes into one big pool. Do you deny that foreign oil companies sell oil to other countries? Some of that oil was undoubtedly drilled in America. It is going overseas. And what they do sell back to America, they sell at a huge profit.


You used a simile, but didn't prove your point with facts. Facts are such annoying things to leftists. The oil pumped from the interior of the US goes by pipeline to refineries, no matter the owner of the fields. Close in offshore, the same. Further out, but within the 200 mile US economic exclusionary zone, tankers are used (Gulf). Please show me those tankers going to foreign nations. Their routes are filed and controlled. We don't want a ship showing up unexpectedly with a nuke in her bow.
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Here is an article from Scientific American that explains what really goes on in the oil market. It is three pages, but they are short pages, and very informative.

http://www.scientificamerican....-make-us-independent


Read the article. Scientific American has really gone downhill. They referred to the bogus example of shipping Alaskan oil to Japan.

Totally ignoring the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act of 1973, which makes it illegal to ship Alaskan oil to anywhere except the US.
http://www.eoearth.org/article..._1973,_United_States

Also, intimated that because there are no oil platforms on some leased sites that means no oil is being pumped. Modern platforms may drill six to twelve separate wells miles away from the platform.

The one way an oil company might make money from not pumping is to buy their stock back and sell it when its goes up. However, a number of companies are doing this, not just the oil companies.
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
When discussing such a complex issue, one must take into consideration all of the interwoven factors.


right, right, right... The issue YOU raised was that the resources were about to be completely depleted. Any complexity was interjected by you to cloud THAT issue. Your obfuscation is transparent.
No Mark, what I SAID was that the UNITED STATES has an estimated 2 years worth of oil in the ground. And my POINT in saying that was to show that drilling in the US wouldn't really alleviate the price of oil. Everything else I have posted ALSO shows that drilling in the US won't change the price of oil either.

Not obfuscation, but elucidation.
quote:
You used a simile, but didn't prove your point with facts. Facts are such annoying things to leftists. The oil pumped from the interior of the US goes by pipeline to refineries, no matter the owner of the fields. Close in offshore, the same. Further out, but within the 200 mile US economic exclusionary zone, tankers are used (Gulf). Please show me those tankers going to foreign nations. Their routes are filed and controlled. We don't want a ship showing up unexpectedly with a nuke in her bow.


Actually, it was an analogy, not a simile, and I even admitted it wasn't a great one. That is why I posted the article from Consumer Energy Report. It stated clearly what my analogy was trying to get at:

"With thousands upon thousands of individual players in the global oil market, we all purchase oil from the same exact global pool regardless of where it is produced. Thus, the market is out of the control of any single government or oil company, even Saudi Aramaco."



"Totally ignoring the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act of 1973, which makes it illegal to ship Alaskan oil to anywhere except the US.
http://www.eoearth.org/article..._1973,_United_States"


There was NOTHING in that article stating that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline act prohibited the selling of oil to foreign countries. As a matter of fact, here is an article about BP getting oil from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline:

http://www.businessinsider.com...pipeline-leak-2011-1

And BECAUSE oil goes into a "global pool", it doesn't matter how much oil we drill here in the US, it has no bearing on the PRICE of oil. Here's a blurb from Wiki on how, even at the start of the pipeline, prices remained out of our control:


Although the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System began pumping oil in 1977, it did not have a major immediate impact on global oil prices.[110] This is partly because it took several years to reach full production and partly because U.S. production outside Alaska declined until the mid-1980s.[111] The Iranian Revolution and OPEC price increases triggered the 1979 energy crisis despite TAPS production increases.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×