What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, "Time for Miracles" view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
103 Comments
- dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -33/+102Nonsence. Amateurish corporate propaganda. They wish to have business go on, because they have massive financial stakes in it.
(0) It is nonsence. All authorities and specialists in the petrochemical field claim we used HALF of all proven resources right now. 18% isn't half. Even if we magically find several big fields, we will NEVER has as much oil in the ground as four times as much as we already used.
(1) the oil left in the ground is HARD TO REACH oil. The easy oil we can extraxt, the hard oil we cant. It costs energy to extraxt hard to reach oil. As soon as it costs 1 barrel of oil in energy to extract one barrel of oil it makes no sense to extract it.
(2) The consumption rate of oil increases each year, and doubles per 30 years. That means that even if we accessed onetenth of all oil right now (which we didnt) within 60 years we will have used "all available oil". Do the math yourself.
(3) The oil industries, especially Saudi Arabia, didnt invest a cent in new refineries or extraction facilities in 30 years, because the oil price was so low. Oil in the ground cant be extracted fast enough to consume. No matter how much oil there is in the ground, we will be stuck with high prices, like forever, and even if they start investing, China dn India will automatically take up any slack, keeping demand high for the forseeable future.
(4) A large percentage of the oil in the ground is high-sulphuric oil, oil shale or other hard to process chemical crap. Maybe in the 2020s or later we can process that toxic ***** but right now if we start pumping it up, the environment is gonna go even worse than it does now. Right now millions are suffering from all kinds of funny respiratory and autoimmune disease. Anyone thinks that's a coincidence?
Oil is a DEAD END street. It is sold by human Hyena's, people like the Saudi that use the money with one hand to buy big luxury palaces and pay for eastern european whores and with the other hand finance Hamas and radical terror movements. We need to get rid of oil imports, even if they come from "friendly rightwing dictators" like in Kazachstan, because its gonna keep causing massive destabilization, corruption and keep an industry of war alive.
We cannot sustain our level of industrialization and consumption going with alternative fuel, like water, wind or sun - our industries are expanding.
The ONLY choice we have is develop fusion power. With fusion human industry can expand indefinitely. We need the power fusion promises. If we don't, we as a species are in serious trouble before 2050. And with trouble I mean that a few billion people will need to die because we cant feed them, let alone have them consume at a level that is acceptable by first world standards.
However, oil industries are keeping fusion out of the picture as long as possible. They are fighting tooth and nail to resist it. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -18/+54Oil? No thanks. Keep it, Saudi Arabia.
- ScottJG, on 10/12/2007, -6/+39Gas prices rose 20 cents after the announcement.
- Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -8/+34This is most likely completely false or just misleading. How much of the 82% yet to be found is economically viable to extract? Likely very little. Knowing where oil is doesn't make it magically jump into a barrel.
Oh and BTW never trust anything a guy named buford says - daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25I hope you realize that oil is used for quite a few more things than fuel. Plastics & medicines come to mind.
- Egoist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26P.S. Anyone who says, "This is all a lie because I *know* that there's XX amount of oil in the world!" is full of *****. No one knows how much oil is in the world. If we did, we'd know where it is, and we'd be sucking it out of the ground faster than lines of coke at a Courtney Love party. If you believe one side that says we're all doomed while you decry the other as a liar has less to do with the credibility of who's saying it and more to do with your general outlook on life.
- ePlus, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29But this doesn't mean that the oil prices should drop down and we should all drive to the shop around the corner and buy Hummers!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Did you even read the story ?
We globally consume 85 million barrels a day, yet we produce only 23 million per day.
It doesn't take a huge stretch of your miniscule imagination to figure this one out. - theragu40, on 10/12/2007, -14/+28Then why the ***** is gas so damn expensive?
- didymus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Natural gas may produce less carbon dioxide emissions than gasoline or diesel and be cheaper however it still doesn't solve the fundamental problem of using fossil fuels.
We have to start using renewables and convert to a hydrogen or pure electric economy otherwise we're all doooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomed. - jonesin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@Egoist:
You do realize that in his hypothetical universe where we had working fusion power we wouldn't need fusion reactors in every car don't you? I think you do. Fusion power at a power plant can deliver electricity to modified gas stations and homes where they can refuel electric cars. - optikknight, on 10/12/2007, -12/+23@dagonweb
I'm all for alternative energy source development, and would love to see people pursuing an economically feasible implementation, but (no offense) your arguments are largely hearsay, vs. the hearsay on the opposing side. I've heard all sorts of things from people on all sides of issues like this, from academics and from people who actually worked the very same oil fields (or rain forests, or seas for fishing, etc). From all of it, I've heard so many people speak quite pessimistically, and others speak optimistically, and overall come to the conclusion that while we should (responsibly) pursue alternatives to our various exploits of the earth's resources, we shouldn't panic about how much there might (not) be left to exploit. ... (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy style...) Don't Panic. - FyreGoddess, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14The question is less how much oil is available and more how easily it can be extracted and refined. The less available oil we have, the more difficult it becomes to extract and the more expensive it becomes to refine.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13why should we believe anything a saudi oil exec says? if we're actually running out of oil that would mean we should look into other options and stop buying oil. that's bad for saudi oil. so of course they want us to think there's more oil.
- _skin_, on 10/12/2007, -16/+26Ok so lets use the other 82% and kill the earth! Hurry, buy a Hummer!
- PrimoTurbo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Sounds like *****.
- walkerblackwell, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Yes to that. Look at the discovery data up against the production data and you see two lines going in opposite directions. The discovery data doesn't mean all of the oil in the world, just the stuff we can extract without using a full gallon of oil in the process of extracting that one gallon. When oil is over we will still have trillions of barels of it in the ground. We just won't ever be able to physicially pump/extract it out of the ground without using more energy to get it out than its worth. Technology will not help us on this one until someone invents anti-gravity machines or some such sience-fictional stuff. Baseing our whole way of living and our whole economy on the possibility of some brainiac who is currently in pre-school in the hopes that he/she will invent some miraculouse new way to extract oil from anywhere under the globe is totally insane. Unfortunatly, it's what we are all doing right now. Me included I'm afraid.
- RichDigger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10This may be, for many, their first introduction to the concept of Peak Oil. For those people, know this:
(1) Abdallah S. Jum’ah's predecessor warned, shortly after leaving the post, that Global (i.e. U.S.) estimates of Saudi oil were "dangerous overestimates".
(2) It is impossible to know how much oil Aramco has, as reserves are a state secret and have never been audited. However, the more they say they have, the more they earn under OPECs production revenue sharing agreement. And if the U.S. ever lost confidence in Saudi capacity to maintain supply, they would withdraw support for the Regime, which would fall. So any statement of reserves is likely to be grossly inflated, and in any case impossibly compromised by conflicts of political and financial interest.
(3) The issue is not how much oil is left, but at what rate remaining reserves can be extracted in relation to demand. Extraction rate is a function geology. Extraction rate is a function neither of technology nor capital investment. Demand is increasing at 2% per year, supply of currently extractable oil is falling at 6% per year. Global failure of the world economy will occur at the point when supply cannot meet demand - around 2015 by current estimates. At that point, there will still be billions of barrels of oil in the ground. - AriseNow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Artifez is right, the oil is there, but extracting it is another matter altogether. Oil Peak is expected at around 2010, it doesn't mean "OMFG we used 50% of all oil" it means we used 50% of all easily extractable oil, so unless a technological breakthrough happens that lessens the cost of digging deeper expect prices to rise, not because it's running out but because it costs so much more to put in your favorite gas station. Obviously a company that has oil as its main product will rip the planet apart if it has to, it is expected from an economical point of view, but it doesn't mean we must follow their advice.
Coal is supposed to peak in about 200~300 years IIRC, does that mean we should make it our main source of energy for the next centuries?, I don't think so. As the industrial world is so heavily dependent on oil and people would rather keep their precious everyday products, the move away from petroleum dependence should begin with us. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11um, pulling a boat? i hope you're talking about a sail boat. if not then you might as well be driving 3 hummers
- PappyD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Expensive?
How much does it cost per litre in the US at the moment? For me, in London, it's up to:
UKP 0.99 = 1.88 USD per litre
I make that 5.1324 USD per US gallon.
Still think your gas is expensive?
There is no single answer to the current cost of gas. IMHO we need a combination of:
- decreased usage of fossils
- increased efficiency of usage & mining of fossils
- increased use of renewables
- careful use of 'safe' fusion
It IS possible to use renewables to power cars. To the guy who suggested fusion reactors in cars, it doesn't work like that. You use renewables or fusion to generate electricity, which powers the cars. A network of electric instead of gas stations provides the power. There's a hell of a long way to go though. - Obvioustroll, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@dagonweb
" Right now millions are suffering from all kinds of funny respiratory and autoimmune disease. Anyone thinks that's a coincidence?"
You need to be taken out and beaten with a book on basic logic. Here's a hint: There is no correlation between autoimmune disorders and pollution levels - children in Mexico City have lower rates of asthma than do children in America, but Mexico City is far more polluted.
The current theory is that Western children get autoimmune diseases because we over medicate them and don't expose them to enough real pathogens. - origclubsoda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Pull my finger - I've got gas for you....
- brady47, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Depressing either way. The article basically states that we will run out of oil between 70 and 140 years from now. Don't know if I'll be around for the oil-less world, but my kids probably will be. It is going to ba a bitch fighting over the last bits of oil for the next 100 years.
- Egoist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I don't think your analogy means what you think it means.
- patrickbwells, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Oil producing countries have been exaggerating there national oil reserves for decades. OPEC limits the amount of oil that can be exported by a country based on that countries estimated reserves. This keeps prices high by preventing countries from flooding the market with cheap oil. Countries with larger reserves (either exaggerated or real estimates) are allowed to export more oil.
- JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
-Donald Rumsfeld
Wow such insight into the oil market! - Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"We have to start using renewables and convert to a hydrogen or pure electric economy otherwise we're all doooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomed."
Quoted For *****' TRUTH - heyy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5oil is overrated. my car runs on garlic bread
- mbabauer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Egoist:
I don't think anyone suggested putting fusion reactors on the cars. There is a viable solution for transportation...electricity. But, if you did create a great electric car right this very instant, where would most of that power come from? Oil. Besides electric cars, there are also promising hopes like the hydrogen powered car.
And for the problem of "lubricants", I believe there are synthetics out there made entirely from substances other than oil. Plastic is another problem, but once again, we are not going to find an alternative to plastics until we start investigating. And for fertilizer, last I checked every living creature on this planet makes it.
At this point, frankly, I don't care WHAT we do. All I know is that 1) we rely too much on a product that comes from countries that hate us, 2) this product is getting too expensive, 3) If we don't start now, are we supposed to wait until it IS a problem, and 4) I would like for my children to inherit a world free from respirator suits and SPF 2000.
All you opposed to alternative solutions are either young and naive or do not have kids, or both. That 18-yr-old "I am invincible" thinking is what gets people hurt...and in this case, we are talking billions, not just a handful. - dmclone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah you would be wrong.
- ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Our efficiency is also increasing - so even if our Oil is getting lower, if we can do great help to "outpace" it by rising effeciency.
- lburgguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not only does nobody know how much oil is under ground, some scientists think that the earth creates oil under the extreme pressure and it is continually being pushed upwards where drills can get it. This theory is called abiotic oil. If you read about the two competing views there is really enough evidence to support both views (abiotic oil vs. fixed amount of oil). If you're going to google for abiotic oil, look for peak oil too, pretty interesting.
- earthtoandy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Scientists vs Oil Executive
And the victory in who to believe goes to... OIL EXECUTIVE???
Man the Scientists are losing some battles they should really be winning. Oil Executives, Religious People... Tough loses - PappyD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Sorry, let me get this straight, you raped 18% of all drunk girls that fell asleep in your company?
Do you expect your consumption rate to increase next year? Only I think people need to be warned. - atpcliff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hi!
Last year, in an unusual situation, Kuwait re-stated their reserves. They said they only had 1/2 of the oil that they had been claiming previously.
Most oil-owning nations and companies commonly drastically over-state the amount of oil they own/control. They do this because they don't want alternative fuels. They want us to remain dependent on oil, so they can still keep making tons of money.
I would not believe anything the Saudis say, unless they are saying their oil fields are drying up and they have less oil available than they thought.
Even if, by some miracle, it turns out that oil companies will be able to pump ever-increasing amounts of oil, to keep up with the growing demand in China and India, we should switch to alternatives because of Global Warming. - lsdeath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ egoist
So are you saying that new battery technology is beyond us? Were not talking about an instant fix here. Sure its not economically feasible right now to completely switch from combustion engines. But that's not to say 15-20 years from now with the proper research and money put in to it we would not have something that is a viable alternative. I think we all can agree that simply ignoring the problem is only going to get us in a deeper mess further down the road. - homercaholic18, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4There is more Oil in the Alberta Oil Sands right now then all of the Mid-East combined, and enough to power the world for a metric assload more years. The only problem is getting it out in a cost effective way, because right now to extract it costs much more then it does to bring it in from outside sources.
- EndersGame, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5jonesin you beat me by a few minutes but I was going to say the same thing. If we actually accomplish nuclear fusion we will be able to provide power for EVERYTHING insanely cheap. We will all be driving around electric cars at that point. And sure, we do need oil for lots of other things, thats exactly why we should be conserving what we have left now and search for alternative fuels.
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11"Right now millions are suffering from all kinds of funny respiratory and autoimmune disease. Anyone thinks that's a coincidence?"
I don't know the history of respiratory and autoimmune disease. I don't know how to take the fact that we've been able to increase expected human lifespan into account. I don't know how preventing other causes of death changes things. In short, I don't know, and if you do, could you please teach the rest of us how to? - mbabauer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2First off, I don't trust the source. That's like a crack dealer telling you crack is not harmful to you. There is obviously a conflict of interest here, as the Saudis want us to use oil in ever-increasing quantities.
Second, it's not just about the oil. Its about being able to breath or walk outside without a radioactive suit on. Yeah, I am being a little melodramatic, but lets be real here, this stuff is killing us!
Third, not only is burning this stuff bad for you and everyone/everything else, but most of the oil used comes from countries that have questionably morals. To use a Bush-ism, every time you fill up your tank, you are supporting Al Queda. Again, a little melodrama, but the point is we need to be putting that money back in our pockets, not some rich camel-jockey over in some country that hates western civilization. - dmclone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'll be dead by the time we run out of oil and I don't have kids so......... screw you guys I'm going home.
- Billkamm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This story is TRUE. I wish morons would stop flagging true stories as inaccurate.
- Obvioustroll, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Solar - sorry, the energy density of solar power just isn't there - do the math, even at 100% efficiency, it's still only a few watts per square meter of sunlight.
Wind - has potential in some places, but ask the people in the wind power business what happens every time they try to build a wind farm. Hint: It sounds a lot like "Not In My Back Yard".
Geothermal - only works in places where there are major hot springs. Are you planning on converting Yellowstone National Park into a power plant?
Tidal - yeah, that works for people who live in places with major tides; but guess what happens when you try to build one? - fireface100, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1By the time we use it all we will be ***** period we need to stop and find a more reliable and efficient source of energy.
- Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Saw this somewhere: "Humanity uses 345 Quads per year of fossil fuel. Oil shale deposits hold 10 million Quads."
If you assume exponential increase in use until it's all gone (an absolutely insane assumption), that's about 400 years worth. More realistically, several thousand years worth. And I wouldn't expect anyone to still be burning oil as an energy source in 400 years, let alone several thousand. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Laughable. If there's so much oil why can't competing companies pump it out of the ground fast enough to meet rising demand. If it were really true it's pure guesswork, since no one currently knows where all that oil is.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1People are saying what the guy says is inaccurate, and therefore mark the article as inaccurate. That's the point. It's not an opinion piece.
- PappyD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Please can you tell me how I can listen to Lindsay Lohan's opinion on drunken slutty behaviour? I'm very interested.
- Jimtac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Just because it exists doesn't mean that we can get to it, or get it out easily enough. When Halliburton and it's kin can't maintain a decent profit margin in the oil business I'm sure alternatives that will make boat-loads of cash will make their way to the marketplace REALLY quick... I'm not necessarily saying that they are actively trying to stifle efforts to develop alternatives, but rather they have no current interest to abandon what is working for them now, or to help those that are possible competitors, and they won't until it's in their own interests, not those of the environment, you, or I. It's all about the profits, and it's only a matter of time before research dollars will be flowing into R&D for new alternative fuel sources so that we can be gouged by the major energy companies at the pump, or whatever the future refuelling method is.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is