Last post on Apr 17, 2005 at 4:25 PM
You are in the Hybrid Vehicles - Archived Discussions
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Hybrids Host for directions! discussion.
What is this discussion about?
Hybrid Cars, Fuel Efficiency (MPG)
#754 of 773 30 to 50 years?
Apr 17, 2005 (1:31 pm)
If you think its going to take 30 to 50 years for "the real oil shortage to show up", than I want you to send me some of that weed you've been smoking. In view of the mountain of evidence that indicates a much shorter time-frame, you could not possibly be sober to continue to hold that view.
#755 of 773 Oh woe is us!
by pf_flyer HOST
Apr 17, 2005 (1:42 pm)
Look, I'm not saying we should bury our heads in the sand on energy, but what purpose does the never-ending drumbeat of doom and gloom accomplish other than to frighten some semi-informed folks?
I remember being told we were OUT OF OIL 30 years ago. yet here we are, significantly more of us, driving more than ever in more efficient cars. Same for the impending ice age, killer asteroids, and California going to fall into the sea by the year 2000!
Being prepared is one thing, but when I look at selected quotes from an authority like a Nobel Prize winner, I'd like to see some possible solutions offered, not just "How can we possibly survive??" type of questions.
Should we have acted on the advice that "experts" were giving back in the 70's to melt some of the ice caps before the ice sheet covered New York City by the end of the century? Pardon me for being a skeptic, but most of this has the same kind of panic mentality running through it.
#756 of 773 Re: 30 to 50 years? [brucej]
Apr 17, 2005 (1:53 pm)
Absolutely sober. I consider my sources at BP & Exxon more knowledgeable than most that you have quoted. The problem is not reserves, it is the production and supply chain that is inadequate. You have played into the panic, just as the doomsday pundits would have you do. Your mountain of evidence is based on very shaky soil. It is more a castle of cards. You can believe whatever suits you. That does not make it factual. If the world goes into chaos over the next 50 years it will not be from a shortage of oil. It will be caused by fanaticism of all types.
#757 of 773 Re: Oh woe is us! [pf_flyer]
Apr 17, 2005 (2:48 pm)
It's time for the semi-informed to get informed. Who said we were out of oil 30 years ago? Please cite some examples. Ice caps? I haven't mentioned anything about ice caps. I've always thought that that tale was filled with science of a very suspect nature.
There is not a single major oil company (gagrice's BP and Mobile/Exxon included) that have come anywhere close to replacing the amount of oil used last year with new finds this year. If I'm using more oil every year than I continue to find do you not give that the assignation of "running out of oil?" I know I do.
Head in the sand, you say? Look, this is not rocket science. We are not finding adequate replacement for the amount of oil we are currently using. Forget about projected increased demand. WE ARE NOT FINDING ADEQUATE LEVELS TO MEET CURRENT DEMAND.
You'd like some possible solutions offered? Who the heck wouldn't? The thread that keeps winding its jolly way through this discussion is "everything's fine. I can keep on doing what I've always done regarding my energy usage. I can afford it. Not only that I can continue to afford future price increases too. And if you can't you're a looser. Eat my exhaust sucker."
Oh, woe is us? Yeah, woe is us. If we continue to deny what is repeatedly being confirmed by a number of experts in a number of fields and blindly stumble down the same path then...WOE IS US. I'm sorry if this discussion is a little unsettling to some "semi-informed." This needs to be shouted from the rooftops.
Our government has a tremendous track record of coming up with solutions in crisis situations. In the past we have had the luxury of time to pull us through some very dicey situations. You yourself want to see some "possible solutions offered." I haven't read anyone who has claimed that the solutions you seek won't take quite a bit of time to achieve. I keep reading things like, "Well when the price of oil get high enough, we'll go back to nuclear power." Uh huh. Even though we haven't built a new nuclear facility in 30 years we're just going to dust off the blue prints and bring a few thousand on line in a few years?
This doesn't even address the issue that as the price of oil increases there will be less money available to invest because if you spend more money for energy, guess what? You have less money to invest.
FDR said, "the only thing we have to fear.. is fear itself." Wrongo. My fear is we continue along with the mailaise that has become all too prevalent because its "frightening" to think about these unpleasantries. That's my fear and it is reinforced daily from the uninformed, selfish postings that I read on this forum.
#758 of 773 Re: 30 to 50 years? [gagrice]
Apr 17, 2005 (2:49 pm)
WOW.... I finally agree with Gary. Well said!
#760 of 773 BP says oil fields declining
Apr 17, 2005 (2:58 pm)
"NEW ORLEANS - Oil company BP's existing oil and gas fields are posting production declines of about 3 per cent, Tony Hayward, the company's chief executive for exploration and production, said on Wednesday.
"That piece of the portfolio as a whole is declining around 3 per cent," he told an energy conference"
Full story here:
#761 of 773 Shell pumps twice as much as it finds
Apr 17, 2005 (3:03 pm)
"The Reserve Replacement Ratio (RRR), excluding the impact of divestments and year-end pricing and including associates, was 49 percent," Shell said after it filed a report with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC). "Including the impact of divestments and year-end pricing, the RRR was 19 percent."
Full story here:
#762 of 773 Shell, Exxon Tap Oil Sands, Gas as Reserves Dwindle
Apr 17, 2005 (3:07 pm)
A 15-year decline in oil reserves is spurring companies such as Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Exxon Mobil Corp. and ChevronTexaco Corp. to spend $76 billion in the next decade to boost supplies of oil from tar sands and diesel fuel from Qatari natural gas. Oil executives say they have no choice but to try alternatives to drilling because there is not much more crude to be found in their current fields.
``We're damn close'' to the peak in conventional oil production, Boone Pickens, who oversees more than $1 billion in energy-related investments at his Dallas hedge fund firm, said in an interview in New York Feb. 16. ``I think we're there.'' Suncor Energy Inc., the world's second-biggest oil-sands miner, is his largest holding.
Full story here:
#763 of 773 Let's not make this a personal beef please
by pf_flyer HOST
Apr 17, 2005 (3:07 pm)
We're also starting to get very repetitive. We're out of oil.. no we're not... starts to get old after a while.
bruce, I KNOW you didn't mention ice caps. Those were all examples of "critical" problems that we've been informed of by so-called experts over the years. All of them sounding VERY authoritative with lots of letters behind their names. And a LOT of people believed what they said, even though they turned out to be pretty much dead wrong when all was said and done.
I appreciate the fact that you're concerned about the energy situation, but honestly, I don't think that anything anyone could say would make you consider the possibility that things might not be as close to disaster as you feel they are.
If your total input to this discussion is going to be to post quotes from articles and then, when you actually decide to post some of your own thoughts, you question whether people who disagree with those positons are using drugs, then this discussion is pretty much over and can be retired to the archives.