Will Peak Oil be the next "Global Warming" farse?

[stevelyn]

PS:  A couple of geologists wrote a book, I'm still looking for it, that claims that oil is a renewable resource and it is regenerating as we speak.

You're thinking of abiotic theory. Basic premise is that oilis a natural byproduct of the Earth's internal processes, rather than a product of squeezed dinos/plant matter.

It's called, "Black Gold, Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and Oil Politics" written by Jerome Corsi a Harvard educated Ph. D. who also wrote "Atomic Iran", "The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger With Mexico And Canada" and is a contributor to http://augustreview.com/.

I've read the book and listened to a few interviews he did and he presents a pretty compelling arguement for abiotic theory. When you look at increasing estimates and once depleted reserves refilling maybe we have been fed a line. It's apparent that petroleum companies aren't exactly forging full speed ahead in developing alternative energy.

[Manedwolf]

I think the abiotic theory of hydrocarbon production has been pretty well advanced by the findings of what covers the moon of Titan.

[stevelyn]

Yup. That point is made as well.

[charby]

Charby wrote~

Lets ruin our arable soil at an alarming rate!! Now we can't afford oil and are not able to grow food.

We are doing this already. We gave away $200 Million in food last year, the world wants us to provide $750 Million nest year and George W. said this yesterday! Biofuel does not have to be made from edible grains. We can make it from sugar cane stalks, switch grass, tree bark, and used deep frier oil. Heck Utah has practically switched over to natural gas cars and trucks.

My point is if they have competition they will have to lower the price to be marketably competitive.

Competition would drive the price of oil down. Right now its uber expensive to make ethanol from cellulosic means I also think that they haven't reached large scale production capacities yet either.

Sugar cane? That is even harder on the soil than maize is. Sugar cane requires a lot of inputs which unfortunately right now all are petroleum based. Brazil is killing its arable lands with sugar cane production.

[Glock Glockler]

Any reason why hemp wouldn't work?  From what I read it'll grow very well without any fertilizer. 

[Manedwolf]

Any reason why hemp wouldn't work?  From what I read it'll grow very well without any fertilizer. 

I would rather have sugar beets.

Hemp fields tend to grow crazy hippies and Paulians, due to the fact of an (oops!) corner of their headtrip weed slipped in there for their hemp cult.

[charby]

Any reason why hemp wouldn't work?  From what I read it'll grow very well without any fertilizer. 

You can only plant and take from a soil for only so long before you have add fertilizers. Even if you planted switch grass and only cut it once a year eventually you will have to replace the nutrients you harvested with the crop.

[The Annoyed Man]

Hmm...nope, I don't see anything in there about corporations.  Not even parts where they pay off politicians.

If you're going to use a term, you should probably understand what it means first.

You rely on the Cliffnotes version of a short definition to educate yourself on a political philosophy?  Please tell me you're not studying toward any serious goal, like brain surgery or even plumbing.  When you've actually read something on fascism (you can start with Mussolini's 'The Doctrine of Fascism'), get back to me. 

[Sergeant Bob]

Any reason why hemp wouldn't work?  From what I read it'll grow very well without any fertilizer. 

From what I've read about it, hemp is an excellent source for ethanol and much more profitable than most other sources (it can be found growing profusely in the ditches of Illinois). In addition, it can be used for making a multitude of other products.

Problem with the idea is the......

ZOMG! IT'S REEFER MADNESS! WE'RE ALL GONNA BECOME ADDICTED! TEH HIPPIES WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!

.....statist control freaks get in a tizzy every time it's mentioned.

[Manedwolf]

Based on the fact that a bunch of stoner hippies showed up at the state house here and tried to get a bill through for state funding for hemp growers, (no farmers were present, just the hippies), I think some stereotypes are quite true.

Like it or not, there are hemp/pot cultists. They wear hemp, eat hemp, smoke pot, proclaim the virtues of such to anyone they run into, and go absolutely batsh_t wild-eyed insane if you say anything contrary.

[roo_ster]

Any reason why hemp wouldn't work?  From what I read it'll grow very well without any fertilizer. 

I would rather have sugar beets.

Hemp fields tend to grow crazy hippies and Paulians, due to the fact of an (oops!) corner of their headtrip weed slipped in there for their hemp cult.

Rudolf Diesel originally designed & intended his engine to run on hemp seed oil.

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Hmm...nope, I don't see anything in there about corporations.  Not even parts where they pay off politicians.

If you're going to use a term, you should probably understand what it means first.

You rely on the Cliffnotes version of a short definition to educate yourself on a political philosophy?  Please tell me you're not studying toward any serious goal, like brain surgery or even plumbing.  When you've actually read something on fascism (you can start with Mussolini's 'The Doctrine of Fascism'), get back to me. 

Paddy, considering you already misused the term "monopoly" I would be surprised if you are using the term "fascism" correctly, considering every definition I have ever seen applies to governments.  Browsing through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_Fascism it all seems to be referring to a national government, and not business, to me.  Calling a company "fascist" seems as pointless as calling one "totalitarian" or "authoritarian" because the boss makes all the rules, or because they don't let their product's prices get put up to a popular vote.

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Over the last, what, decade or so there have been mergers and consolidations of oil companies, resulting in fewer companies and less competition.

The fact that there are fewer companies in the U.S. does not necessarily mean there is less competition.  In the industry I work in, there are only two companies of appreciable size, and we compete intensely.  Economies of scale are a reason why companies merge.   Furthermore, the cost of refining is a small part of the overall cost we pay at gas station.  75% of the cost goes to the crude producers, most of whom are run by foreign governments.

And because oil is allowed, or treated as a speculative commodity on the open market, the prices are artificially driven up by non oil industry profit seekers.

Are you ignorant of the fact that traders also speculate that prices drop?  And from everything I've read in the finacial news, people seeking only to preserve their wealth due to a declining dollar are most responsible for the very recent oil price hikes.

The current 'free market' system isn't working for anyone but the oil producers and speculators.

If one person wants to buy oil and finds someone who wants to sell, who the hell are you (or the government) to step in and say they can't do so?

The best solution to a shortage is to wait.  When prices rise, harder to reach oil becomes economically viable to extract, but unfortunately it takes years to develop oil fields.  All the government can do is get out of the way--do away with regulation on expansion of oil fields.

[WeedWhacker]

Again, if the answer is more government, it was a really stupid question.

Do you just not realize what a statist you are?

"Oh, help us, Big Goverment! Create some new agencies and saaaave us from ourselves!"

I've noticed you're against "Big Govt", except when it applies to your wants.

You're just as much a statist as Paddy when it comes to what you want.

I understand this is the key problem when it comes to maintaining a society where freedom thrives. Many folks tend to want the government and its enforcers to beat up on groups the first set of folks don't agree with, whether it be smokers, or religious nuts, or political nuts, etc.

When I'd first read a post by Manedwolf which rightly blasted the ever-expanding increases of government power, I had to go back and find a few of the rants against the Free State Project folks to check the associated poster's name to assure myself that I wasn't reading something from an entirely different person altogether.

[The Annoyed Man]

Over the last, what, decade or so there have been mergers and consolidations of oil companies, resulting in fewer companies and less competition.

The fact that there are fewer companies in the U.S. does not necessarily mean there is less competition.  In the industry I work in, there are only two companies of appreciable size, and we compete intensely.  Economies of scale are a reason why companies merge.   Furthermore, the cost of refining is a small part of the overall cost we pay at gas station.  75% of the cost goes to the crude producers, most of whom are run by foreign governments.

And because oil is allowed, or treated as a speculative commodity on the open market, the prices are artificially driven up by non oil industry profit seekers.

Are you ignorant of the fact that traders also speculate that prices drop?  And from everything I've read in the finacial news, people seeking only to preserve their wealth due to a declining dollar are most responsible for the very recent oil price hikes.

The current 'free market' system isn't working for anyone but the oil producers and speculators.

If one person wants to buy oil and finds someone who wants to sell, who the hell are you (or the government) to step in and say they can't do so?

The best solution to a shortage is to wait.  When prices rise, harder to reach oil becomes economically viable to extract, but unfortunately it takes years to develop oil fields.  All the government can do is get out of the way--do away with regulation on expansion of oil fields.

So, according to all that, the current system should be providing us with plentiful, inexpensive oil and gas.  Except it isn't.  Apparently your entire argument is separated from reality.  By a lot.  Maybe you'd better stay in the kitchen. 

[Manedwolf]

Again, if the answer is more government, it was a really stupid question.

Do you just not realize what a statist you are?

"Oh, help us, Big Goverment! Create some new agencies and saaaave us from ourselves!"

I've noticed you're against "Big Govt", except when it applies to your wants.

You're just as much a statist as Paddy when it comes to what you want.

I understand this is the key problem when it comes to maintaining a society where freedom thrives. Many folks tend to want the government and its enforcers to beat up on groups the first set of folks don't agree with, whether it be smokers, or religious nuts, or political nuts, etc.

When I'd first read a post by Manedwolf which rightly blasted the ever-expanding increases of government power, I had to go back and find a few of the rants against the Free State Project folks to check the associated poster's name to assure myself that I wasn't reading something from an entirely different person altogether.

The last time I saw some "Free State Project" people, they were on a Manchester streetcorner during the primaries, screaming that 9/11 was an inside job. It was one of the only times I've agreed with Bill Clinton, when he looked at them and said "You guys are absolutely nuts." Three others just got put away on federal charges for arming violent tax protesters. The infamous wookiee costume was one of them, making a damned fool of themselves and embarassing the whole state in Keene.

I cheer every time those loons get themselves arrested again (one of the leaders is in prison now for being a deadbeat dad, even), especially if they throw themselves on the ground and make the cops drag them around when pulled over for not having a car registration, since they're "showing the man". It's hilarious. Hilarious in a sad way, but hilarious.

While I don't like big government, I have no use for idiot anarchists and would-be Weathermen in my state, thanks. They need to go back to their basements, chee-tohs, and Ron Paul worship.

[Sergeant Bob]

Based on the fact that a bunch of stoner hippies showed up at the state house here and tried to get a bill through for state funding for hemp growers, (no farmers were present, just the hippies), I think some stereotypes are quite true.

Why does that bother you? Did they eat up all the Cheetos? Who cares about stereotypes, we're talking about cheap sources of energy. So, if we could lower energy prices and reduce our dependence on OPEC by, you'd say no because a few hippies (who have had about ZERO effect on anyone of our lives) happened to support the source?

Like it or not, there are hemp/pot cultists. They wear hemp, eat hemp, smoke pot, proclaim the virtues of such to anyone they run into, and go absolutely batsh_t wild-eyed insane if you say anything contrary.

Ya mean kinda like the ZOMG! Reefer Madness anti drug warriors do at the mention of growing hemp?
It's kinda funny, it seems that every group you have a problem with (hippies, Ron Paul supporter, Free Staters, etc) always seem to have you surrounded and they are all absolutely batsh_t wild-eyed insane.

Why is it no one else around seems to have that problem?

[Manedwolf]

Hippies, Ron Paul supporters and Free State loons aren't insane? Is that what you're trying to say?

I think you defeated your own argument there.

[The Annoyed Man]

As the undisputed resident statist, I can assure you Manedwolf is not a fellow comrade.  He's more of a corporatist rightwing authoritarian.  Sort of a secular, yet more extreme version of fistful.

And I don't mean that in a bad way.............

[Glock Glockler]

Manedwolf,

If hemp can be a possibility why not let the market give it a try and get big govt. out of the energy game?  You might not like the bloods and crips but does that mean that blacks shouldn't be able to vote?   

[Iain]

if you mean declared a farce by members of aps then yes quite possibly. it certainly will not be beaten to aps farce status by abiotic oil. science will not be the important factor.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

if you mean declared a farce by members of aps then yes quite possibly. it certainly will not be beaten to aps farce status by abiotic oil. science will not be the important factor.

Consensus science will not be the important factor.  Most on APS know better...

[Manedwolf]

Manedwolf,

If hemp can be a possibility why not let the market give it a try and get big govt. out of the energy game?  You might not like the bloods and crips but does that mean that blacks shouldn't be able to vote?   

O_o

I think that metaphor is rather flawed.

[Sergeant Bob]

Hippies, Ron Paul supporters and Free State loons aren't insane? Is that what you're trying to say?

I think you defeated your own argument there.

Where did I say that? Whether or not they are or aren't insane is not the issue. They are not the issue.
You are trying to make them the issue, when in reality they have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

If "Hippies, Ron Paul supporters and Free State loons" were advocating for bamboo, would you be against that? If "Hippies, Ron Paul supporters and Free State loons" are the issue (which you are making them), then you should be against the use of bamboo also.

[Regolith]

Hmm...nope, I don't see anything in there about corporations.  Not even parts where they pay off politicians.

If you're going to use a term, you should probably understand what it means first.

You rely on the Cliffnotes version of a short definition to educate yourself on a political philosophy?  Please tell me you're not studying toward any serious goal, like brain surgery or even plumbing.  When you've actually read something on fascism (you can start with Mussolini's 'The Doctrine of Fascism'), get back to me. 

Funny you should mention that....Thing is, when corporatism comes into facism, it isn't the corporation running the country, as you have posited, but the other way around.  In essense, the corporation is nationalized in order for it to follow the political and economical goals of the nation.  This is directly opposite to what you're saying is fascism - that is, the corporations buying off representatives in the government in order to get the government to help them make a profit.  And in either case, the "corporation" being mentioned isn't the same as the business model of a corporation - although they can be included into the overall body - but rather a civic assembly that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, or professional groups.

So again, the context you're using the word in is inherently wrong.