Gas prices

[smiller]

If the If OPEC want to charge $10,000 a barrel, what’s wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with anyone charging $10,000 per barrel of oil... if they can get it. As John noted the cure for high prices is high prices.

[Whip]

The reason I say things aren't working is an ever increasing global consumption of a finite resource with no solution in sight and a mentality of the masses that it is ones God given constitutional right to use it up as they see fit with no thought to future generations.

 

Furthermore, there are some that might argue that it was the price of oil that tipped the economy over the edge and I believe there is plenty of merit to the arguments.

 

I would say, though, that having the price volatility of a commodity that you absolutly depend on is indicative that things aren't working.

 

Oil is not a finite resource.

 

The earth is one big oil producing machine.

 

There's thousands of years of oil yet to be discovered. Too many people's power and wealth are tied to the myth of an oil shortage.

 

Politicians and Oil companies a like. This is our biggest problem.

 

People getting votes and others making money on the "finite resource" myth.

 

Google is your friend.

 

Whip

 

 

[smiller]

There's thousands of years of oil yet to be discovered.

Thousands of years?

 

[Whip]

From your linky

 

 

"Oil reserves are the estimated quantities of crude oil that are claimed to be recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions."

 

 

"Experience shows that initial estimates of the size of newly discovered oil fields are usually too low. As years pass, successive estimates of the ultimate recovery of fields tend to increase. The term reserve growth refers to the typical increases in estimated ultimate recovery that occur as oil fields are developed and produced."

 

 

Doomsayers all around

 

 

"March 5, 1994: The 10 billionth barrel of oil arrives in Valdez. In the late 1960s, geologists had estimated the North Slope would produce no more than that amount. They had underestimated."

 

 

We can play the Linky Game all day long if ya want.

 

 

I love Google.

 

Maybe tens of thousands of years........if the price goes up again we will find all kinds of new ways to get oil outa the earth.

 

The Russians maybe way ahead of us because of the goof balls in Washington.

 

 

[smiller]

We can play the Linky Game all day long if ya want.

 

I love Google.

Yes, with Google you can find someone who has written something to support most anything one might come up with, no doubt including the amount of oil we have yet to find on Mars.

 

[Ken H.]

Let me get this straight..I don't have a God given right to cheap fuel, but you have a God given right to drive whatever you want?? So your rights are God given, and everyone elses rights are what??? Not important to you?? I don't think driving is a right, I believe it is a privilege.

 

You say I should, to perform a service to society, become a cop, fireman, or join the military. For the past 20 years I have served my community as a fixed wing EMS pilot, so please don't tell me *ever* again how to better serve society. And for the record my way of serving society is no better, or worse than the waitress that brings me my coffee, the mechanic that fixes my car, the engineer that designed my motorcycles, the folks that pick up the garbage, folks like Larry Flynt, a champion of free speach, members of the clergy of whatever religion that give people in need comfort, the family members that devote their life to raising the next generation...we all serve society.

+1

 

Well said.

[Pilgrim]

We can play the Linky Game all day long if ya want.

 

I love Google.

Yes, with Google you can find someone who has written something to support most anything one might come up with, no doubt including the amount of oil we have yet to find on Mars.

 

There are some serious Russians with good credentials who are thinking that the earth is an oil-producing machine.

 

I know Al Gore would just hate that, but I'd love it. Maybe I'll keep my Dodge Hemi pickup after all. Right now, it's bigger than I can conveniently put in the driveway and it won't fit in the garage at all. If gas prices stay down I can afford to cut down a few trees to make room for a bigger driveway and add on to the garage, but, well . . . too much is just barely enough.

 

Pilgrim

[AttackPug]

[HairyCannonball]

We can play the Linky Game all day long if ya want.

 

I love Google.

Yes, with Google you can find someone who has written something to support most anything one might come up with, no doubt including the amount of oil we have yet to find on Mars.

 

There are some serious Russians with good credentials who are thinking that the earth is an oil-producing machine.

 

I know Al Gore would just hate that, but I'd love it. Maybe I'll keep my Dodge Hemi pickup after all. Right now, it's bigger than I can conveniently put in the driveway and it won't fit in the garage at all. If gas prices stay down I can afford to cut down a few trees to make room for a bigger driveway and add on to the garage, but, well . . . too much is just barely enough.

 

Pilgrim

 

Just goes to show you that there are whack jobs with "credentials" living everywhere..even Russia!!!

 

 

[russell_bynum]

We can play the Linky Game all day long if ya want.

 

I love Google.

Yes, with Google you can find someone who has written something to support most anything one might come up with, no doubt including the amount of oil we have yet to find on Mars.

 

There are some serious Russians with good credentials who are thinking that the earth is an oil-producing machine.

 

I know Al Gore would just hate that, but I'd love it. Maybe I'll keep my Dodge Hemi pickup after all. Right now, it's bigger than I can conveniently put in the driveway and it won't fit in the garage at all. If gas prices stay down I can afford to cut down a few trees to make room for a bigger driveway and add on to the garage, but, well . . . too much is just barely enough.

 

Pilgrim

 

Just goes to show you that there are whack jobs with "credentials" living everywhere..even Russia!!!

 

 

Whether or not it is a good idea, or morally acceptable to use "excessive amounts" of fossil fuels (Excessive is always defined as "more than I use"...except in the case of political activists, who are apparently exempt.) it seems exceedingly pigheaded, arrogant, and downright stupid to believe the LATEST crop of folks who are declaring that there are only XXXX barrels of oil left to be extracted from the planet. EVERY single time that's happened in the past, those predictions have been wrong...and usually they are VERY wrong.

 

Conservation, efficiency, and taking steps to minimize our impact are all worthwhile and noble pursuits, but can we at least attempt to stay within sight of reality?

[Nice n Easy Rider]

Conservation, efficiency, and taking steps to minimize our impact are all worthwhile and noble pursuits, but can we at least attempt to stay within sight of reality?

The trouble, Russell, is that we all seem to have different perceptions of what that reality is. And I'm not sure we'll ever get everyone on the same page.

[russell_bynum]

Conservation, efficiency, and taking steps to minimize our impact are all worthwhile and noble pursuits, but can we at least attempt to stay within sight of reality?

The trouble, Russell, is that we all seem to have different perceptions of what that reality is. And I'm not sure we'll ever get everyone on the same page.

 

Absolutely...that's why I didn't say we should stick to reality. But we should at least try to keep reality in sight.

[Silver Surfer/AKAButters]

Oil is not a finite resource.

 

The earth is one big oil producing machine.

 

There's thousands of years of oil yet to be discovered. Too many people's power and wealth are tied to the myth of an oil shortage.

 

Politicians and Oil companies a like. This is our biggest problem.

 

People getting votes and others making money on the "finite resource" myth.

 

Hey Whip. You gonna try and use that in couurt? Make sure that you get video.

[Whip]

Oil is not a finite resource.

 

The earth is one big oil producing machine.

 

There's thousands of years of oil yet to be discovered. Too many people's power and wealth are tied to the myth of an oil shortage.

 

Politicians and Oil companies a like. This is our biggest problem.

 

People getting votes and others making money on the "finite resource" myth.

 

Hey Whip. You gonna try and use that in couurt? Make sure that you get video.

 

 

Where does oil come from and how is it made?????????

 

 

 

 

 

[Silver Surfer/AKAButters]

Maybe not you, but someone I know got a ticket for, "wasting finite resources."

 

Looked like a pretty good argument there for beating that rap.

[Whip]

Maybe not you, but someone I know got a ticket for, "wasting finite resources."

 

Looked like a pretty good argument there for beating that rap.

 

 

Guilty!!!!

 

Guilty!!!!

 

Guilty!!!!

 

[HairyCannonball]

 

 

Where does oil come from and how is it made?????????

 

 

 

 

 

Here is a link that even you can probably understand

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/oil.html

[Whip]

 

Where does oil come from and how is it made?????????

 

 

 

Here is a link that even you can probably understand

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/oil.html

 

 

I hope you can understand......another myth.may bite the dust.(don't get me started on Global Warming)

 

 

 

 

[Francois_Dumas]

Back from Prague....... we found a gas station on the border of Germany last night selling 95 for 1.04 Euros a liter. Yay !!!!!!!

[HairyCannonball]

I hope you can understand......another myth.may bite the dust.(don't get me started on Global Warming)

 

 

 

 

Consider this from Wilkipedia:

 

"Although the abiogenic hypothesis was accepted by some geologists in the former Soviet Union, most geologists now consider the biogenic formation of petroleum scientifically supported. Though evidence exists for abiogenic creation of methane and hydrocarbon gases within the Earth, studies indicate they are not produced in commercially significant quantities (i.e. a median abiogenic hydrocarbon content in extracted hydrocarbon gases of only one fiftieth of one percent). The abiogenic origin of petroleum has also recently been reviewed in detail by Glasby, who raises a number of objections, including that there is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds)."

 

Searching Google for the abiogenic origin of fossil oil turns up a number of pages which are of very low credibility. Most of the resulting pages are echoing each other and are not from credible scientific journals or other credible sources. Even the link you posted says "It’s kind of a “crackpot” theory in most circles..." It would appear that the abiogenic theory has little in the way of credible backing. While this lack of backing doesn't disprove the theory, I would be very careful about jumping onboard an idea just because it gives you the warm fuzzies. While I would love to believe that there are near limitless quantities of oil yet to be found, I believe taking the safer course of assuming limited supplies and wisely using what we know we have is a more prudent course of action.

[Whip]

Either way.....the earth is making oil every day.

 

...and will be for thousands and thousands of years to come.

 

 

 

 

[Boone60]

Either way.....the earth is making oil every day.

 

...and will be for thousands and thousands of years to come.

 

 

 

 

Are those oil wells in Texas producing at the same level as when they were first tapped?

[HairyCannonball]

Either way.....the earth is making oil every day.

 

...and will be for thousands and thousands of years to come.

 

 

 

 

What scientific proof do you have to support that statement?

 

[Whip]

Either way.....the earth is making oil every day.

 

...and will be for thousands and thousands of years to come.

 

 

 

 

What scientific proof do you have to support that statement?

 

 

I used your definition....

 

Oil was formed from the remains of animals and plants that lived millions of years ago in a marine (water) environment before the dinosaurs. Over the years, the remains were covered by layers of mud. Heat and pressure from these layers helped the remains turn into what we today call crude oil . The word "petroleum" means "rock oil" or "oil from the earth."

 

 

 

Unless all the animals died a million years ago or now live forever......THE EARTH IS MAKING MORE OIL EVERYDAY

 

 

I have to get in my suburban now and take some friends to the airport and pick up some more friends. Then we are all gonna go down to the Riverwalk and start our New Years celebration early.

 

Isn't great we can all fit in one vehicle.

 

Bye Bye

 

Whip

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[HairyCannonball]

What you are missing, Whip, is that according to current scientific knowledge, it took millions of years for the earth to form the oil it has and we are using it much faster than the earth is producing!!

 

What I would like to see from you is a link to credible proven scientific research that supports your statement that there are thousands of years left at our current rate of consumption, because everything I find says quite the opposite. I am open and will listen to new theories, but I'm sorry, you making a bold statement like that is pretty hard to believe when I don't know your credentials, and no proven data is provided to back up your beliefs. I get the impression that you believe what you do because it makes you feel good, not because you have any hard evidence.

 

 

I'm glad you only drive your Suburban when it is packed full of people. Seat miles per gallon are quite good this way.

 

Course if you were picking me up, I would prefer the nice ride of a minivan to the harsh ride of a truck, but hey, that's just me.

 

[Ken H.]

myth.may bite the dust.

This line in his own presentation pretty well sums it up - "It’s kind of a “crackpot” theory in most circles,"

[Whip]

"the earth is producing!!"

 

 

WOW!!!!!!

 

See, it wasn't that hard.

 

I knew you could say it.

 

Oil is not a finite resource.

 

No more so than the earth itself.(Quote from azkaisr)

 

Have a nice day!!!!!

 

Happy New Year my friend.

 

I have never met a HairyCannonball, but I would like to.

 

Larry

[Ken H.]

Sure Larry, the earth is producing more oil, just like it’s producing more oxygen.

 

But your dodging the core question – Is it producing more oil faster than humans are consuming it? That’s the core question to whether or not it is a finite resource for mankind's use.

 

And to that question there is a general scientific agreement that the answer is – No.

 

[Whip]

Sure Larry, the earth is producing more oil, just like it’s producing more oxygen.

 

But your dodging the core question – Is it producing more oil faster than humans are consuming it? That’s the core question to whether or not it is a finite resource for mankind's use.

 

And to that question there is a general scientific agreement that the answer is – No.

 

Let the market sort that out.

 

Simple law of economics.

 

Everything will be just fine.

 

BTW....scientist are wrong all the time.

 

Whip

 

 

 

 

[Nice n Easy Rider]

 

BTW....scientist are wrong all the time.

 

Whip

 

Not ALL the time!! We manage to get it right once in awhile!

[Whip]

 

BTW....scientist are wrong all the time.

 

Whip

 

Not ALL the time!! We manage to get it right once in awhile!

 

I didn't mean every time.

 

I think you knew that.

 

[Twisties]

 

BTW....scientist are wrong all the time.

 

Whip

 

Not ALL the time!! We manage to get it right once in awhile!

 

I didn't mean every time.

 

I think you knew that.

 

 

Science is best viewed as an iterative process. It will nearly always start out a line of inquiry with a working model that will be heavily and rapidly revised as it repeatedly tested through ever more refined approaches. However, eventually certain lines of inquiry will achieve a degree of maturity such that we, or at least the practitioners in a particular field, develop a great deal of confidence in the current working model. This doesn't mean truth per se. With every application, the model is inherently tested, and eventually may be further refined or even discarded altogether.

 

It is fairly unusual for individual experimental results to be found erroneous, what evolves is the understanding of those results, e.g. the working model, as more and more refined tests are applied to the problem.

 

Unfortunately science interacts poorly with the media, which chooses to portray sensational results without conveying the uncertainties that the scientists are well aware of. In the press it is easy pretty easy to draw the conclusion that science is often wrong. I would argue that in fact scientists are usually extremely conservative in their claims, and very rarely wrong when claims are examined in full detail.

 

 

[tallman]

I looked, but couldn't find him.

 

 

Maybe someday.

 

 

 

[smiller]

I didn't mean every time.

Of course not. When it proves your point then it's right.

[Whip]

I didn't mean every time.

Of course not. When it proves your point then it's right.

 

 

Happy New Year Seth

 

 

[Nice n Easy Rider]

 

BTW....scientist are wrong all the time.

 

Whip

 

Not ALL the time!! We manage to get it right once in awhile!

 

I didn't mean every time.

 

I think you knew that.

 

 

Science is best viewed as an iterative process. It will nearly always start out a line of inquiry with a working model that will be heavily and rapidly revised as it repeatedly tested through ever more refined approaches. However, eventually certain lines of inquiry will achieve a degree of maturity such that we, or at least the practitioners in a particular field, develop a great deal of confidence in the current working model. This doesn't mean truth per se. With every application, the model is inherently tested, and eventually may be further refined or even discarded altogether.

 

It is fairly unusual for individual experimental results to be found erroneous, what evolves is the understanding of those results, e.g. the working model, as more and more refined tests are applied to the problem.

 

Unfortunately science interacts poorly with the media, which chooses to portray sensational results without conveying the uncertainties that the scientists are well aware of. In the press it is easy pretty easy to draw the conclusion that science is often wrong. I would argue that in fact scientists are usually extremely conservative in their claims, and very rarely wrong when claims are examined in full detail.

 

 

Jan,

 

If my recollection is correct you're a chemist so I won't dispute what you say as it applies to chemistry or physics or any of the physical sciences. But as a biological scientist I'd say we get it wrong as often as we get it right (at least for awhile). That's because of the intrinsic variability built into biological systems. Even in systems that should be very similar (e.g., inbred strains of rodents) we see as much as 20% variability around the mean when we measure functions. Some of that is, of course, due to our measurements themselves but there is a certain amount of variability we still don't understand. But as you said, the inquiry process is an iterative one that builds upon those studies that went before it. So while in the biological sciences we may not have as much confidence in a single experiment as you might in your field, our confidence grows as we see the same result repeated not only in our labs but, more importantly, in the laboratories of other investigators. In the end we hope we are close to the truth but, then again, who decides what is true?

 

The problem with peer review is that when it comes to truly innovative science there are very few peers to review it. So what is viewed as quackery today might be awarded a Nobel prize twenty years from now. In biology at least, there seem to be fewer absolute truths (or that which we can accept as absolute truths).

[Pilgrim]

Science is best viewed as an iterative process. It will nearly always start out a line of inquiry with a working model that will be heavily and rapidly revised as it repeatedly tested through ever more refined approaches. However, eventually certain lines of inquiry will achieve a degree of maturity such that we, or at least the practitioners in a particular field, develop a great deal of confidence in the current working model.

I would argue that in fact scientists are usually extremely conservative in their claims, and very rarely wrong when claims are examined in full detail.

 

Jan,

 

If my recollection is correct you're a chemist so I won't dispute what you say as it applies to chemistry or physics or any of the physical sciences. But as a biological scientist I'd say we get it wrong as often as we get it right (at least for awhile). That's because of the intrinsic variability built into biological systems. Even in systems that should be very similar (e.g., inbred strains of rodents) we see as much as 20% variability around the mean when we measure functions. Some of that is, of course, due to our measurements themselves but there is a certain amount of variability we still don't understand. But as you said, the inquiry process is an iterative one that builds upon those studies that went before it. So while in the biological sciences we may not have as much confidence in a single experiment as you might in your field, our confidence grows as we see the same result repeated not only in our labs but, more importantly, in the laboratories of other investigators. In the end we hope we are close to the truth but, then again, who decides what is true?

 

The problem with peer review is that when it comes to truly innovative science there are very few peers to review it. So what is viewed as quackery today might be awarded a Nobel prize twenty years from now. In biology at least, there seem to be fewer absolute truths (or that which we can accept as absolute truths).

 

As I have observed before, "truth" is opinion solidified by pressure over time.

 

George, I really admire the honest way you describe your science: Often wrong at first but seldom wrong forever.

 

Your comment on intrinsic variability holds true for a great many more subjects than the practitioners of each are willing to admit. I'm not being contemptuous of science or all scientists when I say this, but too many so-called scientists get hold of a small piece of the puzzle, fit it to one or two other piece, and then say they all go together just that way. Not necessarily so, and to believe it can lead people sadly, dangerously astray.

 

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

Science is best viewed as an iterative process. It will nearly always start out a line of inquiry with a working model that will be heavily and rapidly revised as it repeatedly tested through ever more refined approaches. However, eventually certain lines of inquiry will achieve a degree of maturity such that we, or at least the practitioners in a particular field, develop a great deal of confidence in the current working model.

I would argue that in fact scientists are usually extremely conservative in their claims, and very rarely wrong when claims are examined in full detail.

 

Jan,

 

If my recollection is correct you're a chemist so I won't dispute what you say as it applies to chemistry or physics or any of the physical sciences. But as a biological scientist I'd say we get it wrong as often as we get it right (at least for awhile). That's because of the intrinsic variability built into biological systems. Even in systems that should be very similar (e.g., inbred strains of rodents) we see as much as 20% variability around the mean when we measure functions. Some of that is, of course, due to our measurements themselves but there is a certain amount of variability we still don't understand. But as you said, the inquiry process is an iterative one that builds upon those studies that went before it. So while in the biological sciences we may not have as much confidence in a single experiment as you might in your field, our confidence grows as we see the same result repeated not only in our labs but, more importantly, in the laboratories of other investigators. In the end we hope we are close to the truth but, then again, who decides what is true?

 

The problem with peer review is that when it comes to truly innovative science there are very few peers to review it. So what is viewed as quackery today might be awarded a Nobel prize twenty years from now. In biology at least, there seem to be fewer absolute truths (or that which we can accept as absolute truths).

 

As I have observed before, "truth" is opinion solidified by pressure over time.

 

George, I really admire the honest way you describe your science: Often wrong at first but seldom wrong forever.

 

Your comment on intrinsic variability holds true for a great many more subjects than the practitioners of each are willing to admit. I'm not being contemptuous of science or all scientists when I say this, but too many so-called scientists get hold of a small piece of the puzzle, fit it to one or two other piece, and then say they all go together just that way. Not necessarily so, and to believe it can lead people sadly, dangerously astray. One need only look at science's massive misperceptions later shown to be that to understand what I mean. Yes, it's self-correcting over time, but how to deal with stupid decisions made now based on hubris?

 

Pilgrim

[Twisties]

 

BTW....scientist are wrong all the time.

 

Whip

 

Not ALL the time!! We manage to get it right once in awhile!

 

I didn't mean every time.

 

I think you knew that.

 

 

Science is best viewed as an iterative process. It will nearly always start out a line of inquiry with a working model that will be heavily and rapidly revised as it repeatedly tested through ever more refined approaches. However, eventually certain lines of inquiry will achieve a degree of maturity such that we, or at least the practitioners in a particular field, develop a great deal of confidence in the current working model. This doesn't mean truth per se. With every application, the model is inherently tested, and eventually may be further refined or even discarded altogether.

 

It is fairly unusual for individual experimental results to be found erroneous, what evolves is the understanding of those results, e.g. the working model, as more and more refined tests are applied to the problem.

 

Unfortunately science interacts poorly with the media, which chooses to portray sensational results without conveying the uncertainties that the scientists are well aware of. In the press it is easy pretty easy to draw the conclusion that science is often wrong. I would argue that in fact scientists are usually extremely conservative in their claims, and very rarely wrong when claims are examined in full detail.

 

 

Jan,

 

If my recollection is correct you're a chemist so I won't dispute what you say as it applies to chemistry or physics or any of the physical sciences. But as a biological scientist I'd say we get it wrong as often as we get it right (at least for awhile). That's because of the intrinsic variability built into biological systems. Even in systems that should be very similar (e.g., inbred strains of rodents) we see as much as 20% variability around the mean when we measure functions. Some of that is, of course, due to our measurements themselves but there is a certain amount of variability we still don't understand. But as you said, the inquiry process is an iterative one that builds upon those studies that went before it. So while in the biological sciences we may not have as much confidence in a single experiment as you might in your field, our confidence grows as we see the same result repeated not only in our labs but, more importantly, in the laboratories of other investigators. In the end we hope we are close to the truth but, then again, who decides what is true?

 

The problem with peer review is that when it comes to truly innovative science there are very few peers to review it. So what is viewed as quackery today might be awarded a Nobel prize twenty years from now. In biology at least, there seem to be fewer absolute truths (or that which we can accept as absolute truths).

 

I think we are in nearly total agreement. I'd just point out, that as your statement makes entirely clear, you are completely aware of your limitations, the uncertainties in your work, and presumably you address these carefully in you papers, suggesting future work that needs to be done.