Michael Moore on the Late Show

[jaguar]

Well all of the oil industry expects demand to permanantly outstrip supply in 2012 at the very latest so it's going to happen sooner or later.

[Undertoad]

In 1975 they predicted that ALL oil reserves would be gone in 30 years.

One more year to go

Since then I have learned via idea theory that apocalyptic ideas are spread harder and faster than any other. There is more cause to spread the idea "danger is at hand" than there is the idea "everything is OK". People will spread "danger is at hand" without knowing whether there is a danger, just in case there actually is danger. So I take apocalyptic messages less seriously unless there is pretty good proof. The sky, as yet, has not actually fell. It's still up there.

When I was on K5, there was a user who swore up and down that a dirty little secret of the oil industry is that certain Gulf of Mexico fields appear to be refilling.

Since then I have kept my ears perked up for more info about that, and at one point someone was advancing the theory that oil is not produced how we think it is, and that at some point ALL the fields may refill.

So perhaps we should bask in the warm glow of cheap energy and use it to outgrow hunger and scarcity. I don't know.

[Griff]

I heard Frank Rich make an interesting connection about Moores film. He mentioned how, despite all available evidence, Moores supporters still think there is something to the bi Laden family flyout story just like Bushes supporters, despite all evidence, believe there was a working relationship between bin Laden and Hussein. My conclusion, don't listen to anybody it's an election year.

Well maybe you could listen to Fred Reed, "The United States of course is not a democracy but a wonderfully crafted pretense. We have separated the results of elections from the formulation of policy. It is a neat trick: Voting distracts the rabble without disturbing the government."

[jaguar]

Well I get my ideas from HQ staff inside a major oil company. i feel fairly safe in taking what they say seriously. It's not about them running out, it's about demand outstripping supply, the maths is faily elemental, look at proven reserves, look at unproven reserves, look at projected demand.

[Griff]

Originally posted by jaguar
it's about demand outstripping supply,

= China

[Undertoad]

when you say "demand outstripping supply" what does that mean exactly

[Undertoad]

Meanwhile here is the guy who says oil is produced differently than the 200-year-old theory about it.

When wearing tinfoil hats I prefer the optimistic ones.

[jaguar]

That means demand by manufacturing, transport etc is a higher number of millions of bpd (barrels per day) than the number being produced by the oil producing nations.

It doesn't seem to have really got out yet but plenty of nations have started going all out to secure remaining supplies in ways that enlightened self interest would not dictate if there was not a high chance of future supply problems that could dictate economic prosperity.

Look for example at the 3-way cage fight over russia/china/japan pipelines, china and japan have always been a tad unfriendly (something about raping and pillaging, I think) but the way that little stink was carried out suggested a certain level of desperation.

Watch what's going on in Russia, political as the Yukos trial may be many people are starting to think that the government is going to use the outstanding tax debt to snap yukos into pieces and sell it off to more pliable companies or even nationalize it, why? They want the political weight that will come with direct control of Russia's increasingly important oil supply.

[Beestie]

Originally posted by Undertoad
when you say "demand outstripping supply" what does that mean exactly

It exactly means that there will not be enough oil at any price to satisfy the demand. A scenario not likely to materialize for the simple reason that as the price rises to higher and higher levels, alternatives become more attractive (cheaper).

There's no point to weaning ourselves off of oil till a competetive alternative surfaces. The evil, satanic American capitalistic profit motive will surely develop an alternative when the time is right to do so. Then the middle east can go back to being a backward, irrelevant pisshole in the sand.

[jaguar]

It exactly means that there will not be enough oil at any price to satisfy the demand. A scenario not likely to materialize for the simple reason that as the price rises to higher and higher levels, alternatives become more attractive (cheaper).

Well yes and no. Oil is one of the most inelastic markts around ( to simplify - demand does not fluctuate with price) but you will see a drop in demand in this kind of scenario as various things become insustainable or other options become viable. You're not about to have airliners grounded because there simply isn't any fuel, but you will see certain manufacturing processes or other ways things are done changing or dissipearing. Things like ethanol and biodiesel will take on a new glow as well.

[Undertoad]

Right, at the price point of $40/barrel shale oil becomes a viable alternative and there is a ton of it.

[jaguar]

Shale oil has issues of it's own, not least of which is it's dioxin content and very high levels of greenhouse gas production. It is also a known carcinogen.

Shale oil production is not a pretty sight either and many major sites are not in good location, the Stuart project in Australia has already gathered massive oppostition and wants to mine in the world heretige site listed great barrier reef. As it stand son Mobil risks the political backlash of getting into shale in that project. Some studies suggest there are only about 80m barrels of shale that will meet that end of the economic scale. It also requires massive supplies of water which can be a problem for some sights.

Major use of the stuff in transport alone would be an environmental disaster and a short term solution.

[russotto]

Originally posted by jaguar
Shale oil has issues of it's own, not least of which is it's dioxin content and very high levels of greenhouse gas production. It is also a known carcinogen.

Environmentalists hate all large scale forms of energy production. Insist on an environmentally benign form of energy to replace oil (which ain't so benign itself) and you'll be shivering in the dark. But then, that's the environmentalist goal.

[jaguar]

Go drink some DDT.
I'm not a greenpeace member, what I posted is hard fact, shale oil is far worse than the stuff we pump out of the middle east and elsewhere not to mention wastes masses of water. If we have to replace oil, shale oil is the last place we should be looking. There are many forms of energy generation in advanced development that will offer better alternatives by the point, with all the evidence we have, going from oil to a period of shale oil is franky, moronic.

[lookout123]

Originally posted by jaguar
Shale oil has issues of it's own, not least of which is it's dioxin content and very high levels of greenhouse gas production. It is also a known carcinogen.

Major use of the stuff in transport alone would be an environmental disaster and a short term solution.

maybe we should do some small scale tests, maybe on a national level? say - what ever Jag's location is... we would want an objective cellarite to give us the inside scoop wouldn't we.
now before everyone jumps on board, i need to clarify - there is the possibility that Jag may be poisoned and die. while that may be cruel and painful, it is a chance i am willing to take for the good of our children's children.

the needs of the many...