Running out of OIL ??

[Charles Suitt]

To those crying "We're running out of oil!" On 20/20 Friday evening May 12th, John Stossel included a report on the oil sands in Canada which contain a 100-year supply of oil for the USA. Of course, it's somewhat more expensive to extract... but it's there. The cost of imported crude is accellerating at such rate that "hard to extract" oil is getting nearer practicality.

[burritos]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Charles Suitt @ May 13 2006, 02:59 PM) [snapback]254828[/snapback]</div>

To those crying "We're running out of oil!" On 20/20 Friday evening May 12th, John Stossel included a report on the oil sands in Canada which contain a 100-year supply of oil for the USA. Of course, it's somewhat more expensive to extract... but it's there. The cost of imported crude is accellerating at such rate that "hard to extract" oil is getting nearer practicality.
[/b]

Good, cause I don't live right by the coast, but pretty close to it. With the ice caps melting, eventually, I'll have prime coastal real estate.

[routeonedog]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Charles Suitt @ May 13 2006, 03:59 PM) [snapback]254828[/snapback]</div>

To those crying "We're running out of oil!" On 20/20 Friday evening May 12th, John Stossel included a report on the oil sands in Canada which contain a 100-year supply of oil for the USA. Of course, it's somewhat more expensive to extract... but it's there. The cost of imported crude is accellerating at such rate that "hard to extract" oil is getting nearer practicality.
[/b]

Stossel always comes up with this bizzare stuff. The oil sands haven't been extracted yet because of the
cost and energy it would take to remove the oil.

"100 years of oil for the USA" - subtract the oil sold to other countries, energy lost in extraction and transportation to the states. How much do you think we would actually end up with?
<_<

[skruse]

A solution to a problem cannot use the same methods that caused the problem in the first place.

It is neither energy nor cost effective to make use of tar sands. We can skip the whole process and mess by moving to renewables - solar, wind and hydro. We need more light rail transportation and less emphasis on individual vehicles. Tar sands are still hydrocarbons. Global climate change mandates we cut our costs by at least one-half by doubling our efficiency, not doing "more of the same."

[skruse]

A better idea yet: Let's raise fuel taxes and lower income taxes.

See: http://www.enn.com/aff.html?id=1289

[ghostofjk]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ May 13 2006, 01:25 PM) [snapback]254837[/snapback]</div>

Good, cause I don't live right by the coast, but pretty close to it. With the ice caps melting, eventually, I'll have prime coastal real estate.
[/b]

Then, briefly, if you were lucky, an island. Then...

[jmann]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Charles Suitt @ May 13 2006, 03:59 PM) [snapback]254828[/snapback]</div>

To those crying "We're running out of oil!" On 20/20 Friday evening May 12th, John Stossel included a report on the oil sands in Canada which contain a 100-year supply of oil for the USA. Of course, it's somewhat more expensive to extract... but it's there. The cost of imported crude is accellerating at such rate that "hard to extract" oil is getting nearer practicality.
[/b]

That ain't news. Yeah, my High School physics teacher told us that years ago (hewas an engineer that use to work finding the stuff)

But consiter that the 100 year supply is only a 100 year supply if china and india do not exist.

[darelldd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Charles Suitt @ May 13 2006, 12:59 PM) [snapback]254828[/snapback]</div>

To those crying "We're running out of oil!" [/b]

Nice. I don't hear anybody saying that. We will never "run out" of oil. It'll just be too hard to extract it.

When we started pulling oil out of the ground, we got a 300:1 ratio. We put in one unit of energy to get 300 units out. Those were the gold old days when the oil was just squirting out the easy holes. Today, we're down to about 8:1. At some point... certainly at 1:1, there's no more reason to use oil. I don't know what the ratio is for tar sands, but it is nowhere near as good as the 8:1 that we're "enjoying" now.

There will always be oil. We just won't have any reasonable way of getting it.... which is likely a good thing. If we managed to burn every damn drop of oil in this planet, we'd be screwed.

[TonyPSchaefer]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Charles Suitt @ May 13 2006, 02:59 PM) [snapback]254828[/snapback]</div>

On 20/20 Friday evening May 12th, John Stossel included a report on the oil sands in Canada which contain a 100-year supply of oil for the USA. [/b]

In an unrelated story, the Bush administration recently uncovered new documentation specifically pointing to the Canadian governemnt's role in the 9/11 attacks and undeniably tying them to global terrorism. "All this time we've been focussing our illegal immigration attack on our Southern borders when we should have been looking North" Bush said at a press conference.

Bush is scheduled to address the UN about Canada's weapons of mass destruction projects. Canada's Prime Minister denies any such program, to which Donald Rumsfield replied, "We know exactly where they are: they're in Ottawa and they're in Quebec, East, West, South, and a little North of there."

Clearly it is in our country's best interest and for the security of the world we must invade and occupy Canada. It's purely for national security and for no other reason.

[SomervillePrius]

TOny... ROFL... just simple ROFL.... and so true!