Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

There's No Oil Shortage
Daily Broadcast ^ | May 3, 2005 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 05/03/2005 5:06:37 PM PDT by gogipper

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-71 last
To: Dog Gone

From your lips (or fingertips, as it were) to G-d's ear, m'friend. Spot on, and thanks for stating the figs outright!


51 posted on 05/03/2005 8:14:23 PM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
Scientists really need to think out of the box about this. I bet the answer is here already, we just aren't seeing it.
IF it weren't for those pesky laws of physics, like the conservation of energy, and enthalpy and entropy we could 'probably' get away from doing the hard work of, well, doing 'work' to accomplish some goal, like transportation or turning a generator shaft and forcing electrons to flow through wires; short of implementing room temperaure super-conductivity and getting LENR/COld fusion reproducable economically, we're pretty much bound to the present technology found at Lowes or Home Depot, although improvements to existing technology occurs continuously ...
52 posted on 05/03/2005 8:34:31 PM PDT by _Jim (<--- Ann C. and Rush L. speak on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

I stand corrected but you're talking about a handful of fields out of thousands... Folks are making a ton of $$ today going into previously dry (actually wet) wells - just depends on the economics and the technology. But you're talking about the rare exceptions rather than the norm... Given $100/bbl to pay for the extreme measures, higher recover rates can be achieved. It all boils down to the economics...


53 posted on 05/03/2005 9:21:52 PM PDT by Grimas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
As you point out, these theories didn't originate with Mr. Gold. In fact, many of the links that I referenced in my earlier post refer to the earlier publishing of Russian scientists. Thomas Gold is generally credited with presenting these theories to the "western" (i.e english-speaking) community. Regardless of the source, the abiotic theory as the PRIMARY source of hydrocarbons have been soundly debunked by the scientific community...
54 posted on 05/03/2005 9:35:30 PM PDT by Grimas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: _Jim

I would think a self contained system could be developed in individual units for homes and cars.

We would not be limited to Home Depot parts IMO.

There has to be new and other ways to approach the problem.


55 posted on 05/04/2005 12:18:23 AM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend

BTT!!!!!


56 posted on 05/04/2005 3:08:18 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy

sudden growth or an explosion in new energy technologies would destroy multinational energy monoliths. for that reason alone it will never be allowed.

they will allow technology to advance only at a pace that enables the current 'big players' to have a major piece of the emerging energy technology pies...

no self respecting pubbie or democrat is going to kill off or other wise disenfranchise their biggest $$$ supporters and allies in the energy drama club.

but I do agree with your "should haves" heartily.


57 posted on 05/04/2005 3:29:42 AM PDT by Robert_Paulson2 (The Chinese and Saudis are our friends and allies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy

The world does not run on batteries. They are not very efficient, and they are expensive, and heavy. Technology is never stagnant, but time is a factor and technology cannot be rushed, (no pun intended). We have our cheap clean technology, at the moment it happens to be oil. I don't see anything on the horizon that is going to replace oil anytime soon, as in 20, 30, even 50 years, and before 50 years, there may be an event take place which will give us a quantum leap in technology unknown since the beginning of time. Time will tell.


58 posted on 05/04/2005 3:44:23 AM PDT by wita (truthspeaks@freerepublic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mulder


He was so boring that before I fell asleep I gained the impression that he was a Democrat...

Actually, it is my position that in real dollar terms, gasoline is in the much same price range that it has been since the oil shocks in the 70's.

The screaming to me comes from the anti-capitalists (which party do they belong to?) who just want to control the economy or bash Bush.

Oddly enough they are the same people who want to deny that there are building world-wide reserves (see the Economist article), who introduce artificial constraints in supplies via un-proven air pollution fuel mixes, and who put domestic sources off limits.


59 posted on 05/04/2005 7:00:31 AM PDT by gogipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
By the way, should we be screaming when gas prices have been at historically low prices???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ from the April 19, 2005 edition

Is it all relative? Maybe oil prices aren't so bad, after all.
 
Yes, gas prices have soared, but they're still 34 percent below 1980 levels. Housing and baseball tickets are another story.
 
| Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
 
We groan when our grandparents go on about Coca-Cola costing only a nickel in their day. How did things become so much more expensive, they always want to know?

Here's the short answer: With inflation factored in, that same bottle of Coke during World War II would cost roughly what we pay for it today. Eggs, milk, and bread now cost less.

But when the subject of gasoline comes up, we sound like our elders. How did it get to be so much?

The fact is, oil is still relatively inexpensive. By one measure tracked by Dow Jones, we are still far from matching an April 1980 spike in US oil prices. The $39.50 per barrel price that month exceeds $90 in today's dollars.

We remain a long way from that, with oil easing below the $50 mark in trading Monday.

That's not to say that energy costs aren't hitting families and corporations in the pocketbook. Even as oil prices have softened in recent days, there's been new concern about energy dampening economic growth. But a broader view - looking at oil over a longer period and against other goods and services - puts the impact in a less dire perspective.

"Gas is actually cheap right now," says Timothy McMahon, editor of InflationData.com. "Up until a year ago, oil was at a historic low, and they were giving this stuff away. And so to go from $20 a barrel to $50 a barrel looks like a big increase in a small period of time. But if it were spread out over those 25 years, nobody would say a thing."

Even with the rising costs, economists say, energy still makes up a small percentage of a family's budget, about 4 percent. That's half what it was in the early 1980s.

In fact, lots of goods and services have gone down in price during that time, including clothes, electronics, and food. But don't dismiss your grandparents that quickly. Certain things like new cars, new homes, healthcare, and a college education are considerably more expensive today.

AAA, the nation's largest organization for motorists, is quick to point out that most families try to stick to some kind of household budget and do feel the pinch when oil prices fluctuate.

"AAA's view for a long time has been that inflation-adjusted prices for energy are probably helpful to economists and policymakers, but not for the typical family that has to pay a gasoline credit-card statement every month," says Geoff Sundstrom of AAA. "The prices are paid with real dollars or current dollars."

Consumers seem to be taking the rapid rise in oil prices in stride. Many aren't cutting out that weekend movie to make up for the damage at the pump.

Jeff Stepanik, for instance, says gas prices over $2 a gallon have not had any impact on his family's budget (or lack thereof). He is still tinkering around with motorcycles and his wife is still happily hitting the mall. "We don't live any differently than we did before," says the Houston account manager. "It's not like we're going without a meal because of gas prices." But he is considering a life with routinely higher gas prices - as witnessed by his family's most recent purchase.

Three weeks ago, Mr. Stepanik sold his wife's "gas-guzzling" Ford Expedition and bought a hybrid Nissan. "This vehicle made more financial sense, because we are not going to stop driving," he says.

He estimates that gas prices would have to exceed $10 a gallon before he considers changing his driving patterns.

That's not an uncommon attitude in the United States. Even during the oil embargo of the 1970s, it took a while before consumers began buying smaller, more fuel-efficient cars or moving closer to where they worked.

"It's going to take a lot higher gas prices for people to consider using mass transit or carpooling again," says Mark Baxter, director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. "It is really difficult for Americans to give up the freedom they have with the automobile."

He sees it happening perhaps first with the younger generation, who are more shocked by the rising prices because they have grown up with cheap gas. For instance, he knows a college student who took a lower-paying summer job because it was 20 miles closer to where he lived.

"They are doing the math," says Mr. Baxter.

But Michael Solomon, consumer behavior expert at Auburn University in Alabama, calls the frenzy over rising gas prices "a tempest in a teapot," considering the amount of money people spend on small indulgences.

"The same people who are complaining about gas prices don't blink when they pay $3.50 for a latte," he says. "That's different somehow."

What's different is the changing perception of certain goods and services, he says. The necessities, such as food, clothing, and energy, are supposed to stay relatively constant, so that every year consumers are able to afford a little more of the "good stuff."

"We learn that a loaf of bread is $2.29 and we base our expectations on that. The usual becomes the right," says Dr. Solomon. "But the 11th Commandment is not that bread shall be $2.29."

 

60 posted on 05/04/2005 8:53:53 AM PDT by gogipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
By the way, should we be screaming when gas prices have been at historically low prices???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ from the April 19, 2005 edition

Is it all relative? Maybe oil prices aren't so bad, after all.
 
Yes, gas prices have soared, but they're still 34 percent below 1980 levels. Housing and baseball tickets are another story.
 
| Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
 
We groan when our grandparents go on about Coca-Cola costing only a nickel in their day. How did things become so much more expensive, they always want to know?

Here's the short answer: With inflation factored in, that same bottle of Coke during World War II would cost roughly what we pay for it today. Eggs, milk, and bread now cost less.

But when the subject of gasoline comes up, we sound like our elders. How did it get to be so much?

The fact is, oil is still relatively inexpensive. By one measure tracked by Dow Jones, we are still far from matching an April 1980 spike in US oil prices. The $39.50 per barrel price that month exceeds $90 in today's dollars.

We remain a long way from that, with oil easing below the $50 mark in trading Monday.

That's not to say that energy costs aren't hitting families and corporations in the pocketbook. Even as oil prices have softened in recent days, there's been new concern about energy dampening economic growth. But a broader view - looking at oil over a longer period and against other goods and services - puts the impact in a less dire perspective.

"Gas is actually cheap right now," says Timothy McMahon, editor of InflationData.com. "Up until a year ago, oil was at a historic low, and they were giving this stuff away. And so to go from $20 a barrel to $50 a barrel looks like a big increase in a small period of time. But if it were spread out over those 25 years, nobody would say a thing."

Even with the rising costs, economists say, energy still makes up a small percentage of a family's budget, about 4 percent. That's half what it was in the early 1980s.

In fact, lots of goods and services have gone down in price during that time, including clothes, electronics, and food. But don't dismiss your grandparents that quickly. Certain things like new cars, new homes, healthcare, and a college education are considerably more expensive today.

AAA, the nation's largest organization for motorists, is quick to point out that most families try to stick to some kind of household budget and do feel the pinch when oil prices fluctuate.

"AAA's view for a long time has been that inflation-adjusted prices for energy are probably helpful to economists and policymakers, but not for the typical family that has to pay a gasoline credit-card statement every month," says Geoff Sundstrom of AAA. "The prices are paid with real dollars or current dollars."

Consumers seem to be taking the rapid rise in oil prices in stride. Many aren't cutting out that weekend movie to make up for the damage at the pump.

Jeff Stepanik, for instance, says gas prices over $2 a gallon have not had any impact on his family's budget (or lack thereof). He is still tinkering around with motorcycles and his wife is still happily hitting the mall. "We don't live any differently than we did before," says the Houston account manager. "It's not like we're going without a meal because of gas prices." But he is considering a life with routinely higher gas prices - as witnessed by his family's most recent purchase.

Three weeks ago, Mr. Stepanik sold his wife's "gas-guzzling" Ford Expedition and bought a hybrid Nissan. "This vehicle made more financial sense, because we are not going to stop driving," he says.

He estimates that gas prices would have to exceed $10 a gallon before he considers changing his driving patterns.

That's not an uncommon attitude in the United States. Even during the oil embargo of the 1970s, it took a while before consumers began buying smaller, more fuel-efficient cars or moving closer to where they worked.

"It's going to take a lot higher gas prices for people to consider using mass transit or carpooling again," says Mark Baxter, director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. "It is really difficult for Americans to give up the freedom they have with the automobile."

He sees it happening perhaps first with the younger generation, who are more shocked by the rising prices because they have grown up with cheap gas. For instance, he knows a college student who took a lower-paying summer job because it was 20 miles closer to where he lived.

"They are doing the math," says Mr. Baxter.

But Michael Solomon, consumer behavior expert at Auburn University in Alabama, calls the frenzy over rising gas prices "a tempest in a teapot," considering the amount of money people spend on small indulgences.

"The same people who are complaining about gas prices don't blink when they pay $3.50 for a latte," he says. "That's different somehow."

What's different is the changing perception of certain goods and services, he says. The necessities, such as food, clothing, and energy, are supposed to stay relatively constant, so that every year consumers are able to afford a little more of the "good stuff."

"We learn that a loaf of bread is $2.29 and we base our expectations on that. The usual becomes the right," says Dr. Solomon. "But the 11th Commandment is not that bread shall be $2.29."

 

61 posted on 05/04/2005 9:20:48 AM PDT by gogipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Grimas

When you say that the abiogenic theory of hydrocarbon fuels
being "debunked" by the "scientific community", you should specify the "western" or english-speaking scientific community.

The abiogenic theory is alive and well in much of the rest of the world, and in fact, is gaining adherents.

For those who want a more in-depth look at the abiogenic theory, I recommend Gold's book "The Deep Hot Bioshere".


62 posted on 05/04/2005 10:13:47 AM PDT by PaRebel (Visualize whirled peas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: PaRebel

make that "The Deep Hot Biosphere".


63 posted on 05/04/2005 10:14:53 AM PDT by PaRebel (Visualize whirled peas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2
All change is threatening to somebody and at some point necessity must win the day.

I don't care if the people with current power want to be able to afford 24K gold jock straps, the people will drive the innovations forward IMO. If not here, some small less industrialized country will all of a sudden have it and pass it on IMO.

You give industialists too much credit for being able to rule the world IMO.
64 posted on 05/04/2005 4:19:55 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: wita

I think by now we should have cheap desalinization of oceans for fresh water supplies and we should have alternative sources of cheap energy.

For heaven's sake, all this talent and America can't get this done?
I don't know about that or decades more being needed.


65 posted on 05/04/2005 4:30:58 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: PaRebel

See post #54 where I say that...

The only adherents to Gold's (ond others) theories are those who also subscribe to global warming... Science and FACT over theory...


66 posted on 05/04/2005 5:31:50 PM PDT by Grimas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Nataku X
Even if the batteries were made out of hay, they'd successfully petition to make them illegal.

Preach it, sister. It has never been about the environment or oil.

67 posted on 05/05/2005 1:51:30 AM PDT by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy

Interesting you should mention desalinization. A few years ago My wife and I were on a cruise. One of the destinations was Aruba. There is no natural water supply on Aruba other than rain, and that apparently is sporadic althought enough to supply the population.

What they did was turn the roofs of their buildings, houses, etc, into drain systems ending up in large cisterns. That was the water supply until the government went into the desalinization business, building a large plant to supply the island.

In the process they required everyone to be on the system, destroy the previous water works, and make having one of the old ones illegal. Brilliant, now why didn't I think of that. I shoulda had a patent. NOT!

Speaking of technology, when one considers all involved in replacing the present energy source, and its manufacturing and distribution channels, one can quickly see there is not going to be a quick fix for the present source, unless the discovery is so cheap, and so available as to be instantly useable on a national scale.

On a list of things nearly impossible, this one shall remain very near the top. I'm sure all of us would welcome cheap, clean, and unlimited, but the laws of physics, science, economics and reality, cannot so easily be ignored.


68 posted on 05/05/2005 5:04:09 AM PDT by wita (truthspeaks@freerepublic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Grimas

The "fossil" theory of oil is just that....a theory. Many reputable scientists say that the abiogenic theory answers more questions about the origins of oil than the "fossil" theory.

The theory that answers more questions is usually considered the best theory.

I am not familiar with the facts supporting your statement that "the only adherents to Gold's(ond others)theories are those who also subscribe to global warming...(sic)".

I, for one, see the abiogenic theory as more informative than the fossil theory, and I certainly do not subscribe to man-made global warming scenarios. Global warming AND cooling, however, are well established.

It is inevitable that there is strong resistance to any new idea, notwithstanding the fact that the abiogenic theory is not new, only new in the West. New ideas unsettle the status quo with all the implications thereof. Heck, careers come into question!!! People have to retool thinking processes, never a painless process. Why some people have to admit they were wrong. And we all know how painful that can be. Heck, I know people who would never, under any circumstance, admit they had been wrong!! LOL!!!


69 posted on 05/05/2005 7:22:54 AM PDT by PaRebel (Visualize whirled peas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: gogipper

Oil, Oil Everywhere
The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal ^ | Sunday, January 30, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST | PETER HUBER AND MARK MILLS
Posted on 01/30/2005 10:24:37 AM CST by Woodworker
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1331914/posts

Also, another idea:

Anything into Oil(solution to dependence on foregn oil?)
DISCOVER Vol. 24 No. 5 ^ | May 2003 | Brad Lemley
Posted on 04/21/2003 7:57:41 AM CDT by honway
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/897232/posts


70 posted on 05/30/2005 9:57:12 AM PDT by hripka (There are a lot of smart people out there in FReeperLand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hripka

Cool!


71 posted on 05/31/2005 5:39:19 PM PDT by gogipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-71 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson