Oil all gone in 30 years, what next?

[DaveW]

The issues I have with you sir are that you refuse to actually answer the majority of questions asked of you.

When questioned on your bad science or false accusatory politics, you turn and attack Israel, which has nothing to do with the subject of the thread you started.

When questioned on your off track and bad theology you cry about it being off topic.

How about the posts such as this one:

Entirely on topic and yet showing your electric vehicle "science" to be outdated and basically irrelevant to your point, as other traditionally based technologies exceed your quoted stats.

[Brother D]

Ford has recently stopped making all their cars, except the mustang (trucks and SUVs are not "cars").  Chrysler's small car sales are in the toilet.  Why are people worried about the "end of oil" not up in arms about people increasingly and unnecessarily dragging around several tons of steel just to go pick up some groceries or commute to work?  Not only are we depleting our oil at an irresponsible rate, but we're setting ourselves up for a harder fall when oil runs out.

Part of the problem is that the government has practically banned all cars but the smallest, because of mpg requirements for cars, driving people to trucks and SUVs. I propose a tax on new passenger vehicles based on their gas mileage, a tax that goes up exponentially as the gas mileage goes down.   E.g. buy a car with 50mpg, no tax.  30mpg 2,000 tax.  15mpg 10,000 tax.  Anyone agree?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jim_Alaska]

So what about people who already have a truck or SUV? They just have to bite the bullet because you don't like what they drive?

I don't know  about your financial situation, but I for one don't have thousands of dollars to run out and buy a new vehicle just because you and other "progressives" don't like what I drive.

And all because of your mythical OIL IS RUNNING OUT mantra. Listen closely: oil is not running out.  Just keep listening t the doomsday prophets.

[Brother D]

On 5/24/2018 at 4:55 AM, swathdiver said:

The Iranians are using nuclear technology for the express purpose of destroying Israel.  America and or Israel should bomb them forthwith.  We need more reactors in the United States and at sea powering our capitol warships. 

What if anything does God's Word say on this topic?  That's what really matters.

Iran has never expressed that they're developing nukes to destroy Israel.   Iran has expressed that they have no nuclear weapons program, and the US and international intelligence agencies agree.  Jesus told the Jews who rejected him, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. children of Satan."   Why do Dispensationalists spread untruths to promote war?  

Iran wants nuclear power because burning oil for electricity is very expensive.  

Adding to my wonderment of why people worried about an end of oil support politicians who want to encourage people to use up oil faster, and to make the country more dependent upon oil (and so the end of oil will be more painful), why would people worried about an end of oil want the US to burn millions of gallons of oil in a war to stop Iran from saving oil?  

 

 

 

[Brother D]

On 7/6/2018 at 2:23 AM, Jim_Alaska said:

So what about people who already have a truck or SUV? They just have to bite the bullet because you don't like what they drive?

I don't know  about your financial situation, but I for one don't have thousands of dollars to run out and buy a new vehicle just because you and other "progressives" don't like what I drive.

And all because of your mythical OIL IS RUNNING OUT mantra. Listen closely: oil is not running out.  Just keep listening t the doomsday prophets.

My proposed gas guzzler tax is for new passenger vehicles.  Not for used or work vehicles.  Don't worry,  this tax will never happen, even if, hypothetically, it would save our economy and our lives.  Mankind is committed to making himself miserable.  

If you don't have lots of spare cash, why would you own an expensive, gas-guzzling SUV in the first place? Or, a truck (if not needed for trucking)?  

Oil is running out.  The easy liquid gold that shoots out of the ground under its own pressure is already mostly gone.  Much of the oil we get now is from fracking and cooking (with natural gas) oil shales.

[Jim_Alaska]

BD = oil is running out.

JIm = OIL IS NOT RUNNING OUT.

By Reuters 10:57PM GMT 02 Nov 2015

The Earth is not running out of oil and gas, BP says

Global reserves could almost double by 2050 despite booming consumption, oil major says.
The world is no longer at risk of running out of oil or gas, with existing technology capable of unlocking so much that global reserves would almost double by 2050 despite booming consumption, BP has said.

When taking into account all accessible forms of energy, including nuclear, wind and solar, there are enough resources to meet 20 times what the world will need over that period, David Eyton, BP Group head of technology said.

"Energy resources are plentiful. Concerns over running out of oil and gas have disappeared," Mr Eyton said at the launch of BP's inaugural Technology Outlook.

[Brother D]

2 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

BD = oil is running out.

JIm = OIL IS NOT RUNNING OUT.

By Reuters 10:57PM GMT 02 Nov 2015

The Earth is not running out of oil and gas, BP says

Global reserves could almost double by 2050 despite booming consumption, oil major says.
The world is no longer at risk of running out of oil or gas, with existing technology capable of unlocking so much that global reserves would almost double by 2050 despite booming consumption, BP has said.

When taking into account all accessible forms of energy, including nuclear, wind and solar, there are enough resources to meet 20 times what the world will need over that period, David Eyton, BP Group head of technology said.

"Energy resources are plentiful. Concerns over running out of oil and gas have disappeared," Mr Eyton said at the launch of BP's inaugural Technology Outlook.

2050 is just 32 years away, no so far.  

The issue isn't so much running out of oil, but running out of cheap oil.  BP doesn't mind, their profits will go up, and for now they don't want to scare investors.  See what you quoted "technology capable of unlocking..."  The oil reserves are going up primarily because oil that we that we couldn't extract before is coming in reach, such as oil shale.  But, this oil necessarily is more expensive, and even it will start running out.  We'll be pumping a lot of oil for hundreds of years, but much sooner than that, we'll reach peak oil, where oil prices will start to become very, very high.  

You also quoted that there will be resources to produce 20 times the energy needed, but that includes nuclear, wind, and solar.  That says nothing of the cost.   Now, we get maybe one percent of our energy from solar, because solar is so expensive.  

In the next couple of decades we'll see happen is global oil supply go up, as the Chinese and Indians trade their bikes for cars.  And, then in another couple decades, the Chinese and Indians will be forced back to bikes because of oil prices.   In 2050, most Americans will be using small cars, and their grandpa's wasteful SUV will be history. 

 

 

 

[Jim_Alaska]

Like most environmental zealots, you tout the party line. Why is it always SUV; like they are the only gas guzzlers in the world? There are plenty of both cars and pickup trucks that have large engines also. Did you ever think that an SUV can haul more people, therefore cutting down on more vehicles? 

When you can show me that all the oil in the whole world has been found and extracted, you might have an argument. But just touting your own personal opinion just doesn't cut it. Worse yet, buying into the environmental party line just shows you are not willing or able to think for yourself. Society will not retreat back into the dark ages just because you say so.

[DaveW]

I can't believe the constant (in every thread!) Re-interpretation of facts by this guy, whether it be Bible, historical, science, or personal.

But it is the way his "theology" works. If you don't like what it says, just change what it means to suit yourself.

 

[swathdiver]

On 7/5/2018 at 8:47 PM, Brother D said:

Ford has recently stopped making all their cars, except the mustang (trucks and SUVs are not "cars").  Chrysler's small car sales are in the toilet.  Why are people worried about the "end of oil" not up in arms about people increasingly and unnecessarily dragging around several tons of steel just to go pick up some groceries or commute to work?  Not only are we depleting our oil at an irresponsible rate, but we're setting ourselves up for a harder fall when oil runs out.

Part of the problem is that the government has practically banned all cars but the smallest, because of mpg requirements for cars, driving people to trucks and SUVs. I propose a tax on new passenger vehicles based on their gas mileage, a tax that goes up exponentially as the gas mileage goes down.   E.g. buy a car with 50mpg, no tax.  30mpg 2,000 tax.  15mpg 10,000 tax.  Anyone agree?

Cars are disappearing because of government regulation.  They are also saddled with so many hundreds of pounds of safety requirements that they get poor mileage and the do-gooders have done their damage to powertrains as well.  As an American, I believe in Freedom, not taxes designed to punish, that's Statism and evil.  Of course I disagree.  As a consumer my measure of efficiency is not MPG but rather cost per mile.  

On 7/7/2018 at 9:01 PM, Brother D said:

Iran has never expressed that they're developing nukes to destroy Israel.   Iran has expressed that they have no nuclear weapons program, and the US and international intelligence agencies agree. 

Iran wants nuclear power because burning oil for electricity is very expensive.  

I almost fell out of my chair reading this!  Too Funny!  It's a lie of course.  Dan are you also ToOldToCare?  Hezbollah is Iran and their charter is the destruction of Israel.  Don't look up Memri's videos showing Iranian leaders telling the world they want to destroy Israel with their nuclear weapons.

On 7/7/2018 at 9:12 PM, Brother D said:

My proposed gas guzzler tax is for new passenger vehicles.  ...it would save our economy and our lives. 

If you don't have lots of spare cash, why would you own an expensive, gas-guzzling SUV in the first place? Or, a truck (if not needed for trucking)?  

Oil is running out.  The easy liquid gold that shoots out of the ground under its own pressure is already mostly gone. 

Point 1:  "Read my lips, no new taxes!"  Already had a gas guzzler tax under President George H. W. Bush and such brought on a recession.  Nobody's lives were lost or saved because some rich dude forked over a $900 tax for a Corvette.  But it sure did make the communists feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Point 2:  Because it is safe and reliable.  Today's Chevy Suburban gets 24 mpg on the highway, eclipsing many smaller cars of just a few years ago and doing it with a vehicle that is far more efficient in hauling things and people.  In the 2000s, my little brother had a Honda Accord, my sister a Kia Sportage and my wife and I a Pontiac Montana.  At highway speeds we were all within 1 mpg in fuel economy numbers.  In practice on a road trip, we were highest.  We could haul seven in comfort with luggage for over 500 miles.  They were crammed with 4 in each car.  Ours being bigger was more comfortable, had better visibility as it sat up higher, etc.  Guess who's car is still on the road today?  

People who buy Tahoe's, Yukon XLs, F-150s generally keep them much longer because they are better built and more efficient and safer.  I can go just about anywhere in my truck in any weather, very few cars can match this capability.

Point 3:  Communist propaganda.  More oil leaks from the ocean floor daily than the worst man-made disaster.  Where is your faith rooted Dan, God or man?  From reading this thread, it is man and not God.  God is in control.  If we're going to run out of oil, The Lord will provide just as He did when man started running low on trees.  

Edited July 9, 2018 by swathdiver

[swathdiver]

Dan, I just thought of something and wanted to share it with you.  It is sure to warm your heart.  Did you know that my GMC Yukon XL gets 84 miles per gallon?  Yes, under your beloved CAFE standards, because my truck's engine can burn either gasoline or FlexFuel, the government has assigned it CAFE ratings of 30 mpg on gasoline and 84 mpg on ethanol.  Ain't that grand?

Of course, I live in Realville, and in realville my truck averages 12 mpg on E85 and about 15 mpg on gasoline.  Haven't spent too much time on gasoline, since the engine makes more horsepower on E85 and since it's subsidized by the taxpayers, it's less expensive than gasoline to burn.  Since October of last year, the truck averages $.18 cents a mile on E85 and $.23 cents a mile on high test gasoline.  Which is better?  My daughter's little Kia costs about $.12 cents a mile to operate.

Which is more efficient and ecologically friendly, 1000 gallons of FlexFuel or 1000 gallons of Gasoline?

With an alcohol content of 80%, it would take 278 bushels of corn grown on 1.58 acres to provide me with 800 gallons of ethanol.  To complete the mixture, 200 gallons of gasoline is required which would come from 10 barrels of oil.  Of course in both products, the bushels of corn and the barrels of oil, not all of it is used, only portions and the leftovers and by-products are made into many other things, little is wasted.

To make up the gasoline needed for a year, it's basically 50 barrels of oil plus the additives.

So which is a better use of resources?

What do you drive Dan, is it ecologically friendly too like mine?

 

 

[Brother D]

On 7/9/2018 at 1:56 PM, swathdiver said:

Cars are disappearing because of government regulation.  They are also saddled with so many hundreds of pounds of safety requirements that they get poor mileage and the do-gooders have done their damage to powertrains as well.  As an American, I believe in Freedom, not taxes designed to punish, that's Statism and evil.  Of course I disagree.  As a consumer my measure of efficiency is not MPG but rather cost per mile.  

I'm 100% sure you want more regulation than I do.

You are right, government is the cause of cars disappearing.  The government has practically banned large cars, even though they get better MPG than SUVs.  And, the government keeps gas prices artificially low.  

I almost fell out of my chair reading this!  Too Funny!  It's a lie of course.  Dan are you also ToOldToCare?  Hezbollah is Iran and their charter is the destruction of Israel.  Don't look up Memri's videos showing Iranian leaders telling the world they want to destroy Israel with their nuclear weapons.

I'm not interested in Memri's videos.  The US and UN intelligence agencies says Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.   

Point 1:  "Read my lips, no new taxes!"  Already had a gas guzzler tax under President George H. W. Bush and such brought on a recession.  Nobody's lives were lost or saved because some rich dude forked over a $900 tax for a Corvette.  But it sure did make the communists feel warm and fuzzy inside.

The tax guzzle tax was too small and should have been applied equally to all personal passenger vehicles, rather than exempting SUVs.

No one died?  Pollution caused by cars is linked to deaths (a marginal factor, not a primary cause), so yes, someone died from the excessive pollution of poor MPG.  Not only did someone die, but when gas prices shot way up for whatever reasons, like the war in Iraq Bush lied America into, the economic impact on Americans was devastating, causing more people to die.  And, then there's those who will die from hardship in the future after peak oil causes gas prices to go very high.

Point 2:  Because it is safe and reliable.  Today's Chevy Suburban gets 24 mpg on the highway

Big SUVs raise fatalities.  Their higher front ends dramatically increase the chance that someone hit will die.  Maybe safer for the SUV driver, but not for anyone else.  And, didn't you just cry and sob that cars are "saddled with so many hundreds of pounds of safety requirements" and then you defend a ton of extra steel, for safety, that no where, pound for pound, protects as much as those "safety requirements".

Point 3:  Communist propaganda.  More oil leaks from the ocean floor daily than the worst man-made disaster.  Where is your faith rooted Dan, God or man?  From reading this thread, it is man and not God.  God is in control.  If we're going to run out of oil, The Lord will provide just as He did when man started running low on trees. 

What does oil naturally leaking vs. man-made disasters has to do with anything?

I had a GF who tried to run a business that eventually failed. Whenever I tried to give her advice, she'd reject it and give me some rhetoric about the business being successful if God wants it to be successful, as if she doesn't have to operate responsibly.   Yes, God is in control, but you'll still let you damage yourself and others.

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brother D]

On 7/9/2018 at 2:29 PM, swathdiver said:

Dan, I just thought of something and wanted to share it with you.  It is sure to warm your heart.  Did you know that my GMC Yukon XL gets 84 miles per gallon?  Yes, under your beloved CAFE standards, because my truck's engine can burn either gasoline or FlexFuel, the government has assigned it CAFE ratings of 30 mpg on gasoline and 84 mpg on ethanol.  Ain't that grand?

Of course, I live in Realville, and in realville my truck averages 12 mpg on E85 and about 15 mpg on gasoline.  Haven't spent too much time on gasoline, since the engine makes more horsepower on E85 and since it's subsidized by the taxpayers, it's less expensive than gasoline to burn.  

 

No authority claims your GMC Yukon XL gets 84 mpg.   If you saw that on a chart, it's a typo.  All flex-fuel passenger vehicles get less MPG on ethanol, and every authority knows it.  Further, you're wasting your money on ethanol.  It costs you more per mile, in spite of subsidies.  I don't know how you're doing your math, but you're wrong.

Anyway, the government should be subsidizing ethanol.  

 

 

 

 

[swathdiver]

25 minutes ago, Brother D said:

I'm not interested in Memri's videos.  The US and UN intelligence agencies says Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.   

Big SUVs raise fatalities.  Their higher front ends dramatically increase the chance that someone hit will die.  Maybe safer for the SUV driver, but not for anyone else.  And, didn't you just cry and sob that cars are "saddled with so many hundreds of pounds of safety requirements" and then you defend a ton of extra steel, for safety, that no where, pound for pound, protects as much as those "safety requirements".

Point 1:  Of course not, then you would be faced with the truth of the words coming out of their mouths instead of the liars who are attempting to deceive.

Point 2:  Generally speaking, it's the little cars that run into the big cars.  I have heard the silly argument that all cars should be equally unsafe to make things fair for all before.  Do you own a Trabant?  No, you've mis-understood what was written Dan.  

18 minutes ago, Brother D said:

No authority claims your GMC Yukon XL gets 84 mpg.   If you saw that on a chart, it's a typo.  All flex-fuel passenger vehicles get less MPG on ethanol, and every authority knows it.  Further, you're wasting your money on ethanol.  It costs you more per mile, in spite of subsidies.  I don't know how you're doing your math, but you're wrong.

Anyway, the government should be subsidizing ethanol.  

No, it was how GM raised their CAFE average by making their truck's FlexFuel capable.  Since those credits expired in 2016, guess what?  GMs trucks aren't FlexFuel capable anymore.  Again, you did not understand what was written.  I use E85 specifically because it costs me less per mile to run than gasoline.  Explain your math to me Dan, E85 costs eighteen cents a mile while gasoline costs twenty-three cents a mile.  If you're in Rio Linda Dan, that's a savings of a nickel per mile.  That's fifteen dollars that stays in my pocket for every 300 miles driven.  

If I'm wasting money on Ethanol, why do you think the government should subsidize it?

Dan, here's a most important question.  Why is all this stuff more important to you than the things of God?  What did you do or are you doing to get into heaven and stay right with God?  I much prefer talking about the Lord and scriptures than oil.  How about you?