Greta is at it..AGAIN

[DocJones]

The earth bleeds petrochemicals.  The resource is practically infinite.

[blackstone]

FYI: ralfy is a drive-by protestor.

Take a look at their account. You'll come to the same conclusion.

[Brad]

The earth bleeds petrochemicals.  The resource is practically infinite.

Don't try to explain this to any leftist shills. They think all the oil in the world is from decomposed dinosaur bones.

[Chris24601]

The earth bleeds petrochemicals.  The resource is practically infinite.

Don't try to explain this to any leftist shills. They think all the oil in the world is from decomposed dinosaur bones.

His head would probably explode if he actually went to read up on the Deep Hot Biosphere... the cognitive dissonance would be too great to be contained.

[ralfy]

The lifetime emissions can range from 20% less to 60% less than a gasoline car, depending on how its made and especially on what source you're charging it from.

So, by only comparing lifetime emissions, you are conveniently leaving out the environmental harm done in the process of strip mining for the minerals needed to make the batteries to make the EVs.  You can't be unaware of this problem since GeekyBugle has brought it up several times in detail.  I can only conclude that you are being deliberately disingenuous and deliberately presenting a false view of the costs.  In short, you are arguing in bad faith again.

By "lifetime" I mean end to end, including both production and disposal -- i.e. including the minerals needed for the car body, engine, battery, etc.

BUT you're ONLY focussing on gas emissions, because?

If I was a betting man I would say it's because you can't argue your way out of the TOTAL environmental damage done by EVs

EVs have low energy returns and quantity because much of mining, at least half of manufacturing, and the bulk of shipping involve fossil fuels. Similar applies to mechanized agriculture.

Meanwhile, energy returns from fossil fuels have been dropping, from a hundred barrels for each barrel used in the 1930s to three today. Why do you think the oil industry has been resorting to not only fracking but tar sands, biofuels, natural gas, etc., with even countries like Saudi Arabia investing in nuclear and solar power?

It's like debating with Greta and her counterpart, and both living in a fantasy world: one imagines utopia based on environmentalism and the other based on the Jetsons.

If only we had electric freaking roads!

Huh? Gasoline is less energy dense now than in the 30s? Or what the fuck are you talking about?

Tell me you haven't read a freaking thing I've written without telling me you haven't read a single thing I've written.

Either that or you have ZERO reading comprehension.

Electric roads?

I'm also talking about the amount of energy needed to extract oil, not energy density.

[ralfy]

Then why did real data from 1972 to 2012 track the LtG standard run model?

That doesn't change the simple fact that none of the Club of Rome's doom and gloom predictions came true.  None of Paul Erlich's predictions came true either.  Climate change alarmists also have a long track record of doom and gloom predictions that didn't come true.

Why are you using proven reserves?

Because that's the best measure of the resources that are actually available.  Production is subject to various economical and political pressures.  For example, the Biden administration blocking drilling in almost half of the National Petroleum Reserves for political reasons.

New methods of extraction is unconventional production.

Bullshit.  All methods of extraction were new method of extraction at some point.  If that means that they are unconventional methods of production, the all methods of production are unconventional methods of production.  You are are just trying to come up with some justification for why this increase in proved reserves doesn't count because it wrecks your entire line of logic by disproving the premise that it is all built on.

Direct connection? When oil prices went up, demand didn't go down. When oil prices plummeted to zero or lower during the early stage of the pandemic, demand didn't soar. And do you know who sets prices? Not the end users but the ones who speculate at the bourse and negotiate with the sellers.

Worse, did you also look at demand per day, which is 100 Mbd? You got a field with potentially 5 billion barrels. How much supply is that for the world economy? 50 days?

I tell you what.  We'll come back here in 50 days.  If were are out of oil at that time, I will admit that you are right.  That's not going to happen though.  We have been about to run out of oil since the 70s and, yet, that somehow keeps not happening.  Instead, we have substantially more proved reserves now than we had then. 

Finally, what economical cost? Capex has been doubling the last two decades, and in exchange for what? A third of the previous increase in oil production? And covered by increasing debt, consisting of mostly junk bonds?

As I already pointed out and, I suspect, you are already aware, production is affected by factors that have nothing to do with resource availability or economics and everything to do with politics.

They came up with a standard run model of economic growth, etc. In 2012, on the 40th anniversary of the publication of the report, the forecasts were compared with real data, and the latter tracked the former. How is that wrong?

About Ehrlich, etc., why are you looking at prices? Look at diminishing returns, which follows the LtG model:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFyTSiCXWEE

Proven reserves are NOT the best measure, and not even what's technically recoverable, which is stricter. Otherwise, the U.S. would not be switching to unconventional production.

Your next point is bullshit, too, because you don't know the meaning of unconventional production. It refers to using other extraction methods such as fracking. Now, if proven reserves are supposed to be helpful, then why did the U.S. have to switch to unconventional production? Because conventional production peaked back in 1970 for the U.S., and according to the IEA after 2005 for the world. Even two-thirds of oil-producing countries peaked in terms of production by 2005. Who are you kidding?

Again, you missed the point completely. Fantasists brag about finding an oil field with 3 billion barrels of proven reserves, not realizing that only a fraction of that is technically recoverable, and a smaller amount economically feasible for extraction unless you're willing to pay larger amounts per barrel. And with a hundred days' worth of consumption per day, how much will it last? And when did oil discoveries even in terms of proven reserves peak? The mid-1960s?

About your last point, that's what the IEA said in 2005: there's no peak oil because it's all just above-ground problems. In 2010, after assessing oil fields worldwide, they admitted that they were wrong.

[ralfy]

FYI: ralfy is a drive-by protestor.

Take a look at their account. You'll come to the same conclusion.

Two sentences with no evidence. Can't counter points, so resorts to personal attacks.

Also, if you have to practice what you preach, you should at least get it right. It's "protester." And I'm not protesting.

[ralfy]

The earth bleeds petrochemicals.  The resource is practically infinite.

Don't try to explain this to any leftist shills. They think all the oil in the world is from decomposed dinosaur bones.

It's the other way round: it's rightist shills that argue that oil's infinite.

[ralfy]

The earth bleeds petrochemicals.  The resource is practically infinite.

Don't try to explain this to any leftist shills. They think all the oil in the world is from decomposed dinosaur bones.

His head would probably explode if he actually went to read up on the Deep Hot Biosphere... the cognitive dissonance would be too great to be contained.

The catch is this little thing called "gravity".

[yosemitemike]

They came up with a standard run model of economic growth, etc. In 2012, on the 40th anniversary of the publication of the report, the forecasts were compared with real data, and the latter tracked the former. How is that wrong?

The predicted a collapse of the food supply and famine caused by overpopulation and resource depletion.  The opposite has happened.  The food supply has gone up faster than the faster than the population and increased and malnutrition rates are less than half what they were.  There prediction wasn't just wrong.  It was the opposite of hat actually happened.  All of their doom and gloom predictions were wrong.  That doesn't seem to make any difference to the true believers though.

About Ehrlich, etc., why are you looking at prices?

That's what he made his bet on.  Apparently, he understood the role of prices in a market economy even if you don't

Proven reserves are NOT the best measure, and not even what's technically recoverable, which is stricter. Otherwise, the U.S. would not be switching to unconventional production.

Labeling it unconventional production doesn't change anything about the underlying facts.

It refers to using other extraction methods such as fracking.

Calling it unconventional production doesn't mean anything or change anything.

And when did oil discoveries even in terms of proven reserves peak? The mid-1960s?

Proved resources starting going up sharply in the mid-2010s.

About your last point, that's what the IEA said in 2005: there's no peak oil because it's all just above-ground problems. In 2010, after assessing oil fields worldwide, they admitted that they were wrong.

That doesn't change the Biden Administration's policies or their effect on exploration and production.

[Chris24601]

The catch is this little thing called "gravity".

Okay, this comment right here? This proves you're no expert, you're just regurgitating* agitprop and talking points and haven't actually read anything beyond it.

All that oil that bubbles all the way up to the surface in places (do you think we always drilled so deep for oil? No, it was just sitting at ground level in many places) has always come from the Deep Hot Biosphere... it's literally the waste product of the life down there. It's why we're actually finding that well thought previously tapped out are slowly replenishing themselves.

Oil is only finite in a "moment in time" sense. It could, theoretically, be entirely depleted in the same way we could run out of manure to spread on a field... until the cow/life in the DHB shits out more of the stuff.

Your source for "peak oil is OVER" is a guy working for a Finnish Green Energy company. His job depends on peak oil being real.

Every other piece of crap model comes from the same NGOs and government working groups who have been repeatedly not just wrong, but the opposite of right, with yet more vested monetary interests in pushing the Green agenda on people.

But you either already know this or will find a way to ignore it because you're an NPC in life; enjoy your 50 sq foot apartment, bug burgers, vertigo-inducing VR system, and only having a chatbot to talk to.**

* Your screen name now makes perfect sense.
** This is a actually a lie. History has shown repeatedly that the future of useful idiots is always to become fertilizer, because when the "Revolution" finally seizes power they will no longer be useful, but they'll still be idiots.

[Ratman_tf]

** This is a actually a lie. History has shown repeatedly that the future of useful idiots is always to become fertilizer, because when the "Revolution" finally seizes power they will no longer be useful, but they'll still be idiots.[/i]

More specifically, revolutionaries are a concern that they'll revolt when they discover the new boss is as bad or worse than the old boss. And so they need to be culled after the revolution.

[jeff37923]

Bill Gates: The Net Zero transition will require the energy grid "to be about three times bigger than it is today".

"Consumers can help us by stretching to buy an electric car, or an electric heat pump, or food that's made a low emissions way."

"The rich countries owe it to the world not only to reduce their emissions, but to drive down the cost of these green products."

https://archive.is/l8M85

Exactly! So why is the Club of Rome seen as wrong? In order to meet the basic needs of the world population, we'll need at least an additional earth in terms of energy and material resources. To meet wants including EVs for personal use, three more.

"Johnny, did you ever hear of the Club of Rome?" Johnny had, but the audience would need reminding. "They were the people who did computer simulations to find out how long we could get along on our natural resources. Even with zero population growth—" "They tell us we're finished," Sharps broke in. "And that's stupid. We're only finished because they won't let us really use technology. They say we're running out of metals. There's more metal in one little asteroid than was mined all over the world in the last five years! And there are hundreds of thousands of asteroids. All we have to do is go get 'em." "Can we?" "You bet! Even with the technology we already have, we could do it. Johnny, out there in space it's raining soup, and we don't even know about soup bowls."
― Larry Niven, Lucifer's Hammer written in 1977

There are nine planets, tens of dwarf planets, thousands of moons, millions of asteroids, an billions of comets in our solar system alone. Plenty for a long future of humanity.

If you argue for your limitations, you will win that argument every time.

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Well, for the most part, the "Environmentalists" and all of their doom screeching have been very wrong, and often used merely as a smokescreen for their evil cult in taking power unto themselves--while making everyone else broke, poor, and struggling. As well as taking away freedoms and liberties.

Fuck these evil morons. Blast them. Crush them. We should dig, and drill, and build. Go wild. Creativity, freedom, and industriousness will lead the way, as we have seen already in the food revolution, as well as through technology. The world is not going to starve to death. All of the population control shrieking are likewise a bunch of evil morons. We need more people, more babies. There is plenty of land, space, and food. It is simply a question of leadership, integrity, and innovation.

Countries that focus in on those three main issues have *already* accomplished miracles and made fantastic progress in reducing poverty, raising standards of living, and increasing productivity and happiness, for everyone. Look at Thailand, Singapore, various nations in South America--such as Belize, Costa Rica, and also some nations in Africa, such as Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, and others. They too are making progress, and all without bowing down to a bunch of environmentalist tyranny.

The way forward is through freedom, innovation, leadership, and integrity. Not through fucking globalism, control, utopianism, and Marxist tyranny.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Brad]

The earth bleeds petrochemicals.  The resource is practically infinite.

Don't try to explain this to any leftist shills. They think all the oil in the world is from decomposed dinosaur bones.

It's the other way round: it's rightist shills that argue that oil's infinite.

You have a fucked up definition of infinite. Retard.