^ I agree that the climate change hype seems to be largely hype, leveraged for political reasons. The oil situation, though, I'm more convinced is genuine - that there is a limited and declining resource available. Not all oil is created equal - yes there is oil in shales, just like Canada's tar sands, but this is dirty, difficult oil to extract. It takes almost as much oil to get it out and into a barrel as it produces - so if you're burning a barrel of oil to make 1.5 or 2 barrels of oil, it's not like you're exactly rolling in profits. Once it takes more oil to get the oil than you get oil out, then it doesn't matter how much oil is in the ground, you simply can't get it out without expending more energy than you'll gain from bothering in the first place (ie :you're just wasting energy). This is the problem with old wells and shales - eventually the oil becomes too difficult to get and it's just not worth it. On a fresh well you might get a 30:1 ratio of oil out versus oil in. On an average well you might get a 10:1 ratio and in shales and tar sands you get maybe 1.5:1 or 2:1 ratio. The economics are dramatically different and the actual amount of oil you can get out of the operation is much, much less than it may seem by raw numbers alone.
I mean, consider an analogy with water - if all of the nice, crystal clean ground springs were drying up and people were seriously considering trying to squeeze water out of sand and rocks...wouldn't that give you some indication that we were actually getting pretty close to exhausing our supply? When squeezing water out of rocks becomes a sensible option?
I mean, consider an analogy with water - if all of the nice, crystal clean ground springs were drying up and people were seriously considering trying to squeeze water out of sand and rocks...wouldn't that give you some indication that we were actually getting pretty close to exhausing our supply? When squeezing water out of rocks becomes a sensible option?
Comment