Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Be careful what you wish for. I imagine no one would like the result of a world without oil (before we are prepared). Fairly certain it would not be some kind of Amish panacea, wherein alternative energy purveyors would rule the roost. More likely, massive starvation and WW III as global strife remakes the world as we know it, not some idyllic heaven with everyone riding tandem bikes to the tune of "Raindrops Keep Falling'.
never listen to anything a liberal says, they are total nutjobs.
See, again, THIS is why I get in trouble on here for calling some folks Retards.
Not talking about "gits rit of carz!" Talking about making them safer. Follow the difference?
Electrically powered cars and trucks and control systems are much easier, cheaper and more practical to build into a networked system of cars. Unsafe situations can be modeled and reduced or even eliminated on a safe, "smart" roadway system.
You follow that for most car crashes, it is a dumb people problem? Not saying that applies to anyone here, there or anywhere, but people tend to be the hard part to make smarter. Might as well make the machine a little smarter, and safer.
But since we are talking about making people a little smarter, and how hard that can be . . . . You know how I can tell total nutjobs? They start spouting idiotic political phrases like "liberal v. conservative" (aka Coke v. Pepsi, Ford v. Chevy) when they have no real idea what is being discussed.
Maybe (but only maybe) you might want to consider that Listening to a new thought -- at least one that is new to you -- is the basis of learning? Maybe, maybe not.
Be careful what you wish for. I imagine no one would like the result of a world without oil (before we are prepared). Fairly certain it would not be some kind of Amish panacea, wherein alternative energy purveyors would rule the roost. More likely, massive starvation and WW III as global strife remakes the world as we know it, not some idyllic heaven with everyone riding tandem bikes to the tune of "Raindrops Keep Falling'.
Sure. I actually, really, real-world work in this field.
Deal with it everyday, all day.
Either way -- prepared, planned or not -- it is where we are heading.
Comes down to just numbers. Like Sun Tzu taught, the Good General knows the numbers.
Whether it is a move forward to a bright and sunny future -- or the GW/Cheney/PNAC plan of war, death and theft -- it is a choice that every (every) generation, people, and person has to make. Things have not changed about these choices in the thousands of years here on Planet Dumb since this was written:
Quote:
This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live
For US, to continue to choose Oil is to choose death.
Originally Posted by Spam Lord Spamwad of the Spamiverse
In a grand game of global chicken America is using everybody else's oil up first thus saving America's oil for when we have the only game in town.........
You are, without any doubt or reservation, the least competent postor on City-Data.
Read and Weep:
Quote:
3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate—
You might want to try posting up-to-date articles, instead of articles that are 5 years old.
It isn't "503 Billion" it's a maximum of 4.3 Billion, and the operand is "technically recoverable."
You do understand that to get that oil, the States of Montana and North Dakota will have to be totally ripped apart and destroyed, right?
And you understand that 70.9 MBOE is not the same as 70.9 BPD, right?
MBOE is "million barrels oil equivalent." That isn't oil, it's shale. It's also very light oil, not light oil, so it's great for pharmaceuticals and other things, but not gasoline.
In a grand game of global chicken America is using everybody else's oil up first thus saving America's oil for when we have the only game in town.........
Of course. It sounds like a good gameplan to me; looting the rest of the world's resources while preserving ours is only natural.
Still we don't have enough to just poke straws in the ground and party like it's 1994... the remaining oil exists in quantity, but the price is high and risks great to get it out of the ground. As other posters have mentioned, we aren't getting all that oil shale unless we turn the intermountain west into a giant stripmine. Coastal drilling always carries the risk of another BP gulf style disaster, and ANWAR is still wilderness because it's one of the harshest and human-unfriendly environments on the planet.
i have heard before that we are holding onto our oil figuring when it runs out, we will be the last ones to still have it. i dont buy it. it would take too much consensus between politicial parties from subsequent administrations, i find it hard to believe they could get that plus keep it quiet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tightwad
You are assuming that the "political" parties are in control of these reserves. They are not..........
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
i should have known better than to make a serious response to a post by you.
Whoa! I gave you a proper polite accurate response. If you don't believe me go out and do your own research rather that whine about it here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.