|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
On 24 May 2006 17:53:16 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Right, that's why we'll eventually use up the oil supply. No, we won't. We will always have oil. We may stop using it, but we'll never run out. Huh? Oil is a finite resource. Since no more of it is being made, no matter what rate we use it at, we will eventually run out of it. Read what I wrote. Learn economics. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
On Thu, 25 May 2006 01:28:10 -0700, in a place far, far away, Dale
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Right, that's why we'll eventually use up the oil supply. No, we won't. We will always have oil. We may stop using it, but we'll never run out. Huh? Oil is a finite resource. Since no more of it is being made, no matter what rate we use it at, we will eventually run out of it. He just means we will never extract the last drop. Most people would consider "running out" being the point at which it's no longer economically viable to extract any more. Rand isn't that imaginative. No, the words "use up," have a pretty well-defined meaning. We'll never "use up" oil. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
Alan Anderson wrote: Just to be contrary, though, I can imagine a scenario where a bioengineered petroleum-eating microbe, originally intended to help clean up such things as supertanker spills, gets out of control and begins consuming underground oil reserves. Actually they're looking at using oil eating microorganisms to extract difficult oil deposits from underground; the bacteria eat the oil, then you mix the bacteria and their waste products into solution with water and pump the goo to the surface where it's reprocessed into petroleum products. Soap is another method, as it allows the oil to go into solution with water and be pumped up. Pat |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
On Fri, 26 May 2006 11:15:55 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: wrote in message roups.com... Huh? Oil is a finite resource. Since no more of it is being made, no matter what rate we use it at, we will eventually run out of it. You're wrong. As price rises, demand falls due to customers switching to alternatives. Eventually, you end up with oil that's so expensive, no one in their right mind would use it, so you never truly "run out" of oil. Yes, which is why the notion of a sustained price of (say) a hundred fifty bucks a barrel, in current dollars, is ludicrous. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
Rand Simberg wrote: Yes, which is why the notion of a sustained price of (say) a hundred fifty bucks a barrel, in current dollars, is ludicrous. Could you elaborate on that. Why is $150/barrel "ludicrous"? |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
On 26 May 2006 10:05:13 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Hyper"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Rand Simberg wrote: Yes, which is why the notion of a sustained price of (say) a hundred fifty bucks a barrel, in current dollars, is ludicrous. Could you elaborate on that. Why is $150/barrel "ludicrous"? Because it's an unsustainable price. Even at current prices, it makes sense to start to open up shale and tar sands, which can be produced for on the order of thirty bucks a barrel, and for which the supply is greater than Middle East reserves. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|