Should read LATE part of the last century.
Actually, neither is correct.
Posted on 10/20/2006 6:09:51 PM PDT by paulat
Geologist: Earth has lots and lots of oil
SPOKANE, Wash., Oct. 20 (UPI) -- A University of Washington economic geologist says there is lots of crude oil left for human use.
Eric Cheney said Friday in a news release that changing economics, technological advances and efforts such as recycling and substitution make the world's mineral resources virtually infinite.
For instance, oil deposits unreachable 40 years ago can be tapped using improved technology, and oil once too costly to extract from tar sands, organic matter or coal is now worth manufacturing. Though some resources might be costlier now, they still are needed.
"The most common question I get is, 'When are we going to run out of oil?' The correct response is, 'Never,'" said Cheney. "It might be a heck of a lot more expensive than it is now, but there will always be some oil available at a price, perhaps $10 to $100 a gallon."
Cheney also said that gasoline prices today, adjusted for inflation, are about what they were in the early part of the last century. Current prices seem inordinately high, he said, because crude oil was at an extremely low price, $10 a barrel, eight years ago and now fetches around $58 a barrel.
Cheney also said that gasoline prices today, adjusted for inflation, are about what they were in the early part of the last century."
Should read LATE part of the last century.
I posted a comment to the story, and UPI may fix it.
To beat thev lefties to the punch:
With a name like Eric Cheney, there just HAS to be a Haliburton - BushHitler connection, therefore making this whole article a lie to give more tax money to Big Oil.
;-)
/snarkiness off
If a geologist named Gold is correct, and there is evidence that he is, the earth is still making oil so what we have now isn't all there will be.
I think you are wrong since the Model T began production in 1908. It is now 2006. Early part of last century is correct.
Oil has always been created. That is why we can mine it. The consumption seems to be overtaking the replenishment process. I like nukes.
Actually, neither is correct.
I'm old enough to remember the 50's. Gas was about 20 cents and my dad's yearly income was about 15K. (upper middle class in Texas)
Move the decimals on both one to the right and you have my husband and me with about the same standard of living today as then. (That first color TV was about 1/3 of a car then!)
I read Gold's theory that the Earth is loaded with oil and oil did not originate due to decaying plants and animals. I always thought that idea of oil being limited, and due to dead animals sounded too far fetched.
That guy is FASCINATING...and he gets almost no play. But I DO remember a rather lengthy NYT article about 6 - 10 years ago.
I've said for years, "the world is awash in oil"
It's good to have others with more specific knowledge and more infored opinions confirm that.
I called him...he's at the UW here in Seattle...he agrees the reporter got it wrong (I wanted to warn him that he was on Drudge and was going to be a hot item, and that he should correct).
Finally, a word of caution on the essential fragility of a study on the very long-term future for the world's energy supply which accepts without question the validity of the original 18th century hypothesis that all oil and gas resources have been generated from biological matter in the chemical and thermodynamic environments of the earth's crust. There is an alternative theory - already 50 years old - which suggests an inorganic origin for additional oil and gas. This alternative view is widely accepted in the countries of the former Soviet Union where, it is claimed, "large volumes of hydrocarbons are being produced from the pre-Cambrian crystalline basement".
Recent applications of the inorganic theory have, however, also led to claims for the possibility of the Middle East fields being able to produce oil "forever" and to the concept of repleting oil and gas fields in the gulf of Mexico. More generally, it is argued, "all giant fields are most logically explained by inorganic theory because simple calculations of potential hydrocarbon contents in sediments shows that organic materials are too few to supply the volumes of petroleum involved."
****
Peak Oil Ping
Its strange isn't it, that mankind has had to rely on earth's resources throughout history?
While cadres of bedwetters have rung the disaster bells, this old earth continues to support us. It supports some of us better than others. For instance, most United Nations member nations, and not to be redundant, most African nations.
Going back to the original question, if not the earths resources, then what.
Got a graph that covers the same period of time, adjusted for inflation that shows the price of "GASOLINE"?
You may want to take a look at that.
TT
I don't see how your chart compares barrel prices 1898 to 1998.
It looks to me as if he is right.
OMG - you mean the world is not coming to an END!!!!!
DANG!...and I just rescheduled my hair appointment because it was coming sooner!
Correction...compare 1903 to 1998.
Gold isn't the only one;
Back in the 70s at the engineering college I was attending, the Petroleum Engineering / Petroleum Geology Research Center staff/faculty were mostly saying pretty much the same things.
I never studied the details particularly (as I was over on the Mining engineering / mineralogy side), but remember reading a few papers and hearing chit-chat about it, and thought it sounded pretty reasonable at the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.