Are you trying to hold the streak for most pointless/misleading threads?

“is not as much a question of physics as it is one of economics. And economics assures us that we will never run out of oil.” - That is patently false, as oil discovery becomes more expensive it will decrease - particularily if economic growth can't keep up - BUT if our technical development continues at current pace we will make cheaper alternatives (including perhaps bio-synthesis) which are all carbon neutral.

And oil will disappear as an environmental issue.

People can't keep paying more for oil (and thus pay for the increased cost of exploration) if they don't have the money to spend. Economics, Yay!

orathaic - perhaps you should read to the end of the article before making your foolish comments.

YaY! for Reading Comprehension....well..."Yay!" if someone actually demonstrated it, that is...

Meeeeeeeeeeeeee-yute.

OK, so the point of the article is, "We will never run out of oil because it will become too difficult to make looking worthwhile before we actually TOTALLY run out."

What an insightful article.

YJ - Actually, it is insightful It suggests that those *in the know* regarding the availability of oil -- you know, the rich, evil oil tycoons you people all love to hate -- it suggests those chaps know when we will run out and will begin to arrange for other methods of producing wealth long before we are in danger of running too low on oil for it to be economically viable to secure.

To those people which intellectual capacities that reach beyond 2nd grade linear thinking, it is vastly insightful...

And of course, the portion of the OP you all are (purposely) ignoring is that the promise of our doom / peak oil / energy crisis / etc. were, of course, and as always, greatly exaggerated...

(...for political purposes...)

' it suggests those chaps know when we will run out and will begin to arrange for other methods of producing wealth long before we are in danger of running too low on oil for it to be economically viable to secure.
'

Is that why BP/Shell are investing in solar technology? Or is their 'Greening' just a PR campaign?

Are those political purposes to better prepare for alternatives? Because i can't see the problem with those forward thinking politics

"Or is their 'Greening' just a PR campaign?"

Pretty much - it's a ridiculously tiny amount given how large they are.

@Mendax, the size (compared to their size) is not important, the comparison to make is against their competition in the alternative energy industry.

If their investment makes them one of the biggest players, then it is fair to say they are competing, while diversifying their risk (of market collapse)

Orath - you tell me (re BP).

Do you think the Chevy VOLT was serious attempt at an electric car? Or a PR stunt?

Do you or don't you think that companies invest in financial dead-ends for PR pusposes?

re: Solar energy - how's that working out for them, btw? A few years back the Feds were throwing money at it...gee...I wonder if there is any coincidence between a company investing in "green" energy and the shit-load of money flowing out of Washington DC?

We had a *lot* of "green" energy companies pop up in Michigan 4-6 years ago thanks to federal money. The majoirty went bankrupt once the money dried up.

So tell me - do companies function wholly on logic and capitalism? Or do they put out the PR campaign that they are investing in x,y,z when other people's money makes it easy to do so?

And are you also telling me that BP knows more about oil availabiity than Exxon?

're: Solar energy - how's that working out for them, btw? A few years back the Feds were throwing money at it...gee...I wonder if there is any coincidence between a company investing in "green" energy and the shit-load of money flowing out of Washington DC?'

Yes, sometimes political preference can change the market, and will perhaps promote a change. What is your point?

'And are you also telling me that BP knows more about oil availability than Exxon?' - no, i said nothing about Exxon...

"the size (compared to their size) is not important,"

That's what she said...but she was lying.

If the investment is "big enough" to make them the major player (read GREAT PR!!) but not enough to *really* make a difference...then you tell me how important it is.

When the US needed a nuke, when the US needed to go to the moon, we focused on it, threw resources at it and made it happen.

Where is the equivalent green energy project because we are sooooo in danger of running out of oil?

And just to cut the converation short...look up current projections on oil - we are in no danger of runnign out in your life time, so get over it.

The scare mongers lied to you (AGAIN!)

"'And are you also telling me that BP knows more about oil availability than Exxon?' - no, i said nothing about Exxon... "

You assert that BP is going green because we are running out of oil...since that is the conversation we are having. Othewise you are throwing out nonsensical points.

So...if you think BP is going green because oil is running out, then obviously if Exxon is not doing the same you are suggesting one of two things:
1. Exxon doesn't know we are running out of oil or
2. Exxon is going to dry up and disappear, and their rich executives are OK with that.

you are making some poor assumptions there.

If BP is and Exxon isn't (investing/greening) then they may have access to different information, and neither is necessarily right as both have incomplete information.

're: Solar energy - how's that working out for them, btw? A few years back the Feds were throwing money at it...gee...I wonder if there is any coincidence between a company investing in "green" energy and the shit-load of money flowing out of Washington DC?'

When demand is artificially stimulated by subsidies, the market supply will expand to absorb all available subsidies. This should not be a surprise.

@Orath -- lol You're funny. Yes, Exxon thinks we have oil for a few more generations, and BP thinks we are in imminent danger of running out. Got it...

Keep telling yourself whatever you need to in order to not shatter your carefully constructed fantasies...

@VirtualBob - I think I said this...

...just not so eloquently...

Which is why we need teh Federal Government to stop giving away so much money so cheap and eay for college tuition, as Fed "help" is causing tuition to skyrocket

@krelin - exactly the example I had in mind. Google "The Higher Education Bubble" for a short history of the problem, which is actually traced back to a post-WW2 attempt to avoid unemployment triggered by the massive troop draw-down. Unintended consequences and all that.

Unintended consequences...it should be stamped at the bottom of every piece of legislation passed...