20 Replies to “Whatever Happened To Peak Oil?”

  1. Eco-watermelons, leftists, urban hipsters and The Media Party (I repeat myself) are congenitally IMMUNE to facts, so we must steel ourselves for their never-ending onslaught to continue. It’s all they ‘know’ … it’s what they do instead of working for a living. I enjoy laughing out loud right up in their faces, because these are the same folks who are anti-vax and we might get lucky enough to seriously infect some of them.

  2. The end of the 19th century, particularly in large cities, featured concern about the problem of removing the horse$hit and dead horses from the streets.
    Mirroring the current energy distribution system, growing and shipping hay to the cities was an important cash crop.
    The change transformation evolved carriage/wagon makers such as Fisher and Studebaker into automakers and here we all are.

  4. I take comfort in the simple fact that they are a dying species….low birth rate and most are childless….it’s truly amazing they are still with us.

  5. Well of course (snotty lefty sneer) the peak oil period keeps getting pushed back! That’s what happens when AGW heats up the earth’s crust and liquefies stuff that should stay solid! In only fifteen years, when the entire continent looks like La Brea, you’ll be sorry.
    (Just tryin’ to help out the official liars and hypocrites, here)

  6. Excellent clip but someone should tell that one guy that there does not exist a single barrel of tar in the Athabasca OIL sands. At least none has been found so far.

  7. I have no beef with the oil industry and am certain AGW is a total utter scam. However, anyone who takes what the AEI says without a very large wheel barrow of salt is walking on very thin credibility ice.
    See Iraq and WMD…cakewalk conquest and the whole creative destruction meme.
    As the Alberta and Canadian economy are preparing to take a massive hit from the oil price crash, perhaps we should be questioning our support for the current madness in Ukraine. Is undermining Putin’s Russia worth cratering our economy?

  8. Bob, the oil deposit at Athabaska has been called “tar sands” since its discovery by explorers. Sure, technically, it’s heavy oil, but descriptively speaking, “tar” pretty much conveys its appearance and texture. Whatever, it is a commercially valuable product.
    I know the greentards like to think they are slurring the industry by calling them “tar sands”, and this knee-jerk response to “correct” this slur does nothing more than convince them to continue using it. I say, own it and be proud of it. Nothing wrong with tar. Or feathers, for that matter.

  9. Problem is that the snake oil salesmen will continue to exploit those with the sky is falling gullibility mentality.

  12. Tar or oil, the left has hijacked the word tar and smeared it with negative implications. Just as the gay lobby has hijacked the word gay, pride,marriage and others to change the established meaning. It’s all about positioning a stand for or against fossil fuel. Tree huggers = Tar. Non brainwashed = oil. Just a line in the sand that’s crossed if anyone is looking for a argument. Historical context of the word has been discarded.

  13. Technically, neither tar nor oil is correct. The correct term is bituminous sands as it is bitumen, not oil or tar or heavy oil. Calling them oilsands is just less incorrect than calling them tarsands.
    As for Peak Oil, the problem is that it factors in both physical reserves, current technology and economics. We’re not really running out of oil. What we are running out of is cheap oil, the stuff that is easy to produce and therefore has a high Energy Returned Invested (EROI). New technology can make reserves which were uneconomical to produce economical. The problem comes when your EROI flattens out. What happens when you have to spend a barrel of oil’s worth of energy to produce a barrel of oil? Or what happens when oil needs to be $150 a barrel to produce it without losing money?
    Just because the predictions of peak oil have proven wrong, doesn’t mean peak oil itself is a fallacy.

  14. Good clip.
    As to ‘oil’ sands vs ‘tar’ sands, meh. The stuff looks like tar. I really don’t give a rodent’s fuzzy hindsection what some Carry Nation ecofreak calls it. I personally think of them as tar sands and I fully support their development.
    On that topic, yeah, let’s face it, the extraction of petroleum from those sands certainly does pollute. So? What’s the option? Can’t burn coal for electricity as global warming is looming. Nukes are hideously dangerous – remember all those clouds of lethal radiation which blew across Canada from Fukushia? Oh, well, never mind about that… All the big rivers are already dammed – and hydro dams are bad for the environment anyway. Solar and wind aren’t quite living up to their promise and the prairies are for some reason this year a little short of buffalo chips to burn. Until the naysayers come up with an alternative which will allow me to live in Canada in February, let them moan. Nobody in Ottawa, not even the NDP, really thinks we can back away from the sands. Note how Tom Mulcair has backed off from his ‘Dutch Disease’ claims of 2012 – even he can figure out what fuels (pun only slightly intended) the Canadian economy.

  15. “Can’t burn coal for electricity as global warming is looming.”
    Where is it looming, pray tell ?

  16. Waiting for:
    Peak Mohammadism
    Peak Feminism
    Peak Progressiveism
    Peak Socialism
    Peak Environmentalism
    in short… Peak Fascism
    Tell me this sh.t isn’t already expensive enough.

  17. Good one Logan..LMAO…Peak Sh*t indeed.
    The EROI on pretty much any current so called “alternative” energy is typically 1.5-2:1 Oil on the other hand is typically 8:1 No contest. I work in the tar sands…yea its bitumin..but it can be refined and there is a Sh*t ton of it up here….long time before we get Peak Tar
    If we really wanted to get going with a true alternative, then yes, NUCLEAR is the answer…but not of the type we normally associate with that word…What I am talking about is Liquid Salt Reactors burning THORIUM. …that tech my friends holds promise:
    No water required – situate the plants anywhere you like
    Abundant world wide fuel supply
    No toxic waste
    Whats not to like….?
    A technology developed in the 1940’s…and discarded at the time as the Americans could not weaponize it. Me.? I like it. Hell, I’d like a truck running on it..!
    But this scenario simply doesn’t fit in with the lefty ECO ZOMBIE agenda now does it..

  18. PeterJ, WRT looming global waming, that was one of a handful of statements reflecting the eco-crank world view, things said regularly by them.
    My point, and I guess I should aplogize for being too subtle, was that the anti-tar sands groups and individuals are quick to say no to every proven energy source, yet they haven’t ever proposed a viable alternative. Without that viable alternative, Canada is simply uninhabitable eight months of the year and that means the oil industry is not going to get shut down, IMO.
    BTW, I note you didn’t object to my (false, tongue-in-cheek) statement about clouds of lethal radiation drifitng over Canada from Fukushima…

  19. Oh, I didn’t object to anything you said and I know sarcasm when I see it, I just thought you might know something about global warming that I might have missed. I keep hoping that whoever gets some might be willing to share 🙂

  20. Very slick vid. So I guess Canada will be pumping up tar sands and LTO production taking this market opportunity to produce huge volumes of expensive oil at low price.
    The world is a bit more complex than very slick.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation