[Beery1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3MAx-tEIE8

Truthloader is a part of ITN - so it's sort of mainstream.

[Plantagenet]

Actually, truthloader got it partly wrong.

While its nice to see somebody in the MSM talk about the concept of peak oil, truthloader concluded by noting all the parts of the economy that rely on oil and concluded that peak oil meant "running out of oil" Not once did he mention the way peak oil is actually manifesting itself---as increases in the PRICE of oil. He seemed oblivious to the fact that peak oil doesn't mean running out of oil, but of having oil be so expensive that it hurts the economy and most folks will no longer be able to afford it.

Similarly, he seemed woefully ignorant of the most basic facts about energy in general. For instance, he mentioned frakking and shale oil, and then dissmissed it as inconsequential by talking about potential petroleum production from ANWR. But ANWR has absolutely nothing to do with shale oil. ANWR has CONVENTIONAL oil----frakking for shale oil produces UNCONVENTIONAL oil. They are completely separate and completely different and the amount of oil that now seems to be available from frakking is orders of magnitude larger then that at ANWR.

All in all, I'd give truthloader a gentleman's "C".

[Econ101]

Actually, truthloader got it partly wrong.

While its nice to see somebody in the MSM talk about the concept of peak oil, truthloader concluded by noting all the parts of the economy that rely on oil and concluded that peak oil meant "running out of oil" Not once did he mention the way peak oil is actually manifesting itself---as increases in the PRICE of oil. He seemed oblivious to the fact that peak oil doesn't mean running out of oil, but of having oil be so expensive that it hurts the economy and most folks will no longer be able to afford it.

Similarly, he seemed woefully ignorant of the most basic facts about energy in general. For instance, he mentioned frakking and shale oil, and then dissmissed it as inconsequential by talking about potential petroleum production from ANWR. But ANWR has absolutely nothing to do with shale oil. ANWR has CONVENTIONAL oil----frakking for shale oil produces UNCONVENTIONAL oil. They are completely separate and completely different and the amount of oil that now seems to be available from frakking is orders of magnitude larger then that at ANWR.

All-and- all, I'd give truthloader a gentleman's "C".

The oil in ANWR and shale oil are both oil. In fact the oil from the Williston basin shales is some of the best crude in the world for refining and energy content. Luckily it is available in such huge quantities our oil worries are over for a generation or so.

Your statement about why its called conventional and unconventional has nothing to do with its chemical composition. It is a reference to its production method. Otherwise you are correct about the shales and ANWR. Both have immense inventories. The politics of peak oil keeps ANWR in the bank so-to-speak. It hasnt been able to touch the shales.

[ralfy]

The oil in ANWR and shale oil are both oil. In fact the oil from the Williston basin shales is some of the best crude in the world for refining and energy content. Luckily it is available in such huge quantities our oil worries are over for a generation or so.

Your statement about why its called conventional and unconventional has nothing to do with its chemical composition. It is a reference to its production method. Otherwise you are correct about the shales and ANWR. Both have immense inventories. The politics of peak oil keeps ANWR in the bank so-to-speak. It hasnt been able to touch the shales.

At least you're getting it right now: production method <> "immense inventories" or "politics of peak oil."

In fact, for conventional production alone, we have "immense inventories." The catch is energy requirements for the "production method."