I am not sure, Orn, that what we collectively know to be common sense has a current scientific basis. We have been told for a long time that we are running out of oil. What the scientist that I talk to know (and these guys have no vested interest in creating wealth or confusion), is that in the last decade, we have come to clearly understand that the oil wells do not run dry (unless their are multiple wells in a site and then it a mechanical malfunction of source drilling. The earth continually creates oil. The scientist know that it will not run out at the current rate of use or factoring in projected future rates. Our problems in limitation are created by the manufacturing and distribution and politics. All the information is there, smothered by a plethora of info meant to convince us otherwise.
If what you mean by common sense is common knowledge and common paradigm, then yes, that is what is commonly known. It doesn't mean it is true. On Jun 25, 10:24 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Molly, while what you say is true, it tends to mislead as I see it. It > is all too easy to imply that oil is a renewing resource like trees > are and all we need to do is find ways to dig it up. > Oil is, at the rate we use it, not a renewable resource. Period. And, > since 'we' use it more and more, it is common sense that we will run > out of it soon. The rest is minutia that those into the short term > economics of it are concerned with. > > On Jun 25, 5:51 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > >http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/ > > > This is a pretty good article (I think there are more and better out > > there) that explores the fact that the oil wells of the world > > replenish themselves - there will be no oil shortage. I learned this > > from the scientists that I knew in Nevada that worked at Yucca > > Mountain and The Desert Research Institute. What is finite is our > > technology surrounding use and distribution of oil, much of which, > > drives prices. > > > On Jun 24, 5:08 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > It's just a reverse expression in that we seem to have been at their > > > mercy when it comes to barrel prices and production. I'm sure you > > > could use any number of expressions to say the same thing. > > > > On Jun 24, 9:20 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I find the entire notion of 'our mercy' or 'our oil' to be quite > > > > strange. Perhaps some of you do own oil wells. I don't. And, as the > > > > stock market becomes healthy, gas prices go up again, since > > > > deregulation. Notice that it has about doubled...at least where I > > > > live. > > > > > On Jun 23, 4:49 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I think I remember reading about a strategy to hold onto as much black > > > > > gold as possible in order to allow sufficient time for others to run > > > > > out, and sooner or later they will, so that we could have the leading > > > > > edge in the oil supply. It would be something to finally have opec at > > > > > our mercy for a change, that is if the strategy is feasible. > > > > > > On Jun 23, 2:37 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > We have had differing discussions on black tea over the years, I > > > > > > just > > > > > > ran across these two apparently different interpretations of onshore > > > > > > oil in the mid-USA. > > > > > > So, what do you think? > > > > > > >http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911 > > > > > > >http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868-Hidequotedtext- > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
