Einstein,

Whether or not your point is valid, Oil isn't measurable in Barrels or even tech recov barrels. Its the ROEI that is important.

Roei includes the energy wasted to produce, transport and use it. It naturally includes all costs and variables like the quality of the oil produced.

"Important to what?"
I never expected someone to discuss the usefulness of oil in our modern economies. In any case I presumed one could assume I was talking about the topic, where Einstein said peak oil is imaginary. So in order to make the math it is important to try and calculate the Return On Energy Investment instead.

The return on energy investment is part of the profit you gain from the oil. The economic value so to speak.

Relative ROEI > ROEI.

Since nothing else (other energy sources) comes anywhere close (to the economy of oil), ROEI just isn't that significant in the context of this thread.

The price of oil adjusts to the costs of acquiring it. Its economic value (profitability) does not hinge upon the cost of acquiring it.

http://www.superfunpatrol.net/images/sasquatches.jpg

THEY'RE REAL!!!

> Mister Spock wrote:

> Undeath,

You're arguing that, globally, more people should remain homeless, more people should starve, more people should suffer for lack of medical care, in order to stop using internal combustion engines?

Because using more expensive modes of transportation has real costs. That's what expensive means. At this point in time it's hardly arguable that the pollution from engines does far less harm than the benefits of their extremely economical energy.

We're all happy that you're satisfied with your standard of living. And that you can make some sort of alternate-fuel transportation work, even though the technology is in its infancy and many of us even commute to work on it, let alone do more. And that you can afford the extra costs of these more expensive energy sources. But the fact is, most of the world does not enjoy this standard of living, and they're going to use oil for a long, long time. And they could care less what anyone thinks.

Unless plant and animal life is dying in western nations today, I think we can safely conclude that cars aren't going to cause the apocalypse.

Actually, I'm arguing that this argument is just part of a conspiracy to keep us from finding Sasquatches.

But considering that 90% of my transportation is done via bike which cost me $25, or walking...yes, you're correct in saying that many people are unable to afford my standard of living.

Please point out to me where I made any kind of proposition.

> Mister Spock wrote:

> "Climate change" rage is all about NWO tyranny; it's about taxing carbon emissions (HUGE tax! Yay more money for our overlords!) and redistributing wealth away from developed and productive nations.

There's no point in arguing over oil reserves. Anyone repeating talking points about oil being running out is clueless at best, probably dishonest, and has no regard for the truth anyway. It's a fact that a ton oil will be coming out of the ground for many more generations.

If you were a scared sheep and someone said they could make government omnipotent and loving like God and make the world perfect, what would you do? You'd have religious-like faith in anything he told you, as millions do. The world is scary! We must believe! Only through tyranny can we find salvation!

At this point, all I've done is discuss the fact that the Oil discussion is just another in a long list of conspiracies (Kennedy assassination, Pearl Harbor, the potential existence of life on Mars,  Canada, etc.) that have all been aimed at keeping us from finding the honorable Sasquatch.  At no point have I made any kind of suggestion that something needs to be done.

Granted, I don't see why people are so against exploring options besides oil.  I personally think it would be great to see other forms of energy in regular, efficient use to help drive the price of gasoline down.  I'm not saying that oil is bad, I'm just saying that there's no reason to not explore other options.

ME

if God meant us to use electric cars he'd have optimized electron flow from lithium-cadmium cells

Obama's Executive Order 13603

Sec. 302. Loans.
To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2092, to make loans thereunder. Terms and conditions of loans under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.

Title 50, US Code App. 2092 Sec. 302

`SEC. 302. <<NOTE: 50 USC app. 2092.>>  LOANS TO PRIVATE BUSINESS
                        ENTERPRISES.

    ``(a) Loan Authority.--To reduce current or projected shortfalls of
industrial resources, critical technology items, or materials essential
for the national defense, the President may make provision for loans to
private business enterprises (including nonprofit research corporations
and providers of critical infrastructure) for the creation, maintenance,
expansion, protection, or restoration of capacity, the development of
technological processes, or the production of essential materials,
including the exploration, development, and mining of strategic and
critical metals and minerals.
    ``(b) Conditions of Loans.--Loans may be made under this section on
such terms and conditions as the President deems necessary, except
that--
            ``(1) financial assistance may be extended only to the
        extent that it is not otherwise available from private sources
        on reasonable terms; and
            ``(2) during periods of national emergency declared by the
        Congress or the President, no such loan may be made unless the
        President determines that--

[[Page 123 STAT. 2013]]

                    ``(A) the loan is for an activity that supports the
                production or supply of an industrial resource, critical
                technology item, or material that is essential to the
                national defense;
                    ``(B) without the loan, United States industry
                cannot reasonably be expected to provide the needed
                capacity, technological processes, or materials in a
                timely manner;
                    ``(C) the loan is the most cost-effective,
                expedient, and practical alternative method for meeting
                the need;
                    ``(D) the prospective earning power of the loan
                applicant and the character and value of the security
                pledged provide a reasonable assurance of repayment of
                the loan in accordance with the terms of the loan, as
                determined by the President; and
                    ``(E) the loan bears interest at a rate determined
                by the Secretary of the Treasury to be reasonable,
                taking into account the then-current average yield on
                outstanding obligations of the United States with
                remaining periods of maturity comparable to the maturity
                of the loan.

    ``(c) Limitations on Loans.--Loans under this section may be--
            ``(1) made or guaranteed under the authority of this section
        only to the extent that an appropriations Act--
                    ``(A) provides, in advance, budget authority for the
                cost of such guarantees, as defined in section 502 of
                the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a);
                and
                    ``(B) establishes a limitation on the total loan
                principal that may be guaranteed; and
            ``(2) made without regard to the limitations of existing
        law, other than section 1341 of title 31, United States Code.

@spock:
You said: "Since nothing else (other energy sources) comes anywhere close (to the economy of oil), ROEI just isn't that significant in the context of this thread. The price of oil adjusts to the costs of acquiring it. Its economic value (profitability) does not hinge upon the cost of acquiring it."

That's what opec thought in '70.

The Return on energy investment will determine the real value of oil, as it will determine the real value of the money the people can spend. The logic most people fail to understand is that these energy sources are the same as a couple hundred slaves each person who don't eat. It represents the biggest part of the labour in our econ. Without it, money will hold little value or there will be a serious shortage.

The resources used are important but still insignificant compared to ROEI.

In short: if ROEI is taken into the math and is high enough, Einstein is right. Oil companies use ROEI predictions to calculate their profits, and they ought to know.

Wanna try that again in English? You mention "logic" in incoherent sentences.

The point is that, as long as oil is cheaper, it'll still be used, regardless of cost. We'll just pay that cost.

I literally can't even tell what you're trying to say or what you disagreed with. "Without it...." Without what? Without oil? What scenario is that? What are you talking about?