Apache (APA) revealed the huge find this week after more than two years of stealthily buying up land, extensive geological research and rigorous testing.
The Houston company estimates the discovery, dubbed “Alpine High,” could be worth at least $8 billion.
I’m reminded of the liberal doomsday Club of Rome in the 1970s saying we would be out of oil by now!
We are awash in oil!
Always ignore liberal doomsayers!
Yes, your recollection must be real good about the 1970’s considering you were in diapers for a good number of those years.
Massive?… Not!
Small by comparison.
Ghawar- 80 billion barrels
Burgan- 68 billion barrels
Prudhoe Bay- 25 billion barrels
But good news for all those interested in maintaining the slow death of Gods green Earth while padding their financial portfolios.
Somebody please inform the knucklehead that oil is not a renewable resource. It will run out someday.
Pat,
You make it sound like one cannot be a student of history.
Club of Rome prediction that world would run out of oil by 1992 made the “great moments in failed predictions list”:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/19/great-moments-in-failed-predictions/
This list is just littered with greedy liberal doomsaying that was wrong.
Nholland,
Technology expands resources. It’s a simple fact many doomsday liberals overlook. Cars get more efficient. Better, more cost effective ways of doing things are invented, which expands resources and resource supply. Jay Abrhams is my favorite author and he has the best articulate handle on this issue in my opinion.
Resources expand by advancing technology as long as free market is allowed to work.
Innovation and technology fails to move in liberal regimes like North Korea, Iran, and Cuba, hurting the environment in the process.
Kevin:
Well you certainly are no student of history. You have proved that time after time on the site.
“which expands resources and resource supply”. Nonsense. Advances in technology allow for extraction of deposits that were not available in the past. But fossil fuel resources are finite. Obviously you are not a student of petro-geology either.
Nord,
If you fail to graps the idea that technological advancement expands resources, that is a considerable failing on your part.
Let’s use an example. Let’s say cars are 100% responsible for consuming all the oil in the world.
Your average car in 1970 consumed a gallon gas for every 10 miles driven. Your average car today consumes a gallon gas for every 40 miles driven.
If oil supplies are the same…aren’t oil supplies 4 times more plentiful today because of technology then through the lens of analyzing the supply in the 1970s?
How do you know cars will not get 200 miles to gallon in 20 or 30 years?…what does that do to oil supply?
They impact of technology is almost unpredictable.
As something becomes more scarce (because price rises) technology alternatives tend to accelerate. So if oil becomes “scarce”, investment in alternatives will become more cost efficient.
The key is: liberals have to let the market work. Price controls, oppressive regulation, destroy that technological advancement process.
I know, my fine treatise on this will be met with a lowbrough “utter nonsense” by you. I’d figure I’d try imparting some knowledge anyway.
I try, when I can, to help liberals to a better understanding of economics.
No, what you fail to “graps” is that fossil fuels are finite. Advances in extraction technology only allow deposits previously beyond our available methods to be mined or drilled. It is not possible to “expand” the resource. I understand that you have a limited understanding of anything related to science or common sense, but you are exceeding expectations with your ignorance on this issue.
Does oil become scarce because the price rises, or because there is less of it? Explain a little more on that comment.
And your nonsensical “treatise” is really a treat to read. My golden retriever makes more sense then you do. And uses spell check before he pushes the send button.
“lowbrough” ?
Nord,
Yes, had and inverted P & S typos on “grasp”.
As demand and price increases, technology accelerates to either find alternatives, or invent technology to use less of that resource.
As cars get more efficient, and use less gas to perform same task, that expands the resource.
When I invest in LED lights in my facility that use of 25% of previous power for same light output, that is technology expanding resources. That 75% electricity I am not using, aside from cost savings, is available elsewhere.
Even if we buy the argument resources are “finite”, it is impossible to predict when that resource could be exhausted, because of future technology acceleration, just how much of that supply we have. As we see with the utter failure and disasterously off base the Club of Rome was in 1970s.
Today, there is prediction we have natural gas supply for 1000-2500 years. Even that is conservative because how much can technology change in that time?
When the price rises of a commodity, it is a sign of increased demand or lessened supply. Price, rations the item to appropriate market equilibrium. If the market equilibrium is getting very high because of supplies decreasing, the price is calling to the market to make alternatives. People get rich all the time finding alternatives to high prices of a particular commodity. Alternatives are less likely to be profitable if price is low, as we see with over abundant oil supplies on market right now.
Right now, advances in drilling technology make it more efficient to get the oil from previously unreachable places in the 1970s. So the result is low oil price, less demand for oil alternatives.
You can deny that technology expands resources, but you would be living with blinders on when it comes to economics.
“Low” meaning bottom part
“Brough” an outer feudal castle wall.
It’s a place where uneducated peasants in middle age usually hung out.
So it is just another made-up word you came up with, correct? No dictionary printed or on-line seems to mention it. Add that to unchurch.
Even if you don’t “buy the argument” that fossil fuels are finite, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Hence your claim is false. I’m surprised that a science-denying flat-earther like you, who believes the earth is only 5000 years old, would even believe that fossil fuels exist.
While I agree that autos and trucks have become more fuel efficient, you fail to address other consumptive uses of fossil fuels that are rapidly expanding; plastics, fertilizer, etc.
“Today, there is prediction we have natural gas supply for 1000-2500 years. Even that is conservative because how much can technology change in that time?”. Proof?
The rest of your treatise does nothing to make your claim of “that technological advancement expands resources”. Fossil fuels are finite. To claim otherwise is folly.
Nord,
There is indeed other comsumptive uses of oil over the years but technology makes even those uses more efficient.
Even if you knew every last drop to exist of oil in ground, which we don’t, and even if we put that number through the prism of today’s technology to come up with some guess on supply…what makes you think you will be any more accurate than the absurd liberals from the alleged intellectuals from Club of Rome?
Intellectuals said London would be engulfed in mountain of horse manure (one could argue liberal rule made that true) in 18th & 19th centuries. Technology made that prediction seem stupid today.
Anyone predicting oil is finite is just as absurd. My bet is: in 500 years oil will be as irrelevant as horse manure in London…unless the disease of liberal ideology screws everything up by making us all N. Korea in terms of central state worshipping governance.
You are changing the subject again. Do you agree that the supply of fossil fuel is finite? Yes or no . Or do you believe that fossil fuels are still being created? Yes or no.
As usual, the rest of your treatise is irrelevant.
“Intellectuals said London would be engulfed in mountain of horse manure (one could argue liberal rule made that true) in 18th & 19th centuries. Technology made that prediction seem stupid today”. Source, and explain how technology made that prediction seem stupid. Be specific.
“in terms of central state worshipping governance”. In light of the 100+ pieces of legislation passed taking away local control and placing it in Madison since walker took office this would seem like a silly claim on your part.
Nord,
I am not agreeing resources are finite. I was just induldging the absurdity. Even induldging the absurdity, it is impossible to predict exhaustion of basic resources like oil because technology, and profit incentive, will prevent it.
That’s all.
You are free to induldge in liberal reckless doomsaying like Club of Rome, but rest of us are smarter than that.
Based on your comments you are no smarter than a rock. A non-oil bearing rock.
What is telling is that you will never answer a Y/N question. Your pathologic aversion to being wrong rears its’ ugly head yet again.
Now, if fossil fuel resources are not finite, where are the new materials being made and how? Remember we are talking about fossil fuels.
Nord,
Maybe we can impart some learning from the other end here.
Why was the Club of Rome, supposedly the world’s best and brightest, so horribly wrong about their finite prediction of oil supply being run out by 1992?
So you won’t answer the question posed. You don’t have an answer that fits your ideology so you change the subject. That is bush league.
The answer is “no” resources are not finite.
As any resource gets close to limited supply, price goes up (provided the market mechanism is not interfered with by liberal price controls), alternatives are found for the resource that is becoming prohibitively expensive.
As long as technological innovation is allowed to flourish, and not hampeed by N. Korea style liberalism, resources are NOT finite.
The only thing that hopefully is finite: government destroying, and inhibiting unlimited human ingenuity.
You didn’t answer the question:
“Do you agree that the supply of fossil fuel is finite? Yes or no “.
And as a follow-up:
“Do you believe that fossil fuels are still being created? Yes or no”.
And again, the rest of your treatise is off-topic nonsense.