Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (23862)	10/19/2010 9:58:08 PM
From: Eric	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86355

Jorj Respectively The rate of subduction in most areas is a couple inches or so a year. In most places much, much less. Off the coast here it gets burned up as it goes about 50 miles plus down. Oil can't exist at a couple thousand degrees F! Sadly the problem for oil extraction in deep water is the costs to drill. The vast majority of small reservoirs will not be extracted do to ever increasing drilling costs. Now if we had an infinite source of money to spend per bbl for oil... You get the drift. In the end geologists predict that the vast majority of resources will be left in the ground because of "extraction costs". That applies to all elements. Will you spend $20 for a gallon of gas? 2025 my wild guess.... I'd love to be a "fly on the wall" in a hundred years to see what actually transpires. Good evening!

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (23862)	10/19/2010 10:11:18 PM
From: miraje	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

There is some evidence that oil formation can be directly related to subduction zones and is a constant process. There are lakes of methane on Saturn's moon, Titan, and it rains hydrocarbons.. Far as I know, there were never any dinosaurs wandering around there, or any other critters capable of decomposing into "fossil fuels".. BTW, When I started this thread, I called it "Politics of Energy" but it seems that Economics of Energy is at least as important these days. Environmentalism has unfortunately gone off the rails, no longer satisfied dealing with real pollution, but attempting to mandate (and subsidize) otherwise uneconomical (and in some cases) unrealistic sources of energy, all in the name of averting "climate change" or "global warming" or the current scary headline du jure.. What a free market in energy, or any other, for that matter, provides is maximum bang for the buck, much to the benefit of consumers and the economy in general. It's too bad that this simple fact seems to elude so many people these days. It's not being "green" or "anti green", it's simple common sense to utilize the cheapest and most efficient energy sources available, and as the economics of energy change (scarcity of a particular resource, etc), the sources and methods of production will change in response. Of course with idiot politicians and their supporters meddling in and mucking up the energy markets, then all bets are off and we'll all be paying a (very high) price as a result, IMO..