Peak oil

U.S. Oil Reserves Bigger Than Saudi Arabia's

Peak oil still nowhere in sight

|

BestOilWellCalinTatuDreamstime
Calin Tatu/Dreamstime

The Rystad Energy consultancy has just released its new calculations of global oil reserves and estimates that the U.S. may harbor as much 264 billion barrels of oil compared to Saudi Arabia's 212 billion barrels. Overall, world oil reserves exceed 2 trillion barrels. At current production rates, this is enough oil to supply the world for 70 years.

The Rystad analysts compare their estimates with those of the closely watched annual BP Statistical Review that conservatively calculates that the U.S. has 55 billion barrels of proved reserves and that world reserves stand at just under 1.7 trillion barrels.

ExxonMobil's 2016 annual Outlook for Energy report observes:

Technology is not just expanding our daily oil production; it also continues to increase the amount of oil and liquid fuels we can count on for the future.

In 1981, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that remaining global recoverable crude and condensate resources were 1 trillion barrels; today, the IEA estimates that it is 4.5 trillion barrels – enough to meet global oil demand beyond the 21st century. By 2040, the amount of resources yet to be produced will still be far higher than total production prior to 2040, even with a 20 percent rise in global oil demand.

However, the folks at Rystad do note that …

…cumulatively produced oil up to 2015 amounts to 1300 billion barrels. Unconventional oil recovery accounts for 30% of the global recoverable oil reserves while offshore accounts for 33% of the total. The seven major oil companies hold less than 10% of the total. This data confirms that there is a relatively limited amount of recoverable oil left on the planet. With the global car-park possibly doubling from 1 billion to 2 billion cars over the next 30 years, it becomes very clear that oil alone cannot satisfy the growing need for individual transport.

Well, maybe. As I explain in my book The End of Doom:

The the advent of self-driving vehicles could provide a technological end run around such projections of a growing vehicle fleet. Instead of sitting idle for most of every day, as the vast majority of automobiles do now, cars could be rented on demand.

Researchers at the University of Texas, devising a realistic simulation of vehicle use in cities that took into account issues like congestion and rush-hour usage, found that each shared autonomous vehicle could replace eleven conventional vehicles. Notionally then, it would take only about 800 million vehicles to supply all the transportation services for 9 billion people. That figure is 200 million vehicles fewer than the current world fleet of 1 billion automobiles. …

In addition, a shift to fleets of autonomous vehicles makes the clean electrification of transportation much more feasible, since such automobiles could drive themselves off for recharging and cleaning during periods of low demand.

Back in 2000, former Saudi oil minister Sheikh Yamani famously declared, "The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil."

Given technological trends that prediction still sounds right.

Advertisement

NEXT: Jeffrey Toobin Criticizes Pundits Like Himself for Being Unfair to Clarence Thomas

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well, well, well… Whip ’em out, put ’em the table and looks whose is bigger.

    U
    S
    A

    1. Isn’t that how Jackson annexed Texas?

    2. It’s not the size of your oil reserve, it’s how you use it. Or so I am told. By a friend.

      1. This is true.

        If the experts are predicting a 70 year supply it is probably safe to guess double that.

        1. It might be even more accurate to predict that 70 years from now the expert prediction will still be that we have a 70 year supply. It’s 70-year supplies all the way down.

          1. Peak Oil had long been right on the horizon.

            1. In an alternate reality, we ran out in the 80s, there was a population bomb, and we’re in another ice age.

              1. The latter might be true, the warm weather is just obscuring it.

            2. Just like the popular demand for pure electric cars.

          2. The best part about being an “expert” member of the “technocratic elite” is that it makes absolutely no difference how often you’re completely wrong.

            1. In this case, I don’t think they are wrong. You just have to understand what they are actually saying. No actual expert on the subject thinks that we will run out of oil in the next 70 years. That’s just how much there is that can viably be extracted from known reserves with current technology.

            2. Maybe Ehrliching should be a new word=> “He really Ehrliched that prediction when he said the Warriors were going to take the series 4-1”

              Kinda like Clemsoning but not quite as immediate.

      2. I thought it was how long it lasted.

      3. Stop flaunting your black gold, everyone.

  2. Sheikh Yamani

    Shake Your Money?

    1. That’s Heroic Mulatto’s stage name.

    2. Sheikh Yamani Mecca.

      1. Damn, dood, good one!

      2. *stands to applaud loudly*

      3. And his chief rival, Sheik Yaboodhi.

  3. Wasn’t one of the Saudi royals who said something like:

    My grandfather rode a camel. I drive a Roles Royce. By grandson will ride a camel.

    IOW, what can they do to sustain their quality of life when they run out of oil? Banking, maybe?

    1. Ski resorts and really tall buildings?

    2. They have a lot of sand.

      1. Until socialism takes hold there….

    3. From camels to camels in three generations.

      1. Capitalism is surely to blame. Proof it is holding the poor down.

    4. Develop a liberal domestic economy so they’re not dependent on petrodollars and serfdom?

      1. Wahhabis would just condemn it as decadent and blow it up. Saudi Arabia can’t be saved, which explains why the nobility invests so heavily abroad.

      2. Wahhabis would just condemn it as decadent and blow it up. Saudi Arabia can’t be saved, which explains why the nobility invests so heavily abroad.

        1. The Ottomans had a solution for that problem. Not the House of Saud is willing to that far after their own partners.

        2. Not to mention the squirrelz!

    5. I would guess that that is when the trip to Mecca starts to get EXPENSIVE.

    6. Don’t they have like a $Trillion in the rainy day fund at this point?

      1. They have been spending that to try bankrupting frackers, Iran, Iraq, Russia, and other competitors. Fracking — they hate the process. I would not be surprised to find they are funding Greenpeace-type anti-fracking propaganda. Iran — with the lifting of sanctions, Iran is buying equipment, refurbishing their oil wells, and looking to make money, and the Saudis are finding it difficult to undercut a seller who has nothing to lose. Ditto with Iraq, trying to make as much money as possible to prop up their corrupt asses. Russia, sort of the same, trying to prop up corruption with oil revenue.

        Then there’s Venezuela, too damned incompetent with their failed socialist state to make any money off their oil industry. They’ve sucked it dry to the point that it can’t produce the oil they need. I imagine one of the Saudis’ worst nightmares is having Venezuela come to its senses and start refurbihsing their oil industry.

        1. the progs told me that’s because Venezuela Oil is like so expensive to make or something, and totally not related to socialism.

    7. He is referring to the robotic sex camels of the future.

  4. At current production rates, this is enough oil to supply the world for 70 years.

    Which isn’t very long when one thinks about it.

    1. Plenty of time for people to lose their irrational fear of all things “nuclear”.

      1. I for one would buy a nuclear-powered Prius.

        1. For all intents and purposes you can get one now if you live in France or some other mostly nuclear powered country.

          If you’re talking about having a reactor inside your car, I’m on board with that too. Just not a Prius.

          1. Wouldn’t you have to have an all-electric car? The Prius generates its own electricity from oil (unless you’ve got one of the modified plug-in models). Whereas the all-electric plugin vehicles would derive their power from ‘nucular’.

            1. “…generates its own electricity from oil…”

              Ten calories in, one out. A brilliant model.

              1. It’s pretty much the model for cars that use ICEs alone, so yeah.

                Doesn’t a hybrid make more efficient use of petroleum than a straight ICE?

                1. Doesn’t a hybrid make more efficient use of petroleum than a straight ICE?

                  Running a generator, the engine can stay in the most efficient part of the power band instead of having to be some gear-multiple of the current wheel-speed, and doesn’t waste time idling. I think that’s where most of the savings come from. *prepares to be corrected on halfassed understanding of the science involved*

                  1. That is true for cars that use the engine just to charge teh batteries. But Prius and other similar hybrids also use the engine to drive the wheels directly. But it tries to use that when the engine is most efficient, like cruising on the highway and electric when doing stop and go. So it’s the right general idea, I think.

                2. Doesn’t a hybrid make more efficient use of petroleum than a straight ICE?

                  only if driven in conditions where the ancillary systems on the hybrid can get the wasted energy back. If not, then it’s less efficient.

            2. Ahhh yes… the Prius is a hybrid. Sorry, I was thinking of one of the all-electric cars.

              1. I think there is a plug-in model that only runs the engine when the batteries are drained. I refuse to do an internet search on Prius, so I could be wrong.

          1. Then we’re just going to start mining the moon, and accidentally break it. You know what happens next, it was in a movie.

    2. At current production there is has been between 50 and 100 years proven reserves since the 1950s. Every time reserves run short, we invent new tech to increase them.

      1. It’s almost as if the markets have decided that that is the appropriate energy planning timeline…

  5. One thing we should point out is that Whale oil is a renewable resource!

    *ducks*

    1. Hey Paul, wanna invest in my whale farm?

      1. Please note: “whale farm” is NOT a euphemism for John’s bevy of hoes.

      2. The Rainbow Warrior would make an excellent whaling ship. Just pointing that out.

    2. I hear that baby seals have the most efficient blubber fuel.

      1. Baby seals are cute and charming, so no can do.

        1. Just text on your cell phone while you’re clubbing them with the other hand. That way you won’t notice.

        2. Baby seals are cute and charming, so no can do.

          Every time you club a baby seal a fucking hot PETA supporter loses her clothes.

          1. Where’s my club dammit?

          2. “I want people to know that there are options?that killing a poor animal and wearing it isn’t cool ? respecting all life forms is cool.”

            What if it was a rich animal? And what about plants? Don’t they have rights too?

        3. Baby seals are cute and charming,

          Business plan: 1. Find a way to raise ugly seals.

          *sudden urge to sing “A Kiss From a Rose”

    3. Hasn’t anyone with CRISPR skills developed gasoline-producing bacteria yet?

      1. Don’t we essentially call this a ‘still’?

        1. See, I want a vat in my someone else’s backyard where I can dump my yard waste/food scraps and then siphon off 20 gallons of Supreme unleaded. Call it what you will.

      2. Diesel okay? We call them algae.

      3. Someone was working on that. I don’t remember how it was going, that was a few years ago I saw that. It wasn’t actually gasoline of course, just some type of biofuel.

        1. I think they’ve had good luck with butene or butyl alchohol something in the 4C orgranics. I was up on the state-of-the-art five years ago during my semester of grad school.

        2. I wasn’t joking… we call it a ‘still’. You put in fruit and/or other plant matter, add a little yeast (bacteria) and voila! Alcohol.

      4. Besides, CRISPR is dangerous, think of the children, before someone invents the real manbearpig.

        1. I would love a pet micro mambearpig.

  6. We’ll be out of oil in 10 years!

    /derp from the 70s

  7. “The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil.”

    I disagree with that last part. We’re going to burn every last drop of oil that we can get.

    1. The point was, we would have burned every drop of stone had it not been for abundant wind power.

    2. “We’re going to burn every last drop of oil that we can get.”
      I kind of doubt it. I figure we’ve got two scenarios.

      (A) We swap to some other resource besides oil before it becomes scarce, and thus it doesn’t get used because it’s not useful anymore.

      (B) We continue using it until it becomes a scarce resource? and are forced to research alternatives. In the meantime, we continue to use it for less and less, and some places stockpile it as a “just in case” (the US already has a gasoline stockpile, for example. I think from the 80s?), until eventually we still have some saved for a rainy day, but the literal cost and opportunity cost is too high so we use alternatives.

      So even in the case where we stay on oil as long as we can, we probably still end up with significant reserves all around the globe of oil in barrels against a “rainy day”.
      ____________
      ?It’s a limited resource, no question. The only question is how limited, but in this scenario we keep drilling till it’s gone.

      1. Now take those plans and rewrite them in terms of being in the hands of a cabal of corrupt politicians.

      2. There is no alternative for air travel. There’s no commercially viable non-petroleum option the horizon in the next 50 years.

        1. … and?

          For the sake of argument, let’s assume you’re right?, and that there is no alternative for air travel. Which do you think is more likely: that it’s spent to the last drop in short order, or that most big governments start hoarding oil for their respective air forces?

          We’ll see the end of cheap passenger air travel before we see the end of military uses for oil (as fuel for planes or fuel for weapons), and the military will make sure that it has a plan to keep it’s toys before the batteries run out, and unless we’re in the middle of a war where fighter jets are more useful then UAVs, we’ll probably save the fuel for the fighter jets until long after fighter jets are obsolete.

          So I guess I can imagine a single scenario where we actually “burn ever last drop”: a big war where we need everything we can get, so something on the line of World War III. Absent that, we’ll adopt new technology before we burn our reserves.
          ________
          ?To be clear, I don’t think you are, but that’s irrelevant to my point.

        2. And 64K of RAM ought to be enough for everyone, just like no one needs over 3 million in their IRA.

        3. Ornithopter, dude. Ornithopter.

      3. Agreed. As oil becomes more scarce, it becomes more expensive. As it becomes more expensive, people find (or switch to) less expensive ways to power things. Eventually oil companies will decide it isn’t worth the CAPEX to go invest in drilling for more oil because people aren’t willing to pay enough to give it a good enough ROI.

      4. Synthetic gasoline can be made from coal.

        The Germans did it in WW2.

        We have plenty of coal.

        1. Sure.

          And as oil becomes increasingly scarce, such alternatives will become increasingly popular and relatively cheaper. The scenario where it’s still cheaper to drill the last bit of hard-to-get oil in an inaccessible location then use any possible alternative, even to the point where we’ve burned through all of our reserves, seems a bit unlikely.

  8. Thank God for his blessing us with abundant oil. Now we can all be driving our own cars everywhere well into the future

  9. “The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil.” is simply brilliant.

    1. That’s not scare mongery enough. How do you expect to control protect the peasants if they aren’t scared?

    2. Stones don’t kill people. Sticks with stones tied to them kill people.

      1. Neolithic bumper sticker.

      2. Nuh-uh.

        [Whips rock from rock sling to whizz by CE’s head.]

  10. The the advent of self-driving vehicles could provide a technological end run around such projections of a growing vehicle fleet. Instead of sitting idle for most of every day, as the vast majority of automobiles do now, cars could be rented on demand.

    When cars are sitting idle, they aren’t consuming gas. A huge fleet of mostly idle cars would consume the same amount of gas as a smaller fleet of mostly active cars if the number of active cars is the same. The only difference is where the gas is stored ? in gas tanks in cars or in fueling stations.

    1. Yeah, I noticed that. I think Ron just wanted to write about self driving cars.

      1. Maybe he wanted to write about them in response to a point directly raised by the study that he’s commenting on.

        With the global car-park possibly doubling from 1 billion to 2 billion cars over the next 30 years, it becomes very clear that oil alone cannot satisfy the growing need for individual transport.

        1. But it doesn’t matter how many cars there are. It matter how many car-miles there are, because that’s what drives fuel usage.

          1. The passage I quoted is about demand for individual transport, of which oil supply is only one aspect. Addressing that point, Ron also responds with

            In addition, a shift to fleets of autonomous vehicles makes the clean electrification of transportation much more feasible, since such automobiles could drive themselves off for recharging and cleaning during periods of low demand.

            1. So its not that we have fewer cars, its that we have electric cars, and that’s why we won’t need to burn as much oil for transport.

              If we have half as many cars going just as many total miles, that’s not going to reduce fuel usage in and of itself. But, switching to electric cars might – that I can see.

              1. But electricity is actually a pretty inefficient use for mobile mechanical power.

                Until the grid is converted to unicorn, the amount of consumables consumed are greatly increased.

                Also the scale for batteries required becomes a much harder limit to availability.

                1. But electricity is actually a pretty inefficient use for mobile mechanical power.

                  I remember seeing something about transmission losses for electricity being a lot more than I would have thought. Something else to factor in.

        2. Park != Transport.

          As it has already been pointed out, cars are not consuming gas when they’re sitting idle.

          1. They do if you leave the engine running.

            And I assume we all have our orphans sitting in the car all night to make sure it is ready to go, with a warm seat, just in case.

      2. I prefer to drive my own car. Ron can let the Devil drive his so long as he takes full personal responsibility for the Lord of Darkness’s poor driving.

        1. Yeah, being in a car when you aren’t driving is fucking boring unless there is some really great scenery. I’d almost always rather drive than ride. It would be great if you are intoxicated, but they will almost certainly ban that.

    2. Presumably, some of these services would batch up people heading along the same route and add some efficiency.

      1. Fine. You’re stuck carpooling with Hugh.

        1. Worse. I’m stuck with Florida Man.

          1. You’re gonna have to ride in the back of the El Camino – the passenger seat is full of hot stereo equipment.

    3. PPB: I did suggest that electrification of the fleet would be likely. If the electricity is produced using nuclear, wind, or solar power, oil demand would be way lower in the future.

      1. If the price of gas keeps going up and the technological gains of electric cars keeps going, electrification of the fleet is likely, self-driven or not.

        And it’s quite likely that self-driven cars will be personally owned rather than state/company-owned resulting in a good chunk of those 2 billion cars being a mix of fleet and personal self-driving cars. One of the trends of the Libertarian Moment Reason keeps writing about is decentralization and what better decentralization is there than personal ownership of means of transportation? I doubt we’ll see a big reversal of that trend without major technical changes including the “Hey, that looks like an interesting place, let’s stop there.” factor.

    4. And you’re ignoring

      Cost of production
      Reduced maintenance costs (the shortened lifetime per vehicle will compress the maintenance timeline to mostly wear-based maintenance, and relatively little age-based maintenance, as well as efficiencies from the centralization)
      Currency of fleet (more miles/car per year means turn-over in the fleet will likely be higher then in private ownership. I can keep an old Ford running for decades depending on how I drive it, but a “fleet” car would probably be replaced every couple of years.), leading to faster incorporation of new technology/efficienciy/etc.
      Reduced car-miles due to efficiency increases from autonomous driving
      Increased miles/gallon efficiency because humans are shitty drivers
      etc. and so-on

      And these are just off the top of my head. In short, communal transportation is pretty much always more efficient (if less pleasant) then individual transportation.

      So yeah, a fleet, even if it’s serving the same number of people, is likely to cost less. That said, there’s a good number of reasons I doubt it’ll take off outside of big cities (or at the least, have very slow adoption outside of them), but that’s a different question.

      1. So yeah, a fleet, even if it’s serving the same number of people, is likely to cost less.

        True, but we were talking about fuel consumption, not total cost. Some of what you mentioned would reduce fuel usage – reduced car-miles due to better route-finding and better driving styles. I wonder, though, if having to summon a car and having it drive to you isn’t going to offset some of that, as opposed to having your car sitting in your driveway (or wherever) when you want it.

        1. City v rural. I think in the city, there will almost always be an empty car a block or two away.

          1. Point. But what about commuters from the burbs?

            1. I think the algorithms will handle that. Cars will go burbs->downtown in morning, downtown->burbs in evening.

              Hop around burbs as needed at night, then be there to head back in morning.

              There would probably be some excess travel distance though.

              I don’t agree with Ron that it would save on fuel, but do think it would save on costs. I wonder what the breakeven point would be for owning vs renting. A suburban commuter might find owning to their benefit, especially if they drop their car into the fleet to offset its cost during the work day.

              1. Cars will go burbs->downtown in morning, downtown->burbs in evening.

                All of my jobs so far have been in the burbs. Several of my coworkers lived in the country and others lived downtown and commuted in.

                That’s the problem I see with communal transport ? we don’t live in housing hub and work in a business hub. What we have is a distributed network with thousands to millions of little hubs. We live in a neighborhood hub and nearly everyone in that neighborhood hub commutes to a different business district hub and then nearly everyone in a business district hub commutes to a different neighborhood hub.

                1. That is why individualized self driving transport makes sense. It doesnt need to be hub to hub.

                  You order the car to pick you up, you give a location, it drops you off. It then heads off to nearest open order (or to hanging out spot, if the algorithm suggests that).

          2. I think in the city, there will almost always be an empty car a block or two away.

            Currently, here in LA, taxis tend to concentrate in “hubs” like airports, hotels, bus stations, etc. They’re just not a block or two away.

            1. Which is why uber gets there first.

  11. Why won’t anyone think of the Big Picture? The Long Term? This tiny blue-green planet has little of value for the future of mankind. We’re like an 18-year old living in his parent’s basement during that summer between high school and college. It’s about time we left the nest and where we’re going there won’t be any oil, gas, coal or wind, and the sunlight will be unreliable, at best.

    1. Where the hell are you planning to go?

  12. In 1981, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that remaining global recoverable crude and condensate resources were 1 trillion barrels; today, the IEA estimates that it is 4.5 trillion barrels

    I think this argument needs to be “Chartified” so the stupid people who read Vox & Five-38 who think of themselves as very informed and intelligent can visualize what the reality of fossil fuels really is.

    Meaning – show the growth of “proven recoverable reserves” from 1900 to now on a line chart, superimposed on a bar-chart predicting the “time left until depleted” at any given moment. Something like this, but showing the longer time-scale

    What you see is non-stop expansion of reserves, yet the future depletion is always *predictably wrong*

    e.g. in 1980? there were 30 years left. in 2010… 45 years left. 2015… 70 years left.

    It shows how these predictions are meaningless as anything but a proxy.

    does that mean that in 1980, there were *really* only ~100 years left? No, shithead – it means that current estimates are just as wildly off as they were in 1980. That we don’t factor in increased efficiency of extraction & usage, we don’t factor in complementary products, etc. The numbers don’t mean what people think.

    It would force people to recognize that the “oil future” is likely going to be longer than the “oil past”

    1. It shows how these predictions are meaningless as anything but a proxy.

      I’d say that seeing those numbers as predictions at all is the main problem. They aren’t predictions, they are projections based on the assumption that nothing else changes. And things always change. They have meaning, but not the meaning most people ascribe to them.

      1. They have meaning, but not the meaning most people ascribe to them.

        Which is exactly my point.

        People look at “reserves” #s and think “that’s all we have left”.

        But the reserves # has NEVER BEEN LARGER THAN IT IS TODAY.

        The way people think of the #s, they should always be declining. We’re always sitting on a fixed pool that is perpetually being drained.

        But its *not a fixed pool*. The pool increased by 500% in just a few decades. And why would any sane person assume that NOW we’ve finally gotten it right, and NOW its going to steadily decline from here?

        Obviously the same forces that produced more-accessible reserves are going to apply themselves to other parts of the usage stream when they need to; modest changes to efficiency can have whopping effects on the ability to exploit those existing resources.

    2. I think this argument needs to be “Chartified” so the stupid people who read Vox & Five-38 who think of themselves as very informed and intelligent can visualize what the reality of fossil fuels really is.

      The “informed” probably can’t even get then number of LGBT people right.

  13. So, maybe we want to us Arab oil, so they run out soon? Then we could erect a barbed wire fence around the whole mess and wish them a happy 13th Century. Maybe throw over guns and ammunition whenever the gunfire seemed to lag.

    1. Maybe throw over guns and ammunition whenever the gunfire seemed to lag.

      We aren’t doing this already?

  14. I wish I understood REASON’s fetish for self-driving cars. To my mind, they are obvious, going to creep i to the mainstream right up until the day that a popular model suffers a widespread softwear bug, causing crashes and tie-ups in a dozen cities. Then, even if they aren’t outlawed, they pubic will avoid them like the plague.

    1. In similar news, after the first plane crash due to software malfunction, the world returned entirely to manual control of all aircraft forevermore.

    2. They’ll be mandatory. Dissidents will suffer fatal crashes. Or more likely random self-driving car crashes will be identified as dissidents being eliminated for anti-social acts. See Spinrad’sAgents of Chaos

    3. You don’t want a car that a Romanian teenager can hack into and fly you off a cliff just for laughs?

    4. Human-driven cars kill 30,000 people and cost innumerable traffic hours every year, but people don’t seem to be avoiding them en masse.

      1. Yeah, people have unlimited faith in themselves. Just nobody else.

        1. See also: laws, government.

  15. And so it begins.

    FBI rewrites federal law to let Hillary go free

    According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18)

    Maybe they did consult with Justice Roberts.

    1. IOW, as someone had already mentioned in a post earlier. Intent is not necessary here. They made up the intent part to let her off the hook. It’s another penaltax.

      1. They made up the intent part to let her off the hook.

        Except that they have pretty clear signs of intent to flout the laws. The entire decision is based on a fictitious version of Hillary Clinton created for the media to sell to the public, until enough time has passed for it all to be “old news”.

        1. I think what they’ve actually done here is to create a sort of precedent. So I hope the left really enjoys it when they get some of this good and hard from a Republican president. Their self awareness and ability to perceive future outcomes are for all intent, non-existent.

          1. Hyp’s Brexit Butthurt Lotion|7.5.16 @ 1:38PM|#
            “I think what they’ve actually done here is to create a sort of precedent.”

            Nixon’s ghost is wondering why HE had to resign…

          2. This is how you create a banana republic; a culture of corruption.

          3. Eh, I suspect they realized that a bunch of senior citizens do a piss-poor job of using modern technology to protect classified information, and that their choice was either to let Clinton go or prosecute most of Congress alongside her.

            To be clear, I’m not saying that most of Congress has or had secret e-mail servers. What I’m saying is that data spillage (the actual offense) is probably unfortunately common among politicians and political appointees.

            1. Accidental data spillage is pretty fucking rare and results in government peons getting steam-rolled.

              Holy shit! This almost makes me want to vote for ‘Cheeto Jesus’; it definitely clarifies my understanding for his support.

              1. (A) your version of “steam rolled” is very different then what I see ’round here. My department realizes that if you make the consequences of reporting spillage bad enough, people will risk being caught instead and stop reporting it. So yeah, you get disciplined, but it’s not going to impact your career.

                (B) You have way more faith in congress then I do. Especially considering that unlike government employees who can actually be fired and disciplined, there’s not much you can do to a senator that accidentally screws this stuff up.

            2. EscherEnigma|7.5.16 @ 1:57PM|#
              “Eh, I suspect they realized that a bunch of senior citizens do a piss-poor job of using modern technology to protect classified information, and that their choice was either to let Clinton go or prosecute most of Congress alongside her.”

              Bull
              .
              .
              .
              shit.

            3. Not just Congress? the Executive Branch, too.

        2. “Move On!!”

        3. The entire decision is based on a fictitious version of Hillary Clinton created for the media to sell to the public, until enough time has passed for it all to be “old news”.

          I really missed the fictitious HRC, but not as much as the Bosnian snipers did amiright?

          Seriously, at this point I’d be in favor of gross negligence resulting in an accidental discharge of a firearm in her direction if I didn’t think it would make her a martyr for 30+% of the population.

    2. Roberts doesnt enter into it. Bill gave Lynch very specific instructions.

      1. When I mentioned Roberts, I meant maybe they consulted with him about how to rewrite laws on the fly to invent something like the penaltax. In this case, to insert intent where it wasn’t required and then deny that there was any intent, despite the overwhelming evidence that there was. And after taking months, they rushed out to make this announcement right after Bill met with Lynch and right before Obama went out to campaign for Hillary. What a coincidence.

        1. In this case, to insert intent where it wasn’t required and then deny that there was any intent, despite the overwhelming evidence that there was.

          This is the worst part, IMO. It’s like asking, “Was she guilty?” and getting “Who said anything about intent? I certainly didn’t say anything about intent!” in reply.

    3. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

      Mens rea for me, but not for thee, peasants.

    4. You forgot the “tarmac meeting with former president” exception.

    1. That site seems to be broken.

  16. RE: U.S. Oil Reserves Bigger Than Saudi Arabia’s
    Peak oil still nowhere in sight

    This is indeed bad news.
    Allowing American companies to engage in the ugly practices of capitalism, such as eroding unemployment, allowing their stockholders to make money and lowering gasoline prices at the pump will only make our beloved socialist slave state more independent from such kind, wonderful and freedom loving countries as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc.
    If this trend continues, these countries will pout, stamp their feet and not like us any more.
    We simply cannot have that. The policy of having more oil reserves than any other country must come to a grinding halt.

  17. As driverless cars become more common, I’d expect the car ownership model we have now to start breaking down. People will probably stop seeing Toyota as a car manufacturer and Uber as a taxi service, and they’ll probably start seeing GM/Lyft’s driverless offerings as a transportation service instead.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/gm…..1462460094

    Once people start seeing cars as door to door mass transit, I’d expect to see the psychological impact of oil prices start to break down, too. You’ll still see fees go up and down to some extent with oil prices, but there’s probably a big advantage to transportation service companies to go natural gas and electric, as well–if only to cut down on price fluctuations for consumers.

    Anyway, if growing oil production blows Peak Oil enthusiasts’ minds, their neurons will absolutely fry as the price of oil becomes less and less of an important consideration for consumers.

    1. For those who go hyper over not having a subscription:

      “GM and Lyft will start testing self-driving electric taxis on public roads “within a year,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

      This comes after GM recently invested $500 million in Lyft, and acquired self-driving car technology company Cruise Automation, in a reported $1 billion deal.”

      —-Business Insider, May 5, 2016

      http://tinyurl.com/zseqjg4

      Sounds vertically integrated, doesn’t it? I wonder if any oil companies have started buying their way in yet.

  18. It’ll be interesting to see what that economy does to voters, as well. Show me a time when Obama’s approval ratings were especially low, and I’ll show you a time when oil prices were especially high. I bet the support for socialist environmental solutions on things like global warming would go way up if average consumers didn’t have to stop at the gas pump anymore.

    If and when selling a GM/Lyft’s style driverless car service becomes like selling wireless phone service (so many miles for so much a month), people may not think much more about oil prices than they do about electricity prices when they buy wireless service.

    I suppose silly people in the northeast and Midwest, who live in the cold, will still have to think about the cost of warming their homes, but I’d expect those places to mostly empty out over time. Those places will probably end up like Buffalo and Detroit, where the only people left are government employees, juggalos, and retards.

    1. But Buffalo and Detroit will be sub-tropical in a few years, according to Gore.

  19. There is no peak oil. There is only peak refinement.

  20. It’s about time we left the nest and where we’re going there won’t be any oil, gas, coal or wind, and the sunlight will be unreliable, at best.

    there is plenty of primo solar real estate right here around Sol where the Earthjerks will never even know you’re there. plenty of time to collect materials from asteroids/comets and build and stock up the generation ship for the next step where solar won’t be an option till arrival. 30-50 turns, tops.

    #lrn2MasterOrion,Noob

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.