joe schmoe apparently chose not to believe Cool Jet's sources when he said: "Seeing as you won't believe that here's a few other links to read: ".
Okay Joe, let me consider this - will I believe data provided by reputable sources from within the oil industry, i.e. The BP Statistical Review, The Oil & Gas Journal, The World Oil Organization OR should I believe your sources, i.e. Wired Magazine; a paper written by student, Matt loveton, Physics 102; an unnamed author at AnswersdotCom; some unknown reporter (Mary O'Driscoll) from an unknown eenews organization; another unknown source called hubbertpeakdotcom. Hmmm, I think I'll stick with the well-known authorities within the oil industry. Joe, if you had taken the time to read the report at:
you would have read Footnote 1. which states "Proved reserves are estimated quanbreasties that analysis of geologic and engineering data demonstrates with reasonable certainty are recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions."
Hybrid Lovers Read This and Lament 3200Spam Hater said "Your figures are just a bit off, in fact you seem to be about 20 years You may want to check out this link Spam Hater: Fortunately I bookmarked this site when...
Joe, we are talking "proved reserves" here. Reserves that are economically feasible to recover now. Not 100 years from now!
Incidentally, even though the links you provided were from non-reputable sources, I have to point out the following:
Wired News article states: "Alberta sits atop the biggest petroleum deposit outside the Arabian peninsula - as many as 300 billion recoverable barrels. . .(By contrast, the entire Middle East holds an estimated 685 billion barrels that are recoverable.)". Joe, this verifies my position, not yours! And while the tar sands oil is said to be recoverable, much of it cannot presently be recovered on an economically feasible basis.
Your "AnswersdotCom" link provides no support whatsoever to your position and in fact bolsters my position when it says: "Extracting the oil from these sands is difficult and expensive."
Your "eenews" link also supports my position, not yours. The article focuses principally on developing cost effective ways of exploiting the tar sands. In other words, it is not presently cost effective!
Your "hubbertpeak" link states "the reserve considered to be technically recoverable". That speaks for itself Joe - it's technically recoverable, but it's not economically feasible at the present time. And that's what we're talking about here Joe - reality in the here-and-now!
Do you need any more proof Joe? Those were, after all, your sources!
