Oil Reserves in the U.S. Upped

What Buffalo Roam is saying: "You got this wrong, therefore you must be wrong that 2+2=4!" Simple Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy. How your reply to caviar going?


Actually what I see, is, That is your modus operandi, you are the ones that keep tell me, that I have it absolutely wrong, and are a total idiot, because I don't walk lock step, with your inflexible dogma.

Again, how many things were projected to have run out?

Crops, were suppose to have tanked in the 1970's, the oceans were suppost to be dead, in the 1980's,

IN 1798 Thomas Robert Malthus inaugurated a grand tradition of environmentalism with his best-selling pamphlet on population. Malthus argued with impeccable logic but distinctly peccable premises that since population tended to increase geometrically (1,2,4,8 . . . ) and food supply to increase arithmetically (1,2,3,4 . . . ), the starvation of Great Britain was inevitable and imminent. Almost everybody thought he was right. He was wrong.

In 1865 an influential book by Stanley Jevons argued with equally good logic and equally flawed premises that Britain would run out of coal in a few short years' time. In 1914, the United States Bureau of Mines predicted that American oil reserves would last ten years. In 1939 and again in 1951, the Department of the Interior said American oil would last 13 years. Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

In 1972 the Club of Rome published a highly influential report called "Limits to Growth". To many in the environmental movement, that report still stands as a beacon of sense in the foolish world of economics. But were its predictions borne out?

"Limits to Growth" said total global oil reserves amounted to 550 billion barrels. "We could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade," said President Jimmy Carter shortly afterwards. Sure enough, between 1970 and 1990 the world used 600 billion barrels of oil. So, according to the Club of Rome, reserves should have been overdrawn by 50 billion barrels by 1990. In fact, by 1990 unexploited reserves amounted to 900 billion barrels-not counting the tar shales, of which a single deposit in Alberta contains more than 550 billion barrels.


The Club of Rome made similarly wrong predictions about natural gas, silver, tin, uranium, aluminium, copper, lead and zinc. In every case, it said finite reserves of these minerals were approaching exhaustion and prices would rise steeply. In every case except tin, known reserves have actually grown since the Club's report; in some cases they have quadrupled. "Limits to Growth" simply misunderstood the meaning of the word "reserves".

Others have yet to cotton on. The 1983 edition of a British GCSE school textbook said zinc reserves would last ten years and natural gas 30 years. By 1993, the author had wisely removed references to zinc (rather than explain why it had not run out), and he gave natural gas 50 years, which mocked his forecast of ten years earlier. But still not a word about price, the misleading nature of quoted "reserves" or substitutability.

So much for minerals. The record of mispredicted food supplies is even worse. Consider two quotations from Paul Ehrlich's best-selling books in the 1970s.

Agricultural experts state that a tripling of the food supply of the world will be necessary in the next 30 years or so, if the 6 or 7 billion people who may be alive in the year 2000 are to be adequately fed. Theoretically such an increase might be possible, but it is becoming increasingly clear that it is totally impossible in practice.

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.


In 1984 the United Nations asserted that the desert was swallowing 21m hectares of land every year. That claim has been comprehensively demolished. There has been and is no net advance of the desert at all. In 1992 Mr Gore asserted that 20% of the Amazon had been deforested and that deforestation continued at the rate of 80m hectares a year. The true figures are now agreed to be 9% and 21m hectares a year gross at its peak in the 1980s, falling to about 10m hectares a year now.
 
What Buffalo Roam is saying: "You got this wrong, therefore you must be wrong that 2+2=4!" Simple Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy. How your reply to caviar going?

Environmental scare stories now follow such a predictable line that we can chart their course. Year 1 is the year of the scientist, who discovers some potential threat. Year 2 is the year of the journalist, who oversimplifies and exaggerates it. Only now, in year 3, do the environmentalists join the bandwagon (almost no green scare has been started by greens). They polarise the issue. Either you agree that the world is about to come to an end and are fired by righteous indignation, or you are a paid lackey of big business.

Year 4 is the year of the bureaucrat. A conference is mooted, keeping public officials well supplied with club-class tickets and limelight. This diverts the argument from science to regulation. A totemic "target" is the key feature: 30% reductions in sulphur emissions; stabilisation of greenhouse gases at 1990 levels; 140,000 ritually slaughtered healthy British cows.

Year 5 is the time to pick a villain and gang up on him. It is usually America (global warming) or Britain (acid rain), but Russia (CFCs and ozone) or Brazil (deforestation) have had their day. Year 6 is the time for the sceptic who says the scare is exaggerated. This drives greens into paroxysms of pious rage. "How dare you give space to fringe views?" cry these once-fringe people to newspaper editors. But by now the scientist who first gave the warning is often embarrassingly to be found among the sceptics. Roger Revelle, nickname "Dr Greenhouse", who fired Al Gore with global warming evangelism, wrote just before his death in 1991: "The scientific basis for greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time."

Year 7 is the year of the quiet climbdown. Without fanfare, the official consensus estimate of the size of the problem is shrunk. Thus, when nobody was looking, the population "explosion" became an asymptotic rise to a maximum of just 15 billion; this was then downgraded to 12 billion, then less than 10 billion. That means population will never double again. Greenhouse warming was originally going to be "uncontrolled". Then it was going to be 2.5-4 degrees in a century. Then it became 1.5-3 degrees (according to the United Nations). In two years, elephants went from imminent danger of extinction to badly in need of contraception (the facts did not change, the reporting did).
 
Environmental scare stories now follow such a predictable line that we can chart their course. Year 1 is the year of the scientist, who discovers some potential threat. Year 2 is the year of the journalist, who oversimplifies and exaggerates it. Only now, in year 3, do the environmentalists join the bandwagon (almost no green scare has been started by greens). They polarise the issue. Either you agree that the world is about to come to an end and are fired by righteous indignation, or you are a paid lackey of big business.

Year 4 is the year of the bureaucrat. A conference is mooted, keeping public officials well supplied with club-class tickets and limelight. This diverts the argument from science to regulation. A totemic "target" is the key feature: 30% reductions in sulphur emissions; stabilisation of greenhouse gases at 1990 levels; 140,000 ritually slaughtered healthy British cows.

Year 5 is the time to pick a villain and gang up on him. It is usually America (global warming) or Britain (acid rain), but Russia (CFCs and ozone) or Brazil (deforestation) have had their day. Year 6 is the time for the sceptic who says the scare is exaggerated. This drives greens into paroxysms of pious rage. "How dare you give space to fringe views?" cry these once-fringe people to newspaper editors. But by now the scientist who first gave the warning is often embarrassingly to be found among the sceptics. Roger Revelle, nickname "Dr Greenhouse", who fired Al Gore with global warming evangelism, wrote just before his death in 1991: "The scientific basis for greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time."

Year 7 is the year of the quiet climbdown. Without fanfare, the official consensus estimate of the size of the problem is shrunk. Thus, when nobody was looking, the population "explosion" became an asymptotic rise to a maximum of just 15 billion; this was then downgraded to 12 billion, then less than 10 billion. That means population will never double again. Greenhouse warming was originally going to be "uncontrolled". Then it was going to be 2.5-4 degrees in a century. Then it became 1.5-3 degrees (according to the United Nations). In two years, elephants went from imminent danger of extinction to badly in need of contraception (the facts did not change, the reporting did).

What does this have to do with environmentalism? Now your making a Red Herring fallacy.
 
What does this have to do with environmentalism? Now your making a Red Herring fallacy.


Everything, it is how our policies on energy and everything else are formulated, by the crisis mentality, the Chicken Little, THE SKY IS FALLING---!!!!THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!---THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!--- THE WORLD IS RUNNING OUT OF WHAT EVER!!!!!!

The environmentalist along with the liberals have stopped any cohesive energy policy for the present and the future, we have stopped drill resources, continue building of refining capability, allowing for a capacity problem to develop.

It doesn't matter if we run out of oil at some point in the future, as long as we have proper energy policy now that doesn't destroy the economy and standard of living, which generates the money to develop new energy sources.

The rush to alcohol being a prime example, more and more crop land is taken out of food production to raise corn...what ever...that can be distilled into alcohol, and what is the result? Food prices in the third world are skyrocketing, and steadily rising in the industrial world, causing shortages that weren't present 5 years ago.

The 7 P,

PROPER PLANING PREVENTS PISS POOR PREFORMANCE.

And there has been no proper planning, as how to get us from pretroleum products based economy, to renewable resources based economy.

And as it goes, there is still no proof that any of the gloom and doom senarios will take place in the next 50 to 100 years.

Ans as to your Whaling senario, there never were enough whales to have ever supplyed a industrial socity, the only source of energy and lubricant to do so was the petroleum industry, so again you alogory fails.

Any biological based product does not have the generation capability to produce that ammout of energy, weither it be the 1850, or 2050.

Now, from National Geographic News:

Cheap Oil to Last, "Doomsday" Fears Overblown, Author Says Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News

February 14, 2007

Is the era of cheap oil really at an end? Or could a glut send prices into a freefall? Should Western countries fear energy blackmail from oil- rich powers?

There's no crystal ball to predict oil's future, but Leonardo Maugeri believes that much can be learned by looking at the industry's past.


Maugeri is the author of The Age of Oil: The Mythology, History, and Future of the World's Most Controversial Resource. As a senior vice president at the Italian oil corporation Eni SpA, he's also an oil-industry insider.

People usually assume that the planet is thoroughly explored [for oil], but this is not true. The United States and Canada are the most thoroughly explored, and the latest discovery by Chevron in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrates that they are not really so [thoroughly] explored

Other parts of the world are really not explored at all. Even today more than 70 percent of the world's oil exploration wells are concentrated in the U.S. and Canada—countries that hold only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. Conversely, only 3 percent of the world's exploration wells are drilled in the Middle East.

Many countries, Saudi Arabia in particular, have discovered oil fields in the past but have never developed them because of their fear of creating excess capacity.




Some enormous proven fields exhibit slowing oil production, but you stress that new technologies can boost these rates?

"End of Cheap Oil" in National Geographic Magazine
Addicted to Oil: How Can U.S. Fulfill Bush Pledge? (February 14, 2006)
Yes. I'll give you an example.

Yukos, the Russian company destroyed by Vladimir Putin, doubled its production in four years by one simple [act].

They hired Schlumberger, [the U.S. oil-technology company] with great experience in the drilling and management of oil fields. The recovery rate for Yukos went from 9 percent to 26 percent without any new discovery
 
Long Term World Oil Supply
Aug 18, 2004 ... Long Term World Oil Supply from the Energy
Information Administration. ... and rest-of-world resource
estimates at the 95 percent certain ...
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html

figure1.jpg


Last, but by no means least, we elected to explicitly recognize the existence of
uncertainty (as did the USGS resource estimation process) by developing an
approach which postulates twelve scenarios that in toto span a wide range of
plausible variation in the inputs. Each scenario has its own unique peak production
rate and time of occurrence. Others' approaches do not explicitly recognize uncertainty
and typically produce a solitary point estimate.

Others' approaches do not explicitly recognize uncertainty and typically produce a solitary point estimate.
 
Everything, it is how our policies on energy and everything else are formulated, by the crisis mentality, the Chicken Little, THE SKY IS FALLING---!!!!THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!---THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!--- THE WORLD IS RUNNING OUT OF WHAT EVER!!!!!!

Therefor any argument that there is a problem is wrong, so when people said Hitler was killing millions, they were just being alarmist fools?

The environmentalist along with the liberals have stopped any cohesive energy policy for the present and the future, we have stopped drill resources, continue building of refining capability, allowing for a capacity problem to develop.

Capacity for what? A fuel that is running out? Why mine more if their no way you can supply demand, why build refineries if there is going to be nothing to refine. And are present problems have nothing to do with politically limited capacity.

It doesn't matter if we run out of oil at some point in the future, as long as we have proper energy policy now that doesn't destroy the economy and standard of living, which generates the money to develop new energy sources.

This is assuming the crash in oil would not destroy even the most outstanding economy


The rush to alcohol being a prime example, more and more crop land is taken out of food production to raise corn...what ever...that can be distilled into alcohol, and what is the result? Food prices in the third world are skyrocketing, and steadily rising in the industrial world, causing shortages that weren't present 5 years ago.

That a gross simplification of a very complex issue, most of the food price increase is do th demand in china and india, rising oil prices, biofuel only represent a small percentage of the food price increases, most of all 2nd gen biofuels from biomass don't affect food prices.

The 7 P,

PROPER PLANING PREVENTS PISS POOR PERFORMANCE.

And there has been no proper planning, as how to get us from petroleum products based economy, to renewable resources based economy.

I think the blame for improper planing goes all around, at lest some liberals have been saying we need to prepare and plan for these things.


And as it goes, there is still no proof that any of the gloom and doom senarios will take place in the next 50 to 100 years.
Just are their is no proof planets are place, but rather all evidence is either a lie or miss-interpreted. The proof is their your just denying it at all cost.

Ans as to your Whaling senario, there never were enough whales to have ever supplyed a industrial socity, the only source of energy and lubricant to do so was the petroleum industry, so again you alogory fails.

The alagory was to demonstrate resources being depleted, it does not matter if those resources are critical or not to civilization.

Any biological based product does not have the generation capability to produce that ammout of energy, weither it be the 1850, or 2050.

Disargee: www.idahoforests.org/img/pdf/PotentialContribution.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TCW-4RNK3VP-1/1/c1ac495fe4de1cf9fcce5167d2b39e96


Now, from National Geographic News:

Cheap Oil to Last, "Doomsday" Fears Overblown, Author Says Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News

February 14, 2007

If this was true I would expect the oil executives like Shell's CEO not to be worrying like he is, these people have access even to the Saudis top secret numbers, and yet there emails and memos show them very worried.

if we should be planned it to switch out of oil NOW, while the going is good.
 
Man, you are really something! Not a worthy opponent in a debate, but something!

Again, how many things were projected to have run out?

This is such a fine logical fallacy, that you should print it and frame it. First other things unrelated to the topic but predicted to run out (and haven't) are fucking IRRELEVANT!

Second, just because there were wrong predictions in the past, that doesn't mean one is not going to be correct. You see I can be wrong about the weather for weeks, but eventually I get it right if I keep repeating the same forecast...

Also thanks for using the larger print, by the time you understand peak oil, we gonna be VERY old....
 
Man, you are really something! Not a worthy opponent in a debate, but something!

Yet I have you going in circles screaming and shouting, yes, not a worthy opponent not even a unworthy opponent, to be worthy you have to have some logic and a open mind, thing that are lacking in you make up.


This is such a fine logical fallacy, that you should print it and frame it. First other things unrelated to the topic but predicted to run out (and haven't) are fucking IRRELEVANT!

Really, the same logic was used to formulate those dire prediction.

The same Chicken Little, logic,

[/QUOTE]Second, just because there were wrong predictions in the past, that doesn't mean one is not going to be correct. You see I can be wrong about the weather for weeks, but eventually I get it right if I keep repeating the same forecast...[/QUOTE]

So we are suppose to ruin our economies because they might be right?

Talk about some one showing a lack of logic.

Also thanks for using the larger print, by the time you understand peak oil, we gonna be VERY old....

Well with the problems you seem to have with word and reading comprehension, I though it just might help to point out the pertinent passages, kind of like when some one claimed that there were no Kerosene Lanterns/Lamps before 1847? It was right their in their own citation that Kerosene Lamps/Lanterns were in use from the 7 century.
 
Therefor any argument that there is a problem is wrong, so when people said Hitler was killing millions, they were just being alarmist fools?

Again? What does Hitler have to do with squat about this subject?

The fact is that people were denying that Hitler was killing millions, and it was people like me who were screaming at the top of our lungs that he was a full blown bastard.

Capacity for what? A fuel that is running out? Why mine more if their no way you can supply demand, why build refineries if there is going to be nothing to refine. And are present problems have nothing to do with politically limited capacity.

So just sit back and let the economies go south? that is your solution, again there is no alternative energy source that has the maturity and infrastructure to replace oil, and their won't be for the next 30 to 100 years.

And yes the present capacity problems have everything to do with poor, politically generated, energy policies, the fact that we haven't kept up with our exploration, we haven't kept up our refining capacity, we haven't planned for alternative electrical sources/ nuclear, that we are killing our coal fired generating capacity even though it has met environmental standards, and is continuing to advance clean burn technology.


This is assuming the crash in oil would not destroy even the most outstanding economy

And we are crashing our economy now with out outragious fuel prices, that are fueling the rise in the price of everything else in the economy.

The present lack of a cohesive energy policy is leading to a economic disaster that will kill the ability to ever raise moneys to fund new technology, with out a economy you don't have the funds to do the research.


That a gross simplification of a very complex issue, most of the food price increase is do the demand in china and india, rising oil prices, biofuel only represent a small percentage of the food price increases, most of all 2nd gen biofuels from biomass don't affect food prices.

Yes they do, any land taken out of food production to grow bio fuels, in the end, that loss of land, affects the food side of the equation.

I take land to grow crops, wether you eat those crops or turn them in to fuel, and you can't eat fuel.


I think the blame for improper planing goes all around, at lest some liberals have been saying we need to prepare and plan for these things.

Then why aren't we going after all the known sources of energy to keep the economy running as we work on developing new energy sources?

Why aren't we drilling in ANWAR, off the West Coast, off the Florida Coast, China the largest polluter in the world is going to, so it doesn't make any sense for us not to, and wan tto bet who will do the most damage to the environment, Chinas record isn't even in the running.


Just are their is no proof planets are place, but rather all evidence is either a lie or miss-interpreted. The proof is their your just denying it at all cost.

Can't respond as this make no sense at all.

but rather all evidence is either a lie or miss-interpreted.

Isn't that what your mantra is about the evidence that I have forwarded, that it's's all a lie, or the People are misinterpreting the finding?

The alegory was to demonstrate resources being depleted, it does not matter if those resources are critical or not to civilization.

The allegory has nothing to due with the present situation, any thing based of a living animal is not going to be sustainable, and the birth of the industrial age and it's need for energy put paid to the whaling industry, and the fact that cheaper fuels for lighting and power from oil was the trump card for the end of the whaling industry.



Disargee: www.idahoforests.org/img/pdf/PotentialContribution.pdf

Again anything that requires land to grow, any thing to produce alcohol, take land out of the food production cycle, not sustainable because of food supply problems, as is being demonstrated today, around the World.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TCW-4RNK3VP-1/1/c1ac495fe4de1cf9fcce5167d2b39e96

And where are they going to raise all that microalgae? and what is it going to do to the ecology? the ammount of microalgae needed is not producable in a factory labratory setting.

Maybe on the oceans, or lakes, but again that bring the biodiversity into question.


If this was true I would expect the oil executives like Shell's CEO not to be worrying like he is, these people have access even to the Saudis top secret numbers, and yet there emails and memos show them very worried.

But the National Geographic News story was based on a Oil Executive and the information he had access to, Leonardo Maugeri, the senior vice president at the Italian oil corporation Eni SpA, he's also an oil-industry insider.


if we should be planned it to switch out of oil NOW, while the going is good.

But it takes money to do that switch, and if we don't use every source of energy we have, we aren't going to get there, and guess what, as usual we just might find out again that the doom sayers you are so enamored with just might be wrong again?

There track record of predictions isn't good at all, I wouldn't take their advise on what to bet, even if I was holding Aces, with a King kicker, at the poker table.
 
We probably will drill in ANWAR, but it won't make any difference. Neither will biofuels. This is a bigger problem than Hitler.
 
Again? What does Hitler have to do with squat about this subject?

The fact is that people were denying that Hitler was killing millions, and it was people like me who were screaming at the top of our lungs that he was a full blown bastard.

No by your argument we should have listened to the people who were denying it, because the people who said it happening were "fear mongering doom and gloomers"?

So just sit back and let the economies go south? that is your solution, again there is no alternative energy source that has the maturity and infrastructure to replace oil, and their won't be for the next 30 to 100 years.

And yes the present capacity problems have everything to do with poor, politically generated, energy policies, the fact that we haven't kept up with our exploration, we haven't kept up our refining capacity, we haven't planned for alternative electrical sources/ nuclear, that we are killing our coal fired generating capacity even though it has met environmental standards, and is continuing to advance clean burn technology.

Well if their is no alternative (as you say) then yes, in fact jut shoot your self in the head now and get it over with. We can't keep up period no matter how much we search we are never going to find another Ghawar and we will need another Ghawar worth in oil every 3 years are a present pace of ~30billion barrels a year! Clean coal is a oxymoron, coal will never be clean nor is it going to be plentiful for long especially when we are likely going to start converting it into transport fuel, are existing capacity in coal is 60-70 years are expected exponential demand (we we suck it up at todays rates it would last use may 200 years) but if its at even higher then expected demand because it has to take oil and natural gases place then were are setting are self up for a even more hurt then peak oil a few decades down the line.

And we are crashing our economy now with out outragious fuel prices, that are fueling the rise in the price of everything else in the economy.

The present lack of a cohesive energy policy is leading to a economic disaster that will kill the ability to ever raise moneys to fund new technology, with out a economy you don't have the funds to do the research.

Agree, but are economy right now is fucked because of oil, so either we try with what we got or we just hang are selfs now.

Yes they do, any land taken out of food production to grow bio fuels, in the end, that loss of land, affects the food side of the equation.

I take land to grow crops, wether you eat those crops or turn them in to fuel, and you can't eat fuel.

Your can't grow crops on the desert or on the open sea, but you can grow algae biodiesel, and the byproduct from algae diesels is animal feed! You can't grow crops on perennial grass lands, the soil is poor and the grass land we have left are under federal protection, but you can harvest that biomass and keep it ecologically sound, while replacing a significant percentage of our energy usage, and none of that land is now used for farming of course.

Then why aren't we going after all the known sources of energy to keep the economy running as we work on developing new energy sources?

Why aren't we drilling in ANWAR, off the West Coast, off the Florida Coast, China the largest polluter in the world is going to, so it doesn't make any sense for us not to, and wan tto bet who will do the most damage to the environment, Chinas record isn't even in the running.

Because drilling in ANWAR is not going to help, 5% of our demand in 10 years down the road in oil is a drop in the bucket. We could do more by increase car efficiency! China is going to be a world of hurt with us soon.

Can't respond as this make no sense at all.
This is because you don't understand philosophy (or at least not enough to understand what I'm talking about) your argument is denying reality, if worse then a fallacy, its saying the world is flat despite the evidence to the country.


Isn't that what your mantra is about the evidence that I have forwarded, that it's's all a lie, or the People are misinterpreting the finding?

The evidence you have used is not evidence, peoples opinion are worth as much has solid facts like, fact like we are finding 1/5th as much oil as we use a year, that oil production for the last 2 years had plateaued.

The allegory has nothing to due with the present situation, any thing based of a living animal is not going to be sustainable, and the birth of the industrial age and it's need for energy put paid to the whaling industry, and the fact that cheaper fuels for lighting and power from oil was the trump card for the end of the whaling industry.

By your argument farming should have fail to sustain humanity back in the 1850's, any thing that can replenish it self can be sustainable if it being used not as rapidly as it can replenish, all of agriculture has depended on this principle it why cows and chickens don't die off despite the fact we kill billions of them a year. Again you deny reality: whaling peaked before petroleum could replace it.

Again anything that requires land to grow, any thing to produce alcohol, take land out of the food production cycle, not sustainable because of food supply problems, as is being demonstrated today, around the World.


you confuse viable farm land with all land, by your argument asphalt roads are killing are farming industry by taking land.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TCW-4RNK3VP-1/1/c1ac495fe4de1cf9fcce5167d2b39e96

And where are they going to raise all that microalgae? and what is it going to do to the ecology? the ammount of microalgae needed is not producable in a factory labratory setting.

Anywhere, again we can grow it afloat at sea... your not going to tell that take up land? And microalgea will also produce food as well as fuel. The amount of sea taken up is nothing, not nearly as much as say is killed of in the great dead zone in the gulf of Mexico, in fact we could grow algae on top and pump the oxygen waste into the dead zone.

But the National Geographic News story was based on a Oil Executive and the information he had access to, Leonardo Maugeri, the senior vice president at the Italian oil corporation Eni SpA, he's also an oil-industry insider.

Some oil Executive are still covering their eyes, the very fact that we have oil exactives that say the opposite of each other is sort of says we can't trust these people. Do you listen to every marketer tell you how great their product is? Or do you listen to say their internal memos that say the opposite?


But it takes money to do that switch, and if we don't use every source of energy we have, we aren't going to get there, and guess what, as usual we just might find out again that the doom sayers you are so enamored with just might be wrong again?

Hey those alternatives would pay for them selfs we we put money in them now, heck France put money in nuclear decades ago and now they got the cheapest electricity in Europe, maybe they should have paid instead to keep asking for other countries to give them their fix in energy?

There track record of predictions isn't good at all, I wouldn't take their advise on what to bet, even if I was holding Aces, with a King kicker, at the poker table.

Continue playing poker, I don't gamble, gambling your more likely to lose then win.
 
I will let you guys fight it out, in the maintime, education!

Dr. Hirsch of the Hirsch report was on the business channel this morning and he didn't sugarcoat it:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4019#more

(about 4 mins video)

It is nice to see that finally the mainstream media started to talk about the topic as reality....
 
Last edited:
Only if a conservative use's it,.............

I would not accuse all conservatives of using such a fallacy any more then all liberals. I don't believe one party is evil and the other is good, rather individual members of both parties sit on a scale of good, bad... and ugly.
 
No by your argument we should have listened to the people who were denying it, because the people who said it happening were "fear mongering doom and gloomers"?

Not on your life, you are the one on the side of conventional wisdom, there is no massacre going on, just as you say the oil is running out, I am the one in the minority here, just as those who pointed out that Hitler was staging a holocaust against the Jew and the Untermensch.

I am not the one singing the party line, the world is doomed we are running out of oil.


Well if their is no alternative (as you say) then yes, in fact jut shoot your self in the head now and get it over with. We can't keep up period no matter how much we search we are never going to find another Ghawar and we will need another Ghawar worth in oil every 3 years are a present pace of ~30billion barrels a year! Clean coal is a oxymoron, coal will never be clean nor is it going to be plentiful for long especially when we are likely going to start converting it into transport fuel, are existing capacity in coal is 60-70 years are expected exponential demand (we we suck it up at todays rates it would last use may 200 years) but if its at even higher then expected demand because it has to take oil and natural gases place then were are setting are self up for a even more hurt then peak oil a few decades down the line.

Never said there were no alternative, what I said was there are no mature alternatives available today with the infrastructure to deliver that amount of energy that is required by the industrial world.

Now we are running out of Coal?........?

British Petroleum, in its annual report 2007, estimated at 2006 end, there were 909,064 million tons of proven coal reserves worldwide, or 147 years reserves to production ratio. This figure only includes reserves classified as "proven"; exploration drilling programs by mining companies, particularly in under-explored areas, are continually providing new reserves. In many cases, companies are aware of coal deposits that have not been sufficiently drilled to qualify as "proven". However, some nations haven't updated their information and assume reserves remain at the same levels even with withdrawals.

Just in the U.S. there are far more coal reserves than oil.

800px-


US coal regions Of the three fossil fuels coal has the most widely distributed reserves; coal is mined in over 100 countries, and on all continents except Antarctica. The largest reserves are found in the USA, Russia, Australia, China, India and South Africa.


Agree, but are economy right now is fucked because of oil, so either we try with what we got or we just hang are selfs now.

No the economy is screwed because of poor energy policy that didn't plan for the fact that alternative energies won't be available for the next 30 to 100 years, and we stopped making sure that the energy supply continued to flow in the mistaken belief that we would develop a alternative quickly.


Your can't grow crops on the desert or on the open sea, but you can grow algae biodiesel, and the byproduct from algae diesels is animal feed! You can't grow crops on perennial grass lands, the soil is poor and the grass land we have left are under federal protection, but you can harvest that biomass and keep it ecologically sound, while replacing a significant percentage of our energy usage, and none of that land is now used for farming of course.


And just how long before the ecco warriors went to court to protect the bio-diversity, or endangered species, of the desert, or the ocean, or what ever?

Look at what they are doing to the nuclear industry today, the building industry, even the military training exercises, suite upon suite because any thing done affects the Bio Diversity, and endangered species.

Because drilling in ANWAR is not going to help, 5% of our demand in 10 years down the road in oil is a drop in the bucket. We could do more by increase car efficiency! China is going to be a world of hurt with us soon.

Prove that, the surveys of ANWAR wwere never completed, we don't know how much oil is up their, and your saying that it's not going to help is tantamount to sayiong screw it stick a gun to your head and check out of the problem a

Attitudes like you express is exactly why we are in the energy problems of today, you can't do attitude is what is killing us faster than anything,


This is because you don't understand philosophy (or at least not enough to understand what I'm talking about) your argument is denying reality, if worse then a fallacy, its saying the world is flat despite the evidence to the country.

Yes Preppy, tell me what I don't understand, and just what have you seen of the world, you sit inyour Ivory Tower, in Minnisota and have nothing but the cacoon of college, what have you done in the real world, I have over a half century on this earth, and I have seen dozens of preppys like you wwho have hid from the world, done nothing out side the class room and then want to tell those of use who have done what the real world is, yes Preppy, what have you done in the real world?

You have the same problem of most of the college crowd, you close your mind, and spout the party line, if your so smart why haven't you developed the next mass energy to save the world.

Yes, while you wait for the right alternative fuel to come along the economy still has to survive.

And that as of today requires oil, any and all of it we can find, and we just might find out that there is more of it than you think there is, but we still have to have a viable economy to get us to tomaro.

Sit in your Ivory College Tower, as die, me I'm going to rase hell about using all sources of energy to get us to tomoro, and the new energy sources.

Your way of not doing a thing with the energy avalable today, just leads to defeat.

25 years old and still in college, and you want to tell me about reality?:roflmao::roflmao:


The evidence you have used is not evidence, peoples opinion are worth as much has solid facts like, fact like we are finding 1/5th as much oil as we use a year, that oil production for the last 2 years had plateaued. [/Quote}

Yes Preppy, tell me that the information from the E&P report, the U.S. Government.

Leonardo Maugeri, a senior vice president at the Italian oil corporation Eni SpA, a oil-industry insider.



This is opinion?

http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/enerji/kavakk/etanol.pdf

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...lsupply04.html

http://www.idahoforests.org/img/pdf/...ntribution.pdf

Dr. Jean K. Whelan, of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.

And just exactly what are your credentials?

You have a PH.D?


By your argument farming should have fail to sustain humanity back in the 1850's, any thing that can replenish it self can be sustainable if it being used not as rapidly as it can replenish, all of agriculture has depended on this principle it why cows and chickens don't die off despite the fact we kill billions of them a year. Again you deny reality: whaling peaked before petroleum could replace it.

Yes preppy tell me about farming, the breading cycles, the crop cycles, I was raised on a farm.

But not only has farming sustaind itself it has increased it output, food crops, beef, poltry, pork, and that is another one of the Gloom and Doom senarios, farming was supposed to have collapsed, in the 1980ty, and the world was suppose to have starved, because there wasn't enough land to feed the world.


you confuse viable farm land with all land, by your argument asphalt roads are killing are farming industry by taking land.

Well just how much crop land disapeares under the concret and asphalt every year? under the new housing and factories, that expands from the cities every year?

More than six million acres of U.S. agricultural land, an area roughly equivalent to the state of Maryland, was developed between 1992 and 1997,

Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth. Chapter 3 SOILS ...
China's loss of cropland to the construction of factories, roads, ... was losing some 500 square kilometers of cropland to desertification each year. ...
http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Eco/EEch3_ss5.htm


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TCW-4RNK3VP-1/1/c1ac495fe4de1cf9fcce5167d2b39e96



Anywhere, again we can grow it afloat at sea... your not going to tell that take up land? And microalgea will also produce food as well as fuel. The amount of sea taken up is nothing, not nearly as much as say is killed of in the great dead zone in the gulf of Mexico, in fact we could grow algae on top and pump the oxygen waste into the dead zone.

And how much green house gass will be produced by the mass of algea?

Mainly CO2's

What will happen to the ecological cycle, and bio diversity, as the algea spreads across the face of the ocean?

What happens to the other life forms in the ocean, under the shadow of the algea as the sunlight is blocked from the lower layers of water?

What of the endangered species, and those that will become endangered because of the change in the balance of the ecco system?

What of the Ecco Warriors ,and their law suites because you haven't proven that you will cause no harm to the environment with your algea farms.



Some oil Executive are still covering their eyes, the very fact that we have oil exactives that say the opposite of each other is sort of says we can't trust these people. Do you listen to every marketer tell you how great their product is? Or do you listen to say their internal memos that say the opposite?

Thus sayeth the man in college, with no practice experience, spouting the party line the Sky is Falling, the World is Doomed, There is NO MORE OIL,

Yes, party man, can't you even see just how little you think for yourself?

And guess what the internal memos say there is more oil, and that we need to get it, to get to the new energy sources of the future.


Hey those alternatives would pay for them selfs we we put money in them now, heck France put money in nuclear decades ago and now they got the cheapest electricity in Europe, maybe they should have paid instead to keep asking for other countries to give them their fix in energy?

You just don't see it? do you? from your own words ,
France put money in nuclear decades ago and now they got the cheapest electricity in Europe

Coherent Energy Policies, they started decades ago, but they didn't stop their energy use from the existing sources and wait for the nuclear generators to be built, did they, if they had their economy would have collapsed, and they wouldn't have had the money to pay for those plants, now would they?

Now just get the Democrats and the Greens in this country to agree to let us build about 20 new Nuclear Generating Plants in this country and see our use of oil fired and coal fired plants save vast ammount of fosil fuel for other uses.

Continue playing poker, I don't gamble, gambling your more likely to lose then win.

Which is exactly why you don't understand.
 
Buffalo Raom

{quote getting to long!}

Minorities are not always right, rightness has nothing to do with minorities or majority statements. Just because something may be some party line does not make it untrue, your argument is by the way the party line of the neocons, who are in power, does that make you a neocon, does that make you wrong? Use logic,not fallacies.

There are no mature oil production that can keep pace with demand either. we could try mining every last source of conventional crude oil, which would be a drop in the bucket and would dry up eventually anyways, or we could dedicate all are energy to switching to alternatives that have no practical limit, and thus our economy could grow without energy limiting it.

US coal reserves:
If production remains steady: ~200 year supply
If production remains exponential (as it has been): 60-80 supply
Minus more years if we begin gasifying/liquifing it to oil
USA already peaked in anthracite and bituminous and what is left (sub-bituminous) has high sulfar, high ash content and low energy density and is more expensive to mine then previous coal reserves and the price of production will continue to go up as we resort to lower and lower quality coal.

I Would say alternatives are ready now, We have windmills being build at a explosive pace, we have printable solar panal on the market already, we have hybrids and plug-in electrics with a few years of major production, also alternatives like electric trains have been around for decades but we as you said poorly invested in energy and now we lack the infrastructures. Your argument is that we can mine every last drop, won't do any good, we could kill every last whale or every last sturgeon would not bring those products production back up too matching demand, we either change or die, there is not "do as usually but at a faster pace" alternative.

I like your appeal to authority, very "I'm older and wiser!", sorry but it doesn't matter who you are (or who I am) to be wrong or right. A graduate student verse an old man is a unfair fight, but hey if a child can spell potato better then an old man, so be it. At least you don't see me insulting you by calling your names related to your age? Shows who's more mature.

The world did not starve because cheap energy (from oil) made fertilizer and machines that made farming many fold more productive, now we are running out of cheap energy, see the problem?

Biofuels don't produce CO2, they recycle it, its call carbon neutral because every ton of CO2 produced from burning algea biodiesel is a ton of CO2 absorbed again to make more algea biodiesel (this is assuming the carbon source is not a coal power plant, but even in that case CO2 production is cut down by ~30% by double use of carbon)

Algea is grown in bags, it does not spread, the area taken up by bags is small , at least in comparison to how much farmland has taken up. If it leaks out it dies, the rate of lose would be minor, and on the face of a desert there is little ecosystem to be ruined. You confuse me with and environmentalist, I seek green energy that balances environment and human needs (because environment is need for humans to survive long term), not environment at all cost like environmentalist believe. Eco-warriors won't have much of say when the economy is desperate in a few more years. We might even get more nuclear powerplants! And hey I gaureentee will will be trying to mine every last source of oil then, it but it does not take a genius to see that it will be useless, even a child can see that.
 
Algea is grown in bags, it does not spread, the area taken up by bags is small , at least in comparison to how much farmland has taken up. If it leaks out it dies, the rate of lose would be minor, and on the face of a desert there is little ecosystem to be ruined.

Originally Posted by ElectricFetus
Anywhere, again we can grow it afloat at sea... your not going to tell that take up land? And microalgea will also produce food as well as fuel. The amount of sea taken up is nothing, not nearly as much as say is killed of in the great dead zone in the gulf of Mexico, in fact we could grow algae on top and pump the oxygen waste into the dead zone.

CO2 molecules are only necessary during the light times. Plants do not need CO2 in the dark period, and in fact plants breathe out CO2 all the time, just as humans do. The slight difference is that in the light period, leaves use up their own CO2 to make sugars and so appear to breathe out only oxygen in the daytime.
 
Last edited:
I like your appeal to authority, very "I'm older and wiser!", sorry but it doesn't matter who you are (or who I am) to be wrong or right. A graduate student verse an old man is a unfair fight, but hey if a child can spell potato better then an old man, so be it. At least you don't see me insulting you by calling your names related to your age? Shows who's more mature.

No I never said I was wiser, what I have is more experience in the real world than you do.

Now as to appeals to authority, you seem to use them as well as I do.

Minorities are not always right, rightness has nothing to do with minorities or majority statements. Just because something may be some party line does not make it untrue, your argument is by the way the party line of the neocons, who are in power, does that make you a neocon, does that make you wrong? Use logic,not fallacies.

And being in the majority has nothing to do with it either, the majority has made many mistakes, the Herd Mentality, sorry I am not a lemming.

W. D. Hamilton, Markus K. Brunnermeier, Robert Prechter, Robert J. Shiller.

Herd behaviour describes how individuals in a group can act together without planned direction. The term pertains to the behaviour of animals in herds, flocks, and schools, and to human conduct during activities such as stock market bubbles and crashes, street demonstrations, sporting events, episodes of mob violence and even everyday decision making, judgement and opinion forming
.

Having been around a little longer than you, I have seen these gloom and doom scenarios come along at a steady pace, as soon as the last one proves wrong they race off to the next great doom to face the earth and civilization.

Now again it is a capacity problem not a lack of oil.

The overall utilization rate for the international rig market climbed to 95% from 83% in 2005. China, Russia and the former Soviet Union (FSU), who were excluded last year, have re-entered the census with 100% utilization, which greatly increased Europe’s and Asia’s overall percentages. Russia and the FSU added nearly 500 rigs, while China added over 1,100 units.

The latest information that I can pull shows that the U.S. is using 96% of it's drilling capacity, and the world utilization in 2006 was up significantly to 95% for land rigs, an increase from 83% last year.

Which means that there is a capacity problem of rigs available to drill new finds, they have to build more capacity, and that take time.

There are fields waiting for rigs to exploit them.

Statistical highlights from the census include:

• The US rig fleet had a net gain of 272 rigs this year, expanding to 2,298 units from 2,026.
This increase is the result of 391 rig additions (238 newbuilds) and 119 deletions during 2006.

• The total number of US rig owners increased by 31 this year to 257, as more companies found it economically viable to enter the market.

• US rig utilization increased another percentage point to a new record number of 96%.

• The Canadian rig fleet reached a new record high, up to 799 units from 741. This increase
included an additional 63 newly manufactured rigs that were added to the fleet.

• Canadian rig utilization climbed 10 percentage points to 84% during the spring census period.

• The global offshore mobile fleet rose by a net 13 units to 654. This total took into account gains from reactivations and new units, as well as losses due to hurricane damage and retired units.

• Outside the United States and Canada, utilization in 2006 was up significantly to 95% for land rigs, an increase from 83% last year.
 
CO2 molecules are only necessary during the light times. Plants do not need CO2 in the dark period, and in fact plants breathe out CO2 all the time, just as humans do. The slight difference is that in the light period, leaves use up their own CO2 to make sugars and so appear to breathe out only oxygen in the daytime.

And your point is?
 
Back
Top