David McGowan: Oh Mikey, You Gotta Lotta Splainin' to Do!

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: David McGowan: Oh Mikey, You Gotta Lotta Splainin' to Do

Postby wintler » Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:57 pm

Ah wordspeak, it makes me miserable to hear of peak oil awareness having that effect, its like pretending recycling cans excuses you from thinking about pollution; analogous to 'bargaining' in the grief cycle, i wonder.<br>Is it long-time activists who are stopping work on social justice/political campaign or comm.dev work, or is their sympathisers and supporters? I've had a number of old school campaigers say of PO, 'yeah, we knew it was coming thirty years ago, so whats new?' <br><br>The inducements to apathy, whatever the rationalisation, are very strong. Perhaps remind those excusing their political apathy by peak oil that our collective default plan is to kill to get it, burn it all up, and then worry, and there really isn't anywhere to hide. We need to radically change our use of resources, and this side of collapse, politics is the only way to do that on the scale required. (edit: actually, its not, i'm not even sure its the best way, but its certainly one way to try).<br><br>As i've always said, any number of self interested or genuinely evil interests will always fashion events to their purpose, and so maybe PO is being allowed onto the public stage now (if hobbled and disguised) to confuse the left over Iraq etc. But in 3+ years of paying pretty close attention (with the benefit of backgrounds in sciences and alt.media), i've seen nothing i would call credible to suggest that oil wont peak already/soon (conventional oil) or soon (all oil liquids) and that business as usual is the problem.<br><br>Any thoughts on how PO advocates might tailor their message to avoid inducing apathy? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=wintler>wintler</A> at: 8/14/06 10:05 pm<br></i>
wintler
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: David McGowan: Oh Mikey, You Gotta Lotta Splainin' to Do

Postby Dreams End » Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:10 am

<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Any thoughts on how PO advocates might tailor their message to avoid inducing apathy?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>There are four messages that should be opposed vociferously from within.<br><br>1. The end of civilization is just around the corner.<br><br>2. Peak oil exempts oil companies and the politicians who work for them from scrutiny and opposition.<br><br>3. ANYTHING related to population reduction. As I showed a long time ago, to get us just down to half the current population in a hundred years means adding another 100 million or so deaths on top of the death rate as it stands...per <br><br>4. This is obvious but worth mentioning...disavow the Abernethy's and others on the racist right who were arguing pop redux long before most of us had heard of peak oil. All the way back to Malthus, in fact. It was peak food then, of course.<br><br>I can't think of too much bad that can come from a peak oil message as wintler has it. One could actually go much further. The imminent demise of our oil supplies is reason enough in my view to take it out of private hands. I don't see too many peakers arguing this, and we know what happens to countries that nationalize their oil fields...<br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: David McGowan: Oh Mikey, You Gotta Lotta Splainin' to Do

Postby knowbuddysfool » Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:15 am

Don't despair, Wintler! Leonardo DeCaprio is doing public service announcements on Link TV and Free Speech TV. He also has a website, leonardodecaprio.org, and he's made a movie about global warming and other environmental concerns. <p></p><i></i>
knowbuddysfool
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:51 pm
Location: Midwest USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: David McGowan: Oh Mikey, You Gotta Lotta Splainin' to Do

Postby sijepuis » Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:19 pm

DE: <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The imminent demise of our oil supplies is reason enough in my view to take it out of private hands.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Aie, absolutely! We've got to realize that production of medication and the maintenance of even minimal infrastructure will depend on hydrocarbons for some time. Even with the most optimistic of oil estimates a buffer reserve of "inexpensive" oil must be set aside for absolute necessities. <br><br>But that will require at least partial nationalisation. <p></p><i></i>
sijepuis
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:00 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: David McGowan: Oh Mikey, You Gotta Lotta Splainin' to Do

Postby Dreams End » Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:33 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>In the last twelve months there have been an increasing number of articles using the phrase (whoop-de-doo), many of which ridicule, post-date, or otherwise minimise the issue. I challenge you to find a mainstream media article before 2004 that even does that.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Will you pledge ten dollars to charity for every one I find? <br><br>Here are some to start:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>The advocates of war insist it's not about oil. But global oil production is on the brink of terminal decline and when the West begins to run short of supplies - could be a lifeline. BBC March '03<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/040403_oil_war_bbc.html">Full text hosted by Ruppert</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100203_cnn_peak_oil.html">CNN article from '03 on Ruppert's site</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>These were two I pulled from the McGowan article which I guess does suggest that we all should read McGowan's articles before we critique ithem.<br><br>I also disagree, wintler, with the idea that all mainstream articles are poo pooing the idea. If you want to keep contributing to Charity, I've already found one from the ABC news website that quotes Peter Maas. And there are many, many others. So really you've said two things:<br><br>1. Before 2004 no mainstream media were even talking about the concept dismissively, much less seriously entertaining the idea and<br><br>2. Most mainstream articles now scoff at the idea.<br><br>Both are demonstrably false. But the fact that the articles coming up now are really pushing the idea may make some Peakers feel justified in their views. It just creeps me out, as the articles are accompanying a ridiculous oil price gouging fest that seems not to be ending. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: David McGowan: Oh Mikey, You Gotta Lotta Splainin' to Do

Postby Dreams End » Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:43 pm

<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/brkfast/stories/s918926.htm">Radio National Breakfast - August of '03</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>I know...'03 is not too long before '04...but 2004 was the date you mentioned. There are so many articles that I'm not sure how many older ones I'll find even if there were many...without going to a library or something like that. <br><br>Oh..nevermind:<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_n2631_v126/ai_20077712">USA Today 1997</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>I have to get back to work, but go ahead and pick out your charity and I'll post some more later. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Oh Mikey, Wha'happen'd?

Postby AlanStrangis » Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:54 pm

Just a quick observation/question on Ruppert...<br><br>As someone who's read articles by & about Ruppert for a number of years (and always thought he seemed on the up and up), but really started paying attention to what he was saying right after 9/11, I really noticed a change after the publication of "Crossing the Rubicon"., which seemed to crystalize with Ruppert's position on Gary Webb's death.<br><br>It's almost as if he adopted the same stance as the typical "anti-conspiracy theorist" editorial one would find at <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.zmag.org/content/Instructionals/shalalbcon.cfm">zmag.org</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>In a very short time span, Ruppert went from doing a bang up job, to some kind of pitch man.<br><br>I honestly can't see him being any kind of long term disinfo agent, as some have suggested, but it certainly appears that he's no longer what he used to be.<br><br>I guess my question is:<br><br> "Has anyone else noticed the same thing, and the timing of his change? Or is there some info on Ruppert prior to the Rubicon publication that would suggest otherwise?" <p></p><i></i>
AlanStrangis
 
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:34 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Just 'cos you're paranoid doesn't mean MR is out to get you

Postby Bismillah » Tue Aug 15, 2006 3:14 pm

Look, can we put this one to bed, pleeeease? Gary Webb had been made practically unemployable and was terribly depressed because of it. He had bravely put body and soul into a piece of very important work, for years - and his trusted editor then threw him to the wolves. He was no longer a very young man. His work was his vocation was his life, and he could no longer work. <br><br>This does not <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>prove</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> that he killed himself, but it makes it plausible, and his family have never contested the verdict. <br><br>Ruppert agrees, and cites his experience of other suicide cases where the person involved shot himself twice or more. <br><br>Now, can anyone tell me what on earth they think could possibly motivate Michael Ruppert to hush up the faked suicide of someone he greatly respected and liked, and whose work on CIA drug involvement supports, mirrors and reinforces his own work on the very same filthy topic - and his own terrible experiences?<br><br>The answer is plain: nothing. Zero. Zilch. So get over the fact that somebody disagrees with you, and spare us this utterly paranoid crap about the indicter of Cheney and the revealer of CIA drugs-crime being <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>a secret government insider</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. It's just plain infantile. <p></p><i></i>
Bismillah
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:35 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Just 'cos you're paranoid doesn't mean MR is out to get

Postby Dreams End » Tue Aug 15, 2006 3:33 pm

It wasn't that he disagreed, it was his "shocked and appaled" tone and the "how dare you question the verdict" stance. I can handle that he would disagree, but not that he would seem somehow surprised in this Danny Casolaro world, that people might find the whole thing a tad suspicious. Sure, Mike has seen lots of suicides who used two shots to their own head...most of us weren't familiar with this phenomenon.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Shabby, Self-Serving Internet Reports by Pseudo Journalists and Activists Cause Webb Family Grief - It's Time for Real Journalists and Activists to Shun Demagogues, Hysterics and Profiteers<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>However, as a general piece of advice, the above quote should serve us all well, if you know what I mean....<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Just 'cos you're paranoid doesn't mean MR is out to get

Postby Et in Arcadia ego » Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:12 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>So get over the fact that somebody disagrees with you, and spare us this utterly paranoid crap about the indicter of Cheney and the revealer of CIA drugs-crime being a secret government insider. It's just plain infantile.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>This reads to me as "Get over the fact that I disagree and adopt my POV so I'm not inconvenianced anymore."<br><br>You seem strongly motivated to defend Ruppert's honor..I would be an idiot if I believed you were going through all this trouble seflessly for DE's benefit or anyone else who disagrees with you(like myself). While you're here telling everyone else what's right and wrong to believe, would you mind helping me pick out the shirt I'm going to wear today?<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>WAY </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->too many attempts at members here asserting themselves over other members. I want some <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>REAL</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> reasons in black and white why I should trust this Ruppert guy, and unfortunately, riposts containing adjectives like 'infantile' don't conform to a fact-based indexing to me..<br><br>So quantifiably speaking, and thusly eliminating insulting replys as part of one's argument, what is the factual basis that can be established in the argument that Ruppert's brand of Reality(and by extension, your own) should unquestioningly be held as valid above all others, including our own.<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Sell</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> me on that Ruppert T-Shirt.. <p>____________________<br>Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=etinarcadiaego@rigorousintuition>et in Arcadia ego</A>  <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.sickle666.com/images/Arcadia.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 8/15/06 2:13 pm<br></i>
User avatar
Et in Arcadia ego
 
Posts: 4104
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:06 pm
Location: The Void
Blog: View Blog (0)

Response to timewasting

Postby Bismillah » Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:29 pm

"You seem strongly motivated to defend Ruppert's honor..."<br><br>- I am strongly motivated to defend him against lazy and resentful people who slander him as a fascist, a prick or a would-be mass-murderer. <br><br>"I would be an idiot if I believed you were going through all this trouble seflessly for DE's benefit or anyone else who disagrees with you(like myself)."<br><br>- You would be paranoid if you thought otherwise. <br><br>"So quantifiably speaking, and thusly eliminating insulting replys as part of one's argument, what is the factual basis that can be established in ****the argument that Ruppert's brand of Reality(and by extension, your own) should unquestioningly be held as valid above all others, including our own.*****"<br><br>- Don't be ridiculous! I never made any such argument, and you know it. <p></p><i></i>
Bismillah
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:35 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Just 'cos you're paranoid doesn't mean MR is out to get

Postby wintler » Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:06 pm

OT.<br>Dreams End: Okay, you've got me cold there, obvious the oil peak WAS getting sympathetic mentions in MSM before 04.. its so liberating to set fire to ones own credibility, i've decided :/ There is certainly alot more media mentioning PO now: you don't think that might be a natural consequence of five years of price rises? (the recent fall in production isn't widely covered yet, curiously). <br>That Bush & co. have escaped any responsibility for price rises while warring in the M.East (the so called 'terrorism premium', $20/barrel some say) is incredible. <br><br>I still think its fair to say that Hubbert's methods and predictions have been ignored for most of the 35 years since US lower-48 states production proved them to be valid. Before Campbell/Petroconsultants put together their data in 1997, nobody had replicated Hubberts work in decades. Regardless of coverage, apart from the 'peace and freedom' work of US military and its vassals in oil exporting nations, it hasn't begun to permeate into public behaviour or commercial and govt policy and action, on that front we still travelling arse backwards and on fire. If there is a conspiracy, i think it is to waltz joe sixpack into the peak unprepared. <br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=wintler>wintler</A> at: 8/15/06 7:07 pm<br></i>
wintler
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

peak oil hoax lol

Postby sullymandias » Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:55 pm

listening to intelligent people argue that peak oil is a hoax reminds me how much<br><br>1. we can convince ourselves that practically anything is true, no matter how far it diverges from reality<br><br>2. what we believe as real becomes the real<br><br>i am sure weve all been over this a million times, but<br><br>1. ghawar is failing, right now. production from saudi arabia is down hundreds of millions of barrells a day<br><br>2. even if abiotic oil were true, it would only produce oil at a certain rate. and, whatever that rate is, it has not been fast enough to refill any of those wells that we exhausted many decades ago<br><br>theres more to say but, whats the point? in the end, we are all going to continue believing what we already believe, until we are shocked out of it. which rarely happens with words.<br><br>-s <p></p><i></i>
sullymandias
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:55 pm
Location: boston ma usa
Blog: View Blog (0)

intelligent anti-peakers

Postby Dreams End » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:23 pm

I did a quick search on "saudi oil production". Try it. Almost every article on the first page were dire warnings...and almost ALL OF THEM were actually reports or reviews of a book or presentation by Matthew Simmons. I am completely serious...try it:<br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hs=pCi&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aunofficial&q=%22saudi+oil+production%22&btnG=Search">"saudi oil production"</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Except this one:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>How Saudi Arabia can double oil production<br>Saudi oil production capacity could grow from its current 11 million b/d to over 23 million b/d to meet world demand according to Saudi Aramco's President and Chief Executive Officer Abdallah S. Jumah, confounding sceptics who believe that the Kingdom may be approaching, or even past, peak production.<br>Saudi Arabia: Saturday, June 04 - 2005 at 13:00<br><br><br>Petroleum and Mineral Resources Minister Ali Al-Naimi: 'There are great opportunities to increase the Kingdom's producible oil reserve by about 200 billion barrels.'<br>Petroleum and Mineral Resources Minister Ali Al-Naimi: 'There are great opportunities to increase the Kingdom's producible oil reserve by about 200 billion barrels.'<br><br>related stories<br>Dedicated Saudi Arabia Focus RSS feed Saudi Arabia Focus RSS feed<br><br> 1. Saudi gas development is back on track<br> 2. Massive investments in railway infrastructure<br> 3. Saudi minerals: an untapped gold mine for privatization<br> 4. Riyadh optimistic about WTO accession this year<br> 5. Saudi privatisation get into top gear<br> 6. Saudi Arabia plans huge refinery investments<br> 7. Mobile phones transform the Kingdom's telecom market<br> 8. Kingdom's banks look to golden era<br> 9. Industrial diversification lifts off in Saudi Arabia<br> 10. WTO set to boost foreign direct investment into Saudi Arabia<br><br>More Saudi Arabia Focus stories »<br>In a speech delivered at Rice University in Houston Mr Jumah said that the Kingdom is uniquely positioned to step up and deliver, because of its reserves and resources, to consider raising its production by such a margin.<br><br>The company is currently expanding its production, processing and transport infrastructure to allow for a 12 million b/d capacity which includes a commitment to maintain 1.5 million to 2 million b/d of spare production capacity.<br><br>At the end of 2004, Crown Prince Abdullah inaugurated Saudi Aramco's Qatif project, north of Dhahran. This has increased production capacity by 800,000 b/d. Some 500,000 barrels derives from onshore extraction and 300,000 barrels from the offshore Abu Safah field which is part of the Qatif production project.<br><br>Increased production capacity has been helped by completion of other recent projects in the South Riyadh oilfield, Shaybah, as well as Qatif. A project in the Haradh field to produce another 300,000 b/d will be completed in 2006 while 500,000 b/d is expected to come on stream from field developments at Abu Hadriya, Fadhili and Khursaniyah in 2007. New production at the Khurais field north of Saudi Aramco's principal Ghawar field will increase output there to 1.9 million b/d by 2009.<br><br>200 billion barrels more<br>According to Petroleum and Mineral Resources Minister Ali Al-Naimi: 'There are great opportunities to increase the Kingdom's producible oil reserve by about 200 billion barrels either through new discoveries or increasing the percentage of extractable oil from known reserves.'<br><br>Saudi Aramco says it has a conservative approach to reservoir estimates and depletes its reverses at a far slower rate than major oil companies a policy which is designed to provide a healthy cushion between its production and its maximum sustainable capacity.<br><br>Dr. Nansen Saleri, Saudi Aramco's oil reservoir manager has said that Saudi Aramco's production capacity can easily be increased to sustainable rates of 12 million to 15 million barrels-a-day if global markets demand the extra crude.<br><br>With 27.62% of the world's proven oil reserves, Saudi Arabia possesses the lion's share of all the oil producing countries crude according to BP's latest annual statistical survey.<br><br>About 130 billion barrels of this is developed and mostly in production. Saudi Aramco's plans call for the replacement of 15 billion barrels of reserves from 2005 to 2009 at a rate of about 3 billion barrels a year.<br><br>'We believe very confidently that we are looking very conservatively upwards of 150 billion barrels over and above the 260 billion barrels that we carry as proven reserves right now. That is 60% more and that's the underlying message we want to convey,' Dr Saleri told the Centre for Strategic and International Studies last year.<br><br>Saudi Aramco considers that the huge acreage in Saudi Arabia's Rub al-Khali Empty Quarter desert region in the south-east offers big potential for new oil finds as well as the northern basin towards the northern border as well as the offshore Red Sea basin.<br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.ameinfo.com/61640.html">link</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Can you see why some of us intelligent anti-peakers might be "deluded". Not only do we have to believe the peakers, we have to ignore other experts. We are somehow, magically, supposed to know which ones are shills and which ones are speaking truth. Since Simmons makes $$$ when prices go up, I'm wondering if maybe he's not the one to listen to about this, since justifying price gouging by saying it's simply supply issues is a great tactic.<br><br>Can I go ahead and anticipate the response? Saudi Arabia/Aramco is lying!!!!<br><br>Fine, so how do you guys have independent sources of information to sort out the truth or falsity of various claims in oil. You doing your own surveys?<br><br>And why does it amaze you that people could see a report like the one above and give it as much credence as a book by an oil speculator. Who provides the data, anyway? Do oil companies benefit from HONESTY in their reporting one way or the other?<br><br>Go read palast's article again about the falling price of oil and Hubbert's helpful analysis for Shell that showed that it was going to peak sooner than anyone thought. Translation: prices are too low.<br><br><br>Now Sullymandias, how did YOU become such an expert on the Ghawar oil field? What's your data source? What does "down millions of barrels a day mean?" Where did you get that info and how do you know that it's a matter of peak and not profit. <br><br>A quick review:<br><br>Decrease supply = increase price = fat wallet for fat oilmen.<br><br>Here, evidently without irony, is the description of Simmons given on one site that reported his dire findings (which turned out to be "skepticism of Saudi claims".<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Another analyst who made the post-9/11 pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia was Matthew Simmons, an <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>advisor to Dick Cheney's energy task force </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->and a one time contributor to George Bush's energy plan during the 2000 campaign. An investment banker who has specialized in the energy industry for 30 years, Simmons visited Saudi Arabia for six days in 2003 as part of a U.S. energy delegation and, like Roberts, came away skeptical. Could Saudi Arabia really double its production rate over the next decade? For that matter, could it increase its production rate at all? Or had Saudi production already peaked?<br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0506.drum.html">link obtained on first page of above google search</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Are you folks seriously going to sit here and say I should believe someone who was an advisor to Cheney's energy task force...can you honestly not see what's going on here? <br><br>Oh, by the way, one of Simmons' main projects is pushing for more transparency in reporting in the oil industry. See, it's really hard to get good info. from the above article:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>For Simmons, this is no idle question. His main fight these days is to push for increased transparency in the oil industry so that independent analysts can rely on more than guesswork to figure out how much oil we have left. It's a good cause as far as it goes, since the almost complete lack of solid information in the oil patch leads different analysts to wildly diverse conclusions. Peak oil doubters, for example, project a world production peak sometime around mid-century, if ever. They note that production has continued to increase for decades despite warnings of decline ever since the first oil embargo. They point out that estimates of world oil reserves have increased since 1980 despite the fact that we've gulped down more than 500 billion barrels of the stuff during that time. And they argue that higher prices will promote additional exploration and more extensive use of costly technology, while making it profitable to develop otherwise remote deepwater and Arctic oil fields.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Searching on Ghawar I get this:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Among the many prolific oil fields in the Middle East, the giant Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia stands out as the crown jewel.<br><br>Discovered in 1948, Ghawar is the world's biggest oil field, stretching 174 miles in length and 16 miles across to encompass 1.3 million acres.<br><br>Current estimates, according to the numerous published articles and reports on Ghawar, tag cumulative oil production from this geological giant at 55 billion barrels, and the field just keeps going gangbusters. Average production for the last 10 years has held essentially steady at five million barrels per day.<br><br>In fact, this one field accounts for more than one-half of all oil production in Saudi Arabia, according to a number of sources.<br><br>The anatomy of Ghawar was the topic of a presentation given by Abdulkader Afifi, senior geological consultant at Saudi Aramco, during his recent U.S. tour as an AAPG Distinguished Lecturer.<br><br>Ghawar is a north-trending anticlinal structure, which is expressed on the surface by outcrops of Tertiary rocks. In the field's northern part the structure actually comprises two parallel anticlines with a small low in between.<br><br>Oil was first discovered in 1948 in the northern part using structural drilling, where geologists would map structures by drilling a grid of shallow wells to the top of the Cretaceous, according to Afifi. This technique was developed by Max Steineke, chief geologist at the Arabian American Oil Co. (parent company to Saudi Aramco), who received the AAPG Sidney Powers medal in 1951.<br><br>The initial discovery in Ghawar's southern part was in 1949 at the Haradh Field, where American geologist Ernie Berg mapped the surface of the Haradh anticline using the ordinary, tried-and-true plane table method.<br><br>The northern and southern discoveries appear as separate fields on early maps prior to being connected as a single field in 1955.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/01jan/ghawar.cfm">link</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>This is from the radical American Association of Petroleum Geologists. So how is an intelligent anti-peaker supposed to figure out that they are lying? where is the pro-peak data coming from and how are we non experts supposed to know which is correct? Which of you are geologists?<br><br>Aramco's chief petroleum writer:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The planning, construction and operation of oil-production and pressure-maintenance facilities in such fields as Ghawar represents a deliberate, coordinated effort to produce crude oil in Saudi Arabia at optimum conditions. It is common knowledge in informed circles that the volume of crude produced daily by Aramco's fields, including Ghawar, is very substantial. While the company's storage tank capacity is large, and growing, it would take very little time to overflow its tanks with current production. This is a problem that company oil planners do not expect to face. Large quantities of oil are being produced in and exported from Saudi Arabia these days because there is a demand for it. Ghawar field is pulling its weight to help meet the world's urgent—and increasing—requirements for energy.<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/197306/oscar.for.an.oilfield.htm">link</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I am well aware that there are reports that contradict the above. Even some Saudi officials have said Ghawar is in decline, but say they can make up for it and more in other ways. They could be lying about the former, the latter, both or neither. <br><br>My point is that the idea that peak is somehow self-evident...you look out your window and go, "Holy S&*t, we are running out of oil" is silly. People disagree because the data that exists is not complete and even when it is, how to speculate about future tech and discoveries is not agreed on. That's why they call it the "future" and not the "past."<br><br>I think this quote from Simmon's & co international probably sums up why I'm a little skeptical of him:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Ownership of publicly traded oil service equity is concentrated in a small percentage of institutions. This concentration of ownership, combined with its focused industry research, has enabled Simmons to develop close relationships with these key owners of oil service equities. This gives the Simmons Institutional Sales force, with its “single product,” excellent placement power in offerings, and its Research effort excellent access to those institutions.<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/services_inst_sales.asp">link</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Simmons is a pro of course and has a business to run so he has to be a bit more blunt in his reports. You can find them <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=researchreports">here.</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>I found this little paragraph in the January '06 report:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Crude fundamentals are characterized by structural positives, including stubbornly resilient energy demand, OPEC discipline and increasingly unyielding challenges which support a higher range of oil prices than historical precedent (in our view between $50 and $80/bbl) with risks of spikes if geopolitical tensions escalate. As was the case last year, there is uncertainty regarding winter demand due primarily to mild weather in North America. The Secretary-General of OPEC, however, has recently expressed, on more than one occasion, that at $45 to $55/bbl crude, oil prices do not have a deleterious effect on the worldwide economy, which leads us to believe that the cartel will defend this pricing threshhold, should this prove necessary. Further, there is some anecdotal evidence that OPEC has trimmed production over the past month - the recent compressing tanker rates and effective price increases for Arab Medium and Heavy grades corroborates this view as well. Whether OPEC ultimately offically cuts production in Vienna on January 31 remains to be seen, but the fact remains that OPEC is proactively managing for the possibility of excess supply by controlling output in advance of the seasonally weak second quarter demand.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I had to hand type that so you have to get the pdf yourself. Can you see what this is saying? Nothing radical, of course, but it's saying OPEC manipulates production to keep prices up and that they were anticipating an excess of supply.<br><br>I went to around page 11 or so looking for his country by country analysis. No dire end of the world predictions to be found, but he did say this about Saudi production in reference to the disagreement over oil field decline rates:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Based on the limited amount of publicly available information, we believe there is reason to doubt whether or not Saudi Arabia can meet its target of 12.5 mb/d.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br><br>He's not contradicting himself in these reports...but just a tad less...alarmist. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 8/16/06 12:26 pm<br></i>
Dreams End
 

pong...

Postby 5E6A » Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:47 pm

The Iranian version.....<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/19180.html">www.energybulletin.net/19180.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>"ALI SAMSAM BAKHTIARI is a retired "senior energy expert," formerly employed by the National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC) of Tehran, Iran.<br><br>"Bakhtiari believes that the world is at Peak Oil, producing about as much conventional oil on a daily basis as will ever be produced, now about 84 million barrels per day. From here on, the oil markets of the world will be dealing with the ongoing effects of oil field depletion and irreversible production decline. By 2025, Bakhtiari expects that the world's daily production of conventional oil will fall to a level between 50-55 million barrels of oil per day.<br><br>"Bakhtiari is pessimistic about the prospects for large-scale energy projects based on manufactured fuels, such as coal-to-oil and gas-to-oil projects. His reasons are many, ranging from the scale and cost of such projects to the raw environmental degradation they cause. In addition, much of the feedstock for these projects, for raw material and/or process heat, is supposed to come from natural gas. But natural gas supplies are about to "peak" worldwide and commence their own irreversible curve of decline, so this is not a long-term solution.<br><br>"Nobody likes the idea of Peak Oil." <p></p><i></i>
5E6A
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Media and Information Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests