Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
stickdog99 wrote:As long as replacement power sources are non-polluting, renewable, and highly localized and decentralized, what's the problem?
The sun still is still shining (just about everywhere) and the wind is still blowing (just about everywhere).
Imagine that cold fusion were true and everybody could heat and power their homes and run their clean transportation for about $1 a year. What would be the problem again? The fact that massive human depopulation would be harder to justify?
What a sleuth you are Osculum Infame, you obviously haven't yet read my very first post, or any other primer on peak oil, because they pretty much all mention Hubbert working for Shell.Osculum Infame wrote:Here’s something that I learned today about the peak oil theory that I didn’t know that seals my skepticism about its validity. The theory of Peak Oil was invented by Marion King Hubbert in 1956. Who did Marion King Hubbert work for? You guessed it. Shell Oil.
December 29, 2006: The United States Air Force has been developing and testing new synthetic fuels. Why would the Air Force be looking into such fuels? The answer is that these new fuels will be much less reliant on less-than-stable sources. This is not a minor detail. If armies marched on their stomachs in Napoleon's time, modern mechanized armies – relying on tanks, planes, helicopters, and trucks – are marching on their fuel supplies.
Germany's fuel situation in the latter stages of World War II is a classic example of how modern armies are vulnerable to disruptions of their fuel supplies. In the 1944 Ardennes offensive, German plans hinged on the capture of American fuel dumps. By the end of the war, the Luftwaffe was not even able to amount a hundred sorties a day, due to a shortage of fuel.
The new fuels being tested on the B-52 come from the Fischer-Tropsch process. This method is often used to get useable liquid fuels from coal or other non-oil-based fuels. First developed in the early 1940s, this technique was used, late in World War II, by Nazi Germany to get fuel for its tanks, planes, and other vehicles. South Africa also used this process to meet its energy needs while it was under economic sanctions in the 1980s.
What does this alternate energy mean for the United States? It has nearly 250 billion tons of coal – almost the total of the next two largest countries, Russia and China (271 billion tons total). That is the basis for a lot of synthetic fuel. Natural gas is another source – and the United States has 204 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves. In addition to this, there are reported estimates of shale deposits containing 1.8 trillion barrels of oil.
That is, in and of itself, significant fuel reserves. In a very real sense, the United States, but pursuing synthetic fuels will have great benefits. If these tests pay off, the United States could find itself better able to train its forces stateside. This will only enhance the advantage the United States will have. – Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)
slimmouse wrote:I'd actually be surprised if you tried to support your 'scam' claim, no other sceptic-parrots have made any real effort. But then you work by repetition not reason, doncha slimmouse.
A few observations on this quote from you wintler. Firstly, there was a long post a while back on this board which clearly illustrated how, for about the last one hundred years, the "scam" which is peak oil has been parroted out over and over, in order to manipulate prices.[ But then again, as someone who then suggests that I work by repetition, you obviously missed that one, otherwise surely you wouldnt yourself be asking the question, and making the implication that oil is peaking - yet again ?
Secondly, we all know that Peak oil IS a scam, simply by nature of the fact that we can generate plenty of adequate replacement , in at least the form of Bio diesel, to put the oil companies out of work, or at least get them pumping nothing like the volumes currently being bled from Mother Earth.
And thirdly, you claim that I work by repetition not reason. I wonder what you make of the findings of Mr Daly I quoted above ? Is that link repetition or reason in your eyes ?
I actually think that you probably dont make a lot of the article, because like myself you probably arent sufficiently in the know about the subject, just like you arent in fact in the know about peak oil. ( or have you been down the wells ?)
So there we have it. My conjecture against yours, and yet regardless of whether oil is actually running out, or is produced abiotically, we do KNOW that this is a scam since there are workable alternatives easily producable
out there.
Hope that wasnt too repetetive for ya
The EU's 5% biodiesel mandate has led primarily to 2006 being possibly the biggest-ever landclearing burnoff in Indonesia & Malaysia (okay, worsening poverty 'helped') as palm oil prices leaped and palm oil plantations were suddenly worth much more than gorilla habitat. Wont it be hilarious if our largest primate relative goes extinct making way for pretend-green business as usual.
Mining triggered Newcastle quake, says US academic
A United States academic claims the 1989 earthquake which devastated Newcastle was triggered by coal mining in the region.
Dr Christian Klose from the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory says the mines weakened and reactivated a major fault line below Newcastle, which caused the quake.
The tremor killed 13 people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage.
It was Australia's first recorded fatal earthquake and Dr Klose says it was probably set off by two centuries of coal mining.
Large scale has some cost advantages too, and these frequently translate into ecological benefits. So it's kinda of a difficult scenario to predict.
commentary outside <<>> by Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, these lifted from their 9 Jan email bulletin
UK – Buzzard oil field comes onstream (Nexen Press Release, Mon 08 Jan)
http://www.nexeninc.com/Newsroom/News_R ... eId=629673
Nexen have just issued a Press Release saying that the UK oil field Buzzard 'commenced production on January 7, 2007'. Three points to note:
a/ It does not say what the initial production level is, or more realistically at this early stage, what the initial target production rate is.
The next two points relate to what Alistair Darling, UK Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is quoted as saying:
"the U.K. should return to being a net exporter over the next couple of years.”
b/ “return to being a net exporter” – This is the first time that I have seen the UK Govt officially admit we are a net oil importer. The usual DTI line thro' out 2006 was 'exporter till 2010'.
c/ “should... over the next couple of years” –This seems to mean the UK 'might' be a net oil exporter for 2007/2008. This is quite a turnaround. Up until last week, the position of the DTI was oil exporter to 2010. Now it is 2008, maybe. DTI to 2008, UKOOA to about 2010 (according to the Independent on Sunday article published on Sunday - Geoffrey Lean: Oil. The fast-vanishing drug the world can't yet live without – which quoted from a UKOOA 2006 Economic report – “The UK has been self-sufficient in oil for the last 25 years and is expected to remain so for the next four or five years”).
According to the IEA’s December issue of Oil Market Report, the UK is forecast to remain a net oil importer for 2007, just, and according to data available will become a serious net oil importer after 2007. Alistair Darling seems to have chosen his words carefully.
*****************************************************
BP Output Falls for Sixth Quarter, Hurt by Alaska (Bloomberg, Tue 09 Jan)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home
It is left to Bloomberg to discuss the most important point – what do the latest BP results imply for future production ? An article in Petroleum Review last year showed that oil production for most big oil companies appears to be peaking:. Note that ConocoPhillips has also reported poor results:
<<... The provisional fourth-quarter figure puts BP's overall 2006 production at 3.92 million barrels a day, down 2.3 percent from 2005, and missing an original BP goal of between 4.1 million and 4.2 million barrels a day.
BP's global output growth surged 10.8 percent in 2004, aided by new supply from its Russian venture, TNK-BP, then slowed to 0.4 percent the following year, hurt by U.S. hurricanes. The last time production rose from year-ago levels was in the second quarter of 2005.
“BP has been too optimistic” on how much it can extract from maturing assets, Citigroup analyst Jonathan Wright said in a note today. “This has implications for future production levels and we expect BP will need to scale back production growth expectations at its full-year results.”
... Last February, Browne said BP was on target to boost global output by an average 4 percent a year through 2010.
... BP is the second major oil company to report on fourth- quarter volumes and margins. Last week, ConocoPhillips, the third-largest U.S. oil company, said fourth-quarter production was "similar" to the third-quarter, which JPMorgan Chase & Co. analyst Jennifer Rowland said fell short of expectations.>>
**********************************************************************************************************
4/ Norway cuts 2007 oil output targets to 129.4 mln cubic metres vs 152.7 (Forbes, Fri 05 Jan)
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/af ... 01914.html
Sprott Asset Management notes: “This equates to a drop of 15%, or a loss of approximately 400,000 barrels per day.”
<<The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) has cut its 2007 oil production target for Norway to 129.4 mln standard cubic metres (sm3) from last year's forecast of 152.7 mln sm3, on the basis of ongoing uncertainty about the ability of industry to meet its targets.
For 2007, the NPD said production is likely to be somewhat lower than 2006, due to uncertainty about the ability of reservoirs to deliver, the timing of start-up of new projects and the regularity of producing fields.
It said the uncertainty level in its 2007 target is estimated at plus/minus 13 pct...>>
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 162 guests