owl wrote:
On 12 Feb 2005 04:36:47 -0800, wrote:
(...)
Of course, people aren't going to stop burning fossils fuels -
that is until they are gone, and that end is now in sight.
No it's not. Not even close. They're discovering new fields at the
same pace they always have. New technology is opening up access to
more fields. Other technologies are unlocking tar sands.
They most definitely are NOT finding new fields at the same
rate they always have. And, most of the new fields currently
being discovered are relatively small. Not enough to put a
dent in the supply side of oil. Most of worlds significant
monster fields of oil were discovered decades ago.
http://www.nanotech-now.com/nanocata...els-report.htm
Brilliant. Talk about comic-book logic. You site an
obscure technology that has the _potential_ to increase
recovery rates. Wow. I'm not holding my breath. And
while there may be temporary downward price adjustments,
there's never going to be a 'permanent downward adjustment'
on the price of a finite resource. Unless you're one of
those people that thinks the Earth is hollow and filled with
oil - you've just got to drill deep enough to find it.
Global production of oil, if it isn't peaking already,
will likely peak within the decade.
Not inside the current paradigm. China and India are in the take-off
stages of 'I Luv My Car':
http://biz.yahoo.com/cnw/041230/glob...o_sales_1.html
Thanks for underscoring my original point about the huge
growth in energy demand in both India and China.
Coal and natural gas aren't far behind. The huge increases in demand
in China
and India will assure the peak arrives sooner than you
might imagine.
Wishful thinking.
Wishful thinking? You don't know what you're talking about.
Geologists and scientists who make their living finding
and extracting oil will tell you otherwise. The _actions_
of oil companies (not their words) speak of peaking oil:
industry mergers and consolidations, downward estimates of
'proven reserves', the fact that no new refineries or
tankers have been built in the US in years. The evidence
for imminent peak oil is overwhelming:
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex...eakoil2014.htm
http://www.forbes.com/energy/2005/01...10doomoil.html
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...as_crisis.html
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i...08&c=1&s=klare
http://www.energybulletin.net/3161.html
http://news.goldseek.com/OnlineInves...1107897207.php
(increased consumption) ... Something that's
not possible as global production is currently maxed out.
No such thing. Iraqi oil fields alone are running at minimum
production. There's a new play off the SE coast of India, expanding
fields along the east bank of the Nile, the north Alaska slope on
hold.
Your ignorance is glaring. Alaska slope is a drop in
the bucket at current consumption rates. Do your homework.
I feel the Alaskian reserves should only be developed to
the point where we can draw on them in the case of an
unexpected oil crunch.
(...)
The plodding increase of 2 ppm each year (guessing the Kyoto and
increased use keep current trends steady) means the doubling point is
reached in 80 years.
My undertansing is this 'plodding' increase has shown
signs of accelerating the past couple of years. And it
can only be considered 'plodding' on human timescales - seen
from a geologic timescale it's explosive. You also are
not factoring in the fact our entire economic model is
based on growth, and assuming we are able to sate our
enormous demand for fossil fules in the short term (next
20 years), that doubling point will likely be reached sooner.
Instead of the catastrophe warning, how about thinking of the dirty,
coughing, stinky, garbage-littered, world that we live in between
here
and there?
Huh? Thanks for helping underscore my original point. You
don't think there might be a relationship between a) the
exploding human population b) its reliance on fossil fuels
for energy, and the 'coughing, stinky, garbage-littered'
we live in?
You're quite a piece of work, 'owl'.
Go stick your head back in the sand.
-Eric B