On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:36:32 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian"
wrote:


"owl" wrote in message
.. .
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.

The rate of oil discovery is way, way down.

Production has peaked.

Yes, the rate of discovery is down. So what?

No, production has not peaked. Even guys predicting a coming crisis
fess up to production increasing this decade:

http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/articles/196

ODAC analysed a total of 68 ‘mega projects’ with publicly announced
start-up dates from 2004 through 2010. In total, these projects would
add around 12.5 million barrels a day to world oil supplies by the
turn of the decade.

+12.5mbd ... anything unclear about that?

This new production would almost certainly not be sufficient to offset
diminishing supplies from existing sources and still meet growing
global demand, ODAC Board member Chris Skrebowski said.

More than half of the estimated new supply would simply replace
production declines elsewhere due to natural depletion, the study
found.

6.25mbd increase ... anything unclear about that?

A modest one percent annual rise in demand over the six-year period
would then leave little or no surplus capacity to cushion against
unforeseen disruptions in supply.

"Disruptions in supply." That's the big issue.


Summary - stop replying with lame 'no it isn't' responses. Got a
counter-argument, provide some stuff - if it's there, I'd like to see
it and learn from it.

"owl" wrote in message
...
Yes, the rate of discovery is down. So what?

Existing production barely meets current demand. As production continues
to fall, and demand continues to rise, the permanent oil crisis will begin
anew.

"The study found that all of the major new oil-recovery projects scheduled
to come on stream over the next six years are unlikely to boost supplies
enough to meet the world's growing needs."

"owl" wrote in message
...
No, production has not peaked. Even guys predicting a coming crisis
fess up to production increasing this decade:

"The study found that all of the major new oil-recovery projects scheduled
to come on stream over the next six years are unlikely to boost supplies
enough to meet the world's growing needs."


"owl" wrote in message
...
ODAC analysed a total of 68 'mega projects' with publicly announced
start-up dates from 2004 through 2010. In total, these projects would
add around 12.5 million barrels a day to world oil supplies by the
turn of the decade.

+12.5mbd ... anything unclear about that?

The article continues....

"This new production would almost certainly not be sufficient to offset
diminishing supplies from existing sources and still meet growing global
demand," ODAC Board member Chris Skrebowski said."

And this presumes that the total amount produced is equal to the total
anticipated. The recent average has been that total production is less than
50% of the stated capacity.


+12.5mbd on top of an even more rapid loss of production that equates to
negative total change in production.


"owl" wrote in message
...
6.25mbd increase ... anything unclear about that?

Lots. But foremost is the fact that oil production is typically half of
the expected production rate for new oil, for a variety of reasons.

Oil production has already peaked.

"James" wrote in message
...

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
Your estimates on the error in these data
are very exaggerated. If you have better data,
please post it here. Until then I would prefer
to reason from data like these, rather than
ignorance.

No Roger. It's more of a lack of data. I just gave you the facts. One
can't
take some readings and accurately apply it globally over 100 year peiod if
they are not all there. Of course you could take the science philosopy
that
it's all you have so it is gospel.

He lacks common sense. He seems to want to apply rigorous stat analysis to
too little data, of questionable quality, of much too short a time span and
then thinks he has decisive important results.

And so what of the results? Any natural "system" has variations - we don't
know what are the normal "standard deviations" of temperature for the
inter-glacial warm period we're in.

The best model that I know of is derived from ice cores and deep sea
sediments that indicates appx 100,000 year cooling/warming cycles of with
short warm periods. Apparently, we could be near the end of this
inter-glacial warm period, and IF man really is warming the environment -
can that be proven to be a bad thing as opposed to slipping into a cooling
phase?

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:19:28 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian"
wrote:

"owl" wrote in message
.. .
6.25mbd increase ... anything unclear about that?

Lots. But foremost is the fact that oil production is typically half of
the expected production rate for new oil, for a variety of reasons.

No disagreement there, loam-dome. If the capacity coming online is
only half of their forecast (and they haven't accounted for it),
there'll be a shortage.

But that doesn't change the increase they've stated, which disproves
your 'already peaked' comment. To go back there with nothing but
self-manufactured proof is the realm of fiction.

And this presumes that the total amount produced is equal to the
total anticipated. The recent average has been that total production
is less than 50% of the stated capacity."

This didn't come from the article. You need it to make the shortfall
work, but there's nothing in the article to say if there forecast to
say they haven't based forecast on the historic rates.

Oil production has already peaked.

You have only repeated the error, erroneiously cutting the new
production forecast in half. You have trouble with comprehension when
the article clearly states increased production over the next six
years (but not as fast as the increase in demand). To actually read
through that and then revert to stating we're past the peak is absurd.

You have a weak link with reality and an insulting posture when you
think you're audience is a gullible as yourself.

Athiest 4 Bush wrote:
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.


Bzzztttt.

Sorry. Contestants are limited to one panic only.

Worry about using carbon fuels or carbon fuesl running out,
but not both.

Not really, since many chemicals necessary in our current civilization
are synthesized from oil (think polymers for example).

josh halpern

owl wrote:
On 12 Feb 2005 04:36:47 -0800, wrote:
BillC wrote:
You're the fool, especially if you think the industrialized
world is going to shut down on the basis of what are probably
minor fluctuation that may or may not be be partly influenced
by manmade emissions.
(...)
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.

http://www.nanotech-now.com/nanocata...els-report.htm

the question with tar sands has always been the net energy cost
of getting the oil out. Whatever it is, it will be a lot higher
than drilling in the Saudi.

OTOH, I have seen (in the 70s) serious proposals to use nuclear
to cook the oil out, essentially turning it into a power
source for transport.

josh halpern

Athiest 4 Bush wrote:
(...)
Bzzztttt.

Sorry. Contestants are limited to one panic only.

Worry about using carbon fuels or carbon fuesl running out,
but not both.


Moron. What do you think drives our entire exponential growth
based economy? At its root it's the nearly 'free' energy in
oil. And while fossil fuels are quite finite, there's still
enough of them left to significantly increase our current CO2
levels.

Worse case scenario has the world rapidly running out of fossil
fuels by the middle of this century. That alone will cause extreme
economic hardship at best. Couple this with the possible effects
of global warming, and the situation may be dire. We're already
unable to feed a large fraction of humanity, and any big shifts
in the climate will make this worse, especially in light of the
exploding population.

Look, I'm not saying any of the above will come to pass.
It's too early to say. But you're a fool if you're not willing
to admit the path we're currently on may lead to disaster.

-Eric B

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

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 01:21:10 GMT, Joshua Halpern
wrote:

owl wrote:
On 12 Feb 2005 04:36:47 -0800, wrote:
BillC wrote:
You're the fool, especially if you think the industrialized
world is going to shut down on the basis of what are probably
minor fluctuation that may or may not be be partly influenced
by manmade emissions.
(...)
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.

http://www.nanotech-now.com/nanocata...els-report.htm

the question with tar sands has always been the net energy cost
of getting the oil out. Whatever it is, it will be a lot higher
than drilling in the Saudi.

Yea, the justification is source-reliability and the threshold is
turning a profit.

OTOH, I have seen (in the 70s) serious proposals to use nuclear
to cook the oil out, essentially turning it into a power
source for transport.

I missed that round of it, but watched the ups and downs over the last
five years. The boiling method is fine, but it takes energy to make
the energy. The current solution is natural gas, but I'd like to see
a nuclear alternative and the natural gas routed to reducing coal
generating stations. It feels like a win-win.

josh halpern

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
ups.com...
One last time, James. Try to learn
something this time.

There are many ways to correct for UHI.
GISS uses nighttime lights as observed
by satellites. IMHO, this is the best way.
USHCN uses census data. Both methods
agree that UHI correction is small and
positive in the US.

That's insane. Lights mean population. Nothing seems to point out highways,
less population in maintaining agriculture, corporate farming or anything
else having to do with paving, destruction of natural landscapes. Lighting
is even more dumb than almanac population figures. Where else would they get
it?

We're not talking about UHI data Roger. We're taliking about "NON-UHI" data.
Where the hell is it? The lighting concept is merely a substitution for
population. More fraudulent bull****.