Titus Pullo

Continued from the partisan "budgets" thread, where a poster was directly challenged to show where the conventional oil discoveries are:

There are no "solutions" to substitute for the greatest natural resource ever discovered by mankind. Only conservation and innovation, the latter of which is decades behind.

As for "sniping," when you trot out one hollow, partisan assertion after another in a painfully bad attempt to explain why the global markets are imploding, you're going to be held accountable for your lazy rationalization. You get how message boards work, don't you?

It "comes to mind" because it's all you remember about a topic you've probably never read much about short of some happy-land assessment in a conservative periodical.

Meanwhile, back in reality, here's the USGS's assessment of Bakken:

USGS Release: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate— (4/10/2008 2:25:36 PM)

Wow. A total of 3-4 billion!!!! Only about 1/10 the amount you were challenged to present, and certainly not a "new" discovery. Meanwhile, we consume 87 million barrels per day. This is a drop in the bucket, do better.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So at this point, it's clear your argument is based on "hope," certainly not proof. Nevermind the logistics of maintaining drilling infrastructure on top of constantly moving polar ice caps, but it MUST be down there!!!! The Russians want it!!! Who cares about input costs!

Fail!!!

Either way, get back to the topic when you can show something about proven, recoverable totals down there. Because hope doesn't keep markets afloat.

In the meantime, please keep advocating the melting of those caps so you can build those rigs at enormous cost, infrastructure that might bring a tiny bit of oil to market in 15 years.

More coal? Seriously? ... Holy crap are you uninformed.

So, in 10 years, we'll have an idea whether it's ready for mass commerical production 10 years after that. Cool.

Again, you were challenged to show where the new proven fields of conventional crude are. You've yet to do so.

Ah yes, the Thorium claim that you always fall back to. The energy source of the future, and always will be. Even if ready tomorrow (rather than 20 years), it won't do much of anything for plastics, rubber, pavement, pesticides, fertilizers, acrylics, medicines and everything else that crude provides -- especially fuel.

"Tedious" because you obviously lack a rudimentary understanding of a geological reality confirmed by our own Pentagon and IEA.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about, and yet you spew with such misguided confidence. Truly is hysterical.

Ah, now there we can agree on something. 32 years of corporate-friendly presidency will do that.

But then, you love the unregulated free market, don't you?

patsfan13

Corporate friendly? Marxist or anarchist?

Onto oil and the so called peak oil. Here is a chart of just OPEC's oil reserves:




Note OPEC oil reserves are ~ double what they were 30 years ago how can that be if we have peak oil?


As to the Baaken:

The Oil Drum | The Bakken Formation: How Much Will It Help?


Newer estimates go to 500B,


The estimates of what is recoverable is anywhere from 5=50% with current technology, funny thing technology tends to improve over time perhaps you haven't noticed. If 10 % was recoverable you are looking a 50B barrels.

If we look at total fossil fuel the picture is amazing:




This includes oil, coal and natural gas.

Malthusian nonsense has been with us for 300 years people like you are always wrong. Perhaps It has to do with a lack of belief in human creativity, which is common among people who are illiterate on technical matters.


Of course the larger reserves from renewable sources like genetically engineered bacteria and algae as long as we have sunlight and CO2 available for the little critters.


The greedy capitalist will figure out how to enrich our lives ( as they have always done) if government doesn't screw things up.

Belated Happy May Day.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

Titus Pullo

So over dramatic. What kind of "Marxist" retains all the corrupt-free market worshipping Bushies of the financial sector? Seems to me, a "Marxist" would (and should) have purged all remnants of that taint.

See, this is why I created this thread. I had no doubt you step in it, with all your half-researched, long-debunked fossil fuel-industry talking points. There is plenty of "peak oil is a myth" material on the Web, and I've seen it all. You guys fail on every aspect.

Let's begin:

Ummm, because world consumption (demand) outpaces it? You realize demand was also far less 30 years ago, yes? Still, where are the new discoveries?

Anyhow, two levels of fail here above: First, OPEC is not world production, it's just OPEC's. Second, OPEC has a long, documented history of fudging their reserve numbers, especially that blip in the 80s, where they all miraculously boosted their reserve figures relatively simultaneously. "Since OPEC doesn't allow for audit by independent auditors, the figures can never be confirmed and OPEC countries gain influx of foreign cash.:

Why does OPEC lie about its oil reserves?

The Great Oil Reserve Swindle

A Detailed Look at the Middle East OPEC Oil Reserves | Oil Price.com

Cherished oil myths: OPEC overcapacity | Energy Bulletin

and my particular favorite:

US embassy cables: Saudi oil company oversold ability to increase production, embassy told | Business | guardian.co.uk


It is amusing that you linked to a adamantly pro-peak oil site in order to support your laughable claim, yet probably don't even realize what that site is all about. You didn't even read your material, did you?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! from your own link:

Will Bakken ever produce as much as 4.1 billion barrels (= 3,649+500 million barrels), the amount suggested by the USGS estimate? It seems very unlikely. Production so far has been 111 million barrels. If the industry is able to discover several more prolific areas such as the Elm Coulee field in Montana (43 million barrels, or 38% of the Bakken oil recovered to date), it might be possible to increase this recovery to 500 million barrels, or 4.5 times the current production. Is total production of 500 million barrels likely? It's difficult to say. The USGS estimate is vastly higher than this, so much less likely.

If 500 million barrels turns out to be the ultimate recovery, the recovery factor would range from 0.13% to 0.25% of estimated oil in place. This very low percentage recovery of the estimated oil in place is not unreasonable if one considers that many of the more marginal areas of the field are likely to be deemed sub-economic and will never be drilled and produced. Technology improvements that will inevitably be made during an era of high energy prices will undoubtedly render some of this more marginal oil recoverable, but the total recovery is still likely to be low.

Here is where I am most convinced that you have no idea what you're talking about, amid so many other reasons.

Try and understand something, oil "expert"... : Technically recoverable reserves of heavy synthetic oil is not conventional Middle Eastern light crude. In terms of being economically viable, you and your link there are comparing apples to oranges. I can claim I found a trillion barrels of oil behind the moon, but if it costs me more to get to it, and get it to market, what good does that claim do? It's about what you can produce, not what you can claim exists. Heavy oils aren't anything new. If it was economically viable to expand bitumen and kerogen production, it would have been embarked upon decades ago. They're not really oil, they're incredibly energy intensive to extract and refine, and it's pathetic to make the claim that they represent "reserves" as we know them.

The stuff you're squawking about there yields about a 2:1 return on energy input to extract and refine it (an economic term known as EROEI, look it up), and the process rapes the environment. Conventional crude -- the kind the world economy is utterly built upon -- yields about 15:1 these days, and shrinking the deeper they have to dig (it used to be much higher, before the U.S. went into rapid decline).

So perfectly conservative, not much really needs to be added here. Straw manning, for the win!!!!

LOL. You mean like the Pentagon, the IEA, the IMF, Oxford Univ., the EIA, the German and British governments, Total Oil and ASPO? ... Yes, surely filled with "illiterates."

Somehow, they don't see "human creativity" solving a predicament that is upon us as we speak.

Just like a fervent fossil fuel enthusiast: When all else fails, insist that unproven, test-phase alternatives that are 30+ years away will ride in to the rescue even as the global economy continues to collapse all around us. We can talk about how far behind "technology" is later. I won't forget you.

"Enrich," with a side order of corruption, environmental poison, jingoism and some 3rd-world exploitation to wash it all down.

Educate yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZp-OxZuflErl]

Titus Pullo

In short, and just to review, denialist:

You insisted there was no oil crisis and were challenged to show a link to a single new find of recoverable conventional crude oil in excess of 30 billion barrels the last 30 years (the kind mankind used to find every few years for decades). ... You have yet to provide one. I know you won't find one, because those kinds of new discoveries do not exist. It's a known fact throughout the industry.

Heavy synthetics are not conventional crude oil. Neither is coal. And neither is nuclear.

Just admit you were wrong for once. Then this thread can fade away organically, without the need for you to lock it because your argument keeps getting backed into a corner.

patsfan13

So you create your strawman of ME light crude, what a pretty strawman.

Of course in the mid nineteenth the standard was the wonderful clean oil derived from whale blubber which we would surely run out of.

You argument such as it was was nuked so you are reduced to petty strawman/change the parameters of the conversation. What a waste.

Bye.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

Titus Pullo

What in God's name are you talking about? I didn't change the parameter of anything. YOU did. Shall we review?

Here was the challenge put to you:

What do you think "proven conventional crude" refers to? Synthetics are not it. Estimated, stock-boosting totals are not it. You can not maintain markets based on hope. (Well, you can apply the capitalistic way and fudge the accounting numbers for a little while, but it all comes out in the wash before long).

Considering you absolutely can never admit you were wrong in your attempt to scoff at the FACT that world demand has outstripped world supply, I'll do it for you:

Your fundamental premise that the systematic meltdown of the world economy has everything to do with liberal "spending" problems and over-regulation, and NOTHING to do with global energy shortfall is 180 degrees inaccurate.

I have a mountain range of evidence supporting my conclusion. You have hopes and dreams about the arctic circle and bacteria.

Titus Pullo

Here's another look at how high gas prices ARE the drag on the economy... For every dollar per gallon increase at the pump, that's $800 million per day out of the pockets of American consumers. ... Or $300 billion per year.

The Peak Oil Crisis: Parsing the GDP | Energy Bulletin

The situation we are facing today is similar to that of 2008, yet is different in that the price spike of 2008 was of relatively short duration. At the end of February 2008 gasoline was averaging $3.18 and 19 weeks later in early July it was at $4.16, a dollar increase. The fall from the peak was even more spectacular, for in 12 weeks gasoline prices had declined by one dollar and six weeks later another dollar. This drop put money back into consumers' pockets at the rate of $600 billion a year - nearly the same amount as the federal stimulus provided and a lot quicker.

This year's gasoline price run-up started in early December 2010 with gasoline at $3.01 a gallon. Twenty five weeks later in early May prices peaked the requisite dollar higher at $4.01. It is now 12 weeks since the May 2011 peak. Prices have fallen about 25 cents a gallon and at the minute do not seem to be showing signs of falling much further. London's Brent crude, which is now the real benchmark for world oil prices, rose from $80 a barrel last summer to $125 in May and has been trading above $115 ever since.

The massive increase in money coming out of consumers' pockets to pay for fuels is still going on. It is sucking the life out of our economy and yet few notice.

Harry Boy

What can we do to help.

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

patsfan13

BTW there is an energy crisis, it is a direct result of government policy restricting deploying existing energy sources through regulations.

There is no supply of natural resources issue.


Even your title is a strawman.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

IcyPatriot

Press Coverage .............