A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.

Originally Posted By danlongman (14 JUL 2012 10:01pm)

A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.

If that's your latest realization, then there is indeed hope.

Originally Posted By danlongman (14 JUL 2012 10:01pm)

A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.

Frankly, I don't care if there are two sticks left to rub together once I've left this place that we have become. 

If thats how ya feel I would leave out the "We" part.

Just sayin these things ALWAYS cost more than the promoters suggest.

When it comes time for clean up they have moved on to other wonder projects.

Originally Posted By danlongman (16 JUL 2012 11:14am)

If thats how ya feel I would leave out the "We" part.

Just sayin these things ALWAYS cost more than the promoters suggest.

When it comes time for clean up they have moved on to other wonder projects.

Are you again talking about Canada?  Here in the U.S. companies have to assume the costs of cleanup and the EPA is a very unforgiving Misstress that already needs to be curtailed.  In any case T-A-N-S-T-A-A-F-L.

Well a quick google of some key words found this:

http://www.montanariveraction.org/milltown.dam.html

There are many, many articles like this describing a decades long struggle to get the mess cleaned up.

When the original proposals to develop these metal deposits came out no one imagined there would

be costs incurred for generations afterwards.  This is a success story which doesn't say much about

the many years in court fighting to get somebody to pay for this.

In order to prevent this sort of thing from happening a lot of protective measures have to be taken.

These cost money.  This oil shale has been known about for a very long time but it was never

economically viable as a fuel source.  With technology developed for the oil sands recovery in

Canada it seems that it might pay at some point to mine it.  It is not just lying there ignored waiting

to be scooped up by anybody with a shovel.  All that I have been trying to say is that it is going

to be very expensive and there are likely to be unforseen costs. (This time it will be different, yeah.)

Nobody ever answered my question about where the water that will be required for the project

will come from.  Unless you take "taps" as an answer......

I do not know what is controversial about this unless it is the attitude reflected by Hentzau's comment

about not caring about what is left behind.  That would be some legacy.

Everybody could use a look at this.  Including the comments that come with it.

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2187-incompetent-people-ignorant.html/

cheers

Originally Posted By ActionJack (10 JUN 2012 11:15am)

 

That seems ridiculous.  World consumption hasn't needed that pace in the past especially over the last decade.  I think there's too much assumption on future China and India needs and regardless of their needs they won't be able to outbid the U.S.; they won't be able to outbid the West.  Wild assumptions flying around here.  The quantity supplied will be determined by the quantity demanded and not how much may be wanted.  It all comes back to market price.

 

 

That's because world consumption had involved mostly 15 to 25 pct of the world's population which make up the middle class. Unfortunately, earnings for that minority can only go up if spending for the rest of the population also go up, a main aspect of global capitalism which requires increasing consumption and production of goods to give value to and financed by increasing money supply.

For now, consumption has been increasing by more than 1 mb/d a year:

"Running dry"

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/oil-production-and-consumption

but because of a growing global middle class, consumption has to keep going up in order for a global capitalist economy to continue growing. The IEA estimates that in order to maintain growth alone we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0ujDVRIzGM

That is also we we are now seeing increased demand not just for oil but for various commodities.

Will production meet that demand? According to the IEA, we will see oil and gas production worldwide grow by only around 9 pct for the next two decades, and that's already given the questionable assumption that conventional production will flatline. Meanwhile, non-conventional production which will replace it will entail higher energy costs.

Finally, proven oil reserves are often mentioned, but they are not the same as what is technically recoverable, which in turn is not the same as what is eventually extracted, which in turn is not the same as the extraction rate. According to Citibank, North American oil reserves will add up to 6 mb/d to production for the next two decades. Even the most gullible reader will realize that that production increase will be negated by global demand increase in only a few years.

I forgot to include the ff:

ARAMCO stated in one article that we have lots of oil remaining worldwide. I can't find the article, but I remember that it was stated that we've used only 25 pct of oil under the ground, and there's a lot more remaining.

This argument is true. The problem is that the energy required to get oil that is deeper is higher, and there is a point when it is no longer feasible to get oil that is too deep. That is why the production volume is much lower than reported reserves, and why the amount of byproducts obtained and fuel processed is lower still than the volume. That's also why we are now resorting to non-conventional sources, and why we need to look at the production extraction rate, historical flow rates, and expected demand in light of this issue, and not just proven reserves. Some examples are given below, with one ironically from the same organization that has reported on proven oil reserves.

From 2007, from the GAO:

"Crude Oil: Uncertainty about future oil supply makes it important to develop a strategy for addressing a peak and decline in oil production."

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/27919

The full report, etc., are linked at the bottom.

An article about the 2011 EIA report:

"The New EIA Oil Supply Data Confirms Your Peak Oil Fears"

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-13/markets/31334879_1_crude-oil-production-oil-prices

A transcript to the documentary mentioned earlier featuring the chief economist of the IEA:

"Oil Crunch"

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3201781.htm

An article and an interview with Birol:

"Warning: Oil supplies are running out fast"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/warning-oil-supplies-are-running-out-fast-1766585.html

Some points to consider:

Expect high demand to maintain current global economic growth, or the equivalent of four Saudi Arabias for the next two decades, according to the IEA. And following the BP report, expect greater need for non-conventionals to make up for a lack of production for conventionals.

Non-conventional sources have lower energy returns and usually similar problems including pollution, water requirements, etc. That is why they were not used significantly until conventional oil production could barely rise, and according to BP, this started in 2006. With that, expect more expensive energy. And if the economy weakens, leading to lower oil prices, expect the same results, as lower prices are met with lower earnings.

Keep, in mind, too, that oil production has also gone up:

"Saudis, soaring costs may keep oil above $100"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/16/us-energy-summit-oilprice-idUSBRE84F0RW20120516

With that, expect multiple problems given more fallout from the global recession coupled with a drop in oil prices.

The forecasts for global production range from a drop between now and 2015, a drop by 2020, and a drop after 2030. Organizatlions like the U.S. military believe that it will be earlier and will lead to serious problems for various economies:

"US military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply

Morgan Stanley argues that spare capacity will go negative after 2013:

"The Truth Behind Saudi Arabia’s 'Spare Capacity'"

http://dailyreckoning.com/the-truth-behind-saudi-arabias-spare-capacity/

Many reports (for and against this issue) from multiple sources, including the U.S. military, Lloyd's of London, ExxonMobil, and more, from 2004 are linked here:

http://ralfyman.blogspot.com/

The forecasts for an increase in global production range from 9 to 20 pct for those who see a drop in oil production after 2030. Almost all of the reports indicate a drop earlier than that, and it appears that the range of production increase will not meet the demand increase during the same period. One report from BP shows that demand has actually been exceeding conventional production since 2006.

A drop in demand due to a global economic crisis has generally the same effect as peak oil, i.e., lower income levels, higher unemployment, and more expensive food, oil, medicine, etc., due to higher prices and/or lower income.

Frackin' B.S.
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2012/07/29/frackin_bs

Frackin' Unbiased!

Marita Noon

Marita Noon is Executive Director of Energy Makes America Great

No axe to grind here

From David Stahan:

"OIL GLUT FORECASTER MAUGERI ADMITS DUFF MATHS"

http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=1570

"MONBIOT PEAK OIL U-TURN BASED ON DUFF MATHS"

http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=1576

Originally Posted By danlongman (30 JUL 2012 4:01am)

Frackin' Unbiased!

 

Marita Noon

Marita Noon is Executive Director of Energy Makes America Great

 

No axe to grind here

 

How about the substance of the report as in EPA action/reaction???  When you shoot the messenger, you potentially ignore good info.  Think more like Gen. McAuliffe and his reply.  It's senseless blaming the messenger.