Petroleum and the future of civilization

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doug50
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Al_Masetti said:
Let the record show that you have declined to answer the question: why did all those previous pretentious prognosticators prevaricate?
Click to expand...
Oh for crying out loud, Al. Don’t get dramatic. The science of petroleum geology has advanced since those earlier times. Why don’t you watch the videos I give you??? Dr Hirsch addressed this way back in my earlier replies to you. In the WSJ Market Watch the same thing. No one is asking when the world will run out of oil. The question is when will total World conventional oil (the `90% produced) reach it limits and begin to go into an aggragate decline? That’s the issue and it’s something you seem to consistanly ignore. Here’s maps, Al, of countries whose production has already peaked. That’s not a cry wolf prediction. It’s a fact. abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20060710/default_full.htm and another map: energypredicament.com/worldoil.htm and yet another:
lastoilshock.com/map.html

You won’t open a single one
 
Al_Masetti said:
Funny. Two of the least endangered species on the planet are polar bears and crocodiles/alligators. Nothing to do with global warming or anything else.The populations of both are exploding.
Click to expand...
I thought Catholics were not supposed to lie.
 
drpmjhess said:
I thought Catholics were not supposed to lie.
Click to expand...
I’m telling the truth.

The biggest danger to crocs, alligators and polar bears is indigestion from eating too many humans whose familiarity is from television and who get too close. Controlled hunts. Populations of alligators/crocs in the millions. And lotsa polar bears.
  1. Polar Bear Scare on Thin Ice
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Heartland Perspectives
Publication Date: September 11, 2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on September 7 claimed that two-thirds of the world’s polar bears may die by 2050 due to global warming. Such claims are strongly contradicted by real-world evidence.

There are currently more than 25,000 wild polar bears in the world, and their numbers are growing – not declining – at an explosive pace in this time of “unprecedented global warming.” According to the February 7, 2005 Edinburgh Scotsman ( thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=143012005)), "The world’s polar bear population is on the increase despite global warming.

“According to new research,” the Scotsman reports, "the numbers of the giant predator have grown by between 15 and 25 per cent over the last decade.

“We’re seeing an increase in bears that’s really unprecedented, and in places where we’re seeing a decrease in the population it’s from hunting, not from climate change,” Canadian polar bear expert Mitch Taylor told the Scotsman.

The March 9, 2007 London Telegraph confirmed the ongoing polar bear population explosion ( telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml)). “A survey of the animals’ numbers in Canada’s eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining,” the Telegraph reports.

“In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today,” added the Telegraph.

Indeed, polar bears evolved from brown bears anywhere from 200,000 years ago ( alaskazoo.org/willowcrest/polarbearhome.htm) to 3 million years ago ( bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/7.shtml)). They survived at least one period when polar temperatures were at least 6 degrees Celsius warmer than today ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png) and perhaps temperatures as warm as 15 degrees Celsius warmer than today ( ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070705/greenland_dna_070705/20070705?hub=SciTech)).

Given that polar bear numbers are rapidly increasing and that they survived substantially warmer periods than is expected anytime in the foreseeable future, it is safe to dismiss this latest global warming scare as little more than fantasy.
  1. Saltwater Crocodiles (crocodylus porosus) are common throughout the tropical northern half of Queensland all the way down to Rockhampton.
    Many people play down the threat to humans posed by the saltwater crocodile. The facts are that the Saltwater Crocodile has been protected for decades now and there is a healthy population in northern australia.
    Recently crocodiles have been sighted in places they have not been seen for decades. It is always best to play it safe as a saltwater crocodile can be anywhere there is saltwater and also ventures into freshwater in tropical australia.
    In recent times there have been calls for a culling. Dr Graham Webb who is responsible for the breeding program that saw the successful return to large numbers of the saltwater crocodile in the Northern Territory recently called for a controlled culling due to the large numbers.
    Australian Saltwater Crocodiles grow to huge sizes so regardless of what you are told by anyone you should always use caution in Australia’s northern regions. Beaches, rivers, creeks and waterholes can be home to large crocodiles. They are not known to frequent the Great Barrier Reef but live in coastal areas and rivers in tropical australia.
  2. Code: 
    American Alligators are found in the subtropical southeast US: all of Florida and Louisiana; the southern parts of Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi; coastal South and North Carolina; Southeastern Texas and in extreme southwest Oklahoma and Arkansas. The majority of American Alligators inhabit Florida and Louisiana, with over a million alligators in each state.
American Alligators live in freshwater environments, such as ponds, marshes, wetlands, rivers, lakes, and swamps, as well as brackish environments. Southern Florida is the only place where both alligators and crocodiles live side by side[citation needed].
 
Man, Al :confused: see this is the thing about your replies. I actually clicked on your links and none came up on my end related to polar bear population except this one of yours: alaskazoo.org/willowcrest/polarbearhome.htm
and to quote this link of yours I got: "Polar bears are a protected species, but are not considered endangered at this time. There are threats to their survival that must be understood and mitigated. These threats include:

Arctic Warming: Polar bears need sea ice to effectively hunt seals. Increased melting of sea ice leads to less seal hunting and lower reproductive success."

If you want to know about animal populations, Al, go to the primary research source for the US, the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Here’s the USFWS: alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm
"Proposal to List the Polar Bear as Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act
The Service has proposed to protect the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA.) A proposed rule (pdf) that would add the polar bear to the federal list of threatened and endangered species was published on January 9, 2007, opening a 90-day comment period on this proposed listing.

The primary threat to polar bears is the decrease of sea ice coverage. Although some females use snow dens on land for birthing cubs, polar bears are almost completely dependent upon sea ice for their sustenance. Any significant changes in the abundance, distribution, or existence of sea ice will have effects on the number and behavior of these animals and their prey."

But that’s US (always concious of being rebuttled) so I google “Canadian polar bears” to get this: polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/
Polar Bear Status Report
Polar bears are a potentially endangered species living in the circumpolar north. They are animals which know no boundaries. They pad across the ice from Russia to Alaska, from Canada to Greenland and onto Norway’s Svalbard archipelago. No adequate census exists on which to base a worldwide population estimate, but biologists use a working figure of 20,000 to 25,000 bears with about sixty percent of those living in Canada.

In areas where long-term studies are available, populations are showing signs of stress due to shrinking sea ice. Canada’s Western Hudson Bay population has dropped 22% since the early 1980s. The declines have been directly linked to an earlier ice break-up on Hudson Bay. A long-term study of the Southern Beaufort Sea population, which spans the northern coast of Alaska and western Canada, has revealed a decline in cub survival rates and in the weight and skull size of adult males. Such declines were observed in Western Hudson Bay bears prior to the population drop there. Another population listed as declining is Baffin Bay. According to the most recent report from the Polar Bear Specialist Group, the harvest levels from Nunavut when combined with those from Greenland (which were thought to be much lower than they actually are) has resulted in this shared population being in a non-sustainable harvest situation, meaning the population is at great risk of a serious decline. The harvest is thought to be several times above what is sustainable.
 
Any significant changes in the abundance, distribution, or existence of sea ice will have effects on the number and behavior of these animals and their prey."
Click to expand...
which is why i question the non existant link between hydrocarbon exploration and polar bear population decline that many enviromentalist make. they know there will be little effect, but they are very much against any exploration because fighting against the big oil companies is how they get rich.

it’s always marine mamals vs. the big mean oil companies. the fight should be to conserve resouces and fight for a sustainable lifestyle. oil exploration is not the problem, our wasteful unsustainable lifestyle is.
 
With such huge numbers and such a wide range, there is no way that alligators, crocs, and polar bears can be called endangered species.

Some activists make outrageous claims that are false on their face.

Just because someone says something doesn’t make it true.

If someone wants to quibble whether a bit of Oklahoma is in the range of one of the species makes their argument [and all of their other arguments] all the weaker. My goodness, we’re talking about all or parts of seven states …

Hardly an endangered species.
 
Dee_Dee_King said:
which is why i question the non existant link between hydrocarbon exploration and polar bear population decline that many enviromentalist make. they know there will be little effect, but they are very much against any exploration because fighting against the big oil companies is how they get rich.

it’s always marine mamals vs. the big mean oil companies. the fight should be to conserve resouces and fight for a sustainable lifestyle. oil exploration is not the problem, our wasteful unsustainable lifestyle is.
Click to expand...
As soon as people have to wait in line to get gas, I look for ANWAR to get drilled. To me, it seems ANWAR could be drilled and used as a major source of the SPR instead of buying oil of the market and competing with the consumer.
 
We probably couldn’t upset the ecology in Anwar if we tried to. We had this same hand-wringing when they started to drill on the North Slope of Alaska a generation ago, and none of the calamaties predicted developed.
Whatever happens to the world oil supply, the human race will somehow muddle through, just as we always have. We’ll find something else to burn, or do without. If God wills, we’ll survive and flourish. But only if He wills it.
 
As soon as people have to wait in line to get gas, I look for ANWAR to get drilled. To me, it seems ANWAR could be drilled and used as a major source of the SPR instead of buying oil of the market and competing with the consumer.
Click to expand...
anwar from what i know, is all hype. the geology of anwar is completely different than neighboring prudoe bay. if you look on a map, the brooks range in anwar is much closer to the beaufort sea, making anwar structurally complex–falted and folded. there is little serious interest in drilling anwar outside of politicians and oil service companies who make money whether the well is dry or not.

the environmentalists like to make a big deal of this place which has only one village and is mostly an uninhabitable mosquito infected costal plain/tundra that few people ever step foot. again, it’s a high profile debate for these environmentalists to make money.

even if anwar is opened for exploration and the chukchi sea, bristol bay, offshore florida and the east coast, it will be a drop in the bucket and will add relatively little to our reserves. there are probably no more giant fields to be discovered, they’ve all been drilled, outside of maybe greenland/antarctica or the arctic.
 
Shhh, Dee Dee, Al might hear you.

Question: What do you know about CERA. The market likes to look to Yergin and CERA for optomistic predictions about future oil prices and supplies. I, personnally, can’t give CERA that much credibility since they’ve been so poor at predicting price moves. For example:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cera.h2.jpg
 
roanoker said:
We probably couldn’t upset the ecology in Anwar if we tried to. We had this same hand-wringing when they started to drill on the North Slope of Alaska a generation ago, and none of the calamaties predicted developed.
Whatever happens to the world oil supply, the human race will somehow muddle through, just as we always have. We’ll find something else to burn, or do without. If God wills, we’ll survive and flourish. But only if He wills it.
Click to expand...
The human race will survive but what will be the population?
 
Fish & Wildlife will discover a new variety of green-striped mosquito up there and declare it an endangered species. So the oil companies will have to set up mosquito feeding stations.

Over twenty or more years, the oil and gas from ANWR will make a continuous contribution to the supply of oil. If you have twenty such sources each contributing, it makes a significant difference.

If developing the oil and gas up there was not economically viable, the oil companies would not be interested in investing and risking their private money. But the fact is that the output IS viable and useful. And the oil companies ARE interested in developing those oil reserves.

If some oil folks say it’s not viable, they should stay home. There are plenty of oil folks interested in visiting those scenic areas and making friends with the mosquito culture. [Gives me the shivers just thinking about all them 'skeeters.]
Dee_Dee_King said:
anwar from what i know, is all hype. the geology of anwar is completely different than neighboring prudoe bay. if you look on a map, the brooks range in anwar is much closer to the beaufort sea, making anwar structurally complex–falted and folded. there is little serious interest in drilling anwar outside of politicians and oil service companies who make money whether the well is dry or not.

the environmentalists like to make a big deal of this place which has only one village and is mostly an uninhabitable mosquito infected costal plain/tundra that few people ever step foot. again, it’s a high profile debate for these environmentalists to make money.

even if anwar is opened for exploration and the chukchi sea, bristol bay, offshore florida and the east coast, it will be a drop in the bucket and will add relatively little to our reserves. there are probably no more giant fields to be discovered, they’ve all been drilled, outside of maybe greenland/antarctica or the arctic.
Click to expand...
 
Question: What do you know about CERA. The market likes to look to Yergin and CERA for optomistic predictions about future oil prices and supplies. I, personnally, can’t give CERA that much credibility since they’ve been so poor at predicting price moves. For example:
Click to expand...
i’ve never heard of cera. but they don’t seem to be good at perdicting future oil prices. another issue is our rampant inflation. gold and oil prices might be tied. i haven’t seen any data to make me think oil prices can go down much. we’re simply not discovering enough to keep up with demand.
If developing the oil and gas up there was not economically viable, the oil companies would not be interested in investing and risking their private money. But the fact is that the output IS viable and useful. And the oil companies ARE interested in developing those oil reserves
Click to expand...
look at npra. it was thought to be a huge oil field when it was set aside as a petroleum reserve back in the 50’s. i’m not even sure there is any production from there, but it has plenty of dry holes. reservior quality is a big problem. they tend to drill a lot of tight sands there. avo techniques are not as useful up in alaska as they are down in the gulf. different lithologies, burial histories and age. actually, that’s the problem everywhere in alaska, from the churkchi to the beaufort and npra.
 
Al_Masetti said:
Fish & Wildlife will discover a new variety of green-striped mosquito up there and declare it an endangered species. So the oil companies will have to set up mosquito feeding stations.

Over twenty or more years, the oil and gas from ANWR will make a continuous contribution to the supply of oil. If you have twenty such sources each contributing, it makes a significant difference.

If developing the oil and gas up there was not economically viable, the oil companies would not be interested in investing and risking their private money. But the fact is that the output IS viable and useful. And the oil companies ARE interested in developing those oil reserves.

If some oil folks say it’s not viable, they should stay home. There are plenty of oil folks interested in visiting those scenic areas and making friends with the mosquito culture. [Gives me the shivers just thinking about all them 'skeeters.]
Click to expand...
Al, your vast intellect has once again saved us from the pending oil shortages.
 
Dee Dee, here’s a recent article on CERA
business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece
"A landmark study of more than 800 oilfields by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (Cera) has concluded that rates of decline are only 4.5 per cent a year, almost half the rate previously believed, leading the consultancy to conclude that oil output will continue to rise over the next decade.

Peter Jackson, the report’s author, said: “We will be able to grow supply to well over 100million barrels per day by 2017.” Current world oil output is in the region of 85million barrels a day."

Here’s the Wall Street Journals take on CERA’s report:
marketwatch.com/tvradio/bcPlayer.asp?bcpid=203719194&bclid=86272812&bctid=1379245336

WSJ paraphrase: at a 4.5% decline rate in world oil production that represents a 4 million barrels per day decline in one year’s time. Iran is the equivolent of 4 million per day. So each year the industry must replace the equivolent of Iran’s production. CERA claims we are bring on two Irans each year. But given the decline rate of 4.5% per year by 2017 to reach CERA’s predicted 112 million per day the industry must bring on stream 55 million bbls to replace declines and meet this prjected increase production/demand. It’s the equivolent of adding an additional 9 Saudi Arabias over the next 9-10 years.
 
Peter Jackson, the report’s author, said: “We will be able to grow supply to well over 100million barrels per day by 2017.” Current world oil output is in the region of 85million barrels a day."
Click to expand...
this guy isn’t a geoscientist or engineer. so i’d take anything he says with a grain of salt. it’s in his best interest to say there is no problem with oil supply. it’s the economist who got us in this mess to begin with. he’s like listening to a real estate agent tell you that there will be no housing bubble. of course it’s always a good time to buy a house when you scum money off housing sales, their racket makes me sick.

from what i see which is first hand, we’re not finding much oil. when we do, it’s small stuff. there’s interest in drilling in the chukchi sea which has only dry wells because demand is up.

as for when we reach peak oil, who knows. the oil production data from the arabs is probably suspect. i’d guess it’ll be within our lifetime. but i’ll always bet on oil prices going up with some dips and peaks along the way. the end of cheap oil is near.
 
A caller to a talk radio program stated there were thousands of capped oil wells in the Western United States.

Hmmmm.

So I did a Google search of “capped oil wells in United States”. All kinds of stuff shows up,

Anyway, here is one paragraph (part of a press release regarding some new technology or other for extracting the oil still in those capped oil wells.)

“As much as 65% of the oil in a typical oil well is never extracted before a well is capped. It is estimated that there are more than 400,000 capped oil wells in the United States alone. The bulk of the oil remaining in these wells is too heavy to bring to the surface using conventional technologies. Because the oil in these wells is considered to heavy, this oil is not included in the estimates of the US oil reserves and non-retrievable. GBRC plans to use its technology to go back into these wells, convert the heavy oil to gas and bring the gas to the surface where it will be converted into diesel carbons and fuel oil carbons (50% by-weight)”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top