As I just posted above, recoverable resources and available resources are not the same.
And you said:
“Then there is still the fact that their scenario is based only on that portion of ultimately recoverale oil that exist in current reserves, which is only a tiny fraction of the total ultimately recoverable resource.”
No, it’s not. And no, as I said, no new major resources has been found for decades. Large fields are found first, and they are found. And the technology for extracting oil is at its top, so little additional oil can be squeezed out the weels that have been discovered.
And you said:
“Whille the scenario is doubtless accurate enough it tells us very little about how much oil exists in the US and how long before world resource are depleted to a degree suficient to incraese prices.”
No, its very accurate. But that doesn’t mean we will peak within 10-20 years (and prices will begin to rise). For instance, energy conservation may delay the peak for quite some time.
The world, unfortunately, thinks America is made up of people like Blake. In this, they are wrong. These types are in the minority here, but are disturbingly close to being a majority.
Tastycorn-- Don’t get frustrated by Blake… he went through an entire 5 or more page thread spouting words like “strawman… ad hominum… etc. etc.” for post after post after post, yet he never showed any inclination towards following rules of objective reasoning or even rules of general logic.
The above linked thread is interesting in its own right, but it also serves as a precautionary primer for the Bizarro World of Blake’s Non-logic.
Well, let’s see here’s a little article from NEXUS magazine (volume 9 #3) about Monsanto:
“Monsanto is also renowned for its “Terminator” seed development. Terminator sees allow for one crop growth only; no viable seeds are produced from that crop. This brings an end to ongoing, independent food production. The grower has to return to Monsanto to buy more seed, so, in effect, he is being controlled. He has been swallowed up.
In “Terminator Unleashed: Patenting Life - Patenting Death”, Mary jo Olsen states:
“The only thing that can keep pace with the rate of agricultural biotechnolocgical change these days is the speed with whch the transnational Life Industry is eating itself. In the last couple of years, Monsanto has spent more than US$6.7 billion buying seed and other agri-biotech companies…We have at best two years, and at worst six months, to safeguard the right of farmers as see-savers and breeders… Whose interests are being served? The 12,000-year-old right of farmers to save and improve seed could be coming to an end - now.”
Monsanto will then not only be able to control who receives seed, but also who receives the means to grow it. And Monsanto’s close links to the major institutes espousing population control philosophies, such as the World Health Organization, World Bank and IMF, force us to ask what unsavoury plans might be birthed as a result of these conglomerates’ being in control of both food and water”
Well that’s the little article, and i find it very interesting to say the least
Can we have some references for these comments Alien?
Where is your evidence that the WRI have not based their scenario on only that portion of ultimately recoverable oil that exists in current reserves. They say that is what it is based on. You saying otherwise seems to be a bit silly.
Where is your evidence that current reserves are not only a tiny fraction of total supply?
I know you said that no new major resources has been found for decades. Now I want something to substantiate it. It seem s to contradict the reference I provided.
Where is the evidence that he technology for extracting oil is at its top? Again, this contradicts the reference I gave, and several others I could provide if you wish.
And what do you mean by “No, its very accurate.”? I already aid there is no doubt it is accurate. The problem is that it tells us very little about how much oil exists in the US and how long before world resource are depleted to a degree suficient to increase prices.
Alien, you said that the figures I quoted on oil shale resources were dead wrong based on a WRI report that doesn’t even attempt to address soil shale reserves. You clearly misunderstood what the report said. Now you are spouting figures that are in direct contradiction to both the University of Oklahoma page I provided and the WRI page you yourself linked to.
You will need to provide some basis for these assertions if you expect me or anyone else to treat them as credible.
T_seeker you are joking when you quote ‘Nexus’ on the SDMB.
The magazine is not only not a scientific publication, it isn’t even up to common journalistic standards. Its standard fare, as you know if you read it frequenly enoughare aliens, conspiracies and ESP, often alien ESP conpsiracies.
How is having direct quotes from you not an acknowledgement of what you wrote? I acknowledge that you wrote the words you did. The meaning is what doesn’t make sense to me.
If you refuse to clarify your position (which is all I am asking), then you obviously have no real argument to back that position up. This BS about acknowledgement is simply an excuse for you to not back up your ignorant wild ass guess. (to use your terminology)
http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/oil/oil.asp
"To consider oil first, 29 giant fields were discovered, including 7 at water depths greater than 1 000 metres. In Africa, 15 accumulations representing over 500 million boe were found, including 6 at water depths in excess of 1 000 m. In Latin America, there were 4 discoveries of this type.
As for gas, 29 giant gas fields were located, including 8 in the Middle East (Pars and Azadegan in Iran) and 5 in Australia. Of this total, 5 were at water depths of over 1 000 m.
All in all, the 1990’s matched the 1980’s for giant discoveries, with the very deep offshore sector making a powerful contribution to this stability. "
It seems the The World Energy Council disagrees with your assertion.
No, I shouldn’t do that. You said there have been no major finds for decades. I pointed out 5 that the WEC knows of at least 5 that have been made in the last ten years. Your assertion is clearly wrong. You didn’t say that there were fewer major ources found, you said there were no major sources found, and that is wrong.
In the final chapter of this book by Michael Economides, he mentions that the world at large can expect to depend on oil for 300 years tops (that assumes a transition to natural gas as the major source of energy and is an optimistic figure). That figure also depends on future natural gas output from the Gulf of Mexico. IIRC, some time after the book was written, I read an article in the Economist that the speculated output from the Gulf was too high (sorry, no cite right now).
He may be right, but the range of estimates avaialble tells me that this is not an exact science.
The thing is that 300 years is an enternity. 300 years ago I would have worried about running out of grazing land for horses because horses were the primary source of transportation and traction. 100 years ago I would have worried about running out of coal and timber for steam engines for the same reason. Basing sustainability figures on oil needs in even 200 years time is real pie in the sky stuff.
I agree. Nothing really is, actually. Science is basically a process of modifying an uncertain but useful information to a set of uncertain but more useful information.
But, your stance that energy needs will be satisfactorily met, smacks me of optimism based on unsubstantiated faith derived from resolutions of dissimilar past circumstances rather than from seeing plausible solutions discerned from current circumstances.
Did you read the University of Oklahoma page I provided? the authorities cited in that paper seem to think energy needs will be met based on plausible solutions discerned from current circumstances.
The world energy council seems to be fairly ambivalent, and admit there are huge resources available for the foreseeable future.
The World Energy Organisation says there will be no shortage within the next thirty years, the longest forecast they are prepared to give.
The U.S. Geological Survey has evidence that reserves are increasing far faster than cumulative production, and that the probability of undiscovered resources is increasing rapdly.
The only possible reason for not believing in adequate supplies is that the WRI forecast predicts that reserves, not resources, are limited based solely on 1999 reserves.