<Living Large in Exurbia The Oil Drum The Tuesday Morning Open Thread>

46 comments on The second quarter of the year is normally quiet

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

got2surf on March 20, 2006 - 3:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
2nd Quarter Quiet?

LET'S SHAKE IT UP A BIT!!

A little off topic but I want to get in on a new thread and get some feedback.  This is an idea I had yesterday, I've been thinking a lot about PO the last couple months...

What if we could get the USGS to revise its reserve numbers??  Has anyone tried?  I'll do my part.  TOD certainly has some members whose inquiries would be deemed credible.  Portland Peak Oil, my new town, seems to have the ear of some local politicians, and I'm sure there are some other towns (the usual suspects) who could join the call.

As in the climate change debate, there was always that pesky satellite data that conflicted evidence of warming.  Finally someone recalibrated the instruments, the data concurred and serious opposition was pretty much finished.  It seems this USGS data is playing a similar role...

The publicity around not only a revision but the request for a revision would go far, IMO.

There is a great precedent for scientists speaking out and asserting the truth.  Look at NASA now (and NOAA?)and others in gov. speaking out against 'prevailing wisdom'.  Credible scientisits have every incentive to put out real data.

I even know someone at USGS, even though he does beach profiling/sand transport (He's from Santa Cruz - whad'ya expect?).

PO is our little secret but won't we all be better off having this widely known?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Heading Out on March 20, 2006 - 4:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I doubt that you will get them to change their numbers, but I am backing through the various reports to trace where the original ones came from.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PaulusP on March 20, 2006 - 4:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Climate change is probably a more terrifying event than PO. OTOH, it is now evident that climate change is accelerating due to the burning of FS. Meanwhile the same burning of FS (small particals) keeps out a significant part of incoming
(sunlight), more known as Global Dimmming. Going downslope after PO may cause less en less GD, accelerating Global Warming.

If Peak Oil is broadly accepted to be happening now, you're crashing the "market"

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
JD on March 20, 2006 - 7:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What if we could get the USGS to revise its reserve numbers??

Have you read and understood the methodology of the USGS report? That would probably be the best place to start.

I have looked at the USGS figures very closely, and no one as yet has produced any good evidence to show they are wrong. In countries where active efforts are being made to discover oil, the volumes being discovered are in line with USGS estimates. In general, the countries which are not performing up to USGS estimates are not discovering new oil because no one has been exploring for oil there. Iraq is the classic example. The USGS estimates that large volumes of undiscovered oil are present in Iraq, but the poor discovery record in Iraq doesn't prove that the oil is not there. No one is drilling because the country is at war.

To prove that the USGS estimates of undiscovered oil are wrong, you need to identify a country/province X satisfying TWO criteria:
 1) Discoveries in X are substantially lower than the USGS estimates suggest
 2) Actual efforts are being made in X to discover new oil.

So far, no one has met the challenge of identifying such a country.

The USGS has a evaluated its own track record, in a paper referenced here.  The USGS procedure for estimating reserve growth has an excellent track record, and in fact has underestimated reserve growth thus far, as you can see in the paper.

If you're curious, there's lots more analysis of the USGS available here

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tappel on March 21, 2006 - 3:05am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I have looked at the USGS figures very closely, and no one as yet has produced any good evidence to show they are wrong.

One thing I have learned from TOD and other peak oil sites is that reserve numbers are not that important. Evidence - and common sense - shows that the most easily exploited reserves are developed first; what is left after them is only good for managing the tail, which of course is important as such, but does not help the fact that we are close to the peak.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
got2surf on March 21, 2006 - 2:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Thanks for the link JD

I truly did intend to mention that I have not read the report(s) in question.

I certainly have encountered a lot of indications that the USGS projections fly in the face of actual widespread evidence, though.

Hopefully they're somewhat readable...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

46 comments on The second quarter of the year is normally quiet

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version