The author of this article, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2007/2007030524470.ht... is what I dislike about Global warming advocates as opposed to global warming scholars. A global warming advocate wrote the article and professional climate specialists did the study. The study is not connected to global warming, although it is connected to possible climate change.

Ice streams are large, fast-flowing features within ice sheets that transport land-based ice and meltwater to the ocean. One such stream, the Recovery Glacier ice stream, annually drains the equivalent of eight percent of the huge East Antarctic Ice Sheet, an area larger than the continental United States. The associated Recovery drainage basin, virtually unexplored since an American-led Antarctic ice sheet research trek over 40 years ago, funnels an estimated 35 billion tons of ice into the Weddell Sea annually.

The glacier does not drain 8% of the ice sheet into the ocean, a little misleading. The ice stream is similar to a river and the drainage basin is similar to a rivers watershed.
35 billion tons of ice is equivalent 7cubic miles of ice and if that 7 cubic miles is distributed over an area the size of the US it would be about 4 mill-meters thick 5/32". Is there an annual snowfall equivalent to 4 mm of water?
If the movement of this glacier were to break loose or carry enough bedrock with it, it could provide a means for the free flow of an enormous amount of liquid water to the ocean and this could effect climate change by altering the ocean currents.

The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is about the size of the continental USA. According to this the Recovery Glacier ice stream drains about 8% of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. The 35 billion tons of ice is thus equivalent to 50 mm of water per year (4mm x 12.5) in the drainage area.

This article indicates that average annual snowfall in the central area of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is about 50 mm per year, water equivalent.

Poor wording could indeed allow readers to believe the area drained, rather than the entire ice sheet, is as large as the continental USA.

Thanks for the link: I shall say it again that's what laziness gets you. I had the data right beside me. Antarctica, the entire continent is 5.4 million sq. miles.
4mm was based on 3 million sq miles. Should have been about 240 thousand. Need to read slower.

I realise this comment is misplaced. However, a huge possible find needs to be known. I would appreciate any feedback on this.

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=42208

I have a very vested interest in an oil company exploring in this basin.

The company I am concerned with is called verenex energy. I own a sizable amount of stock in this. If this discovery is true, it will add some 10% to the world's known oil reserves. In short, it is a potential Ghawar (in that league anyway). I agree completely with the concerns about resource depletion. That's why I dumped a bunch of money into this young company in the first place. I've been in a cold sweat since I first read the anouncement. The next few days will tell the tale.

Hoping for a stay of execution on the energy front.

Best,

Jim

Hello James_Benison,

Thxs for this info. If 100 billion barrels is truly recoverable.....to the shores of Tripoli......expect US Marines to bring freedom and democracy to this geography soon.

EDIT: I am not a geologist, but I hope this PDF link helps:

http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/WEcont/regions/reg2/p2/tps/AU/au205431.pdf

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Dear Sir,

I am every bit as skeptical as you are. One glaring omission in this report is whether these "100 billion barrels" are proven, probable, possible, or original oil in place. Secondly, given the language barrier, questions arise as to whether the anouncement might have skipped a decimal point or two (ie million--billion etc...)
In terms of the scope of the discovery, the Libyan National Oil Company stated today that: "This may just increase the availability of oil worldwide which may eventually have an impact on oil prices." That would suggest to me that the discovery is major. My modus operandi is to simply define what is the truth.....not to create it.

Best,

Jim

"RESERVES ARE BELIEVED TO BE WELL OVER 100 BILLION BARRELS, POSSIBLY THE LARGEST IN AFRICA."

This does not need to be played up by me. This is HUGE!!! I'm not just working this for a stock price. The fields I'm vested in are probably 100km away from this discovery, albiet in the same basin. This discovery possibly holds global significance.

I think you misread the article - Libya's reserves are estimated to be 100 billion barrels, not this find alone. And at current consumption rates of 85 million barrels per day, 100 billion barrels is good for about 1176 days. That's right, finding 100 billion barrels means about 3 more years of living like we do right now, in terms of gross amounts. Just because a planet is finite doesn't mean it isn't large.

Respectfully, I must disgree, but I see your point.

Estimated resrves for Libya are/were approximately 39 billion barrels. You are correct in pointing out that the 100 billion barrel figure could include previous discoveries. Unfortunatelty, it is unclear at this point whether the recent Ghadames disovery is an addition to currently known reserves or an estimate of new reserves that have been recently discovered. Regardless, the size and scope of the recent Ghadames discovery will at the very least, if proven to be true, double Libya's reserves. The actual figure could be much more.

On another note,

given the current depletion rate of the world's oil fields, I do not suggest that new discoveries will offset current declines. Simply because I offer evidence that new production will be seen in the future does not prove that the earth will be able to satiate the needs of the global population.

If you want to stay in the scientific camp, argument against arguments (like you do in the later part of your message), not against vaguely identified group of people (global warming advocates).

I know many scientifically trained anti-gw advocates (against continued severe global warming as a trend, not as fact).

Then again, we must remember that the daily discussion and the hearts and minds of people isn't won over by scientific facts, although decisions on what to advocate should be based on those.