164 comments on DrumBeat: March 7, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
164 comments on DrumBeat: March 7, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
- Some predictions on the forthcoming Russian-Ukrainian gas 'crisis'
- The US stimulus and "green jobs" for wind energy
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 13th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“We have only two modes—complacency and panic.”
—James R. Schlesinger, the first energy secretary, in 1977, on the country's approach to energy
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
The author of this article, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2007/2007030524470.html 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.
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.