The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“If kindness and comfort are, as I suspect, the results of an energy surplus, then, as the supply contracts, we could be expected to start fighting once again like cats in a sack.”
—George Monbiot
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- 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
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- Russian gas and European energy security - a reprise
- Russia: There Is Life After Peak Oil
- Should EROEI be the most important criterion our society uses to decide how it meets its energy needs?
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
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
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Again, could we have some evidence please rather than a stupid rant.
It's not up to me to prove the negative. The case for renewed investment is your claim, it's up to you to show some convincing reasons why anyone should put their money into coal mining.
The facts speak for themselves. UK annual coal production has declined since the peak in 1910, and that trend shows no sign of changing. More pits are closing than opening. If this trend reverses, then maybe you have something.
The former Betteshanger colliery has been redeveloped at a cost of £18 million to office, light industrial and leisure use. I guess the Chinese deal fell through.
Instead of looking back to past glories, we need to be investing in less polluting energy sources like wind and solar.
Straw man - nobody's asking you to prove a negative. Nobody's even asking you to prove anything.
What they appear to be asking is that you provide evidence for your apparent claim that UK coal production's decline is irreversible; i.e., that UK coal production is low for geological and EROEI reasons rather than for political or economic reasons. Large coal deposits are known and located in the UK; you are asserting that they are not being mined due to physical constraints. That is a positive assertion, and requires evidence to back it up.
In response, you've provided only semi-coherent rants. Those aren't evidence, no matter how strongly you believe them.
WTF does "not" mean? Hey, is that a negative? "irreversible" is also a negative. You ARE asking me to prove a negative, so don't lie.
Anyway, I am not arguing there is no longer coal down there, nor am asserting there are physical limits. Those are YOUR strawmen, so another lie.
I agree! It is for economic reasons. The "political" decision that was made was to stop subsidising a loss-making industry. QED.
If you think that the economic or political stance will change in the future, it is up to you to provide evidence for that.
Thanks for poking your nose in, but your objections are not even semi-coherent!
You'll have to excuse Pitt. He often confuses posters on this board for the demons in his head.