<The Problem of GrowthThe Oil DrumDrumBeat: March 22, 2008>

62 comments on Hofmeister v. Simmons

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

homebrew on March 21, 2008 - 9:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

"Peak Oil" just needs to be changed to "Peak Oil Flow" so people will always question what the flow part is about and not concentrate on what is left in the ground, however large that may be. Instead of PO lets all use POF.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
beggar on March 21, 2008 - 10:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

No, let's just use POOP.

Peak Oil On Parade?

Peak Oil On Purpose?

Or POPP -- Peak Oil Peak People.

How about PONYPD -- Peak Oil Now You've Peak Denial....?

POMEO -- Peak Oil Means Expensive Oil.

No, I don't have a great new acronym that everyone will understand -- not yet, anyway. :)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
majorian on March 21, 2008 - 10:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Unconventional oil is most of what is left.
Most of it is located in Canada, Venezuela and US.

I find it strange that Shell sees unconventional as the future but isn't fully developing it in politically safe North America. This fact alone proves the hollowness of his argument against Peak Oil (the tar sands is hardly another Saudi Arabia or Russia).

The brain-dead media never seems to ask them why? They must give TV personalities IQ tests to screen out basic reasoning skills.

BTW,
Who is the ape at the end who starts hooting about a Global Warming 'religion'?
He 'hijacks' the interview ( what's Hofmeister's time worth--$100 a minute?)to sympathize with Big Oil having to kowtow to environmentalists. Hofmeister just sits and smiles.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
FuturePundit on March 22, 2008 - 6:48pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Majorian, Actually Shell is developing tar sands in Canada and will more than triple and may even quintuple tar sands oil production. But that takes years to do.

Shell is also in the lead developing technology for oil shale extraction. But they do not believe they can get oil shale into production before 2015. It is their long schedule for oil shale combined with the constraints on Alberta tar sands production that makes me believe unconventional oil sources can't delay Peak Oil.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
majorian on March 23, 2008 - 12:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

According to the article you posted they currently produce 155000 barrels per day and are seeking licenses to increase that to 770000 barrels per day. I find that laughable. The GOM Mars field 130 miles off the coast of Louisiana is designed for 250000 barrels per day with expansion to up to 500000 barrels per day.

http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/mars/

Hofmeister talks big about unconventional but the big money goes to conventional oil drilled in horrible places.

The last I heard, Shell had pulled their heaters out of Mahogany(temporarily).

If you are buying the press releases I think you should dig a bit deeper.

IOW, something doesn't add up.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
SeanTOD on March 22, 2008 - 10:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Who is the ape at the end who starts hooting about a Global Warming 'religion'?

He's right about that. The warming has stopped

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jimvj on March 22, 2008 - 11:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sigh! The "controversy", it grows!

Please see a reputable climate science source, e.g.
http://tinyurl.com/379hjo

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Barrett808 on March 23, 2008 - 9:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Cherrypicking. Here's the actual data:

GISTEMP temperature record

The red line is the annual global-mean GISTEMP temperature record (though any other data set would do just as well), while the blue lines are 8-year trend lines - one for each 8-year period of data in the graph. What it shows is exactly what anyone should expect: the trends over such short periods are variable; sometimes small, sometimes large, sometimes negative - depending on which year you start with. The mean of all the 8 year trends is close to the long term trend (0.19ºC/decade), but the standard deviation is almost as large (0.17ºC/decade), implying that a trend would have to be either >0.5ºC/decade or much more negative (< -0.2ºC/decade) for it to obviously fall outside the distribution. Thus comparing short trends has very little power to distinguish between alternate expectations.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
memills on March 24, 2008 - 1:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yes, an excellent idea. Otherwise, we get something like a comment I got from one of my students a few days after my peak oil lecture "...but my dad said that we have 80 years of oil left."

Somehow the term "peak oil" doesn't convey enough information about flow rates and EROEI.

These concepts must be understood so that even the average person can watch the video clip and realize that the prez of Shell Oil is full of baloney...

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.