Open Thread
Posted by Stuart Staniford on May 1, 2006 - 5:20pm
Topic: Miscellaneous
Tags: peak oil [list all tags]
Scientists from the University of Cornell have discovered a massive amount of Oil off the coast of Louisiana.The find is some 60 billion barrels or 3 Times more than current US recoverable Oil of 20 Billion barrels, and would bring US total reserves to 80 billion barrels which is on par with Venezuela. In comparison to other finds around the world, this is twice the size of all Oil ever found in the North Sea and 6 times larger than the estimates of the Alaskan ANWR oil deposits.....The area is about 10,000 sq. miles in size, and was found under layers of salt dooms by a new method of oil discovery known as "gas washing" . A process in which geologist are able to track the movement of oil deposits by the way they interact with the flow of natural gas. This method helps scientists to make extremely accurate 3D-seismic maps of deep underground oil deposits and mitigate the risk involved in drilling such deep under sea wells.
....The information was gathered from source rocks deep below the sea and was discovered by a team lead by Larry Cathles, a chemical geologist from Cornell and funded by a grant from Chevron
I called and talked to Larry Cathles and he said it was a bogus fabrication. There is a large amount of source rock down there, and his group studied where it was migrating to, but in no sense did they find significant amounts of recoverable oil.
The No. 1 energy fund's wild (but energizing) ride
May 1, 2006 -- The region of the tropical Atlantic where many hurricanes originate has warmed by several tenths of a degree Celsius over the 20th century, and new climate model simulations suggest that human activity, such as increasing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, may contribute significantly to this warming. This new finding is one of several conclusions reported in a study by scientists at the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., published today in the Journal of Climate.
I wonder if the record flooding occuring 'across the pond' is also attributable to global warming? I couldn't find any specific info if the snow was melting faster than normal, or if the glaciers are shrinking faster this year adding more meltwater to these flooding rivers. Maybe crucial GW data will soon be as hard to get as SA oil production from Ghawar.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7003183392
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/opinion/14464130.htm
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Exxon posted profits of $36.13 billion for last year (2005). According to a dipchip, ExxonMobil produced 2.5 mbpd in 9/05. Total production is/was around 85 mbdp, so that's 3pct of total. Just say the avg price was $55/bbl.
This would mean that EM profits were a little over 2pct the of the TOTAL value of production in 2005 OR 66 pct of its own 3 pct share! Well, clearly EM derives its profits from gas and chemicals as well as oil -- so not all of this profit is attributable to oil.
On the other hand, the profits do not include the hefty compensation of the top level execs, plus the generous compensation of even the midlevel management. So the $33.16 is understated from one point of view (mine).
And EM is only one of the majors, although a biggie and probably the most profitable. It seems to me that either EM's profits are staggering for a 3 pct share of the market OR the 3pct share is misleading, i.e. they are somehow involved in profitting from a much larger share than just the 3 pct that is ascribed to them.
I still maintain, that while peak oil is here or near, we cannot exculpate the oil companies. They are a big part of the problem, though perhaps not in quite the way the public imagines. There is no good solution to the problem that is going to make the oil companies happy.
For any particular year, you will find that those hefty bonuses (which I do not condone, by the way) amount to far less than 1% of the annual profits.
I still maintain, that while peak oil is here or near, we cannot exculpate the oil companies. They are a big part of the problem, though perhaps not in quite the way the public imagines. There is no good solution to the problem that is going to make the oil companies happy.
Oil companies are doing what they are supposed to do: Find and refine oil, and make money selling it. This is what they do year in and year out, and is what they can be counted on to do in the future. I don't believe that Big Oil will make a serious move into biofuels until the time is right. And 'the time is right' when they think they can make money at it. That's not to say that they won't miscalculate and get into the game too late, but Big Oil is currently moving into projects past conventional oil (tar sands, GTL, NGL, etc.).
RR
RR
RR
RR
I think CTL is significantly decent gross EROI but net EROI (after accounting for environmental impacts) is very low, and perhaps below unity. We need more studies on these things before they scale, in any case.
RR
The hidden "economic" factor.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4963348.stm
And I wouldnt put any country out of the reckoning to do it.
Rao
http://tinyurl.com/ee8w6
==AC
Of course, that's the philosophy of Nihilism and has been around since long before the oil age, and thus, is of no use, consequence or import on what is essentialy a technical/economic discussion....self hatred is an asthetic point of view...
"If you teach a man that he is nothing more than a gorilla with a gun, he begins to act exactly as a gorilla with a gun."
Philosopher, writer and Trappist monk, Thomas Merton
"If you teach a man that he is nothing more than a gorilla with a gun, he begins to act exactly as a gorilla with a gun."
Philosopher, writer and Trappist monk, Thomas Merton"
But if that same man was taught to be a Nobleman he will become a gorilla with a gun if you let him starve for a few weeks, and the best part is you wouldn't even have to teach his to do that.
Let's cut through the crap here. What it all boils down too is all anyone gives a shit about is your own ass and the little bipeds it produced.
"All behavior has been shaped for the maximum survival and reproductive success of the genes of the individual and/or its close kin, not of the species."
~Michael Ghiglieri
The boys at the top of the food chain are going to take a massive dump on us at the bottom real soon...
"Wherever men hold unequal power in society, they will strive to maintain it. They will use whatever means are convenient to that end and will seek to justify them by the most plausible arguments they are able to devise."
~Reinhold Neibuhr
==AC
Democratic monkeys are flinging verbal feces at Republican monkeys.
Republican monkeys are flinging verbal feces back at the Democratic monkeys.
"The Problem" will be solved by the letting of blood, by the casting of "blame". But whose blood is it that must flow? Who is to "blame"?
Who?
Who?
The monkey noises rise in a crescendo.
Individual apes plead for their lives. "I will give every man, woman and child $100 if they spare me," yelps one monkey.
"I voted for higher CAFE standards before I voted against them," yelps another monkey.
We Peak Oilers know that all these monkey noises are meaningless. Mother Nature will not exgorge a new plume of sweet crude just because the monkeys make their noises of blame. Hubbert's curve is running its course. Global Warming is running its course. And yet the monkeys shreik.
So now we TOD'ers start flinging feces at each other to decide if we are monkeys, or lemmings or some higher form of creature?
What good is it?
Let us gather together as a unified "tribe" or "herd" or "coallition" or whatever you want to call it, of rational thinking creatures and work on energy solutions rather than on the blame game (a.ka. feces flinging).
The above quote is incorrect on at least two counts.
First, there is considerable debate with regard to the level at which evolution operates: genotype, phenotype or at some other point, or at some combination of all available modalities of change. We can see this most clearly with regard to the human species where our primary advantage derives from a synthetic abstract that we call "culture." We can implement cultural change much faster than a species which relies on adaptive change via genetic mutation. Our success as a species is a clear counter-factual to the above quote.
The second inaccuracy is due to the implied teleology. The statement suggests that change is directed, or "shaped" toward some desired end point (reproductive success) and that this is an optimum outcome. The theory of punctuated equilibrium posits that change is aimless and happens more or less in random fashion during an epoch of relative stasis. After this period of stasis there is some form of major change in the environment which creates a new environment. Some portion of the existing species will be successful in this new environment and will increase their populations. Other species will find the new environment less hospitable and these will tend to die out.
From a Peak Oil perspective we can see that the overfed, overweight, overstimulated and auto-mobile members of industrial culture may have some difficulty in adapting to a post-Peak environment and may be subject to die -off. Existing pre-industrial cultures will not suffer the same negative impacts, in fact their territory is likely to increase due to the die-off of the oil dependent. The key understanding here is that nature not only rolls the dice, she is constantly changing the rules of the game. Some species do better under one set of circumstances than others. But no one can predict with certainty what future conditions will be. Therefore no one can accurately predict the required adaptations in advance. I fearlessly place my bets on Bob's yeast.
"It rapidly became clear to me that the most imaginative way of looking at evolution, and the most inspiring way of teaching it, was to say that it's all about the genes. It's the genes that, for their own good, are manipulating the bodies they ride about in. The individual organism is a survival machine for its genes."
~Richard Dawkins
That is Dawkins point of view and it is a very imaginative point of view and it helps open up the thought realm to the range of possibilities with regard to what we call evolutionary change. I tend to favour the perspective of Eldredge and Gould (1972).
Is Dawkins view the current accepted conventional scientific wisdom? I do not believe so. I have not kept current on all the levels of the debate because it is taking place at a multitude of levels within different disciplines.
The following is fairly good introduction to the issues:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
I personally have extremely little tolerance for nihilism, the Apocalypticons, etc. If I really believed what these extreme pessimists claim they believe, I would have offed myself some time back.
Human beings have indeed managed to screw up a hell of a lot, but we've also done a lot of things right. I prefer to remain optimistic and focused on the task of educating people about the energy challenges we're just beginning to encounter (which I still contend is the best way to prepare for what's coming). If I turn out to be wrong, them's the breaks. But at least I'll have a lot more fun along the way than the people dusting off their Y2K bunker plans.
"Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton."
~Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society
http://tinyurl.com/ms3nu
==AC
Welcome my son
Welcome to the machine
What did you dream?
It's alright we told you what to dream
You dreamed of a big star
He played a mean gituar
He always ate in the Steak Bar
He loved to drive in his Jaguar
So welcome to the Machine
Benedictines are pretty much the definition of intentional community, and when they work as designed, provide a compelling counterweight to the Angry Chimp view that in the end we're just in it for ourselves.
FWIIW, Merton might have objected to being called a philosopher. He was an existentialist, coming to a slightly different opinion of ultimate realities than the atheistic existentialists.
IMO, there's a place in the world for nihilism, just as there is for other philosophical arguments. You can make a case for them all, which just proves that humans and their behavior are complex and multifaceted. We can be gloriously noble and horribly depraved (and everything in between). Our survival as a species will depend on which aspect is paramount at crucial points in time.
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/05/predator_state.html
Computing the commute
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050106S.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/world/americas/01cnd-bolivia.html
To pick up a point raised at various times by westexas and Dave: any country's nationalization of oil or gas seems to imply that there will be more local resource use, and less export. That's not inevitable, but it seems to follow.
http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog.asp?id=220
Bio-Butanol
RR
I know a company that is quietly converting engines