Leftist Enviro-whackos fudging the facts?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Peak oil theory utter nonsense? Could be!

[RuntheDamnBall]

Regardless of what paid energy industry consultants say, oil will never be sustainable, always a stop-gap in the long term, big picture. And it will always pollute.

 

The point is, just because it's there doesn't mean it's the best option in terms of whole cost -- economic, environmental, political, and the list goes on and on.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Regardless of what paid energy industry consultants say, oil will never be sustainable, always a stop-gap in the long term, big picture.  And it will always pollute.

 

The point is, just because it's there doesn't mean it's the best option in terms of whole cost -- economic, environmental, political, and the list goes on and on.

844675[/snapback]

 

Then say that. Don't LIE to people and try and promote your view by propagating hysteria.

[Simon]

So if Hubbert's theory has been borne out in multiple instances over the years, anybody who gives any credence to it in regard to world oil supply is a leftist enviro-whacko?

 

Rep and Dem leftist whackos

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

So if Hubbert's theory has been borne out in multiple instances over the years, anybody who gives any credence to it in regard to world oil supply is a leftist enviro-whacko?

 

Rep and Dem leftist whackos

844681[/snapback]

 

That article did little to support your conclusion that "Hubbert's theory has been borne out in multiple instances over the years".

 

I'd be interested in seeing something OTHER than the musings of a couple pie-in-the-sky politicians.

 

The problem with Hubbert's theory is the same one with Malthus'.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Then say that. Don't LIE to people and try and promote your view by propagating hysteria.

844680[/snapback]

First off, Joe, I didn't LIE to anyone. So eff off.

 

Second, this is one theory among many. If the CERA guys are wrong, are they LIARS propagating HYSTERIA, or are they just wrong and they get the benefit of the doubt because they're your good guys™ in this argument?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

First off, Joe, I didn't LIE to anyone.  So eff off.

 

Second, this is one theory among many.  If the CERA guys are wrong, are they LIARS propagating HYSTERIA, or are they just wrong and they get the benefit of the doubt because they're your good  guys™ in this argument?

844690[/snapback]

 

I didn't mean YOU specifically, knucklehead, but rather the whole peak-oil hysteria movement.

 

No, if they're wrong, they're wrong in the right direction. Let's put it this way. If the peak oil nut jobs are wrong and there really are sufficient reserves to 40 years out, then they will have CRIPPLED the global economy for no reason and caused MORE instability rather than less.

[jimmy_from_north_buffalo]

Are you saying we will never run out of oil? Peak oil shouldn't really be considered a theory when you think about it. It's a fact waiting to happen. Unless we learn how to make oil.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Are you saying we will never run out of oil? Peak oil shouldn't really be considered a theory when you think about it. It's a fact waiting to happen. Unless we learn how to make oil.

844703[/snapback]

 

The problem with peak oil is that they contend it's happening TODAY, which is simply unprovable, and holds the potential for severely hampering the global economy for no good reason.

[Simon]

Did it do anything to support my conclusion that anybody who pays any credence to Hubbert's mathematical calculations is not a leftist enviro-whacko? Or is Roscoe Bartlett, the ultra conservative Rep from Maryland, secretly a leftist enviro-whacko?

 

Hubbert's prediction of peak US oil production around 1970 was borne out.

The prediction of peak production in the North Sea around the turn of the century was borne out.

The prediction of Russian peak production in the late 80's was borne out.

 

2004 US government predictions for oil production

 

Of course in 2004 the US government was undoubtedly controlled by leftist enviro-whackos with an anti-oil agenda.

 

Here's some statements from the frequently hysterical, inarguably leftist enviro-whacko Dick Cheney:

 

By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent

annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead,

along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline

in production from existing reserves.That means by 2010 we

will need on the order of anadditional 50 million barrels a

day......

The most significant difference between now and a decade

ago is the extraordinarily rapid erosion of spare capacities at

critical segments of energy chains. Today, shortfalls appear

to be endemic. Among the most extraordinary of these

losses of spare capacity is in the oil arena.

 

 

But yeah Joe, you have to be a leftist enviro-whacko to even consider the possibility that oil production is finite.

[jimmy_from_north_buffalo]

The problem with peak oil is that they contend it's happening TODAY, which is simply unprovable, and holds the potential for severely hampering the global economy for no good reason.

844710[/snapback]

Holds the potential to what? Couldn't ignoring it do the same thing?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Did it do anything to support my conclusion that anybody who pays any credence to Hubbert's mathematical calculations is a leftist enviro-whacko? Or is Roscoe Bartlett, the ultra conservative Rep from Maryland, secretly a leftist enviro-whacko?

 

Hubbert's prediction of peak US oil production around 1970 was borne out.

The prediction of peak production in the North Sea around the turn of the century was borne out.

The prediction of Russian peak production in the late 80's was borne out.

 

2004 US government predictions for oil production

 

Of course in 2004 the US government was undoubtedly controlled by leftist enviro-whackos with an anti-oil agenda. 

 

Here's some statements from the frequently hysterical, inarguably leftist enviro-whacko Dick Cheney:

 

By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent

annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead,

along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline

in production from existing reserves.That means by 2010 we

will need on the order of anadditional 50 million barrels a

day......

The most significant difference between now and a decade

ago is the extraordinarily rapid erosion of spare capacities at

critical segments of energy chains. Today, shortfalls appear

to be endemic. Among the most extraordinary of these

losses of spare capacity is in the oil arena.

 

 

But yeah Joe, you have to be a leftist enviro-whacko to even consider the possibility that oil production is finite.

844712[/snapback]

 

The peak of US oil production was as much POLITICAL as it was caused by any natural shortage. For instance, people don't want oil platforms out to sea near their homes. They don't want ANWR drilled. They don't want public lands drilled. So, In many cases, PEAK OIL problems are caused by the very people who are bitching about it in the first place: environmentalists.

 

And Russian production is at its peak? Could have fooled me. There are HUGE fields in Russia and other former territories that have yet to be fully exploited for one reason or another (again, mostly political).

 

Also, does peak oil account for finds like the big field recently found in the Gulf of Mexico? Doubt it.

 

Same goes for refining. If an oil firm or politician wants to promote the construction of a refinery, who's the first in line to oppose it? Why, the people who are claiming there's a crisis at hand: yes, you guessed it, enviro-types.

 

My contention is that if the energy industry was allowed to grow their capacity without the stranglehold of excessive regulation, oil would be MORE than capable of sustaining the planet's energy needs for at least a half-century, if not more.

 

And as for global warming, it's an air pollution issue. As with other huge air-pollution scares (anyone remember acid rain?), the fee market and science will take care of it if and when it becomes more profitable to do so.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Holds the potential to what? Couldn't ignoring it do the same thing?

844720[/snapback]

 

Let's see...if you stunt the growth of India and China by demanding that they cease growth by use of oil, you hold the potential of alienating those countries and further impoverishing their people IN THE NOW.

 

Don't think that wouldn't go un-noticed.

[Simon]

the people who are claiming there's a crisis at hand: yes, you guessed it, enviro-types.

Dick Cheney and Roscoe Bartlett are enviro-types?

You're completely self-delusional.

 

Also, does peak oil account for finds like the big field recently found in the Gulf of Mexico? Doubt it.

 

Chevron's recent find in the Gulf of Mexico is estimated to hold between 3 billiion and 15 billion barrels of oil. Let's assume, for the sake of illustration, Chevron's most optimistic estimate of 15 billion barrels is the most accurate estimate. A fifteen billion barrel field puts the global peak off by 7.5 billion barrels. This is less than a four month supply at current rates of consumption. At projected rates for the year 2015 it's less than a three month supply.

This does not even account for the fact this "huge find" is almost 6 miles below the ocean and thus much more expensive to develop.

 

-LAOC (via the NewYorkTimes)

 

 

But feel free to stick your head in the sand and scream about how it's all the fault of those damned leftist enviro-whackos.

Hysteria Hysteria Hysteria!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (see the irony?-)

[Bungee Jumper]

That article did little to support your conclusion that "Hubbert's theory has been borne out in multiple instances over the years".

 

I'd be interested in seeing something OTHER than the musings of a couple pie-in-the-sky politicians.

 

The problem with Hubbert's theory is the same one with Malthus'.

844687[/snapback]

 

The problem with Hubbert's theory is that it extrapolates local effects to a global level without conclusively demonstrating the validity of such (it probably is valid; I've just never seen the validity proven, merely assumed).

 

And frankly, I don't see where the article you linked contraindicates Hubbert's theory - where it states it correctly, which it usually doesn't. But then, misdirection and obfuscation is hardly unexpected from an industry source.

[Bungee Jumper]

Chevron's recent find in the Gulf of Mexico is estimated to hold between 3 billiion and 15 billion barrels of oil. Let's assume, for the sake of illustration, Chevron's most optimistic estimate of 15 billion barrels is the most accurate estimate. A fifteen billion barrel field puts the global peak off by 7.5 billion barrels. This is less than a four month supply at current rates of consumption. At projectes rates for the year 2015 it's less than a three month supply.

This does not even account for the fact this "huge find" is almost 6 miles below the ocean and thus much more expensive to develop.

 

-LAOC (via the NewYorkTimes)

But feel free to stick your head in the sand and scream about how it's all the fault of those damned leftist enviro-whackos.

Hysteria Hysteria Hysteria!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (see the irony?-)

844742[/snapback]

 

In other words, Joe...yes, it does. In fact, Hubbert's theory practically requires this sort of find.

[jimmy_from_north_buffalo]

Let's see...if you stunt the growth of India and China by demanding that they cease growth by use of oil, you hold the potential of alienating those countries and further impoverishing their people IN THE NOW.

 

Don't think that wouldn't go un-noticed.

844731[/snapback]

and if we have a severe oil shortage we would be in trouble. so it goes both ways. And isn't China have an extreme environmental crisis now?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Chevron's recent find in the Gulf of Mexico is estimated to hold between 3 billiion and 15 billion barrels of oil. Let's assume, for the sake of illustration, Chevron's most optimistic estimate of 15 billion barrels is the most accurate estimate. A fifteen billion barrel field puts the global peak off by 7.5 billion barrels. This is less than a four month supply at current rates of consumption. At projectes rates for the year 2015 it's less than a three month supply.

This does not even account for the fact this "huge find" is almost 6 miles below the ocean and thus much more expensive to develop.

 

-LAOC (via the NewYorkTimes)

But feel free to stick your head in the sand and scream about how it's all the fault of those damned leftist enviro-whackos.

Hysteria Hysteria Hysteria!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (see the irony?-)

844742[/snapback]

 

And when added to ANWR?

 

Even at $75 a barrel, Oil is CHEAP compared to Hydrogen. And solar.

 

If the enviros had their heads on straight, they'd support nuclear power. But no. That's "too dangerous". It's just not idealistic enough. It's too practical for a leftist movement.

 

So let's say the enviros took a practical approach to solving their "peak oil" "crisis", and replaced 50-60% of all power generated currently with petroleum products with nuclear. How far off would the "peak" move? Would it still be happening "tomorrow"?

 

LMAO.

 

It is Hysteria at its finest. Much like the enviros in the 80s claimed that the lakes in the Adirondacks would all be "DEAD" within 10 years. How'd that work out? The market solved the SO2 issue, and boom. Nothing more to be hysterical over.

 

So, the enviros moved on to the next cause: the ozone layer. Market moves away from CFCs, the ozone layer's no longer an issue. Nothing more to be hysterical about, right?

 

NO! Now it's "peak oil" and "global warming".

 

See a trend?

[Bungee Jumper]

and if we have a severe oil shortage we would be in trouble. so it goes both ways. And isn't China have an extreme environmental crisis now?

844747[/snapback]

 

Not now. They will when they finish the Three Gorges Dam.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Not now.  They will when they finish the Three Gorges Dam. 

844750[/snapback]

 

Only if it ruptures