Purchase a package and they will destroy a tree in your name!

I don't get the whole carbon thing, I don't read that much current affairs.

Its supposedly to offset the amount of pollution you create simply by existing. Carbon pollution, in particular. Apparently by the very act of being in existance, we are contributing to global warming.

Its a stupid concept that caught on because people are realizing they can get government grants for providing carbon offsets that in reality, dont effect squat.

quote:

---

Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into OrangeBrand who doth quote:
*looks into opening a carbon whatnot business*

---

You're too late, the global warming scare is already going down in flames.

quote:

---

Azakias still thinks SARS jokes are topical, as evidenced by:
Its a scam where people who are bleeding hearts about protecting the environment give money to people who are running companies that profess to plant enough trees to cover 'carbon footprints', that is, the amount of carbon emissions you give off in the course of daily life.

Its supposedly to offset the amount of pollution you create simply by existing. Carbon pollution, in particular. Apparently by the very act of being in existance, we are contributing to global warming.

Its a stupid concept that caught on because people are realizing they can get government grants for providing carbon offsets that in reality, dont effect squat.

---

It's absolutely not a stupid concept. Consumers pump tons of carbon in the atmosphere by virtue of driving, heating and cooling their homes, and using electricity. It's just the way it goes. Further, it is a matter of scientific fact that trees draw carbon from the atmosphere, rather than the soil, to produce their biomass. Therefore, planting trees removes atmospheric carbon, including that which consumers produce.

Further, it has been empirically demonstrated that trees now are growing faster and better than they did in the past. This has been linked with increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is emitted through various chemical reactions, including the abovementioned acts. This is not a matter to be debated.

Why is then stupid to plant trees and increase biomass? Frankly, if you plan on being able to afford fuel in about, say, ten years, you better fucking pray that someone figures our how to efficiently turn that biomass into a liquid fuel, or else we're all riding our bikes to work.

quote:

---

Nobody really understood why Karnaj wrote:
It's absolutely not a stupid concept. Consumers pump tons of carbon in the atmosphere by virtue of driving, heating and cooling their homes, and using electricity. It's just the way it goes. Further, it is a matter of scientific fact that trees draw carbon from the atmosphere, rather than the soil, to produce their biomass. Therefore, planting trees removes atmospheric carbon, including that which consumers produce.

Further, it has been empirically demonstrated that trees now are growing faster and better than they did in the past. This has been linked with increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is emitted through various chemical reactions, including the abovementioned acts. This is not a matter to be debated.

Why is then stupid to plant trees and increase biomass? Frankly, if you plan on being able to afford fuel in about, say, ten years, you better fucking pray that someone figures our how to efficiently turn that biomass into a liquid fuel, or else we're all riding our bikes to work.

---

I wasnt saying that planting trees is a stupid thing to do, or even that a person shouldnt be concernec about the environment.

I may have been ambiguous in my words, but what I thought I was conveying was my distaste for global warming alarmists. I know how trees and plants work; I went through third grade science class.

I just think that going as far as purchasing carbon credits is a rather idiotic idea. If a person is really that concerned about the state of the environment, why do they need someone else to do their conservation for them? Couldnt they cut back on their own? Plant a tree on their own? It strikes me as a way for someone to claim they are helping the environment without actually doing any of the work that truly goes into it.

I also have a problem with the climate change grandstanding that has been going on lately. Most of the stuff you hear on that topic is emotion driven babble and the stuff that actually has a scientific backing tends to get thrown out of proportion by people who have agendas.

My apologies for the previous post being misleading.

quote:

---

And now, we sprinkle Maradon! liberally with Old Spice!
Karnaj, we're finding vast new sources of oil all the damn time, and the planet hasn't warmed at all in the past decade.

---

No, we're not. We're just deciding that oil shale and tar sands aren't such uneconomical ideas after all, and that applying new technologies to old oil fields to wring out whatever we can is a good idea, too. It's not new oil; it's just oil that we considered too difficult or costly to retrieve in the past. Any new oil sources discovered are piddly little drops the proverbial bucket, unable to mitigate the falloffs in production of current large oil fields, like Cantarell.

quote:

---

x--KarnajO-('-'Q) :
No, we're not. We're just deciding that oil shale and tar sands aren't such uneconomical ideas after all, and that applying new technologies to old oil fields to wring out whatever we can is a good idea, too. It's not new oil; it's just oil that we considered too difficult or costly to retrieve in the past. Any new oil sources discovered are piddly little drops the proverbial bucket, unable to mitigate the falloffs in production of current large oil fields, like Cantarell.

---

Still, every year the estimated peak oil date is pushed back farther and farther. We've got almost a century of untapped reserves even at parabolic worst-case growth rates, and a lot of it is in America on alaska's costal plane and the bakken oil formation.

quote:

---

Previously on Planet Maradon!...
Still, every year the estimated peak oil date is pushed back farther and farther.

---

If it helps, think of extracting shale oil like making ethanol from corn, and our current oil supply like making ethanol from cane sugar. While the latter in each case is currently in heavy use, the former in each case is a slow and inefficient process resulting in a net loss.

None of this has any relevance to carbon credits, which relate to the byproducts of burned oil rather than the remaining unburned oil supply.

On the one hand, Maradon is a possibly-deranged right wing nutjob.

And on the other, Karnaj is a scaremongering ivory tower blowjob.

And they're both smug, self-righteous atheists.

In short: 'Doc sucks.

quote:

---

Maradon! got served! Maradon! got served!
Still, every year the estimated peak oil date is pushed back farther and farther. We've got almost a century of untapped reserves even at parabolic worst-case growth rates, and a lot of it is in America on alaska's costal plane and the bakken oil formation.

---

Peak Oil has probably already occurred. Based on global oil production records, we peaked sometime in late 2005 or early 2006. For two years now, oil production has dropped off slightly. And sure, we could develop both the conventional reserves in ANWR and the oil shale deposits of Colorado and North Dakota, but none of those things delay PO--rather, they extend the post-peak plateau. In essence, they're not increasing the availability of oil; they're merely replacing those we're depleting, like Cantarell, which peaked in 2004 and is dropping off at around 15% capacity per year. We're not actually getting any extra oil.

Further, it remains highly suspect as to how rapidly we can extract oil from unconventional sources, such as tar sands and shale. It's great to be sitting on a trillion barrels of oil, but if we can only pull 100,000 bpd, then it's probably not worth it. The difference could be more easily made up elsewhere.

Finally, I posit this: if have all these reserves, conventional or otherwise, then why aren't oil companies opting to build new refineries? Putting NIMBY issues aside for the moment, oil companies are larger and more profitable than they've ever been. A refinery or ten, while a significant capital expense, is easily within financial reach of any of them. They are, however, long-term investments, with operational lifetimes of many decades. Again, if we have this glut of oil and will continue to have it, why aren't oil companies capitalizing and ensuring long-term production capacity? After all, they would know best how much oil is left, and where.

Unfortunately, I don't know if I'm kidding or not.

Also, Karnaj, keep in mind that, without lack of regard for the peak oil status/existence, I'm pretty sure that we've made it next to impossible and in all ways very very hard for any oil company to open a new refinery anywhere in the United States, and in fact we've been pushing many companies to close down their existing plants citing environmental concerns.

It is folly to with one hand chide the oil companies for not opening new refineries to increase production and with the other prevent them from doing such via overly stringent environmental regulations and very public programs designed to decrease demand for their products, and yet, here we are, one hand not speaking to the other.

Blindy. fucked around with this message on 04-14-2008 at 04:24 PM.

quote:

---

And coming in at #1 is Blindy. with "Reply." I'm Casey Casem.
I'm pretty sure the term is "Collusion".

Unfortunately, I don't know if I'm kidding or not.

Also, Karnaj, keep in mind that, without lack of regard for the peak oil status/existence, I'm pretty sure that we've made it next to impossible and in all ways very very hard for any oil company to open a new refinery anywhere in the United States, and in fact we've been pushing many companies to close down their existing plants citing environmental concerns.

It is folly to with one hand chide the oil companies for not opening new refineries to increase production and with the other prevent them from doing such via overly stringent environmental regulations and very public programs designed to decrease demand for their products, and yet, here we are, one hand not speaking to the other.

---

Fair enough. Let's assume, then, that NIMBYs and environmentalists rule and politicians can't be bought and you can't get a new refinery built in the United States. What about the rest of the world? It doesn't really matter where the refineries are in relation to the crude, because it's just shipped or piped to one. Show me a place on the planet where a brand new, massive oil refinery is being built. You might find one up in Alberta for the tar sands project, maybe a couple more in central Asia, and maybe one or two in South America. That's probably it.

Why isn't Saudi Arabia adding capacity to their refineries? Their Ghawar field, the largest in the world, has 71 billion barrels left to it as of 2005 (according to the Saudis), and they're only pumping a measily 5 million barrels per day. Of that, they refine about 2 million bpd. Even if they increased their refining capacity a modest 20%, they'd be able to put almost half a million barrels of oil per day on the market. If the field is still 70+ billion barrels strong, they should be able to add that crude extraction capacity very easily. They have the expertise and the money. We want their shit. Why aren't they adding capacity?

1) As long as the oil companies don't build more refineries, their product demand stays at an all time high relative to supply and they can easily justify exorbitant pricing.

2) As long as policy is being created with the intention of reducing the nationwide oil consumption by 20-30% within the next 10 to 15 years, it would make very little sense for the oil companies to build more refineries, since the extra capacity would be fallow within two decades and refineries historically have a much longer useful life; And creating an incentive for the oil companies to build a domestic refinery would run headlong into the previously discussed environmental concerns and would likely be political suicide.

3) As long as it makes demonstrably little business sense to build more refineries, a claim for collusion among the oil companies can not succeed.

Conclusion: Our politicians are either incompetent or corrupt. Perhaps both. Oil companies are being actively dissuaded from building more capacity, and as a direct result, they are able to charge record amounts for their product without anti-trust regulators being able to bat an eye.

Blindy. fucked around with this message on 04-15-2008 at 10:05 AM.

quote:

---

Blindy. put down Tada! magazine long enough to type:
Well, look at the situation. Feel free to disagree with any given point, but I think that if I am granted the following three arguments, my conclusion is sound.

1) As long as the oil companies don't build more refineries, their product demand stays at an all time high relative to supply and they can easily justify exorbitant pricing.

---

There's nothing wrong with this statement, per se, but demand for oil is high not because of artificial supply restrictions, but because of China and India's rapacious appetite. It's not as if the oil companies can keep this up forever, because eventually their refusal to refine more oil will drive the price of oil up so high that it'll trigger a recession or depression. Such an action could mean that they'll be nationalized, which of course they don't want.

quote:

---

2) As long as policy is being created with the intention of reducing the nationwide oil consumption by 20-30% within the next 10 to 15 years, it would make very little sense for the oil companies to build more refineries, since the extra capacity would be fallow within two decades and refineries historically have a much longer useful life; And creating an incentive for the oil companies to build a domestic refinery would run headlong into the previously discussed environmental concerns and would likely be political suicide.

---

Political suicide to a point. As the United states has moved most of its heavy manufacturing capability out of country, there are a lot of blue collar people out of work. A politician promising thousands of new jobs to the Rust Belt by bringing in a new oil refinery might encounter opposition from national environmentalist groups, but you bet your ass he'll be (re)elected by his constituents.

Further, reducing oil consumption here in the states is all well and good, but we still import a lot of our oil. But let's say we live in a magic world of fairies and dragons, and that we reduce our oil consumption so much that we're back to being a net exporter of oil. Refineries would still see use, as oil-poor regions of the world would still need to import the stuff, and we would, of course, still be using oil.

quote:

---

3) As long as it makes demonstrably little business sense to build more refineries, a claim for collusion among the oil companies can not succeed.

---

I assert that it makes little business sense to build new refineries for a different reason.

quote:

---

Conclusion: Our politicians are either incompetent or corrupt. Perhaps both. Oil companies are being actively dissuaded from building more capacity, and as a direct result, they are able to charge record amounts for their product without anti-trust regulators being able to bat an eye.

---

The pressure to not build isn't coming from politicians and environmental groups. Well, the pressure coming from them is strong, but not insurmountable. Oil companies carry incredible political clout, because their product is what we base our entire society upon. Further, there are plenty of places in the world which are happy to play host to such large industrial projects, if we're adamant.

The reason they're not building is simple: the oil companies don't think that there's enough oil left to warrant construction of such additional refineries. They may not state as much publicly, but there is an abundance of evidence to suggest it, in addition to not building refineries. Cantarell's output is falling so fast that Mexico could need to begin importing oil in as little as seven years. News broke today of Russia's output peaking or being close to peaking. Of course, Saudi Arabia will deny that they're peaking or have peaked, so we'll never know they suddenly stop shipping that they're done in.

Remember, any new oil we discover isn't actually adding to global production capacity; it's merely replacing what we're losing elsewhere.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

quote:

---

Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Rodent King who doth quote:
Not to be rude Reynar, but how legit is that link? It said that the findings would be announced within 30 days, but that was mid-February. I get the feeling that if a giant end-of-oil-problems discovery like this was found we'd all have heard a lot more about it.

---

This has been all over news outlets, from the Daily KOS to the AP Wire.

It's not exactly the end of all problems since it's more expensive to extract than standard-depth oil fields, but it does mean that the US now has more oil than Saudi Arabia.

Until the Sierra Club "finds" an "endangered" species of grousse and gets the entire field labeled an endangered habitat, anyway.

Maradon! fucked around with this message on 04-15-2008 at 10:34 PM.

As the article says, now that oil has increased far above $40 a barrel, it's a good deal to go drilling for it here.

quote:

---

And coming in at #1 is Reynar with "Reply." I'm Casey Casem.
How does 200 billion barrels sound?

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

---

Sounds like a pie-in-the sky estimate, but the USGS report might prove me wrong. But OK, let's roll with it. Let's say that of that 200 billion, ten percent is recoverable, which is consistent with estimates for other oil shale. Actually, I'll go you one better, since it appears that some of the reserves are conventional. Let's say twenty-five percent is competitively recoverable. OK, boom, that's fifty billion barrels of oil, which is nothing to sneeze at. So in developing that, we'll be be prepared to replace currently peaking oil fields (including the aforementioned Ghawar and Cantarell).

So, in ten years, when the area has been properly developed and we're extracted several million barrels of crude a day...we'll be right where we are today. We won't have actually gained any ground. We'll have gained a measure of energy security, which is important. And hey, what if we can recover fifty percent? Or even seventy-five? We'll have a glut of oil, but we won't be able to get it out of the ground at a rate commensurate with all this extra oil. We might be able to extract it slightly faster, but the extra oil just means it's going to last longer.

The problem is that the number of large fields is shrinking. In order to match demand, we'd have find more fields than those that are vanishing, and that's just not gonna happen. Since there aren't going to be a massive number of large fields to develop in parallel, global oil capacity isn't going go up. It's going to plateau or decline. We'll have the oil, but we won't be able to get it as quickly as we now do.