Some excerpts:

quote:

---

For several years, the IEA has predicted that supplies of crude and other liquid fuels will arc gently upward to keep pace with rising demand, topping 116 million barrels a day by 2030, up from around 87 million barrels a day currently. Now, the agency is worried that aging oil fields and diminished investment mean that companies could struggle to surpass 100 million barrels a day over the next two decades.

The decision to rigorously survey supply -- instead of just demand, as in the past -- reflects an increasing fear within the agency and elsewhere that oil-producing regions aren't on track to meet future needs.

---

So don't expect gas prices to come down anytime soon, if you were.

quote:

---

A study released earlier this year by the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm and unit of IHS, concluded that the depletion rate of the world's 811 biggest fields is around 4.5% a year. At that rate, oil companies have to make huge investments just to keep overall production steady. Others say the depletion rate could be higher.

---

This, I feel, highlights the problem we have. We have to work harder and harder just to keep output steady, nevermind actually increasing it. But unfortunately, most of the oil producing companies and countries see no reason to actually do the necessary work, because that would require them to cut into their profits(as an aside, most oil companies already reinvest a huge amount of money into exploration/production--they'd just have to do more). And short of putting a gun to their heads and forcing them to do it, I don't see any way of us affecting change with them.

How about we stop doing some of the myriad of things that we're doing to obstruct them.

No wait nevermind a better idea would be to confiscate their profits.

Maradon! fucked around with this message on 05-22-2008 at 04:49 PM.

Maradon! fucked around with this message on 05-22-2008 at 06:30 PM.

Edit: Liquefied Coal is not a solution. I don't think you understand just how terrible it is to burn it.

Noxhil fucked around with this message on 05-22-2008 at 07:14 PM.

Coal-to-Oil can be dirty if you consider CO2 dirt, a point of view very much in question these days, but even if you're a believer, CTL technologies are inherently compatible with carbon sequestering.

Here's to hoping I don't get auctioned off.

quote:

---

There was much rejoicing when Maradon! said this:
I don't think you understand that without oil we're back in the 1800's technologically, but with today's population. I hope you like your pleasant vista enough to starve to death for it.

Coal-to-Oil can be dirty if you consider CO2 dirt, a point of view very much in question these days, but even if you're a believer, CTL technologies are inherently compatible with carbon sequestering.

---

CCS is very expensive. Even with it, CTL is a step in the wrong direction as it is still dirtier than gasoline. I'm not sure what you're implying about the 1800s and starving to death by reduced oil consumption, obviously we will still have food and there is still quite a lot of oil available.

I wish you would stop parroting the "Maybe CO2 is good" bullshit. It's really not up for debate other than as an ideological war questioning the science. We know the mechanism by which massive amounts of CO2 can damage our environment, we need to move on to what we're going to do about it.

Guess what though, these are the doomsday problems that we've been warning about for the last 5 years, and you've been flat out denying. Our economy is not going to make a quick transition from being wholly dependent on oil. Because we didn't plan ahead we're going to see significant problems as try to begin the decades long diversification from oil.

Replacing one dirty technology with another isn't going to solve the problem either, we're just going to put it off 30 years and do a lot to trash our environment as well.

The answer is fission + hybridized vehicles with the eventual transition to full y electric vehicles. We should be building fission plants and modernizing our electric infrastructure, not taking a step back to coal.

Please remember that CO2 is not even the major cause of global warming, our planets been much much hotter and much much colder with out our "aid" of adding CO2. The #1 cause of Global Warming in our Atmosphere: H2O(g), then next worse SOXs (the different Sulfur Oxides) and NOXs (Nitric Oxides); Next up, Dust.
CO2 comes in #5 along wit the first pollutant of the Earth, O2 and then N2.

We are the first of our geologic era to be able to construe global change, but this global change is minute in the overall geologic timescale. If we kill ourselves off, ok fine.

Back off on your doomsday prophesy, all of you, and take a look at the fact If we cause pollution, that's the new environment. Environments change, the world changes, and until the Mantle/liquid Core freeze up, the world will go through change, be it atmospheric, hydrological, or geological.

I've said the same thing about nuclear power plants for years. Not in your back yard? Fuck, come play ball in mine.

Greenlit fucked around with this message on 05-22-2008 at 11:08 PM.

quote:

---

Razor Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Noxhil, You are being quite narrow minded on the fact that CTL may not be so bad, especially on the fact that so many different road blocks have been put in place by our wonderful government for other technologies.

Please remember that CO2 is not even the major cause of global warming, our planets been much much hotter and much much colder with out our "aid" of adding CO2. The #1 cause of Global Warming in our Atmosphere: H2O(g), then next worse SOXs (the different Sulfur Oxides) and NOXs (Nitric Oxides); Next up, Dust.
CO2 comes in #5 along wit the first pollutant of the Earth, O2 and then N2.

---

I've studied the mechanisms, I understand (without being an expert) the effects of CO2. I don't know how much we should respond, but this silly thing where we question the effects of CO2 or whether it's even warming the globe is a red herring.

Look, CTL may be a way to replace abundant oil. The problem is the plants are incredibly expensive, and I don't see the general population accepting both the monetary cost and the environmental costs to subsidize it. And they shouldn't. Using CCS as a method to mitigate CO2 is nice and all, but it just adds more enormous costs. Finding new ways to use coal is looking to the past to solve problems in the future.

quote:

---

100% USDA grade-A Noxhil
Look, CTL may be a way to replace abundant oil. The problem is the plants are incredibly expensive, and I don't see the general population accepting both the monetary cost and the environmental costs to subsidize it. And they shouldn't. Using CCS as a method to mitigate CO2 is nice and all, but it just adds more enormous costs. Finding new ways to use coal is looking to the past to solve problems in the future.

---

quote:

---

Quoth Noxhil:
but this silly thing where we question the effects of CO2 or whether it's even warming the globe is a red herring.

---

Then you haven't actually studied the subject. Despite all the hippies claiming "consensus" about global warming, science doesn't work via consensus, and there's mounting evidence (and a lot of evidence that's been there all along but conveniently ignored) that the alleged warming trend is, if it exists at all, an entirely natural phenomenon that has more to do with solar and orbital mechanics than with anything people are doing. But if you disagree, feel free how man-made CO2 has contributed to the global warming on Mars. . . .

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Tarquinn gently hums:
While there still apparently is no 100% proof for either side, or at least not the one proof that could convince the other side, wouldn't it be wise to act like the 'hippie scientists' are right, because the current state of the world is much more preferable to what could happen if their visions are actually correct?

---

Not really. That's the old argument that says it's best to believe in God because if you believe and you're wrong there's no harm done, whereas if you don't believe and you're wrong then you spend eternity in Hell.

The point is that the strongest "evidence" for global warming is a wildly--and admittedly--inaccurate computer model that, even though it can't account for actual current observations, everyone is using to predict the future.

And, even if one ignores the evidence and jumps on the global warming bandwagon, there's been little real analysis of the planetary effects were it to occur. The stupid people rely on horror stories about losing cute fuzzy animals to extinction and existing dustbowls and deserts getting hotter and dustier. . .and ignore the fact that, at least according to the one study I've seen that attempts to look at the overall effect, the amount of arable land will increase worldwide due to global warming. Hell, the entire movement can be summed up in three words: change is bad.

Tell that to your boss next time you're offered a raise.

and hey, Pascal's argument from the Machine is pretty cool, too.

quote:

---

Bloodsage stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Not really. That's the old argument that says it's best to believe in God because if you believe and you're wrong there's no harm done, whereas if you don't believe and you're wrong then you spend eternity in Hell.

---

In your case, the strongest appeal for believing in God is that I'm wildly intolerant of anyone with different beliefs than my own.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Then you haven't actually studied the subject. Despite all the hippies claiming "consensus" about global warming, science doesn't work via consensus, and there's mounting evidence (and a lot of evidence that's been there all along but conveniently ignored) that the alleged warming trend is, if it exists at all, an entirely natural phenomenon that has more to do with solar and orbital mechanics than with anything people are doing. But if you disagree, feel free how man-made CO2 has contributed to the global warming on Mars. . . .

---

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know how it works. I do not know to what extent it is warming the globe, but I do know the more we dump into the atmosphere the more it will warm the globe. You're absolutely right though, the majority of our climate change may be from the Sun.

As a species we are not yet smart enough to predict climate change accurately. We may never be; the climate itself is so complex the modeling will take generations and I don't think even then it will be very accurate.

You're approaching this the wrong way. There is no way that altering the climate might be good. As far as I'm concerned there are only two possible positions.

1) Earth's Climate supports human life
2) Earth's Climate does not support human life

Are you really willing to gamble on change that could end human civilization? Is even a 5% chance of the destruction of our species worth unchecked pollution?

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Noxhil absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know how it works. I do not know to what extent it is warming the globe, but I do know the more we dump into the atmosphere the more it will warm the globe. You're absolutely right though, the majority of our climate change may be from the Sun.

As a species we are not yet smart enough to predict climate change accurately. We may never be; the climate itself is so complex the modeling will take generations and I don't think even then it will be very accurate.

You're approaching this the wrong way. There is no way that altering the climate might be good. As far as I'm concerned there are only two possible positions.

1) Earth's Climate supports human life
2) Earth's Climate does not support human life

Are you really willing to gamble on change that could end human civilization? Is even a 5% chance of the destruction of our species worth unchecked pollution?

---

And here you've managed to encapsulate everything wrong with the current "debate."

First, the argument that just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas releasing it into the atmosphere necessarily will cause runaway warming is completely false and based on the kind of emotional half-logic that's at the root of the current hysteria. Despite the "it seems obvious that greenhouse gas = warming" premise, there is very little evidence to support the thesis, and quite a bit of evidence showing that the environment is fairly self-regulating in that regard.

Second, the whole "change is bad" thing is baseless. The climate changes naturally over time--we're still recovering from the last small ice age, as a matter of fact. Saying, as many do, that we should try to keep it the way it is is not only silly but impossible.

As for the, "OMG humanity is doomed!" thing, that's pure hype.

quote:

---

Bloodsage stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
And here you've managed to encapsulate everything wrong with the current "debate."

First, the argument that just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas releasing it into the atmosphere necessarily will cause runaway warming is completely false and based on the kind of emotional half-logic that's at the root of the current hysteria. Despite the "it seems obvious that greenhouse gas = warming" premise, there is very little evidence to support the thesis, and quite a bit of evidence showing that the environment is fairly self-regulating in that regard.

Second, the whole "change is bad" thing is baseless. The climate changes naturally over time--we're still recovering from the last small ice age, as a matter of fact. Saying, as many do, that we should try to keep it the way it is is not only silly but impossible.

As for the, "OMG humanity is doomed!" thing, that's pure hype.

---

Stop straw manning me. I never talked about runaway warming, in fact I acknowledged that solar activity may have a lot to do with current fluctuations.

I know you're going to ignore me but this "GREENHOUSE GAS = WARMING" premise- it's pretty concrete. The mechanism is CO2/HOH (or other greenhouse gases... CFCs ozone etc.) sit in the atmosphere and allow short wavelength energy (SOLAR RADIATION) to enter. Then infrared radiation is radiated by the Earth, most of which is absorbed by the O-H bonds in water. Then other greenhouse gases absorb the energy of different wavelengths trapping it in our atmosphere while the longest wavelengths are radiated out to space.

Now I know you're going to throw the "when it rains CO2 is removed from the air" but that's only true in the lower atmosphere. The amount of carbonic acid that comes down is not nearly enough to make up for the amount that humans release.

"Climate change is bad" is the only rational position. Given that

1) We cannot predict climate change
2) Current climate supports human life
3) Change may cause an environment toxic to humans

The only conclusion is that we should not be encouraging change. Obviously we can't control solar activity. But we can control our effect on the environment.

quote:

---

Noxhil enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:

"Climate change is bad" is the only rational position. Given that

1) We cannot predict climate change
2) Current climate supports human life
3) Change may cause an environment toxic to humans

The only conclusion is that we should not be encouraging change. Obviously we can't control solar activity. But we can control our effect on the environment.

---

Change may also cause an environment where super models rain out of the sky and gas is ten cents a barrel.

Neither is likely to happen.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about the Spice Girls:
Not really. That's the old argument that says it's best to believe in God because if you believe and you're wrong there's no harm done, whereas if you don't believe and you're wrong then you spend eternity in Hell.

The point is that the strongest "evidence" for global warming is a wildly--and admittedly--inaccurate computer model that, even though it can't account for actual current observations, everyone is using to predict the future.

And, even if one ignores the evidence and jumps on the global warming bandwagon, there's been little real analysis of the planetary effects were it to occur. The stupid people rely on horror stories about losing cute fuzzy animals to extinction and existing dustbowls and deserts getting hotter and dustier. . .and ignore the fact that, at least according to the one study I've seen that attempts to look at the overall effect, the amount of arable land will increase worldwide due to global warming. Hell, the entire movement can be summed up in three words: change is bad.

Tell that to your boss next time you're offered a raise.

---

I like your analogy, but even if I'd agree with you, the stakes are a little bit higher in this case than one's personal salvation, and the sources are little bit more credible than a book of fairy tales.

Yes, sometimes change is bad. No sane person would say that change always is good. And I must have interpreted your answer wrong, because it seems you're saying that, while also indirectly accusing me of thinking the opposite.

It's also stupid to focus on trying to halt potential change when nearly all the evidence suggests that humanity's contribution to said potential change is minor; it would be much smarter to study ways to adapt to potential changes.

quote:

---

Check out the big brain on Bloodsage!
I'm not saying change is good--I'm saying change is neutral. And what we don't see in this whole "debate" is any real evaluation of the overall effects of any alleged change, but rather a lot of hysteria revolving around the idea that anything different from current conditions is tantamount to disaster, or that the potential disappearance of some cute fuzzy critters matters in some objective way.

It's also stupid to focus on trying to halt potential change when nearly all the evidence suggests that humanity's contribution to said potential change is minor; it would be much smarter to study ways to adapt to potential changes.

---

*agrees*

To reiterate my point, if we have the chance, however small it may be, to actually ease that adaption, or possibly even make it unnecessary, we should take it, because the alternative would cost us more.

Alas, at this point it boils down to what source we believe in more, or exclusively. If you are 100% convinced of our inability to make an impact, then yes, doing something is a waste of time and money, and I'm not arguing that. If you have a slightly less black and white view of the situation, then my point could apply.

quote:

---

Tarquinn had this to say about Robocop:
Saving cute animal x is a side effect at best. It's not about that, it is about preventing the loss of human lives. Of course even the worst case scenario will not be a extinction level event, and humanity will adapt. No doubt about that. The question is how hard that adaption will be, and what it will cost us.

---

Spoiler alert: You die first.

Pemex is reporting the biggest drop-off in oil production in 12 years.

quote:

---

Crude oil production fell 13 percent to 2.767 million barrels a day in April, Mexico City-based Pemex, as the company is known, said today on its Web site. Output a year earlier was 3.182 million barrels a day. The decline was the largest since October 1995, when output fell 29 percent.

---

Woops.

quote:

---

The company forecast output at Cantarell would fall 15 percent annually until 2012.

Exports fell 14 percent to 1.439 million barrels a day. Pemex, the third-largest supplier of crude to the U.S., has said it will cut exports as output falls so that it can refine more of its own oil.

---

This is interesting, because it demonstrates another prediction of the Hubbert Peak theory that is proving accurate: the Land Export model. It states that oil-producing nations and regions will be able to produce oil for a very long time, but as internal demand rises and production falls, they export less and less oil at a precipitous rate, eventually halting all exports.