Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject: Re: Natural gas "cliff" debunked by JD!
ROCKMAN wrote:
pstarr,
You've reminded of a news report I heard yesterday. I think it's about to be done in the EU: a law requires a "carbon cost", or some such term, of all retail items. A printed symbol of some sortsn the package. I can only imagine it's going to be just as daunting as cooking EROIE numbers.
Once it's done the results should be universal. The stainless steel in a rig is not a lot then different a fork, at least energy-wise. Simple program, big database. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:59 pm Post subject: Re: Natural gas "cliff" debunked by JD!
MattS - Sorry, it's rather late here & this is probably a duh question, but are you saying there are over 100 years of NG reserves right now? Do any links for that? Thanks.
Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:58 pm Post subject: Re: Natural gas "cliff" debunked by JD!
MattS wrote:
JustaGirl wrote:
MattS - Sorry, it's rather late here & this is probably a duh question, but are you saying there are over 100 years of NG reserves right now? Do any links for that? Thanks.
I posted a link which showed, at current consumption rates, that estimates of natural gas run about 60 years. That was somewhere else though. My comment to Rock was more related to how unconventionals have been around a long time, and recently have been "rediscovered" because of economics.
The pure quantities involved in the unconventionals and things like hydrates is simply mind boggling, and most of them aren't counted in that 60 year supply number.
I say drain the earth dry of every last precious drop of energy! My high maintenance lifestyle can't suffer an interruption or by farking god I'll have to kill myself!
Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject: Re: Natural gas "cliff" debunked by JD!
ROCKMAN wrote:
From an industry stand point it doesn't matter if there is a net energy loss as long as there's profit to be made.
That underscores what has been discussed many, many times on this and other fora. People will keep drilling long after it has become energy efficient, simply because someone is printing dollars at a faster rate than their value is dropping.
And when the value of those little pieces of paper inevitably come crashing down, so will follow the drilling.
And then the lights go out... _________________ The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 2:54 am Post subject: Re: Natural gas "cliff" debunked by JD!
pstarr wrote:
I'm only seen few real reasonable such analysis. See Pimentel and ethanol for a nice simple textbook example
And even his study is full of errors (all of which try to decrease the EROEI of ethanol). It is a difficult thing to get right, this EROEI.
Quote:
APPENDIX A
ETHANOL AND EROEI: HOW THE DEBATE HAS BEEN DOMINATED BY ONE VIEW
FOR 25 YEARS, DAVID PIMENTEL AND, IN RECENT YEARS, TAD PATZEK HAVE BEEN
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACADEMIC BASIS FOR MOST OF THE ANTI-ETHANOL
SENSIBILITIES IN THE MAINSTREAM PRESS.
-----
Fig. A-1 Dr. Pimentel's tractor. This enormous 7000 series John Deere is a
close match to the seven-ton tractor in Dr. Pimentel's 2005 study. It can
pull a 12-row corn planter that could plant the entire farm in under four
hours (in air-conditioned comfort). Tractors of this size are used on
farms up to 25 times the size of the farm described in Dr. Pimentel's
study.
-----
For 25 years, David Pimentel, Ph.D. at Cornell University, and, in recent
years, Tad Patzek, Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley, have
been responsible for the academic basis for most of the anti-ethanol
sensibilities in the mainstream press, managing perceptions that have even
leaked into Hollywood television (a 2005 episode of The West Wing was an
example). Although dismissed by academics in the field, their studies
continue to receive extensive coverage in both business and environmental
circles. Political realities today cannot reverse the damage done.
Pimentel, now approaching 80 years of age, is a darling of the Peak Oil
movement. He and Dr. Patzek have been essentially alone in publishing
studies alleging that production of alcohol fuel, among other things:
- Has a negative energy balance;
- Is an unethical use of food;
- Pollutes the air;
- Costs the consumer money via subsidies;
- Takes 61% more fuel to go the same number of miles;
- Produces 13 gallons of sewage for every gallon of alcohol produced.
Dr. Pimentel is an entomologist, a studier of bugs, and Dr. Patzek is a
physicist and engineer. Neither of them is trained in ecology. So they are
straying far afield. This was amply borne out in their recent study [l]
when both co-authors failed to catch their misuse of net primary
productivity, a very basic concept in describing world photosynthesis. [2]
In doing so, both also understate the photosynthetic efficiency of plants
in general and corn in particular (so it can't be dismissed as a typo) by
ten times, fully undermining their paper's first major conclusion that
plants are 100 times less efficient than solar panels.
Pimentel's lack of expertise also explains his continuing choice to
publish with the International Association for Mathematical Geology's
Nonrenewable Resources, now renamed Natural Resources Research, (which
handles "all aspects of non-renewable [author's emphasis] resources, both
metallic and non-metallic... "), [3] not a journal known for
peer-reviewing biological papers or those on renewable energy. His peer
reviewers all missed the same glaring errors mentioned above.
In their most recent study, [4] Drs. Pimentel and Patzek cite a
self-described "independent" DOE study by the Energy Research Advisory
Board (1980) [5] as their "credible" source as to why we should believe
their negative energy balance allegations. Far from being independent, the
study in question was actually led by Pimentel himself, who was employed
by Mobil Oil at that time. This was not disclosed to the DOE. [6] In light
of this, the conclusion of the ERAB study was not surprising: The U.S.
should abandon attempts at producing ethanol and instead rely on the Mobil
process for making synthetic gasoline from coal. Pimentel today still
champions coal, [7] while his co-author Dr. Patzek stumps for nuclear
power. [8]
The scandal that the study caused at the time resulted in South Dakota
Senator George McGovern convening a Senate investigation to probe whether
"scientists with ties to Mobil Oil ... would rob hundreds of thousands of
American farmers of the opportunity to benefit from gasohol development."
[9]
This dust-up should have ended any normal academic's career. Among
statured, publishing peer-reviewed scientists, no other study has come
close to confirming Pimentel's allegations -- and many are
uncharacteristically candid in pointing out his repeated use of
inappropriate or out-of-date data, or data so lacking in documentation as
to be unable to be evaluated. This is the equivalent of coming to blows in
academia. [10]
Pimentel publicly claims to have never taken money from oil companies,
although he grants it's possible that oil companies have donated money to
Cornell, his sponsoring university. Yet be admitted in a 2004 radio
interview [11] that he took thousands of dollars, and that he was exposed
in 1982 by investigative reporter Jack Anderson as being secretly on the
payroll of Mobil Oil. [12] Following the 1982 expose, Mobil Oil even took
out a large ad to defend Pimentel, while admitting that it paid him. [13]
Pimentel's EROEI study may be simple, but it's dead wrong. _________________ All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become. - Buddha
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2052 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 5:23 am Post subject: Re: Natural gas "cliff" debunked by JD!
MattS wrote:
I posted a link which showed, at current consumption rates, that estimates of natural gas run about 60 years.
Such figures aren't very useful. What is more useful is understanding when production can't keep up with demand. That will be well under 60 years away.
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:11 am Post subject: Re: Natural gas "cliff" debunked by JD!
davep wrote:
pstarr wrote:
I'm only seen few real reasonable such analysis. See Pimentel and ethanol for a nice simple textbook example
And even his study is full of errors (all of which try to decrease the EROEI of ethanol). It is a difficult thing to get right, this EROEI.
Quote:
APPENDIX A
ETHANOL AND EROEI: HOW THE DEBATE HAS BEEN DOMINATED BY ONE VIEW
FOR 25 YEARS, DAVID PIMENTEL AND, IN RECENT YEARS, TAD PATZEK HAVE BEEN
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACADEMIC BASIS FOR MOST OF THE ANTI-ETHANOL
SENSIBILITIES IN THE MAINSTREAM PRESS.
-----
Fig. A-1 Dr. Pimentel's tractor. This enormous 7000 series John Deere is a
close match to the seven-ton tractor in Dr. Pimentel's 2005 study. It can
pull a 12-row corn planter that could plant the entire farm in under four
hours (in air-conditioned comfort). Tractors of this size are used on
farms up to 25 times the size of the farm described in Dr. Pimentel's
study.
-----
For 25 years, David Pimentel, Ph.D. at Cornell University, and, in recent
years, Tad Patzek, Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley, have
been responsible for the academic basis for most of the anti-ethanol
sensibilities in the mainstream press, managing perceptions that have even
leaked into Hollywood television (a 2005 episode of The West Wing was an
example). Although dismissed by academics in the field, their studies
continue to receive extensive coverage in both business and environmental
circles. Political realities today cannot reverse the damage done.
Pimentel, now approaching 80 years of age, is a darling of the Peak Oil
movement. He and Dr. Patzek have been essentially alone in publishing
studies alleging that production of alcohol fuel, among other things:
- Has a negative energy balance;
- Is an unethical use of food;
- Pollutes the air;
- Costs the consumer money via subsidies;
- Takes 61% more fuel to go the same number of miles;
- Produces 13 gallons of sewage for every gallon of alcohol produced.
Dr. Pimentel is an entomologist, a studier of bugs, and Dr. Patzek is a
physicist and engineer. Neither of them is trained in ecology. So they are
straying far afield. This was amply borne out in their recent study [l]
when both co-authors failed to catch their misuse of net primary
productivity, a very basic concept in describing world photosynthesis. [2]
In doing so, both also understate the photosynthetic efficiency of plants
in general and corn in particular (so it can't be dismissed as a typo) by
ten times, fully undermining their paper's first major conclusion that
plants are 100 times less efficient than solar panels.
Pimentel's lack of expertise also explains his continuing choice to
publish with the International Association for Mathematical Geology's
Nonrenewable Resources, now renamed Natural Resources Research, (which
handles "all aspects of non-renewable [author's emphasis] resources, both
metallic and non-metallic... "), [3] not a journal known for
peer-reviewing biological papers or those on renewable energy. His peer
reviewers all missed the same glaring errors mentioned above.
In their most recent study, [4] Drs. Pimentel and Patzek cite a
self-described "independent" DOE study by the Energy Research Advisory
Board (1980) [5] as their "credible" source as to why we should believe
their negative energy balance allegations. Far from being independent, the
study in question was actually led by Pimentel himself, who was employed
by Mobil Oil at that time. This was not disclosed to the DOE. [6] In light
of this, the conclusion of the ERAB study was not surprising: The U.S.
should abandon attempts at producing ethanol and instead rely on the Mobil
process for making synthetic gasoline from coal. Pimentel today still
champions coal, [7] while his co-author Dr. Patzek stumps for nuclear
power. [8]
The scandal that the study caused at the time resulted in South Dakota
Senator George McGovern convening a Senate investigation to probe whether
"scientists with ties to Mobil Oil ... would rob hundreds of thousands of
American farmers of the opportunity to benefit from gasohol development."
[9]
This dust-up should have ended any normal academic's career. Among
statured, publishing peer-reviewed scientists, no other study has come
close to confirming Pimentel's allegations -- and many are
uncharacteristically candid in pointing out his repeated use of
inappropriate or out-of-date data, or data so lacking in documentation as
to be unable to be evaluated. This is the equivalent of coming to blows in
academia. [10]
Pimentel publicly claims to have never taken money from oil companies,
although he grants it's possible that oil companies have donated money to
Cornell, his sponsoring university. Yet be admitted in a 2004 radio
interview [11] that he took thousands of dollars, and that he was exposed
in 1982 by investigative reporter Jack Anderson as being secretly on the
payroll of Mobil Oil. [12] Following the 1982 expose, Mobil Oil even took
out a large ad to defend Pimentel, while admitting that it paid him. [13]
Pimentel's EROEI study may be simple, but it's dead wrong.
I don't have time to read blogs. When Blume publishes in a peer-reviewed professional journal gives me a ring. Until then I will not waste one minute of time arguing Pimentel. I have discussed his methods, analysis, and results for years now and still await professional criticism. Blume is not that. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 2:16 am Post subject: Re: Natural gas "cliff" debunked by JD!
pstarr wrote:
I don't have time to read blogs. When Blume publishes in a peer-reviewed professional journal gives me a ring. Until then I will not waste one minute of time arguing Pimentel. I have discussed his methods, analysis, and results for years now and still await professional criticism. Blume is not that.
Again, from the article:
Quote:
Pimentel's lack of expertise also explains his continuing choice to
publish with the International Association for Mathematical Geology's
Nonrenewable Resources, now renamed Natural Resources Research, (which
handles "all aspects of non-renewable [author's emphasis] resources, both
metallic and non-metallic... "), [3] not a journal known for
peer-reviewing biological papers or those on renewable energy. His peer
reviewers all missed the same glaring errors mentioned above.
It's hard to get professional criticism when your "peers" are not related to your research. _________________ All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become. - Buddha
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:52 am Post subject: Re: Natural gas "cliff" debunked by JD!
Quote:
JD was waffling on late 2007 about unimpeded economic growth. Where are global markets today? Whats the inflation outlook? Whats the job outlook? Whats the housing market look like?
The economy sucks and it pretty much is because of the federal reserve. We just popped a huge financial bubble and combining that with the FR turning on the printing press at full speed, what do you expect? This isn't because of peak anything, it is because of a couple decades worth of shitty monetary policies.
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:09 pm Post subject: Re: Natural gas "cliff" debunked by JD!
outcast wrote:
Quote:
JD was waffling on late 2007 about unimpeded economic growth. Where are global markets today? Whats the inflation outlook? Whats the job outlook? Whats the housing market look like?
The economy sucks and it pretty much is because of the federal reserve. We just popped a huge financial bubble and combining that with the FR turning on the printing press at full speed, what do you expect? This isn't because of peak anything, it is because of a couple decades worth of shitty monetary policies.
This is true. I'm actually beginning to think that the continuing credit crunch and economic problems could cause so much demand destruction that it might actually put back peak oil for 10 or 20 years. What I mean by peak oil btw is the point where demand outstrips supply. America consumes 25% of the world oil and is in for some serious economic backpeddaling.
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 2:10 pm Post subject: Re: Natural gas "cliff" debunked by JD!
davep wrote:
pstarr wrote:
I don't have time to read blogs. When Blume publishes in a peer-reviewed professional journal gives me a ring. Until then I will not waste one minute of time arguing Pimentel. I have discussed his methods, analysis, and results for years now and still await professional criticism. Blume is not that.
Again, from the article:
Quote:
Pimentel's lack of expertise also explains his continuing choice to
publish with the International Association for Mathematical Geology's
Nonrenewable Resources, now renamed Natural Resources Research, (which
handles "all aspects of non-renewable [author's emphasis] resources, both
metallic and non-metallic... "), [3] not a journal known for
peer-reviewing biological papers or those on renewable energy. His peer
reviewers all missed the same glaring errors mentioned above.
It's hard to get professional criticism when your "peers" are not related to your research.
This is an ad hominem. Pimentel has published in dozens of peer-reviewed agriculture and ecology journals, where in fact he designed ecologic life-cycle analysis. The same principals of net-energy study may be applied to living and man-made systems. So Pimentel's groundbreaking work on organic vs. conventional agriculture energy accounting is timeless and sequed nicely into his work on agriculture fuels.
That fact of is publication in a professional geology journal dealing with larger energy issues is a complement to Pimentel and the wide-ranging applicability of his methods and analysis.
You and Blume are a waste of my time, DaveP _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2052 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:11 am Post subject: Re: Natural gas "cliff" debunked by JD!
outcast wrote:
This isn't because of peak anything, it is because of a couple decades worth of shitty monetary policies.
There are probably many factors. One could be the steep rise in the cost of oil and all the products that it feeds into (everything?). Rising expenses makes it harder to meet loan payments. Jobs were also being lost as a consequence of rising fuel prices (in the car and air travel industries). Not the whole story, but the failure of oil production to keep up with demand must be a factor, I would have thought.
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:54 am Post subject: Re: Natural gas "cliff" debunked by JD!
pstarr wrote:
davep wrote:
pstarr wrote:
I don't have time to read blogs. When Blume publishes in a peer-reviewed professional journal gives me a ring. Until then I will not waste one minute of time arguing Pimentel. I have discussed his methods, analysis, and results for years now and still await professional criticism. Blume is not that.
Again, from the article:
Quote:
Pimentel's lack of expertise also explains his continuing choice to
publish with the International Association for Mathematical Geology's
Nonrenewable Resources, now renamed Natural Resources Research, (which
handles "all aspects of non-renewable [author's emphasis] resources, both
metallic and non-metallic... "), [3] not a journal known for
peer-reviewing biological papers or those on renewable energy. His peer
reviewers all missed the same glaring errors mentioned above.
It's hard to get professional criticism when your "peers" are not related to your research.
This is an ad hominem. Pimentel has published in dozens of peer-reviewed agriculture and ecology journals, where in fact he designed ecologic life-cycle analysis. The same principals of net-energy study may be applied to living and man-made systems. So Pimentel's groundbreaking work on organic vs. conventional agriculture energy accounting is timeless and sequed nicely into his work on agriculture fuels.
That fact of is publication in a professional geology journal dealing with larger energy issues is a complement to Pimentel and the wide-ranging applicability of his methods and analysis.
You and Blume are a waste of my time, DaveP
Pstarr, you put a lot of faith in Pimentel's work, yet you refuse to even read criticism of it.
This smacks of dogma, not science. I don't want to have another slanging match here about this, because we just don't reach common ground. Just ask yourself why you need to be so reverential towards his work. Is it because his conclusions form one of the pillars of your doomer beliefs? _________________ All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become. - Buddha
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:33 pm Post subject: Re: Natural gas "cliff" debunked by JD!
Serial_Worrier wrote:
MattS wrote:
JustaGirl wrote:
MattS - Sorry, it's rather late here & this is probably a duh question, but are you saying there are over 100 years of NG reserves right now? Do any links for that? Thanks.
I posted a link which showed, at current consumption rates, that estimates of natural gas run about 60 years. That was somewhere else though. My comment to Rock was more related to how unconventionals have been around a long time, and recently have been "rediscovered" because of economics.
The pure quantities involved in the unconventionals and things like hydrates is simply mind boggling, and most of them aren't counted in that 60 year supply number.
I say drain the earth dry of every last precious drop of energy! My high maintenance lifestyle can't suffer an interruption or by farking god I'll have to kill myself!
Funny thing about crude oil. We say we need to 'save our crude' but If we don't use the crude, it serves no purpose.
Some theories say we need it to keep the earth balanced - but there is no proof about this.
So what good is oil in the ground? Maybe to massage our ego? Hurray we got oil in the ground.
CNBC reported that demand for gas goes right back up when gas goes to the $3 70 a gallon range.
That should be no surprise.
If gas was back to last summers $2.80 gallon level, I'd be headed for Moab for some mountain biking. And when I got back looking to buy a new jet ski...if we don't use the crude, it serves no purpose. But at $4 a gallon, I've changed my habits to fit my budget.
We need to save our crude oil...save it for what?
Maybe petrochemicals so our descendants 'can use' it up?
Maybe national security..to 'gas up' our military and their jets?
But no matter how you slice it crude oil is only good 'to use' and serves no purpose other than what we humans have deemed it worthwhile to use it for.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
