OilFinder2 wrote:That was a very weak response.
He's trying to subsist on only locally grown produce and meat, and is starving because there isn't any.
OilFinder2 wrote:That was a very weak response.
AirlinePilot wrote:I see a frustration level with your posts which signals to me that your in a sort of denial.
AirlinePilot wrote:Humans have a rich and colorful history of failing spectacularly.
OilFinder2 wrote:AirlinePilot wrote:Humans have a rich and colorful history of failing spectacularly.
We also have a rich and colorful history of succeeding spectacularly. Forty years ago, who ever thought that we could have a debate like this over a computer network? Not many. Doomsday is dead. History proves it.
OilFinder2 wrote:OilFinder2 wrote:My position is that there is far more oil than peakers believe, that the technology and resources to produce this oil exists or will soon exist, and therefore, that production of oil will peak when demand for oil peaks. When that demand-peak will occur, I don't know. It could have been last year, or it might not be for decades. Or we might plateau for decades. Nobody knows.
BTW, you might want to take mental note of the implication of my position: If my position is correct (and of course I believe it is), the price of oil will fall once production and demand begins to fall, rather than the price rise as production falls. It might steadily rise for a while, which will encourage new production, and this new production might even be from increasingly expensive sources. But that steady rise in price will encourage people to gradually reduce their consumption and switch to other energy sources (hint: this discussion is in a thread about gas hydrates *ahem*). Once the switch-over to other sources really starts to gather steam, oil consumption will decline, and so will production, and oil producers will reduce their prices in a desperate attempt to attract customers, but by now they're pumping much of their oil from the deep waters off the coast of Labrador, so they'll be losing money. Then they'll shut down their more expensive production, but it won't matter because there's no demand for it anyway. Near the end of the Age of Petroleum you'll still have the Saudis and Iraqis pumping out most of the world's oil, but that's only because they're the only ones who can still do it for $15/barrel.
pstarr wrote:I had you all wrong Oily. You are just post-modern, kind of self-referential. It appears that each of the two links above (plus the link embedded in your signature) reference your own arguments in other threads. So what we have here is Truth-Enfolding-in-On-Itself in a Never-Ending-Loop-of-Self-Fulfilling-HooHa
And here I am thinking you were actually a petroleum professional, as pers your name.
The first link has links to greencar and autoblog, and the second is organized and those posts have links to journalrecord, txco, and so on.pstarr wrote: It appears that each of the two links above (plus the link embedded in your signature) reference your own arguments in other threads. So what we have here is Truth-Enfolding-in-On-Itself in a Never-Ending-Loop-of-Self-Fulfilling-HooHa
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
pstarr wrote:Make the point that an amorphous crystalline structure intact as great undersea pressure can somehow be scraped off rocks and brought to the surface (by mining devices that do not exist in the real world) intact, not evaporated, in a solid form that can be collected and brought ashore.
Then make the point that this lightweight virtual resource (and all the infrastructure necessary to retrieve) it will supply more energy than is contained in the collection system.
If you can do that with examples (other than more self-referential presumption) then I would be willing to entertain your cornucopian vision. Until then gas hydrate as an energy source remains on par with dylithium crystals from Krypton Superman's home planet.
Chesapeake expects the play, which only became widely known when the company began talking about it last March, will produce at least 500 Tcf over time and then recover around 700 Tcf before potentially growing even larger, McClendon said during a presentation to the annual Cambridge Energy Research Associates conference in Houston.
"We think in time it will become the largest gas field in the world at 1.5 quadrillion cubic feet," he added.
A pair of relatively small areas, each about the size of the State of Rhode Island, shows intense concentrations of gas hydrates. USGS scientists estimate that these areas contain more than 1,300 trillion cubic feet of methane gas, an amount representing more than 70 times the 1989 gas consumption of the United States.
pisser wrote:A diversion Ignoratio Elenchi "red herring" You need to prove that it is possible to mine deep sea hydrates.
pisser wrote:Peak oil, the particular subject of this forum, has always been about production rates, not imagined reservoir size.
At the Pittsburgh meeting, Oklahoma-based Chesapeake Energy said each square mile in the Marcellus shale area could contain 30 billion to 150 billion cubic feet of gas.
In computing his new estimate, Engelder said he used an average of that range, 90 billion, to figure that the entire 31 million-acre region might hold 4,359 trillion cubic feet of gas. If 30 percent of that gas were brought out of the ground as Chesapeake anticipates, he said, that would be 1,307 trillion cubic feet from the entire region.
Producers working in the area will provide a more accurate picture over time, he said, adding that he was trying to keep his estimates conservative.
pstarr wrote:Make the point that an amorphous crystalline structure intact as great undersea pressure can somehow be scraped off rocks and brought to the surface (by mining devices that do not exist in the real world) intact, not evaporated, in a solid form that can be collected and brought ashore.
pstarr wrote:Between all this blather neither of you cornies have shown me hydrate production.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests