Getting our carbon needs entirely from forests will be a lot cleaner and safer than mining it from the ground.
We already tried that, with much less people around, and it was far from enough, (not even speaking of today's levels)
Getting our carbon needs entirely from forests will be a lot cleaner and safer than mining it from the ground.
meemoe_uk wrote:You 2 doomers kids forgot to read my post before replying,
I haven't seen your history of peak oil predictions. If this has been your only one then OK. But maybe you've done the typical peaker thing of predicting it to happen next year every year for the last 20 years.
The part of reality you don't mention is the market price of oil. A lot of these field that fail the transition from prospects to commercial fail because the market price is so low. At £4000 a barrel, there'd be a lot more commercial viable fields, enough for another hundred years of increasing oil production I think.
This paragraph just suggests to me you are a peaker. You are too focused on the peak. The 10 years delay of today doesn't matter at all long term. Bear in mind the market price can go into the $thousands per barrel. It only matters if you are anticipating a peak round about now and looking for little scraps that off-set the peak a year or two.
When we burn fossil fuel it isn't 'lost' as peakers want to believe, its actually 'liberated' to be used and recycled for thousands of years by the biosphere. If it get stuck underground again we can dig it up again.
For the cause, if we run short of fossil fuel, we should continue to mine carbon rocks such as calcium carbonate.
I had the prediction based on real data which took into account planned developments.
Your suggestion that recession ... are used as an excuse for delay in peak is rather naïve.
It is difficult to see at $100/bbl what discovered field in the world is not economic. I would ask you to give me an example as I am not aware of any.
What is a “peaker”?
Your assumption is that there is a ton of oil waiting to be developed that requires a price in excess of $140/bbl. Exactly where are those discoveries please?
In order for CO2 in the atmosphere to have something to do with hydrocarbons
Precisely what do you propose using limestone for?
Oil companies only 'stock' about 20-30 future years worth of oil fields,
This time it's different huh?
hmm... I've heard that before. But not from the RockDoc himself. Could the most informed member of PO.com be falling for one of the oldest tricks in the PO book?
Recessions and prices crashes and hikes are employed to control the oil industry, to make sure the big players remain in charge.
No company has really bothered to look for >$100 a barrel oil, so there aren't any found examples. Any company that did look for such oil would be flushing money down the bog. But just cos you and your fellow explorers haven't looked for it doesn't mean it isn't there.
The next oil cycle will kick off around 2040,
For the most part, you haven't discovered them yet. Wait for the next oil cycle in 2040.
a 20 acre limestone hilltop that's not good for anything
rockdoc123 wrote:Oil companies only 'stock' about 20-30 future years worth of oil fields,
That’s utter nonsense. Have you ever worked for an oil company? I’ve worked for a number and I never remember being told to stop finding and commissioning new oil production. Your activities can be constrained occasionally by cashflow
... but it has always been the mantra of oil companies to get bigger, faster. The idea that somehow they would conspire as a group to manage production flies in the face of history. The Saudis learned this to their great chagrin when they tried to create an oil shortage.
This time it's different huh?
hmm... I've heard that before. But not from the RockDoc himself. Could the most informed member of PO.com be falling for one of the oldest tricks in the PO book?
You cannot treat oil exploration and production as a simple statistic. It is a limited resource. You put all your faith in the notion that ….hey we had a double peak in the North Sea and then suggest this will happen numerous times everywhere else. I’m sorry to inform you it won’t. The reason the North Sea saw its second peak was due to government incentive.
...The resource is limited and it doesn’t matter what the price is unless you want to say “abiotic oil”
Recessions and prices crashes and hikes are employed to control the oil industry, to make sure the big players remain in charge.
You must be joking? Are you suggesting that there is some cabal or secret society of power brokers who create artificial recessions and price crashes? Do they have secret handshakes and gestures like the masons? If so then you have truly admitted to being in the lunatic fringe. Dougal would find himself to be an intellectual giant in your presence.
No company has really bothered to look for >$100 a barrel oil, so there aren't any found examples. Any company that did look for such oil would be flushing money down the bog. But just cos you and your fellow explorers haven't looked for it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Please name for me a place we have not looked?
The only place I can think of where oil and gas exploration has not been conducted is Antarctica and that will not happen by any stretch of imagination to supply oil in thirty years time.
Your logic that produce is not limited because an employee isn't told to limit produce doesn't make sense. News paper delivery boys are never told to limit the number of papers they deliver.
TPTB did successfully create an oil shortage in 1973 btw.
'Government incentive'. OK so you're somewhat aware that TPTB have influenced oil development with cash incentives. But for some reason you seem to sideline its importance. Was the free cash for any company wanting to help develop oil in Iraq a minor importance? It seemed the at the conferences at the time everyone was pretty excited about the free cash.
Yes, TPTB create and control economic booms and busts by manipulating money. I've posted this on PO.com several times before.
Hey, now that your retired, why not get started in some other subjects besides rocks? I can give you some links to get you started on money.
Just look everywhere again. Harder.
Interesting RockDoc. I'd say as far as the peakers on this site are concerned, these last few posts are nice for them.
Revisionist interpretation. What you said was that oil companies purposefully had a limited supply of oil. This is not the case... ...You are trying to make this sound like a conspiracy. It was the ill-advised attempt by Saudi Arabia to get higher prices for a commodity in which they controlled the market.
As to Iraq I haven’t a clue what you are talking about regarding “free cash”. The deals from the Iraqis were horrendous and could only be marginally economic for the largest of companies.
The discoveries in Kurdistan are new but OF2’s numbers are hugely exaggerated as they are all in place numbers and the reservoir is a fractured carbonate. What this means is a billion barrel discovery will likely translate into a 100 MMB recoverable reserve or less.
There are no oil companies getting together in darkened smoke filled rooms planning how they can take over the world.
You make it sound like I don’t know anything about “money”. I can assure you the reason I am retired is that I have done very, very well.
Just look everywhere again. Harder.
This is an incredibly naive response. Exactly where would that be?.... The thought that you just have to look harder is an insult to the thousands of scientists and engineers who have dedicated the last decade of their careers to this task
More importantly I have done this on a number of occasions when people have argued for infinite resources based on arguments such as “abiotic oil”. The simple fact that flies in the face of your theory is that oil and natural gas are non-renewable resources on the time scale that matters
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 107 guests