Saturday
Dec112010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Cancun deal
Dec 11, 2010 Climate: WG3 A number of people have asked for a dedicated thread for discussing the deal at Cancun. I'm out tonight, so behave yourselves while I'm away.
Reader Comments (171)
I propose that the 100 richest people in the whole wide world chip in a billion each to clense their worthless souls prior to the Last Judgement and help rid the planet of all the CO2 they have created these many years in the pursuit of their wicked wealth. I further propose that the $100 billion be dispensed in a hundred billion $1 silver coins to the billion people in the 100 poorest countries on the planet making the bottom quintile of income in those countries. I further propose that anyone who participated in the Cancun Conference in an official capacity be taken out and shot as a means of reducing global CO2 levels, and that henseforth, and forevermore, the IPCC be disbanded as a waste to time, energy, and money.
Next problem!
Ref - Dec 12, 2010 at 11:36 PM | Pascvaks
(Sarc Off)
posted this on jonova yesterday, because i couldn't recall any of the sceptic sites noting it at the time. it was all hillary clinton offers $100bn blah blah...
11 Dec 2009: Financial Times Blog: Copenhagen catch-up: Soros’ $100bn plan, divisions between developing countries and EU members
How to find $100bn
Thursday’s main event was a proposal from billionaire financier George Soros that would give poor countries access to a $100bn loan to tackle the effects of climate change, writes Fiona Harvey in the FT…
Soros’ idea is to use an obscure financial instrument known as special drawing rights (SDRs) – a type of basket currency used as an accounting unit as the IMF, and generally held by countries as part of their reserves. Some poor countries and green groups welcomed the idea enthusiastically, but the EU’s lead negotiator was sceptical. The idea will not be decided on at Copenhagen, but may form part of future discussions…
http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/12/11/copenhagen-catch-up-soros-100bn-plan-divisions-between-developing-countries-and-eu-members/
Here is a perfect example of how billions of dollars of Aid targeted for a specific purpose makes a difference...
Not.
$52bn of American aid and still Afghans are dying of starvation
And in this case you had only one country behind it, and with motivation that they want their troops out.
Imagine the UN handling this?
Interesting that on the Armstrong and Miller show - BBC1 Saturday, there was a global warming sketch.
It started out with a man looking out of the window at the rain and saying, "Well, whatever happened to global warming, eh?" followed by a pseudo government information film warning that merely saying, "whatever happened to global warming,eh?" whenever it's a bit cold or wet will become an imprisonable offence. The sketch ends with the same man parroting a clumsy mantra about the weather smoothing out into a long-term warming trend and getting a big green glowing tick onscreen.
Rather like the 10:10 splattergate film this comes across as a pop at the draconian smugness of the warmists - but this time deliberate.
I've always believed that AGW will be really dead in the UK when it's the routine butt of BBC comedy shows like Have I Got News For You and Mock the Week.
I think this is a tentative step in the right direction. It may be left open to different readings and it could be said that it's not necessarily a dig at the "facts" of AGW but it's pretty brave in the context of the BBC and UK comics in general. I'm sure I haven't seen anything this positive, from our point of view, in a comedy show before.
Starts about 7.04 (UK viewers only I'm afraid):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00wswb4/The_Armstrong_and_Miller_Show_Series_3_Episode_6/
5. (C) Al-Sabban said the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies was key to addressing Saudi Arabia's domestic energy demand, and he acknowledged the need for increased energy efficiency awareness. The deployment of CCS technology, he said, was "crucial" for Saudi Arabia
http://tinyurl.com/2av32zh
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2010/12/wikileaks-first-climate-cables.html
Cancun Climate Conference: what it all means
Anything else controversial?
Saudi Arabia won the right to get climate change subsidies for developing ‘clean’ coal, oil or gas. Carbon capture and storage or CCS takes the carbon emissions from fossil fuels and stores it under ground.
http://tinyurl.com/2axroln
OTC: Aramco pursues 70% oil recovery rate
Saudi Aramco wants to improve its oil recovery rate to 70% from 50% over the next 20 years by focusing on enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques and other new technologies, said Amin H. Nasser, Aramco senior vice-president, exploration and production.
http://peakoilpetroleumandpreciousmetals.yuku.com/topic/8261
http://tinyurl.com/2dygopa
Saudis eye CO2 injection at Ghawar
http://peakoilpetroleumandpreciousmetals.yuku.com/topic/10029
http://tinyurl.com/2b2xog4
In the meantime, it is also a known that Saudi Aramco wants to improve its oil recovery rate to 70 percent from 50 percent over the next 20 years by focusing on enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques and other new technologies
http://peakoilpetroleumandpreciousmetals.yuku.com/topic/9426
http://tinyurl.com/28xx4fu
Facing the Hard Truths about Energy –
A Comprehensive View to 2030 of Global Oil and Natural Gas (2007)
http://www.npc.org/reports/eo.html
http://www.npchardtruthsreport.org/
The Stonewalling of Peak Oil
http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1751
National Petroleum Council report comes up a dry hole
Two Misleading Graphs From the National Petroleum Council Report
NPC Graph #1
How Much Longer Can Oil Production Grow? Between 1950 and 2000, global oil production increased sevenfold. This exponential growth is now coming to an end. An illustration from page 7 of the Executive Summary of the National Petroleum Council’s (NPC) reveals today’s stark reality and an unrealistic review of the solutions to the challenges of tomorrow.
The decline of existing production from about 75 million barrels in 2005 to about 15 million in 2030 illustrates the sobering depletion rates of older fields. Looking ahead, the NPC suggests that bringing known reserves into production, enhancing recovery from older fields and exploiting “unconventional” oil, will result in a bumpy plateau of approximately 90 to 95 million barrels per day. The International Energy Agency (IEA) concurs with this judgment.
Beyond 2015 or so, the continued expansion of world oil supply depends entirely on fields not yet discovered. The NPC does not acknowledge the “growing gap” between discovered oil and production (see Figure 1).
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/32147
Colin Campbell's Response to the Guardian IEA Reporting
The text was bland enough but it contained a critical table showing that oil demand would outpace supply by 2010, save for the entry of an item called Unidentified Unconventional, whose supply was shown to meet as much as 20% of the world’s needs by 2020. Having managed to get it past the G8 Ministers, the IEA team was able to include it in the World Energy Outlook for 1998.
In effect, the Unidentified Unconventional was a coded message for shortage. I explained this to a journalist who contacted the element within the IEA which was pleased that this important hidden message should get out. But when it was published (Fleming D., 1999, The next oil shock? Prospect April), the IEA evidently got into serious trouble with its masters in the OECD governments, and in the next issue of the World Energy Outlook, the Unidentified Unconventional became Conventional Non-OPEC, without comment or explanation.
The primary function of the IEA was to supervise OECD strategic stocks, which in turn were perceived to be a certain defence against any excessive demands by OPEC. So the IEA came to see its role as protecting consumers’ interests, and it therefore had every reason to downplay any notion of depletion and finite limits imposed by Nature, because indirectly such would strengthen the hand of OPEC.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5970
Joint Operating Environment 2010
http://www.executivegov.com/2010/03/the-joint-operating-environment-on-the-energy-crisis/
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf
See second Graph on Page 27 at above link. Existing conventional production base declines from about 75MillionBPD in about 2004 to about 15Million BPD by 2030. Backfilling that production capacity will be the big challenge.
Navy Secretary Announces Energy Changes
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alternatepower/message/24376
Energy Conservation Moving Up Pentagon’s Agenda
17-Mar-2006 12:24 EST
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD] is Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s Projection Forces subcommittee. He has been talking about Peak Oil issues for about a year now, and recently discussed a September 2005 Army Corps of Engineers Report entitled “Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations” [PDF] in the House. Part of its conclusions section notes:
“One thing is certain: it is going to be challenging and comprehensive approaches to energy issues are required. Uncertainty cannot be an excuse for inaction. Integrated resource planning is required and issues must be addressed from both the supply and demand viewpoint. The U.S. cannot drill its way to energy independence nor can we do it all with renewables and efficiency. A secure, reliable, and cost effective energy system must be robust, diverse, and aggressively incorporate renewables, energy efficiency, and intelligent use of fossil fuels.
The days of inexpensive, convenient, abundant energy sources are quickly drawing to a close…. We must act now to develop the technology and infrastructure necessary to transition to other energy sources. Policy changes, leap ahead technology breakthroughs, cultural changes, and significant investment is requisite for this new energy future. Time is essential to enact these changes. The process should begin now.
Our best options for meeting future energy requirements are energy efficiency and renewable sources. Energy efficiency is the least expensive, most readily available, and environmentally friendly way to stretch our current energy supplies. This ensures that we get the most benefit from every Btu used. It involves optimizing operations and controls to minimize waste and infusing state of the art technology and techniques where appropriate. The potential savings for the Army is about 30 percent of current and future consumption. Energy efficiency measures usually pay for themselves over the life cycle of the application, even when only face value costs are considered.”
http://tinyurl.com/8h4q9g
September 2005 Army Corps of Engineers Report
Conclusions about Petroleum
In summary, the outlook for petroleum is not good. This especially applies to conventional oil, which has been the lowest cost resource. Production peaks for non- OPEC conventional oil are at hand; many nations have already past their peak, or are now producing at peak capacity. Polar, deep, and non-conventional will contribute to future resources. Most conventional oil production reserves are in OPEC
http://tinyurl.com/8r4dry
@artwest
Interesting... I think comics general are anti-establishment. That is where the rich seams of humour are. Historically I would make a wild guess that younger comics (before driving around in personal number plated luxury cars) read the Guardian.
Yet whilst not following his general politics, I find Dellingpole funny. He is anti-establishment. A right-wing blogger.
The establishment position is CAGW. There is no humour in it...
Let us hope more comics make the switch that our political elite and mainstream media cannot make. That is quite an establishment bloc to take aim at.
Being sceptic really is more funny...
@brent
Is that a comment or spam?
I enjoyed reading the comments on Richard Black's summary of Cancun.
They must have sent the mods home.
@sHx
It is not spam .It is a comment.
I'm a Canuck and an old/retired petroleum downstreamer (a supply and refining guy)
The reason that BIG OIl supports the AGW scam, is that demonizing carbon as CO2 is necessary if one wants to use an environmental Ruse/ Hoax as a Proxy for HC Depletion.
The following is the issue that BIG OIL does not want to discuss
The Stonewalling of Peak Oil
http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1751
It is in the interest of BIG OIL to support the Hoax rather than be open about the real underlying issue of HC Depletion
cheers
brent
@andyscrase
This was my favourite... :)
Richard- you realize, that all those dedicated, sincere people you met at the conference; the ones desperately trying to save our necks - will not read your blog and comments, because of the extremely high density of denialoons in the comments. It's just too painful, and wastes too much time- which is, of course, their goal.
Yes, it's a big pain in the ass to clean them out. But well worth it. Over on the NYT, the Green Blogs folks just did successfully change their screening, and the result is fabulous- intelligent conversation. And no, they don't just outlaw denial; the occasional sincere but confused person is still permitted access.
It matters. I hope you can make this forum useful. Your articles are excellent; but the comment space is a complete waste.
The strange thing is BH has open policy on who can comment, but we have very few here running the gauntlet and establishing a pro-CAGW profile. There was FODwyer,. ZDB does not count, "she" is just like the Monty Python sketch where you pay for an argument and just end up with contradiction.
j ferguson: The 3:1 ratio is EROEI on unconventional shale oil.
Brent: welcome to the minority view around here, and just about everywhere else if you too think AGW is political cover for peak oil, I can't understand why more people don't see it.
When AGW is exposed (widely recognised as a failed hypothesis) does anyone else think there will be a big backlash in public opinion regarding "green" policies, an environmental backlash, or will it all have gone too far?
What does it mean for the brazilian forest property speculation of the WWF?
Did their friends in Cancun just shovel tens of billion dollars into their pockets ?
Good point artwest. That was a definite kick back at Guardian style propoganda.
However, the British state is totally committed to an 80% reduction in CO2 by 2050. There is a lot of money to be made, particularly by the nuclear industry. I don't think AGW will be on 'Have I got news for you' until all the contracts have been signed.
@Jiminy Cricket
And no, they don't just outlaw denial; the occasional sincere but confused person is still permitted access.
Oh that is too funny.
Help me, I am confused, can I leave a non-consensus view on your blog?
Sorry, 'propaganda'
O.T. I know and I also know its only weather but some troll over at the DM or DT listed places over the world that broke the high records this year. One of his places was Lemesos (used to be Limassol) in Cyprus.
I had a little go at the guy explaining how the town had grown since the Turkish invasion of the island, due to the displaced Greeks moving over, plus the tourism increasing and the advent of air conditioners, extra cars etc. I also asked where the temperature were being taken (UHI effect).
I was chatting to my daughter there yesterday as I am away at the moment and she mentioned that they had just had a storm move through that knocked out the power and Internet for a while. Not unusual, ask anyone about Coptic storms.
http://www.justaboutcyprus.com/Downloads/The%20Coptic%20or%20Phoenician%20Storms.pdf
I checked it out on a Cyprus site today and came across 6 pictures taken on the same day since 2005 and to be fair guys, they are startling empirical evidence of AGW..............................In reverse!
http://www.skicyprus.com/cam/camcompare.asp?d=12/12/10/16
Re the Armstrong & Miller sketch: worth remembering that Ben Miller has a PhD in quantum physics. Watch that (phase transition) space. As for the rest of the thread: no time now but tons to mull over. Thanks all.
andyscrase
you're cracking me up here.....
"It is in the interest of BIG OIL to support the Hoax rather than be open about the real underlying issue of HC Depletion"
Dec 13, 2010 at 7:46 AM | Unregistered Commenterbrent
Only because they can then increase the price of crude! I have 30 years in oil and your post it total...donkey pooh!
References:
Kudryavtsev N.A., 1959. Geological proof of the deep origin of Petroleum. Trudy Vsesoyuz. Neftyan. Nauch. Issledovatel Geologoraz Vedoch. Inst. No.132, pp. 242-262 (In Russian)
Kudryavtsev N.A., 1951. Against the organic hypothesis of oil origin. Oil Economy Jour. [Neftyanoe khoziaystvo], no. 9. - pp. 17-29 (in Russian)
or am I miss reading your point
I seem to remember Hugh Dennis hilariously rubbishing CAGW in the last series of The Now Show. No doubt in the interests of the legendary BBC requirement for CAGW balance, Marcus Brigstocke was also let in to the show to do a rant against the heretics a couple of weeks ago.
Peter H: your argument is irrelevant, it matters not how it is created, just how fast we can get it out the ground in relation to it's demand.
Peak oil is worked out on the basis of known depletion rates.
Unless you're in with Rev Lynsey tinfoil watsisname claiming abiotic oil replenishes dry wells, and the oil companies only cap reserves off to increase oil price. I would have to wonder where all the data on depletion rates came from in such a case, and how they covered the conspiracy in the US during the 70's peak!
I used to teach that coal, oil and methane were fossil fuels, the implication being that they take millions of years to form. But they do not. Waste tips produce methane in a matter of weeks. Wiith a bit of pressure and heat oil would form in a few years. Coal might take hundreds. The rock strata may be old and contain fossils but gas and oil can be formed quite quickly.
Energy, and Plenty of It, for Decades to Come - NYTimes.com
But no sooner did the demand-and-supply equation shift out of kilter than it swung back into something more palatable and familiar. Just as it seemed that the world was running on fumes, giant oil fields were discovered off the coasts of Brazil and Africa, and Canadian oil sands projects expanded so fast, they now provide North America with more oil than Saudi Arabia. In addition, the United States has increased domestic oil production for the first time in a generation.
Meanwhile, another wave of natural gas drilling has taken off in shale rock fields across the United States, and more shale gas drilling is just beginning in Europe and Asia. Add to that an increase in liquefied natural gas export terminals around the world that connected gas, which once had to be flared off, to the world market, and gas prices have plummeted.
Energy experts now predict decades of residential and commercial power at reasonable prices. Simply put, the world of energy has once again been turned upside down.
“Oil and gas will continue to be pillars for global energy supply for decades to come,” said James Burkhard, a managing director of IHS CERA, an energy consulting firm. “The competitiveness of oil and gas and the scale at which they are produced mean that there are no readily available substitutes in either one year or 20 years.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/business/energy-environment/17FUEL.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
Frosty Dec 13, 2010 at 10:13 AM .
I speak simply as a person that has 30 years in the industry. I know of one company working in Nigeria that has been buying shut in wells for some years now and they are producing at the same and sometimes better BPD than when the wells were originally drilled.
New platforms and the full plethora of service vessels are being built with the full knowledge that they will be in service for a 20 year minimum. Are you seriously saying these "known depletion rates" are taken as true? You ask where the figures come from....you posted it so show the links you say are around and as for Rev Lynsey (will have to look him up).....How about...
Anisimov, V. V., V. G. Vasilyev, et al. (1959).
"Berezov gas-prone district, and perspectives of its
development." Geology of Oil and Gas 9: 1-6.
Boiko, G. E. (1968). The Transformation of deep
Petroleum under the Conditions of the Earth's Crust.
Kiev, Naukova Dumka.
Campbell, C. J. (1991). The golden century of oil:
1950-2050. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic.
Campbell, C. J. (1994). "The imminent end of cheap
oil-based energy." SunWorld 18(4, Dec 1994).
Campbell, C. J. (1995). "The imminent end of cheap
oil-based energy." SunWorld 19(1, March 1995).
Chekaliuk, E. B. (1967). Oil in the Earth's Upper
Mantle. Kiev, Naukova Dumka.
Chekaliuk, E. B. (1971). The Thermodynamic Basis for
theTheory of the Abiotic Genesis of Petroleum. Kiev,
Naukova Dumka.
Chekaliuk, E. B. and J. F. Kenney (1991). "The
stability of hydrocarbons in the thermodynamic
conditions of the Earth." Proc. Am. Phys. Soc. 36(3):
347.
Dolenko, G. E. (1968). "The origin of oil and gas
deposits in the crust of the Earth." Geol. Zh. 2: 67.
Dolenko, G. N. (1971). On the origin of petroleum
deposits. The Origin of Petroleum and Natural Gas and
the Formation of the Commercial Deposits. Kiev,
Naukova Dumka: 3.
Fuller, J. G. C. (1993). The oil industry today. The
British Association Lectures 1993. London, The
Geological Society. 53.
Kenney, J. F. (1995). The spontaneous high-pressure
generation and stability of hydrocarbons: the
generation of n-alkanes, benzene, toluene & xylene at
multi-kilobar pressures. Joint XV AIR/APT
International Conference on High-Pressure Physics and
Technology, Warsaw.
Krayushkin, V. A. (1965). Theoretical Problems of
Migration and Accumulation of Oil and Natural Gas.
Synopsis of theses for degree of Doctor of Science.
Moscow, I. M. Gubkin Institute of the Oil-Chemical,
and Gas Industry: 36.
Krayushkin, V. A. (1984). The Abiotic, Mantle Origin
of Petroleum. Kiev, Naukova Dumka.
Krayushkin, V. A., T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko,
Ye. S. Dvoryanin, J. F. Kenney (1994). Recent
applications of the modern theory of abiogenic
hydrocarbon origins: Drilling and development of oil
& gas fields in the Dneiper-Donets Basin. VIIth
International Symposium on the Observation of the
Continental Crust through Drilling, Santa Fe, NM,
DOSECC: 21-24..
Kropotkin, P. N., Ed. (1956). Origin of hydrocarbons
of the Earth's crust. Proceedings of Discussion on
the Problem of Origin and Migration of Oil. Kiev,
Academy of Sciences Press, the Ukrainian SSR.
Kudryavtsev, N. A. (1951). "On the problem of
petroleum genesis and the formation of oil deposits."
Neft. Kh-vo. 9: 17-29.
Kudryavtsev, N. A. (1959). Oil, Gas, and Solid
Bitumens in Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks. Leningrad,
State Fuel Technical Press.
Kudryavtsev, N. A. (1963). Deep Faults and Oil
Deposits. Leningrad, Gostoptekhizdat.
Letnikov, F. A., I. K. Karpov, et al. (1977). The
Fluid Regime of Earth Crust and Upper Mantle. Moscow,
Nauka Press.
Linetskii, V. F. (1974). The Migration of Oil and Gas
at Great Depths. Kiev, Naukova Dumka.
Mahfoud, R. F. and J. N. Beck (1995). "Why the Middle
East fields may produce oil forever." Offshore April
1995: 58-64, 106.
Markevich, B. P. (1966). The History of Geological
Evolution, and Petroleum-Content of the West Siberian
Lowland. Moscow, Nauka Press.
Odell, P. R. (1984). "World oil resources, reserves,
and production." The Energy Journal 15(Special
Issue): 89-114.
Odell, P. R. (1991). "Global and regional energy
supplies: Recent fictions and fallacies revisited."
Energy Exploration & Exploitation 9(5): 237-258.
Odell, P. R. (1994). "Global energy market: Future
supply potentials." Energy Exploration & Exploitation
12(1): 59-72.
Porfir'yev, V. B. (1959). The Problem of the
Migration of Petroleum and the Formation of
Accumulations of Oil and Gas. Moscow,
Gostoptekhizdat.
Porfir'yev, V. B. and V. P. Klochko (1981). Oil-
content problem of basement of the Siberia.
Geological and Geochemical Principles of Prospect for
Oil and Gas. Kiev, Naukova Dumka Press: 36-101.
Raznitsyn, V. A. (1963). "Perspectives of petroleum-
content of the Timan-Pechera Region." Petroleum
Geology and Geophysics 10: 27-31.
Simakov, S. N. (1986). Forcasting and Estimation of
the Petroleum-bearing Subsurface at Great Depths.
Leningrad, Nedra.
Eleven major and one giant oil and gas fields in Russia, which had been condemned as possessing no potential for petroleum production have produced vast amounts. The exploration for these fields was conducted using the Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins. a theory that is still ignored in the west.
This without even adding the new oil sands technology and untapped reserves the U.S. has.
My apologies for going O.T. guys!
Pete H the new service vessels are puddles jumpers, re-usable rigs, because the new finds are not worth permanent infrastructure.
Your point regarding origin is irrelevant, it's about production rates - and claiming the US increased production without giving quantification is disingenuous IMO.
You do not have a monopoly working in the industry, and an appeal to authority has less relevance if it is your own.
I present Lindsey "tinfoil" Williams presenting your case against peak oil!
"Lindsey Williams reveals new bombshell information on the Alex Jones Show today. Williams, who has been an ordained Baptist minister for nearly 30 years, went to Alaska in 1971 as a missionary and because of the executive status accorded to him as Chaplain, he was given access to the information that is documented in his book, The Energy Non-Crisis. In 2009, Williams told Alex Jones about the plan by the global elite to sabotage the dollar, destroy the economy and America by 2012."
Lindsey Williams: Deathbed Globalist "Spills Gut" On Plan to Destroy America - Alex Jones Tv 1/6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIXEvhbcl8
Lindsey Williams - The Energy Non-Crisis - Part 1 of 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbakN7SLdbk
"I trust you are aware you are being controlled in every aspect of your life"
I reckon he's what some political commentator called a "useful idiot"
YMMV.
@frosty Dec 13, 2010 at 10:13 AM
Spot on Frosty. Pete H's argument about abiotic oil is irrelevant and for the reasons you've noted. He can go drill all the granite he wants. I wish him luck in his investments : : ))
I've a sense of irony that I seldom convey. Because I'm an old oil boiler which I've never hidden, I've been routinely accused of being anti AGW in their interest by the warmers.
I spent most of my career in the oil industry heavily involved in optimization($$$) and scheduling . In my opinion the overriding long term strategic interest for Big Oil is to leave as little potentially extractable HC in the ground (in the long term) as possible. I'm oversimplifying somewhat here in the interest of getting a concept across.
That is why it is preferable for them to go along with the AGW Hoax than directly address the real issue of Depletion.
Shell and BP have long been supporters of the scam. It must be one of the great con jobs of all time when warmers believe that Big Oil is submitting (eg Shell and BP)
Although it's not something where I can show documentation to others, I was involved in a long term crude production capacity study way back in 1980. Although a Peak was not shown on the horizon we looked at, it was evident even then that production capacity would flatten out (and eventually peak). So I've personally known it was an issue we would eventually have to confront for a long time.
The ASPO folks have done a worthwhile job in trying to get visibility for Depletion, however they make a big mistake by trying politically to have a big tent including the warmers to garner broader political support. That's why I don't support them.
There is no reason for the elite to come clean on HC Depletion if they've got the sheeple controlled and bamboozled by the Hoax.
I've long just automatically translated carbophobia propaganda to HC Depletion, as it affects energy policy.
Regarding why more people cannot make the connection. That's a tough one. Propaganda works unfortunately.
In my case I made the connection around 1997/1998. I had some time on my hands temporarily, and decided to think through how to model climate (because I was heavily involved in optimization, I've a certain math modeling background)
It didn't take long once I actually spent some time to study the problem to conclude that the GCMs would not be validated and would be incapable of "prediction", and therefore the IPCC was blowing smoke.
I don't think that the way I approached it given my background is the only way to make the connection however
In my view Hirsch took the right approach in detailing that a 10-20 year adjustment period would be very worthwhile, although i don't necessarily prefer the options he chose.
We should have in my view started a transition off oil some time ago. The AGW hoax has actually delayed taking any concrete action which is one of the points that the warmers fail to understand.
cheers
brent
Peter Walsh
That article by Philip Stott is excellent. I include a link for anyone who hasn't read it yet..
Dr Pangloss
Brent, Frosty
Very Plausible.
Brent
Can't help smiling at your earlier reference to 'efficiencies' in the US military, which I assume were also TIC. It will be fun to see them conducting a war without the same conspicuous consumption of fossil fuel - time to invest in electric vehicles and rubber-band powered drones, perhaps...
@ e smith
" Britain contributes 1.84% of the world's CO2."
I thought the total contribution of man made CO2 to the atmosphere was 0.117% I take it we only contribute 1.84% of this number?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Thanks for the correction Jason F
Now that I have sobered up, I realise I should have written " Britain contributes 1.84% of the world's VO5."
:-)
@James P Dec 13, 2010 at 12:24 PM
Hi James,
Those weren't actually my words, but a snippet from an article I posted : )
Navy Secretary Announces Energy Changes
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alternatepower/message/24376
As odd as it may seem, many issues get initiated by goosing the military.
Rep Roscoe Bartlett is or was Chairman of a Congressional Armed forces Committee and has been goosing them about Energy issues as noted in above link.
Some energy research is now being sponsored by military including algae research
http://tinyurl.com/25sbta6
Incidentally, One of the Oil Guys willing to talk in a forthright fashion is the former CEO of Talisman. He back in the UK, now retired.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/39656
Cheap oil not here to stay: Ex-Talisman CEO
Buckee says it's difficult for executives of the world's biggest oil companies to speak plainly and honestly about the future. For one thing, he says companies such as BP and Exxon are guided by the views of in-house economists, who preach "commodity prices always go down and that ingenuity always beats scarcity — none of which is true."
Discussing peak oil is also just bad for business.
"If Exxon comes out and says, 'Sorry guys, the oil production rate is not going to go up, this is it,' there'd be hell to pay (from investors). So they're better off just zipping their lips."
http://tinyurl.com/2dbkx67
Global warming is not our fault … it's nature
DR JIM Buckee says he feels like a heretic, persecuted for his views and treated like an outcast. His crime? Being a climate change sceptic.
Next week the former chief executive of the oil and gas firm Talisman, who has a PhD in astrophysics from the University of Oxford, will try to convince others that climate change has nothing to do with human activity.
http://tinyurl.com/bw8nll
Messenger:
Thanks, I must have missed the Hugh Dennis piece. Brigstocke has done on the Now Show more than one of his trademark "joke-free rants courageously defending the establishment against independent thought while pretending to be radical" on CAGW in the past.
I also remember a few years ago on the Radio 4 series "Heresy" one comic chiding a fellow comic that they had come round to their place after The Great Warming Swindle had been on TV saying, with some relief, that global warming was a fraud. There was then one of the quickest U-turns you've ever heard on radio; a second's blustering and the subject was changed.
Despite the fact that this show was supposed to be humorously challenging received opinion, questioning CAGW was obviously considered as much career suicide as defending garroting puppies.
(I'm sure one of those involved was the then-presenter of the show David Baddiel but I can't remember the other or which one was the real outed "heretic".)
UK comics have been, in the main deafeningly silent on the whole subject, however iconoclastic some of them purport to be.
In a way it's not surprising. So successful have warmists been at corralling CAGW "denial" into the bogeyman category that any such questioning almost has to be prefaced by a disclaimer that you are not also a creationist, racist or holocaust denier. That's before you even start to address CAGW.
Spotted this earlier today on the Scotsman website.
...................
Carbon tax and energy price hike to create 'perfect storm'
Businesses are facing a "perfect storm" from 2012 when they will be hit by a doubling in their energy bills at the same time as the UK government's controversial "carbon tax".
Carbon Masters, a spin-out company from the University of Edinburgh, has calculated that most UK firms will be see their gas and electricity bills soar by 100 per cent between 2012 and 2016 while they will also be saddled with a carbon tax bill of at least £42,000 under the government's Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) energy efficiency scheme.
Kevin Houston, chief executive of Carbon Masters, believes most companies are completely unprepared for the enormous jump in their energy costs from 2012 onwards.
http://business.scotsman.com/energyutilities/Carbon-tax-and-energy-price.6657704.jp
........................
I reckon that we're going to see quite a few companies re-evaluating their nice and fluffy desires to 'be seen to be green' when this kicks in. Reality bites.
Paul.
@j ferguson Dec 13, 2010 at 12:21 PM
It's a pity we have to closely parse the utterances of the AGW oracles. However occasionally they slip up and a little truth emerges as in the case of Jim Hansen in the snippet below : )
I would dispute the term "run out" as inappropriate however the idea of depletion is appropriate:
Re-Energize Iowa: An Opportunity to Lead the Nation in Stewardship of the Earth and Creation
Jim Hansen, 5 August 2007
A price on carbon emissions is needed to stretch oil and gas supplies as we develop technologies needed for the world ‘beyond petroleum’. The carbon price will drive efficiency and low-carbon or no-carbon energy sources. If instead we continue business-as-usual, addicted to more and more fossil fuel use, as oil begins to run out we will be unprepared,
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/Iowa_20070805.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/23mrr64
And from Hammering Hank Paulson, former head of Goldman Sachs:
Paulson takes on China and climate change
One thing Paulson makes clear is that it's in everyone's interest to promote clean technology and energy efficiency in China, to curb global warming. According to Paulson, if China today was as efficient in its use of energy as the U.S. was in 1970, it would save the equivalent of 16 million barrels of oil a day, or almost 10% of the world's daily oil consumption.
All of the world must learn to make do with less, he argues. "There simply are not enough energy resources to allow the world's entire population, or even the third of it represented by the Chinese, to lead the resource-intensive lifestyle that Americans currently enjoy," Paulson says.
Paulson's an environmentalist - he is the former chair of the Nature Conservancy and the reason why Goldman Sachs, under his watch, became the first investment bank to call for federal regulation of greenhouse gases
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/gunther_paulson.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008091916
http://tinyurl.com/5uxumu
If the UK is the only country pursuing this suicidal economic line, I suspect we're going to see quite a few companies re-evaluating their need to be sited in the UK.
(Crossposted)
This is from Lord Julian Hunt - vice-president of Globe International.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/cancun-marks-a-turning-point/story-e6frg6zo-1225970529189
This is tucked away,...amidst the usual nonsense.
on the theme of roof top avalanches...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAyLX2hY7E0&feature=player_embedded
Current UK oil reserves, PPP definitions. together with a graphical summary of historic booked reserves is given in the following DECC webpage and its links. Now although I detest the politicised climate advocacy arm of this department, I have every respect for the professional integrity of the oil and gas division, from industry experience over more years than I care to admit.
https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/information/bb_updates/chapters/reserves_index.htm
@Messenger
That thought is very much at the forefront of my mind too. It would appear that many companies are already fleeing California for the very same reasons.
The political double-speak in all this does my head in. 'We want to create jobs' (but are pushing more stealth taxes onto business that make them uncompetitive), 'we want to reduce fuel poverty' (but are forcing poor people to pay rising charges on their energy bills to fund useless windmills).
What really annoys me it that when it all collapses, as it surely will, they'll simply say 'But the scientists told us', and get away with it.
And in the meantime, we have NOBODY to vote for to rectify this ludicrous situation.
Quietly fuming...
Rant over.
@Pharos Dec 13, 2010 at 4:05 PM
Actual/Projected UKCS Oil and Gas Production
https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/information/bb_updates/chapters/production_projections.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/2bhezbz
Doesn't make too pleasant reading does it?
Maybe this is why Richard Branson is looking to sell his Airline and also keen to invest in high speed rail in the US
Richard Branson Gives Peak Oil Street Cred
http://tinyurl.com/268dpcj
Big names warn of danger of UK's 'addiction' to oil
Richard Branson’s New High-Speed Project
http://tinyurl.com/2669y3x
PaulH
I reckon that we're going to see quite a few companies re-evaluating their nice and fluffy desires to 'be seen to be green' when this kicks in. Reality bites.
***
The dismantling of British manufacturing has been government policy since Margaret Thatcher. Why would we want local companies competing with our investments in India and China ? Banking was of supreme importance to Thatcher and nothing has changed. The great irony is that anti globalisation campaigners fell for AGW hook line and sinker.
Britain is (political) global warming central. From Thatcher to Blair through Brown. The lack of British faces leading Cancun was a sure sign of its impending failure. Prescott lead Kyoto and Brown Copenhagen
Some history.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/politics.htm
In case you missed the global warming in Minneapolis (also noted by Frosty above), it is now in New York -- almost. So all the kiddies who were never to see another snow fall will probably have a very rare white Christmas in New England. As for all of you suffering from global warming in Europe, better run out and restock your pantries and refill the oil tank before it gets across the pond and hits you.
Shub @Dec 13, 2010 at 3:44 PM
What I found of most interest in the article was the following:
In short, nothing will be done. No country's government is going to pump billions of dollars into this cesspool arrangement and remain in office. The Cancun agreement is pure smoke. People will feel good about it for a day or two and then return to shoveling snow off their roofs.
According to the most recent estimate of per capita greenhouse gas emissions from all sources (for the year 2005; WRI CAIT 8.0), Bolivia is ranked eleventh in the world, just behind the USA and 33 places and 11 tonnes per capita ahead of the UK - i.e. Bolivia's per capita emissions are more than twice those of the UK.
It's very tempting to suggest that Bolivia should be paying the UK to limit its emissions but that would be overly simplistic. However, I do think that Evo Morales should pipe down a bit about ecocide, genocide and wicked foreigners trampling on the inalienable rights of Mother Earth.
And that doesn't just apply to comedy, artwest.
It used to be standard practice on Question Time (I've stopped watching -- the word Dimbleby makes me come over all agitated) for anyone to suggest a mild reservation about global warming to be severly booed.
I've never understood that logic. If someone told me I wasn't going to fry after all I think I might be inclined to believe them or at least to investigate what they are saying because it is something I would want to hear.
We are far to easily inclined to buy into the catastrophe meme and the MSM don't help. Their overall reporting of climate change has been a disgrace.
@ Frosty,
Even though snow is now a very rare event, the UK building regs for roof snow loads use Met Office data;
Map from BS6399: Part 3: 1988 & The Environmental Research Unit on the basis of snow depth data supplied by The Meteorological Service.
http://www.kingspanpanels.com/Resource_Centre/Technical-Information/Structural-Performance/Basic-Snow-Loads.aspx
It is a good thing that these calculations are based on MO historical data rather than hysterical projections.
Sarc tag for the first sentence but not for the last.;-)