|
 afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
 more on peak oil - matthew simmons 
#3913999 - 03/13/05 10:34 PM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
this guy is interesting...he's worked with cheney
and his energy task force.
he seems to think that were something just short
of fuct.
http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches
no war for oil?
check out: The Status of Future Energy Sources
china's coming to get ya.
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: more on peak oil - matthew simmons [Re: afoaf]
#3914735 - 03/14/05 01:36 AM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
this guy is interesting...he's worked with cheney and his energy task force.
he seems to think that were something just short of fuct.
King Fahd agrees....
|
CJay
Dark Stranger
Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: more on peak oil - matthew simmons [Re: RandalFlagg]
#3915567 - 03/14/05 08:39 AM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
shoulda been a bit more careful with those texan fields eh?
Now all the US oil-baron-babies' candy is gone they are spittin the dummy - trying to get in on, or grab, everyone else's sweets....
except for the big boys *gulp*
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: more on peak oil - matthew simmons [Re: afoaf]
#3920097 - 03/15/05 07:44 AM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
some of the charts and figures in the PDF doc are intriguing.
drilling ANWAR for example, is like robbing the local liquor store
to pay off your million dollar mortgage.
small change just ain't gonna cut it.
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: more on peak oil - matthew simmons [Re: afoaf]
#3920311 - 03/15/05 09:27 AM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st...narcticdrilling
Showdown Vote Approaches on Arctic Drilling
Tue Mar 15, 7:55 AM ET Top Stories - Los Angeles Times
By Richard Simon Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON ? With a showdown vote as early as today, President Bush (news - web sites) appears closer than ever to achieving a goal at the core of his efforts to increase the nation's energy production: opening an Alaskan wildlife refuge to drilling for oil and natural gas.
Senate filibusters have blocked Bush's proposal in the past. But last year, four pro-drilling Republicans were elected, replacing anti-drilling Democrats in the Senate. Now the chamber's GOP leaders say they are confident they have the votes to advance the measure, long one of Capitol Hill's most contentious environmental matters.
Drilling supporters also hope surges in gasoline prices will increase pressure on the Senate to approve energy exploration in a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
"Oil is trading above $50 [a barrel], gas prices have risen 7% in the last month and American boots are on the ground in the Middle East," said Sen. Pete V. Domenici (news, bio, voting record) (R-N.M.), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
"Now is the time [to approve the drilling], and senators know that."
Since he first ran for president, Bush has made opening part of the 19-million-acre refuge in northeast Alaska to oil and gas exploration a centerpiece of his plan to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
The administration has said the drilling offers "the "single greatest prospect" for onshore oil and gas development anywhere in the United States; its passage would represent a major legislative triumph for Bush.
To make that happen, Senate Republicans are attaching the drilling measure to a budget bill that requires only a simple majority to pass. By contrast, overcoming a filibuster requires 60 votes.
Both sides in the fight were hesitant Monday to predict the outcome; both expect a close vote.
"I haven't purchased any champagne yet," said Jerry Hood, Washington lobbyist for the pro-drilling group Arctic Power.
Environmentalists were not ready to concede defeat.
"We're continuing to fight for every vote until the last vote is counted," said Peter Rafle, a spokesman for the Wilderness Society. "This thing is far from over."
But an aide to a moderate Republican senator who has opposed the drilling said Monday of the proponents: "I think they've got the votes."
The government has estimated that 6 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil lie beneath the tundra.
Environmentalists contend that drilling would spoil one of the nation's great wildernesses and endanger wildlife, while making a negligible dent in oil imports.
They say that far less oil can be recovered economically than the 7 billion barrels a year that Americans now use. And they say it would take years before any oil would reach the market.
Some Democrats have called for releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve ? the nation's emergency stockpile of petroleum, stored in underground salt caverns ? as a way to increase supply and cut prices. Bush has said he opposes that strategy.
"This debate is more than just about protecting one of America's last remaining natural treasures," said Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record) (D-Wash.), who is pushing to strip the drilling language from the budget bill. "It is a question of ? what inheritance we leave our children."
Bush and others contend that technology has made it possible to extract the oil from the refuge without damaging the environment, an assertion opponents dispute.
When the drilling measure came before the Senate in 2003, pro-drilling forces mustered 48 votes for it ? 43 from Republicans, five from Democrats. Four Republicans elected to the Senate last November voiced support during their campaigns for the drilling ? Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Mel Martinez of Florida and John Thune of South Dakota.
Drilling opponents are trying to sway some who have supported drilling. For instance, Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) (R-Pa.) voted for the drilling in 2003, but an aide said Monday that his boss had not stated his position on attaching the measure to the budget bill.
Lobbyists for environmental groups also have sought to broaden the debate beyond the drilling's effect in Alaska, warning about its implications for other regions.
Martinez, the freshman senator from Florida, has been the target of a television ad in his home state warning that opening the Arctic refuge to energy exploration could lead to drilling off the Florida coast.
But a spokesman for Martinez said he was still likely to support the Arctic drilling, adding that the senator was working with the administration "to address the concerns of Floridians that drilling in [Alaska] will not mean drilling off Florida's beaches is next."
Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) (R-Neb.) has been the target of a radio ad run by an environmental group in his state declaring that "protecting America's wilderness used to be something that everyone got behind ? Democrats and Republicans."
But a Hagel spokesman said the senator still supports the drilling.
Ads opposing the drilling also have run in the home states of Democratic Sens. Daniel K. Akaka of Hawaii and Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, both of whom supported Arctic drilling in 2003. Spokesmen for Landrieu and Akaka said their positions remained unchanged.
The anti-drilling forces are pressing their case that the measure has no place in a budget bill, decrying the procedural maneuver as a back-door tactic.
"The drilling lobby knows they can't sell off the Arctic refuge if they have an open, honest debate," said Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record) (D-Mass.), a leading opponent of the drilling.
Kerry said he believed opponents could still prevail "with a coalition of those who oppose drilling and those who just plain old reject the politics of back-door, rig-the-process scheming."
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: more on peak oil - matthew simmons [Re: afoaf]
#3920408 - 03/15/05 09:55 AM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
jim hightower ..
Quote:
THE IRONY OF BUSH'S ASSAULT ON ANWR
3/10/2005
George W has shown again and again that he won't ever let reality get in the way of ideology ? whether the issue is his Iraq attack, global warming, privatization of Social Security, tax cuts for the rich... whatever.
Now the Bushites are even pushing ideology over geology. BushCheney&Company are determined to win congressional approval of their plan to allow oil companies to drill and pump in the pristine reaches of ANWR ? the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. George has even played the security card, declaring that "our national security makes it urgent" to open this unspoiled wilderness to the oil giants.
But, in a gusher of political irony, guess what? The oil giants have little interest in drilling there! Even a Bush advisor on this issue confided that "No oil company really cares about ANWR," adding that "If the government gave them the [drilling] leases for free they wouldn't take them." Indeed, Chevron Texaco, BP, and ConocoPhillips have so little interest in ANWR that they have withdrawn from Arctic Power, the chief lobbying front behind Bush's push to open the refuge.
Why the corporate disinterest? Because, unlike George, companies have to base their decisions at least partially on reality, and the geological reality is that ANWR doesn't hold enough oil to make private investment there worthwhile. Only one actual test of the refuge's oil potential has been done ? a secret test by Chevron Texaco and BP, two of the giants that have now backed away from Bush's ANWR scheme. If it had real production potential, these profit-seekers would be lobbying hard to get in there.
What's really behind the Bushites' insistence on drilling in a wildlife refuge is nothing but their reactionary, knee-jerk laissez-faire ideology. They hate the idea that the public can protect any piece of nature from corporate intrusion ? even if the corporations don't choose to intrude. ANWR is a case of their ideological loopiness.
the oil companies know theres no profit in destroying the ANWR.. as such..they arent interested..yet...but it will happen nonetheless...the republicans will subsidize the destruction if necessary..in order to express their own petty sadism...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
Edited by Annapurna1 (03/15/05 10:04 AM)
|
 KungFu_Shaman
naive and lovingit
Registered: 02/23/05
Posts: 191
Loc: noitacaol cihpargoeg
Last seen: 16 years, 22 days
|
Re: more on peak oil - matthew simmons [Re: afoaf]
#3922305 - 03/15/05 06:28 PM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Yeah, peak oil is scary shit. From my understanding, all reserves will eventually dry up (duh), but much sooner than we think. The problem arises because there has not been enough research into alternative energy sources, nor will there be. Therefore all electricity will shut down, all production, and we wil be in one great state-of-nature cluster-fuck.
Don't count on nuclear energy either, uranium is fast being depleted. On top of that, I understand that it takes oil to extract uranium. Oh well - carpe diem 
--------------------
Feel the wrath of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!
|
newuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
|
Re: more on peak oil - matthew simmons [Re: KungFu_Shaman]
#3922417 - 03/15/05 06:53 PM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
We will never run out of oil. A lack of oil isn't a major concern, a lack of cheap oil is a major concern. From what I've read on the subject we're looking at maybe 10-20 years left for affordable oil. The US alone uses around 23million barrels/day. The entire world is around 80million barrels/day. I believe the total world reserves are estimated to be less than 1 trillion barrels. You do the math. 80 million barrels x 365 days = 29,200,000,000 barrels/year. That gives us less than 30 years before all oil would be expended if it was consumed at the current rate which it of course will not. No major fields have been found for over 30 years. But hey keep driving those Hummers right up until the end.
|
lackobreath
Cannabis Man
Registered: 01/27/05
Posts: 517
Last seen: 17 years, 11 months
|
Re: more on peak oil - matthew simmons [Re: newuser1492]
#3922514 - 03/15/05 07:17 PM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
cb9fl is right... it's not going to happen overnight...you're not going to wake up one day and find out the world shut down while you were sleeping. it's going to get increasingly more expensive, and will lead to a slow crippling effect.
|
KungFu_Shaman
naive and lovingit
Registered: 02/23/05
Posts: 191
Loc: noitacaol cihpargoeg
Last seen: 16 years, 22 days
|
Re: more on peak oil - matthew simmons [Re: lackobreath]
#3922599 - 03/15/05 07:30 PM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
right, I was a little overzeleous 
But the point is, we will run out of oil - that is a fact. Even Cheney agrees on that point. The question, in the meantime, is how to prevent the crippling effect.
--------------------
Feel the wrath of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!
|
trick
Registered: 10/22/04
Posts: 1,059
Loc: unknown
|
Re: more on peak oil - matthew simmons [Re: KungFu_Shaman]
#3923575 - 03/15/05 10:38 PM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
KungFu_Shaman said:
right, I was a little overzeleous
But the point is, we will run out of oil - that is a fact. Even Cheney agrees on that point. The question, in the meantime, is how to prevent the crippling effect.
Well, there is the abiotic oil theory which says that things such as layers of rock & sediment can create oil. If this is true then peak oil would still apply. The oil industry will crash because it will cost more for digging, drilling, & building than you will get out of production. No profits & dieing industry.
I have accumulated a small lists of sites & articles over time, if you're interested.
Websites
---------------
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ Life After The Oil Crash
http://www.peakoil.net ASPO (The Association for the Study of Peak Oil; Gas)
http://www.peakoil.org Peak Oil.org
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/ Hubbert Peak of Oil Production
http://www.peakoil.com/ Peak Oil News
http://www.peakoilaction.org/ Peak Oil Action
http://www.gasresources.net/ Gas Resources
Articles
---------------
http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modl...r=0&thold=0 Desperado Days by Zbignew Zingh (great article!)
http://www.museletter.com/archive/150b.html The "Abiotic Oil" Controversy
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100404_abiotic_oil.shtml Abiotic Oil: Science or Politics?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/featherstone/featherstone22.html Hang On, It Could Be A Wild Ride
http://inthewake.org/savinar1.html Interview With Matt Savinar, author of 'The Oil Age is Over'
|
newuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
|
Re: more on peak oil - matthew simmons [Re: trick]
#3923657 - 03/15/05 10:52 PM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Funny thing about the abiotic theory is that it is completely bullshit. No existing fields have shown any significant increases in productivity.
Hey maybe there's an aenergetic source of energy hiding with the abiotic oil?
btw I don't disagree that oil may have derived from some source other than organic material. I absolutely disagree with the farce (commonly referred to as abiotic oil) that oil is or could in sufficient time replenish itself.
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: more on peak oil - matthew simmons [Re: trick]
#3923666 - 03/15/05 10:55 PM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Their is also alternative theories as to why their isn't more oil, and why it isn't abundant as it should be. In the process described as per dinosaurs and plant life among other things lead to the formation of oil, one would expect a large degree of oil around the Earth. But this isn't so.
James McCanney a Physicist (most notable one I know of in regards to this subject) suggests that when the bible was speaking of Napantha (sp?) burning from the heavens and raining form the Earth, it was really oil being deposited from the heavens from comets (which he asserts aren't actually dirty snowballs, and provides a damn good explanation as to why they are not).
As no chemist has yet to provide sufficient evidence as to the nature of how oil is created, nor is their a credible explanation as to where the large deposits exist (as the earth has been covered with life in the past, giving ample time for oil formation, which should lead to far greater supplies then what we have) suggested).
Just figure I'd throw that out, it's interesting nonetheless. If that was valid, then their would be a greater reason to go to space then just to seek life/explore.
--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.
|
newuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
|
|
Haha I'm sure "snowballs' containing millions of barrels of oil would fall nicely to the surface instead of leaving a vast geological record and killing thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people across multiple continents.
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: more on peak oil - matthew simmons [Re: newuser1492]
#3924000 - 03/16/05 12:29 AM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Did you want some scientific evidence supporting that they aren't snowballs? I didn't suggest they fell to earth either. The author who presents this hypothesis suggests that as a result of earth's greater electrical nature it stripped some of the hydrocarbons off. And hence the Biblical reference of Napantha.
Gimme a sec, I'll provide some.
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/smcomet.html
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/fluff.htm
Beyond that... show me where a Chemist has found this "process" of alchemy other then one filled with rhetoric where plants/diatoms etc... are all collected on such a scale as oil is deposited in one area.... even though surely, much life has died in the past and one would expect a hell of a lot more oil around the globe instead of the few isolated spots it occurs in vast quantities.  no proof either way... believe what you want 
--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.
Edited by Psychoactive1984 (03/16/05 01:37 AM)
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
|
Oil doesn't come JUST from animals dieing and falling down on the ground...there is a specific set of steps that has to occur for the organic matter to be turned into oil.
I would suggest that the reason oil appears in large fields is because oil is produced on the bottom of oceans/seas, not on land. Organic matter settles on to the bottom of the ocean, creating layers of organic sediments which are burried deeper and deeper over millions of years. If the organic layers sink low enough there will be enough heat and pressure to "cook" the organic material into hydrocarbons (long-chain carbon compounds will break down under the pressure/heat, then recombine with hydrogen to form the hydrocarbons). If the organic layers sink too low (too much heat/pressure) the hydrocarbons break down even further into natural gas (very short-chain hydrocarbons). If they do not sink low enough, they turn into shale oil instead of crude oil (shale oil is a waxy substance, made of longer-chain hydrocarbons than crude oil).
Sedimentation happens MUCH easier in water than on land, so I don't see any surprise that we would only end up with large fields of oil instead of oil all over the place.
Oh and calling a comet a "snowball" is GREATLY misleading. Yes, they do have water ice in them, but a good portion of the "ice" is actually methane ice. This guy's theory is kind of silly. All he has done is take the mystery away from "how is oil produced on Earth?" to "how is oil produced in space?".
Does he have an explanation for how oil can be produced in outer space?
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
Re: more on peak oil - matthew simmons [Re: afoaf]
#3925085 - 03/16/05 11:09 AM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Oil will become increasingly expensive, but oil is a very small fraction of the worlds total fossil fuel. There's a great deal more coal and natural gas than there is oil. The problem with gas is that it's a great deal more expensive to transport than oil.
Either gas or coal could be used to feed our system, at significantly higher economic and environmental prices than oil.
Psychoactive 
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
Re: more on peak oil - matthew simmons [Re: phi1618]
#3925114 - 03/16/05 11:15 AM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Living organisms and fossil fuels are composed largely of reduced carbon (and water, in the case of living organisms).
Photosynthetic organisms reduce carbon from the environment. All living creatures are made from reduced carbon and oxidise carbon in order to live.
The theory is that fossil fuels represent that biological matterial which became unavailable to organisms. Basically, when an organism dies, it's eaten by other organisms; bacteria, fungi, and such. But everything is always being washed into the sea, and what's already in the sea is falling to the bottom of the ocean. When too much crap collects there, it can't be eaten any longer, and geological/chemical processes turn it into hydrocarbons.
Since fossil fuels represent a leak from living processes, there isn't really any way to confidently predict how much fossil fuels there should be. Obviously, only a small fraction of all carbon reduced by photosynthetic organisms ends up as fossil fuels, but we don't know what fraction that is or how it's varied over time.
There isn't really any significant known non-biological source of reduced carbon. As trendal asked, if it fell from the sky, how did it get there?
Edited by phi1618 (03/16/05 11:45 AM)
|
passitbobbie
Stranger
Registered: 01/13/05
Posts: 554
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
|
Re: more on peak oil - matthew simmons [Re: phi1618]
#3925535 - 03/16/05 01:21 PM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Just would like to add that the soviet theory of "abiotic oil generation" led to the russian oil findings in the caspian sea.
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
Re: more on peak oil - matthew simmons [Re: passitbobbie]
#3926012 - 03/16/05 02:58 PM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I did a bit of reading on abiotic oil generation, and it seems to have a wider audience than I figgured - though alot of it sounds like pure bs to me - comets particularly.
The more credible abiotic hypothesis rely on the formation of oil in the mantle and inner crust of the earth. Traces of biological materials in oil can be explained as organisms that grew in the oil, within the crust of the earth, etc.
Interestingly, many knowledgable people agree that hydrocarbons can and do form in the mantle. The less common view is that these hydrocarbons compose a significant part of the total.
Here's an interesting discussion of both sides of the issue:
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Red Vein Kratom 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
CBD Concentrates
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
afoaf
enotake2
Rono
RandalFlagg
rezzan1
The_Red_Crayon