Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 21:20:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'H')ow about oil?

I'm going to bump my own post for your benefit.

Also, read my last reply to TonyPrep above, focusing on the last paragraph.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '
')*sigh*

Well I guess some people here haven't been paying attention to my threads, so here goes . . .

--> 60 billion barrels around the Falkland Islands <--
--> Hundreds of billions of additional barrels waiting in Iraq <--
--> Only 1/4 of sedimentary basins in Australia have ever been explored for oil <--
--> Iran's Persian Gulf reserves jump to 90 gigabarrels, may go to 100 - many discoveries made in last 20-30 years <--
--> Alaska North Slope holds 30+ additional billion barrels <--
--> Offshore Brazil looking like it holds 70-100 billion barrels <-- (this was actually Graeme's thread)
--> Newly discovered hydrocarbon basin offshore Sumatra could hold 100-300 billion barrels of hydrocarbons <--
--> 200 billion barrels in the Bakken, maybe more <--
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 21:26:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '
')There might be some resources which are becoming scarce relative to demand. I dunno, maybe . . . palladium, or something like that.



How about oil?
Phosphate? But why worry your damn heads off, doomers.

Yawn.
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/ ... -phosp.pdf
^
50,000,000 reserve base / 147,000 production for 2007 = 340 year supply.

Even using only the 18,000,000 figure for "reserves" gets us 122 years.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 21:34:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'H')ow about oil?

.

--> 60 billion barrels around the Falkland Islands <--
--> Hundreds of billions of additional barrels waiting in Iraq <--
--> Only 1/4 of sedimentary basins in Australia have ever been explored for oil <--
--> Iran's Persian Gulf reserves jump to 90 gigabarrels, may go to 100 - many discoveries made in last 20-30 years <--
--> Alaska North Slope holds 30+ additional billion barrels <--
--> Offshore Brazil looking like it holds 70-100 billion barrels <-- (this was actually Graeme's thread)
--> Newly discovered hydrocarbon basin offshore Sumatra could hold 100-300 billion barrels of hydrocarbons <--
--> 200 billion barrels in the Bakken, maybe more <--
[/quote]


Thats nice.

Some people may not be aware that the world has lots of sedimentary basins and lots of oceans that may hold oil...

However,...the question posed was not whether there might be more oil in the ground. The question of the day is whether oil can discovered, developed, and produced at a rate adequate to meet demand as global oil demand continues to grow each year.

That extra oil production is needed RIGHT NOW, because the available prodution data suggests world oil production levels peaked in 2005, and have been on a plateau since.

None of the basins you mention are likely to be producing millions of barrels of oil per day anytime in the next decade. At best, some may come on line by 2018. By that time, they will at best help reduce the rate of global oil production decline. :)
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 21:52:25

Plantagenet, there are many projects coming online in the near future to bide time until some of these other, longer-term, ones do. Even some of the ones in my list are relatively near-term, such as the Iraqi stuff. Brazilian oil production has been steadily going up recently as well, and there are other examples. You can, of course, always browse through the oil megaprojects Wiki for details on much of this.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 21:58:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'P')lantagenet, there are many projects coming online in the near future to bide time until some of these other, longer-term, ones do. Even some of the ones in my list are relatively near-term, such as the Iraqi stuff


Thats all very nice in theory, but when do you expect the new oil production to be sufficient to actually drive world oil production to new levels? How much higher do you think oil production will go? Do you think oil production will peak sometime in the future? When do you think will it happen?

The best available data, i.e. the IEA data and Simmon's data and in fact all the data I've seen suggest global oil production hasn't risen much if at all since late 2005. Some think the plateau in oil production may be linked to Oil prices which have risen steadily since that time, as I'm sure you've noticed.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 22:23:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pisser', '
')All those oil regions and recent wildcat test drills you've been cataloging are nothing new. They have been accounted for in the USGS 2000 report.

You are so ignorant it isn't funny.

Here is a map showing which areas the USGS had analysed for their 2000 report:
http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/WEcont/world/wrldmps.pdf

There is not a single basin analyzed by them in New Zealand in spite of this. They have only analyzed the potential of some NW offshore basins in Australia in spite of this. They haven't examined any of the west coast Sumatra basins. There is no analysis of anything in or around New Guinea in spite of things like this. In fact, there are a ton of sedimentary basins around the world the USGS has little information on, not to mention not having included them in their 2000 report. The USGS 2000 report isn't remotely the end-all and be-all of oil resources around the world.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 22:28:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'P')lantagenet, there are many projects coming online in the near future to bide time until some of these other, longer-term, ones do. Even some of the ones in my list are relatively near-term, such as the Iraqi stuff


Thats all very nice in theory, but when do you expect the new oil production to be sufficient to actually drive world oil production to new levels? How much higher do you think oil production will go? Do you think oil production will peak sometime in the future? When do you think will it happen?

If you had read the oil megaprojects link, you'd find out there's a ton of new supply which will be coming online this year and next.

Image
source

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'T')he best available data, i.e. the IEA data and Simmon's data and in fact all the data I've seen suggest global oil production hasn't risen much if at all since late 2005. Some think the plateau in oil production may be linked to Oil prices which have risen steadily since that time, as I'm sure you've noticed.

Then we'll have to wait and see about the production figures, won't we, and see what that does about prices.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby BigTex » Wed 12 Mar 2008, 01:55:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'I')n economic terms, GNP, GDP, barrels of oil per day, etc. In ecological terms, CO2 emissions, deforestation, disposal of waste, etc.

Industrial civilization is premised upon exponential growth in virtually every number that is consumption-related. That's what profit is--it's a return on your investment, PLUS something extra. It's that something extra that leads to exponential growth, and it's the exponential growth that has the same effect on the finite world as a swarm of locusts on a crop, except it happens a little more slowly the way we do it.

OK, so industrial civilization has been around for 150+ in the West. Yet, paraphrasing your list below, I, and everyone else in the industrial Western world, have . . .

Plenty of food to eat
Plenty of clean water to drink
Plenty of clean air to breathe

So, please tell me where these negative effects of "exponential growth" are upon the part of the world which has been experiencing the "exponential growth" for the longest?


I could list many negative effects of industrial civilization, but I will spare you. Just pick up the newspaper tomorrow and read the front page.

What you aren't grasping is that periods of phantom carrying capacity are characterized by a transitory period of abundance. It's the transitory abundance of a non-renewable resource that CREATES the overshoot.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'N')o, not 200 years. Not quite that long. Remember, too, that renewable resources will never run out, so long as the rate of consumption doesn't outpace the rate of renewal; it's non-renewable resources that will become ever more scarce, since they were finite to begin with and we are extracting them as quickly as possible.

The failure to distinguish between renewable resources (on which the evolution and survival of our species are based), and non-renewable resources (which we rely upon for survival at our peril) is the central problem with industrial civilization.

Malthus wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798. That's more than 200 years ago.


Right, but he didn't predict disaster until the exponential results of population growth began to be felt, which was not until much later, and after the discovery of a way to increase food production exponentially as well. However, the exponential increase in food production wasa based upon the exploitation of non-renewable resources. When the non-renewable nature of the resources is felt, the exponential growth in food production will stop, while the exponential growth in population will continue. Right now we are in a period of phantom carrying capacity, so much of what I am saying is hard to see. Trust me, if you don't want to see, you never will. I am mostly continuing this conversation for the benefit of anyone who may be reading this and trying to understand both sides of the issue.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') have already distinguished between renewable and non-renewable resources. Please read my first post in this thread.

In that first post in this thread, I have already shown that renewal/production 3 of 4 very important renewable resources - types of grains - have outpaced population growth (which is a surrogate for consumption) for the past 25 years. I could do the same for others, too.

Sorry, but grain production increases based upon fossil fuel inputs are not renewable. The only part of grain production that is renewable is that which could be accomplished without the benefit of fossil fuels. That's what is sustainable.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for the non-renewable ones, I have already addressed that, too. I believe they exist in larger quantities than you believe, and in the case of oil, I have spent a considerable amount of time on this forum (trying to) tell you and everyone else here where new sources of this particular non-renewable resource are coming from. Yet it seems that every time I show this, half the forum goes into denial. In other words, you keep trying to tell me these non-renewable resources are "scarce," and I keep trying to tell you they aren't scarce. If someone found a trillion barrels of high quality oil beneath the sands of Algeria, you and others here would still be telling me that oil is "scarce."

Can you tell me why oil has gone from $10 a barrel to $110 a barrel if it is not scarce? What price per barrel would oil need to reach to convince you that it's not scarce?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'N')o, it's quite easy to plan for 1,000 years from now. Assume the following:

Humans will continue to get hungry several times a day
Humans will get thirsty even more frequently
Humans will need to breathe oxygen
But you can't assume that because in 1,000 years . . .

You don't know how many humans will be in existence to be hungry

All of them, several times a day

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou don't know how many humans will be in existence to get thirsty

All of them, several times a day

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou don't know how many humans will be in existence to breathe oxygen

But I know that all of them that are alive will need to breathe oxygen to remain that way.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'A')s for resource usage, long term it is ONLY renewable resources that will contribute to mankind's survival. It is an ecological balance that allowed us to evolve in the first place, and it is only an ecological balance that will permit us to continue to survive.

As for the cavemen being forward-thinking, it wasn't necessary because phantom carrying capacity was only minimally possible in a low-tech primitive population. It's technology that permits overshoot.
Ah yes, that "phantom carrying capacity" thing again, which you admit "hasn't been tested yet."

Perhaps I should say hasn't been tested on the current crop of humans. It's happened many times before, to humans and any other life form that overshot the carrying capacity of its habitat.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')echnology permits us to increase the world's "carrying capacity," not make it "overshoot."

Technology typically permits the increase in phantom carrying capacity once you are in a state of phantom carrying capacity. That's where we are right now.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') know you'll object to that notion, so let's do a little "thought experiment" . . .

Let's say the nation of Mauritania (NE Africa, mostly Saharan desert) decided to undertake a vast irrigation project and irrigate an area the size of, say, West Virginia. They decided to get the water from the Atlantic Ocean, and built some massive desalinization plants.

If they need to "get" the water, they are outside their sustainable carrying capacity. What you are describing is the takeover method of expanding carrying capacity at the expense of other members of the ecosystem. This can work, but it's not without risk, in that you are taking the ecosystem out of balance (kind of like building a dam).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')o power the desalinization plants, they built a combination of solar, wind, and nuclear power plants. We'll assume they came into the money to build all this . . . maybe they discovered huge quantities of oil there, or something like that.

They're using oil or borrowing money--phantom carrying capacity.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')K now . . . an area the size of West Virginia has now been transformed from a low-carrying-capacity desert to a highly productive agricultural area.

Maybe. Hard to say. Biosphere II sounded like a good idea before they tried it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he biomass of this area was vastly increased, and the nation of Mauritania, which previously was not able to support a very big population, can now do so.

But for how long? Look at all the other "gifts" that have been given to the African continent and look how much they have benefited.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ll this was accomplished with technology.

Nothing has been accomplished. You just have a plan, that's all.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for the specific resources used here . . . the water from the Atlantic Ocean is technically "finite," but it is so large the Mauritians do not ever have to worry about running out of it. The solar and wind power which is powering the power plants used to run the desalinization plants is also technically "finite," but they too, are so large in quantity they do not ever need to worry about running out of it. The 3rd power source - uranium for the nuclear power plants - is also technically finite, but if you read this you'll learn that uranium, too, is actually a resource which can be made to last thousands of years. So realistically, no worry about that, either. Of course the crops themselves are renewable, so no need to worry about that.

You're not understanding that overshoot is about least abundant necessity, not necessarily running out of anything. Imagining that you can convert a desert to an oasis is taking a balanced ecosystem and putting it into a dramatically unabalanced state. Once again, think about dam construction.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he other objection you are bound to raise to this scheme is, to paraphrase pstarr's sig, you still need oil to run all this stuff. Even if that were true, I have spent half my time on this forum trying to explain why oil is not as scarce as many of you believe. And even if you were right and I am mistaken about the quantities of oil left, the main use for oil in this scheme - to transport the crops, to transport the materials needed to build the power plants and irrigation infrastructure - is not strictly necessary. Transportation does not need to run on oil. In fact, as an energy source, you don't need oil for anything!

Oil hit another all time high today. Why did it do that if there is not the expectation that it is or will become scarce?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o tell me, how is this particular application of technology going to lead to "overshoot?" All the inputs into the system - water, solar, wind, uranium, seeds for the crops - are either immensely large in quantity or, in the case of seeds for the crops, are actually renewable.

You were in overshoot to start with. That's why you had to come up with this scheme. If you weren't in overshoot you wouldn't need to attempt to create a new habitat, the current ones would be sufficient.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') scheme like this could last for centuries, if needed.

Biosphere II. It's harder than it looks.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')re you going to tell me that we can go into "phantom overshoot" for centuries or thousands of years?

Centuries, yes, thousands of years, no. Read "Limits to Growth."

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')r, as I surmise, the term "phantom overshoot" is just so much garbage invented by environmentalists to try to explain why their predictions have yet to occur even some 200 years after Malthus.

It's not garbage. There's no prediction, just warnings.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'I') agree with you that we have no idea if humans will even exist at all in the future.
So, you just admitted you have no idea of humans will exist in the future, and yet you want us to plan for 1,000 years in the future as if they will exist.

Planning today will give them an opportunity to exist.
:)
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Wed 12 Mar 2008, 02:21:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') could list many negative effects of industrial civilization, but I will spare you. Just pick up the newspaper tomorrow and read the front page.

OK, here is the front page of one of the Seattle papers. Where are the negative effects of industrial civilization?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat you aren't grasping is that periods of phantom carrying capacity are characterized by a transitory period of abundance. It's the transitory abundance of a non-renewable resource that CREATES the overshoot.

And what you aren't grasping is that this "phantom carrying capacity" has been going on for decades, if not centuries, and there is still no "overshoot" in sight. In other words, it's a bogus concept invented by environmentalists to try to cover up the fact that they're simply wrong, and have been so for a long time. It reminds me of the Christian fundamentalists who keep on predicting the date Jesus will come, and when the date passes without Jesus showing up, they invent another numerology and devise a new future date for the Second Coming. And so on, and so forth.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')ight, but he didn't predict disaster until the exponential results of population growth began to be felt, which was not until much later, and after the discovery of a way to increase food production exponentially as well.

Uh huh . . .

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')owever, the exponential increase in food production was based upon the exploitation of non-renewable resources. When the non-renewable nature of the resources is felt,

. . . which was supposed to happen about 50 years after Malthus, and which was supposed to happen in the 70's according to Erlich, which was supposed to happen . . . Do you get the picture? How long - and how often - do Malthusians have to be wrong before they get the picture?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he exponential growth in food production will stop,
See first post. Another Malthusian prediction gone wrong.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'w')hile the exponential growth in population will continue.
Yet another incorrect assumption. World population growth has been slowing for 2 or 3 decades, and is expected to top out around 2070. And this will not be because of any Malthusian shortages-of-resources, but because of the Demographic Transition.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')ight now we are in a period of phantom carrying capacity,
And will be in it for several more decades, and centuries, and so on, and so forth. And during this time people like you will continue to predict the imminent ecocide of the human race, and it will continue to fail to come to pass.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 's')o much of what I am saying is hard to see. Trust me, if you don't want to see, you never will. I am mostly continuing this conversation for the benefit of anyone who may be reading this and trying to understand both sides of the issue.
And as long as you don't want to see that Malthusian predictions always fail, you will never see that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')orry, but grain production increases based upon fossil fuel inputs are not renewable. The only part of grain production that is renewable is that which could be accomplished without the benefit of fossil fuels. That's what is sustainable.
Except, as already pointed out before, fossil fuel inputs are not essential. Not that we're running out of fossil fuels . . .

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')an you tell me why oil has gone from $10 a barrel to $110 a barrel if it is not scarce? What price per barrel would oil need to reach to convince you that it's not scarce?
The price of oil also skyrocketed in the 1860's-1870's, and again in the 1970's-1980's. Did that mean it was scarce? No.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'B')ut you can't assume that because in 1,000 years . . .

You don't know how many humans will be in existence to be hungry
All of them, several times a day

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'Y')ou don't know how many humans will be in existence to get thirsty
All of them, several times a day

This made no sense. What if "all of them" is only 300 human beings? Will food, water and air be so scarce in 1,000 years that there will not be enough of it for 300 human beings?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut I know that all of them that are alive will need to breathe oxygen to remain that way.
But what if this only amounts to 300 humans? Will there not be enough food, air and water in 1,000 to supply the needs of 300 humans?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')echnology typically permits the increase in phantom carrying capacity once you are in a state of phantom carrying capacity. That's where we are right now.
And will be for . . . many more decades, and even centuries. If not more.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f they need to "get" the water, they are outside their sustainable carrying capacity. What you are describing is the takeover method of expanding carrying capacity at the expense of other members of the ecosystem. This can work, but it's not without risk, in that you are taking the ecosystem out of balance (kind of like building a dam).
Yes, of course the conversion of desert to irrigated agriculture will displace some desert species. However, there have been many species which have been displaced in previous human "terraforming" efforts, and yet humans are still living quite nicely in these areas centuries, even millennia, later.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hey're using oil or borrowing money--phantom carrying capacity.
Wow, you understand nothing. If you find a resource and sell it, you aren't borrowing money, you have created value.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')aybe. Hard to say. Biosphere II sounded like a good idea before they tried it.
Biosphere II was an attempt at a closed system (except for sunlight). My mass-irrigation example is not doing that. Not only is it getting energy from the sun, it's also getting energy from wind, uranium and is importing water from the ocean.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut for how long? Look at all the other "gifts" that have been given to the African continent and look how much they have benefited.
I'm not sure what the African continent comment had to do with anything. I could just as easily have picked Argentina or Saudi Arabia for my example.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')othing has been accomplished. You just have a plan, that's all.
Uh, it was a thought experiment to try to get you to explain to me why my plan would be "overshoot." You have failed to do that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou're not understanding that overshoot is about least abundant necessity, not necessarily running out of anything. Imagining that you can convert a desert to an oasis is taking a balanced ecosystem and putting it into a dramatically unabalanced state. Once again, think about dam construction.
More eco-babble. There is nothing "balanced" or "unbalanced" about any ecosystem, natural or man-made. Ecosystems are always changing in the face of climate changes, species invasions-successions, and so on. Where I am sitting now, 10,000 years ago, was under a mile of ice. The Sahara desert, which is where my "plan" took place, was once a verdant savanna. Europe has been covered with human civilization for over 2000 years - and at the very least for hundreds of years. Large numbers of species there have been dramatically reduced in numbers, and yet the people in Europe still are producing lots of food, have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. The passenger pigeon, which once comprised 1/4 of all birds in North America, has gone extinct. One would think that if 1/4 of all the birds in a certain ecosystem went extinct, that the ecosystem would "collapse." But guess what? It didn't. Nature is constantly changing and evolving, and there is no such thing as a "balanced" ecosystem. If there were, nothing would change.

As for dam construction, I live in Washington state. Eastern Washington state has had scores of dams for decades. So, why are the people over there not walking around in gas masks and starving to death?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou were in overshoot to start with. That's why you had to come up with this scheme. If you weren't in overshoot you wouldn't need to attempt to create a new habitat, the current ones would be sufficient.
See previous comments about "overshoot." One would think that being in a state of "overshoot" for decades or centuries would finally convince eco-types that their theories are just wrong, but I suppose like the Jesus fundamentalists, they have their faith to keep them going.

Repsonding to the rest would just be repetitive of what I've already said.
Last edited by Oil-Finder on Wed 12 Mar 2008, 03:24:44, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 12 Mar 2008, 02:33:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 't')here is still no "overshoot" in sight. In other words, it's a bogus concept invented by environmentalists to try to cover up the fact that they're simply wrong, and have been so for a long time.



Actually, "overshoot" is well-recognized phenomena in wildlife biology. Many natural populations "overshoot" their resource base, and then go through massive die-offs. Lemmings are one example that you may have heard of.

I see this kind of thing happening all the time here in Alaska. For instance, every 5 years or so we get enormous numbers of Arctic Hares (a kind of rabbit). I'll never forget a long drive I took from Alaska to the Arctic Territory, where there were so many Hares you'd see one every 100 m or so along the road for mile after mile after 500 miles of it to the point it became ridiculous. And, of course, there were gazillions more back through the forests and into the mountains. Needless to say, there was a big Hare die-off that fall. It also happens to caribou, moose, voles, and all sorts of creatures.

Overshoot and die-offs are very real biological phenomena. :-D
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Wed 12 Mar 2008, 02:57:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 't')here is still no "overshoot" in sight. In other words, it's a bogus concept invented by environmentalists to try to cover up the fact that they're simply wrong, and have been so for a long time.



Actually, "overshoot" is well-recognized phenomena in wildlife biology. Many natural populations "overshoot" their resource base, and then go through massive die-offs. Lemmings are one example that you may have heard of.

I see this kind of thing happening all the time here in Alaska. For instance, every 5 years or so we get enormous numbers of Arctic Hares (a kind of rabbit). I'll never forget a long drive I took from Alaska to the Arctic Territory, where there were so many Hares you'd see one every 100 m or so along the road for mile after mile after 500 miles of it to the point it became ridiculous. And, of course, there were gazillions more back through the forests and into the mountains. Needless to say, there was a big Hare die-off that fall. It also happens to caribou, moose, voles, and all sorts of creatures.

Overshoot and die-offs are very real biological phenomena. :-D

If Lemmings had the capability to create their own habitat and their own food supply, they would not "overshoot." Their ability to increase their populations would only be limited by the amount of resources they could convert to lemming food and lemming habitat.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Wed 12 Mar 2008, 03:21:38

Here ya go Tex, Malthusian straw man claims about infinite and exponential population growth proven wrong.

World population growth rates 1800-2005
Image
source

And . . .

Image
source
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby TonyPrep » Wed 12 Mar 2008, 05:17:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'N')o he didn't, he said absolutely nothing about a time frame. Zero. Zilch. Nada. There was no reference or inference to a time period whatsoever, not in his grammar, not in the context of his discussion, nowhere. You keep repeating that there was, but there is no indication whatsoever of it.
It must be very difficult communicating with you, since you clearly regard the present tense to be the same as the past tense. As I've said, Monte used the present tense and so it is highly likely that he was talking about the present or very recent past. So it doesn't matter how many words you find for "none", the fact is, Monte was almost certainly not talking about the last 25 years.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonPrep', 'S')o what was the point of your "thesis"? Are there no vital resources that are scarce or close to becoming scarce (relative to demand)? If you don't think so, do you think there is any need to be concerned about the finite nature of our planet? If not, how is this different to a belief in infinite resources?

There might be some resources which are becoming scarce relative to demand. I dunno, maybe . . . palladium, or something like that. But as I said in my first post, in many, if not most, of those cases, those can be substituted for something else, and that "something else" is usually more abundant than the thing which it is being substituted for. For example, if palladium were really becoming scarce, there is almost certainly something else we can use instead of palladium, and chances are, that other thing would be more abundant than palladium (otherwise it would not be worth it switching over to this other thing).
Why do you think, after 200 years of industrialisation and increasing knowledge of materials and their properties, we use the stuff we do? In most cases it will be because they are the best materials to use for the particular job they do, or the most abundant (or most easily produced or highest quality) substance of several possibilities. I don't think there is much likelihood of us coming across better more abundant substances for each of the resources that becomes scarce, though that may happen in some cases.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'B')ut this is still not the same as believing in an "infinite" planet with "infinite" resources. Perhaps we can switch from palladium to something else which is so abundant that it will last hundreds or thousands of years - which makes it technically "finite." But since we have no inkling whatsoever whether this palladium-substitute will even be needed in hundreds or thousands of years, there is no point in trying to act as if it is "scarce." Even it it were "scarce," our descendants - just as we did - will almost certainly be as adaptable as we were, and find a substitute for it if they need to.
This is a belief in an infinite planet. You believe that our descendents (no timeframe so, I assume you mean indefinitely, with no time limit) will be able to always adapt or substitute for scarce resources. You don't know that, at all. It is a belief, and a dangerous belief, because it is the type of belief that causes us to pay no heed to earth's limits, thereby guaranteeing that we will crash into them and make it much harder for our descendants to survive.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'F')urthermore, many of these "non-renewable" resources can actually be recycled, and many already are.I don't know why you put "non-renewable" in quotes. The earth does have resources that do not renew. Recycling is great but you can't have growth from recycling. Indeed, because no recycling will be 100% efficient or use no other resources, recycling guarantees reduced resources, if used as the only source of resources. Which is good but I assume you want growth to continue indefinitely which would require increasing use of resources whether we recycle or not.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby TonyPrep » Wed 12 Mar 2008, 05:38:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'T')hat's what they've been saying for 200 years!!
A non-argument. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

The same could be said of peaker arguments, too. For example, just because the rate of oil discoveries has slowed down in the past couple decades, does not mean it will continue to do so. Just because large amounts of oil from oil shale have not, to date, been produced, does not mean this will forever be the case. And so on for a hundred other peaker claims.
Quite right, Oil-Finder. This is something we agree on. The difference is that you are utterly convinced that oil companies will find plenty of oil and be able to produce shale at many millions of barrels per day. The likelihood of finding some fantastic new oil province is diminishing. Oil companies are having very little success in places that are relatively easy to explore and are having to go after less easy and less likely prospects. Your oil discoveries thread has almost no information that enables one to demonstrate big new production capacity in the near future (or any time). And yet you chastise those you call doomers for being wrong in the past and expect us to believe your claims of the future.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'Y')ou are effectively saying that because we don't know whether future generations could cope with fewer resources (including those that we consider vital), we should completely ignore the possibility that they won't. If this is what you really think, then why not come right out and say it, because then we would be quite clear that you have no care for the effect your actions might have beyond your own lifetime (and probably even less than that).

I'm going to reply to this with 2 examples . . .

1) First, the Romans used iron. What if, 2000 years ago, they had decided to take an "enlightened" approach and said to themselves, "We need to conserve iron ore for future generations 1,000 and 2,000 years henceforeth, so let's reduce our consumption." Even though this is an example where their descendants did, in fact, use the same resource they did, their sentiment would have been absurd because they had no idea how abundant this resource was: In fact iron comprises 5% of the earth's crust, and is one of the most abundant elements on earth. So, while it is "finite," it is extremely abundant, and no one needs to worry about running out of it. Not the Romans, not us. The fact that it can also be recycled makes the need to "conserve" iron ore even more pointless.This is not the argument you were making. You were saying that since we can't know what future generations will be able to do, we should assume that they will be able to cope with whatever world we leave them. In your example, you are assuming that the Romans would know how things would turn out and that the course they set us on was ultimately completely beneficial. The fact that one resource, iron, was and is abundant is irrelevant. You still have no idea what our descendants will be capable of and so are advocating that we don't consider them.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '2')) Now let's go to the other extreme: In this case I will actually use oil. I was talking about why it's ridiculous to try to plan for something 1,000 years from now. Now, even a relative Cornucopian like myself does not believe there will be any reasonable amount of oil left to extract in the ground 1,000 years from now, no matter how much we try to conserve it now. And even if there were still a lot of extractable oil in the ground then, I find it extremely unlikely that mankind, if he is even still around 1,000 years from now, will consume any of it. So, either we have a situation where there is no oil left in the ground no matter what we do now, or humanity will not need or want to consume it anyway. And you're trying to tell me we need to plan ahead for future generations 1,000 years from now?Well, if we assume it is finite and that the rate we produce it now will start to decline in the coming decades then shouldn't we use such an excellent source of energy more wisely? We should conserve it not to leave some for future generations but to allow us room to build sustainable societies, if at all possible. But you appear to be arguing that because some resource is finite anyway, what does it matter if we use it all up? You're right only if we don't care about our own future and for future generations.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby CrudeAwakening » Wed 12 Mar 2008, 05:47:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'W')orld population growth has been slowing for 2 or 3 decades, and is expected to top out around 2070. And this will not be because of any Malthusian shortages-of-resources, but because of the Demographic Transition.

More precisely, the rate of growth has been slowing. World population is still growing exponentially.
"Who knows what the Second Law of Thermodynamics will be like in a hundred years?" - Economist speaking during planning for World Population Conference in early 1970s
User avatar
CrudeAwakening
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Tue 28 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby TonyPrep » Wed 12 Mar 2008, 06:03:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'I')t reminds me of the Christian fundamentalists who keep on predicting the date Jesus will come, and when the date passes without Jesus showing up, they invent another numerology and devise a new future date for the Second Coming. And so on, and so forth.
A non-argument. What you imply is an infinite earth.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'w')hile the exponential growth in population will continue.

Yet another incorrect assumption. World population growth has been slowing for 2 or 3 decades, and is expected to top out around 2070.
Oh, it's 2070 now, is it? Why should we believe this prediction when all predictions have turned out to be wrong? The population growth for the last 5 years has been estimated in the CIA World Factbook as 1.14%, 1.14%, 1.14%, 1.14%, 1.167%. Before that, it had been slowing but not for the last 5 years.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'T')he price of oil also skyrocketed in the 1860's-1870's, and again in the 1970's-1980's. Did that mean it was scarce? No.
Yes. Isn't that what the free-market economy is all about? Supply and demand. Man-made scarcity is still scarcity. Are you suggesting that the current plateau is man-made? If so, what is the point of your oil discoveries thread?
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby BigTex » Wed 12 Mar 2008, 08:50:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') could list many negative effects of industrial civilization, but I will spare you. Just pick up the newspaper tomorrow and read the front page.

OK, here is the front page of one of the Seattle papers. Where are the negative effects of industrial civilization?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/


Oil-Finder, my friend, I am going to take a break from the back and forth to thank you for alerting me to the fact that Mary Ann from Gilligan's Island has resolved the marijuana posssession charges against her. I do not claim that this is a negative effect of industrial civilization (though it might be).

Mary Ann Caught With Mary Jane
:)
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 12 Mar 2008, 13:03:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 't')here is still no "overshoot" in sight. In other words, it's a bogus concept invented by environmentalists to try to cover up the fact that they're simply wrong, and have been so for a long time.



Actually, "overshoot" is well-recognized phenomena in wildlife biology. Many natural populations "overshoot" their resource base, and then go through massive die-offs. Lemmings are one example that you may have heard of.

I see this kind of thing happening all the time here in Alaska. For instance, every 5 years or so we get enormous numbers of Arctic Hares (a kind of rabbit). I'll never forget a long drive I took from Alaska to the Arctic Territory, where there were so many Hares you'd see one every 100 m or so along the road for mile after mile after 500 miles of it to the point it became ridiculous. And, of course, there were gazillions more back through the forests and into the mountains. Needless to say, there was a big Hare die-off that fall. It also happens to caribou, moose, voles, and all sorts of creatures.

Overshoot and die-offs are very real biological phenomena. :-D

If Lemmings had the capability to create their own habitat and their own food supply, they would not "overshoot." Their ability to increase their populations would only be limited by the amount of resources they could convert to lemming food and lemming habitat.


Yes.

Lemming population numbers could then explode into the billions, covering the earth and destroying almost every natural ecosystem, just like our current human population has.

Somehow I don't find the image of billions of lemmings to be comforting. :)
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron