by thuja » Tue 01 Jan 2008, 12:57:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilmanChoke', 'H')mmm. It really doesn't matter to me whether we have Peak Oil, Plateau Oil, or NotPeak Oil, whether now or in the future. I have seen the energy balance projections and they depend on economic viabilities of each component, and in no case does the sky fall. The fact that Peak Oil concept has taken on such an important role to many of you is telling, if only to highlight a kind of catastrophic "the sky is falling" mindset. The most interesting comment was the fellow (person?) who stated that he or she had no faith in mankind, and that it was somehow dangerous to have faith in the ingenuity of mankind. Wow. So, somehow, I should have more faith in Chicken Littles and politicians seeking to increase their power instead of engineers and scientists who look for technical solutions.
The Dude... (Love the movie and the name)... Our friends the Japanese will screw with the Clathrates, just like they do the whales. The US is spending a big portion of its DOE research dollars on Clathrates, and some fellow just came up with a way of mapping them via sulfate geochemistry that is supposedly very cheap. Of course, figuring out how to capture the methane as it sublimates from ice to gas is the trick, and certainly screwing with the pressure/temperature regime is risky. Kind of like the first Nukes, where the possibility existed for setting off a global chain reaction. That must have been a butt clencher day in NM for those in the know!
I have read about the conjectures about Clathrate drivers in the past, and it makes some sense. We see a lot of catastrophic climate change in the geological record. 100,000 year on up volcanoes will also be good candidates (10 times plus the historical human greenhouse gas load released in one eruption). If we want a civilization that lasts more than 100,000 years (current set up is only 100 years old at best), we better be able to deal with natural phenomena that is truly catastrophic. By the way, the last 100,000 year volcano is overdue, I think. I am pretty sure a policy paper and world wide tax scheme won't cut that mustard.
If Peak Oil wasn't an issue, would you think differently about "what needs to be done"? If anthropogenic greenhouse gas effects were shown conclusively to be bunk as climate drivers, would you alter your worldview?
If I had called a tree "wacky", no one would have objected. If I had called the concept of God "wacky", some of you may have been offended. When I called the concept of "sustainability" wacky, I got a response that was the equivalent to telling a church full the same thing about God. I also described why I thought the concept was wacky. Predictions are not accurate, they assume perfect knowledge, and mandating action on imperfect knowledge is silly. Sustainability means nothing without population control, population control leads to human rights violations of the highest magnitude. I repeat my query, if we have a 300 year supply of something, doesn't that qualify as sustainable for all intents and purposes? Please, one of you go invent a 1000 year or 100000 year sustainable, cheap energy supply. Mankind would be better off, and you will be richer than Creseus (OK, I probably spelled that wrong)... until 50 years or 100 years from now when someone invents something better. Unless you agree with my friend on this board that he essentially doesn't believe in human ingenuity. That isn't even addressable it so contrary to every bit of available evidence, unless he is living in Darfour.
Lastly, everyone has a dog in this fight. I am an oilman. I derive income from finding and producing oil and gas. Climate researchers work largely for governmental entities. They seek funding, and funding is grotesquely available to study the "problem", because there is a power grab underway. Governments are no different than large corporations except that they don't have to regulated effectively or pay taxes, and if we don't want to buy what they are selling, they can force us to buy it. It wants to get bigger, like most human entities. That poll I referenced has a lot of interesting insights into what climate scientists think about the power of press and funding on their research results. Many in my industry have pointed out that Matt Simmons is an Investment Banker specializing in oil field services. By creating a scarcity scare, he commands higher valuations for the companies he finances and sells. Matt Simmons and his proselytizing about Peak Oil has made me more money than Plateau or NonPeak oil has ever made me. Go Matt! Go Peak Oil Brothers! You MIGHT be right! You MIGHT not!
It's not just money, either. Many of you have a lot invested in your value systems... to the point of hating "conservatives" whatever that term means anymore, and calling me a dick on an internet forum, for Gods sake! It is natural to support those that validate your values and attack those that do not. However, that is not an objective "care about my children's future" point of view any more than my oilman's point of view of the world, and probably much less so, since I have to be right to make money... objectively right.
Most of us would fight hard to deny that we may have been played for fools our entire lives or entire adult lives, and that are values are worthless garbage. This applies on any side of a faith-based argument. Just don't hand me this "objective observer" pap.
Who is more objective? Someone who performs research for money or someone who performs research to validate their underlying value system?
Oilman- glad to see you are aboard here and welcome. Even if most of us will disagree with you and some quite nastily, I hope you stick around. I personally value opinions that dissent mightily from mine.
Since you are in a Peakoil forum, that must mean you have some understanding of the breadth of the problem we are facing. As I have told Oil-Finder, even the most wildly optimistic reports describe a peaking of oil within a few decades.
If you read the Hirsch report issued by the DoE,
Hirsch Report
It describes the need to develop mitigation plans well in advance of the peaking of oil. This is not some report issued by us nutter butter peak oil kooks. It is a reasoned and well supported report. Though I disagree with all the mitigation plans he outlines, I agree with the premise that planning for this monumental change needs to happen now, if not 30 years ago. He also outlines the likely effects if we do not implement mitigation plans and it is not pretty.
Really the question of "Peak Oil", the concept that we will be reaching a maximum worldwide production, is over as a debate. The only question now is timing. And like I said, even if the optimists are correct, we need to make large changes now, to prepare for the potential disaster that could unfold.
So are we wide eyed tree hugging liberals with an agenda for an environmentalist socialist paradise? Not likely. If you hang out on these boards you will find a large proportion of libertarians, conservatives and even a few neo-nazis. This is not about ideology, it is about facts on the ground and how to prepare for significant change...
