Interim Senate Report Released
Grandpa Aerotart
Well who would have think it.
On CNBC last night light sweet crude at US$60.50 and still heading south...reports that Traders now buying futures 'in the 40s'.
The thought that those dickwits who bought futures at US$100 are now suffering greatly gives me a warm, happy feeling inside.
On CNBC last night light sweet crude at US$60.50 and still heading south...reports that Traders now buying futures 'in the 40s'.
The thought that those dickwits who bought futures at US$100 are now suffering greatly gives me a warm, happy feeling inside.
Chimbu chuckles
I was watching the same show on CNBC and thinking the same thing. It just made me laugh because I have always trusted my gut feeling when to make investments or not. When experts were saying two and a half years ago that Sydney house prices would continue to rise for the foreseeable future, I had a gut feeling based on rational economic analysis and speaking with people that the bubble was about to burst. Same with oil. Two months ago when I heard demand for oil in Australia and the US had fallen by 5% in 12 months because of the very high prices, I knew the writing was on the wall for the continued rise in oil prices but the idiot annalists and speculators were still talking the market up. Obviously because they had a vested interest. Just like our friend CaptR.
I was watching the same show on CNBC and thinking the same thing. It just made me laugh because I have always trusted my gut feeling when to make investments or not. When experts were saying two and a half years ago that Sydney house prices would continue to rise for the foreseeable future, I had a gut feeling based on rational economic analysis and speaking with people that the bubble was about to burst. Same with oil. Two months ago when I heard demand for oil in Australia and the US had fallen by 5% in 12 months because of the very high prices, I knew the writing was on the wall for the continued rise in oil prices but the idiot annalists and speculators were still talking the market up. Obviously because they had a vested interest. Just like our friend CaptR.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Victoria
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To All
Perhaps we should go back to Hot Air balloons as enough hot air seems to be created by Canberra and a few gloomers on this forum, just imagine Dixon could cut the f***k out of engineers and save a packet?
Perhaps we should go back to Hot Air balloons as enough hot air seems to be created by Canberra and a few gloomers on this forum, just imagine Dixon could cut the f***k out of engineers and save a packet?
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all that wine lying around (there's a glut apparently?) I'm surprised there seems to be little interest in making ethanol out of it, except for one or two small projects. Apparently the Europeans are making ethanol out of all sorts of crap vino. Obviously Aussie vino is rarely crap, as my wine rack can attest, but still...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update
Scientific American (Sep 06 issue) and the latest Bulletin Magazine make interesting reading (both subscribe to a peak in oil production)...
Although this discussion about near-term pricing is a distraction, it has very little to do with Peak Oil. The fact of the matter is that global oil production has ceased increasing for quite some time now, regardless of a continuous run up in prices over the last few years. Prices are going down presently, not because there is more supply, but because demand growth has droped off and demand for the marginal barrel cannot, at the current point in time, stand a $77 price.
Peak oil is about production capacity, and production capacity is extremely insensitive to short term pricing. Making statements based on short term price changes of oil is like making statements on global warming based on the daily fluctuations of temperature in Sydney.
Also of interest is the lack of spending on exploration. Russ Roberts from Exxon Mobil said recently that the "Potential crude price is a relatively minor consideration because it is an unknown," and that more important factors include government approvals and industry technology. "Perhaps the best example is that our capital and exploration investment was $15 billion in 1998 when crude traded as low as $10 a barrel, and it was $15 billion in 2004 when crude oil was about $40 a barrel,". So much for investing large amounts of money as they earn more profit......
Although this discussion about near-term pricing is a distraction, it has very little to do with Peak Oil. The fact of the matter is that global oil production has ceased increasing for quite some time now, regardless of a continuous run up in prices over the last few years. Prices are going down presently, not because there is more supply, but because demand growth has droped off and demand for the marginal barrel cannot, at the current point in time, stand a $77 price.
Peak oil is about production capacity, and production capacity is extremely insensitive to short term pricing. Making statements based on short term price changes of oil is like making statements on global warming based on the daily fluctuations of temperature in Sydney.
Also of interest is the lack of spending on exploration. Russ Roberts from Exxon Mobil said recently that the "Potential crude price is a relatively minor consideration because it is an unknown," and that more important factors include government approvals and industry technology. "Perhaps the best example is that our capital and exploration investment was $15 billion in 1998 when crude traded as low as $10 a barrel, and it was $15 billion in 2004 when crude oil was about $40 a barrel,". So much for investing large amounts of money as they earn more profit......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Department of Energy Update
The following article from the Houston Chronicle a few hours ago - can be found on http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4208727.html
U.S. Energy Department study concludes crude production will peak, requiring other energy forms
Last September, a Chronicle editorial warned that global oil production would peak in this decade or the next, and then inexorably decline. Given that likelihood, the United States would have to embark on a crash program to develop alternative energy sources or endure crippling increases in the price of energy.
Last week, a study performed for the U.S. Department of Energy concurred with the editorial's conclusions.
try{OAS_AD('Middle');}catch(e){}
The study, led by Robert Hirsch, warned that the world should be spending $1 trillion per year developing alternative energy sources — including tar sands, oil shale and gas liquefaction — to avoid having its economy crippled by oil shortages and the resulting chaos. The study recommends a 20-year lead time, so it might already be too late to prevent a crunch.
The report said the timing was uncertain. Hirsch predicted peak oil production could come in five years, almost certainly by 2020.
Actually, the world would not have to arrive at peak production in order to experience severe shortfalls in oil supplies. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina showed what even a minor constriction in supply can do to drive prices skyward. Apart from natural disasters, wars, political unrest, government intervention, deteriorating equipment, accidents or any combination could interrupt the supply of oil.
Demand for gasoline in the United States is dropping with the end of the summer vacation season. Consequently, prices also are dropping. But this trend is extremely temporary.
Demand for oil in China, in India and throughout the developing world will continue to grow. Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson predicts that world demand for crude will increase 50 percent in a decade.
Bloomburg News reported that the Energy Department study found that conventional oil production reached "soft and sudden" peaks in Texas in 1972, North America in 1985, Great Britain in 1999 and Norway in 2001. These dates were predicted by formulas used by proponents of the peak oil theory to predict the crest of global oil production.
Perhaps the report's most serious conclusion is that the free market and private industry alone will not prevent economic catastrophe from energy shortages. Government must have a policy for managing the transition from conventional crude oil to other energy forms.
Hirsch, a consultant and former government official overseeing research into solar and other renewable energy forms, said the conversion from oil could be compared to the race for the moon or the mobilization for World War II. Consumers, he said, could not rely on oil companies to get the huge job done.
If oil company managers disagree, they need to demonstrate where all the oil is going to come from to meet rising demand, or propose their own plans for developing alternative sources.
US DoE, Australian Senate, Swedish Govt, NZ Government and many other respected institutions recognise peak oil......must be more to this than what the oil companies say......if they are taking it seriously, how will it affect you?
U.S. Energy Department study concludes crude production will peak, requiring other energy forms
Last September, a Chronicle editorial warned that global oil production would peak in this decade or the next, and then inexorably decline. Given that likelihood, the United States would have to embark on a crash program to develop alternative energy sources or endure crippling increases in the price of energy.
Last week, a study performed for the U.S. Department of Energy concurred with the editorial's conclusions.
try{OAS_AD('Middle');}catch(e){}
The study, led by Robert Hirsch, warned that the world should be spending $1 trillion per year developing alternative energy sources — including tar sands, oil shale and gas liquefaction — to avoid having its economy crippled by oil shortages and the resulting chaos. The study recommends a 20-year lead time, so it might already be too late to prevent a crunch.
The report said the timing was uncertain. Hirsch predicted peak oil production could come in five years, almost certainly by 2020.
Actually, the world would not have to arrive at peak production in order to experience severe shortfalls in oil supplies. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina showed what even a minor constriction in supply can do to drive prices skyward. Apart from natural disasters, wars, political unrest, government intervention, deteriorating equipment, accidents or any combination could interrupt the supply of oil.
Demand for gasoline in the United States is dropping with the end of the summer vacation season. Consequently, prices also are dropping. But this trend is extremely temporary.
Demand for oil in China, in India and throughout the developing world will continue to grow. Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson predicts that world demand for crude will increase 50 percent in a decade.
Bloomburg News reported that the Energy Department study found that conventional oil production reached "soft and sudden" peaks in Texas in 1972, North America in 1985, Great Britain in 1999 and Norway in 2001. These dates were predicted by formulas used by proponents of the peak oil theory to predict the crest of global oil production.
Perhaps the report's most serious conclusion is that the free market and private industry alone will not prevent economic catastrophe from energy shortages. Government must have a policy for managing the transition from conventional crude oil to other energy forms.
Hirsch, a consultant and former government official overseeing research into solar and other renewable energy forms, said the conversion from oil could be compared to the race for the moon or the mobilization for World War II. Consumers, he said, could not rely on oil companies to get the huge job done.
If oil company managers disagree, they need to demonstrate where all the oil is going to come from to meet rising demand, or propose their own plans for developing alternative sources.
US DoE, Australian Senate, Swedish Govt, NZ Government and many other respected institutions recognise peak oil......must be more to this than what the oil companies say......if they are taking it seriously, how will it affect you?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: expat@large
Age: 55
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bronze Age/ Rennaisance /Industrial Age / Disco
Who gives a rat's arse whether it runs out tomorrow or in 40 years time or 200?? The point is, surely, that it is running out and will eventually run out entirely. We may quibble about when, but this should be the clarion call to our generation to get of the collective backsides and find a better way to do it. Peak Oil is a distraction IMHO to the bigger issue. The tea-towel heads don't lift anything heavier than money, so they're hardly going to plough any dough into R&D for alternate sources of juice. When my newborn comes swaggering home from Uni in 20 years time and asks me what my generation did about global warming what am I going to say?
"Well, young feller-me-lad, back in 2006 there was a lot of talk in the papers and such about peak oil and greenhouse gasses and all that stuff, with equally august, learned institutions and others yapping about peak oil and oil running out and getting too expensive, but when all the hubbub died down and the price of the black stuff fell again we all heaved a collective sigh of relief and pretty much went back to sleep again"
Do ya wanna hear about the 80's or your dear old great-great-grandfather the Hippie?"
"Piss off Dad"
Righto.
Grandpa Aerotart
What if he asks "Dad why did your generation bankrupt the planet over something that was unproven at the time when so many scientists were saying global warming was a natural cycle?
"Well the doomsayers got most of the publicity because the media thought it made better TV"
In my view extreme views on most anything are generally suspect...I always look to the middle ground for what is most likely to be the true situation.
The world has abundant reserves of oil....just (maybe) not so much light sweet crude. The technolgy required to extract that heavier oil/oilshale and oil sands and refine it profitably at a MUCH lower price than is current ($59.50 Today) and is a mature technology. China has the biggest oil shale reserves after the US.
Tonight I was watching CNBC and they had stories about a strong push in the US market to follow the EU market down the path of diesel technology. Car manufacturers have been making huge strides in 'green' diesel cars...they are not the polluters they were even 5 years ago. Australia is a long, long way behind the EU on clean diesel engine technology...although nowhere near as far behind as the US. I noticed when I was in Australia last, a week or so ago, diesel was 10+ cents a liter more expensive than premium petrol...that is a rediculous state of affairs and is reflective of nothing more than a greenies driven pollution tax based on outdated diesel technology. Where I live diesel is 3/5ths the price of petrol.
The EU has about 50/50 diesel/petrol road transport. Diesel is 20-25% more efficient than petrol. Converting the US population over to a similar % of diesel cars as the EU/UK would save the US importing hundreds of millions of barrels/day of crude. That ALONE would see the price of oil tumble into the toilet.
If 10% of the remaining vehicles were powered by LPG/Hybrid etc the demand for crude would drop right through the floor.
All it takes for this to happen is Govt will....if the Govts were really that worried about peak oil they would be doing a fecking sight more than they are to foster these technologies.
China, despite it's population, is a largely empty, windy, barren country...I know as I have flown over large chunks of it. They are getting into windfarm electricity generation in a huge way. They also have some of the most fecking humoungous river systems you have ever seen and, as has been seen with their 3 Gorges Dam/hydro scheme, the will to spend in that area too. I will say that I think hydro has more minuses than pluses when all the impacts are taken into account...but to suggest they are going to slurp up vast extra quantities of oil just to feed a blooming middle classe's desire for cars and that spells disaster is panicking over nothing...remember what I said about the 'middle ground'?
They don't want to be dependant on the ME anymore than any other country. The Chinese are a very clever society...they have been taking the best parts of invading technogies going back to the Mongol Hordes. Yes they have a different form of govt that leaves a lot to be desired in many respects but they are not hamstrung by the beaurocracy that the west is...if the central govt says install 20000 wind turbines here, here and 10000 more way the **** over there it just happens....RFN, not over the next 20 years because no bastard wants a wind farm next door to his house.
In the same way that the communist govt is tinkering with free market economies in Shanghai, Macau and Hong Kong they will obsorb the best of modern technologies in cars/trucks/rail/power generation because it makes sense to do it from an ecomonic point of view. It is the technology that will help to assure the strong economic potential everyone says they have actually happens.
Between hybrid cars, diesel, LPG, bio diesel, windfarm power generation, atomic power generation, hydro, solar and other technologies there are many alternatives to petrol for running cars and crude oil usage in generating electricity.
This latest oil scare has countries thinking about and implementing change...not because of peak oil per se but because they don't want to be any more dependant than necesary on other countries/regions for essential energy supplies. They will diversify out of self interest and that will drive the demand for oil down.
The EU has made huge strides in these areas...the US must follow...China will follow and Australia has absolutely no excuse for not mandating higher %s of diesel (mandate the latest technology and remove the rediculous taxes) and LPG (already doing it) usage.
The EU went down these paths because of a strong public will driven by fear of global warming. I am utterly convinced that global warming is not anthropogenic in nature and will not be as extreme as the doomsayers suggest....remember that middle ground again...but all the above will lead to a cleaner world and that is just more pleasant.
What we as a society must do is reject the extreme and embrace the middle argument. If we blindly race down the path indicated by the extreme Greens and Peak Oil Doomsayers we risk wasting Trillions of $ on problems that no absolute evidence exists to support.
Do we want that legacy hanging over our children?
"Well the doomsayers got most of the publicity because the media thought it made better TV"
In my view extreme views on most anything are generally suspect...I always look to the middle ground for what is most likely to be the true situation.
The world has abundant reserves of oil....just (maybe) not so much light sweet crude. The technolgy required to extract that heavier oil/oilshale and oil sands and refine it profitably at a MUCH lower price than is current ($59.50 Today) and is a mature technology. China has the biggest oil shale reserves after the US.
Tonight I was watching CNBC and they had stories about a strong push in the US market to follow the EU market down the path of diesel technology. Car manufacturers have been making huge strides in 'green' diesel cars...they are not the polluters they were even 5 years ago. Australia is a long, long way behind the EU on clean diesel engine technology...although nowhere near as far behind as the US. I noticed when I was in Australia last, a week or so ago, diesel was 10+ cents a liter more expensive than premium petrol...that is a rediculous state of affairs and is reflective of nothing more than a greenies driven pollution tax based on outdated diesel technology. Where I live diesel is 3/5ths the price of petrol.
The EU has about 50/50 diesel/petrol road transport. Diesel is 20-25% more efficient than petrol. Converting the US population over to a similar % of diesel cars as the EU/UK would save the US importing hundreds of millions of barrels/day of crude. That ALONE would see the price of oil tumble into the toilet.
If 10% of the remaining vehicles were powered by LPG/Hybrid etc the demand for crude would drop right through the floor.
All it takes for this to happen is Govt will....if the Govts were really that worried about peak oil they would be doing a fecking sight more than they are to foster these technologies.
China, despite it's population, is a largely empty, windy, barren country...I know as I have flown over large chunks of it. They are getting into windfarm electricity generation in a huge way. They also have some of the most fecking humoungous river systems you have ever seen and, as has been seen with their 3 Gorges Dam/hydro scheme, the will to spend in that area too. I will say that I think hydro has more minuses than pluses when all the impacts are taken into account...but to suggest they are going to slurp up vast extra quantities of oil just to feed a blooming middle classe's desire for cars and that spells disaster is panicking over nothing...remember what I said about the 'middle ground'?
They don't want to be dependant on the ME anymore than any other country. The Chinese are a very clever society...they have been taking the best parts of invading technogies going back to the Mongol Hordes. Yes they have a different form of govt that leaves a lot to be desired in many respects but they are not hamstrung by the beaurocracy that the west is...if the central govt says install 20000 wind turbines here, here and 10000 more way the **** over there it just happens....RFN, not over the next 20 years because no bastard wants a wind farm next door to his house.
In the same way that the communist govt is tinkering with free market economies in Shanghai, Macau and Hong Kong they will obsorb the best of modern technologies in cars/trucks/rail/power generation because it makes sense to do it from an ecomonic point of view. It is the technology that will help to assure the strong economic potential everyone says they have actually happens.
Between hybrid cars, diesel, LPG, bio diesel, windfarm power generation, atomic power generation, hydro, solar and other technologies there are many alternatives to petrol for running cars and crude oil usage in generating electricity.
This latest oil scare has countries thinking about and implementing change...not because of peak oil per se but because they don't want to be any more dependant than necesary on other countries/regions for essential energy supplies. They will diversify out of self interest and that will drive the demand for oil down.
The EU has made huge strides in these areas...the US must follow...China will follow and Australia has absolutely no excuse for not mandating higher %s of diesel (mandate the latest technology and remove the rediculous taxes) and LPG (already doing it) usage.
The EU went down these paths because of a strong public will driven by fear of global warming. I am utterly convinced that global warming is not anthropogenic in nature and will not be as extreme as the doomsayers suggest....remember that middle ground again...but all the above will lead to a cleaner world and that is just more pleasant.
What we as a society must do is reject the extreme and embrace the middle argument. If we blindly race down the path indicated by the extreme Greens and Peak Oil Doomsayers we risk wasting Trillions of $ on problems that no absolute evidence exists to support.
Do we want that legacy hanging over our children?
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 25th Sep 2006 at 14:11.
Grandpa Aerotart
If you have broadband, or are really patient, click on the link below.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...13209160533271
It is a 25 minute long documentary done by the University of Calgary showing that anthropogenic climate change is a load of BS.
This shows the lie that greenies live every day...and the wasteful nature of their Greeny inspired taxes that cost all of us a great deal of money and if left unchecked could bankrupt our children via the sick joke that is the Kyoto Treaty.
This shows the lie that causes those of you who drive diesels why you are paying 2 or 3 times the price you should be paying because the greenies have convinced the govt it is a dirty fuel and should have a greenhouse tax applied.
Where I live in Asia I pay 31 cents/liter for diesel, 38 cents a liter for standard and 53 cents a liter for premium...and the only difference is the Govt here doesn't charge any taxes on fuel....the rest of the price you pay is tax and GST on tax.
Our esteemed Govt is even charging people to use Bio Diesel such excise as to have it at the same price as ordinary diesel and premium petrol.
Just this evening I saw a US oil company executive talking about the oil shale deposits in Colorado (trillions of barrels) and the new light sweet crude find in the GOM that is estimated between 3 and 15 BILLION barrels....just say it ends up being 7-10 billion...those two resources alone are 600 yrs worth of driving, flying and generally fecking about.
It is long past time the Oz voting public started voting for some common dog **** in Govt when it comes to climate change and removal of punitive greenie taxes
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...13209160533271
It is a 25 minute long documentary done by the University of Calgary showing that anthropogenic climate change is a load of BS.
This shows the lie that greenies live every day...and the wasteful nature of their Greeny inspired taxes that cost all of us a great deal of money and if left unchecked could bankrupt our children via the sick joke that is the Kyoto Treaty.
This shows the lie that causes those of you who drive diesels why you are paying 2 or 3 times the price you should be paying because the greenies have convinced the govt it is a dirty fuel and should have a greenhouse tax applied.
Where I live in Asia I pay 31 cents/liter for diesel, 38 cents a liter for standard and 53 cents a liter for premium...and the only difference is the Govt here doesn't charge any taxes on fuel....the rest of the price you pay is tax and GST on tax.
Our esteemed Govt is even charging people to use Bio Diesel such excise as to have it at the same price as ordinary diesel and premium petrol.
Just this evening I saw a US oil company executive talking about the oil shale deposits in Colorado (trillions of barrels) and the new light sweet crude find in the GOM that is estimated between 3 and 15 BILLION barrels....just say it ends up being 7-10 billion...those two resources alone are 600 yrs worth of driving, flying and generally fecking about.
It is long past time the Oz voting public started voting for some common dog **** in Govt when it comes to climate change and removal of punitive greenie taxes
Chimbu, down here in Victoria we have had ten years of below average rainfall, its shaping up to be a record summer for drought and bushfires as well. I dont give a rats what the University of Calgary says, I care what CSIRO says and they say that there is incontrovertible evidence that the planet is warming and human produced carbon dioxide is the main culprit.
Here is a hint, look up the group "Friends of Science" that paid for your video on Sourcewatch and you will find they are a PR front for the oil industry.
Translation: The video you refer to is pure public relations BS.
Here is a hint, look up the group "Friends of Science" that paid for your video on Sourcewatch and you will find they are a PR front for the oil industry.
Translation: The video you refer to is pure public relations BS.
Grandpa Aerotart
http://mclean.ch/climate/Murray_Darling_rainfall.htm
10 years hey?
And just what is 'normal rainfall'?
Australia is a dry continent...it could just be that the last 10 years are actually normal. I would put it to you that the only reason Australia is having 'water shortages' at present is because there are TOO MANY people competing for that resource. I cannot put my hand on it at the moment but I remember reading somewhere that the total population the continent of Australia can support is something less than 20 million.
Is the AUSTRALIAN BOM a front for big oil PR too?
10 years hey?
And just what is 'normal rainfall'?
Australia is a dry continent...it could just be that the last 10 years are actually normal. I would put it to you that the only reason Australia is having 'water shortages' at present is because there are TOO MANY people competing for that resource. I cannot put my hand on it at the moment but I remember reading somewhere that the total population the continent of Australia can support is something less than 20 million.
Is the AUSTRALIAN BOM a front for big oil PR too?
Chimbu mate, don't take graphs from climate change sceptics, go to the real Bureau of Meterology "climate change" page and read it. The climate is changing and the most likely culprit is us.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smog???
People in the northern hemisphere can see every day, with their own eyes,the reduced visibility that seems to be normal there.They have probably got used to it and do not know any different.
My son is in France at the moment, and the photos he sends home all have a big haze, just like simpson desert dust.
And it is not new. I went over to uk on a ship decades ago, and you could see the haze, and feel the watery sun after we got near the "big smoke"
On one of the long summer evenings in Oxford, I commented "look at the moon, it's all red" The Poms all looked at me strangely for a long time, and then someone said "that is the sun"
I also remember one of the first Airbusses ferrying out to Australia, via Alice Springs. On descent into Alice Springs he commented "you have the cleanest air in the world" And most of the time we do.
This may, or may not mean we heve serious problems. I just do not know.
But I hope we can keep our part of the world in good condition, and not make a huge mess of it like they have in Europe.
My son is in France at the moment, and the photos he sends home all have a big haze, just like simpson desert dust.
And it is not new. I went over to uk on a ship decades ago, and you could see the haze, and feel the watery sun after we got near the "big smoke"
On one of the long summer evenings in Oxford, I commented "look at the moon, it's all red" The Poms all looked at me strangely for a long time, and then someone said "that is the sun"
I also remember one of the first Airbusses ferrying out to Australia, via Alice Springs. On descent into Alice Springs he commented "you have the cleanest air in the world" And most of the time we do.
This may, or may not mean we heve serious problems. I just do not know.
But I hope we can keep our part of the world in good condition, and not make a huge mess of it like they have in Europe.
Grandpa Aerotart
Here is the same graph only this time the link is from your BOM website Sunfish.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/r...timeseries.cgi
The graph is the same one that I linked to (and the preamble in my link said it was from the Australian Bureau Of Met) and shows the same thing. It does NOT support your contention that
The thing I like about that site I posted the link to is that he doesn't post his own unsupported opinion...he posts the data from scientific bodies all around the world...and then disects it.
Here is another link from the BOM website...it shows the same information as was shown on that video...an increase of less than 1 degree over 100 hrs.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/r...timeseries.cgi
The the scientists on that video were NOT saying global warming is not a reality they were saying that CO2 put into the atmosphere by modern life is not the cause.
Here is an interesting link written by an oceanographer who has been at it for 60+ years.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...les/ocean.html
Ice cores anyone?
http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htm
And my favorite climate computer modelling. That is where all the GW doomsayer BS comes from...they feed what they believe is happening into a computer as the one true answer and then **** with the parameters, most of which are a mystery, and then wonder why it doesn't work that way in the real world.
http://mclean.ch/climate/models.htm
My favorite quote from that article
NASA tells us now the hole in the Ozone layer is closing and will be gone in about 60 years...are we expected to believe that the miniscule population/square KM that exists in the southern hemisphere caused that HUGE reversal in a mere 10 odd years by cutting back a bit on CFCs when the huge population in the northern hemisphere was not able to cause a similar hole at the north pole in the first place?
I don't.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/r...timeseries.cgi
The graph is the same one that I linked to (and the preamble in my link said it was from the Australian Bureau Of Met) and shows the same thing. It does NOT support your contention that
down here in Victoria we have had ten years of below average rainfall
Here is another link from the BOM website...it shows the same information as was shown on that video...an increase of less than 1 degree over 100 hrs.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/r...timeseries.cgi
The the scientists on that video were NOT saying global warming is not a reality they were saying that CO2 put into the atmosphere by modern life is not the cause.
Here is an interesting link written by an oceanographer who has been at it for 60+ years.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...les/ocean.html
Ice cores anyone?
http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htm
And my favorite climate computer modelling. That is where all the GW doomsayer BS comes from...they feed what they believe is happening into a computer as the one true answer and then **** with the parameters, most of which are a mystery, and then wonder why it doesn't work that way in the real world.
http://mclean.ch/climate/models.htm
My favorite quote from that article
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." [my emphasis added]
I don't.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 29th Sep 2006 at 06:28.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Climate Change and Peak Oil
The following are worth a read for those who are interested -
http://www.ministers.wa.gov.au/macti...EP%20Final.pdf
http://www.catalystmagazine.net/issu...cfm?story=1064
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...12/26/8364646/
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2031/a/67096
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/drivenbyoil/pip/krpen/
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...HMs&refer=news
http://www.moneyweek.com/file/19045/...-of-value.html
http://www.ministers.wa.gov.au/macti...EP%20Final.pdf
http://www.catalystmagazine.net/issu...cfm?story=1064
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...12/26/8364646/
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2031/a/67096
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/drivenbyoil/pip/krpen/
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...HMs&refer=news
http://www.moneyweek.com/file/19045/...-of-value.html
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the same graph only this time the link is from your BOM website Sunfish.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/r...timeseries.cgi
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/r...timeseries.cgi
Max, Min and Mean temperatures are all trending upwards over the last century, and diurnal variation is trending downward. Translation: This part of the world's been getting hotter consistently and it doesn't shed that heat at night.
It's a delicate balance, and a degree or so probably makes a lot of difference to the polar icecaps.
Look on the bright side. Over here in the Yarra Ranges foothills, I could be sitting on prime absolute waterfront in a few more years.
Avalon might be in for a bit of a problem though. Bring back the era of the flying-boat.
VHCU
Grandpa Aerotart
Suzuki is a borderline eco extremist...and as usual he is pushing an emotional button for maximum effect.
For most of the year the temps at the North (and South) Pole are well below freezing. 20,30,40 degrees below zero. If the (short) summers are a few, say 2 degrees warmer, and the (much longer) winters also get 2 degrees warmer just how much ice will really permanently melt?
What is the difference between -30 and -28 degrees C?
Watch ice melt in a glass of water and see the difference in water level after...it will be zero...for there to be catastrophic sea level rise all the continental ice would need to melt. The sea ice (all the north polar ice) will have no effect on sea levels if it melts...remember the US and Russians spend a lot of time under the northern hemisphere ice in their nuclear subs?
Sukuki can spout off to his hearts content about the great barrier reef and I will match it with the 38 years my mate Max Benjamin has owned and run Walindi resort in Kimbe Bay, East New Britain, PNG. One of the (world recognised) premier reef diving spots on the planet...a reef ecosystem that leaves the GBR for dead in reef diversity if not outright acreage. He has been watching 'his' reefs bleach and recover unharmed all that time...off an on for 40 years....and not all at once although some years have been worse than others. I have discussed this with him and he cannot pick a trend...and he is a greeny who makes his living off an ecosystem he loves more than life itself.
Click on the Greenland Ice Cores link in my post above and see that the Greenland was in fact 3 to 4 degrees warmer 3 thousand odd years ago...yet not only did the polar bears survive but they are finding deep frozen (meat and hair still there) Wooly Mammoths that have been under ice for millions of years...so it seems like even 4 degrees warmer (about what the real extremist eco-idiots predict is worst case) aint gonna melt all the ice
As an aside do you think the Vikings that first populated and named "Green"land would have called it green if it was as frozen as it is today...and hung around and farmed what is now permafrost...or would they instead have pronounced the place fecking useless and got back in their boats?
What REALLY ****s me about the GW debate is that it has become so politicised that facts, let alone common sense, are NEVER juxtaposed against the doomsayer predictions that are almost solely based on computer modelling....because it isn't PC
Environmentalist David Suzuki says the Great Barrier Reef is in "bad shape" and he has noticed "huge changes" over the 18 years he has been visiting the area.
The well-known Canadian scientist spoke at an ecological design conference in Cairns, in far north Queensland, last night.
Dr Suzuki says Australians, and particularly the Federal Government, need to start doing more to address global warming and climate change.
"This wonderful treasure that you have ... the Great Barrier Reef, is at enormous risk," he said.
"In the same way as in Canada where one of our great icons, the polar bear, [is at risk].
"Polar bears are going to be gone in 20 years because the ice sheet is melting so rapidly, they don't have anything to go out on and hunt.
"Things are being pulled apart by the consequences of the warming planet."
The well-known Canadian scientist spoke at an ecological design conference in Cairns, in far north Queensland, last night.
Dr Suzuki says Australians, and particularly the Federal Government, need to start doing more to address global warming and climate change.
"This wonderful treasure that you have ... the Great Barrier Reef, is at enormous risk," he said.
"In the same way as in Canada where one of our great icons, the polar bear, [is at risk].
"Polar bears are going to be gone in 20 years because the ice sheet is melting so rapidly, they don't have anything to go out on and hunt.
"Things are being pulled apart by the consequences of the warming planet."
What is the difference between -30 and -28 degrees C?
Watch ice melt in a glass of water and see the difference in water level after...it will be zero...for there to be catastrophic sea level rise all the continental ice would need to melt. The sea ice (all the north polar ice) will have no effect on sea levels if it melts...remember the US and Russians spend a lot of time under the northern hemisphere ice in their nuclear subs?
Sukuki can spout off to his hearts content about the great barrier reef and I will match it with the 38 years my mate Max Benjamin has owned and run Walindi resort in Kimbe Bay, East New Britain, PNG. One of the (world recognised) premier reef diving spots on the planet...a reef ecosystem that leaves the GBR for dead in reef diversity if not outright acreage. He has been watching 'his' reefs bleach and recover unharmed all that time...off an on for 40 years....and not all at once although some years have been worse than others. I have discussed this with him and he cannot pick a trend...and he is a greeny who makes his living off an ecosystem he loves more than life itself.
Click on the Greenland Ice Cores link in my post above and see that the Greenland was in fact 3 to 4 degrees warmer 3 thousand odd years ago...yet not only did the polar bears survive but they are finding deep frozen (meat and hair still there) Wooly Mammoths that have been under ice for millions of years...so it seems like even 4 degrees warmer (about what the real extremist eco-idiots predict is worst case) aint gonna melt all the ice
As an aside do you think the Vikings that first populated and named "Green"land would have called it green if it was as frozen as it is today...and hung around and farmed what is now permafrost...or would they instead have pronounced the place fecking useless and got back in their boats?
What REALLY ****s me about the GW debate is that it has become so politicised that facts, let alone common sense, are NEVER juxtaposed against the doomsayer predictions that are almost solely based on computer modelling....because it isn't PC
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 9th Oct 2006 at 15:48.
Grandpa Aerotart
Seems we have used in the last 100+ years 1/3 of the known recoverable 'conventional' oil and 1/5th of the total recoverable reserves if you include non conventional oil.
Likelyhood of using up the remainder in the next 100?
Likelyhood of using up the remainder in the next 100?
Long Term Crude Oil Supplies
September 25, 2006 - Prices of crude oil futures have spiraled upward for months on stories of shortage of supplies in the long run. Unfortunately, over the past 100 years, the oil industry wrote contracts for produced and delivered oil priced at the current "marker crude", often a published trade in the spot market. In recent years, spot trades have been tied to the more active futures market. Thus, a shift in the futures market can immediately influence today's delivered price of crude oil under contract. The thousands of contracts out there are not likely to be modified -- especially since the current linkage produces a most lucrative situation for the current owners of crude oil production.
The problem is that the soothsayers are running out of rational information to sustain their unrealistic stories of impending shortages. Let's take a look at some facts:
Exxon, in its 2006 Annual Report says "
"ABUNDANT OIL RESOURCES EXIST
In assessing global demand for oil, we also take into account the worldwide oil resources that will supply this demand. We estimate recoverable worldwide conventional oil resources at 3.2 trillion barrels, with additional frontier resources (extra heavy oil, oil sands, oil shale) bringing this total to 4 to 5 trillion barrels. Of this amount, approximately 1 trillion barrels have been produced. These global resources will support liquids production growth through at least the 2030 time horizon, with growing contributions from OPEC countries and the Russia/Caspian region. "
Since this document was published early 2006, these reserves estimates are probably based on an average price of around $45 per barrel. From a Petroleum Engineer's perspective, the quantities could easily double, maybe triple at $60 per barrel. You can see that pricing futures just 3 to 6 months out based on supply shortfalls is based on fictitious assumptions.
What about natural gas? One of those fascinating things Petroleum Engineers know is that there are huge quantities of natural gas out there waiting to be tapped. Of course, it costs money to find and produce it -- and you have to get it to market. But prices will rise as necessary to make that happen. In the short term, there is no shortage. So, again, you can see that pricing futures just 3 to 6 months out based on a supply shortfall is really not very realistic. Even after the hurricanes of 2005, you can look back and see that no one went without natural gas. The supply system in the US is highly integrated, allowing gas supplies from a number of locations to reach almost any destination in the US. Although there is a lot of work behind the scenes to redirect flow and handle the accounting, the gas can be -- and was -- delivered.
From the Exxon Report:
"BREAKTHROUGH TECHNOLOGY UNLOCKS TIGHT GAS
Worldwide, enormous quantities of natural gas are locked up in “tight” reservoirs characterized by very low flow rates. Many of these resources have been known to industry for decades, but have been categorized as “uneconomic” due to the cost required to effectively connect the gas in the reservoir to a wellbore. ExxonMobil has developed and patented industry-leading technologies to unlock these tight gas resources. Our multi-zone stimulation technology (MZST) rapidly creates numerous fractures (cracks) in the reservoir rock so that gas can flow more easily to the wellbore. Compared to conventional approaches, MZST provides a dramatic improvement in our ability to quickly execute many high-quality fractures. In recognition of this breakthrough, MZST was awarded the Platts 2005 Global Energy Award for the Most Innovative Commercial Technology of the Year."
OPEC Forecast
September 19, 2006 -- The OPEC September quarterly report offers a very balanced analysis of the current situation in the world and US markets. Here are a couple of highlights from the summary about OPEC crude oil:
"The OPEC Reference Basket was volatile in August amid mixed developments. Pipeline outages in Russia and Alaska pushed prices to record-highs with the Basket peaking at $72.67/b on 8 August. However, easing geopolitical developments calmed market sentiment, allowing the Basket to drop below the $63 level by the end of the month. In August, the Basket averaged $68.81/b. Other factors behind the down trend were lower refinery run rates in Asia due to weaker margins, the end of the US driving season and ample winter distillate supplies ahead of winter. The Basket fell further in the first weeks of September, dropping to $59.22/b on 14 September, a loss of almost $14/b since the previous month’s peak, demonstrating yet again the degree of volatility in the market.
"The demand for OPEC crude in 2006 is expected to average 28.9 mb/d, representing a downward revision of 0.2 mb/d versus last month. In 2007, the demand for OPEC crude is expected to average 28.1 mb/d, representing a decline of 0.8 mb/d versus 2006. On a quarterly basis, the forecast shows that demand for OPEC crude is expected at 29.2 mb/d in the first, 27 mb/d in the second, 28 mb/d in the third and 28.4 mb/d in the fourth quarter."
The report is extensive and provides details about current and future US and international markets. However, I question the suggestion that the shift to ultra-low diesel in the US this October might firm up prices in the US market. My experience with these product quality shifts is that by the time refiners are required to make a new product, the major refiners have already been making the product for 6 months to a year (or longer!), so the transition is actually transparent. It's always amusing, and of course the oil companies love it, when the media and soothsayers drive up prices on the stories that the refineries won't be able to make the product. If they could not make it, the regulatory agency would have delayed the implementation date. It has always happened that way and is not likely to change in the future.
September 25, 2006 - Prices of crude oil futures have spiraled upward for months on stories of shortage of supplies in the long run. Unfortunately, over the past 100 years, the oil industry wrote contracts for produced and delivered oil priced at the current "marker crude", often a published trade in the spot market. In recent years, spot trades have been tied to the more active futures market. Thus, a shift in the futures market can immediately influence today's delivered price of crude oil under contract. The thousands of contracts out there are not likely to be modified -- especially since the current linkage produces a most lucrative situation for the current owners of crude oil production.
The problem is that the soothsayers are running out of rational information to sustain their unrealistic stories of impending shortages. Let's take a look at some facts:
Exxon, in its 2006 Annual Report says "
"ABUNDANT OIL RESOURCES EXIST
In assessing global demand for oil, we also take into account the worldwide oil resources that will supply this demand. We estimate recoverable worldwide conventional oil resources at 3.2 trillion barrels, with additional frontier resources (extra heavy oil, oil sands, oil shale) bringing this total to 4 to 5 trillion barrels. Of this amount, approximately 1 trillion barrels have been produced. These global resources will support liquids production growth through at least the 2030 time horizon, with growing contributions from OPEC countries and the Russia/Caspian region. "
Since this document was published early 2006, these reserves estimates are probably based on an average price of around $45 per barrel. From a Petroleum Engineer's perspective, the quantities could easily double, maybe triple at $60 per barrel. You can see that pricing futures just 3 to 6 months out based on supply shortfalls is based on fictitious assumptions.
What about natural gas? One of those fascinating things Petroleum Engineers know is that there are huge quantities of natural gas out there waiting to be tapped. Of course, it costs money to find and produce it -- and you have to get it to market. But prices will rise as necessary to make that happen. In the short term, there is no shortage. So, again, you can see that pricing futures just 3 to 6 months out based on a supply shortfall is really not very realistic. Even after the hurricanes of 2005, you can look back and see that no one went without natural gas. The supply system in the US is highly integrated, allowing gas supplies from a number of locations to reach almost any destination in the US. Although there is a lot of work behind the scenes to redirect flow and handle the accounting, the gas can be -- and was -- delivered.
From the Exxon Report:
"BREAKTHROUGH TECHNOLOGY UNLOCKS TIGHT GAS
Worldwide, enormous quantities of natural gas are locked up in “tight” reservoirs characterized by very low flow rates. Many of these resources have been known to industry for decades, but have been categorized as “uneconomic” due to the cost required to effectively connect the gas in the reservoir to a wellbore. ExxonMobil has developed and patented industry-leading technologies to unlock these tight gas resources. Our multi-zone stimulation technology (MZST) rapidly creates numerous fractures (cracks) in the reservoir rock so that gas can flow more easily to the wellbore. Compared to conventional approaches, MZST provides a dramatic improvement in our ability to quickly execute many high-quality fractures. In recognition of this breakthrough, MZST was awarded the Platts 2005 Global Energy Award for the Most Innovative Commercial Technology of the Year."
OPEC Forecast
September 19, 2006 -- The OPEC September quarterly report offers a very balanced analysis of the current situation in the world and US markets. Here are a couple of highlights from the summary about OPEC crude oil:
"The OPEC Reference Basket was volatile in August amid mixed developments. Pipeline outages in Russia and Alaska pushed prices to record-highs with the Basket peaking at $72.67/b on 8 August. However, easing geopolitical developments calmed market sentiment, allowing the Basket to drop below the $63 level by the end of the month. In August, the Basket averaged $68.81/b. Other factors behind the down trend were lower refinery run rates in Asia due to weaker margins, the end of the US driving season and ample winter distillate supplies ahead of winter. The Basket fell further in the first weeks of September, dropping to $59.22/b on 14 September, a loss of almost $14/b since the previous month’s peak, demonstrating yet again the degree of volatility in the market.
"The demand for OPEC crude in 2006 is expected to average 28.9 mb/d, representing a downward revision of 0.2 mb/d versus last month. In 2007, the demand for OPEC crude is expected to average 28.1 mb/d, representing a decline of 0.8 mb/d versus 2006. On a quarterly basis, the forecast shows that demand for OPEC crude is expected at 29.2 mb/d in the first, 27 mb/d in the second, 28 mb/d in the third and 28.4 mb/d in the fourth quarter."
The report is extensive and provides details about current and future US and international markets. However, I question the suggestion that the shift to ultra-low diesel in the US this October might firm up prices in the US market. My experience with these product quality shifts is that by the time refiners are required to make a new product, the major refiners have already been making the product for 6 months to a year (or longer!), so the transition is actually transparent. It's always amusing, and of course the oil companies love it, when the media and soothsayers drive up prices on the stories that the refineries won't be able to make the product. If they could not make it, the regulatory agency would have delayed the implementation date. It has always happened that way and is not likely to change in the future.