Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, I dunno what to say that hasn't been said on here already bigfish.

There appears to be some evidence for abiogenic hydrocarbons along with a lot of evidence for biogenic hydrocarbons, but from the point of view of this thread the key issue isn't the formation method, it's supply vs demand.

To make any real difference to that sort of discussion, I think the abiotic theorists need to demonstrate either the strong version of their thesis (ie that abiotic formation happens faster than projected exploitation) or that the oil industry has simply overlooked significant reserves because they're located in places where the biotic theories predict that they can't occur (e.g. in the basement rock). I'm unaware of any particularly convincing evidence to that effect despite reading the various links you've posted to this thread so far.

It's also worth bearing in mind that constraints on petroleum, natural gas etc production are just one set of constraints significantly affecting the future of the human race. They're important constraints, because oil-input agriculture is a fundamental reason why global resource use has reached levels which are probably unsustainable without a large supply of cheap oil and gas, but they are by no means the only significant constraints. There is a whole system of such constraints, also including climate change, the degradation of ecosystem services and so on. The issue here being that if the strong abiotic thesis were shown to be true, then the likelihood is that we face the more extreme climate change scenarios predicted for levels around 1000ppm of CO2.

To avoid both horns of the dilemma, we need to moderate our use of oil and gas in a controlled way, rather than having hundreds of millions die horribly.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

One key feature of the cornucopian argument is to focus on the benefits of technology revolutions without noticing their (frequently) associated costs.

Most cornucopians I come across tend to use the language of 'economics'.

By presenting their arguments (broadly) in 'economic' terms, such 'associated costs' can be viewed as 'externalities' and are therefore left off the balance sheet.

I suppose that's what drives me to want to stomp on them.

-

Bigfish - can we agree to use the term 'hydrocarbons', then?

Would that accomodate your polymorphs until we can get some data to establish whether the abiotic production (if more than a theory) has consequences that are anything other than utterly negligable?

 

[slaar]

The language of economics is the most misused of any I think, on all sides. Most people who use it don't have the first idea about the uses or limitations of economics, but talk as if their perspective was the only one. Those on the far right (free traders) are fequently more guilty of this than anyone else, although far from exclusively so.

 

[Slash]

Owen McShane is the Director of a privately funded right wing, anti-Kyoto think-tank, who's prime purpose appears to be to oppose the NZ 'Resource Management Act' on behalf of it's (nameless) sponsors.

Yes I'm quite familiar with Mr. McShane. I'm a Kiwi myself and have in the past been outraged and disappointed with his outright opposition to public transport development in NZ (it's practically non-existent), and the idealistic 'markets will save us' talk. In fact I think this is actually one of his saner articles - in another recent article he none-too-subtly tries to equate Kyoto with communism! Ah, the Red Menace - they come in handy for so many things.

 

[Good Intentions]

Yes I'm quite familiar with Mr. McShane. I'm a Kiwi myself and have in the past been outraged and disappointed with his outright opposition to public transport development in NZ (it's practically non-existent)

What? When I visited NZ I was highly impressed by how useful the bus services were, in the cities at least. Try coming over here to South Africa and see what I'm comparing it with...

 

[888]

BB: It seems odd that you don't want to address the rather serious question of whether or not Lomonosov's archaic 18th century hypothesis that petroleum somehow evolves from biological detritus is in glaring violation of the second law of thermodynamics, bearing in mind that

You keep talking about the second law of thermodynamics as if you know what you're talking about. Perhaps you'd like to explain in which temperature and pressure ranges creation of long chain alkanes from more oxidised organic material is themodynamically favourable and in which ranges it isn't, and why? I'm not convinced by one scientist in the sixties' assertion that it doesn't deserve consideration. There's a possibility of minerals in the earth's crust being involved as catalysts as well, which could explain the contradiction of a simple stat mech model, if it really does contradict the idea of oil being formed from dead plants.

 

[Dr Jon]

What? When I visited NZ I was highly impressed by how useful the bus services were, in the cities at least...

They've "done a Beeching" and shut down most of their railways though...

 

[bigfish]

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY: Oil: Never Cry Wolf--Why the Petroleum Age Is Far from over

Science Magazine
Leonardo Maugeri

Subscription required: http://www.sciencemag.org/

[...]
Before looking at the real-world situation in more depth, it is necessary to clear up some points, beginning with the distinction between "resource" and "reserve." The former indicates the overall stock of a mineral in physical terms, without any associated economic value and/or estimation of its likelihood of being extracted. In other words, there may be large quantities that can never be used because of the high cost or the impossibility of recovery, as in the case of the gold dispersed in the oceans. The concept of "reserves"--like that of "recoverable resources"--involves an economic assessment of the possibility of producing a part of the overall resources. In the oil sector, there are additional definitions--the most important being that of "proven reserves," which include only those that can be economically produced and marketed at the present time according to existing technologies and demand. Nearly all of the estimates of the world's oil URR, including those by oil doomsters, do not take into account the so-called "nonconventional oils"--such as Canadian tar-sands and Venezuelan and Russian heavy oils--even though the availability of these resources is huge and the costs of extraction falling.

Although hydrocarbon resources are irrefutably finite, no one knows just how finite. Oil is trapped in porous subsurface rocks, which makes it difficult to estimate how much oil there is and how much can be effectively extracted. Some areas are still relatively unexplored or have been poorly analyzed. Moreover, knowledge of in-ground oil resources increases dramatically as an oil reservoir is exploited.

For example, the Kern River field was discovered in California in 1899. Calculations in 1942 suggested that 54 million barrels remained. However, in 1942 "...after [43] years of depletion, 'remaining' reserves were 54 million barrels. But in the next [44] years, it produced not 54 but 736 million barrels, and it had another 970 million barrels 'remaining' in 1986. The field had not changed, but knowledge had...." (7). This is but one of hundreds of cases reported in oil-related literature that underscore the inherently dynamic nature of oil reserves. As Klett and Schmoker have recently demonstrated, from 1981 to 1996 the estimated volume of oil in 186 well-known giant fields in the world [>0.5 billion (109) barrels (Bbl) of oil, discovered before 1981] increased from 617 to 777 Bbl without new discoveries (8). Indeed, many studies have proved the phenomenon of "reserve growth"--i.e., that "additions to proven recoverable volumes are usually greater than subtractions" (8). This occurs because of four fundamental elements: technology, price, political decisions, and better knowledge of existing fields--the last of these being possible only through effective and intensive drilling.

We anticipate that this trend will continue. Consider, for example, the most recently discovered oil frontier in the world, Kazakhstan, and its major finding--the gigantic Kashagan field. Geological estimates about the general area around Kashagan (the Kazakh North Caspian Sea Shelf) have existed for decades, but they only indicated the possibility of hydrocarbon deposits. After the first advanced geological appraisal was conducted by international oil companies in the second half of the 1990s, the area was deemed to hold between 2 and 4 Bbl. In 2002, after completion of only two exploration and two appraisal wells in the Kashagan field, estimates were officially raised to 7 to 9 Bbl of producible reserves. In February 2004, after four more exploration wells in the area, they were raised again to 13 Bbl. This is only the beginning, because this area spans over 5500 sq km, and six exploration wells are a modest indicator of future potential. Moreover, there are many other oil fields yet to be explored in this area (including Kairan, Aktote, and Kalamkas), that have a geological structure similar to that of Kashagan.

Thanks to new exploration, drilling, and recovery technology, the worldwide finding and development cost per barrel of oil equivalent (boe) has dramatically declined over the last 20 years, from an average of about $21 in 1979-81 to under $6 in 1997-99 (in 2001 dollars) (9). At the same time, the recovery rate from world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today. All these factors partly explain why the life-index of world reserves (gauged as the ratio between proven oil reserves and current production) has constantly improved, passing from 20 years in 1948 to 35 years in 1972 and reaching about 40 years in 2003. Today, all major sources estimate that proven world oil reserves exceed 1 trillion (1012) barrels, while yearly consumption is about 28 billion barrels (10-13). Overall, the world retains more than 3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil resources (14).

Critics could note that new oil discoveries are only replacing one-fourth of what the world consumes every year (following a declining trend that began in the mid-1960s), and that increases in reserves largely derive from upward revisions of existing stock. However, the real issue is that neither major producing countries nor publicly traded oil companies are keen to invest money in substantial exploration campaigns. The countries richest in oil have minimized their oil investments during the last 20 years, mainly for fear of creating a permanent excess capacity such as that which provoked the crisis in 1986 (when oil prices plummeted to below $10/bbl). In fact, countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iraq (which together hold about 35% of the world's proven reserves of oil) produce petroleum only from a few old fields, although they have discovered but not developed more than 50 new fields each. Moreover, in countries closed to foreign investments, the technologies and techniques used are, in most cases, obsolete.

Nevertheless, international public oil companies have faced two sets of limits to their expansion in the last 20 years. The first is inaccessibility to foreign investment in the largest and cheapest reserves--those in the Persian Gulf. Second are the demands of financial markets, which for years have insisted that companies provide unrealistic, short-term financial returns that are inconsistent with the long-term nature of oil investments. This has compelled private operators to reject opportunities that would normally be deemed economically worthwhile. This financial pressure partly explains recent proven reserve downgrading by some oil companies, starting with the amazing cuts announced by the "supergiant" Shell Group (15).

Indeed, this Anglo-Dutch oil company has not lost its resources. This picture has nothing to do with physical scarcity of oil.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Science Magazine
Leonardo Maugeri

Subscription required: http://www.sciencemag.org/

Have you been to the dentist, BF? That article is almost a year old.

Campbell on Maugeri:

Leonardo Maugeri belongs to the camp of classical "flat-earth" economists who believe that markets and technology will always solve the problem of limited resources. But we agree on one thing: we are not about to run out of oil. What I think we face is a decline in supply, which is defined by the record of discovery.

(More here)

...another cornucopian.

 

[bigfish]

... That article is almost a year old.

I'm terribly sorry BB. Foolishly, I didn't realize there was some kind of time limit set on information. Does the fact it's almost a year old invalidate what it has to say or something? Did you post it up at the time?

Campbell on Maugeri:
(More here)

Is that the same Campbell who work[ed]s for Thyssen and Rockefeller's secretive PetroConsultants of Geneva?

 

[freke]

just in case anyone hasn't read it

The guardian's house green does a good prep piece about peak oil ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1464050,00.html

 

[bigfish]

The guardian's house green does a good prep piece about peak oil ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1464050,00.html

Here comes the Gonad to apply a thin veneer of <cough> respectability <cough> to the "Peak Oil" yarn.

They called Colin Campbell, who helped to found the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre because he is an industry man through and through, has no financial agenda and has spent most of a lifetime on the front line of oil exploration on three continents. He was chief geologist for Amoco, a vice-president of Fina, and has worked for BP, Texaco, Shell, ChevronTexaco and Exxon in a dozen different countries.

So, how come those bloodhounds down at the jolly old Gonad forgot to mention that Campbell is/was in the pay of the (Nazi backing) Thyssen (and Rockefeller) family's very secretive PetroConsultants of Geneva. Or that ODAC is funded by the British half of the extremely rich and powerful Astor family?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

..Campbell is/was in the pay of the (Nazi backing) Thyssen (and Rockefeller) family's very secretive PetroConsultants of Geneva. Or that ODAC is funded by the British half of the extremely rich and powerful Astor family?

indeed. Do tell me more...

 

[bigfish]

indeed. Do tell me more...

Indeedy deedy

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Thyssen-Bornemisza_Group

Thyssen-Bornemisza Group (TBG, Inc.) . . .

The IHS Energy Group, formerly known as Petroconsultants of Geneva, is a subsidiary of Information Handling Services Group (IHS Group), "a diversified conglomerate owned by Holland America Investment Corp., IHS Group's immediate parent company, for the Thyssen-Bornemisza Group (TBG, Inc.)." [1]

"In the 1920s George Herbert Walker and his son-in-law, Prescott Bush, had helped the Thyssen dynasty finance its acquisitions through Union Banking Corp. and Holland-American Trading Corp. (Wikipedia, 2003). Until his death [in 2002], Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, the nephew of the Nazi steel and coal magnate, was one of the world's richest men."

Oil depletion has been promoted for many years, among others, by Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere and other people who worked for the very secretive PetroConsultants, Geneva, now known as IHS Energy Group, ownership of which traces back to the Thyssen-Bornemisza Group (with likely Rockefeller influence).

http://www.john-loftus.com/Thyssen.asp

“If Union Bank was not the conduit for laundering the Rockefeller's Nazi investments back to America, then how could the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank end up owning 31% of the Thyssen group after the war? It should be noted that the Thyssen group (TBG) is now the largest industrial conglomerate in Germany, and with a net worth of more than $50 billion dollars, one of the wealthiest corporations in the world. TBG is so rich it even bought out the Krupp family, famous arms makers for Hitler, leaving the Thyssens as the undisputed champion survivors of the Third Reich. Where did the Thyssens get the start-up money to rebuild their empire with such speed after World War II?” (John Loftus, “Heir to the Holocaust”, 2003.)

The Thyssen family managed to balance its support for Hitler during World War II, through investment ties with U.S. finance capital, thanks to some highly clandestine banking arrangements. (John Loftus, ibid)

Meanwhile, alongside fossil fuel experts like Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrère, the British section of the financially powerful Astor family appears to have significant involvement in the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre (ODAC) based in Britain.

David Astor (deceased) was the original patron, Lady Sarah Astor is a co-founder and chairperson, her husband Richard is a trustee; the organization is funded by the Astor Trust. Several people from the oil industry have sat on its board, including Mr. A.M.S. Bahktiari, Senior Analyst for the National Iranian Oil Company, Mr. Matthew Simmons, investment banker and Texas oilman who used to head President Bush’s Energy Committee. It is worth noting that while it might seem that such an environmentally-minded body would oppose nuclear power, peak-oil advocate and oilman Kenneth Deffeyes, from Shell Oil Company’s research laboratory in Houston, who predicts chaos as oil runs out and alternative fuels are developed, believes that replacement energies will need to take nuclear into account. For transportation, retired oil engineer Pierre René Bauquis sees synthetic fuels playing a major role—not only those known today but also new synthetics such as carbonated hydrogen produced by the nuclear industry. (Doris Leblond: “ASPO sees conventional oil production peaking by 2010”, Oil & Gas Journal, June 30, 2003 –ASPO is the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, a U.S.-based peak oil think-tank.)

BB: let me know if need anything else wont you?

 

[bigfish]

Ooh, look, I've just discovered another trillion barrels of oil...

... in Utah!!

http://www.heraldextra.com/springvi...=article&sid=4358&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Utah sits on huge oil reserve

South County Newspapers

As a prominent advocate for encouraging unconventional energy sources, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) was asked to testify today in front of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on his efforts to develop fuel from a vast untapped domestic oil reserve in tar sandsand oil shale -- a large part of which sits in eastern Utah.

"Who would have guessed that in just Colorado and Utah, there is more recoverable oil than in the Middle East?" Hatch said. "We just don't count it among our nation's oil reserves because it is not yet being developed commercially. I find it disturbing that Utah imports oil from Canada tar sands, even though we have a larger tar sands resource within our own boundaries that remains undeveloped."

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, recoverable oil shale in the western United States -- located mainly in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming -- exceeds one trillion barrels and is the richest and most geographically concentrated oil shale and tar sands resource in the world.

I reckon this one must be worth a whopping three eek salute

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

BB: let me know if need anything else wont you?

Couple of questions:

When did Campbell start working for Petroconsultants?

When did IHS acquire Petroconsultants?

Besides that, even if Petroconsultants/IHS were funded by Herr Hitler himself, that would still not be grounds to dismiss what they are (and have been) saying.
Wernher Von Braun was a Nazi, but that didn't stop his rockets from working.

I'm not sure what exactly you are getting at with your next paragraph regarding the Astors. It's quite difficult to tell what you are attributing to Doris Leblond and which bits you are coming up with yourself, let alone the point that you are making.

We have established that the Astor's fund and run ODAC. Is the argument along the lines of 'Rich = Evil therefore ODAC = Evil therefore anything suggested by ODAC or any of it's associates = Evil and therefore must be wrong'? Cos I'd have difficulty buying that line without some sort of supporting information.

Placing the word 'oilman' infront of a persons name makes them sound a bit more sinister, though, don't you think? But is it grounds to dismiss their opinions or research?

Considering that 'oilman' Kenneth Deffeyes fled the industry for acedemia because he reckoned that his bosses wern't listening to him... So when did he last work for 'Shell Oil Company’s research laboratory in Houston'?

That was where he worked with M. King Hubbert. You know - they guy who (in 1956?) predicted US domestic production peaking around 1970 and was spot on.

Matthew Simmons is another voice I will need a little more encouragement to dismiss than simply pointing out that he's an investment banker with years of experience in the Oil and Gas field.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that ODAC are 'an environmentally-minded body'. Their stated aims are 'to engage public interest, stimulate concern and create momentum for progressive change in energy policy and planning'. Maybe the Astors worked out that they are as much dependent on energy as the rest of us. Maybe they wanted some hard numbers to go on rather than vacuous supposition.

..And finally, I feel compelled to point out that no matter how much you or I might hate the idea of it, nuclear energy provides us with around a quarter of out electrical energy TODAY.

Therefore, anyone who proports to know the slightest thing about energy would never suggest anything other than that 'replacement energies will need to take nuclear into account'. That is neither supporting or dismissing nuclear. It's just reality.

As is the fact that Leonardo Maugeri is just another cornucopian economist.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Ooh, look, I've just discovered another trillion barrels of oil... in Utah!!

http://www.heraldextra.com/springvi...=article&sid=4358&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

I reckon this one must be worth a whopping three eek salute

Tarsands.

Bigfish, if I were to tell you that the EROEI for conventional oil in, say, Saudi Arabia is around 30+, would you know what I was talking about?

If I then told you that the approximate EROEI for tarsands/oilshale is around the 1.5 mark, as it generally involves strip mining with a power shovel and a lot of energy to process, would that be worth any 'eeks' ?

...and if, as you maintatin, there is not a supply problem - with EROEI ratios like that, why the hell is anyone looking at tarsands at all???

 

[Bernie Gunther]

... in Utah!!

http://www.heraldextra.com/springvi...=article&sid=4358&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

I reckon this one must be worth a whopping three eek salute

The issue here is "yield per effort". The yield per effort of the big Middle East oil fields is high, a little effort produces a lot of usable fuel.

The yield per effort for unconventional oil, shale, tar sands, heavy oil and the like is relatively high. In the case of some unconventionals it can be negative. In almost all cases there are also very significant envionmental side effects from strip mining, chemical wastes, mine tailings, humungous water usage (and consequent pollution) and so on. The process is somewhat analogous to mining and refining ores, but on an enormous scale.

It's also worth bearing in mind that most scientific studies of peak oil take unconventional oil into account. If you look at the graphs you'll see that past the peak, there is a long low 'tailing off' effect. This is characteristic of unconventional oils, there are vast reserves and you can extract a lot of them if oil is scarce enough for it to be economic, but the amount of usable fuel you get back is much less compared to the effort put in. So relative to present and projected demand, the net result is likely to be insufficient to avoid large scale disruption to current economic forms and food production although it is likely to provide some usable fuel over a very long time period.

In other words, what's likely to happen is that millions of people in the third world starve because oil isn't available as inputs to agriculture, but the US war machine still has plenty of fuel for its fleets and planes and tanks with which to keep them in line in case they dare to get upset about starving.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

hehehe ... bb beat me to it.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Here is a useful paper from ORNL (pdf!) which doesn't use Hubbert Curves, but rather uses mainstream modelling techniques, including economic modelling of demand and price scenarios, to compare the likely outcomes given both the data sets favoured by the pessimists and those used by the oil industry optimists. It suggests that, depending on the demand scenarios, the conventional oil peak occurs somewhere around 2015 if you believe Cambell et al's 'adjusted' data (i.e. the Petroconsultants stuff) or 2040-2050 if you prefer the 'mainstream' data produced e.g. USGS, used by optimists (ignoring abiotic oil and other 'deus ex machina' solutions which assume a big scientific paradigm shift of some kind)

The authors make what seems to me a fairly convincing argument suggesting that the effort to make a transition to unconventional sources like bitumen, tar sands, shale and heavy oils is highly significant in predicting exactly what happens after conventional oil has peaked. The key thing to bear in mind here is that unconventional extraction is a very different thing to conventional extraction requiring different methods, different equipment and a great deal of economic input to get any sort of worthwhile output. The analogy here is switching to hydrogen. Yes, in principle it could be done, but you have to replace an enormous amount of existing infrastructure, so costs are huge.

There are also some interesting dynamics regarding non-OPEC vs OPEC conventional and the location of the most usable kinds of unconventional.

non-OPEC conventional almost certainly peaks well before OPEC conventional does. It may be that when non-OPEC conventional peaks, the obvious political constraints will cause unconventional developments to accelerate, incurring consequent major transition and environmental costs. According to the study cited above the peak in Non-OPEC conventional oil has either just happened (Petroconsultants data) or is due to happen sometime around 2020 (USGS and other mainstream data) The most accessible unconventional resources are in order of economic viability: Canadian oil sands, followed by Venezualan heavy oil and the various Russian unconventionals, followed by US shale oils.

Meanwhile the major OPEC conventional reserves remain the Saudi fields, followed by the Iraqi and Iranian fields. Only the Iranian fields now remain inaccessible to US corporations as a result of the long standing Executive Order banning trade with Iran. Perhaps they need some 'regime change' too?

 

[bigfish]

Couple of questions:

When did Campbell start working for Petroconsultants?

The leading trio of Jean H. Laherrere, Colin J. Campbell, and L.F. (Buz) Ivanhoe have worked for, or with, the leading firm modeling oil fields, Petroconsultants of Geneva. Since the 1950s

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Colin_J._Campbell

When did IHS acquire Petroconsultants?

In 1996, i.e. after PetroConsultants famous report. Interestingly, IHS took over a number of similar firms around this time: Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC; MAI Consultants; and Integrated Exploration and Development Services.

If you look into any of the stuff on the IHS-TBG connection you will see that IHS is involved in such things as the Saulk Institute - (Joseph) Saulk was the person who invented the poliomyelitis vaccine, and set up the Institute for advanced research in biochemistry. Through such organizations, representatives of TBG (like Rockefeller et al) are able to maintain a very close relationship with the very latest developments in science.

Besides that, even if Petroconsultants/IHS were funded by Herr Hitler himself, that would still not be grounds to dismiss what they are (and have been) saying. Wernher Von Braun was a Nazi, but that didn't stop his rockets from working.

My information is that Campbell was kicked out of PetroConsultants about a year or so ago. Does this mean that IHS no longer supports Peak Oil? Who really knows? We know very little about the inner workings of the capitalist machine. As for Werner von Braun, well that's another story - what are you trying to lure me into? Funny, that jump from IHS to the German rocket scientists who were rescued by the US after WWII. Whatever ank von Braun and his Nazi chums were up to down in Texas after WWII was neatly covered up with stories about alien UFO's visiting Roswell.

We have established that the Astor's fund and run ODAC. Is the argument along the lines of 'Rich = Evil therefore ODAC = Evil therefore anything suggested by ODAC or any of it's associates = Evil and therefore must be wrong'? Cos I'd have difficulty buying that line without some sort of supporting information.

Placing the word 'oilman' infront of a persons name makes them sound a bit more sinister, though, don't you think? But is it grounds to dismiss their opinions or research?

Hang on a minute, Mathew Simmons is a dyed in the wool Texas 'oilman' who was selected by that gang of homicidal gangster over in Washington to head up the President's Energy Committee at the beginning of his first stolen term. Now why would the Washington gangster's choose Simmon's do you reckon? Because he's a jolly good chap? Do me a favour! Simmons was also invited to sit on the ODAC board. Now why would ODAC invite Simmons with all of his connections to that filth in Washington to sit on its board to you think? No, don't tell me!

Considering that 'oilman' Kenneth Deffeyes fled the industry for acedemia because he reckoned that his bosses wern't listening to him... So when did he last work for 'Shell Oil Company’s research laboratory in Houston'?

Dunno.

Leonardo Maugeri is just another cornucopian economist.

Does placing the word 'cornucopian' after economist makes the economist sound a bit more sinister?

 

[Dr Jon]

The guardian's house green does a good prep piece about peak oil ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1464050,00.html

And now a piece by Jeremy Leggett in the Indy.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

My information is that Campbell was kicked out of PetroConsultants about a year or so ago. Does this mean that IHS no longer supports Peak Oil? Who really knows?

Any chance of sharing the source of 'your information'?

You seem to have answered your own original question - "how come those bloodhounds down at the jolly old Gonad forgot to mention that Campbell is/was in the pay of the (Nazi backing) Thyssen (and Rockefeller) family's very secretive PetroConsultants of Geneva?" - because, as you have demonstrated, it would be a misleading statement to make.

So, to clarify:

The Guardian didn't include a misleading statement in their article (well, there's a first time for everything - maybe they ran out of space? )

ODAC employ people (like Simmons) who know what they are talking about.

Is this all news to you?

Does placing the word 'cornucopian' after economist makes the economist sound a bit more sinister?

I don't know, try it if you like.

I find, however, that placing the word 'cornucopian' before economist makes it more accurate.

-

Interesting article, Dr Jon. Cheers.

 

[Dr Jon]

I was reading that Indy article. 85 million barrels a day we use - 13,356,000,000 litres. I was just trying to imagine what that looks like...

It's about 7200 olympic swimming pools.

 

[bigfish]

Interesting to note that Leggett's Independent piece coincided with the Peak Oil mobs latest conference up in Edinburgh at which Leggett spoke. Interestingly, it would seem that Nick Griffin of the BNP also attended the Scottish event. Griffin, apparently, thinks that the social, economic and political dislocation "Peak Oil" will engender will also bring a boom time for fascism.

 

[bigfish]

Griffin and the BNP 'onside' with "Peak Oil"

http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/brimstone2.php?leeId=27

Working to secure a future for British childrem


The invasion of Iraq is to secure the source of one of the world’s last major oil reserves as the spectre of 'Peak Oil' looms ever closer. Civilisations and societies are dependent upon energy to exist and progress. Our global civilisation and Western nations are totally dependent upon fossil fuel oil to survive. A reduction in the supply of oil leads to a reduction in social complexity as the energy supplies needed to sustain social complexity are no longer available. This means that when the oil runs out those societies dependent upon oil fade and die.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Interesting info, but what can one logically infer from this about peak oil?

 

[bigfish]

That is a myth?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Hmm the chain of logical inference between Nick Griffin's use of the 'oil wars' thesis to bullshit Muslims and the amount of recoverable oil in the ground is not entirely clear to me yet, could you possibly spell it out?

 

[bigfish]

Hmm the chain of logical inference between Nick Griffin's use of the 'oil wars' thesis to bullshit Muslims and the amount of recoverable oil in the ground is not entirely clear to me yet, could you possibly spell it out?

M-Y-T-H