Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

I don't have the time to research thoroughly either. In any case it's the subject for another thread, and may or may not be true.

Edit: Apparently he was granted a patent but it was later withdrawn because it didn't fit with contemporary physics theory. Which is kind of the point. Physicists have mixed views on it, brief summary here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrino_theory

In any case, my only point for posting it was that, although complacency in terms of future energy sources and pollution is ridiculous, so is the absolute negativity of the "die off" brigade. One major energy source was discovered 100 years ago (oil), nuclear fission was discovered forty years later. Who's to say a new one may not be?
 
That's not really what perpetual motion means - what is eant with the term is a machine that runs forever. What you are describing, Jangla, is just good all entropy - all the energy is still there, but it kinda wanders off uselessly...
 
I was using the term "perpetual motion science" as a sly reference to abiotic oil theories, which posit an inexaustible (and convenient) resupply of hydrocarbon from the earth's mantle. Like the 17th century theories of perpetual motion, they are a triumph of wishful thinking over rational, observable science.
 
Rich Lyon said:
I was using the term "perpetual motion science" as a sly reference to abiotic oil theories, which posit an inexaustible (and convenient) resupply of hydrocarbon from the earth's mantle. Like the 17th century theories of perpetual motion, they are a triumph of wishful thinking over rational, observable science.
Click to expand...

"Rational, observable science" - like the circa 1757 fossil fuel (sic) hypothesis you mean?

I don't suppose you can provide the forum with any hard scientific evidence clearly establishing a biological origin for petroleum, can you?
 
bigfish said:
I don't suppose you can provide the forum with any hard scientific evidence clearly establishing a biological origin for petroleum, can you?
Click to expand...
Can I refere you to the points I posted earlier in this thread:
1) The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.

2) The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).

3) The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).

3) The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).

4) Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).

5) The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory.

6) The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

7) The location of petroleum reservoirs down the hydraulic gradient from the source rocks in many cases (those which are not are in areas where there is clear evidence of post migration tectonism).

8 ) The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in igneous and metamorphic rocks (the rare exceptions discussed below).

The evidence usually cited in favour of abiogenic petroleum can all be better explained by the biogenic hypothesis e.g.:

9) Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in igneous rocks (better explained by reaction with organic rich country rocks, with which the pyrobitumens can usually be tied).

10) Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in metamorphic rocks (better explained by metamorphism of residual hydrocarbons in the protolith).

11) The very rare occurrence of small hydrocarbon accumulations in igneous or metamorphic rocks (in every case these are adjacent to organic rich sedimentary rocks to which the hydrocarbons can be tied via biomarkers).

12) The presence of undoubted mantle derived gases (such as He and some CO2) in some natural gas (there is no reason why gas accumulations must be all from one source, given that some petroleum fields are of mixed provenance it is inevitable that some mantle gas contamination of biogenic hydrocarbons will occur under some circumstances).

13) The presence of traces of hydrocarbons in deep wells in crystalline rock (these can be formed by a range of processes, including metamorphic synthesis by the fischer-tropsch reaction, or from residual organic matter as in 10).

14) Traces of hydrocarbon gases in magma volatiles (in most cases magmas ascend through sedimentary succession, any organic matter present will be thermally cracked and some will be incorporated into the volatile phase, some fischer-tropsch synthesis can also occur).

15) Traces of hydrocarbon gases at mid ocean ridges (such traces are not surprising given that the upper mantle has been contaminated with biogenic organic matter through several billion years of subduction, the answer to 14 may be applicable also).

link
Click to expand...
 
This investigation might throw up some interesting information.

Claire Durkin, Head of Energy Markets Unit at the DTI speaking at the Energy Institute conference on 2nd Nov made a very important announcement, she has been quoted as saying:
We can expect that an investigation will be announced within the next few weeks aimed at allowing a more open discussion on the arrival of “peak oil,” the point at which worldwide oil production begins to decline.

A formal government investigation into peak oil will have to consider the arguments of ASPO, Skrebowski, Simmons and even Chevron etc. I don’t believe it is possible to evaluate the available data and reach a defensible conclusion that peak oil is more than 20 years away and even such an unrealistically optimistic conclusion of 2025 demands radical action now.
Government To Launch Study On Oil Depletion
 
clv101 said:
Can I refere you to the points I posted earlier in this thread:
Click to expand...

And can I refer you to post 872 or post 728 where the claims about so called "biomarkers" pointing to a biological origin are shown to be completely false.
 
I think "shown" might be too strong a word, since you apparently didn't convince anybody. You certainly didn't convince me that the case was proven, as I made clear at the time.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
I think "shown" might be too strong a word, since you apparently didn't convince anybody. You certainly didn't convince me that the case was proven, as I made clear at the time.
Click to expand...

Well that must be because the scientific evidence presented by Kenney et al conflicts with your religious belief in the "peak oil" myth and your desire to peddle fear wherever you can.

The observations of petroleum-type porphyrins in the hydrocarbon fluids extracted from the interiors of carbonaceous meteorites destroyed, a fortiori, the claims that such molecules constitute “evidence” for a connection of petroleum with biological matter. Additionally, after the observations of porphyrins in carbonaceous meteorites, those petroleum-type porphyrins were synthesized abiologically in the laboratory under chemical and thermodynamic conditions specially set to mimic the abiotic conditions in meteorites.

The “porphyrin evidence” claims were destroyed by the investigations of carbonaceous meteorites approximately thirty years ago, and are well known throughout the community of scientists working in the field of petroleum. Every compound designated as a “biomarker,” and not otherwise identified as a contaminant, has been either observed in the fluids extracted from the interiors of meteorites, or synthesized in laboratories under conditions comparable to the crust of the Earth, - or both.

Such scientific facts, and the general knowledge of same, not withstanding, every textbook published in the English language purportedly dealing with the subject of petroleum geology, including the ones cited above, continues to repeat the old discredited claims that the presence of (abiotic) porphyrins in natural petroleum provide evidence for its origin from biological matter. Such assertions, thirty years after having been demonstrated scientifically insupportable, must be acknowledged to be intellectual fraud, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

If the scientific claims made above by Kenney et al are in fact false, then why don't you and the rest of the "peak oil" cultists demonstrate this for us?
 
Yes, but his aren't the only claims. As I pointed out the last time we had this conversation. There is plenty of evidence for the mainstream view, as anyone who has the patience to wade back through this thread will see. You seem to insist on acting as though the only scientific evidence was evidence in support of your position, which is simply not the case. You have some that might support your position, but there is rather more of it pointing the other way, as people have very frequently pointed out to you over the course of this thread.
 
Ive said before that even at my most openminded, where I am prepared to concede that I cannot be 99% sure abiotic oil is a myth, I dont see that negating the peak oil type gloomy scenarios.

It is not enough to provide evidence that abiotic oil may be valid. Large scale extraction is required. Unless abiotic oil can be used to plug the gaps from conventional oilfields declining, it wont make any difference to the energy woes we are going to encounter.

I suppose you can get round the fact that the USA peaked in the 70's by saying it way because they are ignorant about abiotic stuff, but what if Russia's output starts to decline?

According to your theories, what does the world need to do in order to harness abiotic stuff in a way that helps the energy crisis we are facing? I will call it a crisis, because even the mainstream media (who largely dont mention peak oil) use the word crisis now when it comes to oil supply.

For example do you think UK north sea production levels could ahve been maintained if they listened to you? Do you even concede that the UK oil output peaked and is declining at rather dramatic rate?
 
It should also be noted that the assumption that the world has been drilled extensively as the US had to allow Hubbard's Peak to be so clear is not true. I'm in Freetown, Sierra Leone and was talking to a petroleum geologist over the weekend; the Nigerians are about to begin drilling offshore for oil, something that has never been done here before, and given that West Africa is full of the stuff it's quite possible some will be found.
 
The majority of petroleum experts would agree that there are many more oilfields in the 'yet to find' category but there are still significant hurdles to overcome if the world's growing energy needs are to be met. For example:

1) Discovery trend has been inexorably downward since 1964; new discoveries are smaller and require more effort per bbl of production.

2) Quality of oil being discovered / produced is deteriorating - there is a definite trend towards heavier, sour crude which yields less transportation fuel per bbl of refinery feedstock.

3) Increasingly new discoveries are in more hostile regions - environmentally (deepwater, polar etc) or politically (ME / W Africa). As well as disruptions due to political instability we've recently seen major disruption due to natural events in GOM. As industry focus switches to these more challenging regions (enforced to a large extent by declines in mature oilfields in more benign regions) supply disruptions will inevitably become more common.

4) Net energy i.e. that available to industrial society after energy consumed in exploration, production, transportation and refining of crude oil will decline even if the actual amount of oil being produced can grow. This factor is simply because most of the best, easiest to reach deposits were exploited first and are now declining. In extraction industries 'no one saves the best for last'.

More details and the 'creaming curve' of historical oil discoveries can be found on the ASPO site (linked higher up this thread) and elsewhere. The key point we all need to bear in mind is that oil, while available in quantity for several decades, is going to become a lot more expensive within the lifetimes of most of us. Industrial society is totally dependent on cheap oil...and future supplies are extremely unlikely to be cheap.

Chris
 
Perhaps bigfish could share with us how his abiotic oil shows up?

- Between 1996 and 1999, the 145 public exploration and production companies spent $410bn to maintain production flat.

- The "big 5" (Exxon, Shell, BP, ChevronTexaco and Total) spent $150bn between 1999 and 2000 to grow production from 16 bn bpd to 16.6 bn bpd

- The "big 4" (i.e. excluding Total) spent $40bn in the 12 month period 2002/2003 and production fell 67mbd

Are they incompetent? Unlucky? Duplicitous? Looking in the wrong place? Even if there is such a thing as an abiotic mechanism, if all the existing reservoirs are cratering, and we're spending 100's of billions of exploration dollars just to arrest decline, where is it and what good is it?

(Has this been asked somewhere in the previous 43 pages - I confess I have not read them all. When does a thread fork in U75?)
 
Shortages mount in the oil industry

http://www.mywesttexas.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15569761&BRD=2288&PAG=461&dept_id=474107&rfi=6

According to a recent study by Wood Mackenzie, an energy consulting company based in Edinburgh, Scotland, oil companies have been finding much less crude in recent years than they are pumping out. The reserve replacement level, which peaked in 2000, has slumped in the last three years as the world's top oil companies found new reserves at the rate of just half of what they produced, the study shows.


"The reserves exist," said Andrew Latham, the vice president for upstream consulting at Wood Mackenzie, "but it's almost inconceivable that we will get full reserve replacement. There are simply not enough rigs available, not enough geologists."


One reason, he said, is that oil companies have simply not been investing enough in exploration. Those budgets, he said, have shrunk by a third since 1998.


What is not in short supply is cash. With oil prices averaging $41 a barrel in 2004 and $56 this year, oil companies have been enjoying record profits. But much of these gains have been going back to shareholders, either in terms of record high dividends or as share buybacks.


This year, the six largest oil companies are expected to buy back shares worth $40 billion, a 60 percent jump from last year, according to the John S. Herold consulting firm. They are also to pay out some $31 billion in dividends.


Only 34 percent of their cash flow, or $54 billion, is to be invested in their upstream businesses of drilling wells, building pipelines and bringing new supplies to the market.


"The concern now is that there will be a backlash against big oil companies who do not seem to be doing enough to bring new supplies and push oil prices down," said Arthur L. Smith, Herold's chief executive. "The industry basically downsized itself into trouble" [and into big profits just like ENRON bf].


Drilling rig availability, experts said, is perhaps the biggest immediate constraint. "The rig market is too tight right now; it's like a game of musical chairs," said Gary R. Flaharty, a spokesman for Baker Hughes, an oil services company.


Since the early 1980s, the number of drilling rigs in the United States has tumbled from nearly 4,700 to about 1,500 today. The rest were scrapped and never replaced.


The rig market, along with the rest of the industry, collapsed in the mid-1980s, said Dennis A. Smith, a spokesman for Nabors, the country's largest drilling company.
Click to expand...
 
Ahh but which is it, the dog wagging the tail or the tail wagging the dog?

I guess it boils down to whether you believe theres been underinvestment cos the price of 80's oil was too low, or whether perhaps the investors know there are no big finds out there to find, so why invest in a fruitless search?

And surely if its a question of investor-related issues, things should change now that the oil price is high.

Space, the final frontier, look to Mars if you want to have any chance of finding an oilfield large enough to plug the gap.

Meanwhile on Earth, Kuwait has admitted it's largest field has peaked and the extraction rate couldnt be sustained at the level they were aiming for:

http://www.ameinfo.com/71519.html
 
Saudi Arabia asks for "road map" of world oil demand

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.as...01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-224258-1&sec=Worldupdates

RIYADH (Reuters) - Oil giant Saudi Arabia asked consuming nations for a "road map" of future oil demand on Saturday in response to repeated calls for Riyadh to ramp up its production capacity and curb record prices.

Oil minister Ali al-Naimi, speaking after a day of talks between global consumer and producer nations, said his country is spending $50 billion to raise output capacity but wants a clearer picture of where the extra production is needed.

Producers are seeking "a road map for demand in consuming nations," Naimi said. "As producers we do not want to build the facilities which will not be met by demand."

His comments turn the tables on Western nations who have called for greater transparency from oil producers and higher output to rein in prices, which hit a record $70 a barrel in August. They have since fallen to about $56.

Finance ministers from France and Britain attended Saturday's talks to drive home the call from the G7 group of industrialised nations to get more oil onto the markets.

"We need to invest more in production capacity and invest more also in refining," France's Thierry Breton told reporters...

Naimi said Saudi Arabia's expansion plans, which aim to increase output capacity to 12.5 million barrels per day by 2009, will not be made conditional on a guarantee of demand.

But the kingdom, which is still haunted by the price collapses of the 1980s and 1990s, wants consumers to set out how their plans for energy conservation and the use of alternative sources would affect oil demand.

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah said his country is committed to fair prices and to providing adequate supplies but he urged consumer nations to play their part by lowering petroleum taxes and by taking a stand against oil market speculators.

MARKET "WELL SUPPLIED"

Naimi said markets are well-supplied and oil refinery bottlenecks, not crude oil shortages, were pushing up prices. He said refiners had not taken up OPEC's offer to pump all of its remaining 2 million barrels per day of spare capacity to rein in prices.

OPEC offered the extra barrels at its September meeting.
....
Naimi said Saudi plans to boost output capacity by 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) to 12.5 million bpd by 2009, and later to 15 million bpd, remain on track despite a global shortage of oil drilling equipment and manpower.

He also said he was "as confident as ever" that Saudi Arabia will be able soon to add 200 billion barrels to its existing crude reserves of 264 billion barrels.
Click to expand...
 
totaladdict said:
"In most countries, companies which extract reserves pay the country for what they take away, through royalties and taxation. Yet in Britain, the only charge oil companies pay to the government is corporation tax, which they have to pay anyway. In other words, they take away the oil for free, and go on to sell it at a healthy profit."

Er... What the fuck!?

BB, got any links or anything that explains this more... I don't get it.
Click to expand...

guardian unlimited said:
Much of today's tax on petrol originated in Norman Lamont's 1993 budget, when he increased petrol duty by 10%, and set up the "fuel duty escalator" which would increase duty by a further 3% above inflation each year. He also introduced the hugely unpopular VAT on domestic fuel.

The oil industry was quiet about these changes - perhaps because the same budget cut North Sea oil taxes. Lamont slashed petroleum revenue tax (PRT) from 75% to 50% on existing fields, and abolished it altogether for fields developed after the 1993 budget. This means new fields pay no royalties at all for oil extracted.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardiansociety/story/0,3605,376749,00.html
 
Crude Designs - The rip-off of Iraq's Oil Wealth

Crude Designs.org

Published by PLATFORM, Institute for Policy Studies, War on Want, Global Policy Forum, Oil Change International and New Economics Foundation, November 2005.

Main Iraq Page

Control of Iraq's future oil wealth is being handed to multinational oil companies through long-term contracts that will cost Iraq hundreds of billions of dollars.

Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth reveals that current Iraqi oil policy will allocate the development of at least 64% of Iraq’s reserves to foreign oil companies. Iraq has the world’s third largest oil reserves.

Figures published in the report for the first time show:

• the estimated cost to Iraq over the life of the new oil contracts is $74 to $194 billion, compared with leaving oil development in public hands. These sums represent between two and seven times the current Iraqi state budget.

• the contracts would guarantee massive profits to foreign companies, with rates of return of 42% to 162%.

The kinds of contracts that will provide these returns are known as production sharing agreements (PSAs). PSAs have been heavily promoted by the US government and oil majors and have the backing of senior figures in the Iraqi Oil Ministry. Britain has also encouraged Iraq to open its oilfields to foreign investment.

However PSAs last for 25-40 years, are usually secret and prevent governments from later altering the terms of the contract.
Click to expand...
 
Leading on from what nano was saying on this 2 years ago: apologies if I am repeating points, I haven't read all 43 pages.

Nano was arguing that the market would somehow help "stablize" oil prices, or automatically give rise to the best possible solution.

This is not necessarily true, I think.

Oil is a finite resource. It is true that as oil from the cheaper wells runs out, there will be oil from expensive wells to replace it. There isn't necessarily a smooth curve between the two however. We could be extracting lots of oil at low prices from cheap wells, and the last of them splutter out simultaneously. Why simultaneously? Because there will be no economic incentive to start production on the expensive wells until prices have risen enough to make them economic. And prices won't rise until there is no more oil coming from the cheap wells.

This I think is what people talk about when they refer to an "oil crunch". In a very short burst, oil prices could suddenly rise. Now, people talk about the "oil running out", and market-pundits, say, "no it won't run out, just get more expensive and the market will correct things." So let's rephrase it in "market" terminology. As I said, the price could rise very dramatically in a short space of time. It could rise to the point where
  1. industrial agriculture is more expensive than using horse, cow and human labour
  2. motor vehicle transport is more expensive than carrying goods and people by horse, sail and human pedal power
  3. many current industrial processes become uneconomic compared to easily adopted "more primitive" alternatives
I can't say if this will happen: and there are other alternatives of course, such as coal-based steam, and anything new we can invent, but these require major new investment, which may or may not be forthcoming depending on the competitive pressures on the oil producers.[note] After all, there is no point in investing in a new technology to such an extent that your business goes bankrupt before the new technology comes online.

However, the scenario I have just outlined, that is: a dramatic and sudden increase in oil prices, such that the standard of living currently enjoyed by the middle classes in some industrial countries collapses, is perfectly feasible, and perfectly compatible with the operation of market forces. There is of course a lite version, in which these economies continue to use oil, but the resulting stagflation makes real incomes drop dramatically. This lite version may well be more likely, but I've put forward the extreme version just to demonstrate more clearly how the basic principle works.

Nano also asked a rhetorical question, "so what is the alternative? wouldn't this happen in any other kind of society?" Yes, in a sense the problem would still be there. However, we have the option of using public funds or public oversight to ensure that the necessary investments are made: they have to be made anyway for ecological reasons. While we are ensuring this investment happens, we can consciously design how the new society will look, instead of leaving it to mass poverty and Malthus's "natural wastage" in the population to decide how it will look.

Note: Edited to add: I've said "oil producers" but this would of course apply to any capitalist business in a market economy.
 
Old style religion 'Fossil fuel' theory takes a hammering with NASA finding

A new study by NASA shows that methane on Saturn's moon Titan is not biological. The studies announced by NASA yesterday will appear in the Dec. 8 issue of the scientific journal Nature.

Titan's Mysterious Methane Comes From Inside, Not The Surface

"We have determined that Titan's methane is not of biologic origin," reports Hasso Niemann of the Goddard Space Flight Center, a principal NASA investigator responsible for the Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer aboard the Cassini-Huygens probe that landed on Titan Jan. 14.

Niemann concludes the methane "must be replenished by geologic processes on Titan, perhaps venting from a supply in the interior that could have been trapped there as the moon formed."
Click to expand...

So if Titan's methane isn't biotic what are the chances most of the Earth's methane isn't either?

I wonder what the deep-green "Peak Oil" believers make of this one. ;)
 
PrinceToad said:
Leading on from what nano was saying on this 2 years ago: apologies if I am repeating points, I haven't read all 43 pages.

Nano was arguing that the market would somehow help "stablize" oil prices, or automatically give rise to the best possible solution.

This is not necessarily true, I think.

Oil is a finite resource. It is true that as oil from the cheaper wells runs out, there will be oil from expensive wells to replace it. There isn't necessarily a smooth curve between the two however. We could be extracting lots of oil at low prices from cheap wells, and the last of them splutter out simultaneously. Why simultaneously? Because there will be no economic incentive to start production on the expensive wells until prices have risen enough to make them economic. And prices won't rise until there is no more oil coming from the cheap wells.

This I think is what people talk about when they refer to an "oil crunch". In a very short burst, oil prices could suddenly rise. Now, people talk about the "oil running out", and market-pundits, say, "no it won't run out, just get more expensive and the market will correct things." So let's rephrase it in "market" terminology. As I said, the price could rise very dramatically in a short space of time. It could rise to the point where
  1. industrial agriculture is more expensive than using horse, cow and human labour
  2. motor vehicle transport is more expensive than carrying goods and people by horse, sail and human pedal power
  3. many current industrial processes become uneconomic compared to easily adopted "more primitive" alternatives
I can't say if this will happen: and there are other alternatives of course, such as coal-based steam, and anything new we can invent, but these require major new investment, which may or may not be forthcoming depending on the competitive pressures on the oil producers.[note] After all, there is no point in investing in a new technology to such an extent that your business goes bankrupt before the new technology comes online.

However, the scenario I have just outlined, that is: a dramatic and sudden increase in oil prices, such that the standard of living currently enjoyed by the middle classes in some industrial countries collapses, is perfectly feasible, and perfectly compatible with the operation of market forces. There is of course a lite version, in which these economies continue to use oil, but the resulting stagflation makes real incomes drop dramatically. This lite version may well be more likely, but I've put forward the extreme version just to demonstrate more clearly how the basic principle works.

Nano also asked a rhetorical question, "so what is the alternative? wouldn't this happen in any other kind of society?" Yes, in a sense the problem would still be there. However, we have the option of using public funds or public oversight to ensure that the necessary investments are made: they have to be made anyway for ecological reasons. While we are ensuring this investment happens, we can consciously design how the new society will look, instead of leaving it to mass poverty and Malthus's "natural wastage" in the population to decide how it will look.

Note: Edited to add: I've said "oil producers" but this would of course apply to any capitalist business in a market economy.
Click to expand...
I think that preventing effective action here is a refusal to recognise the nature of the underlying problem. Our global economy is based, as far as I can see, on the premise of year on year growth. Implicit in any really effective attempt to mitigate the situation you're describing above, and several parallel ones with regard to e.g. soil erosion, climate change and so on, is transition to a steady state economy, based on finding a sustainable equilibrium point.

I don't think the coalition of multinationals and neo-liberal politicians who are running the show right now are able, to even acknowledge this clearly. So it's extremely unlikely that they'll act to mitigate it of their own accord.
 
Kuwaiti Reserve Reverse

I've written up the news that Kuwait's oil reserves could be much lower than officially stated. This has huge ramifications for the whole of OPEC and therefore the world. I can't beleive the number one news story today is the whale in London. :eek:

Kuwaiti Reserve Reverse
 
Interesting. That's what Campbell and co have been saying about the dodgy looking 80's revisions of stated reserves for quite a while now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kebabking
  • Poll
US 2028 election?
2
Replies
54
Views
1K
tim
tim
hash tag
War is a crime?
2
Replies
53
Views
2K
A380
A380
Flavour
  • Poll
Who will win the 2024 US election?
50 51 52 53 54
Replies
2K
Views
47K
bcuster
bcuster
N
Can US Supreme Court be reformed next time Democrats are in power?
Replies
8
Views
298
Yossarian
Yossarian
Cloo
  • Poll
What was behind Trump shooting? make your bets now
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
164
Views
6K
Nylock
Nylock
Back
Top Bottom