Can the Saudis really ramp up oil production

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 28 Nov 2013, 11:23

Ne pas donner a manger a...(erm)...le troll?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 28 Nov 2013, 12:02

RenewableCandy wrote:Ne pas donner a manger a...(erm)...le troll?

In an idle moment I used Google Translate to see what troll was in other languages. In lots of them it's just troll, and even looks similar in languages that don't use our alphabet. In Welsh however it's trolio.

I don't suppose any of you thought you needed to know that.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 28 Nov 2013, 12:19

The Welsh (and indeed Russian or Finnish) will depend on what you are doing with the Troll.

boisdevie · Post by **boisdevie** » 28 Nov 2013, 13:18

RenewableCandy wrote:Ne pas donner a manger a...(erm)...le troll?

Il faut pas nourir le troll - is perhaps more correct. Verb nourir - to feed. Manger - to eat.

French lesson over - all of you back to work pronto.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 28 Nov 2013, 14:05

I was after the phrase "give (smthg) to eat" like you see in zoos...which I'm sure I remember seeing in France. Vallee des Singes, iirc.

But yeah. Our troll isn't in a zoo. More's the pity

Yves75 · Post by **Yves75** » 30 Nov 2013, 09:43

Ok, won't feed him

And in French troll is just troll as well.

And the saying more "ne pas nourir les trolls"

In some forums "boulet" is used also, but not really the same meaning.

Boulet as in :

or :

Ralph · Post by **Ralph** » 01 Dec 2013, 04:37

Yves75 wrote:
Ralph wrote:I'm guessing it has to do with a static reserve/production ratio and the problem with that particular metric, but I haven't discussed that idea with him to date.
What ?

Otherwise URR is "ultimate recoverable reserves", in other words the total of what has been and "will" be extracted.

I know what URR is. Cavallo makes the point that the fits to the curves just aren't sensitive to it.

Yves75 wrote: Ugo Bardi had a post with comparisons of Laherrère past evaluations and actuals, showing a good fit, cannot find it back right now.

Ugo Bardi is an academic who tried to defend the collapse of TOD through a really bad, BAD blog post. Bad as in, poorly researched, factual errors, with zero experience in how the industry even functions. And it shows. Taking him at his word when he is ignorant of the most obvious information available to peak oil "experts" is ill advised.

Yves75 · Post by **Yves75** » 01 Dec 2013, 12:48

Ok Ralph, all is cool

By the way, Laherrère last evaluations below :
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... 655#246655

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 01 Dec 2013, 15:30

Just for balance, Ugo Bardi is a good bloke. I know who I take seriously.

SleeperService · Post by **SleeperService** » 01 Dec 2013, 17:00

In answer to the original question NO!!!! they can't!

Temporary increases in production are 'made' by building up reserves when demand declines. The extraction process cannot be started and stopped quickly or easily. Thus the surplus is stored. When demand picks up the buffer takes up the slack.

In some cases usually involving tertiary techniques stopping the extraction has led to an inability to resume production. Nowadays extraction methods are changed 'on the fly' in part to avoid this risk.

According to my industry inside source most engineers know that they are in a position of diminishing returns. If they speak up their careers are over. The ceiling for discovering new sources is finite and has been reached in several companies. The fields found are smaller, deeper and in more inaccessible areas. They are running out of places to look now.

However the cigarette/cancer link denial industry and their whores are stepping into the breach and denying anything is wrong, others are in climate change. Many seem to be 'published experts' in all three areas!

It seems that we are approaching the end of the Oil Age's Golden Era but those who make a quick buck by lying for the oil industry are preventing any discussion or action on the consequences. Without a managed decline millions will die, millions more will be reduced to subsistence and even the well off will be looking at a standard of living familiar to the Anglo-Saxons. Should be fun trying to find a job in PR when there's no long distance travel, electricity or chemical industry left....

Ralph · Post by **Ralph** » 02 Dec 2013, 05:29

biffvernon wrote:Just for balance, Ugo Bardi is a good bloke. I know who I take seriously.

Tell him to rewrite this then:

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/201 ... ncept.html

Because the second paragraph is factually inaccurate and anyone familiar with the peak oil story should be able to spot why and start giggling on the spot.

How is this for an idea? Lets have a contest…who can find the most footnotes in the science literature contradicting either the ideas, or logic, or the facts, in this particular article?

I can think of about 9, and that is before I get through the 5th paragraph.

Tell him that closing down TOD and getting as far away from it as possible is a smooth move, professionally speaking, and with luck, and time, others won't giggle when his name is mentioned as it was at a recent conference here in the States where the professionals made fun of Berman and Hughes.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 02 Dec 2013, 08:44

Ralph wrote: Because the second paragraph is factually inaccurate

Here's the 'factually inaccurate' second paragraph:

Ugo Bardi wrote:But what is happening exactly with peak oil and why so much fuss about it? The problem may be simply that the idea had too much success. Let's go back to 1998, when Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere raised up again a problem that had been first noticed by Marion King Hubbert, in 1956. Oil depletion, Campbell and Laherrere surmised, will be gradual: production will go through a symmetric “bell shaped” curve that will show a peak when, approximately, half of the available resources will have been used up. According to this study, the peak, that Campbell later dubbed “peak oil,” would have occurred around 2005.

Can't see anything wrong myself.

Right, so that's enough troll-feeding for one day.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 02 Dec 2013, 14:45

Ralph wrote:
biffvernon wrote:Just for balance, Ugo Bardi is a good bloke. I know who I take seriously.
Tell him to rewrite this then:

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/201 ... ncept.html

Because the second paragraph is factually inaccurate and anyone familiar with the peak oil story should be able to spot why and start giggling on the spot.

How is this for an idea? Lets have a contest…who can find the most footnotes in the science literature contradicting either the ideas, or logic, or the facts, in this particular article?

I can think of about 9,

sources please.

Ralph · Post by **Ralph** » 06 Dec 2013, 00:58

biffvernon wrote:
Ralph wrote: Because the second paragraph is factually inaccurate
Here's the 'factually inaccurate' second paragraph:
Ugo Bardi wrote:But what is happening exactly with peak oil and why so much fuss about it? The problem may be simply that the idea had too much success. Let's go back to 1998, when Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere raised up again a problem that had been first noticed by Marion King Hubbert, in 1956. Oil depletion, Campbell and Laherrere surmised, will be gradual: production will go through a symmetric “bell shaped” curve that will show a peak when, approximately, half of the available resources will have been used up. According to this study, the peak, that Campbell later dubbed “peak oil,” would have occurred around 2005.
Can't see anything wrong myself.

Well, obviously this website is about power switching, and not peak oil, so the level of knowledge for peak oil itself isn't required to be more than knowing in what direction to genuflect when someone says the words.

Ralph · Post by **Ralph** » 06 Dec 2013, 01:05

RenewableCandy wrote:
Ralph wrote:
biffvernon wrote:Just for balance, Ugo Bardi is a good bloke. I know who I take seriously.
Tell him to rewrite this then:

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/201 ... ncept.html

Because the second paragraph is factually inaccurate and anyone familiar with the peak oil story should be able to spot why and start giggling on the spot.

How is this for an idea? Lets have a contest…who can find the most footnotes in the science literature contradicting either the ideas, or logic, or the facts, in this particular article?

I can think of about 9,
sources please.

Sure. Lets do them one at a time. One sentence at a time, in order, we'll work through it. You pick the first mistake you can find, and I'll pick the first mistake I can find, and together we'll work our way through it.

First sentence.

"But what is happening exactly with peak oil and why so much fuss about it?"

No factual objections to this one, other than what I consider to be a misrepresentation as to the fuss. TOD went belly up not because there was fuss, but because their editors and contributors were becoming punchlines to jokes at American conferences sponsored by AAPG and SPE. During plenary sessions no less.

No references needed on this one, if only because the "fuss" comment really is more of an opinion than any fact.

So, what are your thoughts on sentence 1?