PowerSwitch

there's a talk by the Chief Scientist at BP Steve Koonin at

http://www.globalwarmingsb.org/presentations.html

which might be worth a listen in view of the upcoming presentation by BP at the Parliamentay group. On the supply side, he quotes R/P statistics and says there are "plenty of hydrocarbons in the ground" to be dug up. The guy who introduces him makes comments hinting at PO but Koonin brushes them off saying there's no problem with supply. He says that global warming is a big problem and that carbon sequestration and nuclear have to be part of the solution.

Talks by Jim Hansen and Bill McKibben can also be accessed from the link above.

dudley wrote:there's a talk by the Chief Scientist at BP ... The guy who introduces him makes comments hinting at PO but Koonin brushes them off saying there's no problem with supply. He says that global warming is a big problem and that carbon sequestration and nuclear have to be part of the solution.

Didn't the last BP-person to say that get ignominiously sacked? Or am I gettting him confused with somebody else?

If the man for BP thinks global warming is a big problem and given that most carbon pumped out of the ground as oil will end up as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, does it follow that BP would support supply-side production caps below what is geologically possible?

clv101 wrote:If the man for BP thinks global warming is a big problem and given that most carbon pumped out of the ground as oil will end up as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, does it follow that BP would support supply-side production caps below what is geologically possible?

I don't think so. He is a physicist who seems to think technological fixes implemented by markets or govenment policy are the only feasible solutions. He says he is "somewhat cynical" about demand destruction, because it will only happen only by economic downturns or by policy, either of which will result in the government at the time being thrown out.
I think his focus on technological fixes blinds him to the possiblity of a peak. For example he says we can imrove percent of oil extracted. To me it's obvious a peak has to happen; oil can't be pumped out of the ground at an increasing or even uniform rate indefinitely. He seems to think (or hope) that another technological fix can always be found.

He concedes that most carbon dioxide released in our time will stay in the atmosphere and remain there for 1000 years and that we have to keep carbon dioxide levels below 550ppm or so. He seems to think sequestration has to be the solution, though there's sequestration hasn't been shown workable. He talks about a sequestration project in Carson, California.

Carson, California

Kind of ironic

(ok so it was a different kind of pollution but even so...)

dudley wrote:but Koonin brushes them off saying there's no problem with supply

Maybe he should talk to Exxon-Mobil, they released a statement (Sep 2006, i think), in which they said, and i quote.

We expect severe shortages between 2008-2012