world reserve growth - a key cache that allows PeakOil idea

[Catweazle]

I thought technology was supposed to automate the mind-numbing repetitive tasks, like reading Meemoes posts and discarding them into the mental bin containing irrelevant drivel.

I have a spam filter on my email that performs a similar function.

We were testing phpBB 3 ages ago, but it was never upgraded. That has an ignore option.

What's wrong with spam? I like it. I'll have spam spam spam spam baked beans and spam .

Beans are off

[meemoe_uk]

I've read a lot of oil history and the OPEC 'cartel' has always been a very flawed thing.

Its a bunch of countries who attempt to manage global (majority of) oil - doesn't mean they succeed. Do you have any evidence of huge untapped reserves of oil being kept by this cartel?

if so, where!!!

OPEC isn't a cartel. OPEC is controled by the cartel, it's a servant to it. The oil cartel I speak of is composed of anglo american oil majors. Namely BP and Standard Oil.
I don't have any evidence at hand to link. But it happened a number of times over the years that industry oil geologists would come to the peakoil forums and dump their insider knowledge of world oil reserves and the latest data. The outlook was always very good, plenty of oil everywhere they looked.
Last couple of years, these geologists don't show up on the forums half as much. I think as a group they've figured they're wasting their time giving anything other than doom to PeakOilers.

Hi vtsnowedin, have you seen RGR around? I wanted his take on my 1st post in this thread, but so far no luck.
Yeah the apple tree analogy works better if it's night.
Doesn't seem to be having any affect on this lot though. They all still think peak oil is now because yesteryears convention\technology for getting oil out the ground is obsolete?
That wasn't even the main point of this thread.
Did you understand my 1st post?

>Can I just check - in the title did you mean catch rather than cache??
If you understood that 'cache' and 'catch' mean pretty much the same thing, ones usually used as a noun, the other's usually used as a verb, then you might have a better chance of understanding. I don't care which ones the most correct to use.

[the mad cyclist]

Did you understand my 1st post?

RGR might be clever, but he’s not that clever.

[vtsnowedin]

[Hi vtsnowedin, have you seen RGR around?
Did you understand my 1st post?

.

No I haven't seen RGR but I wasn't looking for him.
I understand your first post. I find your optimism about the amount of oil left to be discovered unsupported by any facts.

[madibe]

Ah Smeg... another great thread. Sheesh.

[kenneal - lagger]

>Can I just check - in the title did you mean catch rather than cache??If you understood that 'cache' and 'catch' mean pretty much the same thing, ones usually used as a noun, the other's usually used as a verb, then you might have a better chance of understanding. I don't care which ones the most correct to use.

Off the top of my head, a cache (noun) is a store of something, often a secrete store; something that has been secreted away.

A catch (noun) is something a fielder does in a ball game such as cricket or rounders, hence, to catch (verb). A catch (noun) can also be a latch type arrangement for holding something closed. A catch can also be a slip up or something that stops something being true (noun) as you meant to say in the title, Meemoe. (Have to look that one up for a proper explanation.) None of these can be called a cache.

[meemoe_uk]

>I find your optimism about the amount of oil left to be discovered unsupported by any facts.
I find your skeptism about the amount of oil left to be discovered unsupported by any facts.
Try to specify at least 1 point I've been too optimistic on without facts. Else I can only guess whats up.

[Bandidoz]

>I find your optimism about the amount of oil left to be discovered unsupported by any facts.
I find your skeptism about the amount of oil left to be discovered unsupported by any facts.

This is something I always felt that was missing from "discovery trends"; the amount of effort expended in trying to discover new finds. Likewise the trends of "non-discoveries"; searches that produced no new finds.

Since no-one can provide evidence of "degree of effort trying to discover new finds" either way, this thread is complete conjecture hence rather pointless intellectual masturbation....

[happychicken]

Meemoe, if there is so much easy-to-reach oil still left on this planet why are people putting so much energy and resources into eeking out what little bits they can from sources like tar sands??

I was taught at school (about 30 years ago) that fossil fuels were formed over millions of years by the anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms. I've just checked on wikipedia and apparently it's thought it might take as long as 650,000,000 years for this process. Over the past 200 years we've gradually sucked up vast supplies of oil from around the world and new supplies are getting harder to find.

Unless you really believe that there are some undeground oil fairies magicking a faster supply of oil than that made from decomposed very old dead bodies it's pretty obvious that sooner or later we'll run out of all the useful oil. And before we run out completely it will become harder and harder, and more and more expensive to get at what's left. And that's the point I think we're at now - we're not "running out" yet, that's not what peak oil means; there's still plenty left but it's getting harder to reach.

It seems pretty obvious to me.

[the mad cyclist]

Meemoe, I’ll try again. A young couple inherit £1000000 and they think, we don’t need to work, we’ll just live off our inheritance.
At what point would the money start to run out?
When would they still have half left?

[vtsnowedin]

>I find your optimism about the amount of oil left to be discovered unsupported by any facts.
I find your skeptism about the amount of oil left to be discovered unsupported by any facts.
Try to specify at least 1 point I've been too optimistic on without facts. Else I can only guess whats up.

Just for fun check out this bit from 1966. Consider the 44 years that have passed and tell me where on the planet they haven't already looked.
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/1 ... he.oil.htm

[kenneal - lagger]

>I find your optimism about the amount of oil left to be discovered unsupported by any facts.
I find your skeptism about the amount of oil left to be discovered unsupported by any facts.
Try to specify at least 1 point I've been too optimistic on without facts. Else I can only guess whats up.

Just for fun check out this bit from 1966. Consider the 44 years that have passed and tell me where on the planet they haven't already looked.
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/1 ... he.oil.htm

The Arctic and the Antarctic.

[meemoe_uk]

Since no-one can provide evidence of "degree of effort trying to discover new finds" either way.
Answer:
Only a tiny, tiny amount of the energy from oil is required to find more oil.
Evidence : Most of of world's people and most of the world's energy isn't used by the oil industry to look for oil.

this thread is complete conjecture hence rather pointless intellectual masturbation....
This thread was spose to be about the fact :
At no time has it been economic for any group to look for and study new oil reserves when there's already 30 years worth of proven accessible reserves known to exist.

I hope the seemingly contradictory messages in these 2 paragraphs can stimulate some thinking.

>this thread is complete conjecture hence rather pointless intellectual masturbation....
'PeakOil doom begins now' is a complete conjecture, which has been going on for over 100 years and failing the whole time.

>Meemoe, if there is so much easy-to-reach oil still left on this planet why are people putting so much energy and resources into eeking out what little bits they can from sources like tar sands??
Just because by volume or mass tar sands have a lower energy return, doesn't mean it's a last resort.
The oil industry is not a free market, it's a cartel.
As long as the price of oil stays high enough for tar sands to be economical, then we'll get oil derived from tar sands. What's the threshold for tarsands? $20-$30pb?
Aside that chicken, you've got the oil basics I see. But as with all peak oilers, you're stuck in the 'now' hype. There's nothing special about now wrt to oil.

>Just for fun check out this bit from 1966. Consider the 44 years that have passed and tell me where on the planet they haven't already looked.
Under the water. Also, you don't seem to have sussed, the tech for finding oil is better than before. The whole Earth needs going over again everytime tech improves.
And I'm not convinced they did a thorough job the other times with their existing tech.
Also consider the reserves the article talks about, we should have peaked
by now. We haven't. As I say, 'peak oil is now' is a perpetual artifact of the economy, true in the 1960s as it is now. I think RGR traced 'peak oil is now' articles back as early as 1907.

[eatyourveg]

Good lord it's back.

[Bandidoz]

Since no-one can provide evidence of "degree of effort trying to discover new finds" either way.
Answer:
Only a tiny, tiny amount of the energy from oil is required to find more oil.
Evidence : Most of of world's people and most of the world's energy isn't used by the oil industry to look for oil.

That's completely irrelevant. It says nothing about how much effort has been put into the search for deposits.

this thread is complete conjecture hence rather pointless intellectual masturbation....
This thread was spose to be about the fact :
At no time has it been economic for any group to look for and study new oil reserves when there's already 30 years worth of proven accessible reserves known to exist.

You call that a fact - I call it conjecture; it defies the track record of all corporations through history. e.g. Microsoft earns enough money from operating systems; they don't really need to develop other software (e.g. browsers), but still do so. Every corporation tries its damned hardest to keep ahead of its competitors.

Even this linked article mentions "not resting on our laurels"....
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/1 ... he.oil.htm