"Wolf"
Oh don't be daft it's not a wolf!
"Wolf - they are known in the area you know"
Oh don't be daft it's not a wolf!
"Wolf - no really I thought I caught a glimpse."
Oh don't be daft it's not a wolf!
"Wolf - well, it looks very like one.... smells a bit like one too"
Oh don't be daft it's not a wolf!
"Wolf - to be sure it walks like a wolf as well. "
Oh don't be daft it's not a wolf!
"WOLF! I saw it! It was sniffing round and looked hungry. Didn't you see it?"
Oh don't be daft it's not a wolf!
And on and on..... and the routine of always repeating:
Oh don't be daft it's not a wolf!
Continues until, one day, the wolf is at the door.
And then those that had thought about the implications of the wolf, and had sorted out various alternative strategies for when the wolf arrived, coped.
But:
Oh don't be daft it's not a ........ *!^"$*>&* THE END
world reserve growth - a key cache that allows PeakOil idea
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
the mad cyclist
- Posts: 404
- Joined: 12 Jul 2010, 16:06
- Location: Yorkshire
Meemoe, I’m going to try and help you.
In the past I’ve been on business-training courses. Most of what I had to endure was just plain common sense and I considered them to be one big waist of time. Perhaps on reflection they weren’t, sometimes we need to be reminded of the obvious. There was a lot of talk about how James Bond would behave, but it was mostly how to put your argument across and influence people. Your first two sentences, could have be used as a training aid. Did you think starting your post with Right then would get everybody on your side? While most of you are still struggling with the idea of bluffs in the big market and the media. You now go on to say how extremely thick we are for not falling for your sales pitch, hook, line and sinker. I could go on, but I’m sure you’re getting the picture.
Do you now understand why you got such hostile responses?
Are you trying to copy RGR writing style? RGR has a problem keeping his sarcasm under control. sarcasm maybe the lowest form of wit, but its still wit.
In the past I’ve been on business-training courses. Most of what I had to endure was just plain common sense and I considered them to be one big waist of time. Perhaps on reflection they weren’t, sometimes we need to be reminded of the obvious. There was a lot of talk about how James Bond would behave, but it was mostly how to put your argument across and influence people. Your first two sentences, could have be used as a training aid. Did you think starting your post with Right then would get everybody on your side? While most of you are still struggling with the idea of bluffs in the big market and the media. You now go on to say how extremely thick we are for not falling for your sales pitch, hook, line and sinker. I could go on, but I’m sure you’re getting the picture.
Do you now understand why you got such hostile responses?
Are you trying to copy RGR writing style? RGR has a problem keeping his sarcasm under control. sarcasm maybe the lowest form of wit, but its still wit.
Let nobody suppose that simple, inexpensive arrangements are faulty because primitive. If constructed correctly and in line with natural laws they are not only right, but preferable to fancy complicated devices.
Rolfe Cobleigh
Rolfe Cobleigh
-
vtsnowedin
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
The last time I checked Prudhoe bay was in the Arctic so that's been explored. The Antarctic might have some potential after you break a few treaties but building a pipeline over to South America will blow your budget. Anywhere else promising?kenneal wrote:The Arctic and the Antarctic.vtsnowedin wrote: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.meemoe_uk wrote:>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.
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/1 ... he.oil.htm
-
ziggy12345
- Posts: 1235
- Joined: 28 Nov 2008, 10:49
-
meemoe_uk
I disagree. I think it says a lot, and is entirely relavent.>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.
2ndly, 'degree of effort' isn't a clearly defined term. You mean amount of energy required to find a barrel of oil? Or the amount of sweat the average man produces per hour when looking for oil?
But I think your asking the right questions. If you really want to know, you'll get insider periodicals and knowledge, rather than asking a layman.
>You call that a fact - I call it conjecture; it defies the track record of all corporations through history.
That's a rather over generalised statement if I ever saw one. I'm calling your bluff. Give me the evidence that any one oil company keeps looking to prove reserves after 30 years worth have been found.
Take care to distinguish between proven and lower grades of certainty.
> 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.
Strikes me you aren't distinguishing between proven and lower grades of certainty. There is speculative oil all over the world. Most of it is likely economic, but not proven. For an oil company to keep ahead when there's a proven 30 year bonanza of oil, it make no sense to spend most of your cash looking for new oil elsewhere.
If you were staving hungry, and there was a proven 30 year supply of food under your nose, would it make sense to walk off looking for more food while your competitors rushed in and grabed all your food?
I can't make it clearer than that. That is the analougous situation of the middle east oil today.
You can't have it both ways
Peakers are usually skeptical about anything other than proven reserves.
Now, just when it suits you, all prospective oil around the world is counted as studied enough to be proven.
Well if your logic holds true, we should have peaked at least 15 years ago according to vtsedinows 1960s article. Because all the worlds prospective oil was counted as proven ( to suit you in this arguement), there was no more to be found, and there was no reserve growth, and the article says there was more than 30 ( but not 40) years supply left at the 1960s consumption rate.
Considering that peakoil hasn't happened in the 100 years it spose to have been 'now', I think it's safe to say your rational is flawed.
Keela, that's a fine wolf story. And the moral is - look for another way of detecting the wolf other than listening to the boy who crys wolf every day. i.e. look beyound the peakoil ''peakoil is now' every day for the last 100 years' gang for your oil info.
>You now go on to say how extremely thick we are for not falling for your sales pitch, hook, line and sinker. I could go on, but I’m sure you’re getting the picture.
It's not that that makes anyone thick. It's the 3 pages of 1 liner wisecracks, without anyone digesting a thing that had been written. It's s'pose to be a debate forum isn't it?
"Degree of effort" meaning how much area of the world's surface being explored, as opposed to energy expended, i.e. where (and how well) are they looking for it? Again, this is something I would have liked to see in ASPO newsletters.
Also:
We've already established no-one here has the data to prove this either way - but a company resting on its laurels is not normal behaviour. I guess I could ask some companies which are making a handsome profit how much they spend on R&D and marketing in order to secure new business....meemoe_uk wrote:Give me the evidence that any one oil company keeps looking to prove reserves after 30 years worth have been found.
Also:
meemoe_uk wrote:it make no sense to spend most of your cash looking for new oil elsewhere.
Now there's a contradiction if I ever saw one....meemoe_uk wrote:Only a tiny, tiny amount of the energy from oil is required to find more oil.
Corporations do not behave in the same manner as people; humans can't eat more than a certain amount of food. Corporations can grow exponentially. A company's expansion into new territory is not going to relinquish its existing assets; that's just absurd.meemoe_uk wrote:If you were staving hungry, and there was a proven 30 year supply of food under your nose, would it make sense to walk off looking for more food while your competitors rushed in and grabed all your food?
Erm, where exactly did I say that?meemoe_uk wrote:Now, just when it suits you, all prospective oil around the world is counted as studied enough to be proven.
Wrong - that article did not say there was no more to be found. In any case, I quoted the article only to make the point that companies do not rest on their laurels (which appears to be the fundamental rationale of your argument).meemoe_uk wrote:Well if your logic holds true, we should have peaked at least 15 years ago according to vtsedinows 1960s article. Because all the worlds prospective oil was counted as proven ( to suit you in this arguement), there was no more to be found, and there was no reserve growth, and the article says there was more than 30 ( but not 40) years supply left at the 1960s consumption rate.
Olduvai Theory (Updated) (Reviewed)
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
-
meemoe_uk
>"Degree of effort" meaning how much area of the world's surface being explored, as opposed to energy expended, i.e. where (and how well) are they looking for it?
Thanks , i couldn't have worked that out from 'degree of effort'. Ask RGR, he knows.
>We've already established no-one has the data to prove this either way - but a company resting on its laurels is not normal behaviour.
I don't dispute the laurels, I think you're being obtuse because you know I'm right.
meemoe_uk wrote:
it make no sense to spend most of your cash looking for new oil elsewhere.
Only a tiny, tiny amount of the energy from oil is required to find more oil.
>Now there's a contradiction if I ever saw one....
Yes but it's nothing to do with me or my position. Money is in shorter supply than oil. Our economy is bent. Reconsider what I wrote, this time without giving up when you spot this apparent contradiction.
Familys can grow exponentially. Use that analogy.
The company doesn't have the assets to begin with. If it chooses to spend it's cash on prospecting for more oil instead of bidding for agreements to extract the oil when the rest of the market is set to exploit proven reserves it's going to lose.
>Now, just when it suits you, all prospective oil around the world is counted as studied enough to be proven.
>Erm, where exactly did I say that?
You implied it when you oppose my starting statement
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 dismissed this as a fanciful conjecture, so you imply the opposite is true.
SOMEtimes it has been economic for some group to look for and study new oil reserves when there's already 30 years worth of proven accessible reserves known to exist.
Well if this statement has any weight to it, then these groups must have racked up world proven reserves far beyound 30 years. Like microsoft it'd be daft to sit on 40,50 or 60 years worth when your competitors are going for 70,80,90 years.
I want you evidence these proven reserves. You say you can't. I'm not suprised. Later in this thread we'll move onto IEA\EIA data on the history of proven estimates. I'm pretty sure there's no IEA\EIA data which estimated much more than 30 years worth of proven, even though by your logic there should be times when it was much much higher as all oil companys compete to prove the maximum possible of their share of world reserves. Also to show it theirs, oil companys should have bought bits of land here there and everywhere. Because implicit in your logic, when they've proven the oil is extractable is some place in the world, oil companys would then have to buy rights to extract it off the land owner.
Good luck to these companys shelling out cash to land owners to begin producing oil 60 years in the future! And in such an unstable world. No substancial risk according to you.
I think the EIA data is going to show your idea of massive proven reserves some time in the past as false. The EIA proven reserves will be at most around the 20-30 year range for all times in the past. And then hopefully you'll see, the reserve growth rulez aspect of the economy, and that now is nothing special in terms of proven reserves 'getting right down to only around 20 years' left. It's always been this way.
>Even this linked article mentions "not resting on our laurels"[/i]
Your the only person I know who thinks competing in a fierce oil market for the bonanza in the middle east is akin to 'resting on laurels.'
I think it's ridiculous.
Thanks , i couldn't have worked that out from 'degree of effort'. Ask RGR, he knows.
>We've already established no-one has the data to prove this either way - but a company resting on its laurels is not normal behaviour.
I don't dispute the laurels, I think you're being obtuse because you know I'm right.
meemoe_uk wrote:
it make no sense to spend most of your cash looking for new oil elsewhere.
Only a tiny, tiny amount of the energy from oil is required to find more oil.
>Now there's a contradiction if I ever saw one....
Yes but it's nothing to do with me or my position. Money is in shorter supply than oil. Our economy is bent. Reconsider what I wrote, this time without giving up when you spot this apparent contradiction.
Humans can stash food. Use that analogy.>Corporations do not behave in the same manner as people; humans can't eat more than a certain amount of food. Corporations can grow exponentially. A company's expansion into new territory is not going to relinquish its existing assets; that's just absurd.
Familys can grow exponentially. Use that analogy.
The company doesn't have the assets to begin with. If it chooses to spend it's cash on prospecting for more oil instead of bidding for agreements to extract the oil when the rest of the market is set to exploit proven reserves it's going to lose.
>Now, just when it suits you, all prospective oil around the world is counted as studied enough to be proven.
>Erm, where exactly did I say that?
You implied it when you oppose my starting statement
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 dismissed this as a fanciful conjecture, so you imply the opposite is true.
SOMEtimes it has been economic for some group to look for and study new oil reserves when there's already 30 years worth of proven accessible reserves known to exist.
Well if this statement has any weight to it, then these groups must have racked up world proven reserves far beyound 30 years. Like microsoft it'd be daft to sit on 40,50 or 60 years worth when your competitors are going for 70,80,90 years.
I want you evidence these proven reserves. You say you can't. I'm not suprised. Later in this thread we'll move onto IEA\EIA data on the history of proven estimates. I'm pretty sure there's no IEA\EIA data which estimated much more than 30 years worth of proven, even though by your logic there should be times when it was much much higher as all oil companys compete to prove the maximum possible of their share of world reserves. Also to show it theirs, oil companys should have bought bits of land here there and everywhere. Because implicit in your logic, when they've proven the oil is extractable is some place in the world, oil companys would then have to buy rights to extract it off the land owner.
Good luck to these companys shelling out cash to land owners to begin producing oil 60 years in the future! And in such an unstable world. No substancial risk according to you.
I think the EIA data is going to show your idea of massive proven reserves some time in the past as false. The EIA proven reserves will be at most around the 20-30 year range for all times in the past. And then hopefully you'll see, the reserve growth rulez aspect of the economy, and that now is nothing special in terms of proven reserves 'getting right down to only around 20 years' left. It's always been this way.
>Even this linked article mentions "not resting on our laurels"[/i]
Your the only person I know who thinks competing in a fierce oil market for the bonanza in the middle east is akin to 'resting on laurels.'
I think it's ridiculous.
Last edited by meemoe_uk on 03 Feb 2011, 01:50, edited 3 times in total.
Grow up.meemoe_uk wrote:I don't dispute the laurels, I think you're being obtuse because you know I'm right.
I never said such a thing. You're confusing effort with results.meemoe_uk wrote:I think the EIA data is going to show your idea of massive proven reserves some time in the past as false
Not at all. All I'm suggesting is that they didn't stop looking. The fact that they may not have found reserves when looking for them doesn't imply they weren't looking.meemoe_uk wrote:Well if this statement has any weight to it, then these groups must have racked up world proven reserves far beyound 30 years.
That's a pointless assertion to make. Once a company starts turning over profit, it seeks to expand.meemoe_uk wrote:The company doesn't have the assets to begin with.
That's just your argument in a different form. There is a lot of competition for rights in the Arctic these days, no? Not going to be in production any time soon, no?meemoe_uk wrote:Good luck to these companys shelling out cash to land owners to begin producing oil 60 years in the future!
If you think that from what I've said in this thread, then you really need to undertake a course in English Comprehension. Because everything I've said in this thread is to stipulate that no company is going to rest on its laurels....meemoe_uk wrote:Your the only person I know who thinks competing in a fierce oil market for the bonanza in the middle east is akin to 'resting on laurels.'
Olduvai Theory (Updated) (Reviewed)
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
-
meemoe_uk
>Grow up
Ditto to you.
>Not at all. All I'm suggesting is that they didn't stop looking. The fact that they may not have found reserves when looking for them doesn't imply they weren't looking.
Well then you agree with me. The oil was there, but they didn't find it, because they didn't look hard enough, why? because it wasn't economical at the time to look that hard.
>There is a lot of competition for rights in the Arctic these days, no? Not going to be in production any time soon, no?
The arctic dispute is about tommorows oil supply, not that of 40 years in the future. Russia would begin setting up rigs in the arctic oil right now if the anglo-americans would let them. But BP and Standard don't want Russia to build a offshore industrial and knowledge base to compete with their own.
>If you think that from what I've said in this thread, then you really need to undertake a course in English Comprehension
Ditto to you.
Ditto to you.
>Not at all. All I'm suggesting is that they didn't stop looking. The fact that they may not have found reserves when looking for them doesn't imply they weren't looking.
Well then you agree with me. The oil was there, but they didn't find it, because they didn't look hard enough, why? because it wasn't economical at the time to look that hard.
>There is a lot of competition for rights in the Arctic these days, no? Not going to be in production any time soon, no?
The arctic dispute is about tommorows oil supply, not that of 40 years in the future. Russia would begin setting up rigs in the arctic oil right now if the anglo-americans would let them. But BP and Standard don't want Russia to build a offshore industrial and knowledge base to compete with their own.
>If you think that from what I've said in this thread, then you really need to undertake a course in English Comprehension
Ditto to you.
Sorry but that's just ridiculous....meemoe_uk wrote:The oil was there, but they didn't find it, because they didn't look hard enough, why? because it wasn't economical at the time to look that hard.
Olduvai Theory (Updated) (Reviewed)
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
-
meemoe_uk
-
kenneal - lagger
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14290
- Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
- Location: Newbury, Berkshire
- Contact:
-
kenneal - lagger
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14290
- Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
- Location: Newbury, Berkshire
- Contact:
Meemoe, have you ever given a thought to the fact that they didn't find anything because it wasn't there to be found? You can only find what is there.meemoe_uk wrote:>Not at all. All I'm suggesting is that they didn't stop looking. The fact that they may not have found reserves when looking for them doesn't imply they weren't looking.
Go on then, why didn't they find the provable reserves they were looking for if money wasn't holding them back?
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
-
vtsnowedin
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
All true enough but all of that is just increasing the percentage of oil in place that is recovered. Not finding any new oil at all. Technology has improved both our ability to find oil and increased the rate of recovery but no matter how much technology you apply or how much effort we put into a search you can not find more then 100 percent of the oil that was trapped in the ground to begin with or reach a recovery rate higher then 100 percent. In fact we will give up looking for it and trying new ways to recover oil at higher rates long before we reach 100% of either figure.ziggy12345 wrote:Deeper water and deeper in the ground. Horizontal drilling techniques and hydralic fracturing can make previos uneconomic fields viable along with managed pressure drilling and underbalanced drilling.
Cheers
Meemoe"s argument is that every time we tried harder to find oil we have found more oil therefore if we try yet again even harder we will find yet more oil. It is false logic.
It would compare to having a case full of ammunition loaded by a faulty process where only two out of ten had powder in them and the rest were duds. Every time you pull out a sample and test fire them you find some that fire and a lot that will not. The bigger the sample you take the more good ones you find. Meemoe assumes that he can keep going to the box and find ammo that will fire and the more he takes the more good ones he will find. All well and good until he gets to the bottom of the box.
-
meemoe_uk
>Meemoe, have you ever given a thought to the fact that they didn't find anything because it wasn't there to be found? You can only find what is there.
Yes,and if that was the case we would have peaked back around 1910. Or if that 1960s article is taken as true, around 1995.
World reserve growth has defied the idea that peak oil is now for the last 100 years.
As RGR stressed, current all time cumulative consumption is higher than total proven reserves of most of history. So some where, some time, some more proven reserves must have been found.
I say because it's never economic to look beyound 30 years worth of proven.
Badidoz says not, but won't give an alternative reason for these extra reserves appearing. I can only guess.
What the heck, it doesn't really matter why. What matters is that it happened. We've consumed more oil than there was proven reserves, repeatedly, therefore the principle rational of peakoilers - 'there are only 20-30 years of proven left! panic! ' is likely wrong.
Yes,and if that was the case we would have peaked back around 1910. Or if that 1960s article is taken as true, around 1995.
World reserve growth has defied the idea that peak oil is now for the last 100 years.
As RGR stressed, current all time cumulative consumption is higher than total proven reserves of most of history. So some where, some time, some more proven reserves must have been found.
I say because it's never economic to look beyound 30 years worth of proven.
Badidoz says not, but won't give an alternative reason for these extra reserves appearing. I can only guess.
What the heck, it doesn't really matter why. What matters is that it happened. We've consumed more oil than there was proven reserves, repeatedly, therefore the principle rational of peakoilers - 'there are only 20-30 years of proven left! panic! ' is likely wrong.