Very good news indeed - apart from Obama's green silliness.But since 2005 America truly has been in the midst of a revolution in oil and natural gas, which is the nation's fastest-growing manufacturing sector. No one is more responsible for that resurgence than Mr. Hamm. He was the original discoverer of the gigantic and prolific Bakken oil fields of Montana and North Dakota that have already helped move the U.S. into third place among world oil producers.
How much oil does Bakken have? The official estimate of the U.S. Geological Survey a few years ago was between four and five billion barrels. Mr. Hamm disagrees: "No way. We estimate that the entire field, fully developed, in Bakken is 24 billion barrels."
If he's right, that'll double America's proven oil reserves. "Bakken is almost twice as big as the oil reserve in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska," he continues. According to Department of Energy data, North Dakota is on pace to surpass California in oil production in the next few years. Mr. Hamm explains over lunch in Washington, D.C., that the more his company drills, the more oil it finds. Continental Resources has seen its "proved reserves" of oil and natural gas (mostly in North Dakota) skyrocket to 421 million barrels this summer from 118 million barrels in 2006.
Cancel Peak Oil
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
An Inspector Calls
Cancel Peak Oil
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... bs=article
-
An Inspector Calls
I agree that Hamm's position seems optimistic. But in the current climate of contrived pessimism that's probably the best way to make such announcements. I was waiting for a response that the Bakken finds are quite small in comparison to US consumption - about 4 years' worth, but it hasn't appeared. However, his general point that US domestic exploration for oil has languished during the period of Middle East glut seems valid.
As for censorship on these threads, if that's their only way of winning the argument' we can't stop them. But meanwhile, rather like the climate change scam, I'd like to find out more about the peak-oil 'crisis' based on quantative information rather than dogma. At the moment, every way you turn, fossil fuels seem to be being discovered everywhere.
As for censorship on these threads, if that's their only way of winning the argument' we can't stop them. But meanwhile, rather like the climate change scam, I'd like to find out more about the peak-oil 'crisis' based on quantative information rather than dogma. At the moment, every way you turn, fossil fuels seem to be being discovered everywhere.
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13497
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
Now you see if you were just being a denialist about one of these things, maybe people might take you more seriously. But the moment you type/utter the words "climate change scam" most well-informed persons will simply assume you are a fool and stop listening. And it is no surprise that many of the same people who think climate change is "a scam" are also in denial (or deliberately lying) about peak oil. It's quite simple what is happening - they have pre-decided what their conclusion is going to be (anything which threatens BAU is to be dismissed as nonsense) and they will not back down, ever.An Inspector Calls wrote: As for censorship on these threads, if that's their only way of winning the argument' we can't stop them. But meanwhile, rather like the climate change scam...
The fact that we tolerate your nonsense on here is clear evidence that we are do not censor. RGR is restricted to this part of the forum because he was consistently trolling the rest of it.
Last edited by UndercoverElephant on 03 Oct 2011, 13:43, edited 1 time in total.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
I think PowerSwitch is one of the most lightly moderated forums on the subject. Seems strange to level accusations of censorship here, when this is one of the few forums not to have banned RGR outright.UndercoverElephant wrote:The fact that we tolerate your nonsense on here is clear evidence that we are do not censor.
-
biffvernon
- Posts: 18538
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Lincolnshire
- Contact:
-
An Inspector Calls
-
An Inspector Calls
RGR: have you removed a long period of your posts prior to 18th August 2011, or have they been removed by others, that is, censored?UndercoverElephant wrote:The fact that we tolerate your nonsense on here is clear evidence that we are do not censor [sic]. RGR is restricted to this part of the forum because he was consistently trolling the rest of it.
The UKERC report included a 46 page technical paper on reserve growth, stating in its 2nd sentence: "Reserve growth has contributed significantly more to reserve additions than new discoveries over the past decade and is expected to continue to do so in the future."RGR wrote:Their goal does not extend beyond constructing as many fallacious arguments that they can to disguise the facts you are looking for. Reserve growth being just one such example, censoring discovery profile information and redefining what oil is, two others.
Is this a fallacious argument?
I haven't really been following this closely, personally I wouldn't ban people unless they kept making personal attacks, swearing at people all the time or spamming that sort of thing .
Ive been banned years ago on a Islamic site, I think for questioning that Mohamed was a prophet, I think I did that in a polite way using Islamic scripture and reason but it must have riled them .
Anyway thats my thoughts on the matter
Ive been banned years ago on a Islamic site, I think for questioning that Mohamed was a prophet, I think I did that in a polite way using Islamic scripture and reason but it must have riled them .
Anyway thats my thoughts on the matter
"What causes more suffering in the world than the stupidity of the compassionate?"Friedrich Nietzsche
optimism is cowardice oswald spengler
optimism is cowardice oswald spengler
-
RGR
-
RGR
Urm... the peak oil "church" is the new and different idea isn't it? Compared to the conventional wisdom, compared to how the IEA and EIA generate future supply scenarios, compared to how the UN's IPCC generate CO2 emission scenarios etc? It is the peak oil idea that's been routinely eliminated from discussion.RGR wrote:Tell me Chris, have you ever seen anywhere in the sciences the idea that it is best to make certain that those who have a new or different idea, or are pretty good at defending old ones, are the people you need to make sure get eliminated from participating as soon as possible? Sound like science to you? Or more like what a church does to heretics?
Your voice is the conventional mainstream.
It clearly isn't a question of who's right. Backdating is just another interpretation of the same data - Colin is perfectly clear about what and why he's presented data in that way. Colin wouldn't disagree with the UKERC report on reserve growth.RGR wrote:So which peakers are right? Colin Campbell backdating reserves to hide reserve growth, or the quote listed above which is worthy of banning on every nearly every website I have ever participated on?
If you've been banned for saying similar to what I quoted above, I expect it's the way you tell 'em, rather than the content of your message.
-
An Inspector Calls
The church/religion concept is hardly new: the climate change brigade have been frequently compared to religous nuts, rather in the way sceptics have been labelled deniers.
I'm not sure, at all, how the IEA and EIA generate future supply scenarios with any view to a meaningful determination of the date of peak oil. The input data into their calculations seems very incomplete and inaccurate. That, of itself, is perhaps scary because it doesn't give us a deadline, a 'target' date for any planning we may make to move to other forms of energy (and there are plenty, and they're vast). But I think it's just human nature to do just sufficient, and perhaps a little more, to get by. So who's going to go out there and make the accurate determination of future oil supplies? And who's going to pay for them to do the work?
And since that seems to be the way Peak Oil has played out over more than a century of oil exploration and consumption, I'd say history is on the side of it continuing to behave in this way for the foreseeable future.
As for the IPCC and CO2 emission scenarios, I think they just pluck the numbers from the air, so to speak. As one climate scientist has recently quipped:
I'm not sure, at all, how the IEA and EIA generate future supply scenarios with any view to a meaningful determination of the date of peak oil. The input data into their calculations seems very incomplete and inaccurate. That, of itself, is perhaps scary because it doesn't give us a deadline, a 'target' date for any planning we may make to move to other forms of energy (and there are plenty, and they're vast). But I think it's just human nature to do just sufficient, and perhaps a little more, to get by. So who's going to go out there and make the accurate determination of future oil supplies? And who's going to pay for them to do the work?
And since that seems to be the way Peak Oil has played out over more than a century of oil exploration and consumption, I'd say history is on the side of it continuing to behave in this way for the foreseeable future.
As for the IPCC and CO2 emission scenarios, I think they just pluck the numbers from the air, so to speak. As one climate scientist has recently quipped:
Knowledgeable scientists, including the more than 30,000 such as myself who have signed the Oregon Petition, know that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide do not correlate with human emission of carbon dioxide, that human emission is a trivial fraction of sources and sinks of carbon dioxide, that the oceans contain about 50 times more dissolved carbon dioxide than is present in the atmosphere, that recycling of carbon dioxide from the tropical oceans where it is emitted to the arctic oceans where it is absorbed is orders of magnitude more significant than human emissions, and that the carbonate-bicarbonate buffer in the oceans makes their acidity (actually their alkaline pH) virtually insensitive to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide.