* Posts by chrisale

3 posts • joined 14 Jun 2011

RIP: Peak Oil - we won't be running out any time soon

chrisale

I always despair when technical reviewers like the register take positions that are so obviously non-technical and totally out of touch with reality and the raw numbers.

There are have been dozens of reports now from government and military sources that have verified Peak OIl. The most recent one is out of Australia which was just leaked in the past few weeks by the Telegraph.

Basically, the oil sands and deep water have allowed the worlds oil to plateau rather than decline. But that will soon end.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/all-evidence-of-this-treachery-went-down-the-memory-hole/story-e6frezz0-1226248729853

You can read the report here:

http://www.manicore.com/fichiers/Australian_Govt_Oil_supply_trends.pdf

THe money quotes from the report, which is 400 pages and goes into excruciating detail on all of the worlds oil production potential is this:

(Page 350/351)

"According to the aggregation of predictions of annual potential oil production, world production of conventional oil is currently just past its highest point. A predicted shallow decline in the short run should give way to a steeper decline after 2016. But of course, deep water and non-conventional oil production are growing strongly, turning a slight decline into a plateau (Figure 13.11 and Table 13.3).

Thus the prognosis is for a slightly upward sloping plateau in potential production from 2005 to 2016, before crude oil production declines begin in earnest. Figure 13.12 and Table 13.3 show that it is the projected expansion of deep water and non- conventional heavy oil production that turns what is predicted to be a 2006 peak in conventional oil into a more drawn out plateau over 10 years for total crude."

4
1

Durban failed: Relax, everyone

chrisale

And so we march onward toward a world we will not recognize and will not enjoy much at all.

2
9

Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade

chrisale

Article missing facts, sources

How many holes could this article possibly have?

#1: The Maunder Minimum has been found to have produced a global cooling effect of about -0.3C to -0.4C. (Shindell et al 2001) and regional, northern hemispheric cooling of up to -2C

Meanwhile, anthropogenic climate change has warmed the planet already by as much as 0.8C (IPCC AR4 2007) and the high-latitude northern regions by as much as 4C. And we're on a steady track for warming as high as 2C-4C globally... so I guess that would now be what, 1.6C to 3.7C thanks to another Maunder Minimum?

And these scientists think this is going to create an ice age?

#2: Mr. Page seems to have missed the final sentence in the paragraph in that NASA article that was linked... which is:

"The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research."

Now that puts a different spin on it doesn't it?

#3: And finally... this is a really great article. But hello? Where's the link to the source, or even a reference to where this was published (peered reviewed or not). The only link is to a NASA page which, as I said, puts a very different spin on things.

Are we perhaps writing about things which agree with our own viewpoints rather than actually disseminating complete and accurate information?

9
8

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018