Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - MKing

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 203
1
The Kitchen Sink / Re: Peak Facade and the Collapse of the Left
« on: December 16, 2016, 07:18:39 AM »
Well, not Vitamin F, but a vast majority of the fluids in "hydraulic" fracturing are either things you already drink, or keep under your kitchen sink to help clean your dishes.

So fucking what?  Seriously?!?

Last I heard, only 10% (the vast majority) of fracking fluid's ingredients were kept secret from the public. 

Less than that actually. I posted a pie chart previously showing the percentage of ingredients that aren't just water. Less than 1% I believe, is something other than water.

Quote from: JRM
Who cares if only 10% or less of it is highly toxic?  Some toxins don't need big doses to make you sick or dead.

So you consider Dawn dishwashing liquid toxic?  Stop using it in your dishwater. And yet that is what is used for lubricant in the sub-surface, a primary component of the fluid. Biocide is the one that I've used before that I am not certain of its composition, but I have seen it in action in the ecosystem, and I believe it is a nasty of one kind or another.

2
The Kitchen Sink / Re: Peak Facade and the Collapse of the Left
« on: December 16, 2016, 07:02:36 AM »
If fracking costs are going down, does that include the costs of poisoning the water tables and other environmental costs?

Well, there are no costs for poisoning water tables because that isn't what hydraulic fracturing does unless someone really screws the pooch (like California regulators allowing Class II oil field waste to be injected into them...oops..and not having anything to do with the oil field operators), and what other environmental costs? The same ones that have been going on since you first began using natural gas, or the same ones that existed a century before that?

Am I really the only one here familiar with the physics of WHY hydraulic fracturing doesn't pollute aquifers, or does everyone here just read the fake news so common the internet?




Maybe a little more nuanced qualification than that is needed MKing, but I for one certainly do not think dispossing of waste water in 10,000' deep wells in the bakken poses much threat to shallow water tables.

That is because currently the main concern with waste water injection is induced seismicity, which has nothing to do with hydraulic fracturing. But the faux news on the internet wants to hook those 2 up so bad they can just TASTE it.

Quote from: Roamer
  Nor is fracking at those depths of any particular concern to said water tables.  Its funny too how methane via in situ coal decomposition has always been found in certain wells in those regions, but now blamed on the frackers.

Not funny. EXPECTED. When you choose to demonize something, the facts don't matter, only the perception, playing upon the gullible who can be counted on to NOT know what you know...that the only way you pollute anything at the shallow aquifer level from 10,000 down is through well integrity problems. Analogous to a mechanical failure on your auto causing an accident that hurts or kills someone...sure...they happen on occasion, but 94% of all motor related deaths are user caused, not failure of the mechanical system itself.

Quote from: Roamer
I'm less certain though about some of the shallow and sandier geologies of some of the eastern natural gas plays, perhaps you could comment?

It is still has the same issue, but on a smaller scale.

But it is the physics of reservoir dynamics that preclude the kind of contamination that people want to assign to hydraulic fracturing, which isn't the physics of the operation. Understanding the physics is easy...fluid flow in the subsurface doesn't go from low pressure to high, but the exact opposite. Without a pressure differential with the correct vector (magnitude AND direction), you need to break the laws of physics to get migration into the aquifer. You don't see folks discussing that one while proclaiming that folks who disagree with them are, and I quote, "ignoring the science!!!" when in fact it is just the opposite.

3
The Kitchen Sink / Re: Peak Facade and the Collapse of the Left
« on: December 15, 2016, 08:01:29 PM »
If fracking costs are going down, does that include the costs of poisoning the water tables and other environmental costs?

Well, there are no costs for poisoning water tables because that isn't what hydraulic fracturing does unless someone really screws the pooch (like California regulators allowing Class II oil field waste to be injected into them...oops..and not having anything to do with the oil field operators), and what other environmental costs? The same ones that have been going on since you first began using natural gas, or the same ones that existed a century before that?

Am I really the only one here familiar with the physics of WHY hydraulic fracturing doesn't pollute aquifers, or does everyone here just read the fake news so common the internet?




Quote from: Surly1
I suspect not.
Of course, the poisoners will tell you fracking fluids are Vitamin F.

Well, not Vitamin F, but a vast majority of the fluids in "hydraulic" fracturing are either things you already drink, or keep under your kitchen sink to help clean your dishes.

4
The Kitchen Sink / Re: Peak Facade and the Collapse of the Left
« on: December 15, 2016, 05:36:18 PM »
I used to install small scale wind turbines in wisconsin for private land owners.  Without exception all the clients where left leaning wealthy land owners, lawyers, doctors, dentists.  The wind turbines had little scale and where what I called green bling.  Presumably to assuage the guilt the client felt for their carbon sin, definitely not economically. 

Careful there Roamer! You are dancing awful close to some sacred cows! Just as you learned personally about the oil and gas business and realized you had been sold bad ideas, you aren't about to appreciated for exposing greenwashing amongst the rich either.


5
The Kitchen Sink / Re: How many US Senators are climate science deniers?
« on: December 14, 2016, 05:05:51 PM »
No one knows?

There are only like 3 people now participating here, and 1 of them, me, you won't be allowed to see my response depending on the temperature, time of day, or whatever the newest excuse to erase it will be. And if you DO get to see it, then it will be the first in about the last half dozen or so.

6
Doom Psychology & Philosophy / Re: More Roaming Rants
« on: December 13, 2016, 08:39:41 PM »

I can answer this question for the older set, being one, ....

No. You can't.  You're trapped in a this or that, either/or mentality with too little grey area between them.  For you, the "doomers" are either right or wrong, not both.  For you they are simply wrong.  And so you are not the wise elder you pretend to be here.

As someone who has quantified the stochastic nature of an industry, and more recently the world, I am the last person on this website or any other you have visited that can be accused of a binary outlook on...anything.

And as far as wise elder, well, that would depend on the topic, seeing as how age does not appear to play into LD's expertise with bamboo, or mine within the oil and gas industry in general. It is our training and professional experience that matters as to the degree of "elder" we have obtained, so around here, on the geosciences in general? I'm not pretending, and as someone that RE must have let in on the secret by now of who I am, you already know the lie of your words. He can't find a misspelled word in my publications, and odds are, you can't either, let alone refute the scientific work and conclusions within them.



7
Doom Psychology & Philosophy / Re: More Roaming Rants
« on: December 12, 2016, 01:24:49 PM »
Peak Oil is axiomatic due to the nature of non-renewable fossil fuel resources.  All that is in question is the timing.  That is a spectrum from Guy's NTHE on one side to the fuckers that think we're going to download human consciousness into the Matrix and live without bodies (can't remember the name of that movement). 

Timing is not relevant because there are 2 variables involved. Presupposing that only supply volumes matter doesn't work without positing a demand to match against it. Only in the combination of the two do either make sense.

Quote from: luciddreams
When I look at the world at large and try to understand what is true about it, energy is what consolidates the whole place.  When I look at the graph that shows fossil fuel production next to population it becomes obvious to me what is going on.  7.2 billion and approximately 5.2 billion of that just since JFk was assassinated (not that his assassination has anything to do with population).  The two lines follow one another.  It can generally be said that our population is what it is because of the fossil energy that we have brought to market and used.  We are in unprecedented territory with respect to human population.  The reason why?  I think that is obvious. 

Not ENERGY use. Power generation. We've had more energy beaming down on our heads causing sunburn day after day, more than we use today in an entire year. Energy doesn't stand alone for population growth, POWER GENERATION does. The ability to do work. And there are many ways to generate power, we've just chosen the cheap and easy, digging stuff up and burning it. The transition is already underway to generate power in other, less cheap and easy ways, because burning stuff is bad.

Quote from: Luciddreams
So, that being the case, what should we make of this?  We have agreed that fossil fuels are non-renewable and limited in nature.  I think it's also axiomatic that our current civilization requires this limited resource to function.  Our population is order of magnitudes beyond anything like a solar based economy could support on this planet.  This is a large problem. 

Solar is not the only means of generating power either, but if push comes to shove, there are some who think it certainly can power our world, albeit perhaps not the kind of wasteful, consumer driven world we have today.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/life-after-oil/100-renewable-energy-what-we-can-do-in-10-years-20160222?utm_source=YTW&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=20160226

Quote from: Luciddreams
We have been in the middle east continually since 2001, and we are not doing that to spread democracy.  Most of the worlds oil is there.  If we were really worried about spreading democracy then it seems our government would not be continually training and funding terrorist groups. 

Just as I challenged you on the biggest discovery year of oil in the history of humankind, knowing in advance that your scholarly works on the book shelves had gotten it wrong, I also know that most of the world's oil isn't in the Middle East. Of course, to me oil is a long chain carbon and hydrogen molecule, and I don't get carried away with its color, depth, or density.

There is plenty of CHEAP oil in the Middle East, but by volume, most of it isn't there.

And for my perspective, I don't care about political involvement when it comes to oil. Governments and politics do not modify the existence and location of oil and natural gas resources, they just interfere with their development or raise their costs.

Quote from: Luciddreams
Renewable energy is not going to be able to compete with the energy density of fossil energy.

Competes with it right now. Why? Perhaps because energy density isn't the primary consideration when it comes to its use and cost, with nothing more than a small change in behavior? I drove back and forth today, to and fro in doing some Christmas shopping, visited the wife at work, and didn't burn a single molecule of oil in the process. Crappy energy density in my batteries, but completely capable of generating the kind of power I need to roam around town for 20 miles. And now charging from the garage top solar panels.

Not a Hemi for towing stuff around, but I don't need a Hemi for suburban based errands.

Quote from: Luciddreams
  Burning fossil energy puts CO2 into the atmosphere.

Much like the axiomatic definition of peak oil, I don't think anyone disputes this one.

Quote from: Luciddreams
When I put all of these trends together what I see that is the common denominator is energy, and due to current BAU that energy is fossil energy.  We are at war over it abroad and here at home (XL, DAPL).  It is the reason our population has become unsustainable, and it is the reason why we are destroying our human supporting biome.  It will eventually become unrecoverable and our systems will fail.  They are already failing. 

have been since before you were born. Go read the Population Bomb, if you don't already have it on your shelf. Humans have been failing for so long now, most don't even notice. Of course, we have also been advancing even faster, which is why Ehrlich, saying very similar things as you are, was wrong.

Quote from: Luciddreams
Meanwhile life goes on, as does BAU.  Yes, I drive a hemi because I need a powerful engine to pull all of my equipment around.  What does that matter really?  I also buy groceries at the big box store that is 100% dependent on fossil energy.  My home is climate controlled and hooked up to the electrical power grid that is 100% dependent on fossil energy.  My clothing, medicine, the internet, transportation, and means of inhabiting our built environment are all 100% dependent on it.  The amount of fossil energy that makes all of it possible is by it's nature limited.  This is the biggest problem our species has ever, and likely will ever face next to mutual assured destruction (nuclear bombs). 

Not to be a constant naysayer, but no, these aren't the real issues. This are all gradual, nasty little hiccups related to how most of the rich folks of the world have chosen to live.

Our biggest problem as a species is the inability to defend against cosmic collisions. Our little problems because we choose to do stupid things is something else altogether, most of them being solvable by just being nice to each other humans rather than prick humans.

Quote from: Luciddreams
I'm an advocate for doing something about this major problem now instead of later.  If we haven't peaked yet, good, because that means we have more energy to put towards the solution...whatever that is.  I personally think it's permaculture with a heavy influence of bamboo.  Peak Oil is axiomatic in permaculture.  In fact, it's the main thesis. 

Changes in behavior have great power, indeed.

Quote from: luciddreams
So what exactly, Mking, are you trying to prove?  What are you arguing about other than semantics and nomenclature?  I'm not using terms correctly?  I don't understand what I'm talking about because I'm not in the fossil fuel business like you?  I'm not a scientist?  I can't understand these problems?  I, and Roamer, and people like us have fallen for some grand conspiracy and drunk the kool-aid and you want to know what scientists like you can do to ensure people like us don't fall for these ignoramuses and their idiotic theories? 

Prove? On a blog? I'm not trying to prove anything, I am discussing the component parts of what I consider to be rational thought when it comes to this topic. You seem to place great value on scholars who don't even know the basics of the industry, no different from me relying on the local fast food worker for insights into bamboo uses and profitability in the modern world.

Ultimately, I only want people to think for themselves. Which includes, at the most basic level, understanding the difference between scholarly, and horseshit.




Quote from: Luciddreams
Tell me Mking, where have I gone wrong with my view of what is and isn't true of the world.  The view that I expressed above.

Your view sounds fine as you express it generally, other than missing 1) what I consider to be far more certain and lethal threats to our existence as a species, and 2) placing a confidence in your conclusions based on sources of information that don't know any more about resource issues than I do bamboo, and 3) the history of the centuries these claims have been around, and haven't worked out as expected.

Your view appears to be unhappy with conditions that were in place before you were born, concern you aplenty, and based on the history of collapse and doom and whatnot within a human lifetime, will still be here after you are gone. The timing of a hoped for collapse is no more certain than that of when peak oil was supposed to have/is/will happen.

You face this squarely as of late, apparently coming to the conclusion that immersion in BAU is your answer going forward. Why? Because you can't afford to let the wait for collapse interfere with a life for your family and kids, ESPECIALLY once you realize that it might  not even happen in your lifetime. A critical turning point, within the perspective of any doomer pondering these issues.


8
Doom Psychology & Philosophy / Re: More Roaming Rants
« on: December 12, 2016, 12:14:04 PM »
Folks who predicted a huge and enduring spike in oil prices around this time had very good reason to do so.  Who could possibly have imagined or predicted the fracking boom which has bought our oil dependent physical culture a little more time?
LOL... I read an article somewhere around 2003-5 about this new oil production technology that would be unleashed once oil hit $60-70 a barrel.... and at the time the article was written, I think the all-time high (in non-inflation-adjusted terms) was around $40.

Of course, the Internet turning into the memory hole it is, 2003 is pretty much ancient history in Google terms.

There have been many claims of all types related to oil, from the magic carburators of the 1970's that allow 100mpg but GovCo is hiding them, to super batteries in the EV era to Big Oil shutting in all their wells to drive prices up back in the late 1970's, I've seen all these claims going far back into the hazy of time.

Ultimately, there is really only one metric, that accounts for supply and demand, changes in technology and the volumes that it does, or does not, unlock.

And that is price. Right now, prices are pretty reasonable. I have been talking for years, on this very website, about road tripping because of it, and can't even get credit when others begin to plan stealth van trips here and there across an entire continent. Price is the thing that matters, that tells us the state of supply and demand in the world, has been signaling for years that things are pretty good for the supply/demand balance in terms of being more consumer friendly than just a few years earlier.

High prices tend to be their own cure, just as low prices are. The most important, and truest of the relationships within the oil and gas business.

But consumers like me certainly prefer the lower end of the range, says the guy who after my most recent trip stands with 1.148 million miles under my belt. Just cars, it is 1.305 million if you count 2 wheelers as well.

9
Doom Psychology & Philosophy / Re: More Roaming Rants
« on: December 12, 2016, 12:03:47 PM »
Richard Heinberg most definitely qualifies as a scholar in the field of energy and resources depletion.

Why? It certainly isn't because of his training and experience in the sciences or oil and gas industry, so does just his reading some stuff on the internet, or perhaps even going to a library, quality?

Quote from: JRM
Folks who predicted a huge and enduring spike in oil prices around this time had very good reason to do so.  Who could possibly have imagined or predicted the fracking boom which has bought our oil dependent physical culture a little more time?

Who could have imagined? The IEA and EIA for starters, because they didn't fall for decreasing oil production scenarios in the future. The USGS as another, more real live experts than was ever contained in the peak oil movement, and they didn't fall for it, and they are the direct scientific descendants of Hubbert himself. Certainly I was arguing in 2005 or 2006 that if peak oil arrived, most likely it would be recessionary in nature, but not much more than that. Then 2008 arrived, TOD proclaimed peak oil, and things looked about right. Yergin and Lynch certainly never fell for near term peak oils.

Sounds like the people that know quite a bit about this topic didn't fall for malthusian wet dreams, and it was mostly the internet and doomers that seemed so attached to this particular idea.

10
Doom Psychology & Philosophy / Re: More Roaming Rants
« on: December 12, 2016, 08:34:58 AM »
Well you clearly know the specifics on the history of the fossil fuel industry better than I do.

Just as you know far more about bamboo growing and uses than I do. Our training and experience runs to different subjects, but it still stands as training and experience above others in our areas of specialty. No different than Eddie and his dentistry.

Quote from: Luciddreams
I can also concede to your point about Peak Oil "scholars."  All of your points seem correct.  Yet still the concept of Peak Oil stands, and it truly is just a matter of timing...just like the collapse of civilizations. 

Peak oil...using the definition of in a finite world, the production of a non-renewable must start at zero, at some point reach a peak, and then decline away to zero, is axiomatic. There is no dispute of THIS definition of peak oil by anyone. Which is why I asked about your definition early, because while one might be axiomatic, others are not.

Sure civilizations collapse. What of it? As with everything in the doomer world, there are no new ideas, only recycled ones. Civilization collapsed before...and we later went to the moon. Civilization collapsed before, and was rebuilt again. And again. We are just one decent sized meteor strike away from doing it all over again. Or not.

Quote from: Luciddreams
I assume that you don't believe in the theory of abiotic oil.

I have seen a single claim of oil generation that I cannot explain, in Vietnam, if memory serves. But not being able to explain it, doesn't mean it is abiotic oil in action. So no, I tend to dismiss abiotic out of hand until someone can prove it.

Quote from: Luciddreams
  That being the case there is a limited amount of fossil energy for us to recover.  That being the case we will eventually use half of it and therefore will have peaked.  You say that's five years in the future? 

I say nothing about peak because it is only 1 of 2 variables involved in human use of resource. For example, what is the difference between a supply of 100 million barrels a day, with a demand of 100 million barrels a day, and a price of $50/bbl, and a post peak supply of 30 million barrels a day, and a demand of 30 million barrels a day, and a price of $50/bbl?

Peak oilers would be jumping off of tall buildings worried about the coming fedghettos they were going to be forced into, and the average consumer wouldn't even notice. The value of oil is comprised of 2 variables, not one, and it just doesn't matter what one does, without consideration for the second as well.

Which is why real energy experts like Amy Jaffe have quite an interesting argument to make when it comes to peak oil. She was nice enough to stop in the office awhile back and discuss this in real time, always a help as compared to just reading something of an author, but she has some convincing points. Plus I like her because she drives a Ford C-Max Energi, the smaller version of my Fusion with the same drivetrain, and us EV folks need to stick together.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-05-07/why-the-world-s-appetite-for-oil-will-peak-soon-excerpts

Quote from: Luciddreams
I like to keep an open mind.  A mind that is not fixed in place.  However, it is composed of the information I have gathered and ascertained to be true.  Peak Oil is not hogwash because fossil energy is composed of energy resources that are limited by nature.  The best you could do is argue that we have not peaked yet, and that the point is somewhere in the future.  So where is that point?  I mean, where would your expert analysis put it? 

Peak is irrelevant when both variables are properly considered. But there are sufficient oil resources to continue increasing production rates through the next quarter century of so. I'm currently working on determining if the same is true of the next 35 years, and will know the answer to that one by Christmas I suppose.

But it must be understood, this presumes Amy is wrong, and that the change coming our way isn't demand related. But if you ask me today, and I look around at the transition in progress (small though it might be in some regards), I tend to think she is on to something.

Quote from: Luciddreams
Next, what do you say to anthropogenic global warming?  The two issues being linked.

I say that until someone presents a proper accounting of the variability of the global climate system, scientists can't even be sure they are modeling noise in the system, as opposed to an underlying trend. I can be convinced, but am not yet, that humans have released CO2 at a rate that might alter the path of natural variability.

11
Doom Psychology & Philosophy / Re: More Roaming Rants
« on: December 12, 2016, 08:11:20 AM »
I think some of us have developed the ability to think rationally.  Maybe like 10% of humanity is capable of rational thought, and that's me being optimistic.

The problem is among those who think they can think rationally. Why are those who make that assessment so often prove otherwise?

Guy's fans think that they think rationally, and conclude that NTHE is tomorrow. Peak oiler based doomers, malthusians, luddites,, this century or last, think they are rational thinkers, and prove that they obviously aren't after the NEXT peak oil comes and goes. Dems think they are rational, just as the Trumpites do.

Everyone thinks that they are part of the 10% LD, when obviously they aren't.

Are you part of the 10% who can think rationally? 

That is indeed the question. I would like to think that as a scientist, I do. However, now we are back to how we apply the definition of rational to ourselves, as opposed to others.

As just one example, it is completely rational to discuss the finite nature of non-renewable resources, their size and shape and location. It is quite another, for a rational person who understands the rates of consumption and production, to then proclaim that the world ends tomorrow or next week because of it...when it is perfectly obvious that it can't be because of the size of that remaining resource.

Yet this is exactly part of the doomer game. So who is rational, the person who examines the evidence and feels comfortable with where the supply is going to be coming from for another half century, or the person who isn't?

This is similar to your definition of peak oil, that it happens when about 1/2 runs out. 1/2 of what? The long gone easy, high EROEI oil? The long gone 2nd or 3rd or 4th generation of easy oil, and progressively lower EROEI? How many long gone 1/2's must disappear before we actually reach the right 1/2?

Quote from: Luciddreams
Also, reason and logic can all be bent by will to serve any purpose.  The most criminally insane psychopaths often have command of pure reason.

I completely agree with you that psychopaths can appear quite rational.  Which is where my original supposition starts from..how do we even know if we ourselves are rational? I have been watching the doomer world as an objective outsider for more than a decade now, and still having a tough time figuring out those within it, the true believer from the pretenders, those who want doom as opposed to honestly think it is happening/will happen. Survivalists and preppers who only want doom as a way to launch into their rambo future. Ruppert, as just one example, wanted to be a Svengali in Oregon, leading the people of that state to stop the California hordes from taking over after the collapse (2005 collapse, not the ones since then). Some people are just older and as they become ore conservative, become pessimistic, and cast about for anything to support their dim view of the future. Gold bugs, anarchists, those shafted by the system and longing for their revenge in its demise, you name it, they are all out there. And quite fascinating.

 

12
Doom Psychology & Philosophy / Re: More Roaming Rants
« on: December 11, 2016, 10:21:58 AM »
Define "conventional". It is a relative definition, and what was once conventional, is no more.

Those using the term nowadays are basically playing hide and seek from their prior bad calls, and are attempting to retain their dignity in the face of the flood of new oil that arrived in lieu of peak oil claimed effects.

I would say oil that doesn't require hydrofracturing to get at.  Oil that is not from tar sands or shale.  Oil that has an EROEI of at least 25. 

Fair enough. So we began hydraulic fracturing in the late 40's ( it corresponds to about the 3rd easy oil, come and gone). Shale gas development began in the early 1800's in New York (I've even got the photo of the marker for the well), and shale oil was being developed in Ohio and WV before the end of the 1800's. The tar sands correspond to more of the 5th easiest oil to develop.

So we have needed, and utilized, a majority of these things for quite some time. EROEI has nothing to do with the oil itself, it is just a metric of effort. Sort of.

Quote from: luciddreams
I'm not a geologist, or an engineer in the fossil fuel industry.  I'm a lay person, a generalist, not a specialist.  That doesn't mean that I'm not capable of understanding simple physics.  It is a fact that EROEI for petroleum products has decreased over the years...is it not?  If you can agree that it has decreased, than why has it decreased? 

Never said you didn't understand physics. Physics doesn't even get involved in the discovery and use of "unconventionals" long before you were born, or people even wanted to make a distinction between them and something else.

EROEI is just a metric. Just as 2 people can estimate the cost of a thing, they can also estimate EROEI differently as well. People who build these estimates have written that it appears to be decreasing, using THOSE assumptions. Having said that, EROEI doesn't matter compared to the results generated in the real world, regardless of EROEI. Here is one of those results that really matter, regardless of EROEI claims, and have contributed to your ability to fuel the Hemi, regardless of EROEI estimates.





Quote from: Luciddreams
Quote
Define "scholarly". If Heinberg is an author of ANY that you consider scholarly, then your definition of scholarly isn't the same as mine.

Scholarly:  Of, like, or befitting a scholar.

Scholar:  a learned or erudite person, especially one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.

Heinberg is in fact one of the scholars in my bookshelf.  I have several of his books.  Why is he not a scholar on the topic of energy?  And how do you define "Scholarly." 

I implied that your application of "scholar" is different than mine, if your reading lists include a known amateur violin player who didn't finish college because he loved the weed, commenting on topics where he has zero experience or training. If I began writing how to grow bamboo, with the same amount of experience that Heinberg has in the sciences (geology, math and economics) or experience in the oil and gas industry, you would know every error and stupid thing I said.  Heinberg is to the oil and gas industry the kind of fake news that people have been talking about lately. He commentary on complex science and business topics he knows nothing about is no more informed than my understanding of making money growing bamboo.

Quote from: LucidDreams
Quote
Define "peak oil". This was peak oil. You see it much nowadays, a decade after it happened? I should mention, this is an original peak oiler, quoted in congress, who once ran the most popular doom sight on the web.


The timing is off with Peak Oil and the predictions.  The science is valid.

If the science was valid, then why did those who claimed it miss the timing by so much? Science 101, a disproved hypothesis cannot be used as PROOF of understanding. You do understand that peak oil has been predicted as far back as 1886, correct?

Quote from: Luciddreams
There is only so much fossil energy in the Earth.  They are all limited resources.  Limited resources are "limited" because there is a finite amount of them, which means they run out.  "Peak Oil" means we've used roughly the first half of the finite amount of energy.  We are now using the second half which will continue providing us with a declining EROEI as the table listed above clearly shows. 

You are mentioning this to someone who has access to the entire IHS database quantifying the resources of the planet, and on a first name basis with every project lead at the USGS who quantifies them.

If your definition of peak oil is "we've used half" then we have by my calculations, approximately, another 5 years at current consumption before that happens. That is the math of this definition of peak oil. More, if you include the resources discussed at various symposiums where the scientists who do this work give presentations (including me), and you can't find a social commentator "scholar" anywhere in the building.

Quote from: Luciddreams

Quote
Not sure what "unconventional" energy is, or how peak oil was influenced by mountaintop removal. And endless wars that AREN'T acquiring oil seem like they don't have much to do with keeping the oil flowing either. Besides, the damn Jews and Arabs are quite happy to make us look like pacifists.

"Unconventional" is fossil petroleum energy derived from tar sands and shale formations.

The first gas well drilled in the US, circa 1821 in Fredonia New York, was a shale gas well. Any reason the origins of the industry are unconventional? The largest accumulation of known natural gas in the world, in 1923 or so, was the Big Sandy gas field of eastern Ketucky...Devonian SHALE.

Quote from: Luciddreams
Peak Oil is not so much influenced by moutaintop removal, but Peak Energy is influenced by it.  I use it as an example to the great lengths we are going to to procure energy now.  I think the name is pretty obvious.  We are removing the tops of fucking MOUNTAINS for coal.  Beyond that being sacrilege, IMO, it's pure madness.  It's the act of a desperate industry going to mad lengths to keep BAU alive. 

Industry doesn't give a shit about BAU. They give a shit about MONEY. And they make money by meeting a demand, no different than you want to do with bamboo. No consumers of bamboo, no need for supply. Oil and gas is no different. WIth hemi-driving people and others doing the same, the oil and gas industry would attempt to make money selling shoes or some other process to meet a demand, to make money.

Quote from: luciddreams
I suppose you believe that we've been in the Middle East continuously for 15 years to spread democracy?  Has nothing to do with the vast amount of petroleum energy beneath the desert? 

Well, it obviously isn't about taking all their oil and gas, because otherwise we would have done it already.

Quote from: luciddreams
Quote
Define the terms. The original "conventional" (or easy) oil peaked around 1901, when it required an entirely new drilling technology to develop "unconventional" resources. Those "unconventional" resources became conventional with nothing but the passage of time.

Your "define the terms" is getting pretty annoying.  Why don't you define the terms?

Because some of them are nonsensical terms. There is no set definition, and certainly among those who have zero experience in the science and application of oil field engineering and procedures, I can't be certain the other person knows anything about what they MEAN. For example, you have previously defined "unconventional" as the very origins of the shale gas development in this country. How in the world can "unconventional" apply when it is how an industry started, and I'll let you look up the word "unconventional" to see for yourself how that doesn't apply to the origins of an industry, said origins which continued for more than a century BEFORE you were born.

Quote from: Luciddreams
You're arguing semantics and nomenclature.  Newspeak is real to btw.  Now "friends" are people you don't know that hit "like" to a meme or stupid comment you post.  Does that make them your friend?  And no, that has nothing to do with Peak Oil or Peak Energy...it's an analogy. 

The first thing a scientist does is lock down definitions and terms. Your use of social commentators as "scholars" in multiple fields of science, "unconventional" for things that have been known and procedures utilized for centuries, and "peak oil" as a half way point for something happening in the recent past or now, when in fact we've used only 15% or so of the resource, are all examples of your thinking of these words in ways contradicted by the reality around us. So I have just been seeing what page of the book you are on, because I can promise you that among the scientists and analysts and professionals I work with, they don't use the same words to mean the same things you do.

Quote from: Luciddreams
Quote
And I can tell you EXACTLY when discovery peaked, and not a single peak oiler has ever done that in the history of those scholarly books you have.

1936. That was the single largest discovery year in terms of oil volume, bar none. OIL volume, not conventional this or unconventional that at some arbitrary point in time. Now ask the next question. Why is it your answer is undoubtedly different than this? Because your scholars have done their homework, or just cherry pick discoveries to only include their favorites, as opposed to letting the oil volumes do the deciding?

Ask yourself this question.  How do you know what my answer is?  You presume to know my answer and then go on attacking it.  1936 sounds pretty likely to me.  So what's your point?  That being the year doesn't take away from the fact that petroleum is a limited resource. 

I know what your answer is because I know what the "scholarly" answer is from the authors who populate your bookshelves. I can also list the scientific references you DON'T have on those shelves as well. And as someone who can quantify global oil and gas resources to 3 significant digits, the strawman limited/unlimited resources doesn't work with me. I've never said they were unlimited, and I have said that oil at least is obsolete and doesn't know it yet.

Quote from: luciddreams

Quote
Ask Roamer. It was his point that us men of science ARE the folks that hold a cure for the misinformation of the internet, whatever that cure might be.

I asked you. 

Not my question to answer. I didn't make the claim, any more than I have ever said resources are infinite, but you want to use non-infinite resources against me as though I have.

Quote from: luciddreams

Quote
Better than what our future looked like in the Cold War. What's going on now looks like a cake walk. Sometimes, it is all about the perspective. Mine isn't of a young man any more.

At least you had a scholarly, honorable, intelligent, ethical POTUS back then.  Now we have a fucking moron.  But hey, he's filthy rich and that's all that is necessary in our fallen society. 

Nixon?


13
Doom Psychology & Philosophy / Re: More Roaming Rants
« on: December 11, 2016, 08:52:00 AM »
I think some of us have developed the ability to think rationally.  Maybe like 10% of humanity is capable of rational thought, and that's me being optimistic.

The problem is among those who think they can think rationally. Why are those who make that assessment so often prove otherwise?

Guy's fans think that they think rationally, and conclude that NTHE is tomorrow. Peak oiler based doomers, malthusians, luddites,, this century or last, think they are rational thinkers, and prove that they obviously aren't after the NEXT peak oil comes and goes. Dems think they are rational, just as the Trumpites do.

Everyone thinks that they are part of the 10% LD, when obviously they aren't.

14
Doom Psychology & Philosophy / Re: More Roaming Rants
« on: December 08, 2016, 06:47:26 PM »
Conventional petroleum has peaked.  That is not misinformation.

Define "conventional". It is a relative definition, and what was once conventional, is no more.

Those using the term nowadays are basically playing hide and seek from their prior bad calls, and are attempting to retain their dignity in the face of the flood of new oil that arrived in lieu of peak oil claimed effects.

Quote from: luciddreams
I have a book shelf full of books on the topic of peak energy that are scholarly and not written by amateurs.

Define "scholarly". If Heinberg is an author of ANY that you consider scholarly, then your definition of scholarly isn't the same as mine.

Quote from: luciddreams
Peak Oil is not some kool-aid that us idiots have drunk.

Define "peak oil". This was peak oil. You see it much nowadays, a decade after it happened? I should mention, this is an original peak oiler, quoted in congress, who once ran the most popular doom sight on the web.



Quote from: luciddreams
It just happens that the energy industry has been able to keep the party going with unconventional energy which they have gone to great lengths to get at.  Mountain top removal, fracking, tar sands, and endless wars have kept the spigot flowing.  It will likely keep flowing. 

Not sure what "unconventional" energy is, or how peak oil was influenced by mountaintop removal. And endless wars that AREN'T acquiring oil seem like they don't have much to do with keeping the oil flowing either. Besides, the damn Jews and Arabs are quite happy to make us look like pacifists.

Quote from: luciddreams

Mking, are you willing to proclaim that conventional crude oil production has not peaked?  Are you willing to say that discovery has not peaked? 

Define the terms. The original "conventional" (or easy) oil peaked around 1901, when it required an entirely new drilling technology to develop "unconventional" resources. Those "unconventional" resources became conventional with nothing but the passage of time.

And I can tell you EXACTLY when discovery peaked, and not a single peak oiler has ever done that in the history of those scholarly books you have.

1936. That was the single largest discovery year in terms of oil volume, bar none. OIL volume, not conventional this or unconventional that at some arbitrary point in time. Now ask the next question. Why is it your answer is undoubtedly different than this? Because your scholars have done their homework, or just cherry pick discoveries to only include their favorites, as opposed to letting the oil volumes do the deciding?

Quote from: luciddreams
Quote
And when those of us who do the scientific business of the world do our jobs, how do we apply the antidotes we have created to these younger generations, that they might not so easily be led astray?

What antidotes have you created?

Ask Roamer. It was his point that us men of science ARE the folks that hold a cure for the misinformation of the internet, whatever that cure might be.

Quote from: luciddreams
2008 was unprecedented in my life.  I remember watching the bail out proceedings on cspan.  Watching the house vote to pass the 800 billion dollar bail out.  That was a phenomenally massive number.  This just years after the y2k fiasco, which was a very real scare...not kook-aid.

You might have been scared. Kunstler certainly was. And guess what? It was fixed..and the world went on. If people had just been standing around with their thumbs up their asses, sure, it might have been a problem. But they didn't. And when peak oil supposedly rolled around in 2005, guess what was going on? The same thing in the oil business. And now? Your hemi appreciates the steady diet of pretty darn cheap (nearly early 1970's in terms of real gasoline prices) gasoline you have available to feed it.

Quote from: luciddreams
I was 20 in 2000, and we had no idea what was going to happen with those 1's and 0's.  Then 9/11.  Then 2008 and endless wars for oil.  Then the "weapons of mass destruction" never showed up.  We have seen our government lie to us over and over again.  We have lost faith in the system of government.  Your generation mostly had faith in democracy.  Democracy has failed our generation, and there is nothing in place to replace it.

Remember the Maine! What, you think lying governments are new? And we don't live in a democracy, but a representative republic, although I tend to agree with Eddie that it now leans more towards oligarchy because of the way we have voted, or not, over the past half century or so. Again, it didn't fail someone your age, you were raised in it and if you hadn't fallen for misinformation, would never have believed it existed during your lifetime.



Quote from: luciddreams


Refugees are fleeing MENA in dingys and washing up dead on the shores of Europe.  Donald Trump is going to be president.  The EU looks like it's fucked and countries are insolvent. 

Better than what our future looked like in the Cold War. What's going on now looks like a cake walk. Sometimes, it is all about the perspective. Mine isn't of a young man any more.

Quote from: luciddreams
Civilizations collapse, that is what they do.  Just like we are born, grow up, mature, get old, and die.  Civilizations do that as well.  BAU has a lot of momentum, and the worlds largest military to ensure it's continuance. 

So what are your antidotes Mking?

I contributed to the industries ability to make sure you could keep filling up that hemi LD. You're welcome. Keeping the cost down so you could make more money, rather than less. You keep using that hemi now, because if it wasn't for the consumer soaking up all the liquid fuels, enjoying their addiction to liquid fuels, well hell, the oil companies would just go bankrupt.


15
Doom Psychology & Philosophy / Re: More Roaming Rants
« on: December 08, 2016, 06:02:36 PM »
For those of us still standing here today though, the obective is to still be stnding tomorrow.  What's the best way to do that?

RE

You dance with the one that brung ya. Sticking with what works cured the doom crap that was claimed by the academic elites in 1970 with their earth day claims, no reason it won't continue to work until long after most of us are dead and gone.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 203