The G-7 meeting was an exercise in futility and an utter waste of time, at a huge expense.
The same can be said for the Paris meeting which will make Copenhagen look like a a new year’s party.
Recall that China’s $46 billion loan to Pakistan to develop a large coal deposit and build eight coal-fired electric power plants will swamp any cuts the G7 makes in CO2, In short, this is over before it begins.
George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
DLH, thank you much for the extra information. I had not known about ROZ before. Mea culpa. Note that ROZ production in the Permian is still a small fraction of production from the traditional saturated producing zones. Still, this another hopeful extension of the petroleum gamma distribution long tail. Softens the later consequences of, but does not avoid, the impending peak in production. Since any gamma with the front side roughly coinciding to a logistic has roughly the same peak mode. Previously ran that math, since both probability functions are available in Excel stats. Used Prudhoe and North Sea for data inputs to get the function fits.
Barnes, that’s why we skeptics must become more proactive. In PR and in politics, not just on this or other blogs. Lots of ways. I wrote a book. Actually three. And stopped contributing to my alma mater, since they are brainwashing students using professors like Oreskes. And post occasionally to give Judith more technical ‘ammo’. To paraphrase someone we should not emulate, when the going gets tough, the tough get going. Get going.
Not all reservoirs have residual oil zones. I’ve seen simulations of supercritical CO2 injection in residual zones, it seems to work in the models, but there’s bound to be hairs in that soup. When I consider how much oil we have to produce I deduct what I think is overbooked by opec nations and add in EOR projects like this. But, in the medium term, it’s not going to save us from very high prices.
Of course they are still in use… who is calling whom dumb? LMAO.
“If so, you will be well qualified to answer my question. The arctic seems to change dramatically on a regular basis-why is today any different to past episodes?”
Not relevant. and ill defined question.
Lets start with the not relevant part. The arctic very well may have changed ‘dramatically” in the past. Some of roberts work is in paleo, so he can tell you what he knows. HOWEVER, the problem is not change in the past.
The problem is the RISK of FUTURE CHANGE.
That risk can only be estimated by our best science. Our best science says:
1. If we continue on the path we are on, the changes we will see will be more
dramatic than those we have seen in the past.
2. the causes of those changes will be both natural and human caused.
3. the human caused portion of the change is not insignificant.
4. We can take action to reduce this risk.
In short PAST CHANGE means nothing. future change is the concern.
The best science says we will exceed changes we have seen in the past.
history is meaningless here. you cant forget it, because we are going to blow past any changes that civilized humans have seen in that area.
You misunderstand peak oil. Or, have been misled by those that have misunderstood. It is not and never was about running out even though that will somewhen happen. It always was about the eventual inability to produce more per year, and the sharp run up in prices that will cause thereafter. Despite the short term US shale/OPEC kerfuffle, my money’s still on an overall peak sometime between 2020 and 2025. The logic is in several essays in the ebook.
Andy, I wasn’t around making predictions in the XIXth century. But I have been in the oil industry 40 years, and I have had access to better information than Dr Deming (simply because we are here now, so I have more data).
I also happen to be retired, I don’t have an axe to grind, my oil investments are less than 3 % of my portfolio and I already cashed in my options. If you wish I can explain why I think we are indeed about to face an era of much tighter oil supplies. Gas isn’t as depleted, but I see the demand growth and to satisfy it in 25 years we will need much higher prices. People I know who studied coal feel it’s also facing a problem if demand keeps increasing.
I don’t think this is a site to write extensively about the subject, but I bring it up because I sense the global warming problem is based on cornucopian beliefs, and the business as usual case the IPCC likes to wave around is based on nothing. Those figures were made up as far as I can tell.
The new marginal fields require between 80 and 100 USD per barrel. North Dakota’s Bakken can’t be fully developed at $60. Neither can the Canadian or Venezuelan heavy oils. Ditto that high risk Arctic play of Shell’s in the Chukchi. The key is to understand the game involves putting the last daily barrel in the customer’s tank. And this requires ever increasing resources. We can’t keep on raising production throwing money at very expensive projects. And if we can’t meet demand then prices have to rise. Guys like Deming didn’t understand the way this really works, or chose to keep it from the public.
Willard,
You asked two questions.
My answer to both is no.
Thanks for comparing me to Protagoras.
Socrates referred to him as ” . . . the wisest of all living men . . .” Maybe he really meant you. I am just a dummy, but thank you for your concern.
PA,
“Last year Boeing grounded its entire fleet of the next-generation plane after the lithium batteries on two of the aircraft caught fire.”
The finest research by the finest researchers, the “next generation”, and that was the safest, bestest, battery they could find. These things happen, unfortunately. My guess is that battery technology is not quite settled science yet.
Maybe if they employed a climatologist or two, they could look into the future.
At the G-7 meeting the two delinquents were Japan and Canada. It’s important to know about Harper’s position on this. He takes a lot of flack from warmists, but he has been steadfast over many years.
Stephen Harper as Canadian Prime Minister has always claimed that his reluctance to address climate change is based on two factors.
First, he says he does not want to put Canada’s economy at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the U.S.
Second, he says that an international climate change deal makes little sense when some of the world’s biggest carbon dioxide emitters, like China, are not taking part.
The China-US deal is less than meets the eye. China will keep on their present course, and the US side of it is politically fragile.
Harper’s theory of the Canadian economy views resources — particularly energy resources — as the driving forces of the entire economy.
If oil is the focus, then most of Obama’s climate-change initiatives are, to this Canadian government, irrelevant.
The U.S. president has tackled his country’s biggest carbon emitters — coal-fired electricity generating plants. What he has not done is introduce regulations to reduce emissions from U.S. oil and gas producers.
Until Washington does that, Harper won’t act against Canada’s petroleum industry, even though it is now the single biggest source of carbon emissions in this country.
That’s what the prime minister means when he talks of matching Canada’s actions to those of the U.S., sector by sector. To this government, the fact that the U.S. is on track to meeting its carbon-reduction targets while Canada is not, is immaterial.
All that matters is oil and gas. The Conservative government will not introduce regulations that reduce industry profits by a penny unless Washington does so first. That is Harper’s ironclad position. There is no indication he can be shamed (and there is plenty of that being thrown his way).
As someone who does not accept IPCC science and claims of calamity, I applaud his principled and logical stance. There is however a federal election coming up, and Canada leans much more leftward than does the US.
Hi Hide The Decline,
I’m actually starting a new article now that will try to explain (and illustrate) this issue better! Hopefully it’ll help clear this issue up more, I find that words sometimes just don’t cut it when it comes to data.
Indeed, just as we have little reason to believe in insurers and reinsurers. They’re more likely guessing.
This ain’t just a guess.
Re: “The title of the show is Green Tyranny”
You might want to consider
– The use of personal denigration as enforced “Groupthink”.
– The use of “Climate Change” (a tautology) as synonymous with “Global Warming”.
BA,
I am a long term resident. Concerned since 2005 when models failed totally on clouds; warming, cooling or reflecting back to space. Later reading with Dr Curry in Scientific American vs Dr Mann in 2010. Now the hiatus and major changes to history without transparent justification. Also the settled science meme when a review of the models and observations show such great variations. Finally, the name calling from the warmist side plus threats have moved me firmly into the Denierville village.
Scott
Alexander
You must surely be aware of the inherent problems with data derived from ships, buckets or intakes?
During which decade do you believe that global SST’s became accurate to fractions of a degree thereby making them a worthwhile matrix that can inform important policy decisions? Thanks.
Tonyb
I’ve got one stuck in moderation over at Driving in the Dark. I need a get out of jail free card.
I am authorised to issue you a ‘get out of jail’ card. Unfortunately its far from free due to Don’s commission scales.
tonyb
Willard:
“Indeed, just as we have little reason to believe in insurers and reinsurers. They’re more likely guessing.”
Their predictions sound like witchcraft. What are they doing? Using the past with a bias towards the now. Why now? They are trying to have the premiums equal the payouts, now. Failure to do so is insolvency and I do not recommend that. Are they really solvent with unknown future payouts? We’ll see. Here you can see a number of failures: http://www.weissratings.com/ratings/track-record/insurer-failures.aspx
