|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hiua25
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Pardon me, you said 83 not 85 million barrels a day. But I think I made my point.
P.S I�m not saying I agree with the figures, but I�m just trying to point out the absurdity of EFL trainer�s claims. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hiua25 wrote: |
You challenged us to �do the math�, well here we go.
You said that the world consumes 85 million barrels a day, and that there are only about 3 or 4 trillion barrels worth of recoverable oil remaining.
85,000,000 (85 million) times 365 equals 31,025,000,000. So every year the world consumes about 31 billion barrels of oil. 3, 000,000,000,000 (3 trillion) divided by 31, 025,000,000 equals 96.69621 or 96 more years of oil.
That�s almost a century more oil. Enough to take us into the 22nd century. Yes demand is rising, but an estimate of 3 to 4 trillion barrels suggests more than the conservative figure I used, in other words there will be enough oil for the next century.
Why didn�t you do the math yourself before you posted EFL trainer? |
You've done it again. It's actually MORE than 100 years. I did it and posted it WAAAAY back. It's 132 years. So, WTF are you on about?
Now, get with the program, son: the issue isn't how much oil we have, it's when Peak Oil is reached. Peak Oil, to help you along, is the peak in production, not use. It is the point where prices go up because demand is climbing and production is static or falling. (Which, in fact, was true of last year.)
Now, just to beat you a bit more: Oil consumption is expected to go as much as 66 percent higher in the next few decades. So, using only a simple formula to try to account for current consumption and future at the higher levels... we end up with only about 85 years or so of consumption.
Peak Oil hits looooong before then. It hits long before we hit the midpoint on supply. It hits when we hit the peak in production.
Welcome to Peak Oil in your lifetime, if not already.
Nowehere: since your bvrain seems to be farting, the consumption time we do not have has to do with the effects of BURNING the oil, not consuming it, per se. In other words, ot how much we ahve, but how it affects GW. If you'd read carefully you'd have gotten that. Throughout this thread I have distinguished between the timing of peak oil, the amount of oil and the effects of oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hiua25
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Oh, come on! What do you know about peak oil? 20 years? No! That's when it is expected, for all intents and purposes, to RUN OUT. |
So in this extract you say that oil is expected to run out in 20 years. But later on in the thread you said that......
| Quote: |
| Running out of oil, for all intents and puproses, is about 50 years out |
Then later on I think you make the following statement referring to when oil will run out if current consumption continues........
| Quote: |
| It's actually MORE than 100 years. I did it and posted it WAAAAY back. It's 132 years. |
Of course this only refers to current consumption when consumption is likely to increase drastically. On the same post you qualify that to include expected increased consumption of oil
| Quote: |
| we end up with only about 85 years or so of consumption |
Can you see how ridiculous you�re being?
However I agree with you 100% about peak oil. It�s difficult to judge but I believe that peak oil is either happening right now, has only just happened or will happen in the near future. I�ve never made any other statement to the contrary.
I�d like to see you get out of that one mate! And without using insulting language please! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
Page 6:
| Quote: |
| Nowehere: since your bvrain seems to be farting, the consumption time we do not have has to do with the effects of BURNING the oil, not consuming it, per se. In other words, ot how much we ahve, but how it affects GW. If you'd read carefully you'd have gotten that. Throughout this thread I have distinguished between the timing of peak oil, the amount of oil and the effects of oil. |
Context:
Page 1:
| Quote: |
| 3rd, look at the stats on just how much oil that is given future consumption expectations. |
Page 1:
| Quote: |
| So, if there's plenty of oil, why would the government... |
Page 1:
| Quote: |
| Let me add an example of all this "new" oil: the recently-found deep drilling oil field in the Gulf or Carribean? Worth, oh, some few months of oil. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you want a discussion, have one. Pulling lines out of context is wasting everyone's time. All of those quotes were wihin spcific contexts and most of them, if not all, were describing OTHERS thoughts on the issue, not my own. Further, ALL of them were within the context of certain posters excrutiatingly simplistic presentation of Peak Oil.
Fir example: the various quotes about how much oil we have: 1. they reflect OTHERS statements, not mine. 2. Some are about how current known reserves, others are about Exxon's estimates of ALL SOURCES of oil, including recovering depleted wells, tar sands, ETC.
Dumb asses.
Neither of you are acting honestly. You have a question, ask it. However, I have been crystal clear. Quit bullshitting.
Any honest actors here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pg. 1
| Quote: |
You dudes are so simplistic in your thinking. ...
Simplistic is not good when discussing something like the oil supply. |
THAT is the topic. Got it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:47 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't think so.
Sadly, this may end up being a serious issue. The Ira war gives this even more gravity as it is the only rational reason FOR the Iraq war. So, is Bush crazy, or just trying to secure the oil?
If peak oil is such a pile of crap, then what is this guy doing speaking out about it?
Matthew Simmons, financier/banker to the oil industry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So, your position is that oil will run out in 130+ years? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How could I have an opinion on that? I am not a geologist, nor have I personally tested the oil fields, etc. Based on Exxon's statements about total oil resources divided by current yearly consumption, that number would be approximately accurate. However, it does not take into account future rises in consumption, nor do I know whether Exxons' numbers refer to total real barrels of oil or total recoverable barrels of oil. (Most oil fields leave 2/3 of the oil in the ground.) It also doesn't take into account falsified stats, general vagaries of the oil industry's accounting methods, etc.
Your question is irrelevant, however. Peak Oil is not an issue driven by how much oil we have, but by when peak production occurs. Why ask an irrelevant question? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
THE authority on Peak Oil
Matt Simmons.
It's not just coming, it's here.
* Over the last five years spending on oil production has doubled, yet production has been flat or declining.
(He owns no oil stocks. He is an investment banker specializing in energy. As a banker, I don't see tha angle for him, so see no reason fo him to be fudging.)
(Peak. Flat or declining. Expected to continue to either be flat or declining and is not expected to significantly increase... ever. This comment mine.)
I've done a lot of reading on this lately. Some points to consider:
* Sure, there's oil, but can we afford to burn it? Global Warming, anyone? Increasing our use of oil at a time when the science tells us we need to go backwards in production of green house gasses??
* Sure there's oil, but that's no the issue. As noted above, if production has flattened out and/or is declining, but demand is rising.... what is the only possible result?
* Tar sands? 1. See Global Warming. 2. Slow. Very slow. 3. Expensive. Higher prices will make production affordable... for you? What does $70 - $100 a barrel of oil mean for YOU? 4. Environmentally ruinous.
* Natural gas? 1. See Global Warming. (Though better than oil, not really an option.) 2. OK, ready, set go! Get the world converted to LPG! How much time and money do you think it would take, all the while there are more GW gasses... Now, 50 years ago, maybe this was an option.
* Alternatives? Of course. 1. However, where is the political will? Those in charge don't care how much you pay. They're the ones you are paying. 2. Time. Ready... Conversion time? World wide?? 3. Cost? World wide? And how do we pay for all that oil and all the environmental preparations/repairs from GW at the same time? Not to mention the wars... the debt...
There may be solutions, but none of them will be painless. I see no viable solution in the short term that will 1. keep energy affordable for those that are most vulnerable 2. keep GW at bay and 3. avoid serious, if not massive, social upheaval.
Don't call me a kook unless you are willing to call the single most knowledgeable man on the planet on Peak Oil a kook. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Can you spot the elephant in the room?
| Quote: |
�From an energy security perspective, there will be a limit. But, it is still too early days to talk about it,� Caruso said.
Stringham felt that if the O-15 group were drawn up on a political-stability basis, Canada would have been on the top.
�The U.S. has made it amply clear they do not want us to sell our oil in the global markets and will take as much as we can offer. At the same time there will not be any pressure on Canadian producers to increase supplies,� he said.
Calgary Herald |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting description of the type of people that fall into the categories of early-peak-oilers and late-peak-oilers.
| Quote: |
Oil is a finite resource, and there will come a day, inevitably, when we reach the highest amount of oil that can ever be pumped. Beyond that day - which we can think of as the topping point, or "peak oil" as it is often called - will lie a progressive overall decline in production. Putting the same question a different way, then, at the current prodigious global demand levels, where does oil's topping point lie?
This is a question, I contend, that will come to dominate the affairs of nations before this first decade of the new century is out.
Already, a battle is raging, largely behind the scenes, about when we reach the topping point, and what will happen when we do. In one camp, those I shall call the "late toppers", are the people who tell us that 2 trillion barrels of oil or more remain to be exploited in oil reserves and reasonably expectable future discoveries. This camp includes almost all oil companies, governments and their agencies, most financial analysts, and most business journalists. As you might expect, given this line-up, the late toppers hold the ascendancy in the argument as things stand.
In the other camp are a group of dissident experts, whom I shall call the "early toppers". They are mostly people who - like me - have worked in the heart of the oil industry, the majority of them geologists, many of them members of an umbrella organisation called the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO). They are joined by a small but growing number of analysts and journalists. The early toppers reckon that 1 trillion barrels of oil, or less, are left.
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/what-they-dont-want-you-to-know-about-the-coming-oil-crisis-523830.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
