President Donald Trump's Final Days...

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Sophists do not understand that what is remaining is more harder (more expensive) to exploit (because the remaining resources are stocked deeper or in smaller fields).

I must say... I'm very impressed by the ultra positive attitude of people like deepsepia.
They are really lucky. I'd like to be like them.

All you'd have to do is to learn something about petroleum geology and the history of estimates of reserves.

Because you know so little about the subject, you read a pessimistic statement and take it as gospel. You have no awareness that people have been making precisely these predictions for a century-- and been wrong. A century of being wrong is enough evidence to discard an idea.

But since you're not aware of any of that, you just read today's prediction with no knowledge of just how many times its been wrong. Here are just a few estimates of peak oil production, from the last twenty years or so . . . and bear in mind, these are just the most recent-- predicting peak oil goes back more than a century. Any of these predictions claiming a peak before 2018 (eg most of them)-- its already wrong.



And because you're not aware of the changes in oil production technology, you just think "drilling oil" is the same thing that it was fifty years ago.

If I thought that a commercial airplane was still a DC-3, I'd be skeptical when someone said "you can fly across the Pacific" . . . but of course, technology has changed, and what was hard and dangerous in a DC 3 is comfortable and easy in a 787.

The oil industry is one of the world's largest markets for all kinds of technology. Back in the day, my company supplied data storage systems to folks doing seismic mapping; one upon a time, "oil exploration" was folks drilling wells in places where they'd seen oil seeps (Pennsylvania, the Persian Gulf) . . . you didn't "find oil" -- you stepped in it.

Today, oil exploration companies have fantastically power computing resources to evaluate geologic formations, technology that was unimaginable previously. Its somewhat like surgery-- in the bad old days (eg 1960s), you'd often have "exploratory surgery" -- they'd literally cut you open to look for a problem (usually cancer). Today that almost never happens, we can image the inside of a human with such precision that the most we need is a needle biopsy; oil exploration is a lot like that, and for the same reason, massive changes in technology.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by charliels531

"Sophist" is what you call someone who has made a better argument than you can make.

Like which ones?

"We have a lot!" "We will drill deeper!"

That's advertising, not scientific datas.

I mentionned Ph. Colin Campbell of Oxford. EIA (US energy information administration) datas... not "we have a lot" or stories of 1904.

Why Deepsepia or you don't mention

Originally Posted by xyzde69

The stock of ultimate resourced didn't change. Colin J. Campbell, (PhD Oxford British petroleum geologist), calculated that there was initially a total of 2,050 to 2,390 billion barrels (380 km3) of crude oil on Earth (because of specific conditions of creation). According to the 2006 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since the years 1965-2005, approximately 917 billion barrels of oil have been extracted globally.

Originally Posted by ShutUpLutz!

But we honestly have no goddamn idea whether or not we have passed peak oil.

EIA expects 2030...
BP predicts 2025...

Can we trust them ?

Then they will convert gaz to liquid, coal to liquid. But that will produce a lot of CO2 emissions.

[ShutUpLutz!]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Like which ones?

"We have a lot!" "We will drill deeper!"

That's advertising, not scientific datas.

I mentionned Ph. Colin Campbell of Oxford. EIA (US energy information administration) datas... not "we have a lot" or stories of 1904.

Why Deepsepia or you don't mention








EIA expects 2030...
BP predicts 2025...

Can we trust them ?

Then they will convert gaz to liquid, coal to liquid. But that will produce a lot of CO2 emissions.

Christ, it's like talking to a revolving door with you.

There is ZERO evidence that the world is at or has past 'peak oil'. That's like saying the world has passed 'peak gold.'

If someone or more likely a group of someone actually did have such knowledge they would be aligning themselves with certain governments in order to take advantage of this information and there is ZERO evidence this has taken place.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by ShutUpLutz!

Christ, it's like talking to a revolving door with you.

There is ZERO evidence that the world is at or has past 'peak oil'. That's like saying the world has passed 'peak gold.'

If someone or more likely a group of someone actually did have such knowledge they would be aligning themselves with certain governments in order to take advantage of this information and there is ZERO evidence this has taken place.

I don't say we are AT "peal oil"... but near.
So EIA is crap?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

I don't say we are AT "peal oil"... but near.
So EIA is crap?

One more time, the predictions that we are "near" peak oil goes back a century and more.

"... the peak of production will soon be passed, possibly within 3 years. ... There are many well-informed geologists and engineers who believe that the peak in the production of natural petroleum in this country will be reached by 1921 and who present impressive evidence that it may come even before 1920."

David White, chief geologist, United States Geological Survey (1919)

You might think a bit on the reason that these estimates are always wrong.

Its because they're always estimating from then-contemporary technology.

But technology -- particularly for finding and pumping oil-- changes very rapidly.

If you assume that 2018 technology will still be state of the art in 2030-- well, you'd have been wrong about that in every previous decade.

[Rogerbh]

Love that description. "Preening, Clueless Clown" - classic.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/foreign-l...164744997.html

[tsunamiSD]

White House's Own Analyses Show Many of Its New Rules Will Take Toll is the title of this article in the San Diego Union.

President Trump’s push to roll back federal regulations will take a significant toll on Americans’ health and finances, according to a surprising source — the Trump administration itself.

The Department of Education, for example, did not report how many student borrowers would be affected by a proposed rule issued earlier this year making it more difficult for students who have been defrauded by colleges or universities to get debt relief. Nor did the agency report how much more debt these students could face.


Only when borrowers sued did the agency acknowledge in court filings that scaling back the federal government’s debt relief program had left students with $56.9 million in additional debt.

When Trump in 2017 ordered the EPA to scrap President Obama’s landmark initiative to fight climate change by limiting power plant emissions, agency scientists reported the move would cause up to 4,500 premature deaths annually.


The administration’s proposed replacement – known as the Affordable Clean Energy rule -- pushed the projected death toll even higher, according to EPA scientists, who estimated an additional 1,400 premature deaths every year.

The agency also predicted American workers sickened by increased air pollution caused by the added emissions would miss up to 48,000 days of work and sickened children would miss up to 160,000 days of school annually.


Another proposal by the EPA to rescind a ban on a type of polluting diesel-engine trucks, known as glider trucks, also would have been deadly, causing up to 1,600 additional premature deaths from just a single year of glider production, EPA scientists revealed in regulatory filings.

[IC Hunt]

Originally Posted by tsunamiSD

White House's Own Analyses Show Many of Its New Rules Will Take Toll is the title of this article in the San Diego Union.

I wasn't sure I wanted to join the melee over here but, just released, today I believe, a new government report:

Climate change will shrink US economy and kill thousands, government report warns

"A new US government report delivers a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impacts, saying the economy could lose hundreds of billions of dollars -- or, in the worst-case scenario, more than 10% of its GDP -- by the end of the century.


The federally mandated study was supposed to come out in December but was released by the Trump administration on Friday, at a time when many Americans are on a long holiday weekend, distracted by family and shopping.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by tsunamiSD

White House's Own Analyses Show Many of Its New Rules Will Take Toll is the title of this article in the San Diego Union.

One tiny quibble with the headline: its not the "White House" analysis-- rather its the analysis of the career professionals in the Departments of Government. The National Climate Assessment is a document that the Government is required by statute to prepare, and the people who prepared it are by and large scientists and economists, not political appointees, not "the White House"

Originally Posted by National Climate Assessment

The Global Change Research Act of 1990 mandates that the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) deliver a report to Congress and the President no less than every four years that “1) integrates, evaluates, and interprets the findings of the Program…; 2) analyzes the effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity; and 3) analyzes current trends in global change, both human-induced and natural, and projects major trends for the subsequent 25 to 100 years.”1

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/cha...-matter-about/

Trump is a bit like Mao-- he's Head of State, yes -- but he hates the "Government".

Mao famously commanded his Red Guards -- radical students, mostly-- to "bombard the headquarters", to attack the institutions of government, and indeed the people who make the government work.

Trump would understand that sentiment, if he knew who Mao was . . .

[ShutUpLutz!]

What's really insidious about Trump and what he and the Republicans around him are doing is that they are deliberately fucking the government and government agencies and various departments that they want to eliminate up as much as possible so that after the 2020 election, assuming trump and the Republicans are still in power, they will turn and say, "Look at how terrible the EPA is. there are so many awful people working there, but we are getting rid of them and of the EPA!!!"

I've heard rumors that much like top Republicans and conservatives gathered together in DC soon after Obama's election in 2008 and formulated the plan to resist/push back/defeat everything he put forth, people like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul, and especially Grover Norquist* have done the same with Trump after he won in 2016.

*Norquist is on record saying that he wants to cut and cut and cut taxes until the government gets small enough and then drown it, the government in a bathtub.