

Mon, 2008-09-15 10:11Jeremy Jacquot
Jeremy Jacquot's picture













They have no choice but to drill in currently off limit areas. World supply is shrinking both from geological depletion of deposits, but also demand from other regions, such as China. (At China's current rate of growth in 15 years their demand will be what the world currently produces, 86million barrels per day, leaving nothing for everyone else)

Canterell field in Mexico is in terminal decline of about 15% per year and accelerating. That deposit is the US's third largest import source. In 4 years the deposit will not supply Mexico's domestic demand. Hence it's just a matter of a few short years and the US will have to make that import up from somewhere else, competing with China.


But still even drilling in these areas will not keep this party going. Estimates are that there is about 30-40BB of recoverable oil in these locations. That's 5-6 years of US consumption. They actually will last much longer because the flow rate is going to be the issue. Off shore and difficult deposits have very low flow rates.






The economy, or certain people's economy?



No access to editing our posts


Peak oil is here. Learn to live with it.




Especially the latest, #18.





I'm still waiting for an exponential growth in the number of bubble bath babes. I'm sure, with the power of Trickle-Down Economics, the day of such growth will be upon us any time now.


You miss the point.
Replace all your light bulbs with curley bulbs. (Mercury really won't hurt you)
Buy Al Gore's carbon indulgences. (Absolution is great eh)
And Most important of all, pay ever higher taxes.

Its really the taxes that will solve everything.

"pay ever higher taxes"

Yeah, I can see how that might be a problem.





It's irrelevant. When you pay taxes, I'm sure you don't care about your income class, you just worry about your own wallet. Because that's what matters to you.

In the same way, I'm sure it's the cost of harem upkeep -- not to mention the expenses of maintaining their lascivious bubble baths -- that the Royalty-In-Kind honchos are worried about. So yeah, I can still see why raising taxes might be a problem for them.


Not a clue what you are talking about.

His subject line was "Irrelevant"
he really couldn't have summed up his post any better than that. sorry Frank - that was just too easy




To be serious: yeah, good question. :)


well anything is's always the last ones you suspect.


It's crazy and I don't actually believe it but it's at least as plausible as the wacky idea that we can control natural climate change by following the Gore Gospel.


No, I don't actually believe it, and I strongly encourage everybody not to believe it. Really, I do. You shouldn't believe a single bit of the theory that I just spouted. No, really, really, really, you're not supposed to believe it. I'm just bringing it up, I'm not telling you to believe it.

Um... what was my theory again? Ah yes, it's this: Rick is an out-of-job Hollywood comedy writer hired as a really bad sockpuppet.

You really shouldn't believe this. You really shouldn't.


I believe he's a really bad sock puppet.

I'll try to improve my evil and yet lame sock puppet ways.

Here's a better idea for you: Get a real job.


This is not as unbelievable as it would seem.
Energy security was the goal.

But of course, Gary, you totally don't believe the Thatcher conspiracy theory which you just spewed, do you? You're merely just bringing it up for discussion, right? Even while you're blabbering about it, you know it's a totally, totally, totally crazy conspiracy theory, and you very, very, very strongly encourage people not to believe in it, right?


No Frank.
Unlike AGW pushers, I don't attempt to tell people how to think, I merely post information that may help in their research.


Or perhaps many.

Well, there we are. Gary doesn't actually tell people what to think! All he did was to present his insinuations and "beliefs" as "information", but this, my friends, is totally different from telling people what to think!

Gary baldly asserts that "there is no scientific reason to push the AGW Agenda". When he says this, he is absolutely, totally, completely not telling you what to think! He is merely posting "information"!



That's exactly why she needed nuclear so badly she financed so much "focused"research to "prove" CO2 was causing a problem.




Two birds with one Wind turbine!

.00009 Degrees Cooler; Humans Rights Gone

Everyone, rest assured, rest very assured, rest very very assured, rest very very very assured that Gary is absolutely not trying to tell you what to think. He's just posting insinuations, um I mean informations.



I wonder if the trolls are working a bit harder to wreck Desmogblog with their gibberish because it's election season in Canada and the USA. They seem recently to have been more persistent and their noise and bizarre scientific revisionism is drowning out productive conversations before they even start.

The flame wars start around line 1 of the comment sections these days. Nothing helpful comes from this and these comments, which are flames really, do not constitute discussions. They're not even comments. They're just propaganda. I don't know, but I suspect that is not really "cricket", even on a web site devoted to deflating propagandists' efforts to distort common understanding.





He has acted in a public way to do lots of things... that are UTTERLY unrelated to the development of the nearly-universally accepted view (read: by every science academy I can think of) that human activities are altering climate. So, why propagate the myth? Dishonesty? Ignorance? A combination of one of those and political spin?

Al Gore funds Jim Hansen, who is the scientific authority on AGW. Who then funds RealClimate. Gore not only has a direct link to the "science", thus the message of that "science", but also has financial gain by keeping the polemic going.

Again, that perspective rests of the unanimity of the world's scientific academies, the IPCC, the thousands of independently conducted studies and multiple lines of experimental, observational, and modeling evidence that demonstrate with virtual certainty the large role of humans in altering climate. The question is intended rhetorically.

Question for you. Does that mean the IPCC's views are the offical views? In other words, the IPCC is the gosple on AGW?





take out the "trolls" and what do you have? a cheering section for the post. that's lame. there are tons of cheering section message boards on both sides of this discussion and they're all boring. There is qualified scientific discussion on both sides. Pretending otherwise is dishonest. The wish for a cheering section rather than a discussion is telling. Is that all you want from this anti PR blog?

Read the post again. You're not even trying.

I suggested discussion might be useful.



For Rick, laying out inconvenient facts is called "mockery". And of course, since he can't dispute the facts, he disputes the "tone". With that in mind, he goes on to justify some blatant name-calling.





"I tried in my post above but was, to my mystification, accused of being a troll."

It's called "projection".


I guess. I'm not sure what you mean, Frank. Sorry.



The longer the American economy is reliant on oil, the further in debt the country will become, the greater number of foreclosures will occur, and the more banks will face failure. It's about time these conservative hacks be voted out of office for good. They've done enough harm to the American people.

"When will the nutbar conservatives... "


That would be a sad day for such a great nation.
The Omish would feel at home though.

you really think that if they elect democrats, it's going to in some magic way reduce demand and dependency on oil. Fascinating concept, but I think there will be zero difference. It's hardly about who is in power. It's about global realities and it's about basic human nature. We all want the good life that oil gives us. You, me, the hollywood hypocrites and even the esteemed Mr. Gore.






read more