God is dumping tons of pollutants in our atmosphere!!!

#26
#26
IPorange said:
At the world's current growth rate of consumption, something will have to give before 75 years from now. And that has nothing to do with environmental concerns.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

And what SOLID evidence do you have to make this assumption?? Are we going to be DOOMED as a planet by then. I think not, and it's an alarmist theory at best. Where are all these rises in sea levels?? Where are all these famines and droughts and floods?? Oh wait, we had those before MMGW became a political agenda. People need to quit tugging on the emotional sleeve of the world.
 
#30
#30
#34
#34
g8terh8ter_eric said:
And what SOLID evidence do you have to make this assumption?? Are we going to be DOOMED as a planet by then. I think not, and it's an alarmist theory at best. Where are all these rises in sea levels?? Where are all these famines and droughts and floods?? Oh wait, we had those before MMGW became a political agenda. People need to quit tugging on the emotional sleeve of the world.
Click to expand...

Where are these claims that I have made of doom? Link? How come you people can spout off and say something ridiculous, and then turn around without even acknowledging you were wrong and don't know jack about volcanoes or the issues and call someone else out for an "assumption?" Amazing.

It wasn't an assumption, btw. It is based on the growth rate of global demand (I know, it's hard to imagine the world outside the US's borders, the richest and best off country on the planet).
 
#35
#35
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I may have not been entirely accurate, but here's something interesting to read. We have 100 times in reserves within our borders and around our shorelines, than our current annual consumption. That's just natural gas, not including oil shale.

http://www.aga.org/NR/rdonlyres/65B2FD7E-A208-4687-9B4B-6EC079DA673D/0/0906PGCPRESS.PDF
Click to expand...

Eric, I would really question the validity of these numbers. I sat in SPE board meetings for hours and hours listening to discussions about proven and probable reserves (SPE set the standards on those for petroleum). During that time I never heard a discussion concerning possible or speculative reserves. Of course, as an accountant I may have dozed during those discussions.

If you look at the numbers you see that the proven and probable reserves only comprise 33% of the total.
 
#36
#36
Ken, is a probable reserve a reserve that we know exists and is probable of one day being affordable enough to extract (at the current price of the resource), but is too expensive to extract to be considered proven as of today? The definition of proven reserves is an odd one to me, since these numbers can fall if the price of the resource crashes.
 
Last edited:
#37
#37
From the SPE web site.....

"Probable reserves are those unproved reserves which analysis of geological and engineering data suggests are more likely than not to be recoverable. In this context, when probabilistic methods are used, there should be at least a 50% probability that the quantities actually recovered will equal or exceed the sum of estimated proved plus probable reserves.� In general, probable reserves may include (1) reserves anticipated to be proved by normal step-out drilling where sub-surface control is inadequate to classify these reserves as proved, (2) reserves in formations that appear to be productive, based on well log characteristics, but lack core data or definitive tests and which are not analogous to producing or proved reservoirs in the area, (3) incremental reserves attributable to infill drilling that could have been classified as proved if closer statutory spacing had been approved at the time of the estimate, (4) reserves attributable to improved recovery methods that have been established by repeated commercially successful applications when (a) a project or pilot is planned, but not in operation and (b) rock, fluid, and reservoir characteristics appear favorable for commercial application, (5) reserves in an area of the formation that appears to be separated from the proved area by faulting and the geologic interpretation indicates the subject area is structurally higher than the proved area, (6) reserves attributable to a future workover, treatment, re-treatment, change of equipment, or other mechanical procedures, where such procedure has not been proved successful in wells which exhibit similar behavior in analogous reservoirs, and (7) incremental reserves in proved reservoirs where an alternative interpretation of performance or volumetric data indicates more reserves than can be classified as proved. Often referred to as P2 (SPE)."

The definition of proven reserves does include current economic conditions.
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
As technology advances both proven and possible reserves tend to increase.

I found it interesting that most, if not all, the major oil companies will start plugging oil wells that are not profitable when some of the cost applied to the well is corporate overhead which then has to be spread over the wells still producing. One of SPE's ex presidents started a company in Houston that buys those wells since the well invariably covers all variable costs and produces an operating net income.
 
#39
#39
KentheOrange said:
As technology advances both proven and possible reserves tend to increase.

I found it interesting that most, if not all, the major oil companies will start plugging oil wells that are not profitable when some of the cost applied to the well is corporate overhead which then has to be spread over the wells still producing. One of SPE's ex presidents started a company in Houston that buys those wells since the well invariably covers all variable costs and produces an operating net income.
Click to expand...

It's all about the resource triangle.
 
#40
#40
IPorange said:
Where are these claims that I have made of doom? Link? How come you people can spout off and say something ridiculous, and then turn around without even acknowledging you were wrong and don't know jack about volcanoes or the issues and call someone else out for an "assumption?" Amazing.

It wasn't an assumption, btw. It is based on the growth rate of global demand (I know, it's hard to imagine the world outside the US's borders, the richest and best off country on the planet).
Click to expand...

It's the way you present your argument sometimes, and it's hard to understand where you are coming from. You've been conservative in some of your claims, and sounded like you were going right along with the alarmists in others. At least, that's how it came off to me. :good!:
 
#42
#42
g8terh8ter_eric said:
It's the way you present your argument sometimes, and it's hard to understand where you are coming from. You've been conservative in some of your claims, and sounded like you were going right along with the alarmists in others. At least, that's how it came off to me. :good!:
Click to expand...

Alarmist is a relative term. I have people whom I feel are over-the-top in their views of climate change and environmentalism, too. But I also know there is a real phenomenon. Someone predicting 30 feet sea level rise and global famine isn't that much different from someone saying humans are incapable of impacting climate. Both claims are founded in political rhetoric, not the physical world.
 
#43
#43
IPorange said:
Alarmist is a relative term. I have people whom I feel are over-the-top in their views of climate change and environmentalism, too. But I also know there is a real phenomenon. Someone predicting 30 feet sea level rise and global famine isn't that much different from someone saying humans are incapable of impacting climate. Both claims are founded in political rhetoric, not the physical world.
Click to expand...

If you look at the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would take a MUCH bigger increase in CO2 to get us to the point to where it actually effected our lives on a daily basis. So, there may very well be climate change, but it's not near like what it has been made out to be to the people of this world.
 
#44
#44
g8terh8ter_eric said:
If you look at the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would take a MUCH bigger increase in CO2 to get us to the point to where it actually effected our lives on a daily basis. So, there may very well be climate change, but it's not near like what it has been made out to be to the people of this world.
Click to expand...

If you mean the amount it would take to adversely affect human respiration... ok. Not sure what that has to do with climate change or what that has to do with the amount necessary to affect climate.
 
#45
#45
IPorange said:
If you mean the amount it would take to adversely affect human respiration... ok. Not sure what that has to do with climate change or what that has to do with the amount necessary to affect climate.
Click to expand...

Ok, legimate question......

How much has this supposed climate change REALLY affected everyone on earth?? If we are arguing over 0.1 or 0.4 degrees Celsius, then where is the alarm at?? The earth has been hotter when industry wasn't around, and it's been cooler in the same respects. Making people be forced to do something over a temperature rise that can't be pointed at man at this point, is foolish. You know it is as well.
 
#46
#46
You just don't see the big picture. It isn't about it being .4 degrees hotter on a given day than it is otherwise. It's about larger scale changes to patterns and conditions that disrupt what we humans have become dependent on.

But you know I've never advocated "forcing" anything. I don't think forcing people to do things does anything but breed resentment and, well, skepticism. You won't find me lining up behind Gore's plans for carbon credits, with cap and trade policies, or even international treaties that don't include India, China, and other developing economies.

I am in favor of a more grassroots approach, which would be relatively painless.
 
#47
#47
IPorange said:
You just don't see the big picture. It isn't about it being .4 degrees hotter on a given day than it is otherwise. It's about larger scale changes to patterns and conditions that disrupt what we humans have become dependent on.

But you know I've never advocated "forcing" anything. I don't think forcing people to do things does anything but breed resentment and, well, skepticism. You won't find me lining up behind Gore's plans for carbon credits, with cap and trade policies, or even international treaties that don't include India, China, and other developing economies.

I am in favor of a more grassroots approach, which would be relatively painless.
Click to expand...

And where has anything changed that drastically over the years to cause this distress on our planet??
 
#48
#48
Yes, the more babies being born to republican parents, the more the earth is being poluted(they will be brainwashed with rediculous thoughts).
 
#49
#49
g8terh8ter_eric said:
And where has anything changed that drastically over the years to cause this distress on our planet??
Click to expand...

Here's a recent paper:

UNHCR - Climate change, disaster, displacement and migration: initial evidence from Africa. Vikram Kolmannskog

What kind of sources or examples would you find credible? There's coral bleaching, changes in disease patterns, food shortages, etc. Note, I said changes. I am aware that they have always occurred.

It's kind of like asking someone to prove someone died of AIDS. AIDS doesn't kill you, it just leads to something that would otherwise be easily dealt with killing you.
 
#50
#50
volsmith said:
Yes, the more babies being born to republican parents, the more the earth is being poluted(they will be brainwashed with rediculous thoughts).
Click to expand...

Villainizing people doesn't help things...

Besides, my parents are Republicans.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top