Depletion

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
B Bankins	Re: My Downpuppy has Run Away...Have You Seen Him?	#61	[-]
Posts: 388 (06/29/02 03:10:57) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	LibLob ( or Jack... ), once again a fine piece of work here! It's a shame the way facts ruin a good "Chicken Little" story. A standing ovation to you sir! I remember reading somewhere that we have enough petro in ANWAR, the Gulf Coast, and Florida Coast to keep us supplied well into the next century and not be dependent on OPEC.
Downpuppy	Due to lack of sense here, a final post	#62	[-]
Posts: 5450 (06/29/02 09:17:21) Heh, heh...Beavis? Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Doesn't anyone believe in progress? Even when you see it right in front of you? Geology involves the study of rock formations. Unlike psychology, economics, or theology, it's an organized study of things that aren't actively fighting the efforts to study them. A 50 year old survey map is still good. You can go back with better instruments and get more detail, but the basic thing hasn't changed. You look at the survey maps of the Oklahoma panhandle- they're really nice work. People drill a well, they have a good idea what they'll find. If it's gas they're looking for, they have a choice of lots of pockets - but the big ones are long gone. A well they drill now, will be down 40% in a year, and probably abandoned in 3. Anyhow, I'm glad you actually posted some decent history of the subject, but sorry that nobody put it together. You have the early parts, where nobody has a clue. By the late 1950s, people are starting to get enough information to predict. Some of the predictions are way high, but the median is actually pretty reasonable. By 1980, they're tackling the big, worldwide, question. That's where you run into a little problem sorting out scientific & political predictions. The scientific ones are all in the 1.8-2.8 gbl range - I already covered how little difference that makes. Just remember, you can't get oil out of granite, even if you scream "Liberal!" at it REALLY LOUD!
N Sengupta	Re: Due to lack of sense here, a final post	#63	[-]
Posts: 7282 (06/29/02 17:46:51) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi All, I did read somewhere that we are the number two producer of oil behind Saudi Arabia even though we only have the 10th highest oil reserves. I'm not sure what this means or how it contributes to this discussion, but I did feel that it might be noteworthy and a possible indicator of our overconsumption and overdependence on fossil fuels. Narayan
RMS54	Comments	#64	[-]
Posts: 23 (06/30/02 23:51:41) Organizer Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Maybe I should start by saying that the facts presented earlier are quite cogent. It makes plenty of sense to think that geology is not the most exact science in terms of its ability to accurately gauge the future because the Earth is constantly changing, but the truth is that BECAUSE the Earth changes it is extremely easy to follow. I took a class a while ago that talked about the Earth's ability to heal itself. The theory, the Gaia Hypothesis, spoke of the Earth's regenerative abilities and how true LibLo's proposal is that the Earth isn't going to fall apart at the metaphorical seams. You're right, but you're wrong if you think we'll survive with it. As a global ecosystem, there are thousands of factors that play into the fragile human existence. Species of insect that die off in forests due to logging may protect us from a type of bacteria that grows on a certain plant that is only spored during periods of overgrowth. When the plants overgrow and an area is suddenly struck with mysterious illnesses, most of the time the government blames poor planning and bad "locuses of control." In reality, we've merely overstepped our bounds as human beings. We've refused to cooperate with the environment, so it gives us a good metaphysical shake and says "Calm down before you hurt yourself." We, the foolish humans, merely go about our business and do it again, this time with no immediate response from the wildlife because we have killed it all in that immediate area. BUT, we've affected that global construct and now have to deal with the consequences down the road. To tie this all together, the oil problem is immensely complicated. We'll probably be completely unsure as to the effects until it is much too late, but isn't it a much better idea to just give alternative fuel sources a shot anyway? -R.
N Sengupta	Re: Comments	#65	[-]
Posts: 7282 (07/01/02 18:17:00) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"We'll probably be completely unsure as to the effects until it is much too late, but isn't it a much better idea to just give alternative fuel sources a shot anyway?" R, Well summed up! I think that certain parties have too much vested in oil, however, for alternative fuel sources/types to see any light of day. Narayan
LiberalLobotomy	Please don't cry...	#66	[-]
Posts: 143 (07/08/02 18:07:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* Due to lack of sense here, a final post It's OK to run away, Downpuppy. Most sissies do.
LiberalLobotomy	BAAAAAAAD DOG!	#67	[-]
Posts: 143 (07/08/02 20:02:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Welcome back, everyone! As we watch Downpuppy transform from rabid Doberman to scolded Chihuahua, lets continue with Episode Three ofThe Debunking of Downpuppy! Todays episode: Why Geologist Predictions of Oil Depletion Are ALWAYS Too Pessimistic In his last feeble reply, Downpuppysounding a little desperate nowattempted to stanch the dam-break of defections from his evangelical depletion theology with the following whimpering plea: [for a good laugh, speak the following quote aloud with a whiney, Elmer Fudd voice]: *Quote:* Doesn't anyone believe in progress? Even when you see it right in front of you? OKstop laughing. Downpuppy is trying to tell you that you're a Luddite for daring to question his sacred science of geology ( even though predictions of oil depletion by Downpuppys expert geologists have been wildlyeven laughablywrong from the beginning of the modern petroleum industry over 140 years ago to the present). Amazingly, Downpuppy sees the evidence right in front of him, yet he still rejects the only reasonable conclusion offered by this evidence: that *geologists are unable to accurately* predict global oil resources, and therefore, the inflection point of peak global oil production. Why is Downpuppy so hardheaded? Does he have a learning disability like Sally? Is he deceiving you to support a hidden agenda? (I choose to believe that Downpuppys opinions are formed from emotion rather than facts; thus, no amount of reason will ever change his mind. If youve ever dealt with Sally, you know what I mean.) Lets look at another quote from the same post. Here, Downpuppy shows us why he clings with evangelical fervor to his expert geologists predictions: Quote:** Geology involves the study of rock formations. Unlike psychology, economics, or theology [ Downpuppy thinks theology is a science!!], it's an organized study of things that aren't actively fighting the efforts to study them. A 50 year old survey map is still good. You can go back with better instruments and get more detail, but the basic thing hasn't changed. At the heart of Downpuppys plea is the following assumption: Only geologists can accurately estimate oil resources because (a) geology is a physical science and (b) physical science is superior to social science. Is Downpuppys assumption plausible? Lets test it to find out: Astronomy is a physical science like geology. Like geologists, astronomers have maps and mathematical models to help them estimate the size of the universe. Applying Downpuppys logic, astronomers should knowaccuratelyhow many planets exist in the universe. Do they? No. Not only do they NOT know how many planets exist, they dont even know how many stars exist. Am I implying that astronomy and geology arent rigorous sciences? Absolutely not!! Im simply illustrating via the example of astronomy that physical science has limitations. In the case of oil, historical precedent alone proves that the accurate estimation of global oil resources is clearly beyond the scope of geological science. OK, it should now be undeniably clear that geologists dont know, with any reasonable accuracy, how much oil is in the ground. Yet the TOTAL amount of oil in the ground is only the STARTING POINT to predicting WHEN global oil production will PEAK! Predicting PEAK oil production is a much more complicated question and this is where Downpuppys ignorance shines. Downpuppy foolishly assumes that the prediction of peak global production is solely a geological question. Thus, he blindly believes that geologists (whom weve already revealed are utterly incapable of accurately estimating TOTAL oil resources) are the only people qualified to predict PEAK OIL PRODUCTION. Downpuppy doesnt even know that the prediction of PEAK OIL PRODUCTION is a function of: > total oil supply (a geological issue), AND > global demand for oil (a socio-economic/political/technological issue), AND > oil prices & production costs (a macro-economic/micro-economic/political issue), AND > technology (a geological/engineering/financial issue). Downpuppy doesnt even realize that geologist predictions of PEAK oil production EXPLICITY IGNORE potential changes in the latter three factors. Thats rightgeologists openly state that their predictions are ceteris paribus, that they ignore potential demand changes, price changes, production cost structures and technological enhancements & innovations. This is why geologist predictions of imminent oil exhaustion are always too pessimistic. Why do geologists ignore these important factors? Because (1) geologists are not qualified to predict demand, prices & costs and technological change, and (2) geologists want their resource estimates and forecasts to be comparable to one another. OK, geologists ignore these factors, but how important are they? Ill begin to answer that question by examining the importance of demand in our next episode on The Debunking of Downpuppy: Whatll You Have? Weve Got 1% or 2%. Dont miss it. Youll learn some valuable information!
LiberalLobotomy	What's that scratching sound?	#68	[-]
Posts: 143 (07/08/02 20:14:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Welcome back, everyone! As poor little Downpuppy scratches at the door to get out, lets belly-up to the Truth Bar for Episode Four ofThe Debunking of Downpuppy! Todays episode: Whatll You Have? Weve Got 1% or 2%. In our last episode, we ended by asking how important demand, prices/costs and technology are in predicting when peak oil production will occur. To answer that question, lets look at how drastically one factordemand for energycan be altered by just a slight change in one underlying assumption. Below are two scenarios of energy demand in the 21st Century (source: Dupont-Roc and Khor, Royal Dutch Shell's Corporate Centre): Both scenarios assume the same economic growth rate (3% per year) and the same population projection (the World Banks outlook); the ONLY difference is the assumption of how efficiently energy is consumed. The sustained growth scenario assumes that energy consumption efficiency improves 1% per year, while the dematerialization scenario assumes that efficiency improves 2% per year. Note how this small improvement in efficiency produces a drastic reduction in energy demand over time. Which scenario is more reasonable? Efficiency improved at an average annual rate of 1% during the last century. However, efficiency was a lesser concern throughout most of the last century since neither pollution nor high energy costs were meaningful factors until the 1970s. Thus, the 1% average annual improvement seen in the last century may be lower than the rate of efficiency gains produced in the 21st century. So, what'll it be? Do you want to assume 1% efficiency or 2%? You decide. Maybe 1% is a reasonable forecast assumption, but 0% certainly isntand 0% is what geologists assume in their predictions of peak oil production. Of course, demand is just one factor affecting oil depletion predictions. What about oil prices and production costs? How can they affect the prediction of when PEAK oil production will occur? Ill answer that question in Episode Five of The Debunking of Downpuppy: How Day Traders are Similar to Oil Companies Dont miss it. Youll learn some valuable information!
Lo Bastido	Re: What's that scratching sound?	#69	[-]
Posts: 2017 (07/08/02 20:54:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	By Sengupta's great red beard! Damn, you're just tearing it up and down the liberal side. Outstanding work, LibLob. "So shaken as we are, so wan with care, / Find we a time for frighted peace to pant, / And breathe short-winded accents of new broils / To be commenced in strands afar remote. / No more the thirsty entrance of this soil / Shall daub her lips with her own children's blood; / Nor more shall trenching war channel her fields, / Nor bruise her flowerets with the armed hoofs / Of hostile paces: those opposed eyes, / Which, like the meteors of a troubled heaven, / All of one nature, of one substance bred, / Did lately meet in the intestine shock / And furious close of civil butchery / Shall now, in mutual well-beseeming ranks, / March all one way and be no more opposed / Against acquaintance, kindred and allies: /The edge of war, like an ill-sheathed knife, / No more shall cut his master." William Shakespeare, 1 Henry IV, Act I, Scene 1
Downpuppy	full of sound & fury, signifying ???	#70	[-]
Posts: 5450 (07/08/02 20:59:02) Heh, heh...Beavis? Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	All that noise! and yet he hasn't filled my tank! Ok -2 little things - theology isn't a science - and nothing in the record or economics or clinical psychology indicates they are either. Since I refuse to use the sarcasm meter, guess that means jokes are out. Growth in efficiency is limited by strict laws of thermodynamics - and just because somebody can draw a chart showing demand of 100gboe in 2060 doesn't mean that supply will be there.
LiberalLobotomy	"By Sengupta's great red beard!" --I'm ROTFLMAO!!	#71	[-]
Posts: 143 (07/09/02 01:27:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Lo, you sly dog...I'll give you ten minutes to cut that out! -LibLob "Your Single-Malt Friend" PS -- Stay tuned, Lo, 'cause I'm cookin' up a whole new mess of homemade whoopass for Downpuppy..... ... and it's just about ready..... (...heh heh heh.)
Unregistered(d)	Re: "By Sengupta's great red beard!" --I'm ROTFLMA	#72	[-]
Posts: 0 (07/09/02 02:21:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	So, um , just a question... this is about depletion...what about the depletion of old-growth forests and the destruction they bring to wildlife, and to human life??? I am all for timber farms and logging those over and over again, but shouldnt we give some space for the noon-humans of the world? Things are good if you ignore Stockwell Day. From "Sally".
N Sengupta	Re: "By Sengupta's great red beard!" --I'm ROTFLMA	#73	[-]
Posts: 7282 (07/09/02 09:22:51) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Liberal, Great defense! What is ROTFLMA, or do I want to know? And who said anything about a beard, anyway? And why would it be red?? Inquiring minds want to know. Okay, so I think that to summarize both sides of the debate, we are here: Depletion is hard to measure or to agree upon. Pollution is an issue, or is it? Deforestation is an issue, or is it? Are we entitled to consume all that we want? Are we entitled to produce all of the waste we want? Narayan
LiberalLobotomy	Downpuppy Ain't Got the Education What I Got	#74	[-]
Posts: 143 (07/09/02 13:33:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* theology isn't a science - and nothing in the record or economics or clinical psychology indicates they are either. Economics is NOT a science?!?! I...I'm completely speechless, Downpuppy. I really thought you were educated. I suppose you contend that Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, which defines economics as the science of the utilities or the useful application of wealth or material resources, is wrong, yet you Gods holy gift of enlightenment to all mankindare correct. I suppose you also contend that The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, which defines economics as the social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems, is also wrong. Well, since youre right and the rest of the entire world is wrong, you had better inform everyone! Why dont you start by calling up The Nobel Foundation and informing them that their prize for economics is incorrectly named the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. (www.nobel.se/economics/index.html) If you hurry, maybe The Nobel Foundation can change the name before conferring their next Nobel Prize for Economics on December 10. While youre talking to the Nobel guys, be sure to tell them that the prize they awarded John Nashyou know, that crazy guy in the movie A Beautiful Mindshould be revoked because Nash works in the Department of Mathematics at Princeton and is thus ineligible for a prize in Economics because he is, in fact, a scientist!!! (Gasp!) (www.math.princeton.edu/jfnj/) Oh, dont forget Myron Scholes (Nobel laureate, 1997), Robert Merton (Nobel, '97) and the late Fischer Black (he had a Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics from Harvard does that make him a scientist?), who together developed modern finances holy grail, the Black-Scholes option pricing model. Their model C= SN(D1)-X(e^-rT)N(D1-VarianceT^0.5), where D1=[ln(S/E)+(r+Standard Deviation/2)T]/VarianceT^0.5 applied Kiyosi Itos theory of stochastic differential equations, which built upon the work of Brown, Einstein (yeah, A l b e r t Einstein), Perrin and Weiner and remains an integral part of several branches of mathematics, including theoretical physics. Im sure you wont agree, but the work of Scholes, et al., sure looks a lot like science to everyone else on earth. But then everyone else on earth doesnt know that economics isnt a science, like you do. Downpuppy, I really should keep rubbing your face in it, you bad, bad dogbut I wont. Ill simply conclude by saying that your utter ignorance of economicsand everything else beyond geology, for that matterbelies your inability to understand the true dynamics that will determine when global oil production will peak and decline. Meanwhile, the fact that you dont understand economics, yet profess an intolerant opinion on a largely economic issue, says volumes about your character. Tah tah, -Liblob "Downpuppy Ain't Got the Education What I Got"
LiberalLobotomy	Downpuppy Ain't Got the Education What I Got-Redux	#75	[-]
Posts: 143 (07/09/02 13:40:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* just because somebody can draw a chart showing demand of 100gboe in 2060 doesn't mean that supply will be there Conversely, just because you can post a ridiculously wide range of estimates of extractable oil in the ground does not mean that you are correct, either. And given the past 140 years of laughable oil depletion predictions, Id say that credibility is definitely NOT on your side in this argument, Downpuppy. BTW, Im glad you mentioned supply, because Im going to discuss that in my next Episode of The Debunking of Downpuppy. Before I do, indulge me a small observation: Why cant you get it through your thick head that the prediction of peak oil production is NOT JUST A GEOLOGICAL ISSUE?!?!? The estimation of total oil in the ground IS solely a geological issue, but the prediction of when oil production will peak is NOT. You claimed in your opening post that the petroleum supply will start a global decline around 2010 on the basis of predictions of total oil in the ground and a mathematical formula a simple bell curvethat says peak production must occur at the midpoint between the beginning of extraction and total exhaustion. Your simplistic mathematical approach ignores the following facts: 1) Geological estimates of total oil in the groundas evidenced by unending upward revisions over the last 140 years and the persistence of a gloriously wide range of estimates today are tenuous, at best. 2) Math-based predictions of peak oil production by geologists like Hubbert ignore the role of economics in determining future production levels, including: ----- The impact of oil prices on production; ----- The impact of oil extraction costs on production; ----- The impact of demand for oil, including the determinants of demand (global population growth, economic activity by region, consumption efficiency, etc.) on supply longevity; ----- The impact of substitute prices on oil production. 3) Math-based predictions of peak oil production by geologists like Hubbert ignore the role of politics in determining production levels. Do you recall how the Lower 48 oil production decline was exacerbated by contrived global supply shortages, namely the OPEC cartels imposition of an oil embargo against the United States in 1973 in response to our support of Israel during the Arab-Israeli War and later supply disruptions caused by the Iran-Iraq War? 4) Math-based predictions of peak oil production by geologists like Hubbert ignore the role of technology in determining production levels. Do you recall that geologists explicitly ignore improvements in extraction technology? That only about 1/3 of the oil in the ground can economically be recovered with current technology, but that extraction technology is steadily improving nonetheless? That the DIFFERENCE between your mean resource estimate of 2.4 gbbl and the estimated TOTAL amount of oil in the ground is well over SIX TIMES the amount of oil consumed in the HISTORY OF MANKIND? Downpuppy, why do you harbor a fetish for geologists? Do you secretly wish you were one? Why dont you try dressing up like one? Well gladly call you Professor Downpuppy, Super-bermensch of All Geology if it will help open your mind a little. Anyway, feel free to join in if you can ever come up with a substantive remark. After all, this is (or was?) your thread. -LibLob Yew Aint Got the Education What I Got
LiberalLobotomy	Downpuppy Gets No RespectNo Respect At All -Rodney	#76	[-]
Posts: 143 (07/09/02 13:49:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* All that noise! and yet he hasn't filled my tank! Hey Downpuppy, heres a solution for your Chicken Little oil crisis: ...(giggle)... Invent a car that runs on bullsht ...(snicker) ... then fill it with your scientific predictions of imminent oil depletion!!!!!* LO.L ! ! ! ! ! ..(side-splitting belly-laugh).. it.. it could run..(gasping-for-air laughter)... for..( choking-laughteralmost no voice left now)... for..( almost-whispering-from-stomach-ache laughter) ever. Whooooooooooooooaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [My apologies to the humor committeeits a cheap joke, but I simply couldnt resist.]
LiberalLobotomy	Re: "By Sengupta's great red beard!" --I'm ROTFLMA	#77	[-]
Posts: 143 (07/09/02 14:10:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Sally, Good point (...did I really just say that??). But shouldn't we save it for another thread? Downpuppy started this thread with a false premise, which we're vigorously debating (or rather, I'm vigorously discrediting) now. Ecologists are so invested in Downpuppy's Chicken Little story, that it seems appropriate to to discredit it before discussing the true merits of ecology. Don't get me wrong--ecology has merits. I just don't want to cloud those merits with Downpuppy's ridiculous assertions of an imminent oil crisis. Maybe you can start a thread by responding to this thought: Don't the non-humans of the world have enough space already? -LibLob ------------ Things are good if you ignore Christopher Bradshaw. From "LibLob."
LiberalLobotomy	Re: "By Sengupta's great red beard!" --I'm ROTFLMA	#78	[-]
Posts: 143 (07/09/02 14:35:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Narayan, 1) ROTFLMAO = Rollin' on the floor, laughing my after-burner off 2) You'll have to ask Lo about the beard reference. I thought it was pretty damn funny, though. Sounds kind of like a remark Walter Brennan would make on The Real McCoy's. 3) As for your assessment, I disagree. Downpuppy started this thread by masquerading a wildly unreliable prediction as fact, which then started a debate on the ramifications of Downpuppy's fictitious scenario. The state of the debate is that I am close to to "finishing-off" Downpuppy's utterly outrageous premise. ONCE THAT'S DONE, it will then be appropriate to discuss the ramifications. Just like it did during the Carter Administration, an incorrect read of the situation can produce policies that actually exacerbate our problems. It's as if someone came to the board and proclaimed that our economy is currently booming, then--without questioning the premise--everyone began debating HOW MUCH we should raise taxes, cut spending and tighten the money supply. I'm sure you can imagine what the ramifications of such policies would be in this environment. Pollution and deforestation are important issues, Narayan. But let's get their presumptive factors right before discussing policy responses. -LibLob Things are great if you ignore Christopher Bradsaw. From "LibLob."
N Sengupta	Re: "By Sengupta's great red beard!" --I'm ROTFLMA	#79	[-]
Posts: 7282 (07/09/02 14:41:40) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi Liberal, Good point and thanks for the clarifications! Okay, so you all feel that we are adjourned on this topic, let's get to the solutions... Narayan
Downpuppy	Economics & psychology	#80	[-]
Posts: 5450 (07/09/02 20:28:10) Heh, heh...Beavis? Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	are not sciences any more than theology until they rethink their methodologies. You can call it a science, but if it's based on assumptions and storytelling, not falsifiable hypotheses, observations, and continual retesting I call it garbage. Do you realize that all the analysts touting bogus stocks on their way to the toilet were using accepted economic models? Granted, there is a separate field of experimental psychology cleaning up the worst abuses of the therapeutic side, but as far as developing predictive value, they're not close. I really thought a reactionary board with "Philosophers" in the name would have somebody who was at least faintly familiar with Karl Popper and the difference between science and pseudoscience, but they must have all left. Rhetoric & yelling haven't progressed much since the Greeks - and while they did a good job of measuring the diameter of the Earth, they weren't very good on the origins of puddingstone or cracked Devonian limestone. And the frequency of such limestone formations, which is really a fairly simple question. But a real science does progress, and eventually answer the question, which isn't "whether" gas & oil production will start to decline permanently, but when. (It declined for a few years around 1980 - none of the geolgists I've quoted thought that was anything but temporary & political) Since the Earth is finite, (and the Greeks did know the surface area) it will happen. & I still have no reason to disbelieve the geologists who had the conference at Uppsala, no matter how much smoke & noise come out of somebody who still hasn't answered the simple question of what happens in a refinery, or given the slightest credible alternative estimates for eventual oil recovery amounts or times.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Depletion

Quick Reply