Black wrote:lefty wrote:so yeah, in regards to your last post chris. relocalization will be the answer to the initial oil problem. further on than that, who knows...?
you're talking shit lefty...
which is defined as "Peak Oil", and I said we aren't there yet. Everything else we are in agreement on.lefty wrote:truth is, regardless of our sources which define our opinion neither of us know if we've peaked yet or not, or how close we are to doing so. In my opinion you'll see big changes in the next 10 / 20 years but it'll be too late for anyone to fix the problem. whats taken cant be replenished. we should have started making changes back in the 60s / 70s when scientist tried telling the powers that be that the oil wouldnt last forever... no doubt there are alternatives ( not nuclear ) but they aint gonna not use the oil with the amount of money they make from it. theyll rinse mother nature and then move onto the next thing.
I wasn't disputing anything you said before, or have said now, apart from your statement
weve passed a point in oil consumption now where we have passed the peak in the amount available againts the constant growth in demand
lefty wrote:Black wrote:lefty wrote:so yeah, in regards to your last post chris. relocalization will be the answer to the initial oil problem. further on than that, who knows...?
you're talking shit lefty...
lefty wrote: peak oil yet ?
roberdy wrote:lefty wrote: peak oil yet ?
No such concept as peak oil anymore folks, generally seen as a fallacy in most operator/producer groups, we keep finding more and developing technology to produce tight gas and unconventional plays. Global supply right now has enough with current proven reserves to keep us going for 63 years allowing for projected growth (figures from 2011 I have been looking at) and that doesn't take into consideration the vast volumes of "stranded" hydrocarbons that are just uneconomic to bring to market right now.
lefty wrote:this conversation would be better in person and a bottle of rum but anyway you say proven reserves to keep us going for 63 years. isnt that peak oil ? and what happens after that, once its gone its gone no ?
wouldn't the powers that be want us to believe peak oil is a fallacy. id certainly write a fancy paper saying so if i was making plenty of money from the stuff...
i dunno, after what ive read from various unrelated sources and joining a few dots im more likely to believe peak oil has either passed or is going to. the biggest producers of oil saudi arabia are drilling offshore now, why ? to meet demand or because inland its running dry....?
i kinda thaught it was common knowledge and accepted that the oil wont last forever. more a matter of when and how much is left...
roberdy wrote:Just to answer the point about peak oil though; the energy industry categorises deposits as P1, Proven, P2, Probable and P3, Possible. As more hydrocarbon deposits are discovered, explored, appraised and move through the classification, so the global volume available changes, as demand grows and (sometimes) contracts so the concept of peak oil and when it was is or could be will change too.
defever wrote:There's a threat in Sussex / Surrey area of our land at the moment. Drilling companies are encouraged by the government to test out drilling in these area to assess the potential benefit... It's all over the local news. Brighton & Hove (I think backed by their city council) is very active on making its city "fracking free zone". This is very moving because we haven't lost our souls yet.
roberdy wrote:However, whilst it cannot be denied that we do still have significant reserves of coal seams and shales that could be explored and possibly developed, the management of it is going to be clouded by emotion and that will likely retard any economics based development.
In less than two weeks Cuadrilla, a company involved in the controversial act of fracking, will be granted a licence to dispose of millions of gallons of toxic and radioactive waste from a drill site in Balcombe, somewhere in Sussex. The environment agency has requested concerns be raised by the 16/07/13 otherwise this proposal will be granted.
Fracking has been described by an eminent scientist as the most effective way to poison a population through it's water supply. Among the risks are:
Millions of gallons of fracking fluid, pumped into the ground, containing over 600 chemicals:
25% of which are linked with cancer and mutations
37% affect hormones
40-50% affect kidneys and nervous, immune and cardiovascular systems
75% affect respiratory and gastrointestinal systems and sensory organs
Toxic, radioactive wastewater is stored in open pits and sprayed to evaporate quickly before being trucked away. This process releases lethal radon into the air which carries for miles.
60% of wells leak
Toxic fluids seeping through natural fractures can reach drinking water aquifers in as little as 3 years
30-70% of fracking fluid is not recovered and stays in the ground
Cuadrilla has licence to drill 1,200 of these wells across the Sussex Downs, not to mention the numerous substations and mile upon mile of pipeline. This is nothing short of the wholesale industrialisation of the Sussex countryside along with the irreversible pollution of our drinking water.
Please help stop this from happening by taking 2 minutes to sign this petition to the environment Agency before the closing date of the 16th of July. Every single person makes a difference and with your help we can protect our home for ourselves and future generations from the threat of greedy corporations whose only concerns are increased profits. Thank you.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests