U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum - View Single Post - A list of those who do not accept the AGW dogma.

Pogo · #69 (**permalink**) 08-06-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is requirement for all plant life. Higher levels of CO2 have been shown to have great benefits for plant life. Those are facts that have been long established. The move to attempt to establish CO2 as a pollutant has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with science.

What does the matter of whether or not CO is a pollutant have to do with it's being a greenhouse gas? More dissembling?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

I know what the peak oil theory claims. I also know that they have to change the numbers every few years when production continues to rise or when new reserves are found.

You named the largest oil field in the world. New reserves have been found off the cost of Brazil, Cuba, in Russia.

Brazil: Carioca discovery potentially one of the largest oilfields in the world Exploration and production Petroleum Economist - May 2008 - Latin America - Exploration, Deep water
Oil Fields Are Refilling...Naturally - Sometimes Rapidly There Are More Oil Seeps Than All The Tankers On Earth

Several have claimed that Ghawar is about done. Then production keeps going and they have to revise their prediction. They pump water into oil fields because they lack the pressure that would push the oil out. They have found the fields they have gone out of production still have a lot of oil locked into the rocks. By pumping CO2 into those fields they have found that they are able to get more oil out of them. The CO2 binds with the oil and causes it to rise up under pressure.

And yet there has been no decline in world production due to a lack in available oil -- that is what you don't get. The only declines that I know of have been caused by human mismanagement or human maliciousness.

Saudi production does indeed appear to be in decline. Again, unless we can somehow manage to discover a field appr. the size of Ghawar, we are left to hoping that it's decline is slow and graceful, but with the water cut as high as has been reported, that doesn't seem to be likely.

Quote:

One other update. Because of the secrecy Saudi Aramco has, about the only way to get information is via word of mouth from friends. A friend told me that Saudi Arabia is only replacing 10% of the oil they pump out of the ground, even today. That doesn't bode well for world oil supplies in the future.

What I ask myself is this. The Saudis need the money (see Fall of the House of Saud) so why would the Saudis restrict production at a time when the price is rising and setting a new price record? This is a curious thing and makes me suspect that all is not well with Saudi production. Only more time will tell, but if this is the first sign of Saudi decline, then the price of oil is about to scream up to higher levels.

Added June 17,2008: The BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2008 just came out. For two straight years now, the Saudi's oil production has fallen. It is falling at a 4% rate which is about what one sees when countries peak out oil production. While I do beleive that this year they will get a slightly higher production than they had in 2007, it doesn't appear that the Saudi's have the oil they claim. This weekend when the Sauds announced they would add 300,000 to 500,000 bbl/day to their sales, the oil futures market yawned. The prices remained flat. Why? The oil they are bringing onto market is sour and/or heavy and those are a kind of oil that is not wanted.

Ghawar