Are There Any Conservatives Here Who Accept the Science of Climate Change?

[Jack Hays]

Nope. Its recognition that the report of oil reserves is more political than actual fact. the fact is.. new discoverers and new oil has been dwindling and becoming stagnant for several years. Meanwhile demand worldwide continues to increase exponentially.

At the end of the day.. so what? If I am wrong.. and we have alternative fuels and oil.. we are better off as a country.

If you are wrong.. and all legitimate sources say you are.. we are in dire straits.

I am quite sure that the whalers of the day projected that there would be more than enough whales to supply the worlds need for whale oil.

The more we use the more we find. I guess your argument is: 'legitimate sources" = sources you like

 

[Jack Hays]

Simple.. its a finite resource that we don't have the majority of. Heck.. even if you think there is plenty for the world.. WE DON"T HAVE IT. In facts its enough of a necessity that we ***** foot and put our men and woman at risk around the middle east because why? they have oil.

What solution is "already in place" waiting for market prices to create a favorable economic environment?

Yes, we do.

 

[jaeger19]

The more we use the more we find. I guess your argument is: 'legitimate sources" = sources you like

Nope.. that's not true.. the more we use.. not the "more we find".. that has not been happening.

Whats been happening is the more we use.. the more grandiose the "estimates of reserve" from countries and corporations that have a vested interest in preventing development of alternative fuels.

As far as "sources I like"... yep.. BECAUSE THAT MAKES SENSE. I am a scientist. I understand the risk vs benefit ratio here. YOU like the estimates that say we have "500 years".

I look at the estimates that a paint a less rosy picture and say.. okay.. what if THAT estimate is right? Well.. if we develop alternative renewable fuels.. we end up with energy independence and perhaps save the planet. Perhaps avoid World War three over dwindling resources.

And what if I am wrong.. and we really have "500 years worth of oil).... what happens if we develop alternative renewable fuels? WE STILL HAVE CHEAPER ENERGY, a CLEANER ENVIRONMENT, A BETTER ECONOMY. and CAN STILL TELL THE MIDDLE EAST TO LITERALLY POUND SAND.

that's why it makes more sense to look at conservative estimates.

 

[Jack Hays]

Nope.. that's not true.. the more we use.. not the "more we find".. that has not been happening.

Whats been happening is the more we use.. the more grandiose the "estimates of reserve" from countries and corporations that have a vested interest in preventing development of alternative fuels.

As far as "sources I like"... yep.. BECAUSE THAT MAKES SENSE. I am a scientist. I understand the risk vs benefit ratio here. YOU like the estimates that say we have "500 years".

I look at the estimates that a paint a less rosy picture and say.. okay.. what if THAT estimate is right? Well.. if we develop alternative renewable fuels.. we end up with energy independence and perhaps save the planet. Perhaps avoid World War three over dwindling resources.

And what if I am wrong.. and we really have "500 years worth of oil).... what happens if we develop alternative renewable fuels? WE STILL HAVE CHEAPER ENERGY, a CLEANER ENVIRONMENT, A BETTER ECONOMY. and CAN STILL TELL THE MIDDLE EAST TO LITERALLY POUND SAND.

that's why it makes more sense to look at conservative estimates.

Energy independence will be achieved based on our own fossil fuel abundance.

 

[jaeger19]

Yes, we do.

Yeah.. no we don't.

Venezuela has the largest oil reserves across the world, with more than 300 billion barrels of proven reserves. In 2011, Venezuela surpassed Saudi Arabia to top the list of countries having the largest oil reserves. However, the development of this huge reserves has taken a backseat due to political unrest over the past few years. The country also has large deposits of oil sands like those present in Canada. Due to their viscous nature, Venezuela's Orinoco tar sands can be produced from conventional methods.

Though the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia held the world’s largest oil reserves for several decades, the country has slipped to second spot with 269 billion barrels of proven oil reserves as of 1 January 2016. Its reserves are estimated to account for a fifth of global conventional reserves. A significant part of its reserves is present in few of its very large oil fields. The country’s reserves are expected to exceed that of Venezuela if it increases its exploration activities.

With proven oil reserves of 171 billion barrels, Canada stands at the third position in the oil holdings list. Oil sands deposits in the province of Alberta account for more than 95% of the country’s reserves.The province also holds a considerable amount of its conventional oil reserves.Most of the Canada’s oil exports are sent to the US.Besides, its oil sands are a key contributor to growth in supply of liquid fuel in the world in the past few years.

International sanctions on Iran due to its nuclear activities has weighed on the country’s energy sector, hitting its oil production. The country has an estimated proven oil reserves of 157.8 billion barrels as of 1 January 2016. Iran’s oil reserves are expected to last for nearly a century if it continues its production at 2006 rates. Over the past few decades, its production has been hampered by political unrest, war with Iraq, and lack of significant investments, among others.

With oil reserves of 143 billion barrels, Iran occupies fifth position in the oil holdings list. The country’s energy sector has been hit by military occupation and civil unrest, and unexplored region in the nation is estimated to have a potential for vast oil reserves. Sanctions and two Gulf Warsalso inflicted a severe blow to Iraq’s oil infrastructure. Basra, Baghdad, and Ramadi are the cities that hold much of the country’s reserves. According to World Bank, Iran needs an annual investment of $1bn to continue its current oil production rate

Despite being a small country, Kuwait is a significant contributor to the world’s oil reserves.Being the third oil producer among Organization of the Petroleum Exporting (OPEC) countries, Kuwait’s holds 8% of the global oil reserves. The country has 104 billion barrels, with about 70% of them located in in the Burgan field, the second largest oil field in the world. Kuwait has been producing from the field since 1938.

Russia has 80 billion barrels of oil reserves, with a major part of its them located in Siberian plains. Its production slumped after the collapse of Soviet Union but later rebounded due to privatization of the energy industry. With the country continuing its exploration activity, it is expected to boost its oil reserves in arctic waters and ice.

As of 1 January 2016, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has 98 billion barrels of oil reserves, with an estimated 66 billion barrels in Zakum field, which is the third largest in the Middle East. Over 90% of the UAE reserves are held Abu Dhabi, followed by Dubai and Sharjah.

With oil reserves of 48.3 billion barrels, the country has largest oil holdings in Africa. A large part of the region, where there is potential for finding new oil reserves, remains unexplored in the country. The exploration activity in Libya was hit by sanctions against overseas oil companies.

Nigeria is the largest oil producer in Africa, with 37 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.

We don't make the top 10. That's recent numbers.

http://explorationanddevelopment.energy-business-review.com/news/top-ten-countries-with-worlds-largest-oil-reserves-5793487

 

[jaeger19]

Energy independence will be achieved based on our own fossil fuel abundance.

No way. citation please. I gotta see where you get this ridiculousness from .

 

[Jack Hays]

Yeah.. no we don't.



We don't make the top 10. That's recent numbers.

Top ten countries with world?s largest oil reserves - Energy Business Review

The numbers may be recent but they're not sound.

. . . The main reason for "being so wrong" about oil's future availability is the over-reliance on analytical techniques that fail to appreciate petroleum as an economic commodity powered by the constant advance of technology. Many predictions fall short because they too simplistically center on reserve years or the proved recoverable reserves divided by the annual consumption rate. Proved reserves grow over time, however, and estimates of the recoverable resource change as new information is acquired through drilling, production, and technological and managerial development. Another factor that affects perception is that oil companies adopt short- to mid-term planning horizons. Exploration is costly, so there is no economic incentive to look for resources that will not be needed for decades down the road. Globally, crude's reserves-to-production ratio has hovered between 40-55 years. The 1P estimate is an estimate of proven reserves, what is likely to be extracted from a well, 90% probability. Probable reserves are given 50% certainty (2P) and possible reserves a 10% certainty (3P).
Not only has the world’s oil supply failed to disappear, but production has substantially expanded and will continue to do so. Since 1995 alone, the year that Hubbert claimed that global oil production would peak, production is up 33% to over 93.2 million b/d, and both the EIA and IEA project that output will increase by about 1 million b/d per year for years to come. New oil supply has actually been rising faster than ever. From 2010-2014, global production increased 1.215 million b/d per year, despite The Great Recession, compared to 889,000 b/d from 2000-2009. And beyond just crude oil, which is about 83% of total supply, there is a rapidly expanding stockpile of biofuels, natural gas liquids, synthetic fuels, and other sources that will continue to broaden the availability of liquid fuels. Additionally, ~66% of the oil in a reservoir is frequently left behind because it's too expensive or difficult to extract. Commercial since the 1970s, CO2-enhanced oil recovery offers a gigantic global prize of 2-5 trillion barrels and a safe way to sequester CO2 underground for 1,000 years. . . .

In short, the assertion that oil (and gas) are not compatible with our goal to implement a more sustainable energy system is becoming increasingly false. For example, the U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory reports that "next-generation" technologies will make the oil yielded from CO2-enhanced oil recovery 100% + "carbon free," up from 75% today. The reality is that ALL energy systems are evolving, so ALL technologies must be allowed to compete in our goal to: 1) grow our economy, 2) increase our energy security, and 3) reduce GHG emissions. If not, we greatly increase the risk of not deploying the most economical and cleanest sources of energy. . . .

Demonstrated by the shale revolution, it's the emerging North American unconventional resource base that has the greatest potential. And with advancing technologies and higher prices, even more will become available: the "unconventional" evolving into the "conventional." . . . .

 

[Jack Hays]

No way. citation please. I gotta see where you get this ridiculousness from .

Same link in #178, and

[h=3]Trump wants 'energy independence.' We may already be close to ...[/h]https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../energy.../trump-wants-energy-independence-we-ma...
Jan 6, 2017 - A new report suggests that the United States could become a net energy exporter by 2026.

 

[longview]

Simple.. its a finite resource that we don't have the majority of. Heck.. even if you think there is plenty for the world.. WE DON"T HAVE IT. In facts its enough of a necessity that we ***** foot and put our men and woman at risk around the middle east because why? they have oil.

What solution is "already in place" waiting for market prices to create a favorable economic environment?

I am all for addressing out very real energy problem, just not because of issues related to CO2.
The data shows CO2 to be a non issue, or at least not one of much concern.
As to a solution to our energy problem, the real problem is how to provide first world levels of energy
for the entire worlds population, and organic hydrocarbons cannot solve that problem.
We can however create our our hydrocarbon fuels from, water(hydrogen) and atmospheric CO2 (Carbon), and
electricity.
Current published research places the efficiency at between 60 and 70%.
The process has been in development for almost a decade, and is nearing production stages.
The Naval Research Labs have a good talk on the technology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUUMz3Uv0ps
The current efficiency levels mean that at somewhere around $90 a barrel, it will be
more profitable for a refinery to make their own feedstock from wholesale electricity than
from crude oil. This will minimize the current load resistance that solar power is experiencing at about 8%
of the power base. With a waiting flexible load (storing the energy as fuel) the refineries can absorb
all of the surplus electricity, from the expected seasonal surpluses.
Germany and Audi/Sunfire have also made significant progress on their own process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ytslUSxYSA
http://www.sunfire.de/en/applications/fuel
The reason I think the winner will be the existing refineries, is that they already have the facilities, the expertise and the
distribution infrastructure. To the end user, the fuel will work like it always has (perhaps a different pump color),
The only real difference is the fuel will be CO2 neutral, and completely sustainable.

 

[longview]

Nope.. that's not true.. the more we use.. not the "more we find".. that has not been happening.

Whats been happening is the more we use.. the more grandiose the "estimates of reserve" from countries and corporations that have a vested interest in preventing development of alternative fuels.

As far as "sources I like"... yep.. BECAUSE THAT MAKES SENSE. I am a scientist. I understand the risk vs benefit ratio here. YOU like the estimates that say we have "500 years".

I look at the estimates that a paint a less rosy picture and say.. okay.. what if THAT estimate is right? Well.. if we develop alternative renewable fuels.. we end up with energy independence and perhaps save the planet. Perhaps avoid World War three over dwindling resources.

And what if I am wrong.. and we really have "500 years worth of oil).... what happens if we develop alternative renewable fuels? WE STILL HAVE CHEAPER ENERGY, a CLEANER ENVIRONMENT, A BETTER ECONOMY. and CAN STILL TELL THE MIDDLE EAST TO LITERALLY POUND SAND.

that's why it makes more sense to look at conservative estimates.

I agree to some extent, there is quite a bit of oil still out there, but I think the cost of goods sold to recover that
oil, will exceed it's market value. I think the new technology places a ceiling on high high oil can go.
In addition as solar resources come online, the cost of wholesale electricity could continue to go down,
further lowering the value cutoff price of oil.

 

[jaeger19]

The numbers may be recent but they're not sound.

. . . The main reason for "being so wrong" about oil's future availability is the over-reliance on analytical techniques that fail to appreciate petroleum as an economic commodity powered by the constant advance of technology. Many predictions fall short because they too simplistically center on reserve years or the proved recoverable reserves divided by the annual consumption rate. Proved reserves grow over time, however, and estimates of the recoverable resource change as new information is acquired through drilling, production, and technological and managerial development. Another factor that affects perception is that oil companies adopt short- to mid-term planning horizons. Exploration is costly, so there is no economic incentive to look for resources that will not be needed for decades down the road. Globally, crude's reserves-to-production ratio has hovered between 40-55 years. The 1P estimate is an estimate of proven reserves, what is likely to be extracted from a well, 90% probability. Probable reserves are given 50% certainty (2P) and possible reserves a 10% certainty (3P).
Not only has the world’s oil supply failed to disappear, but production has substantially expanded and will continue to do so. Since 1995 alone, the year that Hubbert claimed that global oil production would peak, production is up 33% to over 93.2 million b/d, and both the EIA and IEA project that output will increase by about 1 million b/d per year for years to come. New oil supply has actually been rising faster than ever. From 2010-2014, global production increased 1.215 million b/d per year, despite The Great Recession, compared to 889,000 b/d from 2000-2009. And beyond just crude oil, which is about 83% of total supply, there is a rapidly expanding stockpile of biofuels, natural gas liquids, synthetic fuels, and other sources that will continue to broaden the availability of liquid fuels. Additionally, ~66% of the oil in a reservoir is frequently left behind because it's too expensive or difficult to extract. Commercial since the 1970s, CO2-enhanced oil recovery offers a gigantic global prize of 2-5 trillion barrels and a safe way to sequester CO2 underground for 1,000 years. . . .

In short, the assertion that oil (and gas) are not compatible with our goal to implement a more sustainable energy system is becoming increasingly false. For example, the U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory reports that "next-generation" technologies will make the oil yielded from CO2-enhanced oil recovery 100% + "carbon free," up from 75% today. The reality is that ALL energy systems are evolving, so ALL technologies must be allowed to compete in our goal to: 1) grow our economy, 2) increase our energy security, and 3) reduce GHG emissions. If not, we greatly increase the risk of not deploying the most economical and cleanest sources of energy. . . .

Demonstrated by the shale revolution, it's the emerging North American unconventional resource base that has the greatest potential. And with advancing technologies and higher prices, even more will become available: the "unconventional" evolving into the "conventional." . . . .

Poop.. my numbers are sound.. they are verifiable... your numbers are based on technologies THAT HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN DEVELOPED YET. YOUR NUMBERS ARE PURE SPECULATION!

 

[jaeger19]

I agree to some extent, there is quite a bit of oil still out there, but I think the cost of goods sold to recover that
oil, will exceed it's market value. I think the new technology places a ceiling on high high oil can go.
In addition as solar resources come online, the cost of wholesale electricity could continue to go down,
further lowering the value cutoff price of oil.

Absolutely.

 

[jaeger19]

Same link in #178, and

[h=3]Trump wants 'energy independence.' We may already be close to ...[/h]https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../energy.../trump-wants-energy-independence-we-ma...
Jan 6, 2017 - A new report suggests that the United States could become a net energy exporter by 2026.

Okay.. thanks now I now where you BS comes from.. thanks...:lamo

 

[CLAX1911]

Well?

:2wave:

Well of course the climate changes. There is no argument there. The only part of it I am skeptical of is that there's some impending catastrophe and that the only way to avoid it is government regulation.

Other than that yes the climate changes it's different today than it was yesterday. And carbon dioxide contributes to the change. When does make carbon dioxide.

I'm more of a Goldwater conservative then a trump conservative or a neocon.

So does that answer your question?

 

[Jack Hays]

Okay.. thanks now I now where you BS comes from.. thanks...:lamo

You don't find the Washington Post to be a credible news source?

 

[Jack Hays]

Poop.. my numbers are sound.. they are verifiable... your numbers are based on technologies THAT HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN DEVELOPED YET. YOUR NUMBERS ARE PURE SPECULATION!

As you wish.:roll:

 

[jaeger19]

You don't find the Washington Post to be a credible news source?

It has nothing to do with the Posts credibility... you didn't understand your own article.

In the scenario of energy independence that your article portrays.. America is still importing its energy resources.

That's not energy independence.

Nor does it even state how long such "independence" can last given it is under fossil fuels.

 

[jaeger19]

As you wish.:roll:

Facts are facts.. your numbers rely in technology that has not been developed yet.

 

[Jack Hays]

It has nothing to do with the Posts credibility... you didn't understand your own article.

In the scenario of energy independence that your article portrays.. America is still importing its energy resources.

That's not energy independence.

Nor does it even state how long such "independence" can last given it is under fossil fuels.

The US will be exporting more than we import. Only economic illiterates understand energy independence any other way.

 

[Jack Hays]

Facts are facts.. your numbers rely in technology that has not been developed yet.

But all history of the field indicates it will be.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Yeah no..

even using coal shale.. even the best estimates show we don't have anywhere near that amount.. and coal shale is quite expensive to extract. The reason that our gas prices are so low is because US demand has dropped. However, world wide demand for energy will continue to expand.

you said it.. if we like it our not.. oil is the lifeblood for the world economy.

The country that gets first to energy independence with renewable resources is going to be the dominate player in the world economics.. there is a need for urgency in this when it comes to America. Other countries are already seeing this and we are falling behind.

America will almost certainly be first to kill the oil pig, based on our massive industrial base if nothing else, however we need to first gain energy independance in regards to the fuel we are using now. The man-made climate change hoax does not make for urgency. let's develop clean energy for the sake of clean energy, rather then running around like chickens with our heads cut off screaming about C02 emissions.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Please explain the need for urgency? I do not think it exists.
The way I see it the solution is already in place, and just waiting for market prices to
create a favorable economic environment.

Exactly. It will almost certainly be hydrogen fuel. They just have a ways to go yet to make the technology affordable enough to mass produce and make automobiles that burn as affordable as gasoline powered automobiles.

 

[Rich123]

Hurricane Maria now category 5.
What's that, three category five this season?
We sure don't want to cause hardship for anyone by addressing climate change. You know, with that technology that we developed but China and India are utililizing and investing heavily in. Do you think that those countries people are suffering for their green developement ? I doubt it. Many empoverished people in India now have electric lights where before there was none.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Exactly. It will almost certainly be hydrogen fuel. They just have a ways to go yet to make the technology affordable enough to mass produce and make automobiles that burn as affordable as gasoline powered automobiles.

Hydrogen could be a viable way to store extra solar or wind power. I'm just worried about trying to use it for transportation. It has to be compressed at too high of pressure which makes safety very difficult.

Use the excess electricity to make hydrogen, then when there is an electrical demand, use fuel cells to make electricity again.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hurricane Maria now category 5.
What's that, three category five this season?
We sure don't want to cause hardship for anyone by addressing climate change. You know, with that technology that we developed but China and India are utililizing and investing heavily in. Do you think that those countries people are suffering for their green developement ? I doubt it. Many empoverished people in India now have electric lights where before there was none.

Climate is always changing. We don';t know is this is any different than around 70 years ago. We didn't have modern satellites then.