[[ Check out my Wordpress blog Context/Earth for environmental and energy topics tied together in a semantic web framework ]]

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Sad State of Affairs

Researchers at The University of Minnesota raise the ire of the soybean industry by claiming that growing biofuel crops may lead to unintended global warming as well as replacing valuable food production. The 'beaners threaten that they will pull soybean research funding from the university. The truth hurts.

One of the few Peak Oil advocates in Congress (and like Roscoe Bartlett, a Republican no less) Wayne Gilchrist loses his primary contest to a real right-winger (danger: a Rush Limbaugh link). Maryland's loss of someone with some brain cells gets balanced by the good possibility of a Democratic seat pickup. Gilchrist tried to appease the Rethugs, but that doesn't work against bullies if you don't completely toe the party line. Fortunately, losing a thoughtful Republican only serves to marginalize a completely irrelevant political cult.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Conspiracy Theory #23

Too fascinating to pass up:
Peak Oil, Missing Oil Meters and an Inactive Pipeline:
The Real Reason for the Invasion of Iraq?

From TOD ... almost like you don't even need to read the article.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Crude Oil Production Plateauing?

The latest data collected by Rembrandt on TOD shows indications of crude oil production plateauing.

In the comments, JonFreise referenced a potentially pertinent article to the Dispersive Discovery Model:


Net Energy Analysis of the U.S. Oil and Gas Exploration Industry

"Why should yield per effort be related to effort? This makes sense for fish, for the fish can recover through reproduction and growth when not fished. Petroleum obviously cannot, at least on time scales of interest to our species. One possible explanation is that when drilling rates are low, the petroleum industry drills at locations where present information suggests that success is most likely. During years of high drilling rates, drilling is done there plus at other, less promising locations. Presumably the development of exploration theory, as well as seismic charting and interpretation, occurs at a more constant rate than drilling effort, so that when drilling effort (i.e., economic incentive) is low, it is concentrated in areas where success appears more likely. When drilling effort (and economic incentive) is high, much of that effort is directed at targets less likely to produce a large find. In a sense it is promising but untested geologic information that is depleted as wells are drilled and that accumulates in the absence of drilling."

I don't disagree with this as it basically says that a wide range of search rates get deployed over the years, and much of the high/fast effort gets expended near the margins of potential oil volume. The Dispersive Discovery model essentially takes a probabilistic range in search rates over a large potential volume of finds to come up with the more-or-less "bell-shaped" discovery curve.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Not Cleavon Little

Monday, February 04, 2008

Wing Nut Oil

Abiotic oil exists as a mixture of substances. It contains equal parts of wingnut extraction -- one part of pinheaded writing, one part of fundie media, and the rest right-wing radio frothing. Jerome Corsi wrote the article, sure to become part of a book that will lose money. World Nut Daily publishes this crap because it fits their 'minionist world view. And a spewer by the name of Jim Quinn of the Quinn & Rose radio show broadcasts the news to a population of shut-ins because he clearly has nothing better to do (he admits that he gets no money from his satellite radio show).

Fossil fuels clearly come from a biological origin. The identification of unique markers in the deposits scientifically prove that only biological processes can generate the oil. Whatever methane exists can obviously come from a physical inorganic origin because the molecular structure has a simple basis. Thugs like Jim Quinn love this "controversy" because it allows them to mention Peak Oil, and call it a phony theory. Without abiotic oil "proof", they won't talk oil depletion because they immediately lose the debate.