The argument that it's "too expensive" to address climate change is increasingly debunked by multiple studies. Acting now has short term issues but with upsides (new technologies and jobs) while doing zip will result in permanent changes. Here's just the latest study.
Updating the cost of climate change
- Thread starter watu05
- Start date
“bc if people knew oil is THE ULTIMATE SELF REPLENISHING RENEWABLE RESOURCE THEYD FLIP & WE’LL LOSE NOT ONLY OUR MORAL AUTHORITY WE’LL LOSE OUR GRIFT!” The real alarmists behind/funding climate alarmists
My grandfather who was a vp of geology at exxon/esso & the majority of other oil execs predicted many years back that we would be out of oil 30 years later. Then we found ways of going deeper. Finding ways of going deeper is only going to keep us in oil for so long, and then we will be out of oil. We are using at a rate that far exceeds the supply in the earth's crust. Those same executives have looked at studies by scientists that they funded, and now have it occurring 28 years from now. We have pushed it about 70-80 years further into the future by finding ways to drill deeper. But it will happen. The one thing the oil execs and scientists know is that the oil supply, despite finding ways to dig deeper,(more supply) is far too small. Our usage rate won't let it replenish itself before it runs out. It takes 1000's of years to make the supply that we will use up in about 300 years. We are still using dinosaurs decomposed corpses if that gives you a clue. So you stfu about things you haven't a clue about.
FYI, we didn’t really go “deeper” than we were 30 years ago….
A few years ago I was in charge of reviewing and approving plans for the abandonment of some of the deepest producing wells in the US (+24,000 ft True Vertical Depth). These were wells from the 70’s and not many similar wells throughout the US have been drilled since. Let me tell you that drilling, producing, and abandoning these “ultra deep” wells is a real challenge due to the pressures and temperatures involved.
By contrast, it has become fairly common place in the past 30 years, with advancements in the technology and practices around fracking and horizontal drilling, to go down 6,000 ft and horizontal 2 or more miles (so ~17,000 ft of total wellbore length)
This has nothing to do with the imbecile above…. I just wanted to provide some clarification. Recovery rates since the days of Hubbert and his “peak oil” analysis have gone up substantially because of horizontal drilling and fracking (and to a lesser degree water and C02 injection recovery techniques), not deeper reservoirs. Thus extending the window till we reach “peak oil”
I actually think that market economics for energy and us realizing that we shouldn’t be using carbon for certain applications will help us reach “peak oil” before our ability to find enough producible oil begins to decline.
Last edited:
Here’s the thing the real people of the industry know why the term fossil fuel was created & why would they knock it they don’t want you to know how plentiful it is either they’re not going to outright deceive you but why would they engage in anything that would devalue what they’re selling?
Ok, my Grandfather who was vp of geology for exxon was wrong along with all the other oil execs and scientists. So are others on here that have worked in the oil industry. I trust you know better.
You distrust anybody that says anything other than what you believe. The fact is that most of what you believe is absolute blather. Whatever oil that is produced in 10 years does not keep up with the worlds use. And oil doesn't replenish itself. It is produced by processes that have nothing to do with the existing oil other than that they were both produced by the same process..
Last edited:
There are land men who have drilled on the same plots 2x & 3x no dry holes ask around. Same drilling unit they might change the depth slightly but it doesn’t come up dry. The division of interest is the exact same; there might be some JOA or probates that have changed some but overall geographically it’s the exact same.Ok, my Grandfather who was vp of geology for exxon was wrong along with all the other oil execs and scientists. So are others on here that have worked in the oil industry. I trust you know better.
Last edited:
I have Uncles who have been rig workers, and drilled their own wells, aside from my grandfather being a geologist, and you claim to know more than them. My grandfather is the exec that handed over the North Campus to TU. Bye again.
Next time I’m in one of these counties I’ll image the files just for this I can’t wait. Hell I could get on deillinginfo right now lol I think that would be wrong tho
Abiogenic OIl
Quote from above wiki entry: 'Scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports a biogenic origin for most of the world's petroleum deposits.'
Last edited:
It doesn’t matter anyway because soon there will be technology that seems like magic it’ll have exponential energy output with exhaust so clean you could sell it to hospitals giving oxygen treatments. Technically it already exists
Democrats will freak too this is the same reason they’re against nuclear they can’t lose their climate crisis. These people are a function of the devil.
This is the true goal of climate crises:
A function of the Devil. Employed by the Death Cult (Democrats)
Yep this guy,(Col Prouty) who was in the military for most of his career. and is affiliated with the Church of Scientology, he never worked in the oil industry. He knows more than all of the execs of the oil companies in the world. He is definitely who I would stake my beliefs in. 🤣
A goodnight to you in ward 8.
A goodnight to you in ward 8.
That’s just one video idk who that guy is the part he’s talking about there is true though
Okay buddy,
I am a licensed professional engineer with degrees in Petroleum Engineering and Geoscience. I have worked alongside numerous other engineers, geologists, land men, attorneys, regulators, governors, oil company VP’s and CEO’s. Many with decades of experience.
I have family members who were in the petroleum industry since the 40’s who are / were directors of Geology, Engineering, and Land Management and have worked across the globe. Continental US, Russia, North Africa, Middle East, North Sea, South America.
You are wrong. Petroleum products are created from carbon. The most prevalent sources of carbon on the planet are biological, from algae all the way to fibrous plants. Most of the world’s oil and gas is biologic from its genesis. (Mainly from historic algae / sea growth buried for millions of years at high temp / pressure)
Last edited:
Nah, he found some guy on twitter that disagrees, so game, set, and match go to him.
I also worked in the petroleum industry for a while. I have an engineering degree, and I was briefly enrolled in the graduate program at TU for Petroleum Engineering. I left and got my PhD in a different field from a different school, but I've been to SPE conferences, and have some experience in the industry on both a practical and academic level.
I am not nearly as knowledgeable as a whole as others on here, but I'll chime in my bit of expertise to assert the above poster is so far afield that it's no longer even funny and I have some genuine concerns for welfare.
More disinformation about the California fires. Can't wait for the next round of insurance premium increases and coverage reductions. At some point it will wake people up as the real costs of climate change.
you can't stop hurricanes, but you can plan for them.
LA can't eliminate Fires but they could plan for them: brush clean out, hydrants that work, adequate trained fire fighters, enough equipment, communication, . . .
Yeah, that's the ticket, too many not working fire hydrants. You are so oblivious to the real issues, it's not even funny.
The left blaming the destruction scale on climate change and giving those in charge a pass as sad as it is predictable. They come to the defense of each other like no other group. Disinformation at its finest boys. When the municipality can’t get water to the burning neighborhoods it’s the fault to those who maintain the pumps and lines…period. But let’s ignore that and go back to the ole climate change crap
Last edited:
You don't think the weather changes, periods of drought, and water sources drying up had anything to do with it. I doubt they had as much to worry about in the past. 72 more fire days than in the 50's. Because they don't keep increasing their budgets to keep up with climate change, that doesn't cause it to become worse and raise the cost to cover it? Just 10 years ago the cal fire budget was approx. 2B dollars. Today it was 4B. Inflation accounts for the budget being 2.66B from 10 years ago to today. And that's just in the past 10 years. We're not even going back to the 80's & 90's when California forest fires weren't so problematic The turn of the century was when forest fires in California were an issue. It's also when the whether changes became significant coincidentally.
I was careful with my words and focused on the scale of the destruction. GMoney….they didn’t have water in some of those completely destroyed hoods. They hadn’t cleared the brush out in many of those hillsides for years. Fires in that area are a fact of life. No clue if climate change contributed to this one…you don’t know either. I do know that not being able to get water on those fires and not clearing undergrowth 100% contributed. That said….if one believes these events are going to become more common and more severe with climate change then why in the hell aren’t state and local officials taking proper precautions like clearing and ensuring water systems are capable of getting water to those areas? If anything this makes those officials even more culpable
These type of events and the general situation are killing state budgets. And water is running out in certain areas in the country. They have exorbitant costs to use available water resources. Clearing all the areas necessary for fire precaution is expensive and time consuming. They have doubled their budget in 10 years and still don't have a budget capable of handling what is required. And the federal agency isn't keeping up their end of the bargain.
Anybody over 70 trying to sound like an authority and is wearing a bolo tie is an effing crank. EVERY time.
People like this guy are so busy listening to themselves and so full of themselves and so under educated that they have no idea there is actually a single authoritative source on the English language and its phrases and word origins. It’s why we call it The King’s English.
The term fossil fuel dates back to at least 1556 and I stopped listening to him after that. You should too.
It’s true that the Soviets attempted to influence western media into using the term more to promote instability and uncertainty in our energy policy, but that’s a different thread.
But everything this guy says is fact is at best embellished events if not myth. Doesn’t mean I think you are necessarily wrong in your premise, I just know he doesn’t prove what you believe.
I get really tired of republicans admitting that there is climate change, and it affects everything out there except 'what I'm talking about now.' That's just another way of denying climate change affects anything of consequence. Yes there is waste, yes there is non climate change events behind this situation, but YES THERE IS CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES & BUDGET RELATED ISSUES RELATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE THAT ARE AFFECTING IT AS WELL. Not admitting that is just continuing to stick your head in the sand. I had written this up to this point. Then I saw your post. It proves my point. Of course, most events can't be blamed 100% on climate change. That doesn't negate the role climate change has an effect on them.
In the 90's and before, clearing out brush was not as important as it is now. Since climate change's effects have become more noticeable at the turn of the century clearing out brush and having controlled fires has become ultra important in various states that have water resources and forest fires as more prevalent problems now. That causes state budgetary problems, even with them increasing this line item immensely. It requires state and local to act with federal, and they are not joined together in how they are dealing with it, like they should be. These are all items caused by CLIMATE CHANGE.
Forgive me for only having posted a few articles on my own. I should have invested the time to post 10 or 12 articles like they did in your 'discussion in South Carolina.' Bravo to Patrick T Brown for having invested the time. My apologies for not posting any more articles than you have.
