Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Da Geezer]

Agreed and a good solid take.

And let's be honest a major reason that countries give a damn about the Middle East is the fact they have most of the world's oil through OPEC and a lot of economies depend on cheap oil. From the US POV as long as that cheap oil comes through they are willing to turn a blind eye to a lot of what goes on there. Now, you hear people on both sides of the political aisle talking about energy independence. For some that means drill as much and as quick as possible. But there is one thing everyone can agree on. Oil is a finite source eventually it will run out or get to the point where it is too expensive for companies to make a profit off of.

To me the US should be on the cutting edge to find the resource (or resources) to replace cheap oil. That would require new technologies (most likely) and that will require investment on the governmental level much like there was one back when JFK announced that the US would go into space. The real question is if there is the political will to do that. I doubt there is.

We have a new and very disruptive technology (fracking) that was first developed by small, independent wildcatters. I don't understand why a government program would be necessary. What would be necessary would be the building of transportation infrastructure such as pipelines. NY is now attempting to ban pipelines across its territory that were designed to carry Marcellus oil to eastern ports and refineries.

You are basically correct that developed economies require cheap oil. One way to "produce" more cheap oil is to eliminate the taxation of oil and gas. That makes it much cheaper to the consumer.

And it is not certain that oil is a finite resource(except in the sense that the earth is finite) any more than it can be said that water or silica is a finite resource. New o+g fields are constantly being discovered and better technology is allowing the reuse of older, already discovered, fields. There is no reason to believe that oil will not remain cheap; at least cheap enough for companies to turn a profit, which was your measuring stick.

Nuclear is the way to go IF oil becomes expensive. Without government interference, oil is highly unlikely to ever become more expensive (see: The Julian Simon Bet).

[Jeff Buchanan]

With current extracting technologies, including fracking, oil reserves are finite - how long it takes to reach the point where extracting the oil is more expensive than other alternative energy sources is debatable.

Those who offer that oil reserves will be there as the main source of energy to power the world's economies and as long as they are needed, take that position, I assume, on the basis that technologies will emerge that are economically viable to extract more and more of it. But wait .......

Is there another cap on the feasibility of oil extraction? Yes, if one buys into climate change (temperature rise) from the burning of fossil fuels. The science is pretty good on climate change measured as global temperature. Of course, there are deniers. Assuming you buy climate change and the claim that to preserve life as we know it on earth requires keeping average global temperature rise below 2 degrees, some argue that to reach that goal, the real cap on the use of fossil fuels is tied to environmental protection and the degree to which there is world wide acceptance of limiting CO2 output as a function of fossil fuel burning for energy.

Lots of variables here ........ if you take the position that nuclear power is the way the world should go and you invest in technologies to make it safe, you avoid all those variable associated with predicting how long fossil fuels can power the word's economies capped either by physical or environmental limits. Sure, there are issues with nuclear too. I think I'd rather deal with mitigating those issues through technological advances in that field as a means of delivering safe and affordable nuclear power that isn't a threat to destroying the Earth's atmosphere.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Technology will have to change/improve for all of the resources in Ohio to be tapped. A lot of the maps touted by the state government don't accurately reflect where drilling (at least non-conventional drilling) is occurring.

Take this map for example, which has been around for a while. There's essentially no drilling activity happening in the red areas on this map, despite having the so-called highest potential. That's not because drillers save the best for last (the opposite is generally true). It's because no one has really figured out the rock and maybe never will. No one's drilled an impressive well in that area and I think it's been several years now since anyone's tried. The active drilling is to the east and southeast of that red zone. Sometimes you know you're sitting on a big reserve but the rock won't yield up her secrets.

Cabot Oil (one of the Northeast's most successful O&G drillers) drilled 4 tests wells way out on the western fringe of the Ohio play, in southern Richland & Ashland counties. I was a bit excited that a new zone might be opening up. But per their last earnings call, the results were so poor that they are walking away without even fracking the wells.

Ohio-DNR-Map-of-Gas-Drilling-Prospects_thumb.jpg

[crashcourse]

not a big tiger fan but that's as stoked for any one person ive ever seen from a sports crowd

knowing what he went through not even knowing if he could play with his kids again--do have to admire his road back after 10 years of struggling to get back--beating the best who played their best all weekend long if you watched it.

but tiger played smart and let the rest of them shoot themselves out of it taking chances until he was the only one left

good stuff

then onto GOT season 8 pisode 1.


I bingewatch most of this stuff

this one I'll watch each episode every sunday night

[Kapture1]

I can't miss an episode of GOT, social media will spoil it for me.

[Kapture1]

D4IF_Q_XoAEA_WB.jpg




D4IF_Q-XkAAwetH.jpg

[Da Geezer]

With current extracting technologies, including fracking, oil reserves are finite - how long it takes to reach the point where extracting the oil is more expensive than other alternative energy sources is debatable.

Those who offer that oil reserves will be there as the main source of energy to power the world's economies and as long as they are needed, take that position, I assume, on the basis that technologies will emerge that are economically viable to extract more and more of it. But wait .......

Is there another cap on the feasibility of oil extraction? Yes, if one buys into climate change (temperature rise) from the burning of fossil fuels. The science is pretty good on climate change measured as global temperature. Of course, there are deniers. Assuming you buy climate change and the claim that to preserve life as we know it on earth requires keeping average global temperature rise below 2 degrees, some argue that to reach that goal, the real cap on the use of fossil fuels is tied to environmental protection and the degree to which there is world wide acceptance of limiting CO2 output as a function of fossil fuel burning for energy.

Lots of variables here ........ if you take the position that nuclear power is the way the world should go and you invest in technologies to make it safe, you avoid all those variable associated with predicting how long fossil fuels can power the word's economies capped either by physical or environmental limits. Sure, there are issues with nuclear too. I think I'd rather deal with mitigating those issues through technological advances in that field as a means of delivering safe and affordable nuclear power that isn't a threat to destroying the Earth's atmosphere.

Of course, oil is finite. The question is whether it can be produced at economical levels. Oil is substantially cheaper today (in real dollars) than it was 45 years ago during the "oil crisis" caused by human manipulation of production. By that measure (which is the only measure that is empirically relevant), oil and gas could be economical well into the future. Of course, all this assumes technological innovation which has been the norm in the 20th and 21srt centuries. Again, read about the Julian Simon bet. I agree that there is likely a higher probability of technological innovation in the area of nuclear safety than in new energy technologies per se.

But the matter of anthropogenic global warming is another matter entirely. The evidence that the greenhouse effect is the primary cause of global warming is not at all conclusive. It is a theory that has never been used to produce replicable results or correct predictions (thousands of incorrect ones though!). Further, if evidence of the greenhouse effect were conclusive, we would still have to deal with India, China and the rest of the third world as the overwhelming producers of CO2. Finally, the absolute guess that we have to keep global temperatures below a certain level of rise in order to protect "life as we know it" on Earth is unknowable. The earth was at least 4 degrees warmer during the warm period around 1000 AD, and life maintained. That is a fact. The earth is a self-regulating ecosystem and has survived millions of years. That too is a fact.

I'll believe in anthropogenic global warming when we hear even a peep from the globalists about ways to reign in the production of CO2 by China or India. Absent that, global warming is just an excuse for globalists exercising more power over the lives of individuals.

[crashcourse]

I can't miss an episode of GOT, social media will spoil it for me.

one of the reasons I don't use it

I think I have a twitter account that I may see once a year

no facebook

I suppose social media is a necessity for the youngsters but I'm glad I was raised in an era that never got spoiled on it

[Kapture1]

I quite facebook too, too much selling my personal information without giving me a cut.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump's private lawyers threaten accounting firm, instruct them not to comply with congressional subpoena requesting Trump financial records. (The firm, Mazars USA, has previously signaled they would comply if given an official subpoena). The subpoena is expected to be issued today.

So who gave this letter to the media? Trump's lawyers or Mazars?

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/15/trump-financial-records-1275965

[Kapture1]

COME ON JOE!!!!


z5z39oncbfs21.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=2d55b3d44973f4c47407eb0e7da73037896f0890.jpg

[Dr. Strangelove]

Oh no....big fire at Notre Dame (the real one). Looks like it could be devastating if not brought under control soon.

[Dr. Strangelove]

CNN has live video now and I don't know, doesn't look good. Seems like there's been no effort to put it out yet. Big part of the roof is already gone. Entire building could end up a skeleton by the time it's over...horrible loss for the world.

[Kapture1]

they will rebuild but it wont be the same. I don't know how you go about replacing priceless stain glass for example

[Kapture1]

D4Ny7UjXoAAPgWp.jpg:large.jpg