From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Responsible comments wanted on DRAFT essay
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 16:30:44 GMT
Will Stewart <email@example.com> wrote:
>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>> Really?. I've referred you to the data before... From the Gasoline FAQ...
>Bruce assumes that once he tells people his opinion, they should
>immediately drop theirs.
Wrong Will, I don't assume or expect others to believe *my* opinion,
that is why I posted a reference to ...
>> 6a. How Technology has Confounded US Gas Resource Estimators
>> Oil & Gas J. 24 October 1994
>An unbiased source if I ever saw one....
I'm no longer surprised at your continued wilful ignorance, as I've posted
many times before in response to your innuendos, that paper was authored by
W.L.Fisher of the University of Texas in Austin, and is a condensed version of
a presentation to the Gulf Coast Geological Societies annual meeting October
5-7 1994 in Austin. I suppose the societies could have an Anti-EV agenda,
although I'm not sure why they would bother, common sense is enough...
You have read it, haven't you?. After all, I've I read the Calstart drivel you
posted as science, and noted some obvious discrepancies, and yet you
still post references to it as quality science...If you like you could also
read "Enviropnmental Conservation" , I have a copy of a brief note from
E.Krippl and C.Schneider on p182 ( of a 1995 issue - I think, no volume or
date number appears on the pages I have ) called " World Oil Supply
- More than Enough? - they estimate oil supplies ( in bblx10^6/day )
at 11 in 1993, 13.2 in 2000, and 15.2 in 2010 ).
Which data in the paper do you dispute.. Let's see...
>Perhaps you could provide some information on oil resources and
>production from this journal, because a large percentage of the readers
>aren't going to go out and buy it. Simply referring to a person's
>opinion in a fossil fuel rag doesn't give us a reason to give your
>thesis serious consideration.
Will, the term you are seeking to describe your position is
wilful ignorance...I've posted data from this paper previously,
including an ascii drawing of the table showing the estimates
of remaining US Natural Gas, a search of may archives shows
I posted this first around August 1995, and the graph may get
a little messed up posting via this news reader. I've referred
to it several times in response to you, yet you *still* wilfully
pretend that the author is biased, and the data may be suspect.
Which of his data are *wrong*.
[ begin extract ]
" How technology has confounded U.S. gas resource estimators "
Oil & Gas Journal. 24 Oct. 1994
I'll cover reserves, but there are additional extra graphs that show
the successful application of technology, eg:-
Yield per effort Significant Field Discovery Trend
(bcf reserves/completion) (significant discoveries/100 new field wildcats)
1980 0.4 1960 2.7
1982 0.5 1965 2.9
1984 0.45 1970 3.1
1986 1.4 1975 3.5
1988 2.2 1980 4.0
1990 1.4 1985 4.7
1992 1.7 1990 5.7
His final figure (12 " Changed view of resource depletions ") has two
graphs, plotting cumulative drilling against relative addition rate.
One is headed "Exponential decline - 1970s view" ( Ultimate gas
recovery 870+-30tcf (Hubbert 1982), and the other " Technological
Stretch - current view" ( Ultimate gas recovery 2,017tcf ( EIA 1990))
[ From the article ]
Estimating Natural Gas Resources"
"With the exception of high estimates made by the USGS in the early 1970s,
average estimates of remaining gas ( adjusted downwards for production
since the date of estimate through 1993 ) ran about 260tcf (Fig.7). The
higher range of these estimates, chiefly by the PGC, ran a little under
500tcf on the average. The low estimates by certain independent analysts,
the USGS, the National Research Council, and several major oil companies,
averaged less than 100tcf.; some were actually negative when adjusted for
actual subsequent production.
In 1987, with a draft estimate by DOI of 595tcf (467tcf adjusted) in wide
circulation, the DOE convened a panel of gas resource estimators from
industry, academia, and government, including the DOI to provide a
consensus estimate of remaining natural gas resources. By that time,
improvements in yield per effort in gas drilling were under way although
widely unappreciated because they were coming from revisions; activity
and yield in the noncomventionals- coalbed methane and especially tight
gas - were becoming strong.
The panel extrapolated experience in oil reserve growth to calculated
gas growth (the data on gas reserve growth were terminated in 1979),
yielding a figure nearly 3 times the DOE estimate of 111tcf. Additionally,
nonconventionals were included explicitly in the resource base. As a
result the DOE estimates published in 1988 were twice the DOI estimates
(both adjusted). The DOE estimate became the turning point as subsequent
estimates of the remaining resources from a variety of industry,
professional, and governmental entities increased substantially (Fig.7).
Estimates of the past three years, excepting one, have averaged just
under 1400tcf, five times the level of just a decade ago and nearly 50%
greater that the optimistic estimate of the DOE panel in 1988.
The lone exception is an estimate made by updating the Hubbert symetrical
life cycle model, which still yields a bare 200tcf remaining."
Figure 7 "Estimates of remaining U.S. natural gas"
( ascii approximation, not all data included )
1800| x USGS
tcf | xGRI
| Enron / GRI
1400| x/ x EIA
| /x NPC
1200| NRC /
| x USGS x /x Enron
1000| / x PGC
| Enron x/
| x PGC / x PGC
600| PGC x PGC x PGC /x PGC
|PGC x PGCx / x DDI
400|x xUSGS ___---
200| Mobil x Shell x S&L
| x x NRC x Exxon
0| * Hub Exxon x Hub
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Hub = Hubbert ____ Trend Line
S&L = Smith and Lidsky ( King Hubbert's analysis revisited: update of
the lower 48 oil and gas resource base. The Leading Edge, November
1993 p.1082-1086 )
[ end extract ]
>> The downward trend for production of oil is because the USA
>> imported oil that was cheaper to recover rather than continue
>> with more expensive local oil.
>Now you are making excuses for why Hubbert's observations are generally
No. Hubbert was *wrong* because he claimed the US would
run out of resource. The US, even without the recently discovered
free methane and methane, has resources far in excess than he
claimed, as given in the numbers I posted. If you count the free
methane and gas hydrate, there's a huge resource ( 540Gt of
carbon off the Arctic Margin of Alaska has been estimated from
measurements - but recent research indicates that there could
be "only" one third of that, and 40Gt off the south east US Atlantic
margin ( Science v.273 p.1842 ))- more than enough to ensure the
fossil fuel link global warming experiment can be rigorously and
extensively performed - if we choose to.
>> Entropy is irrelevant :-)
>Talk to an engineer about the relevance of entropy.
An engineer is the *last* person I would talk to about
the relevance of entropy. They spend most of their time
unsuccessfully fighting entropy.
>And leave a note stating your legacy for your grandchildren
> that states that you believed it was appropriate for you to
>wastefully consume the valuable energy resources that they
> will possibly have a hard time finding and affording, if they
>choose to continue climate disruption.
This exemplies your dishonesty. You have read sufficient of
my posts to know that I strongly support more efficient use of
all viable fuels, and have predicted here ( for far longer than
you have been around ) that we will move from fossil fuels for
sound environmental and economic reasons. I have strongly
supported is more efficient usage of fossil fuels ( including
more efficient ICVs and energy conservation ) until economically
viable alternatives are available. For you to pervert my stance
clearly demonstrates the intellectual dishonestly you are prepared
to deliver in your stident support of transportation options that
aren't currently economically viable competitors to fossil fuels.