Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Rat's Nest - Chronicles of Collapse -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (4700)	9/5/2006 10:45:25 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24206

Turn all Britain's homes into mini-power stations, says yorkshire expert Richard Sadler EVERY home in the country should be turned into a mini-power station, producing its own electricity from a combination of wind, solar and other non-polluting energy sources, say scientists. A leading energy expert, Prof Peter Smith, said Britain could generate almost half of its power by installing micro-generation units on roofs, outbuildings and in back gardens around the country. "The technology already exists for householders to generate their own power and sell what's left over to the national grid but the biggest problem with micro-generation units available is they are still to expensive and the payback time is too long to make the outlay worthwhile," he told the conference in Norwich. "What we need is for the Government to provide the right grants and incentives so that it's an attractive proposition – as is already beginning to happen, for example, in Germany." Homes and offices could become self-sufficient in energy with power to spare by combining the latest micro-generation products. These include roof mounted micro-wind turbines, photovoltaic panels to generate electricity from sunlight, solar-thermal panels which use the sun's energy to heat water and ground-source heat pumps, which extract heat and cold air from the soil to provide natural air conditioning. Prof Smith, a renewable energy specialist at Leeds Metropolitan University, said Britain had only about 10 years to implement radical changes in energy policies – or risk an energy crisis and possible catastrophic climate change. Plans to build 10 new nuclear power stations were fraught with danger and went directly against advice from the Government's own scientific advisers, he said. He said apart from encouraging home micro-power generation, Britain should be investing heavily in tidal power, a potentially huge source of clean energy which so far had been largely overlooked. Prof Smith added: "We have seen quantum improvements in technology and there's no reason why Britain should not become carbon neutral by the end of the century. "But to do that we have to change the planning and incentive strategy. "It's no good leaving it to market forces because they are only interested in the short term – the Government has got to step in," he added. 05 September 2006 yorkshiretoday.co.uk

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (4700)	9/5/2006 11:19:04 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24206

A few more comments... Dave Cohen on Tuesday September 05, 2006 at 11:04 AM EST These lower Tertiary reservoirs were first identified in the 1930's. Technology prevented drilling any test wells until now. Another well will be drilled in 2007. If things go right and the price stays high -- it will, unless there's a world wide recession -- full-scale production would begin in 2013. Assuming a 5% global decline rate (this is a standard number) and an optimistic daily flow from these GOM reservoirs of 200/kbd in 2013 -- well, you do the math, OK? It's time to make different arrangements for how we live, not engage in cable news-style cheerleading. As Jeffrey says below, in a Hubbert linearization or production curve (same thing, just an easy transform), this is merely an indiscernible bump (depending on the graph scale) in the long tail end of US production. I see we need another "Guide for the Perplexed" here. ======= westexas on Tuesday September 05, 2006 at 10:49 AM EST "In other words, are these extra 5 to 30 billion barrels already part of that cumulative 228 billion barrels, or do you add them to the 228 billion?" The question partly turns on how you define "conventional." A lot of people don't define ultra deep water production as conventional. My personal definition of conventional is that it is oil that will move to a wellbore without having to add heat energy to the system and/or that you don't have to stripmine. The best way to answer the question is that we are not going to see any region show a perfectly straight line down to where the plot intersects the horizontal axis (where P = zero), because a lot of these regions will virtually never stop producing. Inevitably, what we will see is a long production "tail" which on a HL plot, will show up as the data plot asymptotically approaching the horizontal axis, without ever quite getting there. As I pointed out above, what this fundamentally points out is the difference between the fortunes of the energy producers and the energy consumers. If Matt Simmons is right about oil prices ($200 per barrel in 2010, in constant 2005 dollars), every one million barrel oil field that one finds (or redevelops with more advanced recovery techniques) onshore in the Lower 48 will generate cash flows of up to $150 million or so (depending on the royalty and operating costs). In many areas, a one million barrel field can be found in an area as small as 100 acres. If you string together seven small fields like this, you have a billion dollars in net cash flow. The point is that neither these "leftover" Lower 48 fields nor these ultra deep offshore discoveries will do anything to change the fundamental reality of Peak Oil. Both may be profitable, but we are just working the "tail" at the end of the production rate versus time plot.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (4700)	9/10/2006 1:18:48 PM
From: Ron	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24206

A strong earthquake measuring 6.0 on the Richter scale occurred about 10 a.m. central time Sunday in the Gulf of Mexico about 250 miles west-southwest of Apalachicola, Fla., according to the U.S. Geological Survey’s Website. The St. Petersburg Times, however, quoted a survey spokesman as saying the earthquake was not strong enough to produce dangerous waves. The earthquake was felt in parts of Florida, Georgia and Alabama, according to the USGS. news.galvestondailynews.com