The pre-Climategate issue that is the issue

SteveE, are you being deliberately dense? The reason why we are not producing more oil in the US is because the govt has made it illegal to do so. As to the claims that the easy oil has been found, please define “easy”. I suspect they are talking about the oil that can be extracted for $5 to $10/brl, such as Saudi oil. There’s a huge continuum of oil, all the way from practically free to thousands of dollars a barrel.
Finally, I mention one of the recent large finds, you counter by saying this one find is not enough to supply the world’s needs.
Well, duh. Nobody said it was. It doesn’t have to. The other fields are still producing, and I only mentioned one of the recent finds.
This is my last reply to you, since you have obviously closed your mind to any information that doesn’t fit your agenda.

MarkW says:
April 12, 2011 at 5:50 am
Finally, I mention one of the recent large finds, you counter by saying this one find is not enough to supply the world’s needs.
Well, duh. Nobody said it was. It doesn’t have to. The other fields are still producing, and I only mentioned one of the recent finds.
—
Yes but you have to replace the 30 billion a year that is being produced, that is simply not happening. Currently about 15-20 billion a year is being discovered, and that’s only going to get less and less as the years go by.
I’d say you are the one who is being dense, probably not deliberately though.

Amoorhouse says:
April 12, 2011 at 1:56 am
You see One Tree, you’ve seen Yamal!

I lol’d. 🙂

Duke C. says:
April 12, 2011 at 8:19 am
SteveE says:
April 12, 2011 at 7:11 am
We use ~31 billion a year.
We discover ~15 billion a year.
——————————————–
I don’t think that’s a valid argument. Oil companies need to make efficient use of their resources by shifting investment between exploration and production. Why put money into discovering another trillion barrels or so when the current reserves are adequate?
———–
Because the value of the company is based on it’s assets, for an oil company that’s the oil reserves it holds. The only way to replace the oil that is being produced is by exploring for more or buying it from other companies.
If a company could book another few billion barrels of oil onto their reserves list they would do it in a second!
Companies are finding it harder and harder to discover new fields as all the obvious or easy places to look have already been done.
The fact that there’s less place to look mean that it’s going to be harder and harder to increase production to meet demand (baring in mind it can take 5-10 years between first discovery and first production). When we can no longer increase oil production that is peak oil.

SteveE says:
April 12, 2011 at 2:12 am
10-20 years is when peak all will be reached, not run out. At this point the price of oil will increase dramatically. We’ve seen the price increase by 50% due to the unrest in teh middle east. What do you think will happen when there isn’t enough production to meet demand?

Oil prices soar when global demand exceeds global supply. Unrest in the Middle East is a factor only in so far as it has the potential to reduce supply. As prices soar, consumption declines, the balance between supply & demand is restored and prices drop.
Peak Oil will not result in an endless spiral of soaring prices. It will be very much like what we have seen in 2008 and 2011. There will be brief intervals of soaring prices followed by consumption adjustments and reduced prices:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2011/03/price-of-oil-here-we-go-again-part-ii.html
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2011/01/price-of-oil-here-we-go-again.html
The REAL problem is the economic disruption brought about by these price shocks.
As noted in both of the above links, we can — for at least the next 100 years — avoid these economic disruptions by voting the Dims out of power and developing our VAST domestic hydrocarbon resources. If political tyrants get out of the way, the economic growth powered by that domestic energy will allow private enterprise — when the time is right — to develop next generation of energy sources which are viable in the real world (as opposed to the alternative energy fantasies currently peddled by thieving corruptocrats).

They have been predicting peak-oil for decades yet there is much still to learn about our planet –
Read Peter Morgan’s article
Oil is not a fossil fuel and AGW is a non-science
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9_7BNRefZZsJ:www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3952+oil+is+not+a+fossil+fuel+and+agw+is+non-science&hl=en&gl=uk&strip=1
http://my.opera.com/nielsol/blog/2009/07/28/abiotic-oil

Marion says:
April 12, 2011 at 10:26 am
Abiotic generation of Hydrocarbons is laughable.
Why is it then that every producing oil and gas field in the world has biological markers that can only be formed through biologcal processes?
Abiogenic petroleum is about as believable as creationism.

As a matter of routine, I hereby confess that I am an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Well, this one does go on!
Because of the stir, I have reviewed my original post (April10 2011 2.03am) in order to check if I must concede that any criticisms, many very robustly put, are justified. I see I offered what I think was a plausible explanation of how people in the UEA, and subsequently others, came to a position where they are so scorned by many who inhabit this and other blogs, and subsequently added a similar thought about the handling of FOI act requests. I commenced with an expression of personal reservations about the reactions expressed here and concluded with an injunction to ‘lay off the people’.
I confess the severity of the reaction that this has provoked has surprised me. This is a lesson for me. But it is clearly old hat to that part of the government that interfaces with the science community and so Government scientific advisers and committees (including a Climate Change Committee) are appointed to man the frontier and facilitate dialogue.
Now to the criticisms. I did not offer my personal assessment of the merits of the behaviour of the actors involved. Who should care what I think? So criticisms of my personal opinions and morality on such a basis appear to be without foundation.
I did, however open with my reservations about the odium poured on the people involved. Because, to me, it seemed exaggerated and misplaced and based upon the assessment that these were people who knowingly embarked upon an enterprise they knew to be fraudulent. However, this does not seem to me to have been the case.
The description of what actually happened that I gave does not seem to have elicited comment. I am not aware that I have been accused of misrepresentation in this context. However, my conclusion – that commiseration would be more appropriate than excoriation – and the reasoning that lead me to it have been much ridiculed and I have been accused of numerous offences. So be it, my opening remarks were the expression of what I felt, and I must live with the consequences of sharing the thought. I add here, however, that I note the absence of the milk of human kindness towards these unfortunate souls.
Some points of interest do seem to have arisen, however. Firstly, when considering my evaluation of the UEA crew, I do mean commiseration rather than excoriation because the esteem of the UEA crew amongst their peers can hardly have been enhanced by what has happened. Will they not, even in the most conservative of scientific circles, be seen to have been involved in a business that turned out to be rather unfortunate?
Then, there is the significant question of the distortion of science for a particular end. Clearly distorted science is not science at all. Rather, it is something akin to selling or politics where distortion or selection of data is standard technique. So should scientists be involved in such work? . Well, OK, clearly no in a perfect world. And in the case at issue, part of the real world, the UEA crew now seem to have distorted the science in an unacceptable way. But I have to ask if they realized they were doing so at the time.
Then there is the issue of whether following the instructions of a superior is sufficient reason for doing so. This question has been raised many times and a formulation that, at least, satisfies me, arrived at (April 10 2011 7.31pm re DirkH). Interesting nevertheless.
My exhortation to ‘lay off the people’ was mostly made with tactical considerations in mind. Apart from my own feelings on this, two examples of the views of significant luminaries come to mind. (1) In a recent interview, Sir Paul Nurse said he was not confrontational and, in an appalled voice, deplored the internet because, as I recall, ‘people were rude to one another’ there. (2) In the recent Spectator debate, I understand that Simon Singh, who I believe plays at being a scientific populist as well as doing serious work in an unrelated field, displayed a ranking of scientific sources that ranked blogs last. IMHO, this will probably, at least in part, be because of the invective that flies around in them. Now I doubt that either of these two luminaries cuts much ice with climate skeptics, but would suggest that both of then enjoy significant success in the wider community. Part of the reason for this is their friendliness and ability to charm the leg off an iron pot. Drawing attention to mistakes or malfeasance by climate activists is offensive to them. These people are an important, but relatively weak part of the Government’s climate change edifice. Government knows it knows nothing of the intricacies of climate science, and so relies on the opinions of these (and other similar) people. However, they themselves know that they know very little about climate science and so rely on the opinions of others. Climate skeptics are going to have to convert these people to their point of view, and in order to do so, must cosy up and avoid criticism of the people that the luminaries have often been assured do good work. Instead, the line should be that small mistakes were made as has now conclusively been shown etc etc. By such means, I think, will the climate change war be won.
So much for that
After this posting, I do not intend to contribute again unless something interesting comes up or I find I have made a mistake that needs correction.
Re DirkH April 10 2011 9.18pm
So we agree about the applicability of the defense that the actors involved in our drama were merely doing their job.
Re Roger Carr April 10 2011 120.42pm
Thank you. The quality of the argument I started here has, indeed, been an eye-opener but, although now bloody, I remain unbowed. I felt the points needed to be made and hope some of them will have sunk in.
Re Merovign April 10 2011 11.36pm
No offence taken. You are the soul of discretion!
For the reasons that prompt me to urge that it is appropriate to lay off the people, see my introductory remarks above before the answers to specific posts.
Of course bureaucrats, in common with everybody else, would like to be free of restraints of any sort. But few structures, bureaucratic or not, permit this. Of course, in practice, governments tend to be less controlled than other bodies, partly I think because the issues they face are rarely black and white, as well as because (1) there is rarely a market to enforce discipline, and (2) quis cusodiet etc. Eternal vigilance is the best remedy we have, but is often found wanting.
Re Richard S Courtney April 11 2011 4.07am.
No, of course I have not studied the deliberations at Nuremberg – life is too short and I missed the condensed version that so many who have posted here must, I think, have seen. However, I doubt sufficient comprehension of the issue requires detailed knowledge – the issue is plain enough. I agree about its seriousness. I gave a better statement of my position in that part of my post directed to DirkH (April 10 2011 7.31pm) than I favoured you with in my post of April 10 2011 7.04am I apologise.
I add that I have assumed that the disagreement the UAE crew would have had with their management if they opted out of pursuing the objective I guess they were given by the government would be major, and not minor at all. If this is wrong, then I would have to reassess my views about what they did.
I advise you not to draw inferences from my adopted name and do not think reference to religion helps comprehension of the issues under discussion. I hope that re-evaluation of my postings will help you to revise your evidently very low opinion of me.
Re my routine declaration, firstly I regret you find it boorish. Then, I am open to persuasion on this. I think it helps readers to assess a contribution if they know something about its author. I have assumed from inspection of posts by others that this forum is mainly frequented by scientists and other scientifically literate folk. I felt it necessary to make it plain that I am not in that company. For the benefit of occasional visitors I have felt it necessary to post my routine delaration at the head of every post. I agree it as tedious for frequent visitors to read it as it is for me to write it.
Re MarkW April 11 2011 7.41am
See comments on Richard Courtney above.
Re Matthew April 11 10.47 am.
No, it is not reasonable (or maybe better acceptable) to lose data, but I guess that is what may have happened. These people will, I think, have been very busy at the time and maybe lacked proper resources.
I entirely agree with your evaluation of the situation in which what happened has left them.
Re Mac the Knife April 11 2011 6.30pm
I am sorry you have not clarified your point so I still do not understand your comments and further constructive dialogue is frustrated.
In the main, I have not sought to offer any apology for what happened, only a possible explanation of how it came about. I do not want to stray into the science because I know too little to comment. However, I think it likely that the masters of the UEA crew pushed them too hard and now leave them to face the music.
In addition, your choice is made retrospective to the action with the benefit of hindsight; whereas I doubt the issue was as clear at the time as it has later become. I disagree that the UEA crew must have recognised they had a choice about whether to be ethical or deceitful.
I suggest it would be more seemly to forbear from the sort of comments you make in your last paragraph.
Re Laurie Williams April 11 2011 10.58pm
Most of this post seems to be political theory and rather remote from the more narrow issues surrounding climate science that are of interest, so I do not think it right to comment. I have not thought in such broad terms and cannot rely on experience for help.
Then however, there is a reference to my thought that Government should make itself responsible for sorting out the imperfections arising from conflicting institutional objectives. This was, of course, a counsel of despair as I see no prospect that Government can ever properly address the issue because of its overriding responsibility for preventing waste of public funds.
I agree that the particular ‘truth’ the Government sought may have been a lie, but observe that unfortunately it is the sort of lie that is commonplace in the political class
Re ‘lay off the people’ see the remarks above my comments on individual posts, Re loss of data see Re Matthew above.
Re the defense concerning bending the truth, I add that I doubt that there will ever be any sort of formal trial over the issue. However, I also doubt that the scientific community or the court of public opinion will ever fully accept this defense if it were offered.

Re most recent comments by Ecclesiastical Uncle
Uncle, you have been busy on this!
“Government scientific advisers and committees (including a Climate Change Committee) are appointed to man the frontier and facilitate dialogue”
This statement shows a gross misunderstanding of political reality.
To “man the frontier”, certainly, but not necessarily to “facilitate dialogue”, and in many cases to do the opposite of that, to censor.
Like the IPCC, the Australian government appointed climate commission is most
certainly not for the purpose of facilitating dialogue, or finding truth, or making it available and widely known, but for pushing propaganda on the public. Big difference.
“I did not offer my personal assessment of the merits of the behaviour of the actors involved. Who should care what I think?”
All on this blog would care what you and others think “of the merits of the behaviour of the actors involved”. That is a core point of every policy debate.
Re harsh words about players in the game, you say “it seemed exaggerated and misplaced and based upon the assessment that these were people who knowingly embarked upon an enterprise they knew to be fraudulent. However, this does not seem to me to have been the case.”
They did. It is.
“my conclusion – that commiseration would be more appropriate than excoriation – and the reasoning that lead me to it have been much ridiculed”
Deservedly so.
Your grammar is mostly excellent, in contrast with others, but I think in this case you meant the past tense “led” rather than the present “lead”.
Your plaintive tone is similar to that of Phil Jones under pressure. Oh, poor little me. Don’t fall for that rubbish. These characters and those around them knew what was going on.
“the esteem of the UEA crew amongst their peers can hardly have been enhanced by what has happened. Will they not, even in the most conservative of scientific circles, be seen to have been involved in a business that turned out to be rather unfortunate?”
Same applies. Why the misdirected sympathy?
“Climate skeptics are going to have to convert these people to their point of view”
True. You referred to people disliking blogs because of the slagging (my term) done by anonymous people. But that does not mean that people with reasonable arguments to make should not state them.
“, and in order to do so, must cosy up and avoid criticism of the people that the luminaries have often been assured do good work. Instead, the line should be that small mistakes were made as has now conclusively been shown etc etc. By such means, I think, will the climate change war be won.”
More likely lost, if whining sympathy seeking corrupt manipulators like Jones, Mann etc are given the cotton wool treatment that you favour.
“I advise you not to draw inferences from my adopted name and do not think reference to religion helps comprehension of the issues under discussion.”
Then why do you choose to use that name?
I understand that some people comment under false names because they feel that their business relationships, careers or friendships could be damaged if others found out that they were writing horrible nasty climate denier comments on a horrible nasty climate denier blog run by that horrible nasty climate denier Watts, but I regard such fear as a good example of the gutless unprincipled behaviour that has been well discussed on this post.
I comment using my real name. My location of Adelaide is shown in some posts. Shock, horror, I can even be found on the internet using that information.
Why not comment using your real name?
“These people will, I think, have been very busy at the time and maybe lacked proper resources.”
No excuse for losing information that is not theirs to lose. What is the connection between being under resourced and losing things, or perhaps more accurately intentionally destroying or disposing of them?
Busy? Yes, busy fudging and obstructing.
“Re Laurie Williams April 11 2011 10.58pm
Most of this post seems to be political theory”
Economic theory. And solid in practice.
“and rather remote from the more narrow issues surrounding climate science that are of interest”
Not so! Read my reasoning again and try to understand the connection. Labour market distortion is an extremely serious debilitating scam that has been around for over 100 years, with effects that most people never consider.
Not “narrow” either. Very broad, extending into many matters, not just the climate scam.
“I see no prospect that Government can ever properly address the issue because of its overriding responsibility for preventing waste of public funds.”
At the risk of causing you to feel insulted, you really don’t get it.
Firstly, the two parts of your statement do not have the logical connection that you imply.
Secondly, wasting public funds is something that corrupt leftist governments do shamelessly, because the corrupters of government, who much more than the public are the effective employers of those in power, require it and the politicians thrive on it.
Until democracy bites back, which happens only when those guilty are plainly identified as such and dealt with accordingly, not with boo hoo sympathy cotton wool treatment.

Laurie Williams says:
April 13, 2011 at 5:22 am
I’m sorry mate, but there is simply no evidence to support abiogenic petroleum. The mixing argument doesn’t work because there would be areas where there is no biogenic hydrocarbon generation that should contain just abiogenic hydrocarbons, this has never been observed.
The reason that volcanoes emit those gases and elements is that the magma is a product of melting rocks in the crust that contain them. Rocks that have been deposited in the oceans and basins around the World millions of years ago. Abiogenic petroleum relys on reactions in the Earth’s mantle, below the crust. No connection there.