February 7, 2012


“The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that more than 2 trillion barrels of untouched crude is still locked in the ground, enough to last more than 70 years at current rates of consumption.” Quote from the Bloomberg article

Peak Oil Scare Fades as Shale, Deepwater Wells Gush Crude

China Pipeline Explosion
Containers filled with oil cleaned up from an oil spill site are seen at the Nantuo Fishing Harbor in Dalian in northeast China's Liaoning province on Sunday, July 25, 2010. China continues oil spill cleanup operations after two pipelines exploded on July 16 and spewed crude oil into the sea at Dalian's Xingang Harbor. Photograph by A. Lang/Color China Photo/AP Images
When Daniel Lacalle, in his early 20s, took a job with Spanish oil company Repsol YPF SA in 1991, friends chided him for entering a field with no future. "They all said, 'Why do you want to do that? Don't you know only 20 years of oil is left in the whole world?'" he recalls.
Two decades and four energy crises later, the U.S. Geological Surveyestimates that more than 2 trillion barrels of untouched crude is still locked in the ground, enough to last more than 70 years at current rates of consumption. Technological advances enable companies to image, drill and shatter subterranean rocks with precision never dreamed of in decades past. Trillions of barrels of petroleum previously thought unreachable or nonexistent have been identified, mapped and in many cases bought and sold during the past half decade, from the boggy wastes of northern Alberta, to the arid mountain valleys of Patagonia, to Africa's Rift Valley.
"Betting against human ingenuity has been a mistake," says Lacalle, who today helps oversee $1.3 billion as a portfolio manager at Ecofin Ltd. in London. "The resource base is absolutely enormous, so much so that we will not run out of oil in my lifetime, your lifetime, our children's lifetimes or our grandchildren's lifetimes."
Worries about energy supplies have abated, several years after the 9/11 attacks and Iraq warmade them central to daily chatter about the U.S. economy and homeland security. In that environment, the late Texas investment banker Matt Simmons was able to jolt traders, policy makers and media with a prediction that global oil production was on the cusp of a death spiral. Goldman Sachs warned that crude price were headed for a $200-a-barrel "superspike." Concerns about Peak Oil dominated environmental conferences, academic debates about natural resources, and energy-policy discussions for much of the 2000s. They still persist despite dramatic transformation within the industry.
What changed? Engineers at Brazil's state-controlled oil company, Petrobras, figured out how to bore holes in mountains of salt beneath the ocean floor that concealed vast reservoirs of crude. In the Gulf of Mexico, prospectors such as Chevron and Shell were doing similar things hundreds of miles offshore, farther out and in deeper water than anyone envisioned just a few years earlier. Ultra-deepwater drilling vessels that cost $750 million and can remain at sea for months at a time enabled explorers to burrow 5 miles into the Earth's crust to strike their pay zones.
Small-time explorers such as Kosmos Energy Ltd. reckoned that since the South American and African landmasses had once been conjoined, Africa's Atlantic coast probably held oil depositssimilar to those off Brazil. About that same time, a Texas oil man named George Mitchell was perfecting a 40-year-old technique known as hydraulic fracturing that would trigger a renaissance in U.S. oil and natural-gas production.
The Peak Oil hypothesis got its start in 1956 when M. King Hubbert, then a Shell Oil geologist, suggested that all oil fields were subject to peaks followed by inevitable, irreversible and predictable declines. U.S. oil production did peak in 1970. Hubbert’s prediction turned out to be correct, though not entirely for the right reasons, and he gained widespread renown, particularly among environmentalists, whom he gave a data point about nature’s limits just when they were looking for one.
Hubbert’s ideas gained currency as oil prices tripled from 2000 to 2007 and producers struggled to keep pace with rising demand in China and India. The geologist’s work leapt from history to current events through media and books, including "Hubbert’s Peak" in 2002 by Kenneth Deffeyes, a Princeton University geologist who worked with Hubbert. The word “peak” became commonly applied to many strategic natural resources in media and on the Internet, often without rigorous consideration of whether it was technically applicable.
Another of Hubbert's most ardent apostles, the banker Simmons, expanded on the theme in his 2005 book, "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock & the World Economy." The crux of Simmons's particular variant of the Peak Oil argument was that Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest exporter of crude and home to the largest pool of reserves, was less than transparent about its capacity to grow or even sustain production. It was only a matter of a few short years, Simmons argued, before the Saudi juggernaut would falter, tipping the world oil market into an apocalyptic frenzy of panic buying, shriveling supplies and skyrocketing prices.
Simmons's ideas really began to resonate in 2007 as crude prices marched steadily higher, touching a record $147.27 a barrel in July 2008, and investors, analysts, policy makers and consumers struggled to understand why, says David Arseneau, senior economist with the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington. "We were experiencing price spikes, and people had a hard time dealing with it," Arseneau says. "That's where the Peak Oil scare came from -- it was trotted out as an explanation."
Simmons' fellow-travelers included Colin Campbell, founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas, and Jeffrey Rubin, who during his tenure as chief economist at CIBC World Markets Inc. had been warning clients of an imminent peak in world crude output since October 2000. In February 2007, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the research arm of Congress, issued an 82-page report urging the Energy Secretary to "prioritize federal agency efforts to reduce uncertainty about the likely timing of a peak and to advise Congress on how best to mitigate consequences." The International Energy Agency, the Paris-based adviser to 28 oil-importing nations, warned in November 2008 of an "oil-supply crunch" by 2015.

Critics Weigh In

The theory was castigated as "misleading" and based on incomplete data in a November 2006 study by Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm founded by Daniel Yergin, author of "The Prize," the Pulitzer Prize-winning history of the oil industry. The study forecast a 50 percent increase in global crude output by 2030, to 130 million barrels a day. Six years later, production has risen nearly 5 percent, just shy of 90 million barrels a day, according to IEA figures. CERA now is a unit of IHS Inc.
Oil prices dipped last week, but diplomatic tensions over Iran’s nuclear program have pushed them 7 percent higher than a year ago. Even with crude down 50 percent from the record high set in the summer of 2008, producers have plenty of financial incentive to continue searching for reserves in such places as the Bakken shale beneath North Dakota and the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Harvesting such fields costs $50 to $60 per barrel, says Guy Caruso, the former head of the Energy Department's statistical arm and now a senior associate at the Center for Strategic International Studies.
As Peak Oil debates recede, petroleum will remain an object of both passion and logical debate for reasons that have less to do with production histories and reserve estimates than with geopolitics and geophysics: How does the U.S. rely less on unfriendly oil-producing nations? How much oil can we save as more cars run on both gas and electricity? How can we reconcile fossil fuel combustion with the risks of climate change?

February 6, 2012


When did the middle finger become offensive?

M.I.A. performs at the Super Bowl halftime showWhether or not M.I.A. was aware, the gesture originally referred to a phallus
An American television network has apologised after pop star M.I.A. extended her middle finger during Sunday night's Super Bowl halftime show. What does the gesture mean, and when did it become offensive?
A public intellectual, expressing his contempt for a gas-bag politician, reaches for a familiar gesture. He extends his middle finger and declares: "This is the great demagogue".
The episode occurred not on a chat show nor in the salons of New York or London, but in Fourth Century BC Athens, when the philosopher Diogenes told a group of visitors exactly what he thought about the orator Demosthenes, according to a later Greek historian.
The middle finger, extended with the other fingers held beneath the thumb, is thus documented to have expressed insult and belittlement for more than two millennia.
'Phallic gesture'
Ancient Greek philosophers, Latin poets hoping to sell copies of their works, soldiers, athletes and pop stars, school children, peevish policemen and skittish network executives have all been aware of the gesture's particular power to insult and enflame.
"It's one of the most ancient insult gestures known," says anthropologist Desmond Morris.
"The middle finger is the penis and the curled fingers on either side are the testicles. By doing it, you are offering someone a phallic gesture. It is saying, 'this is a phallus' that you're offering to people, which is a very primeval display."
During Sunday night's broadcast of the Super Bowl, America's most-watched television programme of the year, British singer M.I.A. extended the finger during a performance of Madonna's Give Me All Your Luvin'.
Diogenes in his barrel telling Alexander the Great to get out of his lightDiogenes of Sinope was reputedly a fan of the middle-finger gesture
The NFL and NBC television, which broadcast the game and the halftime show, apologised.
"The obscene gesture in the performance was completely inappropriate," said Brian McCarthy, a spokesman for the NFL.
The gesture is widely known to Americans as flipping the bird, or just giving someone the finger.
The Romans had their own name for it: digitus impudicus - the shameless, indecent or offensive finger.
In the Epigrammata of First Century AD by the Latin poet Martial, a character who has always enjoyed good health extends a finger, "the indecent one", at three doctors.
Monkeys' obscene gesture
The Roman historian Tacitus wrote that German tribesmen gave the middle finger to advancing Roman soldiers, says Thomas Conley, a professor emeritus of communication and classics at the University of Illinois, who has written about the rhetoric of insults.
Squirrel monkeysThey may look innocent, but these squirrel monkeys are capable of their own obscene gesture
Earlier, the Greeks used the middle finger as an explicit reference to the male genitalia.
In 419BC, the playwright Aristophanes puns in his comedy The Clouds about dactylic (finger) rhythm, with a character gesturing first with his middle finger and subsequently with his crotch.
The gesture's origins may extend even further back: male squirrel monkeys of South America are known to gesture with the erect penis, says Mr Morris.
The middle finger, which Mr Morris says probably arrived in the US with Italian immigrants, is documented in the US as early as 1886, when a pitcher for the Boston Beaneaters gave it in a joint team photograph with the rival New York Giants.
Expression of 'displeasure'
The French have their own phallic salute, says Mr Morris.
In performing the "bras d'honneur" (arm of honour), one raises the forearm with the back of the hand facing outward, while slapping or gripping the inside of the elbow with the other hand.
The British gesture - the two-fingered 'v' with the palm facing inward - is a "double phallus", Mr Morris quips.
AgincourtThe British "two-fingered salute" is said to stem from Henry V's archers at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415
Although scholars and historians continue to debate its origins, according to legend it was first displayed at the battle of Agincourt in 1415.
There, English soldiers waved their fingers at French soldiers who had threatened to cut off captured archers' first two fingers to prevent them shooting arrows. The English were thus boasting they were still capable of doing so.
The middle finger's offensive meaning seems to have overtaken cultural, linguistic and national boundaries and can now be seen at protests, on football pitches, and at rock concerts across the world.
In December, Liverpool striker Luis Suarez was photographed giving an American-style middle finger to Fulham fans after his club's 1-0 loss there.
The FA cited him for improper conduct and suspended him for one game.
Protest, rage, excitement
In 2004, a Canadian MP from Calgary was accused of pointing his middle finger at a member from another party who he said had been heckling him in the House of Commons.
"I expressed my displeasure to him, let's put it this way," Deepak Obhrai told a Canadian newspaper.
Two years earlier, pop star Britney Spears gave the finger to a group of photographers who she complained had been chasing her. Some of her fans thought the gesture was aimed at them, and Spears later apologised.
While the middle finger may historically have symbolised a phallus, it has lost that distinctive meaning and is no longer even obscene, says Ira Robbins, a law professor at American University in Washington DC, who has studied the gesture's place in criminal jurisprudence.
"It does not appeal to the prurient interests," he says.
"This gesture is so well engrained in everyday life in this country and others. It means so many other things, like protest or rage or excitement, it's not just a phallus."
And he rejects an Associated Press journalist's characterisation of the gesture as "risque".
"What is risque about it? Maybe the dancing was risque, but the finger? I just don't see it."

February 3, 2012

Again the left progressives break the law and hack a website just because they aren't doing what they want them to do. 


THIS IS A ECONOMIC TERRORIST ACT AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH!


Komen website hacked amid growing backlash




Images from the Komen website: the top one showing the actual wording, the bottom image showing hacked text from early Thursday morning.
  •  
  • Share
  • Email
  • Print
  • - A A A +
ATLANTA (WXIA) - Backlash from the decision from Susan G. Komen for the Cure's decision to end funding for Planned Parenthood has pushed up donations to Planned Parenthood to the tune of more than $650,000 in 24 hours, according to Planned Parenthood executives.
The local Atlanta arm of Susan G. Komen for the Cure issued a statement Thursday distancing itself from the actions of the national body, and pointing out that Atlanta's Planned Parenthood organization has never requested any funding from Komen's Atlanta branch.
"Komen Atlanta remains committed to ensuring that all women, especially the underserved, in our community have access to lifesaving breast cancer screening and support services. The decision regarding the funding of Planned Parenthood was made by Susan G. Komen for the Cure National Headquarters based on new guidelines that prohibit funding to organizations that are under local, state or federal investigation. The Atlanta area Planned Parenthood organization has never requested funding from Komen Atlanta. Therefore, this decision from Komen National Headquarters will have no impact on local Planned Parenthood centers. We understand, and share, in the frustration around this situation."
Susan G. Komen for the Cure founder, Nancy Brinker, released an internet video late Wednesday denouncing the "scurrilous accusations" against the group, which some have said are politically motivated. Many critics point to former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel, whose 2012 gubernatorial campaign included specific calls to defund Planned Parenthood in Georgia.
The website for Susan G. Komen for the Cure was hacked early Thursday on the heels of the organization's decision to stop providing funding to Planned Parenthood, according to The Atlantic Wire.
A headline on the site's front page which was supposed to say "Help us get 26.2 or 13.1 miles closer to a world without breast cancer" was changed to read "Help us run over poor women on our way to the bank."
The text on the site was restored a short time later.