"ich bin nicht "Klein-Biomuell" für dich"" nochmal eine Beleidigung wie "klein-biomuell""und du fliegst hier raus "
Beleidigungen sind normal ja deine Stärke, kann ja mal ein Thread eröffnen wo deine BMs veröffentlich werden oder wenn du willst kann ich ja mal ein paar von deinen hier veröffentlichen.
Dieses wird vorraussichtlich mein letztes Post. hier sein, da ich kein Interesse sowie meine Zeit mir zu wertvoll ist, mich hier im Biofanclubthread mit einen Hobbyspekulanten weiter zu streiten.
Hier werden sowieso nur Post. anerkannt die Bio loben, nach dem Mund reden und alle ins selben Horn blasen.
Nochmal zurück zum Sommer 2008, alle Vorhersagen betr. Verbrauchsrückgang sind eingetroffen, folgen des hohen Preises, Konsumrückgang.
Dieses wollte Herr von Bio ja nicht einsehen, desweiteren die Macht der OPEC bei fallenden Preisen.
Anstelle sich nun vom reinen Preispeak zu trennen und sich wieder mit dem Thema Pro oder Contra Peak Oil zu beschäftigen, gibt Herr von Bio lieber fleissig Sternchen für " Der Ölpreis wird steigen".
Argumente gegen Peak Oil von angesehen Instituten.
Du solltest dich mal mit den Gegenargumenten detaliert beschäftigen als dieses einfach nur als lächerlich abzustufen:
Peak Theory Shortcomings
The CERA review also finds that current “peak oil” advocacy suffers from several problems:
The peak argument is not presented in the context of a credible systematic evaluation of available data; its proponents have not made available a transparent and detailed analysis that would allow an objective and rational discussion. At base “their methodology is to impute decline curves against currently proven reserves and declare that the game – and the argument – is over.”
The underlying analytical model formulated by the late M. King Hubbert both fails to recognize that recoverable reserve estimates evolve with time and are subject to significant change, and it also underplays the substantial impact of technological advances. Consequently, total annual production at the high point in 1970 was 600 million barrels higher – 20 percent -- than Hubbert’s projection of peak production for the US Lower 48, although he correctly anticipated its timing within two years.
Hubbert’s method requires accurate knowledge of the ultimate recoverable reserves of an area, but his 1956 analysis could never have incorporated the impact of giant discoveries in Alaska and the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, and therefore couldn’t have predicted the production profile for the U.S. As a result, total cumulative U.S. production between the high point in 1970 and 2005 exceeded Hubbert’s predictions by the equivalent of more than 10 years of US production at present rates.
Hubbert-posited post-peak reservoir decline curve assumptions are rebutted by observation that the geometry of typical oilfield production profiles is often distinctly asymmetrical and does not generally show a precipitous mirror-image decline in production after an apparent peak, even without the application of new technology or enhanced oil recovery techniques. As a result, in the US Lower 48 where Hubbert came closest to accurately forecasting a peak, oil production in 2005 was some 66 percent higher than projected by Hubbert, and cumulative production between 1970 and 2005 was some 15 billion barrels higher, a variance equal to more than eight years of US production at present rates.
Those who believe a peak is imminent tend to consider only proven remaining reserves of conventional oil, which they currently estimate at about 1.2 trillion barrels. In the view of many petroleum geologists, this is a pessimistic estimate because it excludes the enormous contribution likely from probable and possible resources, those yet to be found, and plays down the importance of unconventional reserves in the Canadian oil sands, the Orinoco tar belt, oil shale and GTL projects. CERA believes the global inventory is some 4.8 trillion barrels, of which about 1.08 trillion barrels have been produced, leaving 3.72 trillion conventional and unconventional barrels, an order of magnitude that will allow productive capacity to continue to expand well into this century.
The “peak oil” argument is frequently supported with data indicating that new exploration finds are not sufficient to replace annual production. Their data sets have serious deficiencies. The peak argument is an incomplete and therefore misleading analysis because it ignores the role of development (vs exploration) projects in expanding reserves, fails to understand economic factors that can point company and national strategies to emphasize development vs exploration work. By focusing on “discovery” and ignoring the increased knowledge and confidence about field volumes, it disregards the fact that revisions, additions and exploration together have generated resource growth of 320 billion barrels – 80 billion barrels more, or one-third more, than total production – during the period from 1995 to 2003. CERA draws both on its own data bases and those of its parent company IHS, which has the world’s most complete proprietary data bases on oil production and resources.
Hubbert’s method does not incorporate economic or technical factors that influence productive capacity; most importantly, it ignores the impact of both price and demand, both major drivers of production.
Peakists’ projections of the date a peak would be reached continue to come and go, the most recent targeted around Thanksgiving Day 2005, give or take a few weeks.
So das wars, Trap würd sagen, ich habe fertig, alle Biofans werden sich freuen.
P.S. Lieber Klein Bio, bitte keine BMs mehr, ich will nichts von dir da ich hetro bin.
Zurück
