[fizzissist]

BTW Fizzwizz, dwindling oil supplies ARE the cause of billions being "invested" in alternate energy sources, or have I got that amount wrong?

.......Oil is in dwindling supply,
Ian.

Have you ever, I mean EVER done your homework before you start typing?????

http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1105.html

Look at the numbers that show global oil production in millions of barrels per day, look at the number for 2008, and see if it isn't bigger than any of the other numbers. (I'll help you with the math if you need it)

Oil can NOT be in dwindling supply if production is continually higher, and higher, and higher every single year. Year after year.

Maybe demand is outpacing supply, but that does NOT equal "dwindling supply". Duh.

[dufas]

So believe what you want but "Fire is hot and Ice is cold" and man has about as much to do with the changes in climate as sheep needing a lawyer!


Thanks for all the laughs,

Fish

About then, someone will step in and dismiss anyone and everyone as stupid in order to do things their way..... Enter Harry Reid

[fizzissist]

All hail Pinky!!

[Prosper]

"Oil can NOT be in dwindling supply if production is continually higher, and higher, and higher every single year. Year after year.
Maybe demand is outpacing supply, but that does NOT equal "dwindling supply". Duh.[/quote]

Something strange that no one really know is that the fuel (gas) that we normally buy is padded with all sorts of additives to make up the components of 'gasoline'. We are not really getting 'pure' gasoline anymore. Also the crude oil that is being pumped out is not of a high grade anymore.

[307startup]

I am aware of additives in gasoline, but where did you get your information regarding currently available crude oil being less than "high grade" crude oil from bygone times?

What is the metric for establishing such a claim? There are many different types of crude oil...the amount of sulfur and other contaminants determining whether it is sweet crude, light sweet crude, etc..

Does the anonymous source have "vintage" crude oil unprocessed sitting in a warehouse full of 55 gallon drums, from which to compare "modern" crude oil? Is there an actual scientific basis, or simply a matter of preference...a subjective vs objective analysis of these supposedly different crude oils?

It is laughable to consider ANY crude oil being of a lesser grade, considering the consensus is that ALL crude oil is millions of years old. The only way I would "buy" this claim, is if indeed the Earth is still currently producing oil reserves...in which case we are in no danger of running out of oil, just needing to adapt our modern fuel systems to this "un-aged" crude oil and it's resulting refined fuels.

"Oil can NOT be in dwindling supply if production is continually higher, and higher, and higher every single year. Year after year.
Maybe demand is outpacing supply, but that does NOT equal "dwindling supply". Duh.

Something strange that no one really know is that the fuel (gas) that we normally buy is padded with all sorts of additives to make up the components of 'gasoline'. We are not really getting 'pure' gasoline anymore. Also the crude oil that is being pumped out is not of a high grade anymore.[/QUOTE]

[dufas]

It is amusing how many in the US are upset about America purchasing other country's resources. I wonder if these people ever thought about what would happen if we stop buying those resources.

Sort of like everyone not buying anything from the store down the street and expecting the store to stay open..

The Saudis are all ready to ask various countries for cash to replace lost income that will occur when the US goes 'green'.... Ironic..

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/polit...-63765357.html

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112675

http://www.drudge.com/news/125982/sa...-wants-bailout

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/08...ces-emissions/

http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/10/...il-dependence/

[Mariss Freimanis]

"We are not really getting 'pure' gasoline anymore."

OK,... I'll then say we're not getting pure CO2 anymore; the high-octane, far-infrared belching, global frying greenhouse grade gas of yesteryear. Its been padded down with additives.

That makes as much sense as the above quote.:-)

You might want to look up hexane, heptane, octane, nonane, decane, etc. They are aliphatic hydrocarbons having 6 to 10 carbon atoms in each molecule chain. Gasoline is a mixture of these short hydrocarbon chains.

Shorter hydrocarbon chains are gases; methane, ethane, propane, butane and pentane. They are fundamentally the same as the liquid hydrocarbon chains that make up gasoline except for their vapor pressure (boiling point).

Much longer hydrocarbon chains make up diesel fuel, light oils, heavy oils and paraffin wax. These hydrocarbon chains are so long that all the fun of naming them is gone.:-) Numbers are used instead. As an example, C20H42 to C40H82 covers paraffin wax if I remember correctly.

Mariss

[307startup]

YES!!! Exactly what we need...a welfare state of formerly super-rich nations, who deride us for being "infidels". Talk about state-sponsored terrorists. Can anyone say, one hand out for a hand-out, while the other is clutching a knife behind their back? Not to worry...I have THE solution! Biodegradable coffins...that way when Americans are killed by these eco-buck "guilt" hand-outs, their rotting corpses will be eco-friendly...thus completing the "green"-friendly circus, er...circle.

It is amusing how many in the US are upset about America purchasing other country's resources. I wonder if these people ever thought about what would happen if we stop buying those resources.

Sort of like everyone not buying anything from the store down the street and expecting the store to stay open..

The Saudis are all ready to ask various countries for cash to replace lost income that will occur when the US goes 'green'.... Ironic..

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/polit...-63765357.html

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112675

http://www.drudge.com/news/125982/sa...-wants-bailout

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/08...ces-emissions/

http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/10/...il-dependence/

[307startup]

What say you, ol' chap...care for a bit of the "aged" petrol, or is the newly-pressed petrol fine by you?

We are talking about gasoline...not cheese or wine. When we start putting Velveeta in our SUV's I will be worried, not until.

The tripe that is passed off as "educated" thought is nothing more than ignorant opinionating. It is hard to take anyone seriously when they spout such nonsense.

It is refreshing to hear such level-headed and scientifically sound arguments from competent individuals, Mariss. Thank you.

"We are not really getting 'pure' gasoline anymore."

OK,... I'll then say we're not getting pure CO2 anymore; the high-octane, far infrared belching, global frying greenhouse grade gas of yesteryear. Its been padded down with additives.

That makes as much sense as the above quote.:-)

You might want to look up hexane, heptane, octane, nonane, decane, etc. They are aliphatic hydrocarbons having 6 to 10 carbon atoms in each molecule chain. Gasoline is a mixture of these short hydrocarbon chains.

Shorter hydrocarbon chains are gases; methane, ethane, propane, butane and pentane. They are fundamentally the same as the liquid hydrocarbon chains that make up gasoline except for their vapor pressure (boiling point).

Much longer hydrocarbon chains make up diesel fuel, oils, heavy oils and paraffin wax. These hydrocarbon chains are so long that all the fun of naming them is gone.:-) Numbers are used instead. As an example, C20H42 to C40H82 covers paraffin wax if I remember correctly.

Mariss

[handlewanker]

So Fizzwizz, thre's so much oil still to be found that now we'all are assured, (Fizzwizz assures us that is) that all that hokey pokey the governments are spouting, and the greens too, about finitite resources and the need to conserve them can be forgotten, in the new age of "go for broke", "if'n we'all don't use it" our kids surely will.

I seem to remember a city kid that once walked for days through a corn field and came to the conclusion that there was an endless supply of corn and he'd never grow hungry.

Too bad all that corn was just a bit of the amount it takes to feed the local populace for where it was destined, and the kid would starve to death because it got used up before he could get his share in the bread line.

Oil is not infinite, it just seems that way, especially when the blinkers are tightly drawn.

If Fizzwizz would hazard a guess as to why intelligent people are concerned about the prospect of reduced oil supplies impacting on civilisation as we'all know it, and many other intelligent people are spending BILLIONS on alternative technology, I for one would like to hear about it.
Ian.

[307startup]

Well at least you will be provided for, with your unwavering faith in the administrators of government, and the eco-zealots. I am sure they reward the faithful. At the cost of us unbelieving eco-heathens.

But....

Living in the real world, as I do, I am quite aware of how incapable and incompetent administrators tend to actually be. And zealots of every measure tend to over-emotionalism, rather than over-thinking. I'll take my chances. I know that I am quite capable of producing and thinking. Unlike the eco-welfare drones.

And if those concerned souls are indeed intelligent, why do they look up to the sky in response to all the Chicken Little bleating coming from the eco-nazi's camp? I think you have more than enough faith for all of us. That's good...you can have my share of faith and more. I prefer reality. Followers rarely tend to use their intelligence...thinkers tend to avoid walking off cliffs or drinking Kool-Aid given to them by "leaders". Intelligent people follow leaders based on merit...not faith. So I heartily disagree that any of the eco-frenzy is being drummed up by intelligent people. Just overly noisy, overly emotional eco-zombies.

The money spent on alternative sources of energy are making some people money...that being those who are in line to extort taxpayer dollars for an unnecessary cure. Now maybe I'm a bit fuzzy on it all, but shouldn't a "solution" not only give one an answer to a question, but be able to stand on its own merits? I prefer to get my money's worth when I spend it. Spending $1 to get $0.50 worth of product is foolish no matter which way you try to spin it. I want real answers, to real problems...not play with overly expensive tops.

I'll stick with my nuclear, gas & coal thank you very much. You go off and enjoy your eco-world with all of your other Kool-Aid swilling friends. Just leave me and my pocket book out of it.

So Fizzwizz, thre's so much oil still to be found that now we'all are assured, (Fizzwizz assures us that is) that all that hokey pokey the governments are spouting, and the greens too, about finitite resources and the need to conserve them can be forgotten, in the new age of "go for broke", "if'n we'all don't use it" our kids surely will.

I seem to remember a city kid that once walked for days through a corn field and came to the conclusion that there was an endless supply of corn and he'd never grow hungry.

Too bad all that corn was just a bit of the amount it takes to feed the local populace for where it was destined, and the kid would starve to death because it got used up before he could get his share in the bread line.

Oil is not infinite, it just seems that way, especially when the blinkers are tightly drawn.

If Fizzwizz would hazard a guess as to why intelligent people are concerned about the prospect of reduced oil supplies impacting on civilisation as we'all know it, and many other intelligent people are spending BILLIONS on alternative technology, I for one would like to hear about it.
Ian.

[Mariss Freimanis]

dufas,

I expect there is another reason for the strange Saudi proposal.

A gallon of gasoline weighs 6lbs and contains 1.3x10^8 Joules of energy. For those not familiar with Joules, a Joule is a unit of energy and is defined as 1 Watt of power for 1 second. A gallon of gasoile can light a 100W light-bulb for 150 days, 24 hours a day.

The 12V battery in your car also has about a 1 gallon volume, weighs a lot more than 6lbs and contains about 2.6x10^6 Joules of energy. By volume, it holds 1/50th the energy of a gallon of gasoline and by weight, 1/250th the energy.

I think what the Saudis and other net oil exporting countries are afraid of is we may be only one or two inventions away from a battery, that by weight and volume, holds the same energy as gasoline. Such an invention would be a world changer.

We have the means to produce enormous amounts of electricity by building nuclear power plants. We have the means to build electric motors that by weight and volume, produce much more power than internal combustion engines. Electric motors have it all over IC engines in efficiency (95% vs. 30%), simplicity, reliability, volumetric size and weight for the same horsepower.

The source of energy is there (nuclear) and the means of using it is there (electric vehicle motors). What's glaringly missing is a truly high energy density mobile storage device for electricity. Two pieces of the technology are in place, the third missing piece is still mired in 19th century physics, chemical batteries. If this problem gets solved then it would be world changing.

My guess is such a discovery will bypass chemistry. It may involve discovering how to build megafarad capacitors for instance. Just for fun, let's say you could build a 33 kilofarad (.033 MF) capacitor and have the device be the size of a car battery (about a 1 gallon volume). Let's also say you could charge it up to 100V. The energy stored would be 1.65x10^8 Joules (J = (C*V^2) /2 ) which is about what energy a gallon of gasoline holds. Put 5 of them in your car (5 gallons of gas equivalent) and there would be no difference. Why 5? To account for the electric motor efficiency of 95% versus an IC engine efficiency of 30%. Electrics go 3 times as far on a gallon of "gas" because efficiency is 3-times higher.

There is no way to do what I'm saying today. On the other hand, the technical challenge isn't in the science fiction realm either. It's maybe one or two discoveries away.

The political side: It's easy enough to imagine the fears of the oil producing countries. They run the span from a 19th century civilization (Russia) to a 13th century civilization (Saudi Arabia). They have made an enormous amount of money selling only one product. This product and money received has given them a position of importance in this world outside of their actual importance. Some have used this money to push their particular brand of primitive religion upon an unwanting world and other mischief. Without this money, they recede back into a place commensurate with their actual importance, like what they had in the 1930s and earlier. The invention of such a device, a battery, would be a disaster of unimaginable proportions to them. That's why bets are being hedged early.

Mariss

[fizzissist]

So Fizzwizz, thre's so much oil still to be found that now we'all are assured, (Fizzwizz assures us that is) that all that hokey pokey the governments are spouting, and the greens too, about finitite resources and the need to conserve them can be forgotten, in the new age of "go for broke", "if'n we'all don't use it" our kids surely will.

That is NOT what I said. You're good at twisting words around, even if most of the time the end result is convoluted, unrelated nonsense. In this case I never said that there wasn't a finite amount. There's a difference between
"dwindling supplies" and a finite supply.

One example is the oxygen in our atmosphere. It is at a finite level at this instant, but it isn't dwindling. I'll presume you're not smart enough to see where this trap is leading.....so go off on some stupid analogy tangent if it makes you giggle.

Abiotic oil? Ever heard of that concept? Care to explain why supposedly depleted oil pockets in the Gulf of Mexico are showing signs of being replenished? Sure, it could be leaching in from the neighbor's back yard, but then again........subterranean methane percolating up thru hydrocarbons, ferrooxidans, and boogers forming Exxon's finest?

To your question of why people are spending billions on something else? That's a stupid question, and you know it. Hazard a guess as to why people would like to save money by not having to buy oil and get energy cheaper? Oh, please.

[handlewanker]

Fizzwizz, I expect 'ol Pickens Boone, the Texas millionaire windmill guy, has been listening to your shattering expose on the myth of finite oil and decided that in his lifetime no petrol tank (or Ethanol tank) would go empty, so that's probably the reason he got out of the wind movement, it all seems so clear when yo'all put it that way.

Personally I don't believe a word of it, but seeing as how the oil ain't being renewed, and the fact it gotta come from somewhere, maybe it falls out of the sky overnight (Manna?) when all the kids are in bed...LOL.....yeah and pigs fly too...

To put it simply in case yo' aint a preefesser o' economics too, when the seesaw tips in the udder direction, 'cos all those well intentioned green hued folk start going green and the electric car, (or an Ethanol user too like in Brazil), becomes a reality, that is a viable alternative to petrol usage mode, then the increasing users of alternative technology will make the petrol production MORE expensive DUE TO A REDUCED USER MARKET, does that make sense, less users, less revenue, less money to crack the crude, less money for supply and less distribution outlets, less shareholder returns, less tolerance to pollution of the air, but perhaps yo' got a few shares tucked away in petroleum production and are gettin' more worried than a tom cat at a veterinary surgeons conferance.

One thing does escape yo' mind, with the exponential curve of Humanoid production getting ever steeper as it too reaches peak, (while the gene pool lasts), the useage of petrol especially will hasten, not reduce, the existing crude reserves yet to be discovered.

The fact (not hypothesis) that a billion, and getting more by the day, Chinese people as an example, will further make the demand for petroleum products even more critical, unless by some miracle they discover vast land masses that they can convert to fuel crop producton in place of food, that is unless they want to walk to work.

The world may yet go to Ethanol production, seeing as how the Humanoid mind preferrs the sound of an engine going VROOM VROOM in place of an electric motor going mmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmm, but the real reason for Ethanol preferance would probably be because there is such a huge infrastructure that lends itself to engine manufacture and maintenance, that the Piston Poppers Club will be alive and kicking long after this present Humanoid society has forgotten what an oil drilling rig was for.

The very real worry nobody has yet taken notice of is...what happens when the oil in the East becomes too dear due to Ethanol or whatever repalcing it?

Will the Arabs blame the West for their lifestyle demise and declare a holy war on Ethanol/Electric users, like bacon eaters to a Muslim Cleric in full rant?

The world is going to be a very different place in the next generation typo.

The next generation will probably be called Generation.......anybody want to put a title on the next generation billboard?

I've got accustomed to the Baby Boomers as being the boom in Humanoid activity, mid 40's, by returned servicemen going for it, but I could venture the next generation being called The Baby Bloomers, that is Ethanol from plant material users, flowers, blooms...LOL........whatever.
Ian.

[handlewanker]

Yeah....I like your explanation Mariss....suck suck suck...but you do make sense and a good read.

The Saudis et al may well worry about the ability of the West to eventually tell them to go wash their Togas in what's left of their only national product, if'n the West get their act together and do invent a better energy storage medium.

I still think the Ethanol solution is the simplest, but would like to see the electric car, with it's no useage wastage when waiting at traffic lights ability, come on line.

I think Fizzwizz has been drinking something fizzy.....oh the puns get frothier as the night draws on....but the absurb idea that the oil pools are being replenished from the bowels of the Earth is a bit absurb, possiblt clutching at straws to maintain shareholder confidence...who knows.

There maybe a lot of gas coming from the core, but condensing to form crude.....maybe it could happen but I don't give it too much on a scale of 1 to 10, still it's an interesting hypothesis, but hardly lending itself to "finite resource repenishment", or "we ain't got no problems petrol wise no more".

BTW, Fizzwizz, people are in the scenario of one day having to pay MORE money for what they got cheaply, due to finite resource depletion, and NOBODY wants to spend MORE money unless they are pushed to it.

Some people are prepared to spend billions (of other venture capitalist money) in the hope that they can get it right and so capture a captive market that they can feed on for ever more.

The other reason is the Western governments would dearly like to tell the Arabs to go stick thieir oil someplace unpleasant, but until that day comes they'll just keep the people happy by supplying them with what their tax dollars are able to buy them.

Incidently, Fizzwizz, I don't intentionally TWIST your words around to gain a bit of verbal leverage, it just seems that way to you......maybe I misinterpret your view of the scene....but that's my failing...too bad....who cares.
Ian.

[dufas]

dufas,

I expect there is another reason for the strange Saudi proposal.


My guess is such a discovery will bypass chemistry. It may involve discovering how to build megafarad capacitors for instance. Just for fun, let's say you could build a 33 kilofarad (.033 MF) capacitor and have the device be the size of a car battery (about a 1 gallon volume). Let's also say you could charge it up to 100V. The energy stored would be 1.65x10^8 Joules (J = (C*V^2) /2 ) which is about what energy a gallon of gasoline holds. Put 5 of them in your car (5 gallons of gas equivalent) and there would be no difference. Why 5? To account for the electric motor efficiency of 95% versus an IC engine efficiency of 30%. Electrics go 3 times as far on a gallon of "gas" because efficiency is 3-times higher.

There is no way to do what I'm saying today. On the other hand, the technical challenge isn't in the science fiction realm either. It's maybe one or two discoveries away.

The political side: It's easy enough to imagine the fears of the oil producing countries. They run the span from a 19th century civilization (Russia) to a 13th century civilization (Saudi Arabia). They have made an enormous amount of money selling only one product. This product and money received has given them a position of importance in this world outside of their actual importance. Some have used this money to push their particular brand of primitive religion upon an unwanting world and other mischief. Without this money, they recede back into a place commensurate with their actual importance, like what they had in the 1930s and earlier. The invention of such a device, a battery, would be a disaster of unimaginable proportions to them. That's why bets are being hedged early.

Mariss

It can be all the reasons you brought up and more. They do stand to lose their 'life style' if anything upsets their cart. Did you know that many Saudis refuse to do manual labor, they import immigrants for their 'hands on' needs. This comes from years of the posh life living off oil money. They are above any such menial tasks,,,


Hugo Chávez of Venezuela is grabbing as much of the oil production and support companies he can to support his regime. As the west, at least in last few years, bought less oil, this ate into his reserves and put his communist plans in jeopardy. If any breakthrough happens in the alternate energy field, he and other countries that live off of other peoples backs are going to be in a world of hurt.....


The controlled discharge of a capacitor is being used now in a smaller way. Most of the generating LED flashlights and radios use this method of storing electricity. I've read articles of people trying to enlarge the system with powering vehicles as the final goal. The nice part is that a vehicle can be charged up in a second. The bad part is that if something goes wrong, it would be one big jolt of electricity trying to go somewhere. Can we say Van de Graaff lightning machine. I've seen a charged capacitor around the size of a soda can discharge a bolt of blue plasma about 8 inches onto a wrench that was placed a little too close. Tesla would be proud...

[fizzissist]

3-400watts/square meter oughta tell you everything you need to know about replacing oil with anything that comes directly or within a single step from the sun.

Mariss is onto the next biggee....the capacitor.

[fizzissist]

...Or not...

You've seen the headlines of the Catlin Expedition, with the alarming proclamations that the arctic will be ice free in 20-30 years if we don't stop global warming..and they've got the proof.

Supposedly.

Some think maybe not, read for yourself:

The Top Ten Reasons why I think Catlin Arctic Ice Survey data can’t be trusted
10-15-2009

First, I loathe having to write another story about Pen Hadow and his Catlin Arctic Ice expedition, which I consider the scientific joke of 2009. But these opportunistic explorers are once again getting some press over the “science” data, and of course it is being used to make the usual alarmist pronouncements such as this badly written story in the BBC:
....WUWT followed the entire activist affair disguised as a science expedition from the start. You can see all of the coverage here. It’s not pretty. When I say this expedition was the “scientific joke of 2009″, I mean it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/1...nt-be-trusted/

[rokag3]

There is no way to do what I'm saying today. On the other hand, the technical challenge isn't in the science fiction realm either. It's maybe one or two discoveries away.

http://www.technologyreview.com/ener...?nlid=1646&a=f
actually the bigest problem is the price of the nanotubes the BIG discoverie will be cheap fabrication of nanotubes. Use of Genetic. Modif. Organism. ? I am aginst GMO for food and when the goal is to confiscate life for big corps interest but the use of GMO to produce rare molecules or structures seems to me a smart way to go

[dufas]

Supporting Evidence, Briefly

* Oil being discovered at 30,000 feet, far below the 18,000 feet where organic matter is no longer found.
* Wells pumped dry later replenished.
* Volume of oil pumped thus far not accountable from organic material alone according to present models.
* In Situ production of methane under the conditions that exist in the Earth's upper mantle.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/giles6.html

If the outer 100 miles of the earth’s crust are biologically active as Gold suggests and the activity is uniformly distributed then there is a lot of potential oil to be found. If oil is just .001% of the volume of the outer 100 miles of crust, then we would have an additional 5,077,713,481,834,820 barrels of oil, or about 4000 times as much as the current proved reserves. If the oil zone goes deeper then we obviously have more. If the oil is being replenished from below via primordial reserves left over from solar system formation then a steady state might be expected in which extraction and replenishment would balance for a long time to come.

Perhaps this explains why we never seem to run out and some large oil fields continue to produce regardless of extraction rates? Some oil pools actually seem to be filling from below, which supports the deep hot biosphere theory of Thomas Gold.

Why then would the oil industry cry shortage in such a period of abundance? There is nothing like a perceived crisis to suspend rational thought and behavior. This happened during the seventies when stagflation ruled the day and we were running out of oil (again), in spite of the proven reserve facts.

If we are not running out of oil, then just what are we doing in the Middle East? We are currently spending about $150 billion dollars per year defending about 350 billion barrels of oil of which we purchase about $12 billion dollars worth for imports. This is clearly a bad bargain. We could withdraw the troops and let the price of oil quadruple and still save money and lives, theirs and ours. Clearly no one is performing cost benefit analysis on this fiasco.

Current "expert" consumption rates indicate the pool will run dry this century, but if history is any guide at the end of this century there will be more proven reserves than at the beginning of the century (which was the case with the last one). Freeman Dyson thinks Thomas Gold is on to something, and as co-inventor of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) he is nowhere near the intellectual schlump that I am and he might be worth listening to.

The basic thesis here is that lots of eco-nuts, and policy wonks think that oil production has peaked and that doom is around the proverbial corner (as it always seems to be, no matter how many corners we safely round).

I oppose these ideas for two reasons: 1) in my experience Al Gore gets virtually nothing correct in his public policy proscriptions, and 2) even if we are running out of oil the market will adjust and other forms will become available. Nothing will ration supply accurately like price, that is, market forces, and historically these are just the things not allowed to function, instead we get myriads of laws, regulations, incentives, and taxpayer funded boondoggles (Synfuel Corporation comes to mind) perverting the process.

If I am correct then this is another non-issue. At the end of this year, like the end of every year in the past we will have more proven reserves than we did at the beginning. Odd considering we are discussing an increasingly scarce resource, but the politicians and their funding dependent sycophants never let truth interfere with a good story, and that story is usually about picking our pickets.