Eh. And once the current inter-glacial (the Holocene) is over we are back to..the Pleistocene. Most geological epochs are defined by major changes in the flora/ fauna used to establish stratigraphic series over long periods of times. Which is why the big ones tend to aligned with mass extinctions. Or major reconfigs of major land masses. The Pleistocene started with the current series of glaciations. About 3M. B.P. It will end when the current series of glaciations end. In a couple of million years. Give or take. The Holocene epoch was created to give a name to contemporary geological events. In the last 10K years. Just a matter of tidyness. But we are still in the Pleistocene glaciation event. The Holocene is just the placeholder name for the current inter-glacial interval.

To avoid nit pickers the term Quaternary is also used for both epochs but as all the fun geology happened in the Pleistocene thats the term that is generally used for the most important geological event of the last 20M years. Ice. Lots and lots of ice.

It never went away you know, the Pleistocene.

Not a bad introduction to geology for the masses I'll give you that.

But things have changed around here JMC, in case you haven't noticed.

No the Pleistocene is over, no going back. Damn chronology prevents you naming the same thing twice

Investor unease as Providence’s hunt for oil continues

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/ene ... -1.3217413

Even if oil is discovered in these deepwater offshore wells when is it ever going to be commercially attractive, even viable, to take the risks of setting up a new offshore pipeline and other supports needed to extract deepwater oil, in this world of cheap abundant oil available at relatively low cost from fracking plus onshore wells?

The weird (but understandable) thing about oil as a fungible commodity is that, with certain caveats, every barrel sells for the same amount as the last marginal barrel extracted. The price is set by the cost of the most expensive barrel which is economically viable to extract, and for which there is a demand. It doesn't matter that there are barrels that can be extracted for $2 as long as you can make a profit at $53 (currently). Oil demand is still inexorably increasing, and the price of oil services -- rigs, ships, down-hole technology, seismic surveying etc. -- has plummeted. So there are plenty of attractive prospects.

Wind energy is forging ahead and has guaranteed contracts. Surely it will be more profitable to harvest the deep (shallower will be cheaper) oceans wind resource than oil. Wind power can be sold to rich countries with guaranteed pricing and it looks like oil demand is going to drop precipitously in developed economies including China.

We know exactly where the wind is.

Wind is not currently a replacement for oil. Outside of a few island territories like Hawaii, and a few backward places like Ireland, oil is not used to generate electricity. And conversely, electricity will not replace a significant amount of transport energy in the short to medium term.

I think your wrong about electricity not replacing a significant amount of oil use soon.
Depending on definition of soon,certainly within 10 years we should a marked change. Wind is a replacement for oil as it can charge batteries which power cars. Its slightly more complicated than that but not much! With some mega sized batteries put together for power storage it's going to get really interesting. No way oil can compete with that with all the factors against it.


The point is not only that though, it doesn't make sense from an investment perspective because wind resources are become cheaper all the timeto harvest and yet we know exactly where they are and estimate are pretty accurate of what's available.
Along with long-term pricing contracts for wind the money is going to flow into that industry.

Gas and oil are already abundant from the US, another factor.

The oil used for light vehicles (i.e. cars) alone is approximately energetically equivalent to all current electricity generation. Countries are struggling to keep up with increasing electricity demand as it is, especially bearing in mind their commitments to decarbonise. The US EIA's international energy outlook for 2016 estimates that world electricity generation will increase 70% by 2040 ( though only 40% in OECD countries). That's about 2.2% per year. What additional percentage are you estimating we will add in ten years to current electricity consumption, on top of the amount needed to cater for increases in non-transport uses? Bear in mind that oil demand is increasing at about 1.6% annually too.


Not sure what you're saying here. Oil and LNG exports from the US are a new phenomenon, as crude oil exports were banned until quite recently. Those exports may well increase significantly, but I'm not sure what argument you're making.