I suspect that two types of countries or localities stand the best chance of getting through the bottleneck with somewhat cohesive communities which would be either:
a. Countries/Areas with a favorable population/resources ratio
b. Countries who by virtue of their potent military/economy can leverage the system to best position themselves to withstand the destructive nature of the contracting forces.
I think not too many countries fit both those categories
Off hand though I think the Western Hemisphere is better situated than the Eastern one. In particular the US, Russia and Canada
PeakOil is You
THE International Energy Agency (IEA) Thread pt 4
Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record
by onlooker » Sun 19 Feb 2017, 07:58:46
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
-
onlooker - Fission
- Posts: 10957
- Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
- Location: NY, USA
Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record
by Yoshua » Sun 19 Feb 2017, 12:19:20
I have had the notion that Russia might last the longest. A nation that already experienced a collapse. A people used to hard times that have accepted a dictatorship for stability and security. With oil, gas and coal reserves enough to keep a not to complex society functioning.
Europe on the other hand is the exact opposite to Russia. A extremely complex political and economic structure with hardly no energy resources'. A population soft and spoiled to the core that live in a ideological phantasy world.
I'm glad to be a European. I will have the honor to witness total madness when the EU collapses.
Europe on the other hand is the exact opposite to Russia. A extremely complex political and economic structure with hardly no energy resources'. A population soft and spoiled to the core that live in a ideological phantasy world.
I'm glad to be a European. I will have the honor to witness total madness when the EU collapses.
- Yoshua
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1977
- Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 06:45:42
Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record
by peakoilwhen » Sun 19 Feb 2017, 16:18:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rockdoc123', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')ROGRESS!
So now LPGs can be made in the mantle huh? If the high priest of biotic oil David Middleton admits that, it must be true. We are more than half of the way to abiotic oil. You say its extremely hard to reverse the process of cracking between LPGs and methane. And I believe you. Tell us, compared to c1 to c2-5, is it harder or easier, or about the same to convert LPGs to slightly longer carbons chain rings and trees? hehehe!
So now LPGs can be made in the mantle huh? If the high priest of biotic oil David Middleton admits that, it must be true. We are more than half of the way to abiotic oil. You say its extremely hard to reverse the process of cracking between LPGs and methane. And I believe you. Tell us, compared to c1 to c2-5, is it harder or easier, or about the same to convert LPGs to slightly longer carbons chain rings and trees? hehehe!
listen you frigging moron.....nothing in the lab has been created other than methane and very miniscule amounts of ethane and a very tiny trace of propane. This is not oil you dolt. The energy and heat to do just that is beyond ridiculous and there is no way to get beyond it to the higher ends....hasn't been done even theoretically (see the work done by the USGS). Not only that if by some magic you created it...it is immediately dissaccotiated due to the high heat and cannot be put back together. You have been told this numerous times. How frigging slow are you?
>nothing
but then
>methane and very miniscule amounts of ethane and a very tiny trace of propane
that's a desperate excuse to dismiss abiotic theory. You know Goncharov's experiment wasn't to mass produce c2-4 from c1, but just to show it was possible. The quantity is not an issue. And btw, methane wasn't created in Goncharov's experiment, it was a part of the setup. If you take your pills and calm down you might be able to distinguish input from output substances.
> The energy and heat to do just that is beyond ridiculous
Not only has it been done in the lab, the mantle can create graphite and diamond. Also kerogen is carbon chemicals that have stripped of hydrogen, oxygen, ( and other elements used by life if we are using biotic theory ) by ' beyond ridiculous ' energies and pressures. What are you trying to suggest? That kerogen can't be stripped of its non-carbon atoms by natural processes because the energy and pressure is ' beyond ridiculous '. What did it then? You? Are you part of a conspiracy of biotic geologists that are forging lumps of kerogen and then burying them deep in the crust when no one is looking?
You are the only thing that is ridiculous here. Calm down and start making sense man.
- peakoilwhen
- Permanently Banned
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 08:53:15
Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record
by rockdoc123 » Sun 19 Feb 2017, 17:54:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lso kerogen is carbon chemicals that have stripped of hydrogen, oxygen, ( and other elements used by life if we are using biotic theory ) by ' beyond ridiculous ' energies and pressures
Look you tool, read what was written even though it appears most of it is well beyond your understanding. Kerogen cannot exist in the mantle. Kerogen is the term given to the insoluable fraction of organic matter in sedimentary rocks which is formed from diageneis of various organics such as vitrinite, wood, plant material, pollen and algae. It has not been subjected to high temperatures and pressures as it would have converted already. Kerogen is the precursor to both coal and hydrocarbons. It is time and temperature that converts kerogen to hydrocarbon but at some point (either high enough temperature or long enough burial) all of the kerogen is converted. This is called the transformation ratio of a kerogen and in most cases 100% transformation ratio (all of the kerogen converted) is reached by depths of 4 to 5 km in a continental basin setting. That means kerogens never make it to depths of even the lower crust let alone the mantle. Suggesting otherwise dispels all sorts of physical laws, which apparently you never learned at your boxtop physics school. Also get yourself a proper dictionary before you spout off about terms you don't understand.
And trying to suggest that kerogen in the shallow crust is somehow converted by methane gas from deep sources is basically stupid given 1. Heat is required to convert it and 2. Kerogen is present almost exclusively in very tight (nanodarcy) source rock shales and marls, gas cannot penetrate into the pore space as there is no pathway.
And if you are trying to convert kerogen then I’m afraid you are talking about a biogenic origin as kerogen is only formed from organic precursors. You really need to pull your head out of your backside
also graphite is not formed from kerogen it is formed by the metamorphism of carbon rich precursors that have already been subjected to considerable catagenesis such as coal or in some cases carbonate or marble. It cannot occur in the mantle because again it would all melt…it is formed by high pressure and temperatures in the crust and not in the mantle. Diamonds are formed in the mantle but not from organic compounds but rather from the melting of subducted slabs which contain carbonates and marbles, these are the most prevalent occurrence of diamonds which were brought to near surface in igneous intrusions which leave behind kimberlite pipes. Both of these minerals contain nothing but carbon so it does little to prove anything about your theory given there is no reaction taking place that includes oxygen and hydrogen.
So once again you keep spouting off nonsense that flies in the face of basic scientific knowledge. And it needs to be pointed out once again that you need to get some proper education including some basic scientific literacy. For some reason you have no problem looking like a fool time and time again.
-
rockdoc123 - Expert
- Posts: 7685
- Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00
Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record
by AdamB » Mon 20 Feb 2017, 00:08:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peakoilwhen', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', 'S')o far, no sign of oil at all, economic or otherwise. In part because...as has been pointed out to you...<snicker snicker>...at those temperatures oil gets turned into thermogenic gas...for starters. You know...just like it does everywhere else in the world.....duh.
Well did your oil friend find any gas in the holes he drilled?
He wasn't a friend, he was being interviewed for a drilling position doing Utica wells. And no, his stories were specific to the wild problems associated with HTHP, and steam.
I searched for any indication of methane in the listed drilling results in Hawaii, and found none. That isn't definitive, but what is definitive is that no is finding long chain hydrocarbons in lava.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
-
AdamB - Volunteer
- Posts: 11018
- Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26
