[rawneus]

I realize the idea of peak oil is a pretty frightening reality, were it to become reality. However, it seems that many people who read about it fail to search for an opposition, fail to try to find holes in it, fail to really try to discount any of it at all. They just take it in for what it is and believe it in its entirety. Well, here is one piece of important information that many of you probably didn't know. Whether you believe it from me is irrellevant, but if you refuse to take the time to research it and either refute or accept it on your own based on evidence that you find, then you're worthless and I hope you live in fear until the day you die with your precious peak oil theory tucked securely in the back of your mind.

So, here I begin.

Just what is the basis of 'Peak Oil'?

It is a seemingly innevitable event that will occurr because of two specific factors. A) Oil is a finite resource AND B) Oil production follows a bell curve.

Therefore, if you could somehow show that either of these two factors were untrue, the whole premise of the peak oil argument would come crashing down, leaving nothing at all. Think about this for a moment before you continue. These ARE the two premises that 'Peak Oil' is based upon. Oil runs on a production curve BECAUSE it is a Finite Resource, and once we are close to exhausting our supply of that finite resource (half-way according to the theory) oil will simply become too expensive, causing what is now known as the "oil crash". But, if oil wasn't a finite resource, it could not run on a production curve, therefore the theory could not be correct. Even if oil was a finite resource but did not run a on a production curve, then 'peak oil' still would be a theory with no basis.

Yeah, this probably sounds a little insane, I'm sure.

But are you interested? Are you, much like people such as Michael Ruppert, so in love with your doomsday theory that you refuse to try to take a look at the opposition's side? I mean, this isn't an issue of pride here. This is an issue of whether or not the world's going to end as we know it. I think it's important to look at both sides objectively, so that you don't a) live ignorantly until the end of 'peak oil' IS true or b) live in fear until no end because you didn't read beyond your beloved peak oil hand book to see the holes and the conspiracies behind it.

If you are interested, then I'm not going to write anymore about it here. Those who are interested simply have the mental capacity to do their reasoning on their own, and have chosen with curiosity to look beyond the theory. I now present an author, David McGowan, who recently ran into a little skirmish with Michael Ruppert, a prolific 'Peak Oil' speaker (www.fromthewilderness.com).

This is a very interesting read, I must say.


Peak Oil is a Known Fraud Based on Ignorance towards Russian and Ukrainian Science


Check the solid red links at the bottom of that article to read the other sections of the Ruppert/McGowan "debate".

Even if you aren't convinced otherwise, it's a read I think anyone whose life has been altered by the notion of 'peak oil' should consider.

[rawneus]

Besides a few typos (ie: production curve instead of bell curve), there is one thing I forgot to mention. The link I have presented is not McGowan's site. The articles here are printed in full. I chose to link to this website only because they're all connected together at the bottom and easy to find. If you would like to view McGowan's own site, it is:

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com

[Pops]

Hi rawneus.

Oil is being made constantly, OK.

It’s coming from a parallel universe or somewhere, OK.

The problem is, it isn’t coming fast enough.

Have your guy get on the phone to the 12th dimension and have them turn up the spigot because most fields are in decline and it doesn’t matter if you call it Peak Oil or The Dinosaur Goo Effect, that is the fact.

Not opinion, just numbers:
http://peakoil.net/uhdsg/WORLD_SUMMARY_html.htm

[Aaron]

Well that's about as snippy as Pops gets... But this is the open forum so...

There is in fact credible research on abiotic oil formation theory. I read through all the 7thfire post and linked material some time ago, and conclude that there is a genuine debate in geologic communities concerning oil formation.

That said, Pops makes an important point. While it's interesting to understand the origins of oil, what we really care about is how much can we get, & how long will it take to get it. Even if it's excreted from glands on morlocks, there are fewer morlocks excreting less abiotic oil than yesterday. Perhaps morlocks swarm to specific fields and refill them on occasion, but this appears to be a localized phenomena, and is uncharacteristic of most known wells.

The Peak Debunker's seem to miss the critical point that POT (Just coined a new acronym) or Peak Oil Theory is based on observed oil production behavior and well understood oil production dynamics which are both repeatable and verifiable. Arguments over esoteric and little understood technology or primary science is fascinating, but should not be regarded with the same gravity as serious science.

[Pops]

POT. I like it.

As I was waiting for that last page to load I looked at the Peak Oil logo and thought of PO'd, as in P*ssed Off.

LOL

[Pops]

That's wierd...

I'm sure I typed in PO'd and it showed up as peak oil'd.

Trying again.

[Pops]

Yep did it again. Excuse me for a moment...

PO'd

"P""O"'d

Pee-Oh-ed

"PO'd"

[Guest]

Great point, Pops. The condescention is greatly appreciated, really.

You know what's interesting, though? Numbers may not be opinions, but that doesn't mean they have to be right. It may be hard to believe, but plenty of mistakes are made by human error (or purposeful misrepresentation of) numbers alone. But hey, what am I talking about, right? That's never happened before. What kind of dastardly oil company (or even Peak Oil advocate who happens to be making thousands upon thousands of dollars per year selling a book or website subscription) would lie about figures relating to oil production? Gee, what would they possibly have to gain from it?

Nevermind Pops, you're entirely right. Though, somehow I'm doubting you, yourself, have ever taken a look at any of these oil wells personally. Not that I have, of course, but I just don't like to put all my faith into one source. Hell, when it comes to corporations with billions at stake, I really don't like to put any faith at all in them.

I'm not saying that we don't have some sort of energy crisis ahead of us, specifcally with oil. But I'd be willing to bet that it's going to be more political than geological, and you know.. even if I'm wrong.. it'll be nice seeing the oil companies fall anyway. Although, it's strange that the very people who provide the world with oil, didn't foresee this and think about it ahead of time in order to not meet their own doom. You would think that even they would know that their billions would be useless if the world economy collapsed entirely. ...I wonder..

And for the record, I'm not trying to be a bastard about the whole thing. I really am open to any information that any of you have to offer me to refute what I'm saying, to expand upon it, or to add any of your own theories or ideas. That's why I came here in the first place. I believed Peak Oil before, but now I'm starting to see other possibillities. It's certainly not going to be peachy, I think we can all agree to that. But Peak Oil and its consequences is not a future that I see.

One last thing. I tried regestering for an account here, but no email was sent. Possibly because of the apparen Leroy Security Team incident? Heh. If any admin wants to help me out with that, that'd be great.

[Aaron]

Rawneus -

Sounds as if we are all violently agreeing here. I also have trouble swallowing the worst case scenarios for post peak life.

After much consideration, seems to me that the economic consequences of the peak of oil are the most well understood part of the theory. Most would agree that sky high oil prices can't be good for global economies, and that any sustained significant increase in oil price would fuel inflation, unemployment and recession. To my mind this is the most certain part of the argument. Sure, social instability might cause wars which could escalate into global, even nuclear conflict. Too many might's & could's for me... But collapsing economies sounds all to possible. Which sounds nice and academic to say, but is, I suspect, most unpleasant, to say the least.

Sorry about the user registration probs... working.

[Pops]

I apologize for the condescension.

However, you must have imagined tidbits like this in your first post would be responded to in kind: “then you're worthless and I hope you live in fear until the day you die with your precious peak oil theory tucked securely in the back of your mind.” Not quite a friendly introduction.



I agree completely regarding the problem with the figures. Most of the scientists I’ve read, on either side of the depletion issue, say unreliable information is the biggest problem with planning for the future.

I’m certainly no expert, but I haven’t seen anyone’s numbers indicating anything other than declining production and reserves in a large number of areas. It has been proven over and over that the mid point in production usually marks the peak of production with nothing left but down.

The oil co’s are in fact proceeding to “manage decline” as BP put it in their reports: mergers instead of exploration and diversification into alternatives like PV, wind, bioethanol.

And as for living in fear, I’m not. I’m not waiting for a magic bullet, a miracle technology, the gov or aliens to come to the rescue. What I am doing is trying to change my lifestyle to be less of a consumer and more independent. If oil depletion (or any other harebrained calamity you care to name, and there are many nowadays) causes severe economic problems, I believe self-sufficiency to the extent possible will be the best insurance.

If on the other hand, depletion is a myth and life goes on as the economists believe and oil flows forever and and the population of the world continues to grow unchecked to what, 18 billion; then I’ll, hopefully, have a nice private little home away from the crowd.

[Atr0p0s]

In a debate, calling someone's sources innaccurate or fake seems to me to be about as close to cheating as you can get in this verbal sport. Nobody has come out and blasted your crack team of Eastern European scientists. They've instead tried to repute it with the facts they have learned.

So, time to turn in what I know. Demand is rising at a phenomenal rate; depletion has outpaced discovery by 4 to 1; gas is reaching record prices as we speak and most of the world's crude will soon be in the hands of Saudi Arabia.

Check out the following graph for demand figures and recover/production ratio figures: http://production.investis.com/bp2/ia/stat/
You can see the numbers we talk about from an oil and gas company that has everything to lose from publicizing such reports. Demand is up, and reserves/production ratios are gradually sinking.

[MattSavinar]

In the first issue of "The Post-Oil Times," there will be an article written by a Professor of Neuroscience (yeah - oil isn't his background, but you got to have some brains to be a prof of ns) that I think will put this debate to bed once and for all. (Note - it will be free for everybody to see).

Matt Savinar
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

[rawneus]

Ah, quite true Pops. My appologies. It's just that many people I've spoken to about the issue won't even take the time to think of other possibillities, they read it, accept it, and that's it. This place seems a tad different, which is very much appreciated.

And my, Matt Sevinar. You bastard. It's your book that has me all in a fuss, you know that, right? Very well put together, by the way. Possibly a bit too far with the theories, but the first few sections were enough to make me research as much as I can about a subject I've never before even thought about.

And if it's cheating to refute someone's numbers by saying that they're wrong, then so be it. I don't tend to do something like that unless I have reason to. It just seems that just about everyone who puts these numbers out would have something to gain by falsifying them or are tied to someone or some coroporation who would. Maybe that or it's just my optimism kicking in? :l

Oh, and Pops, you're very right. I think in any case, it's definitely about time some people start to seperate themselves from society a bit. If I had the money to make my home a bit more self sufficient, I would. It'd need to be a bit more out of the way, though. :\

So, is there any other opposition to Peak Oil any of you guys have found that is worth a read? It's just nice to see it from as many perspectives as possible.

[dmtu]

If the majors wanted us to believe peak is here wouldn't they just tell their buddies in the mass media to print it up instead of us nuts trolling the backwaters of the internet to find related news?

[JLK]

I think the most persuasive evidence that a crisis is fast approaching is the 20 year graph of discovery minus production. Once you've seen that, you may change your tune.

At the same time, we always have the be aware that everyone has agendas, and both proponents and detractors of POT have to be scrutinized carefully to make sure they aren't selling us a bill of goods. Caveat emptor.

[rowante]

Rawneus, I have waxed and waned about peak oil theory for the last year. I still research and read waiting for something that puts it to bed. I haven't as yet come across it.

Last weekend I got into a drunken screaming match with an old friend about it. He was really agressively, trying to make me shut up about the whole thing. His main argument was that he is older and lived through many dooms-day scenarios that didn't pan out. Unfortunately I was too drunk to do anything but rant about loss of arable land (1 million hectares a year) and the grain shortage of the past four years (I'll try and find the links). I think he was trying to say I was obsessing about it, which was counter-productive.

He may be right thinking that the end of the world is not coming. Maybe not our world, but the world of the people just hanging on with their collective fingernails. First world countries have a lot of room to manuver, alot of efficiencies to be implemented. Most of the developing world does not have that luxury, they scrape every bit of use out of every resource they have. They will be the first to suffer.

[hymalaia]

I think (know) the reason people "don't want to hear about it" and especially don't want to hear Matt's version is that they've invested themselves fully in their current industrialized life-style for so long, that to dramatically shift gears and prepare for "post peak" is too daunting a psychological task. They'd rather just take it as it comes, or should I say they'd prefer to just die than accept peak oil as reality. Life is stressful enough as is... and not valuable enough to deal with the extra stress of preparing for peak oil. It's kind of the human way of saying "life, if your so cruel to bestow on me all these expectations, and then pull a drastic 180 on me, than I don't care to participate in your game any longer..."

Of course when they are starving to death this mode of thought might change quite a bit...Who knows. Maybe I'm just speaking for me...

[Doctor Doom]

As I read McGowan's piece I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. A few cases where seepage from deeper reseviors doesn't support a theory of inorganic formation or make oil a renewable resource. Carbon atoms occur in nature as several isotopes, and, because of the small mass differences, biological processes preferentially acrete C12, while inorganic processes don't. This difference can be measured, and analyses done of crude oil support the theory that it's of organic origin. The dinosaur carcass idea is laughable, since the prevailing theory is that oil is formed from plant matter on a spectrum that runs from peat through bitumen to heavy and then light crudes. All of these things can be found in our world today, supporting the theory. Even if there is inorganic oil available, it doesn't make oil renewable on anything like a human time scale. There's vastly more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was 100 years ago - all that carbon had to come from somewhere, and at least so far it hasn't gone back. McGowan's got his head up his ass.

I also don't buy the doomsday scenarios. They are certainly real possibilities, but I think it far more likely that as we start down the other side of the peak, we'll quickly change our habits in ways that buys us time to roll out alternatives. There's plenty of energy available from a combination of nuclear and renewable sources.

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') also don't buy the doomsday scenarios. They are certainly real possibilities, but I think it far more likely that as we start down the other side of the peak, we'll quickly change our habits in ways that buys us time to roll out alternatives. There's plenty of energy available from a combination of nuclear and renewable sources.