Peak Oil Myth?

by **miniTAX** » Thu 19 Jan 2006, 19:18:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JoeW', '
')supposing that the entire planet was composed of crude oil, that would still be a finite amount. to prove that it is not, you would have to show how the products of hydrocarbon production can be reconstituted into petroleum by a natural process that is relevant in a human timeframe. There is no evidence of this process existing. There is plenty of evidence that oil is a finite resource, including 20tyh-century peak production in the US, and the subsequent peak oil production of many other nations.
If we all use our brains just a little, I think we can figure out the probable answer here...

by **miniTAX** » Thu 19 Jan 2006, 21:17:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')Now you want to discuss another wacky idea: ITER. You need to take that to the Wacky Idea discussion section also. Just because the French are about to spend 10 billioin on a prototype doesn't mean it has a practical application. They also built the Concorde :lol:

by **Rincewind** » Thu 19 Jan 2006, 22:06:43

Sorry MiniTax

The ITER project does not expect to produce a commercially viable fusion generation not before 2050, assuming the programme runs to time or is even successful. see http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn192.pdf.

Based on the widest range of credible PO scenarios that would be around 10 years after peak and really with these technologies you need to be ramping up before the global economy starts to buckle.

Now to the wider topic. Is 'Peak Oil' a myth? I would argue that it is a good theory subject to limitations of geological data and uncertainities over future human behaviour.

The reason I visit this site and TOD are because:

1 the experts in the field (petroleum geologists) all agree that petroleum production will peak (They argue over when it will peak, which is understandable given the uncertainities)

2 the PO theory is supported by experience. Production in oil fields and oil regions have peaked and despite advances in technology the most that has been achieved is some slowing down of the decline (but not the newer developed fields apparently).

I would be willing to accept that the PO theory is invalid if:

1 There was a significant and sustainaed increases in petroleum production in the lower 48 to above the 1970 high point (same argument applies for Iran, Idonesia, Australia, North Sea etc)

2 Geologists using the theory of abiotic oil (deep beneath the oil window) discovered commercially significant (well actually huge ) quantities of petroleum (of the same characteritics that has been found historically) and there discovery was reported in an a credible relevant science Journal (you know peer reviewed).

Now the question I wonder about is:

"Is the hypothesis that humans have unlimited innovative ability defensible, or is it just a belief based on recent experience (the last 500 unusual years)?"

Rincewind

by **sch_peakoiler** » Fri 20 Jan 2006, 05:04:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('miniTAX', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sch_peakoiler', 'H')ey man, till 2004 every single oil company was hunting peakoilers and screaming like wild "scam!, witch!, Inquisition on them!, pagans!

by **sch_peakoiler** » Fri 20 Jan 2006, 07:37:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MichaelRyan23', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')aintaining that oil is an infinite resource has been thoroughly debunked and is considered a fringe belief without any proof.

by **crapattack** » Fri 20 Jan 2006, 08:32:28

MichaelRyan23 asks:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'b')ut does anyone here actually know...

by **sch_peakoiler** » Fri 20 Jan 2006, 08:44:09

totally agree with Crapattack.

all evidence is against abiotic oil. how come us, uk, norway and indonesia are in a steady decline? wheres the abiotic to top up their fields?
there are many small countries with declining production also which i dont mention. Where are the abiotic springs?

by **miniTAX** » Sat 21 Jan 2006, 13:19:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sch_peakoiler', '
')Sorry, did not quite get your point. I did not say peakoiler did not exist at that time. I just wanted to make clear that mainstream media and the oficial opinion of oil companies were always denying PO. What did you mean?

by **backstop** » Sat 21 Jan 2006, 14:44:42

Minitax -

the intemperance of your writing does you no credit.

Had you not noticed that discussion is so much more creative than argument ?

That the majority here find your fatalism entirely unappealing is to me an indication merely of common sense
and common concern for others, and is no justification for your invective.

Given the authority of the scientific, economic & diplomatic warnings of the increasing frequency and rising intenstication of (as you said)

"plague, war, hurricanes" as well as of floods & droughts, of regional temperature extremes, of water shortages, soil loss and famine,

and of accustomed energy and fuel shortfalls,

your implication that no change of course away from the fossil nuclear & hydro-carbon enegies is justified seems somewhat bizarre.

Would you care to offer a rationale for it ?

Or do you perhaps support the calls for a reorientation of our culture to meet the coming changes,
despite the fact that "no one knows" what will happen ?

I would assure you that no one wishes "to diminish your viewpoint" -
- - they've just been trying to help you see it in perspective.

regards,

Backstop

by **miniTAX** » Sat 21 Jan 2006, 15:35:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', 'y')our implication that no change of course away from the fossil nuclear & hydro-carbon enegies is justified seems somewhat bizarre.
Would you care to offer a rationale for it ?

by **crapattack** » Sun 22 Jan 2006, 05:10:56

MiniTax said;
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')y children love vegetables and I'm sure they will not abuse of junk food when they will leave our home.

by **miniTAX** » Sun 22 Jan 2006, 05:40:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', 'M')iniTax said;
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')y children love vegetables and I'm sure they will not abuse of junk food when they will leave our home.

by **sch_peakoiler** » Sun 22 Jan 2006, 07:36:28

2 minTAX,

To answer you post about Peakoil awareness in Europe - You overestimate this awareness, inspired by the example of France!

Countries like Germany, Italy, Spain, although supportng renewable energies, do not show such awareness, the public is totally ignorant as to the fact of limited fossil fuels.

by **miniTAX** » Sun 22 Jan 2006, 08:39:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sch_peakoiler', '2') minTAX,

To answer you post about Peakoil awareness in Europe - You overestimate this awareness, inspired by the example of France!

Countries like Germany, Italy, Spain, although supportng renewable energies, do not show such awareness, the public is totally ignorant as to the fact of limited fossil fuels.

by **czar** » Fri 27 Jan 2006, 19:10:18

Posted: 2006-01-27, 15:47:06 Post subject: Re: Peak Oil Myth?
hello.

i shall wade in cautiously here...

Western science has this terrible habit of becoming so sure of itself that there is no room for change. One of the most embarrasing has to be the commonly held belief that all or almost all of the hydrocarbons in the earth come from once living matter.
The truth is that almost all hydrocarbons are a result of upwelling methane that is in constant production. Very simple experiments involving rocks, water, heat and pressure have produced methane. This process is happening everywhere on earth. I don't have all of my research or links here with me now but a quick google on the words 'methane', 'production' and 'crust' brought up all types of info. Here's one of the first links I clicked on. The search for methane in Earth's mantle This upwelling methane is where petroleum, tar sands, and the heavier coals come from. It starts with methane which contains the highest hydrogen/carbon ratio. at the other end of the spectrum is coal which contain a higher carbon/hydrogen ratio. Thoughtout all of this the hydrocarbons are being fed on by microrganisms deep in the earth infusing them with their little stamp of life.

Now, this is not to say that petroleum is being formed fast enough to keep up with our current consumption from existing developed fields, but it does point to the fact that hydrocarbons in their many different forms are almost everywhere we look. The only limit to our ability to get them is price and demand. As the demand and price goes up, so does the investment, exploration and production. oil, gas and coal production technology grows as the industry strives to finder cheaper methods of operation. Oil fields don't dry up they just become unprofitable in the economic situation at that time. Production of oil from a certain country or region drops, not because they're necessarily running out of oil but often because the demand for it is not high enough to warrant further production.
Also, I should add, that I believe the generally perceived limit to oil is good in the sense that we should be striving for more efficient use of hydorcarbons while at the same time, keep up the search for better and cleaner forms of energy. However, I don't think this offsets the control held over people by this supposedly limited energy source. We are slaves to oil and the dollar. We went to war in Iraq not because oil is getting scarce but because they wanted to start selling their oil for euro's. No reason for countries to keep dollars if they don't have to buy oil with them. That's mostly what the war on terror is about. Keeping the empire's dollar the dominant currency in the world.

cheers,

john

by **rockdoc123** » Fri 27 Jan 2006, 20:21:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he truth is that almost all hydrocarbons are a result of upwelling methane that is in constant production.

by **crapattack** » Fri 27 Jan 2006, 21:02:56

Hello czar and welcome, you have obviously thought alot about this and as it is your first post we should go a bit easy on you. rockdock123 of course is completely right, even if he was a bit harsh. Some of the scientific types on this forum can get a touch onery when they see such obviously false information.

Your notion is a bit off track. Oil fields do dry up, it is a well known geological fact and not just market forces that make it uneconomical to pump. If, as you say, oil really did renew itself at a rate to be useful we it would be easy to find, and the planet would literally be awash in oil. If there was some huge conspiracy by the oil companies to supress knowlege of renewable oil (highly unlikely as oil geologists have been doing this for a while and are quite good at it), the US would still be happily pumping their own oil from renewable fields without importing up to 70% and going to the trouble of invading other countries for it. Much better to rule the empire from home without being dependent on unstable regimes.

Thanks for playing, but we've heard the aibotic oil theory on this forum many times, and also the oil company consipiracy theory many times as well, and it just doesn't play when you look at the realities.

by **czar** » Fri 27 Jan 2006, 21:37:44

hello again...

i expected the ridicule, rockdoc123. thanks.

had to be someone...

thanks, crapattack for taking it easy on me.

i shall discuss more later. can't now. apologies.

however, in the meantime, check this out...

Web Page Name

peace,

john

by **miniTAX** » Sat 28 Jan 2006, 06:40:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('czar', 'W')e went to war in Iraq not because oil is getting scarce but because they wanted to start selling their oil for euro's. No reason for countries to keep dollars if they don't have to buy oil with them. That's mostly what the war on terror is about. Keeping the empire's dollar the dominant currency in the world.

Who is online