[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '
')Ummmm... no... it's not. Peak Oil is NOT a theory, rather it is widely accepted scientific fact, and has been for decades.

[Aaron]

Which part of:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'r')epeatedly predicted finite oil over the past century, only to then find more, lots more.

[Aaron]

Oh yeah... & I have never supported Engdahl, even when he was a PO pundit.

He's also a "conspiracy" guy, which ruins his credibility & defines him a a shill.

Wanna know why conspiracies rarely work?

Because people cheat. Somebody realizes the potential benefit of screwing his co-conspirators & the grand conspiracy falls apart.

Do some work as planned? Probably.

But it strains credibility to the limit to suggest the kind of sweeping multi-generational conspiracy stuff Engdahl spews.

Abiotic Oil is no different.

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '
')Peak Oil says nothing about the origins of oil
Peak Oil says nothing about the origins of oil
Peak Oil says nothing about the origins of oil

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'N')o, but it does assume that oil is of finite supply, that is the basis of PO. If we do not know the origin, how can we justify a conclusion that it is of finite supply?

[dissident]

Abiogenic oil is not the commonly accepted view in Russia. It is some throwback to the 1950s and the era of Lysenko and other nutjob Soviet "science".

[Golgo13]

If we assume full credibility of abiotic oil and that the earth's oil began accumulating over the 4 billion years that the earth has had its present crust, it yields an accumulation/renewal rate of around 500 barrels per year.

We are currently using oil at in excess of 80 million barrels per day.

[MacG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'I')f we do not know the origin, how can we justify a conclusion that it is of finite supply?

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '
')PO doesn't necessarily assume that there is a finite supply, it only assumes that if oil is somehow replenished, it does so at a much slower rate than we are consuming it. And I don't know of anybody who is seriously challenging that assumption.

[MattSavinar]

This will make him a hit on the Alex Jones "peak oil myth circuit." That such a circuit would develop is inevitable if you understand human nature. The Alex Jones "it's all the fault of the evil people" theory of the universe will always go over with disgrunteled suburbanites better than reality. So Engdahl has now assurred himself a nice little social niche as the "peak oil is a myth academic pundit type guy."

Don't get me wrong, he actually believes what he wrote. The subconsious has an amazing capacity to delte or deny away facts if doing so will help a person's social status, as the case is with Engdhal here.

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Golgo13', 'I')f we assume full credibility of abiotic oil and that the earth's oil began accumulating over the 4 billion years that the earth has had its present crust, it yields an accumulation/renewal rate of around 500 barrels per year.

We are currently using oil at in excess of 80 million barrels per day.

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', '
')Because if oil had been constantly produced deep in the earth, we would be literally swimming in the stuff. Remember, we have only used the stuff for some 150 years, and the world is some 5 billion years old. Oil might be of abiotic orgin, I dont know, but the rate of formation must be very, very slow in that case. Much slower than our consumption.

Nah, Aaron is far to nice to you.

[Aaron]

Look... you can all test "abiotic oil theory" yourselves.

Just heat up some oil & watch what happens when it reaches it's maximum temperature & begins separating into it's component parts.

Too deep in the Earth & oil breaks down & ceases to be oil at all.

Can't form into pools. Too hot down there.

I knew when I paid my school taxes I was just throwing my money away.

Damn kids

[peasea]

He claims that the western view is currently boigenic, while describing the Russion view of aboigenic. Do you disagree with this concensus?[/quote]

If it is aboigenic then the oil is created slowly and as oilbird pointed out if we don't make new discoveries we will still peak,
even if the downslide slop is gradual.

if we have biogenic then we'll just use the cheap stuff up - quickly - the more abundant , er, tar-oil will last a long time but you have immense difficulties in getting it out and refined

either way demand outstrips supply = end of cheap oil

P.

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '[')... you self-serving, psychotic prick.


Are you high?

Get off my lawn... punk.


You are an embarrassment.

Oh yeah... and "un-provable" isn't hyphenated genius.

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'L')ook... you can all test "abiotic oil theory" yourselves.

Just heat up some oil & watch what happens when it reaches it's maximum temperature & begins separating into it's component parts.

Too deep in the Earth & oil breaks down & ceases to be oil at all.

Can't form into pools. Too hot down there.

[DantesPeak]

Wow. All I said is that oil doesn’t come from dinosaurs and then comes a tirade against me and most at this site.

To clarify, it’s my understanding that this explanation is the one accepted by most scientists:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')etroleum was formed as a result of the laying down of organisms such as plankton and bacteria millions of years ago on the sea floor.

Over the years a layer of partially decomposed material was formed (source rock horizon) which was subsequently covered with layers of mud / sediment (or strata). Subsequent compaction of this matter forms "kerogen", a complex mixture of hydrocarbons which under special conditions of high pressure and temperature produces oil and gas.

[nocar]

Well, I do not know much about oil formation, but I know this:

About 10 years ago (perhaps more), the believers in abiotic oil spent lots of money and drilling efforts to find oil in place where that theory said would be a good place, namely close to the lake Siljan in middle Sweden. Siljan (and a ring of adjacents lakes) is believed to have been formed by a large meteor a long time ago.

Anyway, they found no oil at all.

When the abiotic oil people start finding oil where the biotic oil people say there is none, I will start believing them.

nocar

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nocar', 'W')ell, I do not know much about oil formation, but I know this:

About 10 years ago (perhaps more), the believers in abiotic oil spent lots of money and drilling efforts to find oil in place where that theory said would be a good place, namely close to the lake Siljan in middle Sweden. Siljan (and a ring of adjacents lakes) is believed to have been formed by a large meteor a long time ago.

Anyway, they found no oil at all.

When the abiotic oil people start finding oil where the biotic oil people say there is none, I will start believing them.

nocar

[canis_lupus]

Carlhole - very well written, very well articulated

Aaron - very well written, very well articulated. Sometimes I like to tell some who post here to "pull my finger."

I follow along best as I can with the science but after awhile I get distracted (INTJ personality and all) but here's what I know: the price of oil has gone up roughly a ten bucks a year for the last six years.

Tell me about abiotic oil.
Tell me about biofuels.
Tell me about solar, nukes, wave, wind.
Tell me about conservation.

Argue the minutiae with each other ad nauseum.

But oil has gone up ten bucks a year for the last six years.

That's a hell of a trend. In the next three to five years it will be unaffordable to many.

That's Peak Oil. How can anyone deny that?