Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE F.William Engdahl Thread (merged)

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby NWMossBack » Wed 26 Sep 2007, 13:04:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')he quote of the all days (I'd like to nominate it but couldn't find the thread?):

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seldom-seen', 'T')he cry of the cargo cult. You will know things are bad when people start constructing mock gas stations out of cardboard boxes and plywood in the hopes that a gasoline truck will arrive.


Have to second that: I actually did Laugh Out Loud.
User avatar
NWMossBack
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed 24 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific NW USA

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby meemoe_uk » Thu 27 Sep 2007, 08:33:37

Like others have said, I reckon Engdahl is falling into the old trap of trying too hard to be a minority view. Because peak oil is gaining acceptance, he feels compelled to jump ship. It's just his mind set - "Don't believe what they tell you!" taking too much control .
Perhaps if his book 'A century of war' ever got majority,mainstream media acceptance then he'd publish an article entitled " In writing the book I was unwittingly being manipulated into creating goverment backed propaganda! "

When I read the words 'dinosaur remains' and it's context in his article, my mind groaned and my heart sank. What a cheap attempt to portray conventional oil theory as a slapdash affair!

***

Returning to the task of evaluating abiotic oil theory.

The last post to address my abiotic oil question concentrated somewhat on the validity of conventional oil theory.

I don't dispute the validity of conventional oil theory.

But, I don't see convential oil theory is incompatible with abiotic theory.
Why can't there be two independant ways oil can occur naturally? One via the algae - kerogen process, one via Primordial Hydrocarbon Rock change?
Does anyone know of a plauisible way of obtaining oil from PHR? What chemical process?
User avatar
meemoe_uk
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue 22 May 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby NoFreeSpeech » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 18:19:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'T')he reaction to news like this at PO.com is invariably, "They are all whack-jobs" - which is close-minded and hard to respect also. I mean, you have a bunch of internet, armchair oil theorists calling all of Russian petroleum science nutty.

So true.
User avatar
NoFreeSpeech
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun 30 Sep 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby NoFreeSpeech » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 18:25:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'P')eak Oil says nothing about the origins of oil... you self-serving, psychotic prick.

If that's true, then why is there such a hostile reaction using ad hominem attacks against anyone who proposes an abiogenic petroleum origin?
User avatar
NoFreeSpeech
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun 30 Sep 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby Carlhole » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 18:27:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NoFreeSpeech', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'T')he reaction to news like this at PO.com is invariably, "They are all whack-jobs" - which is close-minded and hard to respect also. I mean, you have a bunch of internet, armchair oil theorists calling all of Russian petroleum science nutty.

So true.


Actually, I don't think that The Abiotic Oil Theory is truely characteristic of Russian science. So, don't associate me with acceptance of that theory.

I haven't seen any good essays on current Russian Abiotic Oil for interested readers. I think it's just bullshit. I mean, if there were something to AO, then there would be enormous scientific interest in it.

I wrote to Engdahl asking him for just such a discourse, but I haven't heard back (he's written to me before).

I don't know why he would go down that road; seems like he's just totally thrown any credibility he's ever had out the window.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby NoFreeSpeech » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 18:44:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'I') haven't seen any good essays on current Russian Abiotic Oil for interested readers. I think it's just bullshit.

Allow me to show you some.

http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

http://www.gasresources.net/Introduction.htm
User avatar
NoFreeSpeech
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun 30 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby NoFreeSpeech » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 18:48:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'I') mean, if there were something to AO, then there would be enormous scientific interest in it.

Confessions of an "ex" Peak Oil Believer

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he 2003 arrest of Russian Mikhail Khodorkovsky, of Yukos Oil, took place just before he could sell a dominant stake in Yukos to ExxonMobil after a private meeting with Dick Cheney. Had Exxon got the stake they would have control of the world’s largest resource of geologists and engineers trained in the a-biotic techniques of deep drilling.

Since 2003 Russian scientific sharing of their knowledge has markedly lessened. Offers in the early 1990’s to share their knowledge with US and other oil geophysicists were met with cold rejection according to American geophysicists involved. ...

According to Kenney the Russian geophysicists used the theories of the brilliant German scientist Alfred Wegener fully 30 years before the Western geologists “discovered” Wegener in the 1960’s. In 1915 Wegener published the seminal text, The Origin of Continents and Oceans, which suggested an original unified landmass or “pangaea” more than 200 million years ago which separated into present Continents by what he called Continental Drift.

Up to the 1960’s supposed US scientists such as Dr Frank Press, White House science advisor referred to Wegener as “lunatic.” Geologists at the end of the 1960’s were forced to eat their words as Wegener offered the only interpretation that allowed them to discover the vast oil resources of the North Sea. Perhaps in some decades Western geologists will rethink their mythology of fossil origins and realize what the Russians have known since the 1950’s. In the meantime Moscow holds a massive energy trump card.
User avatar
NoFreeSpeech
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun 30 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby Carlhole » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 19:33:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NoFreeSpeech', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'I') haven't seen any good essays on current Russian Abiotic Oil for interested readers. I think it's just bullshit.

Allow me to show you some.

http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

http://www.gasresources.net/Introduction.htm


I've read that before. If you go back and chck my earlier posts, I too have linked to site.

But that perspective is very hard to find in other sources. If the Abiotic OIl Theory were current Russian wisdom on the subject, there would be a wealth of information about it.

In m earlier post, I had wondered out loud whether there were a "PeakOil.ru" or equivalent somewhere in Russia with whom we could contact to ask the Ruskies themselves.

Of course, I don't speak Russian and chances are that any Russian PO site mods don't speak English real well. But BabelFish would serve to at least email them the question. It would be interesting to see what sort of reply about Abiotic Oil we would from a a survey of, say, ten different Russian "oil watch" sites of various kinds.

I don't have time at the moment, but this would be an interesting, relatively easy little online project. We could post our results.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby NoFreeSpeech » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 20:04:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'B')ut that perspective is very hard to find in other sources. If the Abiotic OIl Theory were current Russian wisdom on the subject, there would be a wealth of information about it.

See Engdahl quote posted directly above.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n m earlier post, I had wondered out loud whether there were a "PeakOil.ru" or equivalent somewhere in Russia with whom we could contact to ask the Ruskies themselves.

Of course, I don't speak Russian and chances are that any Russian PO site mods don't speak English real well. But BabelFish would serve to at least email them the question. It would be interesting to see what sort of reply about Abiotic Oil we would from a a survey of, say, ten different Russian "oil watch" sites of various kinds.

I don't have time at the moment, but this would be an interesting, relatively easy little online project. We could post our results.

Sounds good. I also plan on contacting Schlumberger and Halliburton in Moscow to see what they have to say on the subject.

cbesson@moscow.oilfield.slb.com

Another person of interest to talk to is Michael C. Lynch, one of the four faces in the "Ask The Experts" section of this website.
User avatar
NoFreeSpeech
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun 30 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby joewp » Mon 01 Oct 2007, 00:29:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NoFreeSpeech', '
')Another person of interest to talk to is Michael C. Lynch, one of the four faces in the "Ask The Experts" section of this website.


I don't believe Mr. Lynch has ever discussed the subject of abiotic oil. I doubt he gives it credence else he would have brought it up at some point to justify his predictions of impending $40 oil prices.
Joe P. joeparente.com
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
User avatar
joewp
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Keeping dry in South Florida
Top

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby TonyPrep » Mon 01 Oct 2007, 13:06:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NoFreeSpeech', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'P')eak Oil says nothing about the origins of oil... you self-serving, psychotic prick.

If that's true, then why is there such a hostile reaction using ad hominem attacks against anyone who proposes an abiogenic petroleum origin?
Abiotic oil hypothesis is often used to "prove" that there is no need to worry about declining oil supplies as the earth will provide whatever amount is needed. What abiotic proponents fail to explain (as far as I know) is why oil production is declining in so many regions and barely rising anywhere. It also fails to address why oil companies are not pouring billions into drilling straight down, in hospitable places (rather than in inhospitable places), in order to tap this unending supply.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby yeahbut » Thu 08 Nov 2007, 00:43:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', ' ')Just slamming everyone across the board, even if you don't know what they actually believe or that their ideas may be in flux, isn't helpful. It doesn't help people organise their thoughts or arrive at useful conclusions, it may just make people feel angry, threatened, or hopeless so they leave, learning little, and not prepared to make changes in their lives.


There might be lots of smart people here Ludi, but you're the wisest by far.
User avatar
yeahbut
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue 30 Oct 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby Lighthouse » Thu 08 Nov 2007, 04:18:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '.').. Peak Oil is NOT a theory, rather it is widely accepted scientific fact, and has been for decades.


Sorry Aaron but you obviously do not understand the term "Theory" quite well. You use this term in a layman's way of using the word but not in a scientific context.

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and general relativity.
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby Lighthouse » Thu 08 Nov 2007, 04:25:00

$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.

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

Damn kids


Did you try your experiment in a high pressurised environment?

What happens than?

Just asking ....
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby Lighthouse » Thu 08 Nov 2007, 04:39:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '.').. It is widely accepted as being produced by a biological process that requires very specific enviromental and geological conditions and forms over a very long time. ...


The keyword in this context is widely accepted. That does not make it a fact.

Neither a-biotic nor biotic origin has been proven or has been disproved. Both could be right, both could be wrong. Maybe some third explanation will come up in the next 100 years or so which makes more sense?

Fact is that we reached a production limit. A while now we try hard to keep 85 - 86 mbd up and running. What is the cause for this limit?

Iraq is not producing, Northsea is declining, ladiladilah...

One thing is for sure, whatever the origin of oil is it has nothing to do with it. If the abiotic guys a re right what would it give us? A week or two? You tell me ...
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby Lighthouse » Thu 08 Nov 2007, 04:49:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'A')ctually I meant exactly what I wrote. I'm skeptical of insiders who are absolutely sure they're correct and have no understanding of how they might be wrong. Most people don't understand how often "firmly established theories" turn out to be nothing more than handy working hypotheses.


I second this (Especially when the guys who claim to know it all are not able to use terminology in the right way) ...

{permaculture tangent split by Shannymara}
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby darren » Sat 10 Nov 2007, 10:28:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NoFreeSpeech', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'I') haven't seen any good essays on current Russian Abiotic Oil for interested readers. I think it's just bullshit.

Allow me to show you some.

http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

http://www.gasresources.net/Introduction.htm


One of those papers says that "As will be shown explicitly in a following articles, petroleum has no intrinsic association with biological material. "

However, rockdoc, in this thread, has been describing various characteristics of oil that would be very difficult to explain if it were NOT biological in origin. Duffreyes does the same.

So somebody doesn't know what they're talking about, and I'm inclinde to believe the petroleum geologists, rather than the cranks who only quote mythical Soviet superscientists (who strangely never speak for themselves.)
User avatar
darren
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu 07 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby Ingenuity_Gap » Sat 10 Nov 2007, 16:16:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'M')uch of science rests on a bedrock of belief or superstition, as well, Big Tex.


Based on your affirmation above you either don't kow much about science or you pretend not to know (for some obscure reason like trying to be the devil's advocate or something else), or you are joking. In all three cases your statement is plainly false.

All Science is based on observation, experimentation, and reason. If it is not, then it's not science.

I can make up an affirmation just like you: Most religion, alchemy, astrology, and intelligent design rest on a bedrock of reproductible experimentation, reason and logic.

Would you agree with that? If not, why? If yes, I give up and we can play with words as much as you like.
"The world is becoming too complex and too fast-paced to manage." - Thomas Homer-Dixon
User avatar
Ingenuity_Gap
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri 25 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Right place, wrong time
Top

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby threadbear » Sat 10 Nov 2007, 16:39:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'M')uch of science rests on a bedrock of belief or superstition, as well, Big Tex.


Based on your affirmation above you either don't kow much about science or you pretend not to know (for some obscure reason like trying to be the devil's advocate or something else), or you are joking. In all three cases your statement is plainly false.

All Science is based on observation, experimentation, and reason. If it is not, then it's not science.

I can make up an affirmation just like you: Most religion, alchemy, astrology, and intelligent design rest on a bedrock of reproductible experimentation, reason and logic.

Would you agree with that? If not, why? If yes, I give up and we can play with words as much as you like.


You cannot disengage the experimenter from the experiment. Conclusions drawn from experiment are subject to personal and cultural interpretation. Science is not nearly as reasonable as you think, in this regard.

Your perceptions about what science is, and how it works, is further blinkered by the assumption that anyone who questions it must also believe in ideas that are based in religion.

This is a false dichotemy that reduces complexity and limits understanding. One is just as likely to see this kind of fundamentalism at an Oral Roberts big tent revival as in the sacred halls of academia. The preacher shakes a bible threateningly, and the scientist grabs all of his test tubes and other religious talismans and shakes them at all the sinners who question the underlying premise of scientism.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer - Engdahl

Unread postby Ingenuity_Gap » Sat 10 Nov 2007, 22:17:28

I take it by your answer that we are going to have a nice and long word game. Let’s call it Threadbear’s Ingenuity.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'Y')ou cannot disengage the experimenter from the experiment. Conclusions drawn from experiment are subject to personal and cultural interpretation. Science is not nearly as reasonable as you think, in this regard.


1. Of course you can't completely separate the experimenter from the experiment. But does that mean much of science is based on belief or superstition as you bluntly stated? I respectfully disagree.

2. Without a doubt the conclusions drawn from experiment are subject to personal and cultural biases. That's why serious science is peer reviewed and scientific articles are read and re-read by other experts in that particular field and the experiments are most often done and redone many times before publication. Also other scientists are welcome to repeat the same experiment and reach a different conclusion if they like. Science is by no means perfect but it is perfectible.

3. I honestly fail to see how the scientific method is based on belief and superstition. I would say it is quite the opposite.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'Y')our perceptions about what science is, and how it works, is further blinkered by the assumption that anyone who questions it must also believe in ideas that are based in religion. This is a false dichotemy that reduces complexity and limits understanding.


You grossly misinterpreted my perceptions about science, and you are making assumptions for me that I never made.

I didn’t suggest any dichotomy. I was merely making an affirmation as false and gratuitous as yours and asked if you think it’s true or false. You answered with more groundless and excessive statements.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', ' ')One is just as likely to see this kind of fundamentalism at an Oral Roberts big tent revival as in the sacred halls of academia. The preacher shakes a bible threateningly, and the scientist grabs all of his test tubes and other religious talismans and shakes them at all the sinners who question the underlying premise of scientism.


1. The halls of academia are far from sacred. You keep making unwarranted declarations and I fail to see to what avail.

2. You seem to like metaphors a lot, and your parallel between the preacher and the mad, scary scientist may be impressive at first, but in the end is just an empty comparison. It gave me a smile though.

3. Your pejorative use of the word scientism betrays your misconceptions about science.

There’s no need for derogative phrases or highly inflated hyperbolas. Let’s call things as they are. We can flex our literary muscles somewhere else. I think here on Peak Oil a scientific approach is more useful. There’s way too much pseudo-scientific babble present in all discussion threads.
"The world is becoming too complex and too fast-paced to manage." - Thomas Homer-Dixon
User avatar
Ingenuity_Gap
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri 25 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Right place, wrong time
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron