We were all taught that oil is derived organically from all of those dead animals. But recent evidence is leading some to doubt the organic theory and postulating an abiotic origin for Oil. Is oil really going by the wayside or are liberals just wishing this to be so in order to drive us back to the stone ages?
wnd.com/index.php
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Saturn's moon Titan
Saturn's moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, according to a team of Johns Hopkins University scientists, adding to evidence that oil is not biological in origin.
The scientists at the Laurel, Md., institution were reporting this week on data collected from NASA's Cassini probe.
"Several hundred lakes or seas have been discovered, of which dozens are estimated to contain more hydrocarbon liquid than the entire known oil and gas reserves on Earth," wrote lead scientist Ralph Lorenz of the university's Applied Physics Laboratory in the Jan. 29 issue of the Geophysical Research Letters.
wnd.com/index.php
wnd.com/index.php
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Saturn's moon Titan
Saturn's moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, according to a team of Johns Hopkins University scientists, adding to evidence that oil is not biological in origin.
The scientists at the Laurel, Md., institution were reporting this week on data collected from NASA's Cassini probe.
"Several hundred lakes or seas have been discovered, of which dozens are estimated to contain more hydrocarbon liquid than the entire known oil and gas reserves on Earth," wrote lead scientist Ralph Lorenz of the university's Applied Physics Laboratory in the Jan. 29 issue of the Geophysical Research Letters.
wnd.com/index.php
posted by:
|
|
Unsubscribed |
-
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Sat, February 16, 2008 - 9:42 PMI would be more interested if this wasn't a political mouth piece for a particular political party. The article also doesn't explain anything about why oil on earth came from something else, which is what scientist would do. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Sun, February 17, 2008 - 6:06 AMthe ariticle offers a link to the source, which is a political mouthpiece for no one. Science does not understand gravity, but this doesn't stop them from studying the phenomenon. An abiotic origin of hydrocarbons is a fascinating revelation and a potential devastating blow to peak oil theororists. -
-
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Sun, February 17, 2008 - 7:12 AMPeak oil is not a theory about where oil comes from only the nature of existing fields. Peak oil curves have been proven for the US and other countries.
Now what created oil may be up for debate but it would be nice to have some more facts other than wishful thinking. Also every time someone has tried to drill for oil to prove the abiotic origion they had a dry hole so that "theory" is not doing so well. -
-
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Sun, February 17, 2008 - 1:03 PM>>>>>>>>>>>the article offers a link to the source,
I looked at it the first time. The source, which in of itself is credible. does not place doubts about oil. It just discusses hydrogen, and does not discuss oil.The article attempts to imply that oil is comes from something else but he is using the article to try to fit his theory. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Sun, February 17, 2008 - 1:24 PMnot hydrogen, hydrocarbons.
-
-
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Mon, February 18, 2008 - 11:21 AMHydrocarbons does not mean oil. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Tue, February 19, 2008 - 9:04 AMHydrocarbons do include oil, as well as other types of energy such as propane, butane, etc. -
-
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Tue, February 19, 2008 - 10:57 AMYes, but the article implies that hydrocarbons are oil. Scientist have never said that they are the same thing. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Tue, February 19, 2008 - 11:57 AMnor have I. Yet most scientists in the US believe that oil and natural gas have a biological origin. This theory is being challenged by those who have demonstrated examples where some forms clearly have an abiotic origin. I have never stated this has been proven for oil specifically. However russian scientists accept an abiotic theory for oil's origin. Whether it is proven or not, I don't personally agree with those who feel oil is going to run out in the near future. This has not been proven by the evidence.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Sun, February 17, 2008 - 1:23 PM"Peak oil curves have been proven for the US and other countries. "
They have not been "proven" unless you mean proven wrong. Peak oil theorists would have had us out of oil long ago. Deep well drilling has found abundant supplies of oil. The issue isn't peak oil, it is the expense of deep drilling vs the rewards. -
-
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Sun, February 17, 2008 - 8:20 PMYou misunderstand Peak Oil.
It's NOT about running out of oil. There is about half left of all we have used since the industrial age began.
Actually, Peak Oil is an economic problem in which the demand outpaces production and more energy is sunk into getting oil out than is provided by the oil itself. It is a problem of 2 barrels in for 1 barrel out.
There is still plenty in the ground, but demand is too high for production to meet it, and this fucks up markets.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Mon, February 18, 2008 - 4:42 AMthe point is that if oil can be produced abiotically in the earth then peak oil theorists might be dead wrong about the impending doom and gloom. I see no reason to go to expensive alternatives at this stage, while there is plenty of cheap oil left. -
-
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Mon, February 18, 2008 - 9:12 AMThe point is you said liberals just want to drive us back to the stone age and that there is plenty of oil left so they must be making it up. The point is you are talking about a theory you don't even understand.
Sure, if oil could be synthesized it would solve the peak oil problem..but only if it required less energy than it prodcued. At the moment, it can't. Until it can, better invest in solar and learn to camp. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Tue, February 19, 2008 - 9:02 AM"Sure, if oil could be synthesized "
And you suggest I don't understand? Oil can and has been synthesized PW. The only issue is it is too expensive to do it profitably. We do not know that we have reached peak oil, we just believe this to be the case. Solar energy is fine but it isn't going to satisfy our energy needs.
If oil has an abiotic origin as some are asserting, then there may be much more of it under the ground then once thought, and it may even regenerate over time.
-
-
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 7:55 AMHahahah, you guys cant see through the smoke screen! Whether oil comes from ancient compressed creatures, abiotic geological molecules, or was beamed here by angelic aliens, consumption is RAPIDLY out pacing new discovery, by a huge unrecoverable margin. Just look at the numbers.
So even if it is renewable, we are consuming it faster than it can replenish itself (if its true). So the only way the abiotic theory will give us hope, is in the far future after the first crash (yes, that would be us), when we can start the crazy consumption cycle again. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 8:35 AM"Hahahah, you guys cant see through the smoke screen! Whether oil comes from ancient compressed creatures, abiotic geological molecules, or was beamed here by angelic aliens, consumption is RAPIDLY out pacing new discovery, by a huge unrecoverable margin. Just look at the numbers."
I would, but you failed to provide any. Look, I don't mind folks who wish to live off the land, raise their own chickens and eggs and collect their own electricity from the sun. But you are not in possession of the facts:
www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/index.html#15
"Scaremongers are fond of reminding us that the total amount of oil in the Earth is finite and cannot be replaced during the span of human life. This is true; yet estimates of the world’s total oil endowment have grown faster than humanity can pump petroleum out of the ground"
" The Growing Endowment of Oil.
Estimates of the total amount of oil resources in the world grew throughout the 20th century [see Figure III].
In May 1920, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that the world’s total endowment of oil amounted to 60 billion barrels.
In 1950, geologists estimated the world’s total oil endowment at around 600 billion barrels.
From 1970 through 1990, their estimates increased to between 1,500 and 2,000 billion barrels.
In 1994, the U.S. Geological Survey raised the estimate to 2,400 billion barrels, and their most recent estimate (2000) was of a 3,000-billion-barrel endowment.
By the year 2000, a total of 900 billion barrels of oil had been produced.18 Total world oil production in 2000 was 25 billion barrels.19 If world oil consumption continues to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent a year, and no further resources are discovered, the world’s oil supply will not be exhausted until the year 2056.
P. J. McCabe, “Energy Resources — Cornucopia or Empty Barrel?” AAPG Bulletin, vol. 82, 1998, pages 2110-34.
Read the referenced article which debunks oil depletion myths. Here is the conclusion:
"How long will it last? No one can predict the future, but the world contains enough petroleum resources to last at least until the year 2100. This is so far in the future that it would be ludicrous for us to try to anticipate what energy sources our descendants will utilize. Over the next several decades the world likely will continue to see short-term spikes in the price of oil, but these will be caused by political instability and market interference — not by an irreversible decline in supply."
We are not running out of oil in our lifetime. The spikes in oil prices are the result of politics, not supply. The sky is not falling down and radical running to the hills should only be considered if this is a lifestyle you prefer, not of necessity. By the time we do run out new technologies will have replaced old.
"So even if it is renewable, we are consuming it faster than it can replenish itself (if its true)."
And it is not true.
"So the only way the abiotic theory will give us hope, is in the far future after the first crash (yes, that would be us), when we can start the crazy consumption cycle again."
Abiotic oil is an interesting theory which I feel has merit. Whether it is right or wrong (or partially right) however isn't the biggest issue. There is no proof that we have reached peak oil. New oil wells are larger than previous ones and thus far more productive. I don't understand your fear over "crazy consumption cycles". Consumption isn't crazy, it is the natural outworking of running a civilization. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 1:59 PM"New oil wells are larger than previous ones and thus far more productive"
Which wells are you talking about. In not talking potential (pretend) wells, I mean wells that are being hit right now with the begining of real development.
I don't understand your fear over "crazy consumption cycles".
I dont belive i ever used the word fear, or claimed to be afraid.
Consumption is normal yes, just like reproduction of humans is normal. But when someone tells you ok your "island" can only support n number of people, and still no one heeds the warning and keep popping out more babies that keep consuming more, that, my friend, is fucking crazy, or some may say just plain stupid.
The key word should really be irrational. Its "crazy" to be making decisions that are fatal in the face of rational and reasonable data.
Our current theory of peak oil, and the information a data is all we really have. All this "might", or "may" shit is really specullation. I cant really say that there will be a crash, or a die off, but the consumption, production and discovery data, coupled with current economic red flags are pointing to something NEGATIVE. Thats just the current data. Nobody is making those numbers up.
A quicky on consumption, and on "active, inactive, frozen and political" reserves.
www.eco-action.org/dt/oilfut.html
So where did you say these super oil fields are again? -
-
Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 2:11 PM"www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/a...p/index.html"
You need to keep up. I offered the Brazillian well in the Gulf early in this thread. Take a look.
www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/a...ap/index.html -
-
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 3:13 PMSome how I wonder if you have kept up, I know were moving fast.
I recall your Brazillian well statement, and I also recall responding with the subject of "stated reserves", and even offert the novel concept of coutries not possesing transparencey of their new reserve data.
US Geological Survey is dependent on other countries "officials". They have no other way of doing it.
"The government-run oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA, or Petrobras, said the new "ultra-deep" Tupi field could hold as much as 8 billion barrels of recoverable light crude, sending Petrobras shares soaring and prompting predictions that Brazil could join the world's "top 10" oil producers."
Key points that concern me:
1. "goverment-run oil co. Petroleo Brasileiro SA" um did they say goverment run, who benifits here?
2. "said the new "ultra-deep" Tupi field could hold as much as 8 billion barrels of recoverable light crude"
did they say something about mabey or "could hold"?
3. ". . .sending Petrobras shares soaring . . ." so just telling the world they have more, gives them a favorable place in the market. Hmmmmm.
Just cause they say its so, doesnt make it so, especially when big money is involved.
I wont repeat myself, go back, keep up, and read my respons earlier in the thread.
Bad reference.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Sun, March 2, 2008 - 6:43 AM"1. "goverment-run oil co. Petroleo Brasileiro SA" um did they say goverment run, who benifits here? "
the Government. 70% of all oil is owned by governments so this is nothing new. I agree that it is not desirable, but nothing new.
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 2:20 PMcute, the home page has a bunny rabbit on it and promotes anarchism. Yeah, you guys know a lot about science:-) -
-
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 3:04 PMheheheh, Anarchy baby!
-
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 3:08 PM>>>>>>>>>>>>>New oil wells are larger than previous ones and thus far more productive.
If you took out more money than you used to from a piggybank, you run out of cash sooner. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Sat, March 1, 2008 - 5:52 AM"If you took out more money than you used to from a piggybank, you run out of cash sooner. "
very true, but if your piggy bank was the size of the earth.....
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Sun, February 17, 2008 - 1:40 PMthere is more oil in reserve today than in the 1970's. How can this prove that Peak oil is correct? Peak oil is a theory which may or may not be correct. I suspect it is not.
wnd.com/news/article.asp
"Brazil has announced the discovery of a huge offshore oil field that could contain between 5 to 8 billion barrels of oil, enough to expand the country's proven reserves by 40 to 50 percent.
The "ultra-deep" Tupi field was found under 7,060 feet of water, another 10,000 feet of sand and rocks and a further 6,600 feet of salt ? a total of 4.48 miles below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean.
Sergio Gabrielli, the chief executive officer of the state-run oil firm Petroleo Brasileiro SA told Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva Monday that reserves in the pre-salt area off Brazil's coast are much larger than the Tupi field, possibly containing as much as 80 billion barrels in oil reserves.
By specializing in advanced ultra-deep offshore oil exploration, Brazil has moved from being a country dependent on Ethanol for its gasoline consumption to becoming a net exporter of oil within less than a decade.
Felipe Cunha, an oil analyst with the San Paulo-based brokerage Brascan told CNN, "If the best-case scenario happens, this discovery would make Petrobras' reserves overcome those of Shell and Chevron and put Petrobras behind only Exxon and British Petroleum." " -
-
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Sun, February 17, 2008 - 5:15 PMYou must not be reading any real information on peak oil. Your own statments confirms what peak oil states. That researves dry up and when they peak it costs more to pump oil from the existing researves. In addition all the "easy" fields are used first and the next ones are smaller and / or more expensive to drill (like those deep fields). Now peak oil does not flat out say that new fields will be smaller or deeper but that kind of falls out of the fact that oil companies pick the low hanging fruit. The easy cheap oil. All the peak oil theories say is that oil will get more expensive as the easy to access fields are pumped dry. This has been proven correct in the US in the 70's and is being proven correct in other countries as well.
As for hydrocarbons on moons I have yet to read one article that says the hydrocarbons are complex hydrocarbons. The stuff neded to support the plastics industry to name just one. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Mon, February 18, 2008 - 5:16 AM"Now peak oil does not flat out say that new fields will be smaller or deeper but that kind of falls out of the fact that oil companies pick the low hanging fruit."
Using this analogy we can see that it makes no sense to declare a "peak" while standing on the groung picking fruit. Who would insist that the greatest amount of fruit can be reached by this method? Perhaps we are at peak for shallow wells. But it is also possible that a far greater amount of oil than has ever been discovered awaits us in deeper wells. The cost to get it may be initially expensive, but the cost may go down considerably with discovery. -
-
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Mon, February 18, 2008 - 5:37 PM<ut it is also possible that a far greater amount of oil than has ever been discovered awaits us in deeper wells. >
You really don't know much about oil exploration or production.
1) It has yet to be proven there are large deep fields to match the challow fields.
2) Deep fields are expensive all the way around. Discovery and predoction. With deep platforms in the multi billion dollar cost range they will never be cheap. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Tue, February 19, 2008 - 9:08 AM" With deep platforms in the multi billion dollar cost range they will never be cheap. "
I was referring to cheap in comparision to the reward. Who cares if it costs a billion dollars to achieve an ROI of a trillion? The petroleum industry is a billion dollar industry. In the previous article it mentions the brazilian discovery which may be one of the largest discoveries yet. You and PW can start camping in your tents if you like, but I am going to continue to live in my home and drive my cars. -
-
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 1:19 PM"it mentions the brazilian discovery which may be one of the largest discoveries yet"
Key word: "may"
Time. This is a thing that is needed to rampup production from a field and plant that still needs to be built, staffed, and brought online. This could take years. 3 years from now, we could easily be at $200 a barrel.
Time is something that we have very little of.
At this point there may be enough "big" discoveries to stave off or soften a crash. But nothing will stop the enevitable, accept it, deal with it, and move on.
I wont be camping in a tent tonight, but my tents will be ready, is yours? -
-
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 1:39 PMNow, lets go back to this trolling toad that is calling itself as "Dan." "Dan" is using an avatar of a book for creationist. These are people who not only don't have a clue about how science works, but they believe that Fred Flintstone hung out with the dinosaurs. "Dan" is one of these people who seriously thinks that earth is 6,000 years old, and thinks that we should be at war until we are extinct in order to to bring the apocalypse. "Dan" is somebody who isn't so much interested in exchanging ides, but rather to fish for anything that would fit to his retarded understanding of the world.
"Dan," get your stupid GED and go to college. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 2:05 PM"Now, lets go back to this trolling toad that is calling itself as "Dan." "Dan" is using an avatar of a book for creationist."
shut up Tedster, you are the troll here. Everytime I offer substance you offer ad hominems. I see you have Krampus for a friend. Tell him Dan says he is a deceitful piece of human excrement. He will know who I am.
"These are people who not only don't have a clue about how science works, but they believe that Fred Flintstone hung out with the dinosaurs."
Fred Flinstone did hang out with the dinosaurs. I thought everyone knew that:-). My degree is in science and I taught HS biology for 7 years in the public schools of Cincinnati, Ohio.
"Dan" is one of these people who seriously thinks that earth is 6,000 years old, and thinks that we should be at war until we are extinct in order to to bring the apocalypse."
well you are half right. And the interesting thing is that everyone here can see I am using science to support my argument that depleted oil is irrational fear, and you are using straw man arguments. "you see this idiot creationist, no wonder his is kicking our butt on the issues, he is one of those Creationists!!!"
""Dan" is somebody who isn't so much interested in exchanging ides, but rather to fish for anything that would fit to his retarded understanding of the world."
Actually you are quite wrong here. I do love a vigorous debate on subjects I care about. And nothing I have offered here has anything to do with Creationism. You just invented this issue to deflect criticism from you weak childish arguments.
"Dan," get your stupid GED and go to college."
I have my degree Tedster, from Michigan State University in 1981. My teaching Cert in Science education and most of my Masters from Eastern Kentucky University. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 2:19 PM"Fred Flinstone did hang out with the dinosaurs. I thought everyone knew that:-)."
Everyone? Um, Im going to go out on a limb and say you dont belive in evolution, no? So did Noah just ignore god when he said to put 2 of EVERY animal on his ark because he was lazy and couldnt make them fit?
"My degree is in science and I taught HS biology for 7 years in the public schools of Cincinnati, Ohio. "
Poor HS kids. 7 years lost.
"And the interesting thing is that everyone here can see I am using science to support my argument "
Everyone? You keep saying that, but I dont think you are including Tedster and I, nor um, anyone else.
Did you say everyone? -
-
Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 2:31 PM"Fred Flinstone did hang out with the dinosaurs. I thought everyone knew that:-)."
"Everyone? Um, Im going to go out on a limb and say you dont belive in evolution, no?"
no, does anybody? Actually though, I was referring to the cartoon.....
"So did Noah just ignore god when he said to put 2 of EVERY animal on his ark because he was lazy and couldnt make them fit?"
was this sentence supposed to make sense somehow? Because it failed to. If you want to discuss Creation/evolution, come over to the Creation Evolution tribe and we can go at it. But I don't give idiots like you lot of slack so beware.
"My degree is in science and I taught HS biology for 7 years in the public schools of Cincinnati, Ohio. "
"Poor HS kids. 7 years lost. "
Actually, not at all. But no one is going to brainwash my kids in college with evolutionism or athiesm, they are much too smart for that. It may be too late for you though.
"And the interesting thing is that everyone here can see I am using science to support my argument "
"Everyone? You keep saying that, but I dont think you are including Tedster and I, nor um, anyone else.
Did you say everyone?"
Yeah everyone, you have supported your arguments with a cartoon web site for radical nutcases and tedster has provided the obligatory ad hominem attacks toward those who don't see it his way. I presented the facts of scientists in the oil industry. Now haul your butts out of here and go do some anarchy somewhere or camp out in the cold....
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 1:47 PM"I wont be camping in a tent tonight, but my tents will be ready, is yours? "
No, and when I go it won't be because of irrational fear. What you have written here doesn't make any sense. Read the article and have a nice weekend. -
-
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 1:50 PM>>>>>>>>>>>What you have written here doesn't make any sense
It doesn't make any sense to you because you have a poor vocabulary with an eighth grade education.
-
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 2:06 PMirrational fear? Irrational means one does not pay attention to reasoning. And fear is not the same as preparedness.
Wishing the problem away isnt going to solve it.
Give science a try, I know data and math seem kinda scary at first, but give it a shot. Who knows you might even like it.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 2:17 PM"irrational fear? Irrational means one does not pay attention to reasoning. And fear is not the same as preparedness."
I have no problem with preparedness. I live on 24 acres in the country and could produce a significant amount of food should it be necessary. But no evidence exists to support the notion that there will be a depleted oil emergency in my lifetime.
"Wishing the problem away isnt going to solve it."
what problem?
"Give science a try, I know data and math seem kinda scary at first, but give it a shot. Who knows you might even like it."
don't hide behind science, it is not supporting you. I suggest you get Rene, who is a petroleum geologist and sympathetic you your view to state your case. Perhaps he can bail you out and actually bring in some science. You guys are doing a pathetic job. -
-
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 2:42 PMOh I apologize, I assumed you actully read the science out there. There is support for both sides, and right now the robustness of the science accelerating away from you.
You think that authorities on the subject such as Geologists are full of shit? There is always going to be both sides of any argument, I choose to go with the intelligent data collecting science community, albiet not always %100 but is sure beats guessing, and sure as hell beats making shit up because you wish the world to be a certain way.
You are right there is not evidence that Mad Max is coming to town during your lifetime, but there is evidence he will be knocking on your door to visit for alittle while, whether its you, your kids, or your grandkids, or whether your home or not.
"What problem?"
You mean the war, inflation of food, climing transport fuel costs, and the country you live in and its economy teetering on its own oil dependance on others that hate you?
Truelly, I hope you are right, really. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Are Peak Oil Theories Complete Nonsense?
Fri, February 29, 2008 - 2:52 PM"Truelly, I hope you are right, really. "
I am and here is the whole article I offered. No, he is not an anarchist nor is he promoting young earth creationism. He is simply laying out the facts. We will not run out of oil for a hundred years at best, likely much longer. That doesn't mean there won't be problems politically, but it won't be due to lack of oil in the groung. Notice the author at the bottom, a geologist.
Are We Running Out of Oil?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy Backgrounder
No. 159
January 29, 2003
by David Deming Download this page in PDF format
Get Adobe Acrobat Reader
History of Oil Prognostication
Reserves versus Resources
How Much Oil is Left?
The Role of Technology
Hubbert's Prediction of Declining Production
Is an Oil Economy Sustainable?
Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Estimates of the world's oil reserves have risen faster than production."
Oil is a nonrenewable resource. Every gallon of petroleum burned today is unavailable for use by future generations. Over the past 150 years, geologists and other scientists often have predicted that our oil reserves would run dry within a few years. When oil prices rise for an extended period, the news media fill with dire warnings that a crisis is upon us. Environmentalists argue that governments must develop new energy technologies that do not rely on fossil fuels. The facts contradict these harbingers of doom:
World oil production continued to increase through the end of the 20th century.
Prices of gasoline and other petroleum products, adjusted for inflation, are lower than they have been for most of the last 150 years.
Estimates of the world’s total endowment of oil have increased faster than oil has been taken from the ground.
How is this possible? We have not run out of oil because new technologies increase the amount of recoverable oil, and market prices — which signal scarcity — encourage new exploration and development. Rather than ending, the Oil Age has barely begun.
History of Oil Prognostications
The history of the petroleum industry is punctuated by periodic claims that the supply will be exhausted, followed by the discovery of new oil fields and the development of technologies for recovering additional supplies. For instance:
Before the first U.S. oil well was drilled in Pennsylvania in 1859, petroleum supplies were limited to crude oil that oozed to the surface. In 1855, an advertisement for Kier’s Rock Oil advised consumers to “hurry, before this wonderful product is depleted from Nature’s laboratory.”1
In 1874, the state geologist of Pennsylvania, the nation’s leading oil-producing state, estimated that only enough U.S. oil remained to keep the nation’s kerosene lamps burning for four years.2
"Warnings of U.S. oil shortages were made before the first well was drilled in 1859."
Seven such oil shortage scares occurred before 1950.3 As a writer in the Oil Trade Journal noted in 1918: At regularly recurring intervals in the quarter of a century that I have been following the ins and outs of the oil business[,] there has always arisen the bugaboo of an approaching oil famine, with plenty of individuals ready to prove that the commercial supply of crude oil would become exhausted within a given time — usually only a few years distant.4
1973 Oil Embargo.
"After the revolution in Iran, oil prices returned to the long-term average of $10 to $20 a barrel, in real terms."
The 1973 Arab oil embargo gave rise to renewed claims that the world’s oil supply would be exhausted shortly. “The Oil Crisis: This Time the Wolf Is Here,” warned an article in the influential journal Foreign Affairs.5 Geologists had cried wolf many times, acknowledged the authors of a respected and widely used textbook on economic geology in 1981; “finally, however, the wolves are with us.” The authors predicted that the United States was entering an incipient 125-year-long “energy gap,” projected to be at its worst shortly after the year 2000.6
The predictions of the 1970s were followed in a few years by a glut of cheap oil:
The long-term inflation-adjusted price of oil from 1880 through 1970 averaged $10 to $20 a barrel.7
The price of oil soared to over $50 a barrel in inflation-adjusted 1996 U.S. dollars following the 1979 political revolution in Iran.8 [See Figure I.]
But by 1986, inflation-adjusted oil prices had collapsed to one-third their 1980 peak.9
"When projected shortages failed to appear, doomsayers made new predictions."
When projected crises failed to occur, doomsayers moved their predictions forward by a few years and published again in more visible and prestigious journals:
In 1989, one expert forecast that world oil production would peak that very year and oil prices would reach $50 a barrel by 1994.10
In 1995, a respected geologist predicted in World Oil that petroleum production would peak in 1996, and after 1999 major increases in crude oil prices would have dire consequences. He warned that “[m]any of the world’s developed societies may look more like today’s Russia than the U.S.”11
A 1998 Scientific American article entitled “The End of Cheap Oil” predicted that world oil production would peak in 2002 and warned that “what our society does face, and soon, is the end of the abundant and cheap oil on which all industrial nations depend.”12
Similar admonitions were published in the two most influential scientific journals in the world, Nature and Science. A 1998 article in Science was titled “The Next Oil Crisis Looms Large — and Perhaps Close.”13 A 1999 Nature article was subtitled “[A] permanent decline in global oil production rate is virtually certain to begin within 20 years.”14
1990s Oil Glut.
However, rather than falling, world oil production continued to increase throughout the 1990s. Prices have not skyrocketed, suggesting that oil is not becoming more scarce:
Oil prices were generally stable at $20 to $30 a barrel throughout the 1990s. [See Figure I.]
In 2001, oil prices fell to a 30-year low after adjusting for inflation.
Furthermore, the inflation-adjusted retail price of gasoline, one of the most important derivatives of oil, fell to historic lows in the past few years. [See Figure II.]
Reserves versus Resources
Nonexperts, including some in the media, persistently predict oil shortage because they misunderstand petroleum terminology. Oil geologists speak of both reserves and resources.
Reserves are the portion of identified resources that can be economically extracted and exploited using current technology.
Resources include all fuels, both identified and unknown, and constitute the world’s endowment of fossil fuels.
Oil reserves are analogous to food stocks in a pantry. If a household divides its pantry stores by the daily food consumption rate, the same conclusion is always reached: the family will starve to death in a few weeks. Famine never occurs because the family periodically restocks the pantry.
Similarly, if oil reserves are divided by current production rates, exhaustion appears imminent. However, petroleum reserves are continually increased by ongoing exploration and development of resources. For 80 years, oil reserves in the United States have been equal to a 10- to 14-year supply at current rates of development.15 If they had not been continually replenished, we would have run out of oil by 1930.
How Much Oil Is Left?
Scaremongers are fond of reminding us that the total amount of oil in the Earth is finite and cannot be replaced during the span of human life. This is true; yet estimates of the world’s total oil endowment have grown faster than humanity can pump petroleum out of the ground.16
The Growing Endowment of Oil.
Estimates of the total amount of oil resources in the world grew throughout the 20th century [see Figure III].
In May 1920, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that the world’s total endowment of oil amounted to 60 billion barrels.17
In 1950, geologists estimated the world’s total oil endowment at around 600 billion barrels.
From 1970 through 1990, their estimates increased to between 1,500 and 2,000 billion barrels.
In 1994, the U.S. Geological Survey raised the estimate to 2,400 billion barrels, and their most recent estimate (2000) was of a 3,000-billion-barrel endowment.
By the year 2000, a total of 900 billion barrels of oil had been produced.18 Total world oil production in 2000 was 25 billion barrels.19 If world oil consumption continues to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent a year, and no further resources are discovered, the world’s oil supply will not be exhausted until the year 2056.
"Oil shales may hold another 14,000 billion barrels -- a 500 year supply."
Additional Petroleum Resources.
The estimates above do not include unconventional oil resources. Conventional oil refers to oil that is pumped out of the ground with minimal processing; unconventional oil resources consist largely of tar sands and oil shales that require processing to extract liquid petroleum. Unconventional oil resources are very large. In the future, new technologies that allow extraction of these unconventional resources likely will increase the world’s reserves.
Oil production from tar sands in Canada and South America would add about 600 billion barrels to the world’s supply.20
Rocks found in the three western states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone contain 1,500 billion barrels of oil.21
Worldwide, the oil-shale resource base could easily be as large as 14,000 billion barrels — more than 500 years of oil supply at year 2000 production rates.22
Unconventional oil resources are more expensive to extract and produce, but we can expect production costs to drop with time as improved technologies increase efficiency.
The Role of Technology
With every passing year it becomes possible to exploit oil resources that could not have been recovered with old technologies. The first American oil well drilled in 1859 by Colonel Edwin Drake in Titusville, Pa. — which was actually drilled by a local blacksmith known as Uncle Billy Smith — reached a total depth of 69 feet (21 meters).
Today’s drilling technology allows the completion of wells up to 30,000 feet (9,144 meters) deep.
The vast petroleum resources of the world’s submerged continental margins are accessible from offshore platforms that allow drilling in water depths to 9,000 feet (2,743 meters).
The amount of oil recoverable from a single well has greatly increased because new technologies allow the boring of multiple horizontal shafts from a single vertical shaft.
Four-dimensional seismic imaging enables engineers and geologists to see a subsurface petroleum reservoir drain over months to years, allowing them to increase the efficiency of its recovery.
New techniques and new technology have increased the efficiency of oil exploration. The success rate for exploratory petroleum wells has increased 50 percent over the past decade, according to energy economist Michael C. Lynch.23
Hubbert’s Prediction of Declining Production
Despite these facts, some environmentalists claim that declining oil production is inevitable, based on the so-called Hubbert model of energy production. They ignore the inaccuracy of Hubbert’s projections.
Problems with Hubbert’s Model.
In March 1956, M. King Hubbert, a research scientist for Shell Oil, predicted that oil production from the 48 contiguous United States would peak between 1965 and 1970.24 Hubbert’s prediction was initially called “utterly ridiculous.”25 But when U.S. oil production peaked in 1970, he became an instant celebrity and living legend.
"Environmentalists now tie their predictions of declining energy supplies to M. King Hubbert's model of energy production -- which has been consistently inaccurate."
Hubbert based his estimate on a mathematical model that assumes the production of a resource follows a bell-shaped curve — one that rises rapidly to a peak and declines just as quickly. In the case of petroleum, the model require
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
