Riddick,

Do you have anything better? I have very little hope and I sure could use a good credible research paper to give me some.

No, I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't.

I do think, however, that the new Peak Oil diet will put the Adkins and the South Beach diets to shame.

I have been looking for sceptic/debunking sites/articles.

They usually follow the same pattern:
1) Malthus and other doomsayers were wrong, therefore all such predictions are forever wrong.
2) Higher oil prices will stimulate exploration for new oilfields, improved recovery from existing fields, alternate energy sources and conservation.

For example,

http://www.worldoil.com/magazine/magazi ... orial.html
PERRY A. FISCHER, EDITOR, WorldOil magazine says:
"The truth is, there's a lot more recoverable oil at $50 than there is at $20. But could the world withstand such high prices? Undoubtedly. And the attendant demand destruction, together with the upsurge in alternatives, would further delay exhaustion of the resource."


But "demand destruction" means that people must drive and fly and heat their homes much less - there are few alternatives to oil and gas available to most people for these uses in the next few years.

I have not seen any sceptics who tell us quantitatively where our oil and gas is coming from over the next 10 years or thereafter (new fields or enhanced recovery from old fields) or what alternatives we will be using or how much of the gap will be filled by conservation technologies.

They rely on blind faith in technological advances, market forces and the Iraqi Information Minister (from whom the current Iraq reserve estimates came).

On the bright side, did you know that in Calgary, Canada we have the world's only wind powered Light Rail Transit system? I'm tempted to fake up a picture showing railcars with sails, but actually they have purchased an equivalent amount of power from windmills 200 km. to the south. And just today it was announced that our local McDonald's "restaurants" will be on wind power. They feel this will absolve them for many tons of petroleum based packaging waste.

I hate it when people say that because arguements about the imminent decline of oil production didn't come true within 5 years, they are proved wrong. In terms of oil creation, a thousand years is a short time. So if oil production is going to decline in the next 50 years, then its imminent. (let alone the next 5)

So how can "all such predictions have, without a single exception, been proven wrong."



Many people have already refuted the abiotic deep creation of oil theory, and pointed to the fact that almost all the oil fields we see were produced in a few types of sedimentary rocks with organic material, and that have at some point in their lifetime been between 7,500 and 15,000 feet deep. I thought it was generally accepted in the entire oil inductry that any deeper than 15,000 feet and the organic matter is cracked into gas and will not yield oil. Above 7,500 the heat and pressure would not have been great enough to crack the organic matter into oil.[/i]

Wait...

Isn't this TD?

Quoting myself:


Has anyone seen any sites/articles which actually do this? The lack of any such is the most compelling case for peak oil.

There should be a sceptics / debunkers page under WebLinks:

http://peakoil.com/gate.html?name=Web_Links

I don't have expertise in the matter but:

1. The term inorganic oil is an oxymoron

2. The Eugene Island and similar phenomena are quite well known. If you have a large pool of oil (or water) being pumped out of a relatively poorly porous rock, the level will drop locally round the borehole. If pumping is stopped then slow seepage will cause the level to rise again, even if it may take several years. Occasionally, pressure differences across an impervious "dam", may cause it to crack and permit the seepage rate to increase. I've seen it happen here, where borehole extraction of water has caused the water table, in places, to drop by several tens of metres and then the level started to rise again for no apparent reason, while the level may suddenly start to drop in a neighbouring borehole. (The sins of water demand being greater than the supply We have passed peak water )

3. IF, and its a very big IF, HCs polymerised at high temps and pressures close to the mantle, and they percolated up to areas of lower pressure and temp, the molecules would crack back down to the lowest common denominator, methane, IMHO, or even carbon (diamonds?) and hydrogen. Sorry, I cannot visualise it happening to any significant extent. I say this as a gut feeling and not as scientific hypothesis.

4 Billion barrels

well, we're losing sleep when we have this, dam, civilization as we know it is saved, hooray (for awhile)

Cross-reference T.D. discussion:
http://peakoil.com/fortopic505.html

http://joevialls.altermedia.info/wecont ... akoil.html

This guy takes it a bit far by saying oil supply is unlimited but his ultra deep well drilling theory is worth discussion.

I think he is right about the maintanenace of wells. Oil corporations probably do not want down time so they would rather drill a new well than fix an old one.

How sea water is injected into fields like Gahwar to increase pressure makes sense when you consider what this guy says about sediments and other junk clogging up the well at the base as time goes by. I figure it much be cheaper to pressurize the oil and drill new wells than clean the base "pore" of the well shaft.

Read it and make comments.

I am not an oil man so I can not verfiy or discount what he says.

Maybe the moderator should put this in the "expert" section for further clarification.

Well thats quite the conspiracy theory.... is there any truth to this...?

I think the whole damn internet is one big scam. You can't believe anything on it. Peak oil... infinite oil.... It's time I get back watching TV.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

Well I did a search on the author of this piece, Joe Vialls, and from what I can tell he is, to put it mildly, a crackpot nutcase. He is, by his own claims, living simply on a disability pension in Oz, and asking for money to keep on keepin on, but manages to travel all over the world to write these articles that point to Zionist conspiracies. Somehow they never add up. I read this article and it all sounded quite plausible until I got to the part about American consumption of oil going up from what, 6 b/g/d to 9 b/g/d. And Soviet consumption dropping quite a lot in the same period. I know their economy has been a mess, but if they are producing all this oil he talks about, then their economy should be better, and they should be swimming in lots of cheap oil, right? And I have never known a big corporation to miss an opportunity, zionist conspiracy or not.

People can we please kill this garbage and talk about something substantial. This topic was already posted in the open discussion section. Why are people always blaiming Jews/Zionists for everything? It would be refreshing to blame the world problems on a group that never gets any grief like people who actually think Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter make sense.

For this to be true, a person has to believe the following things:

1) The US is controlled by Zionists.
2) Abiotic oil is true (covered exhaustively here in previous posts)
3) US oil companies cannot buy the needed expertise from the Russians
4) The US would rather invade Iraq rather than do any deep well drilling
5) Russians are awash in inexhaustible oil, so therefore their economy is booming along with the economy of Vietnam and North Korea (in the near future)
6) All we have to do is drill another well in an oil field to restore production. (This has to be the stupidest argument of them all. Does anybody honestly believe that Big Oil would not have figured this out a LONG time ago if this was true.)

The list goes on but this article is pure garbage.