I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Now, it makes more sense to me to figure this question out first before we hit the panic button. Because quite bloody frankly this is scaring the crap put of me and is ruining my life.
Scroll down to the June 1 issue. Click on "the Abiotic Oil debate" and on General Questions and Answers.
If oil was renewing at any rate that matters, US production would not have fallen 50 percent since 1970.
99 percent of the world's oil supply comes from 44 countries. 24 are now in decline. Conventional oil production peaked in 2000 has been declining since. The world, with the exception of the mid east, peaked in 1997.
Joined: Jun 26, 2004 Posts: 1189 Location: Madison,Wisconsin
Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2004 2:46 pm Post subject:
I just did read it. It was very hard to read. Not because i found it s conclusions disturbing, but because the writer was so very obviously hostile to the thought that his way of life might be *gasp* wrong. I went back and read it again and again to try and get what ever info out of it i might. Here is the just of what i can see.
1. He assertains that oil will ever be renewing because it is not a fossil fuel, but a renewable resource that is produced near the earths core by a chemical reaction.
2. He says that because of this, (oil being constantly produced), we will never run out, and hence all this peak oil stuff is nonsense.
After I had a good laugh at him making fun of us I went back and re read the basis for his "proof" that peak oil is false.
I did find the articles on the abiotic formation of oil as facinating. But he seems to totally misunderstand the idea s behind peak oil.
1. The most we will ever be able to produce. IE PEAK oil. Weither something is being slowly produced over millions of years by deep abiotic processes ( hmmm wonder if he missed that point ... slowly...) , or is produced by biotic matter slowly being converted to hydro carbons via chemical processes, the fact remains that peak oil was never ever based on how oil was originally created. Rather, it is based on known output of oil fields and their subsiquent decline of production.
Another point he seemed to totally ignore is the idea that oil fields can be drained dry. I mean, does anyone want to argue that point? So if most oil fields have a point where they are pretty much dry, why does one field off the cost of mexico that perhaps simply was mis measured the first time out prove beyond a shadow of a doubt his theory of all oil fields will reproduce.
I could even agree with the idea that oil was produced where he says it is produced. After all, i am not a scientist, and as such i have no idea how oil was orgininally formed. But quite a few of the facts he is parroting stuck out.
If oil was produced in this way, then we of course would have to assume that more is right now being chemically produced( no real proof of this was in his article unless i miss read it ) But for his sake, lets say that there is some being produced. How much? Well, the amount of oil we currently have on this earth has been being produced since the earths core was dense enough to cause the pressures and have the minerals in close proxmity that he claims. If that is the case, this has been going on for something on the order of lets say 3 billion years. ( someone please check my dates, I can t remember if that is correct or not) So lets say for 3 billion years this nice geological fact has been happily producing hydro carbons for our use near the earths core. These hydro carbons then float up and form in pools near the earths surface for us to drill for. Alright, I can buy that. What i feel is missed is if this took 3 billion years to get the amount of oil we have now, and the US is definately in a measurable oil production decline for almost 30 years now, what is the obvious conclusion. That yes, the theory works, but the time scale means that the amount of oil produced each year would almost have to be insignficant. The reason there was so much oil is because this was going on for billions of years.
So if this is going on in a relitively small amount every year, it won t matter a bit. We probably would not even be able to measure the amount being produced, so in the time scale of human civilization, it would not matter one bit. They said in the only actual scientific test mentioned that they produced Trace amounts of octane and methane. Like I said, I can buy the science, but how does trace amounts equate to enough to keep up with ever rising demand for something?
Peak oil is based on measured amounts of oil in feilds we know about, and their OBSERVED rates of decline. One field in the gulf of mexico does not make me discount the hundreds of thousands of dry wells all over the US, not to mention the world.
Peak oil is based on the idea that problems with the supply with oil will not happen when we run out. I can buy not running out ever. But do you really think the way we live right now can be supported on the amount that the earth might be producing? Lets say its a million barrels a day. I would guess it was less, alot less, but lets just use that figure for now. If so, then we would run thru that amount just with US demand for 1/25 of a day. And that is just the US.
The point of all this talking by me is simple. The sources of oil will not make a damn bit of difference when it comes to the concept of peak oil. They might make people Feel better, but it still will not really affect at what point the peak of oil production hits. Not to mention this guy doesn t appear to want to really think about this idea at all, as after all, its too "inflamitory and down right dangerous" (David McGowan)
So you can read this one all you want. It might make you feel better, but realistically, its basically someone lashing out as he feels his world crashing down around him, trying to tie his beliefs as to how the world should be ordered to a point of science. The problem is he didn t really read all the fine points of what HE WROTE. So, while I can buy the science, I think this guy needs to read a bit more Heinburg and take his head out of the sands for a bit. _________________ Azreal60
We should be glad that we are running out of oil. If we had an infinate supply, we would have no reason to stop using it. We would cause even more damage to the environment then we are doing now. The eventual die-off would be much, much worse.
Nothing good in the short term will come from falling off the industrial cliff. Trying to paint this in a good light is useless. Some of us who know may survive (assuming no nuclear energy wars), but to what end?
Why is this not front-and-center in the media? That I do not understand. This is the biggest event of our time.
Joined: Jun 26, 2004 Posts: 1189 Location: Madison,Wisconsin
Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2004 4:30 pm Post subject:
Hehe, another Cherry popped. Mower, welcome to one of the many insanities associated with peak oil. Let me work you thru a bit of human psychology. People do not like bad news. People do not like to be told that something really bad is going to happen. People do not want to believe that they live in a bad way. Quite simply, we do not want to believe that we are wrong.
Thats really the begining and end of it. Any gov attempt at covering this up really would not succeed in our climate. Really what has caused this to not be a national issue of major proprotions is not a huge gov coverup, but the simple fact is that no news media wants to report things that people don t want to hear. No politician wants to be the one to crack the big cover on the fact that americans live in a way we can t sustain in any manner of that word. No one wants to be the bearer of bad tidings.
Well, its time to start breaking all those paradimes. It is time that the people of this earth started dealing with things on a more sane basis. We are the adventurous few that are willing to start. _________________ Azreal60
The irony is that the majority of the world population already lives near pre-industrial and may not be too adversely affected. Certainly they would not be sympathetic our plight.
But how can anyone here say with any confidence (let alone authority) that we have already peaked?
I alaways suspected our glutteny would be punished, but I didn't suspect so soon.
So what is a consensus as to time? 3-5 years or (hopefully) a little more?
In an way it's a good thing not everybody has heard this cause then there might be a growing alarm and pznic and those who know now couldn't take the steps they need to.
Lots of questions I know, but someone please address them.
I just did read it. It was very hard to read. Not because i found it s conclusions disturbing, but because the writer was so very obviously hostile to the thought that his way of life might be *gasp* wrong. I went back and read it again and again to try and get what ever info out of it i might. Here is the just of what i can see.
1. He assertains that oil will ever be renewing because it is not a fossil fuel, but a renewable resource that is produced near the earths core by a chemical reaction.
2. He says that because of this, (oil being constantly produced), we will never run out, and hence all this peak oil stuff is nonsense.
After I had a good laugh at him making fun of us I went back and re read the basis for his "proof" that peak oil is false.
I did find the articles on the abiotic formation of oil as facinating. But he seems to totally misunderstand the idea s behind peak oil.
1. The most we will ever be able to produce. IE PEAK oil. Weither something is being slowly produced over millions of years by deep abiotic processes ( hmmm wonder if he missed that point ... slowly...) , or is produced by biotic matter slowly being converted to hydro carbons via chemical processes, the fact remains that peak oil was never ever based on how oil was originally created. Rather, it is based on known output of oil fields and their subsiquent decline of production.
Another point he seemed to totally ignore is the idea that oil fields can be drained dry. I mean, does anyone want to argue that point? So if most oil fields have a point where they are pretty much dry, why does one field off the cost of mexico that perhaps simply was mis measured the first time out prove beyond a shadow of a doubt his theory of all oil fields will reproduce.
I could even agree with the idea that oil was produced where he says it is produced. After all, i am not a scientist, and as such i have no idea how oil was orgininally formed. But quite a few of the facts he is parroting stuck out.
If oil was produced in this way, then we of course would have to assume that more is right now being chemically produced( no real proof of this was in his article unless i miss read it ) But for his sake, lets say that there is some being produced. How much? Well, the amount of oil we currently have on this earth has been being produced since the earths core was dense enough to cause the pressures and have the minerals in close proxmity that he claims. If that is the case, this has been going on for something on the order of lets say 3 billion years. ( someone please check my dates, I can t remember if that is correct or not) So lets say for 3 billion years this nice geological fact has been happily producing hydro carbons for our use near the earths core. These hydro carbons then float up and form in pools near the earths surface for us to drill for. Alright, I can buy that. What i feel is missed is if this took 3 billion years to get the amount of oil we have now, and the US is definately in a measurable oil production decline for almost 30 years now, what is the obvious conclusion. That yes, the theory works, but the time scale means that the amount of oil produced each year would almost have to be insignficant. The reason there was so much oil is because this was going on for billions of years.
So if this is going on in a relitively small amount every year, it won t matter a bit. We probably would not even be able to measure the amount being produced, so in the time scale of human civilization, it would not matter one bit. They said in the only actual scientific test mentioned that they produced Trace amounts of octane and methane. Like I said, I can buy the science, but how does trace amounts equate to enough to keep up with ever rising demand for something?
Peak oil is based on measured amounts of oil in feilds we know about, and their OBSERVED rates of decline. One field in the gulf of mexico does not make me discount the hundreds of thousands of dry wells all over the US, not to mention the world.
Peak oil is based on the idea that problems with the supply with oil will not happen when we run out. I can buy not running out ever. But do you really think the way we live right now can be supported on the amount that the earth might be producing? Lets say its a million barrels a day. I would guess it was less, alot less, but lets just use that figure for now. If so, then we would run thru that amount just with US demand for 1/25 of a day. And that is just the US.
The point of all this talking by me is simple. The sources of oil will not make a damn bit of difference when it comes to the concept of peak oil. They might make people Feel better, but it still will not really affect at what point the peak of oil production hits. Not to mention this guy doesn t appear to want to really think about this idea at all, as after all, its too "inflamitory and down right dangerous" (David McGowan)
So you can read this one all you want. It might make you feel better, but realistically, its basically someone lashing out as he feels his world crashing down around him, trying to tie his beliefs as to how the world should be ordered to a point of science. The problem is he didn t really read all the fine points of what HE WROTE. So, while I can buy the science, I think this guy needs to read a bit more Heinburg and take his head out of the sands for a bit.
Couldn't agree more.
It is amazing, the more the signs of Peak Oil being an imminent crisis appear, the more panicky (or sometimes hostile) emails I get from people saying, "But don't you know, oil might be sustainable!"
It's the same with the "reserve" argument.
It doesn't matter what the reserves are. Nor does it really matter how the stuff got there.
What really matters is how much can we produce.
Because whether there is 1 trillion or 2 trillion, whether it got there from dinosaurs or because aliens put it there or because it bubbles up from the earth's core doesn't matter.
Come 2005, if we can't produce 82.5 million barrels per day, we have deep sh-t to deal with.
Nothing good in the short term will come from falling off the industrial cliff. Trying to paint this in a good light is useless. Some of us who know may survive (assuming no nuclear energy wars), but to what end?
Why is this not front-and-center in the media? That I do not understand. This is the biggest event of our time.
90 percent of all media - all newspapers, telvesion and radio - are owned by 7 companies.
All of these companies are either energy companies or are heavily invested in energy companies. Most of the ads you see are from petrochemical based companies: agribusiness, automobile, pharmaceutical, etc.. . .
If people knew the truth about Peak Oil, how would they react? If you have any doubt, take a look around at some of the threads on this board.
The irony is that the majority of the world population already lives near pre-industrial and may not be too adversely affected. Certainly they would not be sympathetic our plight.
But how can anyone here say with any confidence (let alone authority) that we have already peaked?
I alaways suspected our glutteny would be punished, but I didn't suspect so soon.
So what is a consensus as to time? 3-5 years or (hopefully) a little more?
In an way it's a good thing not everybody has heard this cause then there might be a growing alarm and pznic and those who know now couldn't take the steps they need to.
Lots of questions I know, but someone please address them.
Nobody knows for sure, but it is more likely we have 3-5 months then 3-5 years before tshtf.
1. Demand is already outstripping supply. Demand growth is projected to stay strong.
2. OPEC, and even Saudi Arabia, appear to be at capacity. I.E., they are pumping out as much as they can.
Additionally, one good terrorist attack on oil infrastructure (not people) and the price could hit $60 or $70 practically overnight.
Most likely, things aren't going to dissolve overnight. But they could.
The irony is that the majority of the world population already lives near pre-industrial and may not be too adversely affected. Certainly they would not be sympathetic our plight.
But how can anyone here say with any confidence (let alone authority) that we have already peaked?
I alaways suspected our glutteny would be punished, but I didn't suspect so soon.
So what is a consensus as to time? 3-5 years or (hopefully) a little more?
In an way it's a good thing not everybody has heard this cause then there might be a growing alarm and pznic and those who know now couldn't take the steps they need to.
Lots of questions I know, but someone please address them.
After Abu Gharib? Yeah, I don't think people are going to be feeling too sorry for us.
keep in mind, 50 percent of the world has never made a phone call!!! And only 1.5 percent have consistent access to the internet.
So its true, the sky isn't falling. At least in most of the world that is.
Nothing good in the short term will come from falling off the industrial cliff. Trying to paint this in a good light is useless. Some of us who know may survive (assuming no nuclear energy wars), but to what end?
It is good because it is saving us from an even worse die-off in the future. Good might be the wrong word. It is bad for us. But good for our children and grandchildren. That is my opinion. Nobody knows what the future will bring. If you survive, you will find out. And you will have the ability to influence the rebirth of civilization in some small way.
So much perperation needed to survive during and after. I'm in the suburbs and so would die when the heat, water and electricity is shut off. Must set-up cottage and self-sufficiency. No cash though. So likely as not my family will die.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 1 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
