[miniTAX]

supposing that the entire planet was composed of crude oil, that would still be a finite amount. to prove that it is not, you would have to show how the products of hydrocarbon production can be reconstituted into petroleum by a natural process that is relevant in a human timeframe. There is no evidence of this process existing. There is plenty of evidence that oil is a finite resource, including 20tyh-century peak production in the US, and the subsequent peak oil production of many other nations.
If we all use our brains just a little, I think we can figure out the probable answer here...

No one would dispute that oil resource is finite. Of course it's finite.
What is infinite is energy, atom energy, on a human timescale for fission (uranium, plutonium) and even on a geological timeframe for fusion (deuterium from sea water).
ITER is beeing constructed in France (Cadarrache) to experiment fusion energy, and there is no doubt that we will control it in a 1 or 2 generation future. And this is thanks to our technlogical advances, certainly not by reverting to old ages lifestyles.

[miniTAX]

Now you want to discuss another wacky idea: ITER. You need to take that to the Wacky Idea discussion section also. Just because the French are about to spend 10 billioin on a prototype doesn't mean it has a practical application. They also built the Concorde

You are so great in talking about things that you seem not to have the slightest idea of. Some fresh news for you, so to avoid you to repeat weird things :
- ITER is an internationally funded and manned project and it includes ALSO the US.
- The French ALSO successfully built the greatest nuclear power plants array, which has more to do with ITER than the Concorde (English-French project) as an example.

Fusion is going to require about 20 years of development. And then it will never happen.

Wow, superbe conclusion. Like the ones you have the secret for.

[Rincewind]

Sorry MiniTax

The ITER project does not expect to produce a commercially viable fusion generation not before 2050, assuming the programme runs to time or is even successful. see http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn192.pdf.

Based on the widest range of credible PO scenarios that would be around 10 years after peak and really with these technologies you need to be ramping up before the global economy starts to buckle.

Now to the wider topic. Is 'Peak Oil' a myth? I would argue that it is a good theory subject to limitations of geological data and uncertainities over future human behaviour.

The reason I visit this site and TOD are because:

1 the experts in the field (petroleum geologists) all agree that petroleum production will peak (They argue over when it will peak, which is understandable given the uncertainities)

2 the PO theory is supported by experience. Production in oil fields and oil regions have peaked and despite advances in technology the most that has been achieved is some slowing down of the decline (but not the newer developed fields apparently).

I would be willing to accept that the PO theory is invalid if:

1 There was a significant and sustainaed increases in petroleum production in the lower 48 to above the 1970 high point (same argument applies for Iran, Idonesia, Australia, North Sea etc)

2 Geologists using the theory of abiotic oil (deep beneath the oil window) discovered commercially significant (well actually huge ) quantities of petroleum (of the same characteritics that has been found historically) and there discovery was reported in an a credible relevant science Journal (you know peer reviewed).

Now the question I wonder about is:

"Is the hypothesis that humans have unlimited innovative ability defensible, or is it just a belief based on recent experience (the last 500 unusual years)?"

Rincewind

[sch_peakoiler]

Hey man, till 2004 every single oil company was hunting peakoilers and screaming like wild "scam!, witch!, Inquisition on them!, pagans!

Well, I assume peakoiler already existed in the 1973 (first shock) and the 1979 (second shock) oil crisis when they predicted 30 year global oil reserves.
If thinking that you are the only original thinker is reassuring to you, so let it be

Sorry, did not quite get your point. I did not say peakoiler did not exist at that time. I just wanted to make clear that mainstream media and the oficial opinion of oil companies were always denying PO. What did you mean?

[sch_peakoiler]

Maintaining that oil is an infinite resource has been thoroughly debunked and is considered a fringe belief without any proof.

Yeah, says you. But I will find you many other people(including scientists) who say otherwise. And ultimately the thing is... you don't actually know, do you? You have no first hand knowlege of it, so you are just going by what others tell you. And I am asking why you find the recent findings/beliefs of some scientists to be so rediculous. You are too closeminded. And I never said I agreed with them, I just don't claim to know either way.

The thing you are right on is this: abiotic theory exists and God knows it can prove true.

The thing you are missing is this: abiotic theory does not necessarily contradict po, we must first see what it is capable of. if abiotic oil is beeing formed at 1mbd for all the oilfields alltogether,or less then you can as well forget it. Even at 5 mbd it is not worth discussing. but of course there no numbers yet and i am not sure there will be any.

[crapattack]

MichaelRyan23 asks:

but does anyone here actually know...

Yeah, says you. But I will find you many other people(including scientists) who say otherwise. And ultimately the thing is... you don't actually know, do you? You have no first hand knowlege of it, so you are just going by what others tell you. And I am asking why you find the recent findings/beliefs of some scientists to be so rediculous. You are too closeminded. And I never said I agreed with them, I just don't claim to know either way.

Michael Ryan, how do you know oil actually exists? For all you know that stuff you put in your car could be make from soup. How do you "know" anything for that matter? You are relying on what others tell you all the time. How do you know the chair your sitting in actually exists? Do you need some scientist to tell you? No. You trust your perceptions, and your perceptions reliably inform you through experience that the object you sit on is a chair, or the floor, or your ass, and even if it doesn't exist it's damn useful. Now why the hell should I ask a scientist to confirm or deny my experiences of the world? We have the ability to reason, figure things out. I've been told that silky slippery substance I pour in engine is oil and I don't need to go to SA and touch the damn rig. Just as I can trust that certain information from certain sources is reasonably reliable, especially if it is repeated by other reliable sources over time.

Science doesn't "prove" anything, this is a mistake laymen and media often make. All the scientific method can do us determine certain findings are replicable over time, or reliably statistically significant, and just so you know, because of all the variables involved, in certain fields on a scale of 1 - 5, 1.2 is statistically significant. Now the thing is some scientists are more reliable than others and when you get into probabilities it gets even more interesting. Ultimately humans have to use their own judgement.
You're not off the hook by consulting some expert because there is always some other expert to tell you something different. In many cases the experts are all wrong, and it's some patent clerk that has figured it all out on his own. That's why everyone's opinion has some merit and you have to form your own opinions, not just rely on the experts. If, as you say, you never "know either way" then you allow yourself to not 'know' anything and never take responsibility or have opinions.

Aboitic oil is the type of 'flat earth' theory that conspiracy theorists love because it's not possible to disprove and finds traction in those who have an axe to grind against the oil companies. All evidence points to the fact that oil is finite. If it isn't it might as well be for all the good it's going to do us. I happen to think Seadragon is totally right about abiotic oil and you need to learn about the 'value' of certain scientific opinions. Some 'science' is only masquerading as science.

[sch_peakoiler]

totally agree with Crapattack.

all evidence is against abiotic oil. how come us, uk, norway and indonesia are in a steady decline? wheres the abiotic to top up their fields?
there are many small countries with declining production also which i dont mention. Where are the abiotic springs?

[miniTAX]

Sorry, did not quite get your point. I did not say peakoiler did not exist at that time. I just wanted to make clear that mainstream media and the oficial opinion of oil companies were always denying PO. What did you mean?

My point is that you scream out loud that you KNOW something (PO here) as if no other ones know, just like you are trying to amplify your merits and diminish other's viewpoint.

People know it, the media all over the world know it. Here in France where the nuclear lobby is almighty, people more than know it. They are submerged with it.
What I contest is the datelines and the consequences of it, just because no one knows for sure. Just like the consequences of climate warming.
I don't contest that we are heading for harder time. What I contest is those dire predictions for humanity as if we don't have the ability to overcome adversities like plague, war, hurricane ... because history show that it's simply not true. Knowing that, no-one can prove that I'm less prepared to face the future and the future of my children than any of you.

Tanada has said about all that, and certainly much better than me.

[backstop]

Minitax -

the intemperance of your writing does you no credit.

Had you not noticed that discussion is so much more creative than argument ?

That the majority here find your fatalism entirely unappealing is to me an indication merely of common sense
and common concern for others, and is no justification for your invective.

Given the authority of the scientific, economic & diplomatic warnings of the increasing frequency and rising intenstication of (as you said)

"plague, war, hurricanes" as well as of floods & droughts, of regional temperature extremes, of water shortages, soil loss and famine,

and of accustomed energy and fuel shortfalls,

your implication that no change of course away from the fossil nuclear & hydro-carbon enegies is justified seems somewhat bizarre.


Would you care to offer a rationale for it ?

Or do you perhaps support the calls for a reorientation of our culture to meet the coming changes,
despite the fact that "no one knows" what will happen ?

I would assure you that no one wishes "to diminish your viewpoint" -
- - they've just been trying to help you see it in perspective.

regards,

Backstop

[miniTAX]

your implication that no change of course away from the fossil nuclear & hydro-carbon enegies is justified seems somewhat bizarre.
Would you care to offer a rationale for it ?

So bad that my words imply you to think that. I never meant to say such things. And if my words are misinterpreted as intemperance, I am even more confused

Or do you perhaps support the calls for a reorientation of our culture to meet the coming changes,
despite the fact that "no one knows" what will happen ?

Yes I do. How can't I. Here in Europe, we are already in the course to do that, much before I know that the notion of PO exists.

[mode mylife ON] I go to work mostly by bike when it's not rainy. My children go to school by communal bus or on foot when my wife has a day off. My roof is equiped with solar heater for hot water. This winter is maybe the last one that I use petrol for heating. Due to the price increase (at least 45%), I am considering switching to pine wood pellets or grain (yeah, you heard well : grain which is available here for about €75 cents per kilo). We eat and drink reasonably, no overweight, no cholesterol (as yet ). My children love vegetables and I'm sure they will not abuse of junk food when they will leave our home.
[mode mylife OFF]

You see, I can live a happy and confortable life with an oil consumption of at least 1/4 of an American's. And needless to say, this ratio will even decrease more if oil prices are to climb, without me beeing miserable or frustrated, or resourceless to the point I can't travel or go to the theater.
And I assume that Americans are smart enough to do the same IF and WHEN need be, without resorting to war or starvation overnight, right.

What I definitely reject is the dire predictions that there is nothing done and no one is aware and the current level of resource consumption could not be reduced and no alternative or set of alternatives will exist on time and cataclysm is inevitable (as if an intermediate course, a soft landing can't exist) and so on...
It's simply not true, nor believable.

[crapattack]

MiniTax said;

My children love vegetables and I'm sure they will not abuse of junk food when they will leave our home.

Don't be so sure! My partner was brought up in a very eco-conscious home and very guiltily loves junk food. It's a real treat = real desirable. The parents have no clue that they brought up an ice cream junkie. We think that if it had been available every so often it wouldn't have the allure.

[miniTAX]

MiniTax said;

My children love vegetables and I'm sure they will not abuse of junk food when they will leave our home.

Don't be so sure! My partner was brought up in a very eco-conscious home and very guiltily loves junk food. It's a real treat = real desirable. The parents have no clue that they brought up an ice cream junkie. We think that if it had been available every so often it wouldn't have the allure.

You are right! Nothing is for sure. It's a matter of probabilities. I presume raising kids, like predicting PO or global warming consequences is not exact science?

When there is excess, the probabilities of backlash is high

[sch_peakoiler]

2 minTAX,

To answer you post about Peakoil awareness in Europe - You overestimate this awareness, inspired by the example of France!

Countries like Germany, Italy, Spain, although supportng renewable energies, do not show such awareness, the public is totally ignorant as to the fact of limited fossil fuels.

[miniTAX]

2 minTAX,

To answer you post about Peakoil awareness in Europe - You overestimate this awareness, inspired by the example of France!

Countries like Germany, Italy, Spain, although supportng renewable energies, do not show such awareness, the public is totally ignorant as to the fact of limited fossil fuels.

Awareness is just cheap talk. No one can quantify it, just as no one can measure the quantity of love or hate at an indidual scale, even less at the scale of a whole society.
The only thing which can be said is what is done. France is one of the most retarded nation in W .Europe as to ecology or the use of renewable energy, simply because of its huge array of nuclear power plants and its dirt cheap electricity, just like US dirt cheap oil.

In France, as a private investor, starting just this year is it financially profitable to resell private electricity (from wind mill or solar panel), whereas the German, the Spaniards or the Danes (who have the largest offshore windfarms) have done so many years before.
And the Germans are those who use one the highest part of R.En in Europe thanks to their tax policy, even if they are not as lucky as S. Europe as to solar power.
Things can change very rapidly as I witness here, just in one or 2 year times because people adapt to price or tax policy. If the US has a gaz tax of 80% (yes 80%) as France has already a long time ago, small cars and power savings will become once again fashionnable, quite as simple as this. No need to resort to war to make things change.

[czar]

Posted: 2006-01-27, 15:47:06 Post subject: Re: Peak Oil Myth?
hello.

i shall wade in cautiously here...

Western science has this terrible habit of becoming so sure of itself that there is no room for change. One of the most embarrasing has to be the commonly held belief that all or almost all of the hydrocarbons in the earth come from once living matter.
The truth is that almost all hydrocarbons are a result of upwelling methane that is in constant production. Very simple experiments involving rocks, water, heat and pressure have produced methane. This process is happening everywhere on earth. I don't have all of my research or links here with me now but a quick google on the words 'methane', 'production' and 'crust' brought up all types of info. Here's one of the first links I clicked on. The search for methane in Earth's mantle This upwelling methane is where petroleum, tar sands, and the heavier coals come from. It starts with methane which contains the highest hydrogen/carbon ratio. at the other end of the spectrum is coal which contain a higher carbon/hydrogen ratio. Thoughtout all of this the hydrocarbons are being fed on by microrganisms deep in the earth infusing them with their little stamp of life.

Now, this is not to say that petroleum is being formed fast enough to keep up with our current consumption from existing developed fields, but it does point to the fact that hydrocarbons in their many different forms are almost everywhere we look. The only limit to our ability to get them is price and demand. As the demand and price goes up, so does the investment, exploration and production. oil, gas and coal production technology grows as the industry strives to finder cheaper methods of operation. Oil fields don't dry up they just become unprofitable in the economic situation at that time. Production of oil from a certain country or region drops, not because they're necessarily running out of oil but often because the demand for it is not high enough to warrant further production.
Also, I should add, that I believe the generally perceived limit to oil is good in the sense that we should be striving for more efficient use of hydorcarbons while at the same time, keep up the search for better and cleaner forms of energy. However, I don't think this offsets the control held over people by this supposedly limited energy source. We are slaves to oil and the dollar. We went to war in Iraq not because oil is getting scarce but because they wanted to start selling their oil for euro's. No reason for countries to keep dollars if they don't have to buy oil with them. That's mostly what the war on terror is about. Keeping the empire's dollar the dominant currency in the world.

cheers,

john

[rockdoc123]

The truth is that almost all hydrocarbons are a result of upwelling methane that is in constant production.

that statement is so ridiculous it barely bears commenting on.....methane is a simple hydrocarbon....in fact the simplest hydrocarbon. It forms easily through bacterial action and it forms from source rocks under extreme temperature (pressure has nothing to do with it). It also can form abiotically as we know from extraterrestrial methane. However oil is not made up of methane alone....instead it is composed of complex hydrocarbons....pentanes, heptanes, hexanes. These complex hydrocarbons have never been created in a lab abiotically. They have, however been created countless times through the heating of source rock material in laboratories such that we can arrive at rate equations to predict its creation in the subsurface.

This upwelling methane is where petroleum, tar sands, and the heavier coals come from. It starts with methane which contains the highest hydrogen/carbon ratio. at the other end of the spectrum is coal which contain a higher carbon/hydrogen ratio.

Good Lord what crap....coal from methane???? Perhaps you had better instruct all of the coal petrologists from the last 50 or so years who have been happily identifying plant and spores in coals which can be shown to be altering to coaly macerals.

It astounds me that you can speak with so much confidence on a subject you obviously have zero understanding in. Please leave this for the organic geochemists....who by the way, dismissed the notion of abiotic oil many years ago .....confirmed with a revisit to the topic once more this year at the AAPG conference ( a sort of ....for crying out loud shut up already we figured out this was a stupid idea 30 years ago conference).

[crapattack]

Hello czar and welcome, you have obviously thought alot about this and as it is your first post we should go a bit easy on you. rockdock123 of course is completely right, even if he was a bit harsh. Some of the scientific types on this forum can get a touch onery when they see such obviously false information.

Your notion is a bit off track. Oil fields do dry up, it is a well known geological fact and not just market forces that make it uneconomical to pump. If, as you say, oil really did renew itself at a rate to be useful we it would be easy to find, and the planet would literally be awash in oil. If there was some huge conspiracy by the oil companies to supress knowlege of renewable oil (highly unlikely as oil geologists have been doing this for a while and are quite good at it), the US would still be happily pumping their own oil from renewable fields without importing up to 70% and going to the trouble of invading other countries for it. Much better to rule the empire from home without being dependent on unstable regimes.

Thanks for playing, but we've heard the aibotic oil theory on this forum many times, and also the oil company consipiracy theory many times as well, and it just doesn't play when you look at the realities.

[czar]

hello again...

i expected the ridicule, rockdoc123. thanks. had to be someone...


thanks, crapattack for taking it easy on me.

i shall discuss more later. can't now. apologies.

however, in the meantime, check this out...

Web Page Name

peace,

john

[miniTAX]

We went to war in Iraq not because oil is getting scarce but because they wanted to start selling their oil for euro's. No reason for countries to keep dollars if they don't have to buy oil with them. That's mostly what the war on terror is about. Keeping the empire's dollar the dominant currency in the world.

Needless to say more on your "crap" about abiotic oil.
As to your simplistic and conspiratory views about the "empire's dollar", plz browse through the forum. Much about this has been said. Look for Mr Bill's posts about it for exemple. He is someone who seems to know more than you about macro-economics, global finance and FX (foreign exchange).
Best regards.