Theres something thats been bothering me for awhile now about oil and its

[mrcheerful]

running out. I remember science classes of the late 1960's and how the tar pits in CA were a part of the crude oil production method of nature, I have also heard the same thing repeated over the years since then. What has me wondering is how come we are so ready and willing to listen to the oil companies about how scarce oil is and how we are running out. Remember everything about oil comes from the oil companies, even the scientists That are experts on this are bought and paid for by the oil companies, so theres never been any studies done independent of the oil companies. One thing I noticed is every time oil companies want more profits they say the oil is running out, the first time they pulled that was 1901 and they are still saying it. Yet all that really happens is they cap wells, cut production and close refineries, which lowers the out put and drives prices sky high. What I'd like to know is why are we so trusting that the oil companies are telling us the truth about oil running out and we are at peek oil production? Do we really or can we really trust oil companies to be telling us the truth? After having over a hundred years of history of lying to drive the price of oil up we trust them to tell the truth?

The reason I mentioned the tar pits is if tar becomes oil after time, BTW, the first oil rigs were built over tar pits, just how many tar pits are there out there and could it be like diamonds? After all you only need 4 things to make diamonds, Heat, pressure, coal and time. Could the oil shortage be just another monopoly were they decide to limit how much is put on the market?

[radwriter0555]

1. "peak oil" is a total myth. There is nothing relevent or accurate

about the silly ideas they're belching.

You're wise to question the source and the validity. It's all a bunch of 'the sky is falling' lies from the oil cos.

[rman]

4. The myth is the idea that there's an infinite amount of oil.

[izzie]

9. Their is not an infinite amount of anything. So with oil

One oil company has been fined in court, I think, for padding how much they had. I think the North Sea is done and in SA we are having trouble getting the figures and how they drill has also changed because it is getting tight. I could go on.

[acmejack]

18. You need to do some basic research.

It would be nice if your claims were fact based merely upon your say so, unfortunately that is not the way the world works. I prefer to accept the findings of the world's preeminent geologists and other Earth Scientists who have devoted their lives to studying these matters.

I will take your advice and study the source and it's validity, I have determined you are a bit short in both respects.

[trof]

23. Disagree. Independent info says different.

If anything, oil companies in have padded their "estimates" of in-ground reserves in the past.
In the last few years they have repeatedly "revised" their estimates downward when outside petroleum geologists have called their figures into question.

It may be :tinfoilhat: time, but I think one reason oil companies exagerated their reserves for so long was to stave off alternate energy research for as long as possible and sell more oil in the meantime.

The U. S. hit peak oil in the mid 70s.
That's an undeniable fact. It's why we now have to import about half of our oil, according to U.S. DOE.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld002.htm

[hfojvt]

2. I remember in my sophomore year in 1978

the history teacher asked the class who believed there was an energy crisis, and I was the only one in the class who raised my hand. I kinda felt foolish 25 years later.
Yet we know the earth is finite, so unless oil is being produced somehow and somewhere it will run out someday. Although now I wonder, if the original supply was as big as the Pacific Ocean, how long would that supply last at current rates of consumption? 100 years? 200 years? or 15,000 years? It is possible that the original supply was hugh!!!1!1! but how do we know? We can only go by "proven reserves", but going by that in 1978 we should already have run out probably. There must be some geologists who do not work for oil companies. My dad was with USGS (geological survey) for 30 years.

[mrcheerful]

5. Nope everything about oil is controlled by the oil companies.

Any independent geologist has to go with what the ones oil companies paid researchers have done. BTW, when Jimmy Carter was prez the oil companies said by 1998 oil would be all used up, which was why Carter started seeking other means to power america and he started asking americans to cut back on usage, then lowered the driving speeds down to 55 mph. Well here we are 2006 hearing the same things we heard in 74 and 78. You can't believe that those 3 things extended oil reserves that much as by Carters plans america would be using alternative fuels by 1985 and oil wouldn't be a issue as there wouldn't be any left in the world. Also remember Reagan and the 2 Bush's promoted big vehicles during their terms, its only been under dems that smaller fuel efficient cars were pushed. Which is another thing that has my mind going on this running out of oil warnings. Remember GW's first term he said oil wasn't going to be a problem so why not get a Hummer.

[hfojvt]

7. geology might be different

but as an economics major Bush's treasury department or some insurance company or utility can push phony stats but I can deconstruct them, unless, like Enron accountants, they lie about raw data. But SUVs took off under Clinton when gas went down to 89 cents a gallon (at least in Iowa (your mileage may vary)) and stayed there until about May of 2000.

[mrcheerful]

8. Yes thats when SUV's became popular, but the pukes were pushing them.

Remember that still alot of the working class were still out of work even when things got better under Clinton. Living in the rust belt alot of jobs were lost forever and people were still hurting. It depends in what state one lived that decided who drove what. In 2000 I started seeing bigger vehicles then I did in the 1990s.

[freefall]

17. Why are you ashamed? You were the only one who was right. n/t

[rman]

3. If tar becomes oil, then where does the tar come from?

Do you think there's in infinite amount of oil/tar? Do you think is continuously created inside the earth? Do you believe in bio-genesis of oil? There are about as many scientists who believe that as there are scientists who believe in Intelligent Design.

And where did you get the idea that tar becomes oil? What is your source on that?

Reality is that tar is a form of oil, as is tar-sand and oil-shale. Tar pits are just locations where these oil/tar fields come to the surface.

[mrcheerful]

6. The same people say its from fossils of plants and animals That were

on the land millions of years ago. Now remember if thats correct then we are talking about vast numbers of plants and animals that lived and died, then just how much oil did one plant or animal turn into? Which ones were the ones that turned into oil and how big were they? How long did it take for them to turn into oil? So far theres been vague theories but theres been no link and much is still unknown about it.

[0007]

10. How true!

[rman]

21. Not every ting that dies turns into oil

Plants much more so then animals, but only under specific circumstances. It takes millions of years. Also it's an alternative to fossilization; a fossil essentially stone and won't turn into oil.

"Vague theories"? lol.

Show me any credible source seriously contesting accepted geological theories. Just saying they are vague doesn't cut it.

And i must say, the theories that you have presented so far aren't exactly solid - they're more like, absent.

In spite of use of increasingly sophisticate technology, "Peak Discovery" was in the 60's and 70's. Ever since the volume of newly discovered oil fields has declined. All that they're finding now are smaller fields and unattractive sources like tar sand and oil shale.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Why do you think oil companies would close wells and open new ones?

That would cost them more money than just producing continually from the old ones. And yet that's what they do. Even if you think the oil companies are all colluding, it would make no sense for them to spend money searching for new oil - they'd just tell us "that's all the oil fields there are". If they controlled the entire science of geology so they could hide the truth, as you claim, they could get away with that. But they don't.

So your theory for their behaviour doesn't make sense. However, the claim that there is a finite amount of oil found in oil fields does make sense.

[mrcheerful]

14. No because then they wouldn't be able to yell we are at peek oil.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Yes they would - they'd say there are no new oil fields

thus saving themselves exploration money. Why do you think they develop new wells? You haven't even attempeted to explain why they do.

[freefall]

12. Peak oil is a reality that the oil companies have been fighting since

M. King Hubbert first presented his theory at the 1956 meeting of the American Petroleum Institute in San Antonio, Texas. At the time, his theory related to the continental United States only; his methods have since been used by others to predict peak oil for the entire Earth. He was laughed at and ostracized and the oil companies managed to successfully bury information about peak oil for many years even after his theories were proved correct in the early 1970s. After all, if we had accepted the idea of peak oil then, and started to conserve and find alternatives, oil company profits would have suffered, oil companies may not have received all the government corporate welfare they have for the past several decades continuing right up through last year's so called energy bill. If we had recognized the crisis in time the government may even have diverted funds to reserch on alternatives in time to make a difference. (Which would have been about now.) The oil companies have fought the idea of peak oil in the short term for profit reasons. Only in the last two years have oil companies begun to acknowledge the reality of peak oil and that is because the evidence is now obvious to all but the willfully blind. Apparently, a few DU posters fall into that category.

For those posters and others who may be interested here is the article that first got me researching the topic beginning in April of 2005:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0413-28.htm

Another good article on the fall out:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8804.htm

There is an unbelievable wealth of material out there: Google "Peak Oil" and "M. King Hubbert" and when you finish with all that try reading a book or two. A good short book with a clear explanation of the science is "Out of Gas" by David Goodstein. There are many others.

If we had started taking steps to mitigate the effects of peak oil back in the 70s when Carter first tried to get us to, we would not be facing the hardships we are facing now as peak oil hits. Because we have had our collective head in the sand for so long there is likely to be much more hardship accompanying peak oil especially in the United States than would otherwise have been the case. By educating ourselves we may be able to structure our personal lives so as to avoid some of the more devasting effects.

Good luck.

Peace,

freefall

[NJCher]

13. one reason you can believe them

Is that they hired highly educated people like geologists and engineers. These people worked for them but later left the corporate employment situation and went on to other things. An example would be Dr. Kenneth Defeyes of Princeton. He is now a professor who researches and writes about the known oil reserves. Someone like this probably has answers to your questions in his books.

The way the academic system is set up, it would be difficult for someone to promote a lie over an extended period of time. It is set up so there are "rewards" for people who challenge the thinking of others. That's why I have a tendency to believe people like Dr. Deffeyes.




Cher

[freefall]

15. Kenneth Deffeyes is the scientist who used Hubbert's methods to project

the peak oil theory to the whole world after Hubbert made his predictions about the US. He is the author of "Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak" and "Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage". Either book would be an excellent place to begin in order to understand the "peak oil" theory and its impact.

Peace,

freefall

[pretzel4gore]

16. the real problem is the 'Bush Protection Team'

there always was a BPT even before there was a bush, but that's ot.... what's important is that certain flaws, structural flaws in our societies allows huge insane type untruths to not only survive but live off truth. Such phenomenon as the Mormon Church and the Jack the Ripper myth are 2 quick examples (the mormon Church was founded by a charlatan, even though Mormons are great/good people, the basis of their church is questionable; Jack the Ripper was of course id'ed within weeks of his suicide and the victorian era upper class twits hid the fact cuz, well he was upper class etc) The present day busheviks use 'loudspeaker' idea, to take a lie which has a grain of truth and broadcast it relentlessly until the popular opinion has been shaped. In 'up From Conservativism' Michael Lind decribes the schemeing that goes on - how the republican/conservative 'party' planned to, in effect, stage the overthrow of the US government by using certain fake truths, and never allowing any deviation from these. Three basic cultural lies which republicanism depend are 1) taxes are too high 2) public education is a failure 3) unmarried poor women have too many children which need support by taxpayers.....and then the mass media, ie the Bush Protection Team, then spreads these lies relentlessly.
The bush gangsters we see have taken all this prediliction for dishonesty and soon, and took it to the limit, until even hardcore rightists BPT'ers are starting to suspect they're communists, or some damn thing...AND while oil/fossil fuels might might not be limited in supply, the fact is that humanity cannot generate the heat that living like a rich gopig requires, and the rich gopigs are just gonna have to die, or something....just joking klol :)

[rman]

22. how true

Without that bunch of criminals in power we would be able to handle peak oil and global warming. If there never had been criminals like that, then we'd already have the solutions. Homo Sapiens is smart like that, but also our herd mind tends to get the better of us.

[creeksneakers2]

19. Its confusing because of the way the count reserves

Oil reserves are calculated by the amount of oil that could be extracted at the current price per barrel. So,if oil was $2 a barrel, we'd only count that oil that could be extracted at that price. That oil is running out.

With oil at $75 a barrel, calculated reserves skyrocket. But they too,are finite.

Its unlikely that we'll totally run out of oil. We'll run out of oil that can be produced at a cheaper cost than other forms of energy.

[trof]

24. Very good point. Cost is a big factor. eom

[mrcheerful]

25. I don't know every time i hear oil shortage I start thinking DeBeers and

diamonds. What a lot of people don't get is even after its been found out that DeBeers, governments, and scientists lied to protect the DeBeers monopoly, they still ignore that and talk about how rare diamonds are. If they can do that with diamonds then why couldn't they do that with oil? I can't believe people are that easy to fool, but they are.