Tell me WHY 'peak oil' isn't "for real"

[Deja Q]

I've heard the reasons WHY it could be "for real".

But many people say it's not proven or won't happen.

Please tell me why you think "peak oil" is a load of bunk.

Thank you.

[proud patriot]

1. peak oil is an excellent scare tatic for oil companies to use

to jack up the prices ... at least that thought
has crossed my mind .

However I believe that oil has a limit and will
run out . The when is the only thing I'm not sure
about .

[LaurenG]

2. Do you think anyone here thinks peak oil isn't real?

I can't help you I strongly believe it is real.;-)

edited for spelling.

[Deja Q]

3. Here's a chap who thinks it's a load:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x3884109#3884222

He gives the impression he's more than doubtful...

I think it is; previous statistics were proven, the ME has lied to us about supply before (inflating values in the 1980s, probably to get us dependent on the stuff... they knew their enemy, it seems.)

If it isn't real, then oil would still be $1.70/gallon and there'd be no need to offshore. They NEED our economy to collapse because it's dependent as much on plastic junk as it is anything else.

[LaurenG]

7. All -righty then

Roscoe Bartlett, republican from Maryland and a scientist gives a VERY disturbing picture of peak oil. He said we have two years IF we are very lucky.

http://www.energybulletin.net/5080.html

[Burried News]

13. Misspelled clathrates.

Science News is a reputable journal for the layman with some science backround.
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arch/11_9_96/bob1.htm

"Conventional deposits of methane, or natural gas, form through a different process, when seafloor sediments get buried far deeper. Exposed to much higher temperatures, the organic material in the sediments simmers until it transforms into petroleum and eventually methane.

Nearly a decade ago, several researchers independently tried to estimate how much methane exists in hydrate deposits. Because of the scarcity of direct hydrate measurements at the time, the estimates rested on indirect seismic studies, which probe the ocean bottom sediments with blasts of sound that reflect off hidden layers.

These studies suggested that global hydrate deposits contain approximately 10,000 gigatons, or 1013 tons, of carbon. That number represents double the combined amount in all reserves of coal, oil, and conventional natural gas.

The newly emerging evidence supports these rough approximations, says Gordon J. MacDonald, one of the scientists who made the calculations in the 1980s. "All these estimates are quite uncertain. But it remains abundantly clear that methane hydrates contain the largest store of carbon that we know about that is underground," says MacDonald, who now directs the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria."

[Burried News]

14. If a Congressman says it - it must be so?

Video: Rep. Bartlett's Peak Oil Presentation to the US Congress

by Roscoe Bartlett

From their own "About Us Statement"
"We welcome original content, and we especially invite industry insiders and independent researchers to submit their insights and findings relevant to these issues."

Are you on their payroll?

[LaurenG]

99. That was a very rude comment

are you? Since you already think you know everything why do you even bother to comment. Good luck.

[Burried News]

9. I don't. Too tired to work hard at this so I will just outline.

1. The same propaganda went out in the 70's during the Arab Oil embargo - which by the way the press refused to acknowledge.
2. There are huge organic deposits called claythrates which are storehouses of methane and other organic combustible gases. It would be a substantial change and the oil companies don't want to invest until they get their money out of oil.
3. It is becoming increasingly clear that vast amounts of organics do not come from dead plants and animals. They are in the original building blocks of Earth, are present in interstellar gas clouds and in our solar system (Think Titan and the outer solar system gas giant planets - Neptune Saturn, Uranus and Jupiter)

That doesn't mean we should not go for alternative energy sources now - we should because if we don't there is so much oil we will change the Oxygen and Carbon dioxide levels - as CO2 rises we will trap too much sunlight and warm ourselves to death.

[LaurenG]

11. Ok since you are tired I won't go into it tonight

I just think you are mistaken thats all. :hi:

[Burried News]

15. That's it - one link. OK I'll get a cup of coffee. Let's go.

Another goody from your link - sounds like Fox News?
"On the issue of resource depletion we will unapologetically be favouring geological pessimism over economic theory based optimism."

I'm hearing the theme from 'Weird Science'

[Burried News]

17. 30% of Estimated reserves used so far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_supplies

From Wikopedia
"Crude oil is a finite resource. It is estimated that there is a total of 2,390 billion barrels (380 km³) of crude oil on Earth, of which about 30% has been used so far. Most known reserves are concentrated in the Middle East — around 41%, and the Saudi national oil company controls the largest amount of proven oil reserves in the world. North America and Russia are also rich in crude oil.

Estimates of undiscovered reserves range widely from 275 to 1,469 billion barrels (44 to 234 km³). Current estimates are that oil reserves will become scarce by the 2050s, although this date has been pushed forward many times as new oil fields are discovered. However, these numbers must be treated carefully as they include only reserves that are economically recoverable at present. They do not include tar sands and bitumen, nor do they take into account possible coal-derived production, or recycling from tires, junkyard plastics, and crumbling asphalt roads. Although these processes are not currently economical, they could be used to produce significant quantities of hydrocarbons in the future, and they may become important as crude oil production dwindles, or if new technology makes them easier to exploit.

Between 1859 and 1968, 200 billion barrels (31 km³) of oil were used. In 2004, as prices reach record highs, world consumption is on track to 30 billion barrels per year. <1>

As all the oil on earth is used up, a vast number of oil-derived products will have to find alternative methods of production, including gasoline, lubricating oils, plastics, tires, roads, synthetic fabrics, etc. Science has already found many alternatives to all these products, but in most cases the oil-derived method is currently cheaper"

[Burried News]

18. Non conventional oil sources - also Wikopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-conventional_oil
"Non-conventional oil is oil extracted using techniques other than the traditional oil well method. Currently, non-conventional oil production is less efficient and some types have a larger environmental impact relative to conventional oil production. Non-conventional types of production include: tar sands, oil shale, bitumen, biofuels, thermal depolymerization (TDP) of organic matter, and the conversion of coal or natural gas to liquid hydrocarbons through the Fischer-Tropsch process. These non-conventional sources of oil may be increasingly relied upon as fuel for transportation when conventional oil becomes "economicaly non-viable" due to depletion. Conventional sources of oil are currently preferred because they provide a much higher ratio of extracted energy over energy used in extraction and refining processes. Technology, such as using steam injection in tar sands deposits, is being developed to increase the efficiency of non-conventional oil production."

[davekriss]

114. Can you tell me...

...what the EROEI is for tar sands with current technology? Can you also tell me what the EROEI is for conventional oil in 1960 and again in 2000? EROEI is key. When it trends to 1.0, as is the case with tar sands, the manufactured oil might become a convenient energy transport medium, but it is no longer a source of energy.

[Bushwick Bill]

19. Yikes.

(1) The 1970's shortages were caused by political factors. This time it is mother nature simply not allowing us to pull as much out of the ground after a cerain point in time.

(2) Methane hydrate is a solid that looks like ice, but that burns if you ignite it. It consists of methane trapped in a sort of cage of water molecules and it gets created when methane comes into contact with water under very high pressure at very low temperatures close to the freezing point of water. Nobody has any idea of where all it is, how much there is, whether it can be mined, or how it could be used—all we know is that this stuff exists.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/111704_end_oil.shtml
It basically sounds like there is no way this is economically feasible to retrieve. Where are you going to get the fossil fuel to search for it when oil production goes into decline? It also appears to be a potential enviornmental disaster to unleash into the atmosphere.

(3) Sounds like an abiotic argument. Even if oil is formed by this method, the earth isn't working fast enough for it to make any meaningful difference. These four articles do a solid job of debunking the abiotic theory.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100404_abiotic_oil.shtml
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102104_no_free_pt1.shtml
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011205_no_free_pt2.shtml
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012805_no_free_pt3.shtml

[BlueEyedSon]

4. LOL... just because some folks we don't like can make money with it

doesn't mean it isn't true.

Peak Oil will occur in this decade. You can bet on it.

Read this: http://www.financialsense.com/transcriptions/Simmons.html

Also go here: http://www.doomsdayreport.com/links.html

[localroger]

5. Ignores Economics 101

The "chicken little" Peak Oil scenario requires that you discard everything you were ever taught about economics and assume that several known and proven technologies don't exist.

The Peakers dismiss every potential alternative energy source as being too expensive and not ready for deployment, no matter how expensive oil becomes. They assume that absolutely no additional research will be done no matter how expensive oil becomes. And they assume that oil will become so expensive so quickly that normal corrective forces which govern every other economic system in the history of modern civilization will somehow cease to operate.

The Peakers also assume that no additional reserves will ever be found, despite widespread suspicions that there is a hell of a lot of yet undiscovered oil in the Gulf of Mexico in particular. In fact, several geologically inclined friends of mine believe the US has encouraged a deliberate policy of depleting the rest of the world first before we confirm just how much oil we have close at hand. That oil in the deep Gulf is expensive to drill, too expensive to justify at $20 a barrel, but not too expensive at all at $100 a barrel.

In other words, if you want to worry that oil may get expensive and stay expensive, that's valid. If you want to worry that we'll have to rethink some technology, including our massively wasteful use of transportation technology, that's valid. If you want to worry that there will be large-scale economic restructuring with a lot of job displacement and hardship, that's valid. But if you want to worry that we'll be reduced to living in caves and chasing deer across the savannah with hand-carved bow and arrows to get dinner, that's not gonna be valid for a long time.

[wli]

8. chicken littles aren't quite saying all that

The specific descriptions of the hardships are probably freaking you out. Famine, really huge masses of poverty, etc. are realistic consequences. "Civilization" breaking down is not particularly unrealistic either. None of that means a reversion to the stone age. Elites and the like will still have technology and so on, and there is no particular danger of regressing in terms of technology. Rather, the regression is expected to be social. That is, significant narrowing of the upper class, near-elimination of the middle class, and significant worsenings of the conditions of the lower classes, whose future plight is the content of the "chicken little" accounts of the effects of Peak Oil. Regressions to undemocratic forms of governance (as witnessed here in the US already) are also quite realistic and even have extremely solid evidence of already being in progress.

[lildreamer316]

10. That sig line is hilarious.

I absolutely love it.
Could you point me to research about the Gulf Of Mexico suspected reserves? If not cool I'll google. I'm really interested in what they have to say about it. Facinating stuff.

[BlueEyedSon]

12. How many ways can you be wrong? Let's count:

1. Oil has already become (more, if not absolutely) expensive more quickly than anyone has expected or likes.... more than tripled in recent years.

2. Oil demand in the US is inelastic. If you drive to work and to the mall, are going to quit and stop eating?

3. Every "alternative energy source" uses oil to manufacture, fertilize, plow, truck, smelt, build. The alternatives are fairly inefficient and are not portable.

4. In order for peak oil to occur, additional discoveries do not have to cease, but merely continue at a slower rate. We have good evidence that the mega-oilfields have already been discovered.

5. $100/bbl is not really that expensive in absolute terms (30 cents a pint?) but may kill the US economy.

6. All the "economic restructuring" will be expensive, damaging, and violent. The oilmen in the Whitehouse saw fit to invade and occupy an innocent country just because it has the wolds second largest oil reserves... coincidence?

[Burried News]

25. You need to prove #1 was driven by supply and demand as opposed

to Cartel control. Oil prices are fixed by OPEC and moved marginally by cheating (Think Oil for Peace)
Would you argue that oil going from $19 per barrel to $65 is a supply and demand example?

[BlueEyedSon]

27. Can you prove it's not?

Touche'.

[Burried News]

28. Re #2 Oil demand dropped in the 80's.

Japanese and American fuel efficient cars had a dramatic impact. Oil was so cheap they encouraged consumption - raised speed limits on highways, let suburbs grow uncontrolled, shipping goods from thousands of miles away (Nafta)

[BlueEyedSon]

30. Because the oil shocks of the 70's did (slowly) affect consumption

but you remember how fun it was waiting for your day to go fill up, right?

[Burried News]

67. Fist fights on lines sometimes a mile long, $3.00 max purchase

not enough to get back and forth to work for more than a day. The wife taking the car at 6 am in her nightgown to get gas so I could go to work. Home heating oil bill bigger than my mortgage. Bought a truck load of huge logs and a wood burning boiler - only guy in my development to be warm that winter.

You couldn't give a big car away. I bought a big plymouth wagon V8 List $4400 for $3700. It was a dog because the EPA made them advance the timing as a quick fix for pollution - no pickup but could cruise all day at 75mph. The first small cars were poor until the Japanese put the pressure on with the Datsun and VW with its diesel that got 42 mpg.

I remember. And I also was upset when we finally were getting it right and then returned to huge vehicles. The dislocation will be horrible again. But we have to cut back. We cannot be held hostage to oil no matter who controls it.

[Viking12]

36. Demand dropped in the 80s because electricity production

was shifted more heavily to to coal, dramatically reducing oil used in electricity generation.

[Burried News]

64. Didn't know that. But I know coal burning plants increased dramatically

there are some huge plants on the Georgia Coast with plans to build more because of the profitabilty (Southern Company I believe). I lived in GA Some nights on a weekends 3 or 4 mile long coal trains would go by.

They don't talk about it much because air pollution is already very bad from paper pulp production.

[markam]

87. "Oil demand in the US is inelastic"

That is not exactly true. Oil consumption dropped 13.4% between 1980 and 1983 (~5%/year). I expect that we will see at least 5% drop/year in demand over the next few years because of an extreme worldwide depression.

Of course, since production capacity will be dropping at about the same rate, you will not see much drop in price. And of course, we will never be able to get out of this depression. Our GNP will drop in direct correlation with the drop in energy consumption.

The real question is whether alternate sources of energy will be developed which will allow conditions to stabilize in 15-20 years, or will conditions keep worsening until population drops enough to stabilize things.

[Guaranteed]

23. Ehhh....there are a lot of holes in that (not meaning to be offensive)...

The basic, bottom line is that we need a cleaner, cheaper fuel. That's what's important.

The fact- and it basically is a fact- that the oil on our planet is being drained, without being renewed, leads only to one conclusion- we another source. A renewable (and, while we're at it, cleaner and cheaper) source.

There are so many reasons. The scenario you mentioned sounds maybe a little too hopeful- while not even really solving the problem, in the long run.

I'm hopeful, too, though. I'm hopeful that the greatest minds in the world can once again find the technology to move us forward, and make our planet a better place to live in.

It's the next "big" thing. It'll be beautiful, if and when we do it. I believe we can do it, too.

[sintax]

49. Sorry but your friends are wrong US is the most poked prodded explored

and by the way drying up fast country in the world. 28 billion barrels left domestically, we use 7 billion per year. Over 5 MILLION wells in US and every place has been examined with the best technology.

EXTREMELY unlikely that any significant additional reserves will be extracted. The Part's Over.
Fortunately geology doesn't adhere to the principles of the free market fundamentalists.

Global warming, not our fault
American people want BIG ASS cars

When the house is on fire set the alarm.
the house is on fire

[Burried News]

70. The land area of the continental US is well explored.

The continental shelf may have been - when they make discoveries there they keep quiet about them till they can maneuver the environmental laws in their favor because nobody wants a Louisiana situation.

"Global warming, not our fault
American people want BIG ASS cars

When the house is on fire set the alarm.
the house is on fire"

I agree, we should do it now.

[sintax]

73. the offshore wells that are being proposed

are iffy as to quantity and in hazardous waters and so freakin' deep it would barely be worth it economically even under the terms of the oil barons.

[Burried News]

79. My read is that they don't want to put them into production until they can

gut all the EPA controls that would add to their overhead. But I have seen what you say in print.

[rman]

51. Reuters: "World running out of time for oil alternatives"

Reuters
By Anna Mudeva
Thu Aug 18, 9:53 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050818/sc_nm/energy_dutch_ecn_dc

PETTEN, Netherlands (Reuters) - The world could run out of time to develop cleaner alternatives to oil and other fossil fuels before depletion drives prices through the roof, a leading Dutch energy researcher said on Thursday.

Ton Hoff, manager of the Energy Research Center of the Netherlands, said it could take decades to make alternatives affordable to the point where they can be used widely, although high oil prices were already stimulating such research.

"If we run out of fossil fuels -- by the time the oil price hits 100 dollars or plus, people will be screaming for alternatives, but whether they will be available at that moment of time -- that's my biggest worry," Hoff said.

<more>

[Strelnikov_]

60. May Want To Reconsider Your Stereotypes

I agree with your last paragraph, and I'm a peaker.

Peak oil is primarily an economic event. Peaking of conventional oil (read cheap) resources will make economic growth impossible for several decades while the economy transitions into the new economic paradigm.

However, when you look at the leadership of those in power, it is hard not to imagine Mad Max scenarios resulting from peak oil. This part of it is not Peak Oil, but politics.

[markam]

88. I had to get prepared tonight

I watched Mad Max, and then watched Waterworld. I wanted to prepare for both Peak Oil, and Global Warming.

I think I prefer the global warming future. I prefer oceans to deserts, and Jeanne Tripplehorn was hot in that movie.

[rman]

91. lol

we'll probably get both.
maybe not that much water, but still.

[billyskank]

100. There is something that bothers me about Mad Max II

Petrol is so scarce that everyone is killing each other for it, right? And yet at the same time, not only does everybody drive the biggest most bad-ass cars (with matching consumption, no doubt), but they drive like total wankers with it!

Okay, I'm overanalysing. Good film though!

[wli]

6. Enronization of oil basically

i.e. fake shortages going on right now.

The eventual running out of oil is real. There's no real hard information on actual oil reserves.

[pitohui]

16. the size of the world's oil reserves

the more we look, the more we find -- picture a map just of north america alone, the huge reserves we have in texas, oklahoma, louisiana, gulf of mexico, the country of mexico, canada, there are also untapped reserves in alaska, offshore california

now look at the globe of the entire world, & it's astounding how many reserves there are

even little countries like trinidad & tobago have a thriving oil industry

there is decades worth, maybe a century worth of oil, many centuries worth of coal, even more than this if new methods of conservation are devised

we do have time for a smooth transition to the next big thing

peak oil hysteria is price support for the oil industry & justifies the concept that it's all over now, baby, so why bother to do anything but despair


also, i believe in having "useful beliefs"

if peak oil is true, if it be too late, then it's stupid to conserve, might as well go abt selfishly enjoying what we can while we can, stupid to give myself heatstroke riding a bike in 90 degree weather when the world can't be saved anyway & all i'm doing is putting some extra cash in exxon's pocket, right?



if reserves are abundant, we have more time to devise new strategies & new inventions

the technology for solar, nuclear fusion, etc. has turned out to be far more challenging than we knew, if it's already game over, there's no hope, you see

i don't see anything good that comes from promulgating peak oil hysteria

[Canadian Socialist]

20. I am by no stretch of the imagination an expert

however, from what I do know, most of the oil left is incredibly difficult to get at. Example: the oil sands in northern Alberta. There is a lot there, however it is very expensive to drill/extract. On a slight thread drift, I think that Alberta (and Canada) should use this huge (and I mean HUGE) resource to fund alternative energy research, not just sell it to the U.S. or China at going rates. end thread drift.

[Bushwick Bill]

26. You ignore the discovery curve

"World discovery of oil peaked in the 1960s, and has declined since then. If the 40 year cycle seen in the US holds true for world oil production, that puts global peak oil production, right about now; after which oil becomes less available, and more expensive."
http://www.peakoil.com/sample/

Discoveries are basically nothing now. As of December 2004, there had not been a discovery of one oil field of 500 million barrels or more for the previous year (the planet goes through 80 million barrels per day). This means the planet is really close to peak. Basically, we may be able to get by for a couple of years between $40-$70 per barrel. After '08, the bottom likely drops out on supply.

New Oil Projects Cannot Meet World Needs This Decade
“Even with relatively low demand growth, our study indicates a seemingly unbridgeable supply-demand gap opening up after 2007,” he said.
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/schoolhouse/report.asp?id=8228

"It appears that the year 2007 will be important for oil as well as natural gas. A new study published in Petroleum Review suggests that production might not be able to keep up with demand by 2007.24 The study is a survey of mega projects (those with reserves of over 500 million barrels (Mb)) and the potential to produce over 100,000 barrels per day (Gbpd) of oil). Mega projects are important not only because they provide the bulk of world oil production, but also because they have a better net energy profile than smaller projects, and they provide a more substantial profit than smaller projects. Bear in mind that the planet consumes a billion barrels of oil (or two mega fields) every eleven and one half days.

The discovery rate for mega projects has dwindled to almost nothing. This can be seen in the data for the last few years. In 2000, there were 16 discoveries of over 500 Mb; in 2001 there were only 8 new discoveries, and in 2002 there were only 3 such discoveries.25 From first discovery to first production generally takes about 6 years. If the new project can make use of existing infrastructure, then the start up time might be cut to 4 years.

This past year (2003), 7 new mega projects were brought on stream. 2004 expects to see another 11 projects start producing. 2005 will be the peak year for bringing new projects on stream, with 18 new projects expected to be brought on stream in that year. In 2006, the pace drops back to 11 new projects. But in 2007 there are only 3 new projects scheduled to begin production, followed by 3 more in 2008. There are no new projects on track for 2009 or 2010.26 And any new mega project sanctioned now could not possibly come on stream any sooner than 2008."
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/022304_lng_shortages.html

[BlueEyedSon]

32. Yawn... please document the last discovery of any consequence....

[BlueEyedSon]

44. Heres a pic while we're waiting

Oil Discoveries v. Consumption

[rman]

53. "peak discovery" was in the 60's and 70's

ever since, discovery has declined in spite of improving technologies used in finding oil. Since the 80's we use more oil then we find.

In the mean time OPEC has admited that sweet crude has peaked:

Refinery expansions efforts needed to match evolving crude supply - Report
Vienna, 17/8/05
http://www.opec.org/home/Special%20Features/2005/Fea082005.htm

"Refinery capacity expansion plans are needed in the major consuming regions to reflect the evolving quality of global crudes if efforts to moderate crude prices and reduce oil market volatility are to be effective, according to the OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report for August. The report highlights the fact that recent production trends have resulted in a global crude slate that is heavier and sourer. At the same time, the refining sector has been slow to not only expand to meet the increasing demand but also to adapt to the changes in crude quality. The resulting constraints in the downstream sector have become a major source of upward pressure on prices."

[Burried News]

63. Perhaps they found enough easy oil to meet the demad.

It may also be based on the prices and profitability. When the profit margins are higher they do more looking? Personally I suspect they already know where more is. In the Hudson River Canyon off the coast of NJ. In the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of mexico etc.

They hold their strategy very close to their vest and have lied about reserves to manipulate their stock prices - recently a company claimed to have twice the reserves it actually had to get their stock up. Big money=very secretive.

[rman]

71. Well that's the whole point isn't it

There's no peak as long as demand can be met.

sure the peak is 'elastic', but it still is a peak.

Sure they go look for more and they will find some. But just "more" won't do - question is: how much?
Peak discovery was in the 60's and 70's, and since the 80's we find less oil then we consume - in spite of greatly improved technology.
All the easy, high-production fields are already being exploited. So whatever they will find, it will not be easy oil - meaning production capacity will be low. Oil-scale, tar-sand, heavy crude: all hard to extract, low yield, hard to refine. Low, declining production of expensive oil: that's the peak and beyond.

[Burried News]

77. I think we agree to a point. Forget oil lets talk about a real

mountain.

I see a mountain range in the distance, say from 50 miles away. I'm not sure how high it is or exactly how far away it is but I do feel myself walking uphill (higher fuel prices) and the walking is getting very difficult very fast.

In fact I am not sure it is a mountain range. It may be a plateau that goes on for many miles after you reach the top before it finally drops to sea level. And even then the drop may be gradual and not a clif.

I read Peak Oil people as saying: the ridge line is pretty close and it drops off sharpley on the other side. I am saying there is no way to know that and that the shape of the peak and how far away it is, makes all the difference.

[rman]

85. I agree that the shape of the peak is unknown,

but it is a peak, and it will drop off.
We may manage to limit the production shortfall for some time, but the oil won't be cheap. I can see $150~200/barrel 5 years down the road.
I think a strong and unstoppable decline is inevitable in 10 to 15 years at most.
If we use that time to our darnest to move to alternatives, then the damage may be limited - but i don't see us do that.

We should already have started, but politics and the mainstream media are virtually silent about it. In the public mind it is a non-issue.

Fuel prices are an issue, but that's popularly blamed on price gouging; if only the oil companies would stop gouging, our problems will be solved. I think that is dillusional.

It doesn't look good to me.

[Burried News]

86. The other thing we haven't asked.

War is oil intensive. How many weeks of a large conventional war could we fight. An oil shortage might encourage both sides to use Nuclear Weapons pretty quickly.

[rman]

90. good point

i hadn't realized it might encourage use of nuclear weapons.

[Strelnikov_]

62. "Then It's Stupid To Conserve, Might As Well Go Abt Selfishly Enjoying "

What can I say.

[Burried News]

21. Known oil fields and their reserves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_fields
I know - they are all lying.
* Algeria 1.14%
o Hassi Messaoud Field (6.4 billion)
o Rhourde El Baguel (3 billion)
* Azerbaijan .66%
o ACG mega-structure, Caspian (5.4 billion)
* Canada 21.42%
o Western Canada
+ Athabasca Tar Sands (174.5 billion)
o Newfoundland
+ Hibernia Field (0.8 billion)
+ Terra Nova Field (0.5 billion)
+ Hebron-Ben Nevis Field (0.4 billion)
+ White Rose Field (0.3 billion)
+ Garden Hill Field (0.3 billion)
* China 2.91%
o Daqing Field, Heilongjiang (16 billion)
o Shenli Field
o Tahe Field, Xinjiang (8 billion)
* Brazil .85%
o Campos Basin (7 billion)
* Iran 12.74%
o Azadegan Field (26 billion)
o Aghajari Field (14 billion)
o Ahwaz Field (17 billion)
o Gachsaran Field (15 billion)
o Marun Field (16 billion)
o Yadavaran Field (17 billion)
* Iraq 9.35%
o East Bagdad Field (11 billion)
o Majnoon Field (11-20 billion)
o Kirkuk Field (16 billion)
o Rumaila Field (20 billion)
o West Qurna Field (11-15 billion)
* Kazakhstan 3.58%
o Tengiz Field (6-9 billion)
o Karachaganak Field (2.5 billion)
o Kashagan Field, Caspian (13 billion)
o Kurmangazy Field, Caspian (6-7 billion)
* Kuwait 8.37%
o Burgan Field (66-72 billion)
* Mexico 4.37%
o Cantarell Field (15-23 billion)
o Chicontepec Field (17 billion)
* Nigeria 4.3%
o Niger Delta Field (34 billion)
o Bonga Field, offshore (1.4 billion)
* North Sea
o Norway 1.64%
+ Ekofisk oil field (2.9 billion)
+ Statfjord oil field (3.4 billion)
+ Gullfaks oil field (2.1 billion)
+ Oseberg oil field (2.2 billion)
+ Snorre oil field (1.5 billion)
+ Troll oil field (1.4 billion)
o United Kingdom ?%
+ Alba oilfield
+ Andrew oilfield
+ Beatrice oilfield
+ Brae oilfield
+ Brent oilfield
+ Bruce oilfield
+ Buzzard oilfield
+ Clair oilfield
+ Claymore oilfield
+ Forties oilfield
+ Foinaven oilfield
+ Fulmar oilfield
+ Harding oilfield
+ Piper oilfield (see also Piper Alpha)
+ Magnus oilfield
+ Schehallion oilfield
* Oman $%
o Yibal
* Qatar $%
o Dukhan Field
* Russia 6.13%
o Samotlor Field (20 billion)
o Romashkino Field (16-17 billion)
o Sakhalin Island (14 billion)
o Timan-Pechora Field (unknown)
* Saudi Arabia 25%
o Abqaiq Field (12 billion)
o Abu Safah Field
o Berri Field (12 billion)
o Faroozan-Marjan Field - completely offshore (10 billion)
o Ghawar Field (75-83 billion)
o Manifa Field (11 billion)
o Qatif Field
o Safaniya-Khafji Field, Neutral Zone (30 billion)
o Shaybah Field - completely offshore (7 billion)
* United Arab Emirates 1.46%
o Umm Shaif Field, Abu Dhabi
o Zakum Field, Abu Dhabi (12 billion)
* United States 2.55%
o Mid-continent Oil Field, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas (7.1 billion)
o Prudhoe Bay, Alaska (12 billion)
o Wilmington Oil Field, California (0.3 billion)
o Atlantis Oil Field, Gulf of Mexico (0.6 billion)
o Thunder Horse Field, Gulf of Mexico (1 billion)
* Venezuela .21%
o Bolivar Coastal Field
o Boscán Field, Venezuela
o Orinoco tar sands (1.7 billion)

[BlueEyedSon]

47. There were about 3 trillion bbls to start, we have used 1.5 trillion

and there are 1.5 trillion left. Sounds like peak oil to me.

That list includes "tar sands".... yuck!

[rman]

66. Global consumption: ~30 billion barrels / year and rising.

And production capacity will decline once past the half-way point (which is the basic cause of peakoil).

Numbers on cummulative consumption and proven reserves show we are at the half-way point just about now.

[sintax]

72. Tar Sands are a net energy loser and environmental catastrophe

[Burried News]

78. I don't know if that is true but let's say it is - I know it consumes more

that a traditional well. It can still be reasonable to use hydroelectric nuclear or hydrothermal to extract oil there. You would do it because oil itself has a portability that the others don't an an automotive technology already built around it.

Should you do it. I've been to that area I don't want to see it touched.

[BlueEyedSon]

98. ERoEI. Energy is (mostly) fungible.

[Guaranteed]

22. It HAS to be "for real." It's not a renewable resource.

In any case, as an article in LBN has stated, our infrastructure isn't set up to handle the exponential increase in oil use that we're seeing.

Even if it was, *environmentally*, are we OK with allowing the use of nasty, unclean fuel increasing at an exponential rate?

We need an alternative fuel source. It's the next Manhattan Project, and it will change the world, for the better.

Bigger than the Moon.

[Burried News]

24. You might not like the source but a good discussion of Abiotic Oil

That is oil that did not come from living things that died.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200406090816.asp
"However, in the 1950s, Russian and Ukrainian scientists developed a new theory about petroleum’s origins called the abiotic or abiogenic theory. According to this view, oil is fundamentally inorganic and has no relationship to dead plant or animal life. Rather, oil originates deep in the Earth’s crust from inorganic material that is part of the planet’s origin.

In the words of geologist Vladimir Porfir’yev, “The overwhelming preponderance of geological evidence compels the conclusion that crude oil and natural gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the Earth. They are primordial materials which have erupted from great depths.”

For more than 50 years, Russian and Ukrainian scientists have successfully used the abiotic theory to find oil and natural gas. For example, the Dnieper-Donets Basin has yielded a significant amount of oil and natural gas even though it is an area that conventional biological theories reject as unpromising. A recent technical paper found that the results “confirm the scientific conclusions that the oil and natural gas found in … the Dnieper-Donets Basin are of deep, and abiotic, origin.”

As Russia has opened up since the fall of the Soviet Union, and because it has become a large and growing factor in the international oil market, American scientists are becoming increasingly knowledgeable about and interested in the abiotic theory of petroleum. Recently, the National Academy of Sciences published a paper on the topic. The Gas Research Institute has financed exploration based on abiotic theories, with encouraging results. And the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has taken an interest in the subject as well."

[BlueEyedSon]

33. LOL.. there is no "good discussion" of abiotic oil, it's all fiction. nt

[Burried News]

35. Evidence please

Here's mine. There were no Dinosaurs on Titan.
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.cfm
Please note we have landed on Titan and sampled the organic compounds in the atmosphere on the way down. See all those black areas - organics.
The reason why we had to land there is the atmosphere is mostly methane and we couldn't see the surface clearly because of smog - same stuff that comes out of your tailpipe when you are blowing smoke.
See you around.

[Viking12]

46. Nice try though

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap950923.html

Explanation: The largest moon of Saturn is a rare wonder. Titan is the only one of Saturn's moons with an atmosphere, and one of only two moons in the Solar System with this distinction (Neptune's Triton is the other). Titan's thick cloudy atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, like Earth's, but contains much higher percentages of "smog-like" chemicals such as methane and ethane. The smog may be so thick that it actually rains "gasoline-like" liquids. The organic nature of some of the chemicals found in Titan's atmosphere cause some to speculate that Titan may harbor life! Because of its thick cloud cover, however, Titan's actual surface properties remain mysterious. Voyager 1 flew by in 1980 taking the above picture, and recently much has been learned from Hubble Space Telescope observations. The Cassini mission currently scheduled for launch in 1997 will map Titan's surface, helping to solve some of its mysteries.

"Smog-like", "gasoline-like", and "organic nature" aren't exactly statements of certitude.

[Burried News]

52. Your source is 1995. Cassini is at Saturn now.

And the lander sampled a few months ago. 2005.
Check the link. Nice try though.
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/image-details.cfm?imageID=1303

[Viking12]

56. Carbon compunds inTitan's atmosphere is not proof of abiotic oil on earth

Speculation is not evidence. Again, nice try.

Methane can be created and used industrially by chemical reactions such as the Sabatier process, Fischer-Tropsch process, and steam reforming. Similar gases and materials are often present in geologic and volcanic processes.

[Burried News]

69. Yes. We agree. Thanks for the names - didn't know that.

"Methane can be created and used industrially by chemical reactions such as the Sabatier process, Fischer-Tropsch process, and steam reforming. Similar gases and materials are often present in geologic and volcanic processes."

[Burried News]

37. I assume your presentation of evidence is over.

[BlueEyedSon]

38. BTW: Venus is closer.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=abiotic+oil&btnG=Google+Search

[Burried News]

41. And this place is farther. There is methane there.

It didn't get there from cow farts neither.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050810.html

[BlueEyedSon]

42. Methane is not oil

shoulda payed more attention in chem class....
and i think i meant mars (oops, i shoulda in astronomy!)

[Burried News]

54. When you get hot water from your heater do you care if it

is burning oil or gas?
And if it is a car you have in mind - have you seen the cars the gas companies drive or the fork lifts at your local Lowes - gas.

But if you have to have oil squeeze methane and heat it (with some other methane if you like) and with a platinum catalyst and you can make any organic you like.

Like I said Good Night. Gracefully or not you lost.

[rman]

59. wouldn't you want to be the arbiter of your own game.

but you are not.

[Burried News]

74. Of course not. And the comment was not made to you.

I comment to you, you link back. That's a game. Look at the exchanges I don't think you will see that in the other case. Talking past me and heckling is a forfeit, and not appreciated. It would have been best to just say Good Night. Good Night.

[rman]

76. link back?

i was just commenting. a bit heckling perhaps, but no game.

good night

[Burried News]

80. Heckling was another poster.

The interchanges with you were fine and appreciated.

The 'you lose' comment was directed at someone who just wanted to make statements without justifying them or linking to a source that proved their point. I don't see the point of that kind of interaction. He lost an opportunity to learn or teach.

Having only a keyboard made this a hard discussion. I kept wishing I could just draw a hill and explain diagramatically. Night again.

[rman]

89. graph:

This is just one possible scenario, it can be used as reference.

In this graph the middle east has plateau-ed since ~2002. That may or may not be entirely accurate. What i do know is that OPEC has increased output by 300,000 barrels/day 1 or 2 weeks ago, but past week announced that it won't increase output in the future. As i point out elsewhere in this thread, OPEC has in so many words admitted that sweet crude has peaked.
I think the graph is pretty close to what's actually happening.

[Beam Me Up]

29. I used to be a peak oil believer. But now I have my doubts.

Where does water come from?

That may be a completely irrelevant question. Then again, perhaps not. We've been educated to believe that crude oil has a biological source and, indeed, perhaps it does. But clearly there are a lot of minerals in this planet that DO NOT have a biological source. I don't want to get into a biological vs abiological pissing contest with any one. I am not a scientist and do not know how to evaluate these things.

However, there are a couple things I do see: 1) The oil companies have a stake in our believing that oil is a limited resource. They want centralized control of the energy markets -- which is why the do not support the changeover from 'non renewable oil' to more 'renewable' energy sources. The latter invariably mean DECENTRILIZATION of energy production and distribution. In other words, their focus isn't so much on the oil itself but on the ENERGY MARKETS. THAT is what they want to control in order to retain their global economic and strategic hegemony. 2) They (big corporations, government, etc.) lie to us about EVERYTHING.

[Deja Q]

107. Possibly. But we are still using more than what exists... and WORSE,

our country is being re-engineered to make us destitute and poor and more inclined to enlist or die; both of which are the same thing these days. We fight to protect THEIR freedom; which is to screw us over.

Nice.

[Beam Me Up]

115. No argument with that.

They seem to have it all worked out while we 'peons' run around like headless chickens under a falling sky.

Meanwhile, mother Earth has her own ideas, I don't doubt.

The imperative is this: Either we manifest a new global consciousness, and I mean QUICKLY, or we perish. One way or another, the human race has to become RESPONSIBLE for its own future.

[Burried News]

31. Electrical conduction without heat loss.

Superconductors are materials that can carry enormous amounts of electricity without energy loss. Presently something like 65% of generator output is lost to heat. If the wires in the generators and the transmission lines are superconducting you triple current generating capacity.

The catch - the wires have to be very cold - the good news, new composit superconductors have much higher temperature tolerance. The science is evolving very quickly because supercomputing allows electron flow in various structures to be modeled. The breakthrough comes when the temperature of liquid Nitrogen is enough to achieve superconduction because we routinely produce and use liquid nitrogen in industry now. There is no theoretical barrier to superconductivity at room temperature.

If anything close to that is achieved magnetically levitated high speed trains, including freight trains, will be practicable. The only friction they will experience is air resistance. Bottom line - large energy savings.

[rman]

55. Never mind the time scale in which that can be realized.

Yhe question is not whether or not alternatives are possible - so you can save your breath on that.
The question is, can we switch to alternatives in time?


World running out of time for oil alternatives
Reuters
By Anna Mudeva
Thu Aug 18, 9:53 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050818/sc_nm/energy_dutch_ecn_dc

PETTEN, Netherlands (Reuters) - The world could run out of time to develop cleaner alternatives to oil and other fossil fuels before depletion drives prices through the roof, a leading Dutch energy researcher said on Thursday.

Ton Hoff, manager of the Energy Research Center of the Netherlands, said it could take decades to make alternatives affordable to the point where they can be used widely, although high oil prices were already stimulating such research.

"If we run out of fossil fuels -- by the time the oil price hits 100 dollars or plus, people will be screaming for alternatives, but whether they will be available at that moment of time -- that's my biggest worry," Hoff said.

"That's why we need to use fossil fuels in a more efficient way to have some more time to develop these alternatives up to a level where the robustness is guaranteed and their price has come down ... This could take decades for some technologies."

[Burried News]

61. I agree in the time frame you are using say 10 years none of these

alternatives can be put on line. But is that the question - when oil goes to a $100 per barrel do you think it will be because we are running out?

From an environmental standpoint I think we should work very hard now to cut back on oil and go to alternatives where no combustion is involved.
I am not arguing to consume more oil. All I am saying is that there is plenty of it and the prices you see are the result of someone controlling prices.

Secondarily, the only way to put pressure on those controlling oil is to consume less of it. That also is a very good thing to do.

Bottom line there is not a shortage of energy reserves. Subscribing to Peak Oil simply lets those controlling oil hide what it is they are doing. I'm not sure why they bother because they seem to have the power to do whatever they want anyway?

[rman]

65. "when oil goes to a $100 per barrel"

I think the current trend of price growth is either a direct result of, or a pre-emptive response to peakoil. And i think it is not unlikely to continue till $100 and over. I'll go on the record predicting price will arrive at $100/barrel in 2007. Also it is likely global peak production will arrive within 10 years.

Sweet crude already has peaked and oil companies are moving to heavy crude - for which they lack refinery capacity.


Refinery expansions efforts needed to match evolving crude supply - Report
Vienna, 17/8/05
http://www.opec.org/home/Special%20Features/2005/Fea082005.htm

"Refinery capacity expansion plans are needed in the major consuming regions to reflect the evolving quality of global crudes if efforts to moderate crude prices and reduce oil market volatility are to be effective, according to the OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report for August. The report highlights the fact that recent production trends have resulted in a global crude slate that is heavier and sourer. At the same time, the refining sector has been slow to not only expand to meet the increasing demand but also to adapt to the changes in crude quality. The resulting constraints in the downstream sector have become a major source of upward pressure on prices."
<more>

[Burried News]

34. Oil from coal.

Nazi germany ran its war machine on this technology after they were denied Caucasus Oil. The war machine died because the road and rail network became unusable. The process was expensive but it worked. The coal reserves of the United States exceed the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Gasification of Coal
http://www.australiancoal.com.au/cleantechAus.htm
"An Ultra Clean Coal (UCC) technology and process to produce an ultra low ash solid fuel for direct firing in gas turbines is currently being piloted in Australia.

The UCC technology and process is being developed by UCC Energy Pty Limited, a wholly owned R&D subsidiary of White Mining Limited, in co-operation with the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) and is supported by both the Federal and State Governments.

The patented technology is well developed and has many environmental advantages including greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, minimal ash disposal and potentially cheaper electricity production. (Pictured: General view of the UCC pilot plant, Cessnock NSW.)

By definition, ultra clean coals are coals with less than 1% ash. The CSIRO/Whites UCC process is producing a new clean solid fuel with ash levels between 0.1% and 0.2%. The UCC process uses alkali/acid digestion to dissolve the minerals out of the coal under moderate temperature and pressure conditions, without the loss of coal properties.

UCC, although based on coal, is not a substitute for conventional coal in conventional power generating systems; its major application is in areas where conventional coal cannot be used. It is an alternative for heavy fuel oil and gas. UCC is cost competitive with these fuels on an equal energy basis.

When UCC is directly fired into a gas turbine, it is estimated that thermal efficiency is increased from around 38% for a conventional coal fired power station to approximately 53% with direct injection of UCC into a gas turbine with combined cycle. In addition a UCC fired gas turbine combined cycle power plant is more amenable to locating close to the electricity users than is the case for conventional coal fired generators, and this opens the possibility of reaching overall energy conversion efficiencies of close to 60%."

[BlueEyedSon]

40. Cost is factor uno (liquid fossil fuels are generally cheaper)

the release of greenhouse gasses and particulates are next. Do we really WANT to burn all that coal?

Oh, BTW, does anyone here know if coal is abiotic too?

[Burried News]

45. The coal is biotic as the fossil record shows.

Since coal can be made into oil we will have oil and as a byproduct all the coal tars we need for polymers, plastics and other oil based products. The only issue is price and that will not be set by production costs or supply and demand that will be set by a Cartel. So my read is you need to talk to the people at Carlyle or Bilderberg. Good Night

[rman]

106. not only price is an issue,

production capacity is an issue as well.

[rman]

57. yeah, nice and cheap to

Like oil scale and tar-sand...

[JohnyCanuck]

39. New online presentation on Peak Oil by geologist Colin Campbell

http://tinyurl.co.uk/blgp

It's in slide show format with audio commentary by Campbell (not sure how good it is on dial up). The first few slides go by slowly, but after that it speeds up to a more normal speed. You don't have to click anything to page through the slides it just runs automatically.

You can read more about it here:
http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/Society/Free_Peak_Oil_presentation_made_available_online_34360.html

Edited to ad: Looks like it is a Flash presentation so you'll need to have the Macromedia Flash software installed on your PC
http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash

[JanMichael]

43. Because crackpot sites say that the Earth is producing oil as fast as...

...we're consuming it?

Apparently oil is magically reappearing in old wells (No mention that old well may have missed some oil or may not have drlled deep enough in the first place).

I imagine you'll hear that.

[Burried News]

50. I didn't mention that because I do not know if it is true or not.

But when you see how dynamic continental plates are and the tremendous pressure they produce it is chemically possible for carbonates (CaCO3) and water (H2O) to produce CH4 and from there other organics. The quantities would be huge but whether they feed into existing chambers seems unpredicatable. Russian science can be very good especially their theoretical science which is remarkably open minded and innovative. I don't summarily dismiss them.

Don't forget they were very successful at producing gemstone quality artificial diamonds. An area we don't like to talk about because it would undercut the DeBeers Cartel - read Rothschild and the British Crown. So there is precedent for a Cartel to cover up facts when it is in their interest. That is what is happening with "Peak Oil Mumbo Jumbo".

Peak Oil=Snake Oil

[buddysmellgood]

48. Because the center of the Earch warps space and time. It if filled with

an infinite volume of oil that will last forever. Oil wells never really go dry. They fake the death of an oil well so that they can drive the price up and then they announce a subtle twist or technique to get more oil out and boom, they are back in business. Oil is forever. We can have as much as we want for however long as we want, no matter where it is or what the cost.

[Burried News]

58. Chemical composition of Titan's atmosphere as measured

by Cassini probe. Note all the organics without any living creatures to produce them.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=31187
ethane CH4

1-6
Minor Constituents parts per million
Hydrogen H2

2000
Hydrocarbons

Ethane
C2H6

20

Acetylene
C2H2

4

Ethylene
C2H4

1

Propane
C3H8

1

Methylacetylene
C3H4

0.03

Diacetylene
C4H2

0.02
Nitrogen Compounds

Hydrogen Cyanide
HCN

1

Cynaogen
C2N2

0.02

Cyanoacetylene
HC3N

0.03

Acteonitrile
CH3CN

0.003

[rman]

68. nice but what about earth

Abiotic oil isn't even a proper theory since there's no verified evidence for it; it has not been found.

[Burried News]

82. For all we know we are using abiotic oil right now.

Oil has no markers (as far as I know) like DNA or RNA in it that reveal it to have once come from a plant or animal.

The point about abiotic oil is that it is something that could exist at deeper depths than we now drill and in different rock formations that were thought to be obligatory.

Previously the thinking was that oil can only come from living things, therefor once you drill down past fossil layers (sedimentary rock) there is no possibility of finding more oil. That means roughly speaking it is a surface phenomenon.

What abiotic oil means is that this is not true. Very deep drilling or drilling where the crust is very thin (deep ocean) may reveal enormous deposits of oil. Exploring near volcanoes and hydrothermal vent may be profitable. In fact alot of areas that years ago a geologist would have said it is crazy to drill in such and such a place because there is no sedimentary rock needs to be re-examined.

[rman]

92. "may reveal"

for the time being, we are running out. (see OPEC admitting that sweet crude has peaked).

For the most part the thinking still is that oil is of biological origin. Abiotic oil theory has very little support.

[bpilgrim]

93. you hang your hat on a lot of maybes

yet so confidently, reminds me of the neoCONs in their run up to the iraq war.

peace

[BlueEyedSon]

94. No markers?

Ostracods provide one of the most complete and consistent fossil records of any animal. They appear in the Cambrian, diversify in the Ordivician and are most abundant in the Silurian. They have been studied extensively by micropaleontologists because they are small and easy to obtain. Fossil remains generally consist of the carapace only making fossil forms difficult to compare to living animals. By studying their location and the condition of the carapace, researchers are able to determine water depth, salinity, sedimentation, temperature and other paleoecological factors from when the fossils were living. They are used extensively by the oil industry to indicate potential oil reserves. Sometime ostracod deposits are so extensive they form rocks referred to as coquinas which are often used for building. Coquinas are soft, light colored limestones that are made up of the mineralized remains of animals such as ostracod carapaces, broken shells, coral, and algal remains. The white cliffs of Dover in England are a good example of this type of rock.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/arthropoda/crustacea/maxillopoda/ostracodafr.html

[Burried News]

103. Has oil ever been found when these aren't present?

[BlueEyedSon]

97. I have a dragon in my garage.

[Burried News]

104. Komodo? Be sure to brush his teeth regularly. Bad Bite.

[BlueEyedSon]

102. If you understood the processes that created these componds

you will know why they could not be happening inside the earth.

[Burried News]

105. They use to say you couldn't make diamonds until GE had a

better idea. Then they said you could never make them to gem quality.
http://www.gateway2russia.com/st/art_260743.php

First google hit - a little too much rah rah for me but good enough for the discussion at hand.

[BlueEyedSon]

110. Whatever, dude. I guess since Edison invented "light without fire"

and a "talking machine", anything is possible....

:sarcasm:

[clu]

75. price fixing concerns?

Nationalize it... I would have no problem paying current prices or more if the proceeds funded alternative energy development instead of stockholder profits.

[Burried News]

83. There is a thread from two or three days ago about Nationalizing

Oil. It was quite good. Most posters - myself included, agreed with you.

[BlueEyedSon]

95. Nationalize what? The resource is not in the US and all the corporations

involved are multinational.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. Let's see. The Earth isn't round, so it's not a finite sphere

therefore, a resource that we have to pump OUT of the GROUND could, conceivably, NEVER run out.

That's all I can come up with, actually.

[autorank]

84. It's a truism...it also will help Big Oil. It presumes a limited pie...

...and if you like pie, that's a big problem. There's this thing called innovation, "necessity is the mother of invention."

We have to run out of oil, the question is when. Probably soon thanks to the progress China and India are making (and oh, they're so excited about becoming dominant powers) and the demands for oil.

Of course, my good friend Mr. Toad, the very act of industrialization by two trillion people with oil, even if we run out, will doom the planet.

So, sit back, light up a big cigar, and enjoy the show...unless, of course, someone comes along with some bright ideas very quickly.

[BlueEyedSon]

96. Innovation cannot create energy. But it sounds like you do agree

with a peak scenario ("We have to run out of oil, the question is when").

In fact Peak Oil doesn't claim that oil will run out.... most analysts agree that it never will actually run out. When the cost (in energy) to pull a barrel of oil up out of the ground exceeds the energy in that oil, we will just leave it there (ERoEI < 1).

[billyskank]

101. Well that limit might as well define "running out," then

for any practical purposes.

[autorank]

109. I agree that we will be extremely pressed and that oil will be like gold

except more valuable. You're right, innovation won't power anything but the product of innovation will. I'm amazed at the grand total of nothing that's going on in this area. I know that some people are working on various alternatives but this calls for something well beyond the space program, massive investment. In this scenario, throwing money at a problem will actually help if it's a diverse enough selection of alternatives. It's just pathetic that a) there is no recognition of the coming crunch and b) there is no mega effort by the Feds. Geez, my state, Virginia, looks to the future. It seriously funds nano technology research in hopes that this will be a center for that new technology. We'd do fuel too if we had the $$$'s but that's a national issue.

We agree, I'm just very optimistic that given financial and ego incentives, the 40% of Americans who still believe in science will produce some people to get the job done.

[Igel]

108. "Peak oil" is a messy idea.

First, it presumes all the horrible consequences. If we realized today we didn't need petroleum and stopped pumping all oil, oil production would have reached a peak. We'd all yawn over it. It's likely that as oil becomes more scarce, it will be husbanded in different ways and societies will adapt in a non-catastrophic manner, diverting it for the most pressing needs: the production curve tail's shape is all-important, and is very unlikely to be sharply negative. But 'peak oil' for many people here obligatorily entails the nasty consequences: they tend to fall back to a literal, petroleum engineer's meaning just to be able to say they're not wrong--but minutes later are back to ranting about the horrible consequences. They're actually arguing something that's not really likely to be crucially important, which makes me wonder why they get distraught over it. Their emotion isn't meaningless.

Second, there will most certainly be a peak in the amount of oil we pump from the ground: they're not wrong. It is a finite resource. Whether that happens now or in 50 years is a matter that we ultimately don't know: there are undoubtedly still unknown oil fields and technologies to enhance recovery of oil. Is the sky falling? Dunno. Ask me in a decade if the sky was falling in 2005. The best thing the oil companies can do with their profits isn't dole them out to pension funds and other share holders, but invest them in technologies and exploration. I'm not optimistic about that. (Their CEOs' salaries are a trivial drop in a large bucket.)

Third, to believe something is true it isn't necessary just to prove it "could" be for real. It's necessary to show that it's true beyond any significant doubt--you get to define 'significant'. And it's frequently hard to disprove an assertion. One can only come forward with arguments to show that the arguments in support aren't conclusive or valid, or that the conclusion is inconsistent with other known facts.

[rman]

111. "there are undoubtedly still unknown oil fields" - sure, but how much?

And what quality?

Peak discovery was in the 60's and 70's, and ever since the 80's we're using more oil then we find - in spite of ever increasing technology.

OPEC has pretty much admitted that sweet crude has peaked, and that most of the existing refineries can not deal with the heavier crude that oil companies are now forced to extract. Both extraction and refinery of lower quality oil is more expensive, and production is low compared to that of sweet crude as found in the mega fields (which are now past production peak).



OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report Aug.05
Refinery expansions efforts needed to match evolving crude supply - Report
Vienna, 17/8/05
http://www.opec.org/home/Special%20Features/2005/Fea082005.htm

"Refinery capacity expansion plans are needed in the major consuming regions to reflect the evolving quality of global crudes if efforts to moderate crude prices and reduce oil market volatility are to be effective, according to the OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report for August. The report highlights the fact that recent production trends have resulted in a global crude slate that is heavier and sourer. At the same time, the refining sector has been slow to not only expand to meet the increasing demand but also to adapt to the changes in crude quality. The resulting constraints in the downstream sector have become a major source of upward pressure on prices."

<more>

[misanthrope]

113. Beg to differ...

..."It's likely that as oil becomes more scarce, it will be husbanded in different ways and societies will adapt in a non-catastrophic manner..." History does not bear this out. When a resource dwindles, humans react violently and selfishly.

[Igel]

116. They can.

They don't always. Depends how the resource dwindles, to be honest, and how intelligent people can be about it. Usually when resources dwindles, it dwindles very quickly indeed.

Such planning is where I become very non-populist, and at best marginally small-d democratic.

[rman]

117. For the time being, PO is being ignored, for the most part.

It doesn't look like people are being very intelligent about it.

[misanthrope]

112. Because if it's "real"...

...then it makes it harder to live our days in oblivious denial.

Oil is finite.

Our entire culture and society is now based upon cheap petroleum.

Where's the misunderstanding?