peak oil my bottom

Think about, there hasn't been enough 'dino dung' in the entire history of the world to produce the amount of oil we've already burnt up. Yet there still finding massive reservse.
Tell people it's running out and you can keep prices nice a high. That also another reason to keep new energy sources locked away. It would effect profit and so long as you can keep people reliant on oil you can control them.

One mans view on the peak oil scam.
davesweb.cnchost.com...

Russian evidance that oil is a RENEWABLE fuel:
www.vialls.com...

[edit on 10-4-2005 by cassini]

Peak oil is certainly not a scam. Although you are right, we haven't even come close to burning up half of the oil in the world. However Peak oil means we have reached the peak of economically extractable oil. From now on there will be less and less oil that is extractable at an economically viable and energy efficient manner. There are many fields even in the United States that are deemed empty but still contain millions of barrels, the problem is that to extract the oil the cost in money and eberygy would be too steep, at some estimates one barrel of oil extracted would cost 3-4 barrels of oil consumed in the extraction, plus the costs of production which are always large at the best of times.

But according to the Russian research the oil fields we have now are filling up again. So all you have to do is use them in a crop rotation system. True we have to learn not to use so much.
I have yet to find any evidance that oganic matter can even produce oil. Has anyone ever tried, in a lab, to recreate the effects they claim produces oil using some organic matter?

Its my opinion that the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation is the biggest proof of Peak Oil around. Sure other issues are involved like rich men getting big government contracts for the war and being the war dog of our dear friends in Israel, but to me the war seems like such a desperate action that oil had to be the primary factor, not tertiary. The saber rattling at Iran and to some degree, Venezuela also appear to be oil based as well.

[edit on 10-4-2005 by Frith]

I am sorry to say, oil fields don't refill themselves. Or if they do it would certainly take millions of years. I don't know where you got your sources from, or what idiocy they proclaim, but it is dead wrong.

jawapunk
Can you prove that the oil field are not refilling? Don't quote some research from people that have reputation to protect by saying oil is a fossil fuel and will run out. The research that is based on is 100 years old. You need to wake up to the fact that oil could well be a natural substence that is made deep within the Earth. Next you'll be telling me the Earth is flat because that's what the '"Science community" say is the truth.

It is true I cannot prove that the fields are refilling, all I ask is that you open your mind to the possablity.

Abiotic theory would be nice but there is no proof that it even exists. I dont know about you but I try and work in the realm of the proven rather on that of the cross my fingers and pin it to my ass.

Abiotic thread right here in Peak Oil ATS
Another article on abiotic theory
Yet another abiotic theory article, this time by a geologist

Show us your proof that states abiotic theory is correct please.

I quote myself here

It is true I cannot prove that the fields are refilling, all I ask is that you open your mind to the possablity.

Well I am opening my mind to the possiblity, and NO, it still doesn't work that way. It is a nice fanciful theory though, kind of like a flat earth.

Originally posted by Britman
jawapunk
Can you prove that the oil field are not refilling? Don't quote some research from people that have reputation to protect by saying oil is a fossil fuel and will run out. The research that is based on is 100 years old. You need to wake up to the fact that oil could well be a natural substence that is made deep within the Earth. Next you'll be telling me the Earth is flat because that's what the '"Science community" say is the truth.

It is true I cannot prove that the fields are refilling, all I ask is that you open your mind to the possablity.

Let's be fair here.

Firstly, the earth actually is a sphere as we all know - it's been proven!

I study geology at university, one of my modules is petrology where we look at things such as oil exploration; where oil is likely to form and how it is formed - though this is not exactly known yet!

So far, however, all research evidence suggests that oil is derived from the remains of buried plants and animals, just as coal is. Oil fields may give the impression that they are re-filling - as oil is lighter than rocks it tends to rise, trickling upward through fractures and porous bedding planes eventually getting trapped beneath shales and whanot. It is resonable to assume that this is the case given what we know already!

It is not resonable to assume that oil fields re-fill themselves as this contradicts what we already know! I'm sorry but it's bollocks.

Remember, peak oil is not the issue of oil running out, it is the fact that many fields will become uneconomically viable in the near future, when this is the case with all fields we will have to find a new source of energy unless our drilling and extration techniques dramatically improve, even then we still have to appreciate that oil reserves, one day will be exhausted!

The geological issues aside, it is pretty obvious that peak oil is an issue, I believe George Bush once said;

This administration is concerned about [the energy crisis] and we will make a recommendation to the country as how to proceed [1]

If we fail to act, out country will become more reliant on foriegn crude oil, putting our nations energy security into the hands of foreign nations, some of whom do not share our interests [2]

[1] "Remarks by president in photo oppurtunity after meeting with national energy policy development groups", March 19, 2001, www.whitehouse.gov

[2] "Remarks by George W. Bush to Capital City Partnership, ", May 17, 2001, www.whitehouse.gov

P.S. Wow, my first post!

People still believe what the governments tell them. It's so cute.

(keep up the free thinking Britman )

[edit on 4-10-2005 by ShadowHasNoSource]

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
People still believe what the governments tell them. It's so cute.

(keep up the free thinking Britman

)

[edit on 4-10-2005 by ShadowHasNoSource]

Of course you are referencing to my GW. Bush quote.

Firsly, the geological evidence speaks for itself.

Secondly, I'm all for free thinking as long as it produces rational, sound arguments, not a load of rubbish.

Thirdly, do you honestly believe that everything your government tells you is in an effort to decieve you, 1984 stylee? If so, you then you are the naive one.

Look at the big picture here. America needs oil, they have admitted that it is a national security matter, hence they need to secure other resources (in the Persian Gulf). What they do is this:

1. Find a seemingly valid reason to occupy Iraq (terrorism)
2. Do it.
3. Lots of oil for all.

Of course the war on terror is a load of rubbish (there is a minimal terrorist threat) having said that, as America now occupy portions of Iraq they are stirring up hatred for the West as we speak. Georgie can't make an out right claim that they are invading Iraq for the oil, now that would be ridiculus, insead they have attempted to create a shroud round the whole war effort.

Ask yourself, if there are still loads of American oil reserves, why the hell did America attack Iraq if they have nothing to gain from it (as they already have lots of oil and peak-oil is a load of rubbish). Just think how much America is spending on the war (UK too), they must be doing it for something and the only logical reason is oil.

[edit on 4/10/2005 by InTuneToDoom]

Admittedly, all I do is read quasi-conspiratorial news sites; however, if Iraq was about extracting oil for Amercian use, then it seems they have failed. There is talk of the Haifa pipeline being open and protected with oil flowing through Israel. As for the other installations, well, they are either blown up or use out dated 70s technology which is in dire need of maintenance. I think this was due to the embargo on Iraq and when saddam chose to nationalise his oil industry.
The iraqi oil output is just a trickle because of this.

Iraq does have a lot of potential oil because of this embargo. Perhaps there was a long-term strategic goal here. Or perhaps the politicians are only out to make a buck through their restructuring program. Maybe they are also trying to keep the American economy afloat with thses contracts? Who knows? I don't know where the money trail goes, do you?

Originally posted by subz
Abiotic thread right here in Peak Oil ATS
Another article on abiotic theory
Yet another abiotic theory article, this time by a geologist

In addition to the links provided above here is a three part series debunking the theory of abiotic oil:

No Free Lunch, Part 1: A Critique of Thomas Gold's Claims for Abiotic Oil
No Free Lunch, Part 2: If abiotic oil exists, where is it?
No Free Lunch, Part 3 of 3: Proof

If you want to debunk the debunkers I think you have your work cut out for you.
.

Thanks for posting some good links there to show our side of the argument. Other than that "Our governments" are not the one telling us that oil is running out, it is the scientific community and oil companies themselves freely admit that the end of commercially viable oil is within sight.

If we were to believe what the government was sayig then I'd still believe that the price of oil was still up because of the war on terror, that they even blamed a hurricane last lyear in the Gulf of Mexico on high oil prices. What they just WON"T admit is that demand has outstripped supply by a large margin and from now on that margin will only grow unless people start to change over to renewable technologies and energy sources.

I don't see how this can be construed as unfree thought. If anything, not admitting that we are nearing an energy crisis would be a closed minded comment. Can't you just open YOUR minds over these facts?

This is interesting, an argument over whether oil fields refill. I you said, it's because the oil is trickling back in or perculating up, you are on the right track. It took too long to turn what was one the Garden of Eden to the oil we burn today. Data shows that this place was lush green at one time, more then likely the air was different and supported plants in a lot more places than today. Bury this stuff for a long time and the other chemicals seperate leaving behind this black goo.

How to help the oil out of the nooks and crannies to where it can be pumped to the surface only to be burned in your SUV. Theres some companies around that make a special ceramic pellet that withstand a lot of pressure. Pump these little suckers down into the well under enomous pressure then release the pressure. The pellets (proppants) stay in place holding the fissures open for the oil to flow. It's not magic, just science! The source is limited and we will more than likely be fighting over it for a while.

rockproducts.com...

Originally posted by Britman
I have yet to find any evidance that oganic matter can even produce oil. Has anyone ever tried, in a lab, to recreate the effects they claim produces oil using some organic matter?

Why yes, they have, and successfully I might add. Unfortunately it expends more energy that it gains.

Anything Into Oil: Tech turning waste into oil

Perhaps the vast interior of the earth is full of microbes that eventually become oil. Here's to crossing your fingers!


[edit on 11-4-2005 by Seth76]

This report/article from EnergyBulletin.net may be of interest?

There is no way to conclusively prove that no petroleum is of abiotic origin. Science is an ongoing search for truth, and theories are continually being altered or scrapped as new evidence appears. However, the assertion that all oil is abiotic requires extraordinary support, because it must overcome abundant evidence, already cited, to tie specific oil accumulations to specific biological origins through a chain of well-understood processes that have been demonstrated, in principle, under laboratory conditions.

The “Abiotic Oil” Controversy

And this:
CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT RECENT PREDICTIONS OF IMPENDING SHORTAGES OF PETROLEUM EVALUATED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MODERN PETROLEUM SCIENCE.

I would not totally dismiss the idea or theory of Abiotic Oil, but taken within the whole context of the inevitable oil crisis, it is not the counter to Peak Oil. I would assume that we [the world] are consuming more than the earth is replenishing.





seekerof

I would assume that we [the world] are consuming more than the earth is replenishing.

ding ding ding, Seekerof hits the important nail on the head. Our rate of consumption keeps going up, and eventually even if oil did replenish itslef as the Abiotic theory goes, its still going to fall short of what we need just to get by. Not to mention that even if it does replenish we still should move away from it as a source of power for our vechiles, the pollution doesnt help anyone, not to mention it would be just alot more economical to fuel up less and drive farther.

I think that one of the most important things about the Abiotic Oil vs. Peak Oil debate is that, as with any issue involving the interests of industry and corporatism, the bottom line is money. It always has and always will be about the money.

One of the most common charges levelled against Peak Oil theory is that it is propagated by oil companies to justify price rises in oil and thus greatly increase their revenues, eventually possibly holding the industrial world to ransom with exorbitant oil prices. I don't believe that it is a scare story, especially not one that a sane oil company would use.

Now I will not refute the idea that corporations conspire and manipulate; of course they do, they can be vile in their pursuit of money. But in this instance, I feel the charge is somewhat inaccurate, and overlooks one key factor on particular: -

As I'm sure you would all agree, All corporate activity occurs with its base axiom being the accumulation of capital and the value of its stocks, and therefore a company is only as good as what it, or its shares are worth in dollars on a given day.

Now lets consider the idea that these oil companies are behind the advocacy of Peak Oil as a scare story. Lets get this straight - oil companies want to put panic into the industrial world, into the public domain, tell them that oil is running out, so that they can charge over-inflated prices for their product?
Lets also then consider the fact that the manufacturers, the people etc are also investors – the people who hold, buy, sell and therefore dictate the value of oil and all other corporations. Lets also consider that investors move in droves on important market news, after all, its in their interest.
If the oil companies were to put a scare story out, like Peak Oil; and suggest that their business, along with the global economy was racing toward the edge of a cliff – and it hit home with the majority of people – how do you think that would affect their share price? Surely investors would run a mile, you’d have a rapid capitulation of oil stocks, pretty much ruining the oil companies.

In short, it would be suicide for an oil company to propagate peak oil.

You can bet your bottom dollar that these people definitely do not want to scare people, and more importantly, shareholders and investors with peak oil.

Given that, I would infer that it is more likely that it is the Aboitic Oil theory that is the propaganda of the oil companies. If true, it would add confidence in the long term future of oil, attracting investors, rather than scaring them off.

Even if the Aboitic Oil theory is correct, as Seekorf succinctly pointed out, oil demand will eventually outstrip the rate of abiotic ‘refilling’ of oil fields. At best, abiotic replenishment will provide a cushion, slightly prolonging the onset of a Peak Oil scenario.




edit tags



[edit on 15-4-2005 by Paul]