Its a pretty theory... but still a theory in my eyes. It just doesnt account for some oil fields repleneshing themselves.

If peak oil is not a reality now it will be when 800 million chinese put down their bikes and pick up car keys. Demand will overpower supply in the world of oil.

Originally posted by TruthWithin
If peak oil is not a reality now it will be when 800 million chinese put down their bikes and pick up car keys. Demand will overpower supply in the world of oil.

There are numerous resources that goes into the construction of cars that may cause bottlenecks in their availability and i have really not seen evidence to suggest that fueling them after construction is soon going to be one of those. We are running into oil rather faster than we are using it and that's happening even with diminished expenditure in exploration.

Stellar

I find it rather silly when people use government information as proof that 'peak oil' is a reality issue, globally, all the while the same (U.S) government are;

* Helping build up large communist oil using countries such as China.
* Allowing vehicle manufactories to keep manufacturing gas guzzling vehicles such as SUV's etc.

This ain't rocket science Huckleberry Fin

I tend to agree with the idea that there is no such thing as Peak Oil and it's the usual dog and pony show to get us to do their bidding.

Common sense and the numerous resources outlined earlier in this thread aside, the whole notion reeks of leftgatekeeper-ism. And guess who funds and supports that kind of lobby? Why, one major name that comes to mind is Rockefeller which, incidentally, runs ExxonMobil.

[edit on 7/8/2006 by AlnilamOmega]

Originally posted by smadgirl


One thing I do know is that supposedly oil is made from decomposing organic matter like dinosaurs and stuff. That is an IMMENSELY large pile of rotting dinosaurs if you ask me, compared to how much oil we use and find.

Oh this I agree with 110%
You gotta figure , lets take a 50 lb log for example. When it rots competely, how much decomposed matter is left over? a very small fraction of that 50 lb log..

The pile of dinos could probably stack up to the moon and back to make ths much oil. Something is just strange about it.

There is such a misunderstanding about Peak Oil. Peak Oil is not a matter or depleting supplies, its a matter of being able to acquire those supplies. Our known and accessible oil fields ARE running short and there will come a time where extracting energy takes up far more energy than it gains. That's the matter of Peak Oil, we reach a point where we get nothing for something.

It is reality. The only thing with an agenda is physical petroleum itself.

hi new here and one of my first posts...

With the discovery of large new reserves of oil, combined with development of new technologies to extract known reserves previously thought uneconomic to extract, the conventional theory of Peak Oil is probably a little off the mark.

However, the common problem with all of these reserves is cost, its simply more expensive to extract these reserves than pumping crude in the currently conventional manner, as Middle Eastern reserves start to dry up cheap (or relatively cheap) energy will start to become a thing of the past leading to perhaps vast increases in standards of living.

And, to be more precise and concise and boil it down to a single paragraph:

All the links and data and arguments that say peak oil is a false concept and we will never run short of oil fail on a single point. Most of the world's oil-producing regions have already peaked. If any of these arguments held any water, why do we not see oil production increasing in North America or Europe or Africa? Why is it that the production of oil has exactly followed the pattern predicted by those who predict the global peak? And why should we not expect the planet as a whole to follow the same pattern as its regions do?

heres the way i see it, even if oil somehow reproduced itself from the earth, it can only do that in a certain quanity. Now if you increase the rate at wich you remove that oil, eventually you will reach a point where you've sucked it dry and may end up killing the organism or whatever makes the oil in the first place. So if theres no"peak oil" fine, either way soon, we'll be sucking out more than the earth can remake, and how long does it take to remake? And if it doesn't remake oil deep within the earth, then i guess, we all wont be fat a$#es anymore cause we'll all be walking very soon!

Also, anyone ever been to disneys ride about the future of not having to survive on fossil fuels, where you ride past dinosaurs in a supposed electric car, and they talked about where the future is going, a future without oil... Does anyone remember or ridden it recently to have any insights to waht that crazy ride says. I'm sure it was sponsored by the oil companies.

So anyway, long story short, if theres no peak oil, and you suck every last drop out, and wait for it to make more, what do you call that?

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

There is such a misunderstanding about Peak Oil.

Actually the only misunderstanding i have notice is the one where people believe , due to a massive propaganda campaign, that we are running out of oil when there is no reliable information to even begin to back up such a claim. When one does even a cursury investigation this becomes self evident.

Peak Oil is not a matter or depleting supplies,

Well they say it's running out so the logical assumption is that we will one day ( they tend to be wrong when it comes to anything in terms of what year ) in theory have NOTHING left. Where is the misunderstanding?

its a matter of being able to acquire those supplies.

They keep finding more than they know what to do with so why talk about it running out?

Our known and accessible oil fields ARE running short and there will come a time where extracting energy takes up far more energy than it gains.

Our known reserves are growing massively each year as we are still finding 5 barrels for every three we are using without even considering the massive reserves we already know about and exploit. That does not even reflect the small ammounts we spend these days on oil exploration despite massive tracts of the world ( not to even mention the oceans) have not been explored. Why try find oil when you have so much already?

That's the matter of Peak Oil, we reach a point where we get nothing for something.

There are far better ways to generate energy but that does not mean we are in fact running out of oil or that it is becoming more expensive to find and exploit it. In many many oil rich countries a barrel of water is still far more expensive than a barrel of oil. When that changes in a few decades i might start getting worried.

It is reality. The only thing with an agenda is physical petroleum itself.

It is a 'reality' in many millions of minds but it has nothing to do with physical oil-in-the-ground facts that blatantly disproves all peak oil hysteria.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Is what the theory suggests , yes. There are alternative theories

I'm familiar with some of them. Are you referring to the deep earth generation theory, the idea that oil is produced abiotically below the biosphere in huge abundance and that what is being tapped is only seepage from these deep wells into more shallow pools?

If so, there's a serious problem with that theory. On the basis of it, we would predict that known oil deposits would rather rapidly replenish as they are tapped, in the same way as groundwater replenishes over time. We do not see that happening. Every oil-producing region except the Middle East has passed the peak and oil production in all regions except the Middle East is declining. It has been declining in North America since 1985, and in the U.S. since 1970. This observed fact is consistent with the conventional theory of petro-origin, and inconsistent with the deep-earth theory.

If you mean something else, it would help to specify exactly what.

That dino thing, is popular imagery, there was plenty of plants, enough to account for all that volume of oil that was created.

Please provide me with some hard math if you like. I do not expect anyone to seriously attempt such a thing but anyways....

Then why ask for it? One may observe easily enough that there is more plant matter in the world than animal matter. If petroleum is produced from dead organisms, surely the great majority of it would come from plant rather than animal sources because that's what the great majority of dead organisms are.

Now, Peak Oil is real, in the sense that all finite ressource (and oil is a finite ressource)

Assumption , not proved.

As literally stated, to doubt it is sheer nonsense. The earth itself is finite, and oil represents only a tiny portion of the mass of the earth; therefore, the amount of oil is finite.

As for oil being nonrenewable in a practical sense, again there's the observed fact that every oil-producing region in the world except for the Middle East has reached peak and gone into decline. If you don't want to consider that "proof" in the same sense as a rigorous mathematical proof or a solid experimental proof in science, I suppose you can raise that meaningless quibble. It remains the case that all available evidence supports the idea that oil is nonrenewable, and none whatsoever argues to the contrary.

US oil production did not peak in 1970 ( it was 1974 or 1976 as i recall according to the US petroleum society)

Your memory is in error, but if your underlying assertions are correct, there should have been no peak at all, whether in 1970 or in 1974.

and oil prices was not the only thing that rose dramatically in the 70's in the US. Did you know that coal prices went up by 800%?

Yes, that's called supply and demand. When OPEC imposed its oil embargo, a lot of industries turned to coal as an alternative source of energy. Increased demand for coal = rising prices.

Why have i not heard about peak coal i ask you?

All right, I'll tell you about peak coal. Coal is also a nonrenewable resource, and we should expect that it, too, will meet a global production peak. The difference is that the supply of coal is enormously greater than the supply of oil, so we are nowhere near tapping 50% of it. Just the same, you can find local coal peaks that have been reached in some places, so the same principle applies.

You haven't heard about it because you aren't a geologist or an energy specialist. It isn't an urgent concern, and so has not made the mainstream news. That doesn't mean it's not real.

Making energy expensive is just another way for government ( really the people behind them ) to ensure that we need them more than they need us.

I'm sure that's a factor and I don't care to let the energy companies off the hook. However, to say that this is ALL that's going on is to say that the laws of economics are nonexistent. And that's just not true.

[edit on 13-7-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

[edit on 13-7-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

About the date of the U.S. peak:

Consider the the OPEC embargo began in 1973. If the U.S. oil peak occurred in 1974, one year later than the beginning of the embargo, the embargo would have had no effect. As long as our oil production was pre-peak, we were a net oil exporter, not importer. Remember what provoked Pearl Harbor.

All right, this is a conspiracy-theory discussion board, and StellarX has raised a conspiracy idea involving price-fixing by the energy companies and the government. In that context, I want to point out the difference between a conspiracy theory, properly so called, and a conspiracy fantasy.

Example: the idea that John F. Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory. There is some evidence behind it: the pattern of gunshots, the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby, the signs of a cover-up in the behavior of the Warren Commission. The evidence doesn't amount to conclusive proof, but it's strong enough to call the "lone gunman" idea into serious question.

The idea that JFK was murdered by a specific conspiracy consisting of LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Mafia is a conspiracy fantasy. The only evidence linking any of these agents to the murder is the fact that all of them had an identifiable motive. And the further idea that we are governed by a shadow government and all our elections are a sham, and that Kennedy was killed because he challenged this shadow government in some behind-the-scenes way (he certainly did not do so publicly), goes beyond fantasy into sheer paranoid delusion.

Similarly: the idea that the energy companies conspire with the government to influence the price of oil (either upward or downward) is a conspiracy theory. As with the JFK assassination, there's evidence supporting it. I would not be inclined to believe, that such a conspiracy does NOT exist, or that it is not a factor in the price we pay for everything oil gives us.

But the idea that such a conspiracy is the sole and only determining factor behind the price of oil, and that such mundane and visible factors as geology and economics play no part, is a conspiracy fantasy.

In general, when a conspiracy theory grants the conspiracy unlimited power and influence and reduces all of us to mere puppets or flotsam on the ocean, it has crossed the line into fantasy.