No such thing as peak oil

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Good gawd: Currency doesn't make energy, energy creates currency!


You may not realise it but that is not so inaccurate. If currency was created on the condition that it eases the exchange of goods between humans the only limiting factor would be the amount of human energy expended. I would posit that the true aim of limiting and controlling the flow of currency is to direct and waste human energy on pointless endeavours intended only to distract humanity from what it could be achieving.


Well that's enough disjointed incoherent crazy talk for me...hasta~


Sorry i could not make it more clear to you and i intend to do better the next time we meet this way.

Stellar




posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
If currency was created on the condition that it eases the exchange of goods between humans the only limiting factor would be the amount of human energy expended.


I think you're forgetting a few simple scientific facts. The amount of available human energy is dependent on the amount of available natural resources. Stop eating for a week and see how much expendable energy you have. You can not get more energy out of humans than you put into them.


Personally I like to think that there is an unlimited amount of oil, but certain facts prevent me from lying to myself.


  • All spheres are finite
  • The Earth is a sphere
  • All resources within the Earth are finite


We can't get around the fact that the only energy being added to this planet is in the form of sunlight. Even if the theories of oil creeping up from the deep are true, we will eventually run out of oil. The only honest debate that we can have is how long before these resources are depleted. It is scientifically impossible for there to be an infinite amount of oil in the Earth since the Earth itself is finite.

Since I have just proven that the unlimited oil theory is ignorance we should focus on the real debate of how much time we have remaining. By time remaining I mean how long will we be able to get cheap oil out of the ground? At what point will it cost $1.00 to get $1.00 worth of oil out of the ground. When we reach that mark it won't matter how many trillion barrels of oil are left in proven reserves. The oil will be worthless.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
I think you're forgetting a few simple scientific facts.


Currency supply has nothing to do with science.


The amount of available human energy is dependent on the amount of available natural resources.


Not true. The amount of human energy is mostly directly proportional to the amount of humans the only important factor being their general inclinations towards employing said energy or the type of encouragement that can be offered


Stop eating for a week and see how much expendable energy you have.


Why would i stop eating? The only reason people are forced to move away from places where they can produce food enough to survive is because they are forced to pay taxes or are evicted from said land. Without that happening far far fewer people would be forced into starvation 'situations'.


You can not get more energy out of humans than you put into them.


These two issues are fundamentally unrelated. A human eats food which grows due to sunlight and water; both of which are essentially free after a small initial investment ( cutting down some trees for space/digging wells). A human converts this essentially free energy to energy that can be well directed to further employ the amount of free energy produced from food until such a time as the return is hundreds/thousands of times greater than the energy expenditure or future consumption. If said system is not severely interrupted by the environment ( can be planned for) or government ( totally devastating) most of the energy produced can then be further employed towards communal work ( creating water distribution networks) for further growth. When that system reaches a certain space people will lose interest in further work as their basic needs are met at which point trading goods will start to become important. The only part the state is suppose to play is to supply a common means of exchange ( currency) that eases the transactions between people.


Personally I like to think that there is an unlimited amount of oil, but certain facts prevent me from lying to myself.


I think your already lying to yourself by assuming facts not in evidence.



  • All spheres are finite
  • The Earth is a sphere
  • All resources within the Earth are finite


This assumes that oil is not being produced partly by abiotic methods as we already know it is. Since we know this to be true oil will never run out if we use less than is naturally produced inside the earth as the only requirement for the production is apparently our planets active core. I am not sure how much part tectonics/sunlight plays otherwise i could probably argue that at least some oil will always be produced due to the 'free' energy input into the earths mantle.


We can't get around the fact that the only energy being added to this planet is in the form of sunlight.


Internal heat partly produced by the gravitational rotation of the planet around the sun?


Even if the theories of oil creeping up from the deep are true, we will eventually run out of oil.


Only if we use it up faster than it is produced/created.


The only honest debate that we can have is how long before these resources are depleted.


Honesty is no substitute for scientific knowledge imo.


It is scientifically impossible for there to be an infinite amount of oil in the Earth since the Earth itself is finite.


It assumes that there is no active production which has been proven false for some time now.


Since I have just proven that the unlimited oil theory is ignorance we should focus on the real debate of how much time we have remaining.


I see a gaping dark hole beneath the conclusion you are jumping towards


By time remaining I mean how long will we be able to get cheap oil out of the ground? At what point will it cost $1.00 to get $1.00 worth of oil out of the ground.


1$ has no intrinsic value anymore and hasn't had any for a very long time. You are confusing currency ( created from absolutely nothing) with human energy ( something very substantial) and have clearly been completely taken in by the scam that convinces people of some intrinsic value in a currency itself.


When we reach that mark it won't matter how many trillion barrels of oil are left in proven reserves. The oil will be worthless.


Oil might become 'useless' but only because of the discovery of a energy 'source' that drains less human per measure 'produced' than does oil.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Not true. The amount of human energy is mostly directly proportional to the amount of humans

And don't you believe that the amount of humans has something to do with the amount of available resources? You can't have 16 kids if you only have enough food to feed 3.


Originally posted by StellarX
The only reason people are forced to move away from places where they can produce food enough to survive is because they are forced to pay taxes or are evicted from said land.


Are you here to discuss politics or science? Do you mean to tell me that if it doesn't rain for 3 years at a location, people will still stay there and raise food if the tax rate is low enough?


Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by dbates

  • All spheres are finite
  • The Earth is a sphere
  • All resources within the Earth are finite


This assumes that oil is not being produced partly by abiotic methods as we already know it is. Since we know this to be true oil will never run out if we use less than is naturally produced inside the earth


What part of finite don't you understand and how can you logically say there is a limitless supply of something in a finite area?

[edit on 22-8-2006 by dbates]



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
And don't you believe that the amount of humans has something to do with the amount of available resources?


Not really, no. Resources are mostly about management; something people living on the edge of starvation do not have time for.


You can't have 16 kids if you only have enough food to feed 3.


Well that sort of thing is normally a indication of extreme poverty of plenty of resources. When there is a smaller risk of losing children due to extreme living conditions people usually have far fewer kids...


Are you here to discuss politics or science?


Both as they are interconnected issues.


Do you mean to tell me that if it doesn't rain for 3 years at a location, people will still stay there and raise food if the tax rate is low enough?


Well people who are starving normally lack the capacity to go much anywhere any case. I suggested that taxes force people to move to cities when they can not raise enough extra crops to sell for hard currency. People will normally preserve enough food to survive the hard times when not taxed to death.


What part of finite don't you understand and how can you logically say there is a limitless supply of something in a finite area?


Well the sun's energy is as good as infinite in terms of human life spans and the amount of oil being produced by abiotic means might be 'infinite' as well as it's a process of renewal. I am not suggesting that the planet can sustain ever massive growing consumption levels but that things approach infinite when given time.

I understand your argument ( earth as big ball of oil) but i find it quite simplistic and completely theoretical considering the claim that we used up the worlds oil in 100 years. We have explored very little of the planet and extracted very little of the known reserves and any other argument is either made from ignorance or bias imo.

I have been defending my point of view for two years now and 'peak oil' is just not defensible from a scientific perspective. I have great sympathy with the underlying emotion ( lets save the planet from horrible humans) but i would suggest you check out my posting habits on alternative energy before thinking i am making a defense of the oil economy from some great love of it.

I would love to stop the rape of the planet ( and everyone who breathes in the toxic air) but sadly i can not just choose to believe in peak oil because of that. Sorry....

Stellar



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   
The only thing I believe about peak oil is what peak the price will be! Demand and supply run hand in hand with Oil. America has a lack of refinaries not oil. Yes much is in the gulf, yet the fields keep filling up and oil comes out. I rather like the Core and bacteria theory. Since the 1890's we have heard that the oil supply will run out, and that there is just so little oil to begin with in the first place. Who started this rumor but none other then rockafeller. The russian theory is proving to be reliable in the discovery of oil fields in areas where rock layers predict you cannot find oil if you are looking for theory of decayed matter.
Time will tell and in the end people will just forget they were fooled all along,
just like 911.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
\
Not really, no. Resources are mostly about management; something people living on the edge of starvation do not have time for.




Oh! I am not really sorry but that statement is simply hillarious!

S...

[edit on 8-23-2006 by Springer]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer

Oh! I am not really sorry but that statement is simply hillarious!


What brings you here mister business man? Glad to see that i can at least entertain while failing to inform.... If you want to see ecological destruction find a third world slum... Hope that explains what motivated that comment better?

Stellar the entertainer(apparently) at your service!


[edit on 23-8-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
why would you stop eating? good question, albeit trivial. the answer can be found here, btw.


peak oil for now seems like a scam, i agree with you on that point, the real problem, imho, is that a complex economy like ours is susceptible to unforseen disruptions and it wouldn't matter at all if we all the oil in the world in the ground or even on the surface if we couldn't transport it were we need it in time. peak oil scare or not, this vulnerability is catastrophic and frightening, the underlying reason for (eventual) collapse is not all that important, be it peak oil itself or just the manufactured scare.



PS: for the conspiracy theorists who know about at least the vapor carb... d you think the elites would have us burn gallons where a pint suffices if they knew peak oil is around the corner? of course not. but i bet my hat they'd disrupt the supply for their entertainment. a remote example being the potato famine, of course /nut job



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
peak oil scare or not, this vulnerability is catastrophic and frightening, the underlying reason for (eventual) collapse is not all that important, be it peak oil itself or just the manufactured scare.


Which just seems to suggest that your buying into the manufactured fears they create for you. The disruptions are mainly caused by western agents and interest.


PS: for the conspiracy theorists who know about at least the vapor carb... d you think the elites would have us burn gallons where a pint suffices if they knew peak oil is around the corner?


Yes they would as the fumes and toxins released are killing and weakening our bodies which makes us compliant and easily manipulated. The idea has always been to keep energy as under control as they can and that is why all alternative energies they suggest all seemingly require national infrastructure. They are in fact trying to waste as much of the cheap energy as they can before we figure out the scam.


of course not. but i bet my hat they'd disrupt the supply for their entertainment. a remote example being the potato famine, of course /nut job


It's got nothing to do with entertainment as they are not doing what they are doing for kicks or profit. They may sometimes appear rather smug but i can assure you it's probably incidental or to do with the fact that they can hardly believe that they are getting away with it all.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
fabricated shortage or not, if there's a shortage of food i'll either successfully fight for my life or die one way or the other, not much of a difference compared to natural causes, is there? fear? well, i prefer the terms awareness and caution, but i may be fooling myself.


wrt motives: i really believe it's done for kicks, these guys are the money, if they want a profit, why not print more, we're all fools for colored sheets of paper, aren't we? f-ex. where's the logic behind poisoning millions of children with mercury (vaxines, see thiomersal) ? where's the logic in staging world wars? i mean the capability alone indicates you rule the world, so why bother? normal people don't need to ab/use their power everyday so they know it's still there, do they?


the reason is, imho, that they're sadistic, bored control freaks.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
well, i prefer the terms awareness and caution, but i may be fooling myself.


Not here to argue semantics and if you would rather be cautious and aware than afraid i really don't have anything to disagree on.
Fear is paralysing and much of the truth they let us see is probably a concerted effort to scare us into inaction and general compliance. Terror works after all.


wrt motives: i really believe it's done for kicks, these guys are the money, if they want a profit, why not print more, we're all fools for colored sheets of paper, aren't we? f-ex.


Well since they can print themselves as much money as they like it's quite obvious that having lots of it decidedly pointless if there is no system in place by which you can use it to affect your ends. Money has no meaning to them and that is why they can drill hundreds of thousands of dry oil wells just to change our perception of the oil business. Who would believe that any company willingly wastes money like that?


where's the logic behind poisoning millions of children with mercury (vaxines, see thiomersal) ?


They try kill as many as they can but for the rest they try poison them from a early age so that they might become dependent on medical and health care industry which is very much controlled by them. They want to depopulate the world but they also want to make sure that whoever remains can not live without their drugs and helps.


where's the logic in staging world wars?


The best way to change a society in your image is to make it fight another so you can send the uninformed patriots overseas to die ( the first gulf war cost the USA a half a million casualties last i checked) and marginalize the smarter patriots into social exile or into very real prisons. It helps the centralize power and you can do almost anything in the name of 'national security'.


i mean the capability alone indicates you rule the world, so why bother? normal people don't need to ab/use their power everyday so they know it's still there, do they?


They can not control us physically so they need to create the conditions where we will control each other in the way that suits them most. The reason they have to keep at it every day is simply because we are so many and they are so few while the truth is so damn contagious.


the reason is, imho, that they're sadistic, bored control freaks.


Calling them sadistic may not be inaccurate but may create the impression that they consider us more than mere cattle to manipulate and do whatever else. I do not consider myself a sadist for eating meat after all.... Bored i would never call them as they seem to be quite dedicated and true to their plans as the decades go on...

That's my opinion anyways...

Stellar



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 



Hi, Stellar

you said:

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?

It's not what ASPO says...



"Today we consume 30 billion barrels per year and the discovery rate is now approaching 4 billion barrels of crude oil per year." (ASPO, Kjell Aleklett) www.peakoil.net...

I have read a lot at this site, and others, and I have no other thoughts than that Peak Oil is a constructed idea.

I would very much appreciate if you can elaborate around this so highly different figures, or give me links to read more by my self.

Thanks

K Akeby (Sweden)

[edit on 23-11-2007 by k.akeby]



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by k.akeby
reply to post by StellarX
 



Hi, Stellar

you said:

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?

It's not what ASPO says...



"Today we consume 30 billion barrels per year and the discovery rate is now approaching 4 billion barrels of crude oil per year." (ASPO, Kjell Aleklett) www.peakoil.net...

I have read a lot at this site, and others, and I have no other thoughts than that Peak Oil is a constructed idea.

I would very much appreciate if you can elaborate around this so highly different figures, or give me links to read more by my self.

Thanks

K Akeby (Sweden)

[edit on 23-11-2007 by k.akeby]


Stellar is pretty quiet now, that the oil barrel is over $100 (if this is not a sign of peak oil, I don't know what will).

We used more barrel than we found, period, obviously cannot go like this for ever...



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by PopeyeFAFL
 

I can't help but wonder how all those dead plant thingies ended up on Titan. A whole durned moon of hydrocarbons. Musta been a lively place at one time.
/ sarcasm



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by k.akeby
Hi, Stellar you said:

It's not what ASPO says...


No kidding? Why would the The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas claim anything other than what they do? If the American Society of Preventive Oncology claimed it or the American Society of Pediatric Otolaryngology claimed then maybe we would have good reason to check the findings of such a disinterest party. Since this organization consist of peak freaks propagating lies dependent on very ignorant readers, or the sufficiently well indoctrinated educated classes, to spread their misinformation we can cut them off at the legs and spread the truth about the massive volumes of oil that remains and how we should not be using it for environmental and general health reasons. The people i dislike the most are those that have decided that they wish to 'help' humanity by misrepresenting whichever facts they feel needed to move the 'sheep' in the right direction. I don't consider people sheep and will tell the , sometimes sad, truth as i think i can prove it to be as long as i am able.


"Today we consume 30 billion barrels per year and the discovery rate is now approaching 4 billion barrels of crude oil per year." (ASPO, Kjell Aleklett) www.peakoil.net...

I have read a lot at this site, and others, and I have no other thoughts than that Peak Oil is a constructed idea.


Well that's a good thing as until they give us access to the energy sources they are currently surpressing it's best we cling to what we can to ensure that we do not lose our mobility and thus or means of organization.


I would very much appreciate if you can elaborate around this so highly different figures, or give me links to read more by my self.

Thanks

K Akeby (Sweden)


I do try.


A primary source for worldwide reserves estimates is the Oil & Gas Journal (OGJ).[1] OGJ estimates that at the beginning of 2004, worldwide reserves were 1.27 trillion barrels of oil and 6,100 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These estimates are 53 billion barrels of oil and 575 trillion cubic feet of natural gas higher than the prior year, reflecting additional discoveries, improving technology, and changing economics.

At 2003 consumption levels [2], the remaining reserves represent 44.6 years of oil and 66.2 years of natural gas. Does this mean that the world will be out of fossil fuels in 50 years or so? That theory has been around since the 1970s. In fact, the figures for years of remaining reserves have remained relative constant over the past few decades as the industry has replaced consumption with newly discovered oil and gas deposits and has developed technologies to increase the amount of oil and gas that can be recovered from existing reservoirs.

No one can know for certain how much oil and gas remains to be discovered. But geologists sometimes make educated guesses. -snipped-

World oil resources to 2025 may be more than two times current reserves, based on an estimate from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) using USGS data. Reserve growth of 730 billion barrels accounts for new discoveries and the expansion of what can be recovered from known reservoirs due to advances in technology and improvements in economics. But EIA estimates that in 2025, countries around the globe will still have more than 900 billion barrels of oil remaining to be discovered. EIA estimates total world oil resources at more than 2.9 trillion barrels of oil.

How much oil and natural gas i left?



WASHINGTON, DC, June 21 -- BP PLC tried recently to quell renewed concerns by some industry observers that world oil reserves are running out sooner than expected.

"2003 was a turbulent year in the world's energy markets, with supply disruptions, strong growth in both demand and production of oil and coal, and the highest prices in the oil and gas markets for 20 years," said BP Chief Economist Peter Davies.

However, he said, "The high prices were not driven by fundamental resource shortages: In 2003, the world's reserves of oil and natural gas continued their long term trend of growing faster than production."

BP: World oil and gas reserves still growing at healthy pace


So according to at least one oil company reserves are growing faster than usage and unless your a 'crazy' conspiracy theorist you wont believe that so many geologist are agreeing without good reason. To be fair i can not on the face of it discount such a thing since i actually think that oil probably originates from a abiotic process. All i can offer as advice, and i can find more sources if you like, is that you check this out for yourself and consider why the peak freaks do not offer any real solutions, like we don't rather want solar and wind power any ways, and instead offer only massively reduced living standards with depopulation plans right on the table.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Earth = closed finite system...
...there ARE limits...



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
Earth = closed finite system...
...there ARE limits...


The Earth might be finite in some respects but given bio-fuels, plant life and the sun it's most certainly not 'closed' and finite only in the sense that life can be exploited beyond it's regenerating capacity.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX


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


Assumption , not proved.


StellarX, you say that the statement that oil is finite is only an assumption and that there is not proof.

I was wondering if you could supply proof that any physical resource on this planet is infinite, which something must be if it is not finite. I suppose one could say air but I am not sure this is even true, I will have to do some digging to find out. So I guess my question would be the same only it omits air.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
StellarX, you say that the statement that oil is finite is only an assumption and that there is not proof.


Not it has not.



I was wondering if you could supply proof that any physical resource on this planet is infinite, which something must be if it is not finite.


Physical resources are clearly finite at any given time but every daythe planet 'loses' atmosphere while gaining at least a hundred tons of interstellar material. The effect the sun has on life also throws a very large spanner into the machinery of anyone who wishes to talk about the Earths finite resources. As a direct result of the sun energy intelligence had a chance to develop on this planet and in due course we might mine the solar system ensuring that this planet no longer has finite resources.

To be more specific i do not believe that oil can be overexploited ( like we do when we catch fish faster than they can breed) because i find the abiotic theory of oil's origin to best explain where we find oil and why decline curves are relatively meaningless.


I suppose one could say air but I am not sure this is even true, I will have to do some digging to find out. So I guess my question would be the same only it omits air.


You can just google for the abiotic theory and if that does not get you thinking i can always give you a few pointers.


Stellar






top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join