Are you prepared for the Oil crash and the end of our current way of life?

page: 12
47
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   


What part of, "it is proven that oil is abiotic", do you have a problem accepting?



Proven?


Abiotic oil is an optomistic suggestion at best. 'Russians are drilling oil really deep' does not constitute evidence.

I've already stated that abiotic oil is explainable by oil migration and techtonic plate shifting after the oil had formed. It's far more likely than oil magically springing forth from the centre of the Earth. There's no hard evidence for it. And the best 'evidence' you can supply for us not being in decline is.. 'The NWO are hiding the figures from us.' Which is more plausible?

Look, it really doesn't matter. Abiotic oil, if it even exists, is not providing us with enough oil quickly enough to have any impact. Can you not understand that?
edit on 19-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Banjamin Jefferson Madiso
 



I think it would take a heck of a lot more than just removing all the oil reserves within the Earth. I doubt removing million-year old plant matter alone is going to cause a world-wide catastrophie...with rampant tectonic plates, killer earthquakes, all that bad junk. Their movements are powered by currents within the Earth, which flow through huge amounts of dense magma within our planet(I think, made mostly or iron?). It would take the removal of a very significant amount of materials deep underground until you start seeing real results. Which, obviously, is completely implausible.

But you never know...perhaps in the future, our future population may become more and more desperate. Possibly, feeding off of any resource they can tangibly obtain with brute technological innovation. Hopefully, I will not live long enough to see those days come to pass!
edit on 19-11-2010 by TheTruthSeeker1996 because: Past paradigm slang...im better than that.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheTruthSeeker1996
 


You see, I have my doubts that oil is plant matter, or just plant matter. It is what I have always thought also, but I dont see how, even with MAJOR shifting, plant matter would wind up a mile below a mile deep ocean floor. The Deepwater Horizon didn't drill through sediment to get to the oil, it drilled through a whole lot of rock. How would the oil get below all of that bedrock? Unless I am just not accurately envisioning the end result of millions of years of shifting plates.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Project-Sign


What part of, "it is proven that oil is abiotic", do you have a problem accepting?



Proven?


Abiotic oil is an optomistic suggestion at best. 'Russians are drilling oil really deep' does not constitute evidence.

I've already stated that abiotic oil is explainable by oil migration and techtonic plate shifting after the oil had formed. It's far more likely than oil magically springing forth from the centre of the Earth. There's no hard evidence for it. And the best 'evidence' you can supply for us not being in decline is.. 'The NWO are hiding the figures from us.' Which is more plausible?

Look, it really doesn't matter. Abiotic oil, if it even exists, is not providing us with enough oil quickly enough to have any impact. Can you not understand that?
edit on 19-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)


To be clear, I was not claiming that, I was repeating what was said numerous times in the thread, for the simple reason that you seem to have declined to get informed on the reasons that scientists are making that claim. Seems to me that there is more to it than merely the fact that the levels of some wells have risen.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Banjamin Jefferson Madiso
 


You're the one advocating Abiotic oil as a viable reality. That means it's your job to come up with the evidence to support the claim. The main claim is that they're finding oil deeper than any fossils formed. This article clearly explains how plate techtonics can shift huge areas of rock containing fossil fuel deeper than where they once might have been.

www.fromthewilderness.com...

I personally think it's far more plausible than magically appearing oil, conveniently abundant and renewing itself endlessly for our benefit. Think about it for a while.
edit on 20-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Project-Sign
reply to post by atlguy
 


This is NOT a prediction thread.

The only prediction here is that a finite substance is going to run out, eventually. Hardly Nostradamus, is it.
But like many you probably didn't even read the entire post.


F-A-I-L

You are going on the un-scientific theory that crude is a finite resource. There is another school of thought, another scientific theory that states that crude is continually being created by chemical reactions in the earth's core. Simply put - there wasn't enough biomass to create the crude we know to exist.

As I see in this thread, there are many others (including you) that ignore the abiotic oil theory, much to the delight of the petrocompanies. After all, if it were proven that we've got more oil than we could ever use, every single economy on the planet would completely collapse

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 11/20/2010 by atlguy because: added link



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by atlguy
 


I'm not ignoring it, I've pointed out several times why I think it's rubbish.

Here's the problem. There is 100+ years of scientific research and general agreement about Oil as a fossil fuel.

Abiotic Oil is just a theory, as you've just said yourself. It's far from proven.

Big difference.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I think some people don't realize just how big this planet is. "We've drilled down to 5 miles..." blah blah blah. Uh, OK.

Drilling 5 miles into the earth is like taking a needle and barely poking your skin; the planet's radius is 4,000 miles, or for the mathematically challenged, a diameter of 8,000 miles. Anything below a few miles is all educated guesswork.

You do know that scientists don't even know for sure if the Earth's core is liquid iron, correct? It's a theory. Point being that scientist's don't know diddly in relation to the amount of knowledge that is out there to be gleaned.

Peak oil is a lie. Learn it, live it.
edit on 20-11-2010 by DragonTattooz because: grammatical error.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonTattooz
Point being that scientist's don't know diddly in relation to the amount of knowledge that is out there to be gleaned.

Peak oil is a lie. Learn it, live it.



So what you're stating here is that scientists don't know 'diddly' compared to all there is to be known. But YOU, sitting at home at your computer KNOW peak oil is a 'lie' and KNOW Abiotic oil is real. Logical


Sorry, the 100+ years of scientific research gets my support on this one.
edit on 20-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Actually if they were able to position a satelite for instance ,,just right,, they could probly take some kind of X-ray for instance, see every , bubble and precious metal and keep that data to just themselves and then send in the dogs and ohh wait didn't they just find something in Afganistan under the ground, woth about a trillion dollars or something?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Banjamin Jefferson Madiso
 


Every time you've posted, it's been about the same thing. You believe the 'NWO' are duping people into believing that oil production is in decline. Got it. Here's the thing, I've posted many links and sources in this thread to back up what I believe and you've posted nothing. You keep telling me to 'research it', yet you've shown nothing yourself. If you believe we're being lied to, you must back it up with some evidence. I've never stated that I know more about peak oil than anyone else, I post evidence to back up what I feel to be true, and it's up to the reader to decide what they believe.

You're going 'round and 'round in circles discussing nothing in particular, and now you've resorted to personal jibes. Please, if you have nothing further to add than insults, find another thread to 'contribute' to.
edit on 20-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Project-Sign

Originally posted by DragonTattooz
Point being that scientist's don't know diddly in relation to the amount of knowledge that is out there to be gleaned.

Peak oil is a lie. Learn it, live it.



So what you're stating here is that scientists don't know 'diddly' compared to all there is to be known. But YOU, sitting at home at your computer KNOW peak oil is a 'lie' and KNOW Abiotic oil is real. Logical


Sorry, the 100+ years of scientific research gets my support on this one.
edit on 20-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)

Nope. Just like you, I've taken the information that I can find and I've come to a conclusion, it just happens to be different than yours. Oh, and mine is right.


As far as taking 100 years of scientific evidence, well, most of those years can be thrown out the window because they are irrelevant. The recent, relevant years, and science, tends to lean towards abiotic oil as far as I can tell.

edit on 21-11-2010 by DragonTattooz because: Spelling error and addition.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonTattooz
 


Why are they irrelevant? Scientific research into fossil fuel has been going on since it was discovered. Granted, early on they probably didn't learn much, but certainly from the 40's on the research was extensive. So far, there's been little to no actual research on Abiotic oil, and saying "I'm right, you're wrong" doesn't change that. The only evidence anyone provides is oil being found deeper than fossil layers and a handful of oil fields refilling themselves. Again, both are easily explainable by oil migration and techtonic plate activity, as pointed out in an article I posted in a previous post.

If abiotic oil is ever proven with hard, scientific evidence, then I'll happily embrace it. Until then, I'm unconvinced. And I'm sure you'll be unconvinced by anything I have to say on biotic oil too. So we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for your input.
edit on 21-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Project-Sign
reply to post by DragonTattooz
 


So we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for your input.


Anytime. And you as well.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Easy to get high grade crude is in fact running out, and oil production has been in decline since 2008, high grade crude has been in decline since 2005.

Saudi Oil is running out, and in just a few more years this problem will come a crisis.

The Gulf oil spill demonstrated that we do not currently have the technology to drill deep water oil at a reasonable cost.

This is good news for humanity, because it will break the lock on energy sources that give the PTB their power over the masses. Alternative energy sources are available, but they won't be so easily controlled, like the large oil wells. This means giant corporations are about to loose a great deal of control over populations.

This is good news.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
Oil on moons without life means that our oil has not been a waste product of organic matter.
This means the oil comes from something else and we don't know if it is renewable or not. Apparently the Russians think it is...


Pretty sure you're assuming that life doesn't exist now nor ever has on the moon. Pretty sure that's not proven.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Project-Sign
 


During the "oil shortage "in 1974 they told us that we would be out of oil in 20 years.It is now more than 20 years down the road and we still have not seen the end of the oil supply.If oil is not abiotic then what is this all about.I offer this research www.science20.com... clearly something is not true here and I've always had a problem with the theory that ancient plants and animals were responsible for the origin of crude.It doesn't make sense.there haven't been enough plants and animals in the past epochs to account for the quanities of oil that we see.Perhaps both of these theories are true and that is what accounts for the different grades of crude.What do you think?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by lonegurkha
 


If oil is abiotic, then why hasn't Texas oil wells filled back up?

Why are the Saudis running out of oil.

Even if crude is abiotic, we still have used up all of the easy to get high grade stuff built up over millions of years.

Our transportation system will not be able to continue to run on oil pumped up out of the ground.

We will have to start using alternative forms of energy, very soon, as in the next decade.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Banjamin Jefferson Madiso
reply to post by TheTruthSeeker1996
 


You see, I have my doubts that oil is plant matter, or just plant matter. It is what I have always thought also, but I dont see how, even with MAJOR shifting, plant matter would wind up a mile below a mile deep ocean floor. The Deepwater Horizon didn't drill through sediment to get to the oil, it drilled through a whole lot of rock. How would the oil get below all of that bedrock? Unless I am just not accurately envisioning the end result of millions of years of shifting plates.


You aren't. It takes a long, long time.

There is very clear isotopic evidence that almost all petroleum is from decayed biological source material.

And the geology makes it pretty clear as well---economically substantial amounts of petroleum are found in just those places where the conditions were right for certain biological transformations.

Think about it this way: the major petroleum companies will pay any ungodly amounts of $$$$ for good predictions of where to find oil and gas. And, they all go for the biological hypothesis. Why? Because it's the only one that gives return on investment.They don't have any ideology, just profit motive: whatever works.

In the short run, the clear path of least resistance for transportation is natural gas fueling---not much "alternative energy". CH4 requires no fundamentally new technology, just capital investment.

Suburban motoring will keep going for another 25-30 years or so as we are not as far in the depletion curve with gas as with oil.

I'm not saying this is a good thing (I'd prefer a rapid build-out of modular nuclear plants), but it's what's most likely to happen when petroleum hits $250 and stays there.
edit on 3-2-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
47
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join