The Peak Oil Lie: Oil is NOT going to run out, page 3

reply to post by TheRedneck

what is the difference between 5 gazillion barrels at $25 per or 5 gazillion barrels at $100 per? 375 gazillion dollars.

---

As I posted earlier:

An EROEI of 200 was achieved with some oil wells 50 years ago. Oil production in deep water currently achieves an EROEI of less than 5.

Currently, Industrial use of energy is around $14/million BTU's. 50 years ago an oil well made $2800 of that $14 (In today's money), now they are making $70.

Well, there is just a lot more profit in $2800 than there is in $70.

I already admitted that some countries (and specified Venezuela) are not part of OPEC... but they do tend to follow along with OPEC unofficialy.

Venezuela is a member, that is what I was trying to get across.

As I mentioned in my post... so what are we arguing about?

If countries are using up other's reserves, it's a little like duck-duck-goose. The first one out loses.

reply to post by Pimander

---

What if Illuminati destroys all of the oil wells in the world in false flag attacks, once they get the control over all of them? That's their plan, right? To reduce the population. Lack of oil would kil at least 50% of population.

reply to post by boncho

Currently, Industrial use of energy is around $14/million BTU's. 50 years ago an oil well made $2800 of that $14 (In today's money), now they are making $70.

I am going to need some clarification on this before I comment on it, as the numbers do not appear to add up. $14 per million BTU sounds low, but I am not going to dispute that until I have time to run some calcs. Where, however, are you getting the $2800 and $70 figures? At first glance, it appears you are saying that oil wells made 200 times the price of the energy they produced and now make only five times? How could any producer of a product make many times the price of their product?

The EROEI calculation makes little sense as well. Where are these figures coming from, and why would anyone presume to think that energy calculations take priority in business to financial calculations? The use of stranded natural gas in Canada, which costs effectively zero since it would be so expensive to sell off, may affect this EROEI thing, but it is a sound business decision.

But really, even if the profit margins are dropping tremendously, which I find hard to believe since profits are so high, that could be due to a myriad of possibilities other than peak oil. My belief in abiotic oil is based on scientific evidence instead:

Biomass consists primarily of hydrocarbons, yes. But biomass has not the high concentration of hydrogen or carbon that crude oil has. Flora biomass, which must certainly accompany any significant amount of fauna biomass, itself would contain a large percentage of chlorine (from chloroplasts)... which does not appear in crude oil. If it did, we would not have to make as much plastic, as chlorine is an excellent terminator in the hydrocarbon chains that make up many plastics. Fauna biomass would also contain significant amounts of iron (from hemoglobin) and sodium (a primary electrolyte in the life processes). Neither is found in significant quantities in crude oil globally.

Instead, we find large amounts of sulphur... a chemical that is admittedly present but relatively rare in biomass.

Oil burns in the air because the energies of formation of water and carbon dioxide (the two oxidized forms that result from combustion of hydrocarbons in oxygen) are lower than the energy of formation of the hydrocarbon chains. But within the earth's crust, there is precious little oxygen, especially in free diatomic form, to combine with the carbon and hydrogen. In the absence of oxygen, the lowest energy of formation would be methane, ethane, butane, propane, pentane, hexane, and so on... natural gas and oil.

Abiotic oil also explains why oil deposits are found far deeper than other signs of biomass. it explains why some abandoned wells have replenished themselves after sitting idle for a few years. it explains why crude oil makeup (as in the ratio of carbon to hydrogen) differs so widely across the globe, while the relative chemical makeup of lifeforms remains relatively consistent. It explains all these chemical makeup inconsistencies with the biotic oil theory, and it explains why, despite decades of warning about peak oil, we are still driving around the country in gasoline-powered vehicles with no shortages of fuel.

The biotic oil theory, aka "dinosaur squeezin's", has been around pretty much since it was discovered... but that means little. Scientists once believed T-Rex stood upright and ambled along clumsily all alone. Today, that model has been replaced by a T-Rex that had a bird-like horizontal stance, ran at high speeds, and hunted in family groups. So given the knowledge gained in the last few decades in the related archaeological field, along with the evidence presented above, is it so difficult to at least seriously investigate the idea that oil is continually produced by chemical reactions within the crust, using reagents found in the crust, perpetuated by conditions that are known to exist in the crust?

Not for me... EROEI's and profit margins notwithstanding.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

But really, even if the profit margins are dropping tremendously, which I find hard to believe since profits are so high, that could be due to a myriad of possibilities other than peak oil. My belief in abiotic oil is based on scientific evidence instead:

---

I'm not saying profit margins are dropping (especially as of late) more so, profit potential. EROEI gauges energy exerted to energy gained, which the energy used to recover oil has been increasing, cutting down on profit potential. This is if you take energy in to account as money, which I feel is a good representation, as it can be sold no different than any resource.

Do you think that at least is a fair assessment?

I will have to look into abiotic oil some more to be frank. I remember going over it a few years ago, but it never stuck with me. I do like the idea, given that there are many forms of hydrocarbons found in other places not on Earth. However, a quick read of the wikipedia page shows the issue is up for debate. Much debate.

reply to post by boncho

Do you think that at least is a fair assessment?

Actually, no.

Take the case of Canada, since it is mentioned in the site you posted. They use stranded natural gas to aid in extracting oil from the oil sands, an admittedly energy-intensive and typically expensive process. From the perspective of energy use vs. energy production, yes, that would have a low return. But from a business standpoint, the natural gas reserves, being stranded, are worthless outside of the immediate area. Therefore, it makes good financial sense but poor energy sense to use that natural gas resource in such a way to increase the profit on extracting oil from the oil sands.

Good financial sense, poor energy sense.

Take ethanol. Production is possible only via tax breaks and credits, as your reference also claims. But the process continues, despite the poor EROEI calculation. Why? Because with the tax assistance, it becomes financially feasible. All that matters to business is financial feasibility.

The tax issues surrounding ethanol production also indicate a lack of reliable correlation between financial calculations and availability of reserves. There has been no drop in global oil production due to peak oil... so why add alcohol to the fuel that exists? The process raises food prices, as it increases demand on grain, and hasn't had more than a minor effect on fuel prices.

Because it looks good politically! It appeals to environmentalists to use a substitute for oil, even if, as is the case with ethanol, it causes fuel to lose energy density and decreases fuel mileage, especially in vehicles not designed for ethanol use. Alcohol burns slower and hotter than gasoline, meaning it cannot fully combust in the time span gasoline combusts in (thereby leading to increased pollution due to incomplete combustion), and places an extra load on cooling systems.

That makes ethanol a very poor energy in terms of EROEI. But just try to find a gas station in the US which sells pure gasoline. They are very few and far between.

I will have to look into abiotic oil some more to be frank. I remember going over it a few years ago, but it never stuck with me. I do like the idea, given that there are many forms of hydrocarbons found in other places not on Earth. However, a quick read of the wikipedia page shows the issue is up for debate. Much debate.

I strongly suggest you do so; there is quite a bit of evidence for the theory, both theoretical and physical. I do suggest you go beyond Wikipedia; it is a great source for quick information, but can be biased on matters which are still under debate... and biotic/abiotic oil is definitely under debate. That much they got exactly right.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

But from a business standpoint, the natural gas reserves, being stranded, are worthless outside of the immediate area. Therefore, it makes good financial sense but poor energy sense to use that natural gas resource in such a way to increase the profit on extracting oil from the oil sands.

---

But at the same time, these reserves were available for near a century, yet they waited to exploit them. Obviously some can be chalked up to technology, but the technological means were still available 50 years ago that are employed at some oil sands projects, and other parts.

The hard to reach natural gas that is being burned for other projects is a good point, but it could really support either side of the argument.

Yours being that it is still producing a return, mine that it is being used instead of easy to locate/process oil.

I will suspend my case right now as I don't have the proper amount of time to look into it more. Multitasking is keeping me from focusing on one subject.

reply to post by boncho

There's little question that higher prices are responsible for new methods and technologies that are used today. Without the higher prices, such would not be feasible. I do not disagree with this. I also cannot disagree with your point that the process can support either side of the argument. Business is a funny thing when compared to common sense, with its own rules and reason.

It would appear we are in the same boat so far as the multitasking; I am pretty busy with that nightmare we call real life myself. I would have loved to present the actual chemical equations in that last reply, but time did not permit. Take your time posting... I can be patient,

This subject is worth it IMO.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by Pimander

---

I'm with you on this one. If it really was running out, wouldn't governments and industries worldwide be attempting to decrease usage and dependence and finding alternative methods of power? I think they would. Nice post. It remains a controversial subject but I think it must be a lie. The government gets huge revenues from taxes on oil while big business gets it at a cheaper price than the consumer (here in Holland anyway). A nasty scam.

wow, the thought processes of some of the people on this site is mind boggling.


deny ignorance indeed.

reply to post by Question Fate

---

I just wanted to thank you for taking valuable time out of your day and responding to me. The level of thought, understanding and perception you put in to this post leaves me speechless. I feel like I am in the presence of a vastly superior intellect that thankfully has seen fit to show me the folly of my ideas and given me much to think about.

In fact, I don't think I'll ever be quite the same again after this experience. Thank you!

reply to post by Pimander

Of course the subject is worth it. Which is why I'm pointing out that Bonch has ducked a debate where he is likely to be hopelessly out-gunned. On past form he would also prefer this thread to be largely ignored and forgotten so won't want to bump it. Oops bumped!

---

This coming from someone who has largely ignored and failed to respond to anything I have posted in the thread. Here, directly for you, tell me your thoughts on this:

The Hubbert Curve

At first, production grows rapidly as each new well adds its output. Eventually production for the oil field reaches a peak as each new well produces less oil and the older wells run dry. Then there is a rapid decay in production as more and more wells run dry.

The US has 521070 producing wells, and 11 (barrels/well/day). Norway has 833 wells and produces 3782 (barrels/well/day).

At 521070 oil wells, the U.S. has more oil wells than the rest of the world combined. Yet the total productivity is sliding down the right side of the Hubbert curve. U.S. production is much less than the peak year of 1970 and the R/P of 10 means not much is left. More wells and better technology increases the rate of oil production, but total amount of oil produced is increased only a little. Compare the productivity per well of the U.S. (11 barrels per day) with Saudi Arabia (4730 barrels per day).

Is this accurate or is it made up?



Source

Just let me know if the Hubbert curve is made up, or if it is true or false that wells speed up and then decrease in production when running with no intrference.

Wall Street has gamed the system to keep oil prices high despite increased domestic production.
  Posted 15 days ago with 8 member flags

Enough World Oil Reserves for the Next Million Years?
  Posted 7 days ago with 5 member flags

Just HOW much does it cost to produce a litre/gallon of petrol/gasoline ?
  Posted 7 days ago with 4 member flags

who needs oil, We need Weapons Grade Hydride
  Posted 11 days ago with 1 member flags

Hydraulic Fracturing Facts
  Posted 2 days ago with 0 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: