oil peak starting to look like hoax...thoughts?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 26-10-2004 @ 03:42 AM by spaceghost
Ok guys long time listener, short time caller...for the past few days I have been going a little crazy with all this talk about "Peak Oil ". After days of analysing hundreds of sources off the web, I thought that perhaps this could be the case.

(I think there is another post...if so sorry)

Then I begin to come across information that stated otherwise, however, when you freak out and start to stop thinking rationally, you see things that are perhaps worse than they really are. I came across some very interesting articles relating to the "Peak Oil " being a hoax. A good friend who works for Morgan Stanley stated that this is the case.

www.davesweb.cnchost.com...

www.davesweb.cnchost.com...


www.gasandoil.com...


Now as I piled through these articles I begin to see some very interesting points being made...

1. No real definitive answer to the composite make up of oil
2. A very indepth study based on 50yrs research by the Russians on deep well drilling and oil being a renewable resource.
3. The imperical data not being utilized by the West
4. If oil was from dinosaurs, then how could that explain deep deposits being found in very deep waters.

Consider the following:

What would these experts gain if they told the world that there was a oil decline?

Could it be these guys are going to make some serious cash out of it...and what about all the "Peak Oil" authors...same outcome?

Why is there no one of the same calibre refuting these people, infact everyone of these people use to work for the oil/energy companies?

Why is this Russian data not used or shown to the West?

LET"S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!! Fire away I want to know what you guys here think....


reply posted on 26-10-2004 @ 09:17 AM by SiRiNO
FTW: What would you say to the people who insist that oil is created from magma, or that there's really so much that we don't have to worry?

Campbell: Oil sometimes does occur in fractured or weathered crystalline rocks, which may have led people to accept this theory, but in all cases there is an easy explanation of lateral migration from normal sources. Isotopic evidence provides a clear link to the organic origins. No one in the industry gives the slightest credence to these theories: after drilling for 150 years they know a bit about it. Another misleading idea is about oilfields being refilled. Some are, but the oil simply is leaking in from a deeper accumulation.

There is no evidence to support the idea that oil isnt from decaying matter etc.

There is alot of evidence for the peak oil theory - the huge jump in oil prices, the two recent oil wars, and the fact that major companies like Shell are admitting they overestimated their fields by 25%.

1. No real definitive answer to the composite make up of oil
-The makeup of oil is well known, but we havent created any in the lab yet simply because we cant reproduce to heat and pressure needed.
2. A very indepth study based on 50yrs research by the Russians on deep well drilling and oil being a renewable resource.
-Arent these the same guys who found the 'well to hell' hahaha
4. If oil was from dinosaurs, then how could that explain deep deposits being found in very deep waters.
-Basic geological movements, the layers of rock are pushed under eachother etc by force.


reply posted on 26-10-2004 @ 09:42 AM by Gools
I too have been going a little crazy over the “Peak Oil” stuff over the last two years and I also found the abiotic oil theory. There are threads around here on all of these issues.

In my opinion the “true source of oil debate” is a
red herring and serves to divide and conquer the populace by making them chose a side and argue about it.

It does not matter what the ultimate source of oil is.

The fact is that all of the easy, low sulphur content and cheaply extractable oil has been found and is being exploited.

Whether or not oil is formed in an abiotic process or by a biological process does nothing to change the fact that it takes a VERY long time to happen.

How long can we wait for either process to provide us with more oil?

How much more pollution from burning fossil fuels can the planet take?

Humanity depends on oil for its very survival and demand is now outstripping supply. That fact will not change even if abiotic oil is for real.

We are already starting to feel the consequences and will soon be in crisis mode IMHO (see the Great Depression thread in my signature).

I’ll be interested in seeing how this thread develops but I am comfortable in my conclusion that the answer doesn’t really matter.


reply posted on 26-10-2004 @ 11:11 AM by dr_strangecraft
I don't agree with several ideas behind this thread, and I'll tell you why.

As far as the "origins of oil" theories go, I don't agree with the inorganic creation of oil, but I am open to the possibility. It just doesn't fit in well with other things we know about petrochemistry.

I grew up in an oil-producing area of Texas; I have been involved in the oil futures market for the last decade, and continue to supplement my income with profits made from trading futures, oil and natural gas among them.

Here's the problems I see with the whole "peak oil is a hoax" thread.

1. The price of oil is determined by the free market, not some secret "wall street zionist cabal." Oil futures are traded on NYMEX, and you can trade there yourself, if you choose to, merely by putting up a few thousand dollars margin.

2. Oil is produced by nearly a quarter of the nations on the globe, in some capacity. One of the things you need in order to control prices is to control production. And that simply doesn't exist. Think of the major players in oil, aside from Saud, Canada, and Mexico. Most of them have a love/hate relationship w/ USA, and I cannot imagine Nigeria, Russia, or Iran taking orders from USA, or even from each other.

3. American oil (America is a major producer, btw) is extremely decentralized, with probably half the oil produced by independent operators who own less than twenty wells. On your next vacation, visit Cushing, Oklahoma, and talk to the locals. Cushing is the delivery point for New York Mercantile Exchange contracts. You will meet a whole buncha farmers who don't give a rip about the govt or anyone else telling them what they ought to do with their oil.

4. The cause of high oil prices is indeed American demand. The problem is not the lack of oil, but is actually the lack of refining capacity. Environmental legislation passed in the early 90's means that only a dozen refineries have been built in the past decade, while oil demand continues to rise. Most of that demand is focused on the coasts. California sits on several major offshore fields, in shallow water; but CA law prohibits new drilling because of enviro concerns. The bottle neck is actually the refining capacity, and not production.

5. The "deep oil" links at the top of the thread are hilarious; russian oil, and yukos in particular have been linked to some of the biggest market manipulations and investor scams in recent history. Unlike the American/Euro free-for-all of open auctions in oil, the Russian markets are miniscule and suffer from heavy state "intervention." If "deep oil" is so prolific, why is Yukos trying to declare bankruptcy and repudiate its debts? Why wont Putin let it, if their inability to pay were legitimate???

6. If anybody in North Korea actually thought they had access to exploitable reserves, they'd surely halt their expensive weapons program, funnel the money into oil exploration, and start selling to China and Japan, two of the biggest oil consumers on the globe. Even Kim Jong Il could see that oil is more potent than bombs. So why isn't NK exploiting this? Because it isnt true . . .


reply posted on 10-12-2004 @ 12:27 PM by dbates
Have you guys checked out The Oil Supply and Demand Situation. An ATSNN Outlook? It's an interview with Dr. Gal Luft, the executive director of Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS). They specalize in energy security issues. It's worth a read.

I think that production overall is on a slight decline or at least flat. Energy demand is on a rise, so this puts us in a deficit even if we keep current production rates.


reply posted on 10-12-2004 @ 01:22 PM by smirkley
Yes,.... a popular and interesting subject none the less.

Yet another thread in ATSNN that seems to be supportive of this suggestion of a hoax...

OPEC Agrees to an Oil Supply Crackdown: Will Cut 1 Million Barrels A Day

And was also just watching CNBC and Ron Insana was doing a live interview with the president of OPEC.

And I quote the OPEC pres, "We are expecting a drop in (oil) demand in 2005, by approximatly 1 million bbl's"

(but I am expecting a much larger drop in demand, as well as sharp increases in production, as suggested in the link here in my post.)


Also note that oil is dropping like a rock today.

[edit on 10-12-2004 by smirkley]
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



The Peak Oil Lie: Oil is NOT going to run out
  Posted 5 days ago with 9 member flags
Oil\'s tipping point has passed
  Posted 9 days ago with 3 member flags
Why The US Will Never Be \'Energy Independent\'
  Posted 15 days ago with 2 member flags
Worldometers: Oil officially ends November 9 2053 ( 9/11 )
  Posted 13 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Alien Grey caught in photo ?
  Aliens and UFOs, Posted 9 hours ago, 64 replies
Greetings from a Dying Man
  Introductions, Posted 7 hours ago, 58 replies
Pass Me My Rifle
  World War Three, Posted 13 hours ago, 55 replies
Santorum wants more fracking!!!
  US Political Madness, Posted 17 hours ago, 53 replies
Iran sent pink drone to Obama
  World War Three, Posted 13 hours ago, 40 replies