What's going to make headlines in 2006 or How the fuck did I get so old?

[Dr. Jerkoholic]

For a conspiracist such as yourself, you have failed to come to the obvious conclusion: renewable energy is homeland security.

It wasn't my intention to draw any conclusions, even the ones as obvious as that, but the abiotic theory opens up the possibilites of there being plentiful supplies of oil, albeit severely restricted ones due to extreme depths of 100km and over. And yes abiotic petroleum is inherently renewable, otherwise it would have vaporized a long time ago.

But if you insist, here's my 4 cents:
"Time is a stringent limitation. The US has relatively few years to convert its transportation system to another energy source. But do we have the economic push to make the conversion? Major fuel substitution for transportation will begin in the US only when the substitution becomes economically advantageous. Once found, oil can be produced cheaply. We will continue to use already discovered natural oil because it is cheapest. As this is depleted the US will buy more and more imported oil, a move loaded with economic, political and military risks. [Emphasis added] Only as these risks are translated into costs will the price of oil in the US rise enough to provide the economic push. The comprehensive replacement of petroleum for transportation in the US and possibly the world just will not be accomplished in time to permit an orderly transition to non-petroluem fuels. Without an orderly replacement of petroleum fuels for transportation, US society will slide downhill, not abruptly perhaps, but definately. [Emphasis added] Conservation merely delays the agony slightly. This same problem is faced in the other specialized applications of natural oil.
"Oil from secondary sources may provide additional time to make the required adjustment [Emphasis added] (Smith, 1982). Only two secondary sources actually yield oil at prices nearly competitive with petroleum - oil shale and tar sands (Smith, 1982)." (Chong and Smith, 1984, pp 4-5).

These two paragraphs sum-up our current situation. Can we move from oil-based economies to non-oil-based economies? Yes. Can we do so economically? Not at this time.

Thus, to buy time, to ease economic hardship and to finish a transition from an oil economy to an alternative energy economy, we must do one thing, mine oil shale and tar sands.

How much Oil is there in the United States?

We are all aware that the Middle East has approximately 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

Their oil is in saturated Sediments, so we can drill it.

Our oil is in shale and sand, so we must mine it, it is located in Northern Utah, Western Colorado, and Southern Whyoming.

How much oil is in the United States?

1.5 to 1.8 Trillion Barrels of Oil (Page 11 of 90)

All are economically recoverable, but to a price a bit above our current price for foreign oil. Thus, foreign oil is chosen as the economical prospect.

But this brings us political and military problems (war in Iraq).

The reason we do not currently mine oil shale is also because of resistance by environmental interest groups.

But for the most part, it is the lack of understanding of just how much oil the United States has.

The estimates are 5 times the amount of estimated oil recoverable in Saudi Arabia.

This is outrageous, that we have so much oil, but no will to recover it. Especially when we need the oil. We cannot tomorrow, or the next day, or in 10 years, switch from an oil economy to a non-oil-based economy. There is simply too many power-plants, too many cars, too many trains, too much of our infrastructure and that of the entire world, that relies on oil.

Whether we like it or not, oil is our burden for the fore-seeable future.

We need oil, and we can mine our own, and we can in the process transist from an oil-based economy to a non-oil-based economy. We can do this without wars in the middle east...but we need to remove the restrictions which bind our ability to access domestic oil.

By now, of course, it should be clear that the our war campaign isn't about oil supplies. It's a petro-dollar currency war in fact.

 

[Ozrat]

Let's try this again.

AGAIN: Show me where Hubbert's curve is dependant on the assumption of it being a "fossil" fuel and how your stament of it being "abiotic" instead disproves it. Hubbert based his science on oil as we know it, and he has not been disproved yet; especially not by you.

I did not "insist" for your "4 cents", spank you very much. And don't quote books writen by some dude named "Chong", give me a link. After all, if it is science then it should have references easily available.

As a conspiracist, you should already be aware that politics and economics are heavily involved with the oil industry. After all, our whole global economy is based on the illusion of this 'cheap' energy.

Nobody does any independant checks to see if any of the OPEC or other nations are exagerating in their reserve estimates for economic/political reasons. Nobody knows how much is actually out there, all we know for certain is how much is presently above ground.

You also clearly have no understanding about the science behind extracting oil reserves based on your statements. I would suggest doing some research.

Then again, it's not like you are actually trying to present anything factual here in the first place.

 

[Dr. Jerkoholic]

Must I again state the "obvious"?

The concept of "Peak oil" is strictly linked to a view that sees oil as a finite resource. Several economists have never accepted this view, arguing that resource availability is determined by price and not by physical factors. Recently, others have been arguing a more extreme view: that oil is not even physically limited. According to some versions of the abiotic oil theory, oil is continuously created in the Earth's mantle in such amounts that the very concept of "depletion" is to be abandoned and, by consequence, that there will never be an "oil peak."

There are, really, two versions of the abiotic oil theory, the "weak" and the "strong":

- The "weak" abiotic oil theory: oil is abiotically formed, but at rates not higher than those that petroleum geologists assume for oil formation according to the conventional theory. (This version has little or no political consequences).

- The "strong" abiotic theory: oil is formed at a speed sufficient to replace the oil reservoirs as we deplete them, that is, at a rate something like 10,000 times faster than known in petroleum geology. (This one has strong political implications).

Which of the two is correct, if any, is still a matter of debate, but only the "strong" abiotic petroleum theory has direct ramifications to "Peak oil", obviously. Thus you see, I wasn't talking exactly out of my arse. I admit, I'm no expert in this field, but still that doesn't imply that all of a sudden I'm inherently wrong in all I have stated. And regarding my sources - here, read it yourself: Oil Shale Development in the United States Prospects and Policy Issues

Anyhow, there's plenty of controversy regardless of abiotic oil:

he implications of the model are controversial. Some petroleum economists, such as Michael Lynch, argue [6] that the Hubbert curve with a sharp peak is inapplicable globally due to the differences in oil reserves, political and military leverage, demand, and trade partnerships between countries and regions.

Critics such as Leonardo Maugeri point out that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995, based on oil production data available at that time. Maugeri claims that nearly all of the estimates do not take into account non-conventional oil even though the availability of these resources is (supposedly) huge and the costs of extraction, while still very high, are falling due to improved technology. Furthermore, he notes that the recovery rate from existing world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today due to new technology and predicts this trend will continue. The ratio between proven oil reserves and current production has constantly improved, passing from 20 years in 1948 to 35 years in 1972 and reaching about 40 years in 2003. These improvements occurred even with low investment in new exploration and upgrading technology due to the low oil prices during the last 20 years. The current higher oil prices may well cause increased investment.

The current debate revolves around energy policy, and whether to shift funding to increasing fuel efficiency, and alternative energy sources like solar and nuclear power. Campbell's critics, like Michael Lynch, argue that his research data is sloppy. They point to the date of the coming peak, which was initially projected to occur by 2000, but has now been pushed back to 2010. However, Campbell and his supporters insist that when the peak occurs is not as important as the realization that the peak is coming. His most vocal critic has been Freddy Hutter. Throughout 2001-2003, in his monthly newsletters, Campbell maintained that his 1996 prediction of a peak in 2000 was unchallenged, despite Hutter's alerts of increasing production levels. Finally in his April 2004 Newsletter, Campbell relented and shifted the peak to 2010. Later this was brought forward to 2007 but in October 2005, was shifted back to 2010. These shifts between predicted dates occur because of the systemic lack of accurate oil reserve data--with no truly accurate data we will not know when the peak occurs. Only after the peak is reached will we know for sure (and this could be years afterwards -- indeed, the peak may already have occurred).

 

[Ozrat]

Must I again state the "obvious"?

The concept of "Peak oil" is strictly linked to a view that sees oil as a finite resource.

Incorrect. It is based on the fact that oil is being consumed at a much faster rate than it can be replenished by natural or artificial processes, whether or not they happen to be from decomposing biomatter over millions of years or by your "abiotic" theory. In either sense, oil is not renewable at the rate that it is being consumed.

Several economists have never accepted this view, arguing that resource availability is determined by price and not by physical factors. Recently, others have been arguing a more extreme view: that oil is not even physically limited. According to some versions of the abiotic oil theory, oil is continuously created in the Earth's mantle in such amounts that the very concept of "depletion" is to be abandoned and, by consequence, that there will never be an "oil peak."

Again, I do not care what YOU have to SAY about "adiobatic" oil; LINK.

You might as well claim that there will never be a peak in diamondgypsy's posting rate.

Shale oil is just a distraction to calm the oil-addicted masses. Instead of using a link that talks about US policies towards it based on political agendas, I prefer to use actual science

Perhaps oil shale will eventually find a place in the world economy, but the energy demands of blasting, transport, crushing, heating and adding hydrogen, together with the safe disposal of huge quantities of waste material, are large. On a small scale, and with good geological and other favourable conditions, such as water supply, oil shale may make a modest contribution but so far shale oil remains the "elusive energy".

Go ahead, try and "disprove" me again by ignoring my points and going off on tangets again, it'll get you far fast.

 

[Dr. Jerkoholic]

Must I again state the "obvious"?

The concept of "Peak oil" is strictly linked to a view that sees oil as a finite resource.

Incorrect. It is based on the fact that oil is being consumed at a much faster rate than it can be replenished by natural or artificial processes, whether or not they happen to be from decomposing biomatter over millions of years or by your "abiotic" theory. In either sense, oil is not renewable at the rate that it is being consumed.

Hah! What blatant ignorance of factual evidence. Give me a link with the original definiton, or I'll call you a liar. Back then they knew jackshit about the possibility of abiotic petroleum origin (all except the Russians). Thus it is critical to the theory that there be a limited (in the sense that it is slow to renew in relation to the rate of consumption) amount of petroleum. Which was commonsense at the time, considering the fossil fuel theory. But the abiotic petroleum theory undermines this very fundemental assumption. As for the links, I can suggest www.google.com, as I don't have the time to supply you with material I read years ago. But if you'd be patient I may come up with something nice tomorrow. Till then you'll have to settle with this:

"Some of the arguments about resource scarcity resemble those made in the 1970s. They have noted that discoveries are low (as did Wilson (1977) and that most estimates of ultimately recoverable resources (URR) are in the range of 2 trillion barrels, approximately twice production to date. But beyond that, Campbell and Laherrere in particular claim that they have developed accurate estimates of URR, and thus, unlike earlier work, theirs is more scientific and reliable. In other words, this time the wolf is really here. But careful examination of their work reveals instead a pattern of errors and mistaken assumptions presented as conclusive research results.


. . . The primary error for Hubbert modelers is the assumption of geology as the sole otivator of discovery, depletion and production. In the work of Campbell, Deffeyes, and Laherrere, they go further, equating causality with correlation. This is one ofmost basic errors in (physical or social) scientific analysis.

. . . The argument that the drop in global discoveries proves scarcity of the resource is the best example of the importance of understanding causality. While it is true that global oil discoveries dropped in the 1970s from the previous rate, this was largely due to drop inexploration in the Middle East. Governments nationalized foreign operations and cut back drilling as demand for their oil fell by half, leaving them with an enormous surplus of unexploited reserves. It is noteworthy that none of those pessimistic about oil resources show discovery over time by region, which would support this.

. . . The many inconsistencies and errors, along with the ignorance of most prior research, indicates that the current school of Hubbert modelers have not discovered new, earth-shaking results but rather joined the large crowd of those who have found that large bodies of data often yield particular shapes, from which they attempt to divine physical laws. The work of the Hubbert modelers has proven to be incorrect in theory, and based heavily on assumptions that the available evidence shows to be wrong. They have repeatedly misinterpreted political and economic effects as reflecting geological constraints, and misunderstood the causality underlying exploration, discovery and production.

The primary flaw in Hubbert-type models is a reliance on URR as a static number rather than a dynamic variable, changing with technology, knowledge, infrastructure and other factors, but primarily growing. Campbell and Laherrere claim to have developed better analytical methods to resolve this problem, but their own estimates have been increasing, and increasingly rapidly.

The result has been exactly as predicted in Lynch (1996) for this method: a series of predictions of near-term peak and decline, which have had to be repeatedly revised upwards and into the future. So much so as to suggest that the authors themselves are providing evidence that oil resources are under no strain, but increasing faster than consumption! "

Here's the link, but do try to read it first before ingorantly dismissing it as the one I had previously provided for you. If you had not done that, you would have seen that your counter arguments are addresed in a most satisfactory manner.

Here's an excerpt directly addresing the economical perspective of oil shale refining:

Development Timeline. Currently, no organization with the management, technical, and financial wherewithal to develop oil shale resources has announced its intent to build commercial-scale production facilities. A firm decision to commit funds to such a venture is at least six years away because that is the minimum length of time for scale-up and process confirmation work needed to obtain the technical and environmental data required for the design and permitting of a first-of-a-kind commercial operation. At least an additional six to eight years will be required to permit, design, construct, shake down, and confirm performance of that initial commercial operation. Consequently, at least 12 and possibly more years will elapse before oil shale development will reach the production growth phase. Under high growth assumptions, an oil shale production level of 1 million barrels per day is probably more than 20 years in the future, and 3 million barrels per day is probably more than 30 years into the future.

 

[Ozrat]

Hah! What blatant ignorance of factual evidence. Give me a link with the original definiton, or I'll call you a liar.

You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

As for the links, I can suggest www.google.com, as I don't have the time to supply you with material I read years ago. But if you'd be patient I may come up with something nice tomorrow. Till then you'll have to settle with this:

*snip*

Hold up one sec. If it is so easy for ME to google up this information, then how is it easier and faster for you to transcribe all of that from some unknown book than it is for you to copy and paste some url link yourself?

Let's keep this as simple as possible, shall we? Show me exactly how much oil we are consuming on a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly/whateverly basis. Then show me how much "abiotic" oil is being generated and can be extracted and processed to a useful form on that same time basis. If the former outpaces the latter, then it is not renewable and we have already reached the peak. Simple math, I love it.

Or dance, puppet, dance; whatever your agenda may be.

EDIT:

As for the link you provided in your edit, it says NOTHING about abiotic oil.

Here, try this one instead:

...even if the abiotic theory does eventually prove to be partially or wholly scientifically valid (and that is a rather big "if"), it might have little or no practical consequence in terms of oil depletion and the imminent global oil production peak.

...

Perhaps one day there will be general agreement that at least some oil is indeed abiotic. Maybe there are indeed deep methane belts twenty miles below the Earth's surface. But the important question to keep in mind is: What are the practical consequences of this discussion now for the problem of global oil depletion?

I have not personally inspected the oil wells in Saudi Arabia or even those in Texas. But nearly every credible report that I have seen - whether from the industry or from an independent scientist - describes essentially the same reality: discoveries are declining, and have been since the 1960s. Spare production capacity is practically gone. And the old, super-giant oil fields that the world depends upon for the majority of its production are nearing or past their all-time production peaks. Not even the Russian fields cited by the abiotic theorists as evidence for their views are immune: in June the head of Russia's Federal Energy Agency said that production for 2005 is likely to remain flat or even drop, while other officials in that country have said that growth in Russian production cannot be sustained for more than another few years.

Notice how that link and quote actually talks about what you are claiming as opposed to the "evidence" that you present? Pretty nice, eh?

I rest my case until you can answer my simple math challenge. And not in paragraphs, but with simple links to sources of your numbers and a simple math equation.

 

[Dr. Jerkoholic]

How nice of you to put all the work on my back, as if the side you are supporting is the undisputed contested one, when the truth of the matter indicates it's completely the opposite. I'll give you three more links which combined present (and this is shocker, so brace yourself) a clear and concise mathematical proof (since you like math so much) that ALL petroleum on Earth is of abiotic origin:

http://www.gasresources.net/ThrmcCnstrnts.htm

http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

http://www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm

And I don't except any "it's too technical excuses". Further more if you're going to continue bitching about my argumentative efforts while you at the same time are too fucking lazy to even scan through the stuff I give you then I don't see any reason why to continue this debate. And the same applies for Ratty too. I'm going to PM him now to get his sorry arse here and explain himself.

The very pdf file I gave you systematically debunks the "peak oil" apologetic ruminative bullshit in a very thought out and logically sound manner. But hey, how would you know that when you haven't even read past the first paragraph? Fuckin' Wah man! The fact that it nowhere mentiones the term abiotic is only a furtherance to the fact that the author engages the subject on scientifically sound and empirically verifiable grounds only. But where exactly did I say that the article was about abiotic petroleum? Let me remind you: the big picture here is the Hubbert curve and it's already abundantly clear how innacurate it is regardless of the abiotic petroleum theory (which has been proven theoretically and only awaits some substantial empirical proof; which already exists, namely all the oil we currently use, but the process of it's surface emergance hasn't yet been explained in sufficient detail.)

Here, read this:
Holly crap! The guy's not bullshiting me!

And since that pdf has proven too much for you, here's a lil' shorter article by the same author on the same subject with little less of those big words, so that even our king George can understand. And please don't tell me you didn't have the willpower to read through this one as well:

The past five years have seen a renewed debate on the issue of oil supply and the possibility of a near-term peak in production and the concomitant adverse economic consequences. A number of articles have stated that discoveries over the past thirty years have been only a fraction of consumption and that according to the Hubbert Curve method, world oil production is close to a peak. What few people realize is that these arguments are based entirely on a very particular technical argument, and recent evidence has highlighted its fallacy.

The greatest attention was achieved by the March 1998 Scientific American article “The End of Cheap Oil” by Jean Laherrere and Colin Campbell, largely due to the extreme nature of their warning--production peaking within a few year and the alleged irrefutability of it. Subsequently, the authors have been very active publicizing their views, including testimony to the British House of Commons, speaking on BBC, and a number of other venues. A few articles in the general press have been at least skeptical, but most of the work refuting their arguments has been treated cautiously and quite a few lay observers have taken their arguments as truth rather than speculation.

Critics of these arguments (like myself) have noted that these forecasts have repeatedly proven to be incorrect, including those by Colin Campbell in particular, who as early as 1989 predicted a peak in world oil production for that year. Their rejoinder has been to note past performance is not proof of future performance.

However, to the more explicit charge that their model is mis-specified, the authors have made a more substantive response. The primary flaw in this type of model is the assumption that recoverable petroleum resources are fixed, when the amount of oil which can be recovered depends on both the total amount of oil (a geological factor which is fixed), but also dynamic variables like price, infrastructure, and technology. If the amount of recoverable oil increases, as it has in the past, then the level predicted for peak production must increase and the date pushed further into the future. This has been observed many times from forecasters using this type of model and relying on estimates of ultimately recoverable resources (URR).

But Campbell and Laherrere have asserted that their estimate of URR is both highly accurate and stable because of their calculation using field size estimates showing declining discovery size, moving towards an asymptote. Since they have relied heavily on a privately held database, which is unavailable to the general researcher, it has been difficult for critics to respond to this specifically. [1]

The reliance on discovery trends to estimate URR has received similar criticism as the faulty URR estimates, namely that estimates of field size tend to increase over time with improved recovery methods, better examination of seismic data, infill drilling, and so forth. This means that the size of the recent fields is being underestimated compared to older fields, exaggerating the nearness of the asymptote and understating its size. An analogy would be to plant trees over twenty years and note that the size of the most recently planted trees was shrinking, and concluding that timber resources would become scarce.

Campbell and Laherrere have argued in response that increases in recovery at existing fields are artifacts of accounting rules (which is only partly true) and that they have overcome this flaw by their reliance on a database whose reserve estimates do not suffer from this bias. Since the estimate of ultimately recoverable resources is based on their field size estimates, the question of field growth becomes central to the entire debate. And their primary line of defense has been that their critics lack access to this database.

Last year, the publication of the USGS’s World Petroleum Assessment provided one particularly sharp nail in the coffin of this argument, when (among other things) they examined the development of field size estimates over time using the same proprietary database which Campbell and Laherrere relied on, and concluded that reserve growth from existing fields, although uncertain, would be substantial. They published a mean estimate of 612 billion barrels (nearly 30 years of current consumption), significantly increasing their estimate of the world’s URR.

But the final nails seem to be located in this summer’s little-noticed announcement by IHS Energy the firm whose field database Campbell and Laherrere have utilizedof estimated discoveries. According to the firm, discoveries in 2000 were 14.3 billion barrels in 2000, a 10% drop from 1999. This has two interesting implications: first, discoveries have risen sharply the past two years, refuting the statement that poor geology, rather than lack of access to the most prospective areas in OPEC, has kept discoveries low for the past three decades. But also, this implies that discoveries in the past two years have amounted to nearly 20% of the total undiscovered oil which Campbell and Laherrere argued remain!

Undoubtedly they and others will argue that this is due to the firm’s inclusion of deepwater reserves, which they are not considering, and that is a factor in the recent robustness of discoveries. However, the primary element behind the greater discovery rates has been the finding of two new super-giant fields in Kazakhstan and Iran. Again, this refutes the argument that discoveries have been relatively low in recent decades due to geological scarcity and supports the optimists’ arguments that the lower discoveries are partly due to reduced drilling in the Middle East after the 1970s nationalizations.

And the most crucial fact is actually IHS Energy’s reference to earlier discoveries. They have revised their estimates of remaining reserves at end-1991 to 1200 billion barrels, implying that oil discovered to that date was close to 1900 billion barrels (since about 675 billion barrels had been produced). This despite the Campbell/Laherrere argument that their data does not experience revisions due to their reliance on P50 (50% probability) estimates, compared to P90 (90% probability) used in the US and by many US oil companies. While there remain uncertainties about future field reserve growth versus historical growth, it becomes clear that it is still continuing and the arguments that they had corrected for the problem are fallacious at best.

Indeed, the sheer size of the revisions are themselves significant. Although I lack access to historical IHS Energy estimates, Campbell and Laherrere had placed “back-dated” reserves in the early 1990s at barely over 1000 billion barrels in their 1998 article. This implies (to be generous) an increase due to revisions of 150 billion barrels or more in a mere five years: 30% more than actual consumption! It means (as I have repeatedly argued) that their discovery trend curves are misleading, because the more recent numbers were understated, and in the future will likely be too low again. The method they use is flawed because of this definitional mistake.

Note also that the amount discovered to 1991 (which would include only minimal deepwater discoveries) is actually significantly greater than the two now estimate would ever be discovered. In fact, IHS Energy puts current reserves at 1100 billion barrels, which, with past production, yields almost 2000 billion barrels, about 10% or 200 billion barrels over the 1800 billion barrels which the duo have confidently predicted would be the ultimate total. Presumably we can expect them to make yet another upwards revision in their URR estimate. Indeed, despite fears of declining discoveries, estimated recoverable resources--even by pessimistshave grown faster than consumption. This can hardly be argued as a sign of resource scarcity.

There are many other arguments that have made up part of this debate, and I have tried to deal with each of them in the articles cited below, as well as further forthcoming work. But while we need be concerned about quite a number of issues related to petroleum supplydepletion, change in reserve growth, concentration of production in politically stable areasa possible near-term peak in production (conventional or otherwise) is not one of them. It takes a lot of nails to close a coffin, but the size and quality of these will hopefully ensure that it remains closed.

It think that now, after all here presented, it's YOU who should give ME the figures disproving my claims and proving your so precious "Peak oil" debacle. How about that now, partner?

P.S. The link you've supplied fails to prove anything, but just proclaims that the discussion is unwaranted in the first place. Hah! Hell, even the author admits his own ignorance in the end, which is COLOSSAL btw. Maybe I should do a google search on him, and expose him for a fraud he is.

 

[Ozrat]

How nice of you to put all the work on my back, as if the side you are supporting is the undisputed contested one, when the truth of the matter indicates it's completely the opposite.

Actually, you've got it backwards. Go back and reread the thread.

As for your precious website, I fail to see how a site that only links to itself for sources and to outdated books writen by Soviet/Russian scientists is credible or at least well documentated. I also googled "Gas Resources Corporation" and found them to be alone in taking themselves seriously.

It think that now, after all here presented, it's YOU who should give ME the figures disproving my claims and proving your so precious "Peak oil" debacle. How about that now, partner?

You could think that, but you'd be incorrect. Again.

And go ahead, try to show me how much of a fraud Heinberg is. But even if you do attempt to do so, you are still only dodging my simple challenge:

Do the math.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Jerkoholic, all those papers prove is that it's theoretically possible for methane to form complex hydrocarbon molecules which comprise the natural petroleum under the conditions which exist 100 km or more under Earth's surface. None of them really prove all of Earth's petroleum reserve's were created in such a process. Though a part of Earth's natural petroleum may be of abiotic origin, there are many strong evidence which indicate that the quantity is negligible at best.

If you read some of the articles below, you will see that:

1. There is no evidence whatsoever of methane belts 100 km below Earth's surface. No methane = no abiotic oil.

2. There is no evidence whatsoever of oil reserves at such depths. Allegations of "self-replenishing oil fields" have been largely debunked with evidence conforming to the biotic oil theory.

3. The origin of oil can be established by studying the presence and ratio of carbon and hydrogen isotopes. Biotic oil has a different "signature" from the abiotic oil. Analysis of samples from just about every commercial oil field has clearly shown that oil is of biotic origin.

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v416/n6880/abs/416522a_fs.html

http://www.museletter.com/archive/150b.html

Furthermore, even if the highly controversial and unsubstantiated hypothesis of abiotic origin of oil is correct, there is no evidence whatsoever that the rate at which major oil fields replenish has any economic significance. Global oil reserves are dwindling - that's a fact. Countries which once had large oil fields are now oil importers, because their reserves have been depleted and *remain* depleted. Even if the abiotic genesis of oil does indeed happen in Earth's crust, the depth at which the process occurs makes it completely irrelevant for the oil industry today, as well as in foreseeable future.

Face it, Peak Oil isn't a pipe dream - it is an economic and geological reality. It has occured a number of times on local scale and it is occuring on the global scale.

 

[Dr. Jerkoholic]

What the fuck is your problem Ozrat? You ask for scientific proof, and when I deliver it, you discard it without even reading through it, in the same manner as with all other materials I've provided. Or maybe you tried to read through, but were unable (or unwilling) to grasp the gravity of the subject therein presented and were forced to give up. What other conclusion am I to draw from this? If you're going to continue behaving like this, then I don't believe we stand a chance of having a fruitful discussion here. You constantly refuse to do any research on your own part, and yet have the nerve of accusing me as the one with no intention of presenting anything factual in this thread. You’ve just proven yourself as a hypocrite and because you failed to provide me with the original “Oil Peak” definition, a liar as well. So far, you have not read through any of the links I provided which by basic discussion rules means that my arguments stand unchallenged since you have on multiple occasions failed to back your counter-arguments. That one article doesn’t count, since it’s just political apologetic bullshit. Show me some science! Anyhow, without a moderator, this discussion is going nowhere.

And what’s the point of conveying to you that the growth in oil reserves far exceeds the growth in oil productions when you’ll just as easily disregard and proclaim void any of the sources I might cite? Like the USGS World Petroleum Assessment, for instance. Or would you rather that I cite IHS Energy instead? I will, if you’ll provide me with 36,000 $ they’re charging for it. You see the futility of such arguing. Pot calling the kettle black: that’s all you’ve managed to do so far. Really, a great job man! I suggest you first do some serious reading before you bother reporting back, as it is you who has shown disturbing (insulting, would be better) ignorance to all the facts thrown directly at your face.

I here quote the Gas Resources Corporation homepage which in its own words addreses the credibility issue you so delightedly pointed out (these things are there for people to read them, you know):

The public-access pages on this site are presently being built to provide easy reference to various publications involving modern petroleum science. Modern petroleum science, - or what is called often the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins, - is an extensive body of knowledge which has been recorded in thousands of articles published in the mainstream, Russian-language scientific journals, and in many books and monographs. However, effectively nothing of modern petroleum science has been published in the U.S.A., and this body of knowledge remains largely unknown in the English-speaking world. For reason of this circumstance, a brief introduction to modern Russian petroleum science has been written separately, and is offered together with a brief indication of some of its immediate economic consequences.
The unfamiliarity with the Russian-language scientific literature has been further worsened by the bizarre circumstance that modern Russian petroleum science has been subject to the most extensive attempt at plagiarism in the history of modern science. This particular aspect of the history of this body of knowledge is taken up in the section dealing with the political and sociological essays.

The articles on this site have been put here to accommodate the many requests for reprints and further information, received during the past few years following the publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. of an article formally enunciating the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins and demonstrating the high-pressure genesis of petroleum. Therefore, although the articles on these pages have been contributed by more than a dozen authors, the majority have been written or coauthored by Dr. J. F. Kenney, of both the Russian Academy of Sciences and Gas Resources Corporation. It deserves to be recognized that all of the contributors to these articles that deal with petroleum science and petroleum operations are all highly competent oil and gas men and women. All have extensive experience in discovering and producing petroleum.
In the pages containing articles connected with petroleum economics, there are several papers by Professor Michael C. Lynch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology which address directly the myth of "oil exhaustion." There is also a link to an article by Professor Peter Odell of the London School of Economics concerning the common misperceptions connected with petroleum economics.

One should understand that these papers cannot give justice to the immense literature of modern Russian petroleum science. During the half century between 1951-2001, there have been thousands of articles published in the mainstream Russian scientific journals on the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins, and many books and monographs. For example, V. A. Krayushkin has published more than two hundred fifty articles on modern petroleum geology, and several books.

In light of the extensive literature of modern Russian petroleum science, questions inevitably arise among persons reading of it for the first time: Why has there been nothing published on this body of knowledge in the English-language (or American) journals which purportedly deal with matters involving petroleum ? Why have there never been Russian or Ukrainian petroleum scientists invited to address a meeting of, e.g., the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (A.A.P.G.) ? Why has there not been appointed to the faculty of a single department of Earth sciences, at any university in the U.S.A., a petroleum scientist competent to teach modern petroleum science ? In short, why have persons in the U.S.A. never heard of this body of knowledge ?
Such lack of reporting has not happened by accident. As the reader may surmise, this dysfunctional behavior has been a (rather typical) manifestation of the purveyors of quackery, desperately striving to preserve their self-image and conceits (and jobs). In short, the Wizard of Oz chicanery, - before the little dog Toto snatched away the curtain. No reader should entertain an illusion that the publishing of these articles, in first-rank scientific journals such as Physical-Chemistry/Chemical-Physics, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has been welcomed by the British/American petroleum geo-phrenology brotherhood.
The history of this behavior deserves itself the attention of competent social anthropologists and persons specializing in political science, and could be the subject of a host of illuminating essays. The behavior of such as the A.A.P.G. connected with modern Russian petroleum science will be taken up in the section dealing with the (sometimes fascinating) sociological aspects of this subject.

-- edit --
Nice to finnaly have you with us Ratty. I'll first have to read through those links you've provided but I can already see you haven't given required attention to the ones I've provided, or otherwise you couldn't have possibly missed this:

The carbon isotope ratios, and their inadequacy as indicators of origin.

The claims made concerning the carbon isotope ratios, and specifically such as purport to identify the origin of the material, particularly the hydrocarbons, are especially recondite and outside the experience of most persons not knowledgeable in the physics of hydrogen-carbon [H-C] systems. Furthermore, the claims concerning the carbon isotope ratios most often involve methane, the only hydrocarbon which is thermodynamically stable in the regime of temperatures and pressures of the Earth’s crust, and the only one which spontaneously evolves there.

The carbon nucleus has two stable isotopes, 12C and 13C. The overwhelmingly most abundance stable isotope of carbon is 12C, which possesses six protons and six neutrons; 13C possesses an extra neutron. (There is another, unstable isotope, 14C, which possesses two extra neutrons; 14C results from a high-energy reaction of the nitrogen nucleus, 14N, with a high-energy cosmic ray particle. The isotope 14C is not involved in the claims about the isotope ratios of carbon.) The carbon isotope ratio, designated δ13C, is simply the ratio of the abundance of carbon isotopes 13C/12C, normalized to the standard of the marine carbonate named Pee Dee Belemnite. The values of the measured δ13C ratio is expressed as a percentage (compared to the standard).

During the 1950’s, increasingly numerous measurements of the carbon isotope ratios of hydrocarbon gases were taken, particularly of methane; and too often assertions were made that such ratios could unambiguously determine the origin of the hydrocarbons. The validity of such assertions were tested, independently by Colombo, Gazzarini, and Gonfiantini in Italy and by Galimov in Russia. Both sets of workers established that the carbon isotope ratios cannot be used reliably to determine the origin of the carbon compound tested.



Colombo, Gazzarini, and Gonfiantini demonstrated conclusively, by a simple experiment the results of which admitted no ambiguity, that the carbon isotope ratios of methane change continuously along its transport path, becoming progressively lighter with distance traveled. Colombo et al. took a sample of natural gas and passed it through a column of crushed rock, chosen to resemble as closely as possible the terrestrial environment.27 Their results were definitive: The greater the distance of rock through which the sample of methane passes, the lighter becomes its carbon isotope ratio.

The reason for the result observed by Colombo et al.is straightforward: there is a slight preference for the heavier isotope of carbon to react chemically with the rock through which the gas passes. Therefore, the greater the transit distance through the rock, the lighter becomes the carbon isotope ratio, as the heavier is preferentially removed by chemical reaction along the transport path. This result is not surprising; contrarily, such is entirely consistent with the fundamental requirements of quantum mechanics and kinetic theory.

Pertinent to the matter of any claim that a light carbon isotope ratio might be indicative of a biological origin, the results demonstrated by Colombo et al. establish that such a claim is insupportable. Methane which might have originated from carbon material from the remains of a carbonaceous meteorite in the mantle of the Earth, and possessing initially a heavy carbon isotope ratio, could easily have that ratio diminished, along the path of its transit into the crust of the Earth, to a value comparable to common biological material.



Galimov demonstrated that the carbon isotope ratio of methane can become progressively heavier while at rest in a reservoir in the crust of the Earth, through the action of methane-consuming microbes.28 The city of Moscow stores methane in water-wet reservoirs on the outskirts of that city, into which natural gas is injected throughout the year. During summers, the quantity of methane in the reservoirs increases because of less use (primarily by heating), and during winters the quantity is drawn down. By calibrating the reservoir volumes and the distance from the injection facilities, the residency time of the methane in the reservoir is determined. Galimov established that the longer the methane remains in the reservoir, the heavier becomes its carbon isotope ratio.

The reason for the result observed by Galimov is also straightforward: In the water of the reservoir, there live microbes of the common, methane-metabolizing type. There is a slight preference for the lighter isotope of carbon to enter the microbe cell and to be metabolized. The longer the methane remains in the reservoir, the more of it is consumed by the methane-metabolizing microbes, with the molecules possessing lighter isotope being consumed more. Therefore, the longer its residency time in the reservoir, the heavier becomes the carbon isotope ratio, as the lighter is preferentially removed by methane-metabolizing microbes. This result is entirely consistent with the fundamental requirements of kinetic theory.



Furthermore, the carbon isotope ratios in hydrocarbon systems are also strongly influenced by the temperature of reaction. For hydrocarbons produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process, the δ13C varies from -65% at 127 C to -20% at 177 C.29, 30 No material parameter, the measurement of which varies by almost 70% with a variation of temperature of only approximately 10%, can be used as a reliable determinant of any property of that material.

The δ13C carbon isotope ratio cannot be considered to determine reliably the origin of a sample of methane, - or any other compound.

“Every ten or fifteen years since the late 1800’s, ‘experts’ have predicted that oil reserves would last only ten more years. These experts have predicted nine out of the last zero oil-reserve exhaustions.”

C. Maurice and C. Smithson, Doomsday Mythology: 10,000 Years of Economic Crisis, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, 1984.

--edit#2-- I just saw what you linked to Ratty, Hilarious. First read what Ozrat wrote and you'll see he linked the same article. Is this the first thing Google pops out? I'm going to check it out myself...

Not to mention that your logic is seriously flawed Ratty. The second law of thermodynamics prohibits spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons heavier than methane in the regimes of temperature and pressure found in the near-surface crust of the Earth. This fact has been known by competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers, mechanical engineers and thermodynamicists since the third quarter of the 19th century.

Contrary to the misstatements by Ratty and Ozrat, there is no “debate” on this consequence of the laws of thermodynamics, - nor on any other aspect of those laws. That natural petroleum is not a “fossil fuel” has been known (by competent scientists) since the time of Clausius, Boltzmann, Gibbs, and Mendeleev.

The scientific problem connected with the genesis of hydrocarbons has been that genuine scientists have not heretofore been able to explain how, and under what conditions, such molecules do spontaneously evolve. The article I provided has resolved this question: Petroleum hydrocarbons heavier than methane are the high-pressure members of the hydrogen-carbon system; their spontaneous genesis requires pressures comparable to those necessary for the spontaneous genesis of diamond.

There is not any “wealth of chemical evidence” which “points to” a biological origin. Correctly, there is no such “evidence” whatever.

The molecular structure of hydrocarbon and biotic molecules is determined by the quantum mechanical properties of the covalent carbon bond. Such is utterly independent of whether the molecule is of biotic or abiotic origin. A review, and repudiation, of such erroneous “looks-like/therefore-comes-from” arguments involving so-called “bio-markers” has been given at modest length in Energia, 22, September 2001, 26-34

And Ozrat just so that you know, the four authors of the article cited are from the Academy of Sciences of Russia, the largest petroleum producing and exporting nation in the world. The authors are all experienced oil and gas men, active in the exploration and production of petroleum. Go swallow that now.

 

[Roshambo]

And what’s the point of conveying to you that the growth in oil reserves far exceeds the growth in oil productions when you’ll just as easily disregard and proclaim void any of the sources I might cite?

How rich of an assumption, even for this topic. It also seems to be the belief of the oil companies except when they need some reason to raise the oil prices.

Anyways, you're banned.

Bye Max.

 

[ElloinmorninJ]

Goddamn this website is old. It’s like a time capsule of 2000’s history

 

[DarkCorp]

NECROMANCY is evil.

 

[TheGM]

. . .I'll get the shotgun.

 

[Morgan_]

Good lord. I was 10 when this was made.

 

[TorontoReign]

Roshambo lives in some shape or form.

 

[Atomic Postman]

I was seven years old when this thread was made

 

[TorontoReign]

I was in Iraq when this thread was made.

 

[Morgan_]

Jesus, was that fun?

 

[TorontoReign]

Yes.