NASA discovers that Oil is not a fossil fuel. Peak Oil Confirmed Hoax

Originally posted by Huabamambo
Methane, Natural Gas, Oil all comes from the same source. Refining is what makes the difference.

Methane comes from cows, pigs and rice paddies.

Oil comes from out of the ground.

I don't need to set up a rig to get methane, a piggery will do just fine. And I don't need to refine it. It's already in an easily combustible state.

Perhaps you need to watch the Kentucky Fried Movie to get the latest news on alternative fuel supplies...

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Stellarex, I barely know where to start. I have many issues with your comments, and I will address them as best as I can.

You always have many issues with my claims and you always seem to have trouble deciding where to start!

Not only is your “established fact” rejected by just about everyone I know, but your comment tells me your next basic econ class will be your first. I don’t think you even understand what SimCity is saying.

Well then you are talking to the wrong people! I would like to argue that i understand exactly what his saying and responded to enlighten his opinions.

World energy reserves are growing rapidly

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

How Much Oil and Natural Gas is Left?

Oil Experts to Seek a Deeper Meaning

"Doomsayers to the contrary, the world contains far more recoverable oil than was believed even 20 years ago. Between 1976 and 1996, estimated global oil reserves grew 72%, to 1.04 trillion barrels."

So clearly there is no shortage of available resources to exploit and as one can see from looking at the daily numbers of oil on global market there is not in fact shortages as much as there is very expensive oil. Since is not exactly a day to day thing anyways there is always oil available and it is FEARS that supply will be disrupted that drives up prices. Well that is the official reasoning and excuse at least.

You ask why the prices have gone up, trying to discuss it in terms of infrastructure costs. The answer to that is simple: OPEC raises the price to increase their profits and to keep their supply viable for a few more decades.

OPEC is not the problem as much as you seem to want to blame them without reason. OPEC would not be producing ever and ever more just to keep enough oil on global markets if they were not trying to in fact lower the prices. OPEC has plenty of oil so no reason for them to raise prices and cause countries world wide to seriously start considering alternative fuel sources. They want growth and they want to keep the world dependent on their cheap resource.

Here is more information if you like to keep up the pretense that everything can be blamed on OPEC.

"Saudi Arabia sets the pace in OPEC and the US tell's Saudi Arabia how much oil to produce.

Opec wants to increase oil output to bring down prices.

www.globalpolicy.org...

news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

Some select points from a recent BBC Hardtalk interview between
DR Adnan Shihab Eldin (OPEC’s Acting Secretary General and Director of the Research Division) and Stephen Sackur. Reading the full text ( news.bbc.co.uk...
) will be most informative.

"Dr SE- We are looking into trying to find what would be the best price or most acceptable price for everybody in the new era, so to speak."

and..

"Dr SE - Well OPEC is only one of the players. Let's remember, the prices are set in New York and London where future contracts for oil are being sold. That's what sets the price. What OPEC tries to do is influence the price into a regime that is good for everybody. Previously in 2000 - 2003 OPEC set a target 22-28 as a comfortable regime for everybody and it was successful. Everybody accepts that.

What has happened over the last two years - a number of factors have contributed to raising the price level to what we have seen right now. Even for WTI's above 50 and the OPEC basket has been hovering between 40 and 50...

SS - You lost control, basically, of the price.

Dr SE - Well, we don't control the price - let's be very frank about that.. "

and...

"SS - And my point is that you seem to have lost control of your ability to control the price.

DR SE - No. We have not, because we have done what it takes to influence the price and that is to ensure that there are enough supplies in the market that the buyers of the oil will find the oil to buy. In 2004 when demand grew by close to 3 million barrels a day OPEC pumped 3.5 million barrels extra oil and ensured that there was a surplus in the market in 2004. Now that surplus should normally have allowed prices to find a reasonable regime."

and...

"Dr SE - It appears that it has to be around 30 for the basket by just looking historically, even 2000 - 2004, it was above 30 in real terms in today's dollars. Now, the upper limit is a bit problematic because you really don't want prices to go too high to begin..

SS - (INTERUPTS)..What is too high?

Dr SE - If they start impacting global economic growth.

SS - Well, to be specific, what's too high?

Dr SE: So far we have been lucky enough that even with prices hovering around 50 in 2004 and continue to hover around 50 the global economic growth have been able to cope with minimal impact

SS: So you don't think 50 is too high?

Dr SE: Well I think that if you go above 50 significantly you will begin to see response measures that may impact the growth in the world economy."

and..

"SS: So I take it from what you're saying that ultimately you see a price that's hovering around 50-dollars a barrel?

Dr SE: Well that would probably be on the high side but I think you are close to what we think is happening right now but that's on the high side for the basket. "

and..

"Dr SE - It's hard to see how he comes to this conclusion when the fact of the matter is there has not been a shortage, neither last year, nr this year, nor in the next four or five years because even if China increases its demand for oil every year from now on at the level of six to eight hundred thousand barrels a day if you put OPEC's increase in capacity plus its spare capacity plus the growth in non- OPEC.

Even if you take the growth in non-OPEC slowing down from a million and a half in the past few years to just simply half a million you would still have enough oil in the market to meet those growing demands and to leave some should there be a sudden disruption or should there be a sudden increase in demand."

and..

"Dr SE - If you talk to the international oil companies and you ask them why have you not invested and they will refer to the lower margin meaning that the profit margin in investing in refineries as one of the factors.

The other factor they refer to is that there are so many specifications and regulations, it makes it extremely difficult to get a permit in a consuming country like Europe and the United States to build a new refinery. Even to upgrade a refinery is very difficult, you have this phenomena called the NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard type of thing.

SS- You are beginning to blame them for failing to invest in refining capacity, but many analysts would blame OPEC member states for failing to invest in increasing production to the rate that is necessary. And they make the point that OPEC members, much more than non- OPEC producers - the oil industries in those countries (your countries) are dominated by government.

They are owned by government, so it is therefore up to government to get the investment into maximising production and it's just not happening is it? "

and..

SS- (INTERUPTS) Well, you know how much oil is in the ground..

Dr SE - Yes, and we don't believe there is a problem for the next 30, 40 years. That's plenty long enough time for countries to look for alternatives.

SS- Is it really? 30 or 40 years. Think back to 1975. That's 30 years ago. We haven't shown any great ability to change the way we rely on fossil fuels in the last 30 years.

Dr SE - That's not 30 or 40 years to run out of oil. That's 30 or 40 years to look at alternatives. Oil will be with us much longer than that. Just like coal has been around for so many centuries. So oil is not expected to run out in 30 or 40 years, I'm just saying that the peak in production will not be reached in 30 or 40 years. That gives us another maybe 30 or 40 years.

Now at the end of the day we will not run out of the last barrel of oil - that will never happen - but oil will begin to make way for other more available energy sources that will be discovered and developed for the benefit of all of humanity. We encourage that. We have nothing to stand against it because it is in the interests of everybody. "

I would point everyones attention towards the highlighted area...."

Just a extract from my activity on a previous forum and there is heaps more in my archive if you somehow feel unconvinced.

You seem to believe in a strange astronomical phenomenon:

Tis not a question of belief as much as one of observation and study!

the Sun heating up ( as all the other planets are heating up aswell) and not with our wastefull and criminally run energy infrastructures.

I cannot think of any scientist who believes such.

Not exactly my problem either. Facts are facts.

Do you have any evidence at all of a gradual and long-term incresase in the temperatures of either the Sun or any of the planets (other than Earth)? If so, where is your evidence? What are your citations?

Why do you insult me first before bothering to ask for my sources?

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame

Is the Sun Heating Up?

www.net.info.nl...

Well those are my own finds but if you really have a few hours to read i suggest you read trough this
source list. You can skip the story but do try read a few of the sources to begin to form an understanding of what is happening in our solar system.

When someone says that we need other sources of energy, you reply with:

Well i assumed you were familiar with at least some of the other sources.

Yet you do not identify these “obvious’ sources except to say they’re being subverted by some Secret Plot by ”they”. And, of course, you never mention the sources or the “they”.

I think you have seen my posts on extracting energy from the active vacuum ( Beardens work mostly) so i am not sure why you are asking about my motives here. The oil markets of the world is completely manipulated so why on earth would those who control it want to let go by letting alternative energy exploitation methods onto the markets?

It’s called a “joke”, stellarx . It’s in the dictionary, just like “sense of humor” is.

Please call me Stellar ( or Stel) as we are clearly going to be spending alot of time talking to each other in the future. I knew it was a joke but made my views clear anyways.

I asked if anyone believing in hemp had ever come up with a cost-comparison to see whether it’s feasible to use hemp oil for fuel. You replied:

Rubbish! Cost is important, because if something is not cost-effective, no one will do it. And your statement about the “fact” that every country could produce their own in the quantities they needed…!

Cost is important but as i have said elsewhere before many countries are importing most of their food from the West ( it's cheaper than they can produce it themselves due to massive subsidising strategies in the west) and since they lack foreign currency they are forced to plant cash crops just to have a chance of getting some dollars. When they no llonged need these dollars so badly they could turn all that spending towards hemp production or whatever can provide energy without the dependancy on foreign market prices.

C’mon!. You don’t have a clue as to how many acres of arable land would be needed to grow the hemp, what the water requirements are, how much hemp you would need to produce a gallon of fuel, or how much fuel any country needs.

Yeah i would have to be stupid to make the claims i am. There is clearly no chance there might be any truth in it. What's with all the insults anyways?

In short, you have no substantiation whatsoever, and you are saying that because you would like it to be true.

Well i guess we could add up the cost and water use involved in production of cash crops in Africa and South East Asia and arrive at a figure of land that could be put to use producing hemp or like substances for native energy production. That would however take alot of time but unless you have done the math i really such a less hostile and insulting tone.

[qoute]Well, I’d “like” it to be true too, but wanting something to be true doesn’t make it that way.

I agree with that.

If you talk about this unsubstantiated wishes as “fact”, I don’t think anyone’s going to give you any credibility at all.

Well i plan on earning my respect and those who wish to be disrespectfull will always run into facts they avoided or never knew to be.

All i ask is that you never assume i do not have sources because i do not post them in casual discussion. When people want to contest my data i will provide as much information as is required and it would be really nice if you stopped insulting me before having seen my sources.

Now as far as i could count you were wrong on numerous instances in the post i just responded to and i hope it serves as a warning for the future. Dont you think it would be easier for everyone if we could assume intelligence instead of ignorence on first encounters?

Well i guess i will be responding to your response tonight so talk more then.

Till then!

Stellar

[edit on 26-12-2005 by StellarX]

Originally posted by d1k
While you all bash each other let me just say this, I think all of you know just as much as every other person on this earth, including the so called "experts", a whole lot of jack squat.

It's all up in the air right now, the truth will come in time.

Do you have anything to propose as a solution when you feel like you have found or settled on a truth?

What if it's all a scam, or it was all just a test to see what somebody like you was willing to do in a situation like this when you could see what you think you understand?


The dope man runs the white house, fact.

Now what?

reply to post by Simcity4Rushour


spelling, very badddddddd

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Huabamambo says:

Indeed. Peak Oil has been debunked.

Someone forgot to tell 99 percent of the world's geologists and petroleum engineers. Maybe you ought to send them a memo.

Heck. We don't even need to use oil anymore. Look at Willy Nelson's Willy Fuel. Made from Hemp. He's making the midwest farms happy for a change. If society utilized hemp we could literally save our environment.

If you could come up with a comparison between the cost of refining crude oil to gasoline and hemp plants into a viable internal cumbustion fuel, taking into consideration re-doing the complete world fuel infrastrucutre, the loss of land to other farm products, the amount of water needed to produce the hemp fuel, using available data to quantify your claims, people might believe you.

Even I might. But if you can't show that large-scale use of hemp-derived fuel is a cost-effective replacement for petroleum, nobody will buy your assertions....

But wait!!

If, as you say, there is no peak oil problem, then why aren't we pumping the oil out of our newly-replenished oil wells in Texas and Oklahoma? If there is no peak oil problem, why even bother with hemp?

Wow where to begin, lets start with refining cost. All oil (excluding Alberta's tar sands) has to be drilled for these drilling platforms (on land and sea) cost 100's of millions of dollars to build, then you have to factor in the upkeep cost of these rigs. They pump and they pump until they reach a point where the facility is costing more to maintain and extract then its making on the crude itself, then instead of dismantlements of the land rigs and returning the ground back to nature for a nature cleansing cycle they use the facility's to store there industrial waste from the process. Essentially turning the area into an unofficial private waste dump. (all the while the process is entirely unsustainable and wasteful)

Not to mention the environmental damage that is done during the building/drilling/manufacturing/processing part of it, the refinery's require mass amounts of toxic/costic chemicals to separate crude into its respective useful parts this in turn produces more environmental damage elsewhere. All the while these facility's are producing sickening amounts of toxic pollution that infects both ground and air. Then they ship there crude all over the world in huge tankers that run a ground spilling there cargo and killing EVERYTHING it touches, or the less reputable shippers use tankers that dont meet standards and they leak cargo all over the ocean leaving trails of crude behind then (cause the solution is dilution)

Now lets compare the hemp for fuel industry, agriculture land does NOT need to be used in order to grow hemp, it can grow on ANY quality of soil in almost any climate and in optimal conditions can produce three harvests in one growing season. And the beauty is if it was decided it would be used in the simplest of ways it would need absolutely no processing whatsoever!!(aside from pressing the seed) It can be put directly into a diesel engine as is and work just fine (although it works better when larger injectors and tank heaters are utilized) Therefor there would be no need for chemical additives in order to produce fuel. Then after the pressing the left over material can be used as a high protein animal feed or bedding it would also be suitable for human consumption. If chemical processing was used hemp oil could produce EVERYTHING that oil produces at a significantly less impact of the environment, not to mention hemp oil in its pure form is absolutely harmless. A tanker could crash spilling all the hemp oil and it would actually do some good, the fowl and whales would get a nice protein boost and nice skin at the same time. Above all it has been proven that the harmful emissions produced from burning hemp fuel are 70%+ less then that of fossil fuel,that alone should be a major factor in its full scale production.

I could go on for hours but i cant type for that long so just imagine this:

Canada US Mexico all decide to pool there resources and grow industrial hemp for fuel, all three dedicate 1% of there available land that is not being used for food crops (lets just axe cotton plantations shall we? Considering they require ludicrous amounts of pesticide and herbicide to grow and hey look at that we can replace them with hemp ) Then instead of having massive refinery's for the oil the farmers them selfs have simple large pressing units that they feed there crops into and then it goes directly to the local fill up stations, NO MIDDLE MAN. Whatever surplus is left can then be purchased by private company's to turn into paints solvents jet fuels plastic you name it it can be done. And hell th farmers wont have to pay for the fuel to fill up there harvesters cause they all run on hemp. (and by the way the water requirements are slightly less then that of corn) Sooner or later they will develop a GM hemp crop that can produce far more oils for much less input... you watch.

ITS NOT AS DIFFICULT AS YOU THINK

And hey while were at it lets get rid of the trees for paper industry.

Im so sick of the worlds blissful ignorance of the usefulness of this plant.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by Huabamambo
Methane, Natural Gas, Oil all comes from the same source. Refining is what makes the difference.

Methane comes from cows, pigs and rice paddies.

Oil comes from out of the ground.

I don't need to set up a rig to get methane, a piggery will do just fine. And I don't need to refine it. It's already in an easily combustible state.

Perhaps you need to watch the Kentucky Fried Movie to get the latest news on alternative fuel supplies...

Perhaps you need to watch the deepwater methane volcano. Must be trillions of pigs living underground.