Peak Oil: Impossible!?!

I have been hearing some interesting theories that crude, natural, oil is not fossil fuel. Nor is it made from solely fossils. That in fact, it is a natural bi-product of our earths internal working. New surveys are putting oil deeper in the earth than previously thought possible, and more of it.

Remember the ending phases of the industrial revolution? "We are running out of coal, prices - HIGH, RAISED." Today, we still have an abundance of coal.

Don't think it as crazy, that the oil companies can trick so many people into thinking Oil is purely fossil fuel. Did the media not trick the entire world on that horrid day? It can be done, and has been. This is more than likely a marketing ploy by oil companies to make us think we are running out. With that, they control the supply, regulate demand, and control the market for it. They can make prices whatever they want. Much worse, the government is not getting involved. Whats with everyone? Do they want us to go broke so we cant buy oil/food at all? What good is defending a poor, ignorant, droned country? I can say first hand, that 30 years ago things were much different. Not all the bs today.

So in my conclusion (opinion) of my own research, Peak Oil is nothing more than a psychological attack, and an attempt to control the market. If it does happen, it will be a man made assault, not a natural dwindling of supplies. Sadly, this all makes sense, and is working.

www.rense.com...

To begin with, oil is not a fossil fuel. This is a theory put forth by 18th century scientists. Within 50 years, Germany and France's scientists had attacked the theory of petroleum's biological roots. In fact, oil is abiotic, not the product of long decayed biological matter. And oil, for better or for worse, is not a non-renewable resource. It, like coal, and natural gas, replenishes from sources within the mantle of earth. This is the real and true science of oil. Read all about it.

:Edited for source

[edit on 6-11-2007 by kephas]

reply to post by kephas


I would agree with you that peak oil is bunk, but I think what's really causing shortages is the thuggish Anglo-American Middle East policy which promotes chaos, which discourages investment and development. I do not think abiogenic oil is a reality.

"Although the abiogenic theory, according to Gold, is widely accepted in Russia, where it was intensively developed in the 1950s and 1960s, the vast majority of Western petroleum geologists consider the biogenic theory of petroleum formation scientifically proven. Although evidence exists for abiogenic creation of methane and hydrocarbon gases within the Earth[2][3], they are not produced in commercially significant quantities, so that essentially all hydrocarbon gases that are extracted for use as fuel or raw materials are biogenic. There is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds) formed abiogenically within the crust, which is the essential prediction of the abiogenic petroleum theory."

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 6-11-2007 by totalvigilance]

Please note that when they refer to "peak oil" they only refer to oil that they know of, or that they feel is capable of pulling out of the ground. They do not include oil which can be extracted from oil sands. This is because at the time this would not be profitable until oil was at $80 a barrel, well we are there and this oil should be counted. There is countless barrels worth of oil like this found in the sands of Canada and along the Oronoco river in South America.
They also do not include oil from shale, again they feared the cost out weighed the profits. Well, again the oil has risen and this oil should too be counted. They also do not include oil that is in areas where drilling is currently not an option, whether it be due to the conditions of the surrounding areas; like in the Norhtern North Sea or in the Anwar area in Alaska. They also do not include the oil off the Atlantic Coast of Florida, again like Anwar, the environmentalists have forbidden this. Well, if or when necessary we all know they will drill here, so it should be counted.

Peak Oil is just someone's opinion. Do you know that Peak Oil was supposed to occur in 1995? this is true. But they did not take into account technologies that would allow us to drill deeper and in hard to reach places. They did not take into account the more efficient automobiles. Variables people, variables.

Just like the IPCC in global warming, its a theory that has to be adjusted periodically because the numbers don;t work. So, they make them work, tweak a few things and BAM...new theory.

I have a theory of my own. Whats the real reason that the US allows environmentalists to win and not allow the drilling in the US???? "PEAK OIL" is the answer, but it should be read as Arabian Peak Oil. The amount of oil under the Arabian peninsula is not finite, and can almost all be accounted for. Why has OPEC continued to let the price rise? They know.......they are on the down side of Arabian Peak Oil. What happens when they run out???? Easy.

The US opens Anwar, the US drills off the coast of Florida......etc, etc....

Now the US becomes an Oil Power house....

Its just a theory, and like with all theories, I reserve my right to make adjustments to it as time goes by. Maybe they will give me some nobel prize for a movie I might make with countless errors on this theory, or maybe I will go invent something like the internet.

Confusing standpoint. I think it could be possible that fossils over time could create "fossil fuel". Opposing what you have stated, there could never have been that many dead organisms under the earth to maintain the supply we need. Logically, to have all the oil we have had, it would have to be abiotic. There is scientific evidence that abiotic oil is reality, as it really is.

More good info:
www.fromthewilderness.com...

reply to post by traderonwallst


Even the maximum theoretical U.S. supplies in ANWR would only account for about two percent of yearly American consumption. If we run out of Arabian crude-we're screwed.

Originally posted by totalvigilance
reply to post by traderonwallst

 

Even the maximum theoretical U.S. supplies in ANWR would only account for about two percent of yearly American consumption. If we run out of Arabian crude-we're screwed.

I fear that we won't really run out of anything, it will just be kept from us. Or as traderonwallst brilliantly says, they will control the drilling to cause a "peak oil". Good theory trader, If it undergoes changes u2u me.

That all depends on where you get your information from. I have read internal reports from oil companies stating there is 50 years worth of oil up there. Thats 50 years of oil providing up to60% of consumption needs in this Country.

The rpoblem is, it would probablly more profitable to seel the stuff overe seas. If they ever do lift the ANWR shield and llow the oil to be drilled, their should be stipulations that the oil is either used for consumption here in the US or to replenish the Special Petroleum Reserves.

I have a divided opinion on the matter. I wish peak oil came, it would end a lot of the trouble we have today. We need to move out the consumption of fossil fuels, not so much because of pollution, but because of evolution, untill we seek out alternative means of generating energy, we will be stuck as a civiliazation.
On the other hand, theres plenty of oil out there to go around, PLENTY, the supply/demand game is the oldest trick in the book when companys need to control the market.

And no, i am not following you around! We do seem to post on related issues....

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Please note that when they refer to "peak oil" they only refer to oil that they know of, or that they feel is capable of pulling out of the ground.

I think by 'they' you mean the conservative geologist and economics and not the known raving liars like Colin Campbell, Jean Laherre, Michael Ruppert and like minded individuals. 'They' think we might see a real decline in oil production in maybe fifty years time while the fanatics think it happened in 1995, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2004,2005, etc.

They do not include oil which can be extracted from oil sands. This is because at the time this would not be profitable until oil was at $80 a barrel, well we are there and this oil should be counted.

Oil from most of these alternative sources can be extracted profitable with prices around 30 USD ( well a few years ago and not inflation adjusted) and even north sea oil can be extracted for a fraction of that.

There is countless barrels worth of oil like this found in the sands of Canada and along the Oronoco river in South America.

Venezuala basically floats on oil and in most of those countries a barrel of water is still far more expensive than a barrel of oil. The US have known reserves in offshore and onshore fields that can supply in local needs for at least many decades with generous growth allowances

They also do not include oil from shale, again they feared the cost out weighed the profits. Well, again the oil has risen and this oil should too be counted. They also do not include oil that is in areas where drilling is currently not an option, whether it be due to the conditions of the surrounding areas; like in the Norhtern North Sea or in the Anwar area in Alaska.

I think the real conservatives have a relatively good grasp and for their fifty year world supply they considered a price regime in the mid 30's and no serious investment or exploitation of the oil/tar sands.

They also do not include the oil off the Atlantic Coast of Florida, again like Anwar, the environmentalists have forbidden this. Well, if or when necessary we all know they will drill here, so it should be counted.

It's always funny how the corporations and government listen to the environmental lobby but not the US unions and labour rights movements in general. Fascinating how they will support programs and movements that hurts every one's pockets.

Peak Oil is just someone's opinion. Do you know that Peak Oil was supposed to occur in 1995? this is true. But they did not take into account technologies that would allow us to drill deeper and in hard to reach places. They did not take into account the more efficient automobiles. Variables people, variables.

And there were many supposed dates before that and those who came up with the numbers were perfectly well aware of all the alternatives and technologies but just went ahead and ignored them as it was never part of their agenda to paint a accurate picture of economic realities. Automobiles are efficient? Can we call them that? Why is it widely admitted that a internal combustion engine wastes at least 80% of the 'energy' contained in gasoline?

Just like the IPCC in global warming, its a theory that has to be adjusted periodically because the numbers don;t work.

The numbers do not work because the entire body of evidence has been fabricated ( warmest years, rising sea levels, atmospheric temperatures, ocean temps etc) or entirely misrepresented.

So, they make them work, tweak a few things and BAM...new theory.

Like big bang models and the various quantum and string theory fantasies...

[quote[ I have a theory of my own. Whats the real reason that the US allows environmentalists to win and not allow the drilling in the US???? "PEAK OIL" is the answer, but it should be read as Arabian Peak Oil.

But even here we have little reason to suspect that their oil is running out and the US and Israeli interventions over the last few decades are the only real reason why their production has not expanded twice or three times as fast.

The amount of oil under the Arabian peninsula is not finite, and can almost all be accounted for.

I have dabbled in the abiotic theory but given the resistance to 'perpetual motion' type of thinking that people in capitalist societies have been schooled to dismiss i have decided that i don't need to go there and can defend a growing oil production , for fifty or more years, on widely accepted fundamentals alone.

Why has OPEC continued to let the price rise?

OPEC does not control the price of oil and i am surprised that you either do not know this or are misrepresenting the facts.

They know.......they are on the down side of Arabian Peak Oil. What happens when they run out???? Easy.

And the evidence?

The US opens Anwar, the US drills off the coast of Florida......etc, etc....

Now the US becomes an Oil Power house....

And then Americans realise that they do in fact have plenty of energy and will take to the street refusing in far greater numbers to aid in the imperial agenda of their national security state. The US government has done it's best to come up with excuses to co-opt the beliefs of Americans ( we must have oil and since we don't have any here we must ensure 'the peace' elsewhere) into allowing their government to provide them terrorist and radicals everywhere. This is not about where there is or isn't oil but how to ensure even a little measure of public support.

Its just a theory, and like with all theories, I reserve my right to make adjustments to it as time goes by.

That's more than fair as long as at any given time you are working from the best data you can muster.

Maybe they will give me some nobel prize for a movie I might make with countless errors on this theory, or maybe I will go invent something like the internet.

I think you can just watch "Syriana" ( Matt Damon and George Clooney) and leave the script writing for later!

Originally posted by traderonwallst
That all depends on where you get your information from. I have read internal reports from oil companies stating there is 50 years worth of oil up there. Thats 50 years of oil providing up to60% of consumption needs in this Country.

Lindsey Williams have made those types of claims and i have no reason to suspect that that all onshore and offshore US sources could not last for a hundred or more years at current consumption levels....

www.reformation.org...

Have not read his books but i have read a few articles and listen to a few hours of interviews with him. As his information is much the same as that of other oil insiders who tells us that oil is very plentiful i have little reason to doubt him and every reason to dismiss all the doomsayers that have been persistently wrong for decades while driving up oil profits on every and all occasions. I think the recent surge in oil doomers came about during the late 90's oil slump ( oil prices dropped to 8 USD/pb) when it was realised that something had to be done and done FAST.

The rpoblem is, it would probablly more profitable to seel the stuff overe seas. If they ever do lift the ANWR shield and llow the oil to be drilled, their should be stipulations that the oil is either used for consumption here in the US or to replenish the Special Petroleum Reserves.

Absolutely. Americans should never be forced to give away their riches and maybe when we arrive at such a point Americans will not longer be forced to endorse their countries crimes overseas in hopes that they might get back some of the resources their government and corporations stole ( unbeknownst to them) from their very own country.

Stellar

[edit on 9-11-2007 by StellarX]

Actually I think you are following me around. Must you point -- counter point everything I say? Where do you get the time to do that? and how do you get all the quotes like that oto show up in your replies? Would love to do the same to you some time

By the way. Venzueala basicly floats on crude might be right, but its whats called heavy crude. Extremely expensive to refine and something the US is not interested in. When Chavez threw the America Companies out, he really felt we would go to war over this, but we just left. He is selling most of the oil to China. In China they use this stuff like we use regular oil. They have little restricitons as set out by Kyoto over there. Burns way too much worse than diesel, this is where you get real bad emmissions.

-I am sure I will see you around (following me no less)

[edit on 9-11-2007 by traderonwallst]

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Actually I think you are following me around.

Always good to see that most people are in fact paranoid when it suits their beliefs and or interests.

Must you point -- counter point everything I say?

Sadly i feel almost compelled to but maybe it helps if i admit that few people who engage me in discussion are taken with my particular style. I will submit that it is in fact the laziest approach possible ( something i admit to being) as it allows for far less planning/construction in responses that would otherwise need five times more context! It does not allow one to escape many or any statements you may not know how to address but that's why i have more open tabs than i care to count.

Where do you get the time to do that?

I don't! If you found out how much time this takes you would probably have rude things to say about my 'gross inefficiency'.

and how do you get all the quotes like that oto show up in your replies? Would love to do the same to you some time

Basically i copy a entire post to word pad( or whatever) and type up the tags myself. Once you have 'quoted' a specific post by pressing the button you will be able to see what you need to type to structure your posts in a similar way. Just be sure to remember that people who employ these methods are not well liked by those who wish to say what they like without having to deal with their every claim being countered or dismissed. If your here to make friends i suggest you just keep doing what your doing as not directly responding to people or their more specific points allows them to 'flee' the scene without consequence....

By the way. Venzueala basicly floats on crude might be right, but its whats called heavy crude. Extremely expensive to refine and something the US is not interested in.

Sure it's FAR more expensive to refine than Saudi oil but we should start to move away from the terribly inexpensive and 'sweet' in most senses type of oil that is presented as some kind of global standard. Once everything is added up you can still make a absolutely killing with even heavy crude and it comes down to making a 400% or 800% return on investment; it's not that they don't make plenty of money but that they will go to war and kill millions to make a bit extra.

When Chavez threw the America Companies out, he really felt we would go to war over this, but we just left.

No one throws out oil companies these days ( unless your Putin and you have more and better nukes than anyone else) and Hugo Chavez is no moron! Maybe you would like the opportunity to tell us about the exact circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of western investment in Venezuelan oil? Does that even matter when Petro China just recently become the biggest corporation ( by stock value) in the world?

He is selling most of the oil to China. In China they use this stuff like we use regular oil. They have little restricitons as set out by Kyoto over there. Burns way too much worse than diesel, this is where you get real bad emmissions.

That does explain a few things but given the price regime they are willing to accept they will find many, many willing partners everywhere.

-I am sure I will see you around (following me no less)

I do my best to keep tabs on energy related threads so if i don't show up i am either engaged elsewhere or missed it.
Enjoy your stay!

Stellar

Here ya go:

www.msnbc.msn.com...

CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuela had a blunt message this week for Exxon Mobil, one of the world’s most powerful oil companies: Get off my crude-rich turf.

I am sorry, but being told to give more of your profit for the sake of just taking it is insane. I am glad ExxonMobil left. Why give any more money to that dictator? Byu the way, I hope everyone is boycotting Citgo. Chavez, through Petróleos de Venezuela and the Venezuelan government, owns that company.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
I am sorry, but being told to give more of your profit for the sake of just taking it is insane.

So when you wish to exploit another countries resources you should be able to decide how much profit you can make? Is that really the type of society you want?

I am glad ExxonMobil left. Why give any more money to that dictator?

George Bush was NOT elected either times but Chavez was elected, in a landslide victory, in 1998 and then re-elected in 2000 and 2006. Hugo Chavez is ten times the democrat either the Bush or the shrub is and if Americans were ever blessed with such enlightened leadership their lot would improve immensely.

Byu the way, I hope everyone is boycotting Citgo. Chavez, through Petróleos de Venezuela and the Venezuelan government, owns that company.

Well you used to live in a democracy, and you caught Japan only a little while after it managed into office it's first democratically selected AND elected ruler, so you are clearly more than free to boycott whoever you like!

Stellar