Hold the phone everyone Things they are a changen Page.5

[GPW]

The Rich on both sides of the fence ... throwing manure at each other .. why even have a fence ... they’re ALL the same eh ? ...

[LDK]

I believe this thread is starting to take on a life of its own.

[GPW]

Best stop now ...

[LDK]

I can't believe that people are still discussing Peak Oil theory as though it's actual science.

Peak Oil Theory is a premise that compares the usage of oil today with the known oil reserves of 1976.

It doesn't take into account ANY new sources of crude. Nor does it take into account that the actual amount of oil in the 1976 era reserves is nearly double what they anticipated it was.

Never mind the fact that oil is NOT a "fossil fuel" and is constantly replenishing itself naturally via the same methods the Chinese have been artificially employing for decades to convert coal and natural gas to oil.

We won't be at risk of running out of oil for another couple of centuries.

Now, don't misunderstand the comment. That's not an excuse to not seek out alternatives. Simply saying that there's no shortage on the horizon and there's no good economic or environmental benefit to not pursuing it.

I really hope that you are right about not running out of oil but my gut tells me that you're wrong. The US peaked in oil production in 1970 ( the easy to get oil) and if we as a country peaked, the world can peak also. We do have a vast amount of oil (even in our country), but it's the unconventional kind that is harder, dirtier, and more expensive to produce.

(Fossil fuel theory vs abiotic theory.)

You said that oil is not a fossil fuel, I would imagine there are 1000's of scientist and geologist that would disagree with that statement. If oil is abundant why is it that our navy is in the persian gulf protecting the shipping lanes?
Check these articles out. http://energybulletin.net/node/2423
http://peakoil.com/publicpolicy/u-s-rai ... oil-lanes/

[Wolffarmer]

LDK

Interesting reads. have yet to finish the one on the oil lanes. I am glad that the other pretty much shoots down the theory that oil comes from non biological means. I had heard about the Russian theories some time ago. Seems to be pretty much refuted.

But rather or not peak oil has or will be reached. The developing countries are expanding their use of oil at an astounding rate. They look at the the developed countries and think. "You have had yours for 100 years. Now we want it". Oil is a slippery subject.

Randy

[TJinPgh]

I really hope that you are right about not running out of oil but my gut tells me that you're wrong. The US peaked in oil production in 1970 ( the easy to get oil) and if we as a country peaked, the world can peak also. We do have a vast amount of oil (even in our country), but it's the unconventional kind that is harder, dirtier, and more expensive to produce.

LDK, I get where you're coming from with this. I honestly do. It's certainly easier to believe that we're running out of oil than to believe that we're not.

Why? Because there's a never ending barrage of things out there telling you to believe it.

There's a lot of money to be made in us believing that there are only small amounts of "new" oil to be found, and it's been propagated by both sides of the discussion because of it.

The US peaked in 1970 because it was the last time we really put any effort into oil exploration within our own country. Back then, government and the oil industry made a joint decision to scale back production.

Our result? A man-made shortage that resulted in lines around the block at the gas pumps.

The simple truth of the matter is that it was cheaper and easier to drill for it somewhere else than it was here. So, we did.

That's also the answer to your question below, about why we spend so much of our military's resources on protecting those shipping lanes.

As it became more and more expensive to find oil overseas, the oil companies began to realize that the deal struck with government was no longer in their best interest. So, they began to leak out information to the public that there was more oil here in the states than we've been told.

There was never a shortage to begin with. It was manipulated to drive up costs and revenues to both the companies and the government.

(Fossil fuel theory vs abiotic theory.)

You said that oil is not a fossil fuel, I would imagine there are 1000's of scientist and geologist that would disagree with that statement. If oil is abundant why is it that our navy is in the persian gulf protecting the shipping lanes?

Well, I already answered the 2nd part of that. As for the scientists, given that nearly every government grant in the field is given from the preconceived perspective oil is a fossil fuel and in limited supply, I'm not surprised you have thousand's of scientists who come at the subject from that perspective.

They can't afford not to.

More and more scientists are starting to realize it's bogus, though.

Ask them two questions.

1. Why so many known resources of oil that were supposedly tapped out years ago suddenly have decades worth of "new" oil in them.

2. Why, through out our entire history of dependence on oil (which, in the grand scheme of things is about one century of man's existence) has it only been found in the regions with the LEAST amount of fossils.

Check these articles out. http://energybulletin.net/node/2423
http://peakoil.com/publicpolicy/u-s-rai ... oil-lanes/

To Heinberg's credit, he does attempt to answer number one. Although, his entire premise of dismissal is that the 20 years that have passed since the source was supposedly tapped out have only produced a fraction of the oil that it took 20 million years to produce in the first place.

I'm sorry, but it's hardly a winning argument.

Further, with respect to the website you keep linking to. I have yet to see an article written by an actual scientist.

Heinberg is an economic theorist whose entire financial well-being is predicated upon the notion of "post-carbon" economics.

The man would be out of a job if it were ever proven that there is no shortage of oil.

He states that there are no "predominantly published" pieces that contradict the biotic theory.

Of course not. Once you disagree with the prevailing theory you are no longer part of the "predominant" group.

There are any number of scientists out there who have argued against it. The fact that their work is ignored by the entrenched establishment whose financial well-being is founded in government grants is not evidence against it.

The scientific method, in today's scientific world, is largely ignored.

[TJinPgh]

LDK

Interesting reads. have yet to finish the one on the oil lanes. I am glad that the other pretty much shoots down the theory that oil comes from non biological means. I had heard about the Russian theories some time ago. Seems to be pretty much refuted.

But rather or not peak oil has or will be reached. The developing countries are expanding their use of oil at an astounding rate. They look at the the developed countries and think. "You have had yours for 100 years. Now we want it". Oil is a slippery subject.

Randy

It's interesting that the scientists who come from countries whose economies are NOT built upon the theory of a limited supply of carbon based energy so frequently take the exact opposite view on the subject as scientists who are centered in countries whose economies are.

Conflict of interests, perhaps?

The truth is that it's a worthless question designed to detract from the more significant issue.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's a fossil fuel because nobody is arguing that the earth will replenish it fast as we are removing it. The argument is simply that we haven't even begun to exhaust our resource of it whether it's biotic or not.

Further, the availability of oil need not center around oil itself. As I stated before, the ability to convert coal and natural gas to oil is not new. It's existed and been in use for decades.

Hitler was converting coal to usable crude all the way back in WW2.

There's no shortage of carbon based fuels out there.

We have enough KNOWN resources of it to last over 200 years within our own borders.

Again, this is NOT an excuse to not develop alternatives. Simply a statement that we're nowhere near a "peak."

Further, it's worth pointing out that if you look at who it is that actually stops the development of alternative energy, it hasn't been the energy industry for quite a while.

It's the groups who are arguing most that we should be using them.

[Wolffarmer]

It seems that the main body of scientists that argue for abiotic oil are
Russians that formed their theories before plate tectonics was understood, if even thought about.

To say that someone has a conflict of interest, to me is an easy way to discount any argument. I don't know anybody that does not have a conflict some way.

As far as "other" resources of liquid fossil fuels. From what I have seen, read, heard. They are more expensive and dirty compared to petroleum. And still they are finite even it they are not expensive and dirty. And to just keep using more and more fossil fuels in any form will lead to degradation of someones environment in some way.

As far as the groups arguing against alternatives. They are mostly those against it being in their back yards. Yes I have seen a whole lot of hypocrisy in this argument. Dang few people want a oil refinery in their back yards, and not a whole lot want a wind turbine either.

What is really stupid is people that call electric cars, "Zero Polluting" what a crock. They pollute plenty, where the are made, and where the power for them is generated. It's just that it is not in the backyards of the people that can afford the beasts. California loves them as the batteries are being made in Asia and the new power plants to charge them are being built in Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah Arizona, who also happens to be down wind most of the time. They would sing a different tune if the batteries was being made in Hollywood and they put up wind turbines on the Big Sur Coast.



Randy

[TJinPgh]

There are a lot of scientists who argue for abiotic oil everywhere.

The concept makes far more sense when you consider the methods by which it can be done artificially.

Frankly, it makes far more sense than to assert that carbon fuels are fossil fuels (many of which occur far below where would be practical for fossilized fuels to exist).

I'm in no way suggesting that fossil based fuels don't exist. And we may well be exhausting those. Simply saying that it's not a singular source. Nor is it likely that it's even the primary source.

Is the conversion process from coal and gas to oil dirtier than the oil itself? Possibly. Not nearly enough work has been done on improving the process over the last 90 years, when it was first invented.

The earth has the advantage of using the planet, itself, as a filter to eliminate such things.

Doesn't negate the fact that it can be done. Keeping in mind that natural gas doesn't need to be converted to be used.

I'm definitely on board with the rest of what you said, though other than to say that there's another side of the coin beyond the "not in my back yard" mindset.

Which, for the record, if somebody wants to come along and rip out vast amounts of the dilapidated structures in my area and put up any and all forms of energy production, I'm all for it.

No, the larger reason for resistance is wanting to control the global economies that rely on energy production to be sustained.

There are far too many groups out there that don't like the notion of energy or economic independence. And, they exist on both sides of political ideology.

[LDK]

TJinPgh

I guess we all have our opinions but my gut still tells me that you're wrong.

[TJinPgh]

Hmmm.

The article that was originally linked to at the start of this thread is suddenly gone.

[TJinPgh]

TJinPgh

I guess we all have our opinions but my gut still tells me that you're wrong.

Whatever.

I didn't say it hoping to convince anybody of anything.

[Wolffarmer]

It is still working for me. Or it is in my cache.

Randy

[jstrubberg]

I can't believe that people are still discussing Peak Oil theory as though it's actual science.

Peak Oil Theory is a premise that compares the usage of oil today with the known oil reserves of 1976.

It doesn't take into account ANY new sources of crude. Nor does it take into account that the actual amount of oil in the 1976 era reserves is nearly double what they anticipated it was.

Never mind the fact that oil is NOT a "fossil fuel" and is constantly replenishing itself naturally via the same methods the Chinese have been artificially employing for decades to convert coal and natural gas to oil.

We won't be at risk of running out of oil for another couple of centuries.

Now, don't misunderstand the comment. That's not an excuse to not seek out alternatives. Simply saying that there's no shortage on the horizon and there's no good economic or environmental benefit to not pursuing it.

I really hope that you are right about not running out of oil but my gut tells me that you're wrong. The US peaked in oil production in 1970 ( the easy to get oil) and if we as a country peaked, the world can peak also. We do have a vast amount of oil (even in our country), but it's the unconventional kind that is harder, dirtier, and more expensive to produce.

(Fossil fuel theory vs abiotic theory.)

You said that oil is not a fossil fuel, I would imagine there are 1000's of scientist and geologist that would disagree with that statement. If oil is abundant why is it that our navy is in the persian gulf protecting the shipping lanes?
Check these articles out. http://energybulletin.net/node/2423
http://peakoil.com/publicpolicy/u-s-rai ... oil-lanes/

We peaked with standard drilling tech. Thigns have changed a bit since then. We have the largest shale oil deposits ever discovered. Takes a different technology to get at the oil, but that doesn't mean the oil isn't there.

Still, it's dumb to insist on a single fuel for transportation. That's what got us into this mess in the first place.

The rich? Don't even get me started... The things people blame on the rich in this country are ridiculous.

[TJinPgh]

We peaked with standard drilling tech. Thigns have changed a bit since then. We have the largest shale oil deposits ever discovered. Takes a different technology to get at the oil, but that doesn't mean the oil isn't there.

Still, it's dumb to insist on a single fuel for transportation. That's what got us into this mess in the first place.

The rich? Don't even get me started... The things people blame on the rich in this country are ridiculous.

I'm pretty much on board with this.

I'm an "all in" guy when it comes to energy production. Show me a viable method of producing it (and by viable I mean one that doesn't require more energy and resources to utilize than it creates) and I'm all for it.

Electric cars? Besides the fact that Randy is spot on with the fact that they aren't a zero emission product, I'm all for them. Right up until the point where a car that's no better built than a $15k compact costs me $30k to buy (over and above th billions in tax money we handed over to allow them to build it).

Like I said, though. It's the global left that's at the forefront of standing in the way of alternative energy.

Wind? Not in my back yard and kills birds.
Hydro-electric? Kills fish.
Nuclear? Japan anyone?
Solar? Beyond the fact that it requires oil to produce the components, there are actually groups out there arguing that solar power will cause the sun to burn out quicker.

Yes, they do exist.

There is currently no form of energy production on this planet that could be implemented within the next 20-30 years that the left hasn't argued against.

Between that and the absurdity which is man-made climate change, I've given up on any hope one might have of something productive coming about in my lifetime.