Peak oil a hoax? Prove it.

[StarmanSkye]

I guess as an alleged/implied/"if it quacks like a duck" self-outed/confessed ex-peakoiler and current peak-oil 'denier' I ought to at least weigh in with my obligatory you-asked-for-it dos centavos:

I appreciate the urgent, hotly debated w/good-natured faux-insulting jibbing-debate here (Benefit-of-doubt and all that) as it IS a difficult issue since most of the 'hard' data on reserve-claims and actual vs projected production/costs figures are all oil-industry supplied -- which has an ABYSMAL history of falsification, exaggeration, outright lies, deception, collusion among their closed-club group and WITH the Pentagon/Uranium-nuclear/MIC/energy extraction/neocolonialist corporate/banking syndicates to pillage. steal, decieve, sabotage, betray, wage war, mislead and wage genocide on the 'useless' eaters of 3rd world their own policies have subverted, exploited and committed genocide on.

A coupla points, observations, and questions here then:

Russia has conclusively demonstrated their canny 'new' understanding of oil origins when geologists were challenged by Stalin's central planning and meeting ambitious 5-year-plans for substantial energy resources to drive development and world trade targets, forcing them to rethink what they knew about where oil comes from. EXTREME pressures and temperatures that obtain around 7 to 10 miles below the surface of the earth's crust -- that is, they drilled BELOW the crystalline basement rock which is the acknowledged threshold 'floor' of western petrogeologists' and which their theories of where so-called fossil fuels reside do not go beyond.

That is, traditional theories of where oil is formed from organic carbon compounds do not go below the crystalline basement sedimentary rock. But below THIS is where Russia currently has some 310 operating wells, making it among the top-5 world oil producers and exporters.

I subscribe to the abiotic-origin of oil, as the second-most prevalent form of liquid molecules formed from carbon and other elements under 1000 degree F+ and 10,000 lbs/square inch + pressures.

However, I'm kinda puzled why China hasn't inveigled Russia to share its technology/information or form shared partnership to develop China's deep oil deposits.

Vietnam's partnership with Russia has resulted in White Tiger and other deep projects being realized.

As far as 'other' renewable, alternative energy resources -- The biggest prize, perhaps even bigger and more truly revolutionary and practically inexhaustable, relatively cheap and extremely abundant than deep abiotic oil reserves is liquid high-temp sodium nuclear power, or more specifically Liquid Flouride-Thorium Reactors. It is a monstrous travesty amounting to sabotage, betrayal and a crime against civilization that the Pentagon/MIC/nuclear Uranium-Plutonium cartel decided to develop the uranium-plutonium solid-fuel reactor business model as THE dominant Nuclear Energy paradigm since it hit all the major MIC/energy-monopoly key interests. This decision was made in the early 50s, ratified in the 60s, and formalized in the 70s -- even though LFTR technology has all the major benefits nuclear power once boldly promised with almost NONE of the hazards, shortfalls and problems nuclear energy plants have since demonstrated.

Thorium is so abundant it is practically FREE (since it is mined for the rare and strategic minerals/elements it is mixed with -- an average mine say in Idaho mines enough Thorium to drive the WORLD'S electric energy needs).

Only China currently has plans to develop a LFTR energy plant, perhaps taking a commanding lead in making and perfecting this technology to meet the world's energy needs in the near-to-mid-term.

WHY hasn't the US developed LFTR energy plants? Perhaps because it would destroy the lucrative solid-fuel uranium-processing industry which coincidently also commands the plutonium industry for modern nuclear bomb-making? AND would destroy the basis for global elites to wage resource wars and control the monopolization of energy supplies and the exorbitant prices made possible via the complex game of disaster-capitalism and the politics of scarcity.

Cuz we know they do. It's the only game they KNOW.

Those are the key reasons why I don't buy the peak-oil mantra. The US has used political brinksmanship, deciet, bribery, psyops betrayal, warmongering, sabotage and political skullduggery to impede, control, sanction and otherwise limit the production of Middle East's abundant, cheap oil resources for over 50 years -- and NOW they invaded Iraq so they can 'liberate' the development of Iraq's resources? How retarded, and downright FALSE.

Anyway, that's the short of it and why I believe as I do.
( ;

[Perelandra]

Thank you for all that info, Mr Skye.

[Saurian Tail]

seems I have upset the cool kids who realize that our precious way of life is completely dependent on cheap oil and that no other energy source in the heavens or on earth can possibly save us

shame on me

The title of the article says "Solar PV could replace fossil fuels in 10 years - I.E.E.E".

But what the article actually says is that Solar PV could be competitive with fossil fuels in 10 years ... assuming certain increases in efficiency yet to be realized.

So here is the bottom line of the article: In the most optimistic scenario that assumes current growth rates (40% per year) and achieving the maximum hoped for improvements in efficiency --- Solar PV will deliver a whopping 11% of current (2011) global electricity production by 2050. That is 39 years down the road. Again, this is the most optimistic view that assumes everything goes according to the rosy picture.

Saying "could replace" in the headline when the article really says "could be competitive" has the effect of communicating to the unaware ... close your eyes ... go back to sleep ... everything will be OK. That is the oldest trick in the book, right?

The article dazzles with the "energy is all around you" argument ... going from 1 million gigawatts of diffuse energy hitting the earth to 15,000 gigawatts of concentrated energy needed to power the civilization to 920 kilowatts on demand per month per home should be easy, right? Go to sleep, it's a piece of cake. But it's not. And the article says so if you can actually fight your way through the hyperbole. 39 years to get 11% with the most promising renewable resource available under the most ideal projections.

By the way, after reading the article, I was not surprised to find that Ecoseed is a renewable industry rag. They are paid to produce these kinds of articles to promote their sponsors.

http://www.ecoseed.org/about-ecoseed

-ST

[JackRiddler]

.

The main hoax on this thread is the uninformed and baseless insistence by several of you that the oil companies are the ones claiming a current or imminent decline in the annual maximum output of conventionally extracted hydrocarbon energy stores, and thus an inability to meet growing demand without resorting to non-conventionally extracted hydrocarbons with a significant decline in hydrocarbon EROEI (a set of concepts that are commonly given in abbreviated form as “peak oil”).

They are not. If you say so, show it. Otherwise you are full of it.

They are acting as though it already happened, however. There is no other reasonable explanation for Saudi offshore drilling, BP ocean drilling at a mile's depth, fracking, tar sands extraction, mountain-top bombing and the other observable indicators that do not require statistics to understand. Most of the hydrocarbon fat has been sucked out and burned up, and now they’re tapping the bone marrow.

Then there's the bizzaroland assertion that those who acknowledge depletion must necessarily favor continued dependence on oil, even though depletion will eventually make that impossible; whereas those who claim without evidence that enough oil to meet demand will keep flowing at a viable EROIE (which is what the oil companies actually promote with their drill-baby-drill ideology) are the ones who want to free humanity from oil dependence! This part of it is why I shall most likely withdraw. What’s the point in arguing with an insistent, consciously adopted illogic?

Several of you don’t want to believe the “Western” estimates of reserves, but you do believe the alleged Russian claims.

Or are these really the Russian claims? Starman, I’d like a citation on your claim of 310 Russian wells drilling from below the crust, and, assuming that number is right, on what their output is (with EROEI, if possible). Please show the work behind your assertion that sub-crust wells are responsible for a significant part of current total Russian output. If you can make this credible, I’ll have to admit your point.

Obviously, if it's true that relatively infinite abiotic oil is available from the mantle at a viable EROEI, then this means a few more centuries of oil consumption and the attendant environmental catastrophes. Conveniently for most of you in denial about hydrocarbon depletion, you are also in denial about the effects of emissions on the climate and of extraction and burning on the land, air and water.

Again, some of you even manage to be in denial about what the obvious political consequences of your infinite oil dreams are: that oil dependence continues unchallenged! In best Republican style, you project your implicitly pro-hydrocarbon stance on to those who are anti-hydrocarbon!

The debate over abiotic vs. biotic origins of oil is of questionable relevance. Does it mean more stores that are accessible at a viable EROEI? Do these abiotic stores not deplete? Is anyone claiming that the abiotic process produces the stuff faster than we can burn it? It doesn’t matter what the origins of oil are, unless it means there is more of the stuff to actually tap and bring into a consumable form at a viable EROIE. Otherwise it’s academic.

.

Saurian Tail, on the other hand, projections of how solar will develop as an alternative under the conditions of the current "free market" controlled by hydrocarbon companies and their bankster mates need mean nothing. These conditions would change in a hurry if the resources devoted to, for example, the fatal nonsense of the Pentagon were instead to be invested in the necessary conversion. Then a lot more could be accomplished in 30 years. Not that it becomes easy but there is a difference between drifting along and waiting for the "market" and actually treating the problem as a crisis a lot more pressing than whatever the next war is on the agenda. The primary decision (or lack thereof) is political, not "economic" in the conventional, capitalist sense.

Not that I’m very optimistic about the necessary mass awakening happening soon enough. Look at the quality of this thread, in a place where people are actually supposed to be aware of the issues.

.

[Stephen Morgan]

What the fuck is so damn wrong with rooftop, backyard and community gardens and rooftop, backyard and community solar power panels and windmills? Why have you let propagandists convince you that our existing evil systems are the only possible systems?

..
You might not want to advocate for the oil companies, but by pushing the line that they are the only thing standing between us and the oilmageddon which will kill us all slowly and painfully and wipe out our civilisation that's exactly what you're doing.

More bullshit from a bulk supplier. Note that SM doesn't quote Rory saying what he is pretends Rory is saying, he just wheels in the very same strawman eyeno & stickdog have been fondling.

I quoted what Rory said that I was replying to. Although I didn't write that first quote there, perhaps the alleged similarity between myself and these other posters is more a matter of your own carelessness.

Is just me, or are SM, stickdog99 & eyeno all behaving exactly the same way: keep ranting about strawmen, ignore all questions, and provide zero evidence?

Well, we've all noticed your position, that you reject any evidence you disagree with and that your arguments consist entirely of insults and aggression. Probably.

Since i can't tell them apart, think i'll call all of them stickdogmorganooknows from now on.

Yo, Mods, any way to stop the kids coming in here and leaving rubbish all around?

It's difficult to tell if you actually believe what you're writing or if it's just part of your attempt at badassitude. Whining to the mods about the nasty people disagreeing with you might not seem badass but it does fit with your normal highly aggressive, insult and bullying-based methods of argumentation.

Is just me, or are SM, stickdog99 & eyeno all behaving exactly the same way: keep ranting about strawmen, ignore all questions, and provide zero evidence?

It's just you.

Sorry for forgetting you lupercal, you never came back with any evidence for your smears of ASPO & Theoildrum. Still searching thru Engdahls opinions for a new one of your own? Feel free to change them at random, Stephen Morgan does.

Yes, I'm certainly not known for a rigid adherence to my positions.

ps. Palin is a peak oil denier too - you keep such illustrious company.

And Hitler was a vegetarian, which I why I start everyday singing God Save the Queen and eating a bacon sandwich in honour of the fallen.

..Cornucopians, inside the oil industry and outside, are responsible for the BP-GoM-2010 oil 'spill'.

..and the obscenity that is tar sands, and food-to-fuel that is worsening hunger, and oil wars.

They are business as usual, they are ultimately what the cornucopian/'what problem?'/peak oil deniers are endorsing. Gross and immoral.

Just the facts, ma'am, not your bizarre idealistic world of the oilpocalypse.

I just accept that oil wars will happen, that wars for other resources (primarily drugs, as in Kosovo) will also happen. That those wars are not to acquire scarce resources as they inevitably lead to a reduction in production (of oil, drugs don't require such a heavy duty and vulnerable infrastructure, so war less adversely affects production). And tar sands, along with other heavy oils (Chavez's pet project) will continue for as long as they're economical, thanks to your so beloved supply and demand, and which can provide a rather large amount of oil. And biofuels don't have any effect on hunger, the world has more food than it can eat and plenty of empty farm land, wars and markets are the only things which make people go hungry.

Not that any of that is provoked by "cornucopians". If one believe there is plenty of oil there's no point. Those like wintler who believe oil is a fast-eroding resource that is running out, being viciously competed over and totally irreplacable as the bedrock of western society, they are the ones who provoke and support wars to annex remaining supply, going to extreme lengths to extract heavy oils, trying to boost supplies with the green-wash of biofuel. Those of us who realise that there's plenty of energy to be had and that oil is merely the dominant market force, largely due to false scarcity and gullible sods like wintler, know this needn't be.

[Stephen Morgan]

seems I have upset the cool kids who realize that our precious way of life is completely dependent on cheap oil and that no other energy source in the heavens or on earth can possibly save us

shame on me

The title of the article says "Solar PV could replace fossil fuels in 10 years - I.E.E.E".

But what the article actually says is that Solar PV could be competitive with fossil fuels in 10 years ... assuming certain increases in efficiency yet to be realized.

So here is the bottom line of the article: In the most optimistic scenario that assumes current growth rates (40% per year) and achieving the maximum hoped for improvements in efficiency --- Solar PV will deliver a whopping 11% of current (2011) global electricity production by 2050. That is 39 years down the road. Again, this is the most optimistic view that assumes everything goes according to the rosy picture.

That also presumes no real growth in production facilities, which would obviously result from another spike in oil prices or any major government investment, and it assumes no major technological breakthroughs will be made, and that oil prices will remain stable, &c.. If all you "we're all going to die" types are right about oil running out then solar would become more competitive more quickly, which as wintler"supplyanddemand"2 would be quick to point out, would change those figure significantly.

Mind you, I think micro-hydro is a better idea. It's been calculated that just reactivating those mill-lades used during the industrial revolution could provice 40% of Britain's current electricity supplies, and that would means excluding some of the most promising areas of the country.

[Nordic]

This thread has turned utterly bizarre.

Arguing with Peak Oil deniers is like arguing with a schizophrenic. It's a complete waste of time. They're gonna believe what they're gonna believe even if it doesn't make one tiny bit of sense.

It's one of the strangest things I've ever encountered in what seems to be otherwise intelligent people. I expect this kind of crap out of Lupercal, but the rest of you? C'mon ....

There's a lot of bullshit mixed up in y'all's heads. This notion that somehow Big Oil is perpetuating some "myth" of Peak Oil? Since the fuck when? Big Oil wants more Big Oil and they sure as shit do not want ANY competition for it. If they really wanted to push the idea of Peak Oil, they'd be already monopolizing solar, wind, all kinds of alternative energies and shoving them down our throats. They're not. They don't want us to do any of that crap, they want us to be a slave to the oil/coal teat for ever and ever, so we'll just keep paying whatever price it ends up being.

I'm checking out of this thread. This is truly a bizarre experience.

[Rory]

[quote="Stephen Morgan"][/quote]

Stephen, you'll kindly note that I have not at any stage ('ever' - to provide a distinct and measurable timeframe) engaged with or addressed anything you have said before now.

This be the first and last.

From your post I have only one point I would like to address. You cite biofuels. Interesting.

If a definition of modern agriculture is: "Modern agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food."

Then, a definition of bio fuels is: "Biofuels are the use of land to convert petroleum into petroleum. With a net energy loss."

I've read through all of this thread and the arguments you're making are the same falacious lamery StickDog was making four and a half years ago. No one bettered his first few posts unfortunately, making this a sadly, onesided show.

All the best SM. Our time is done.

[Stephen Morgan]

The main hoax on this thread is the uninformed and baseless insistence by several of you that the oil companies are the ones claiming a current or imminent decline in the annual maximum output of conventionally extracted hydrocarbon energy stores, and thus an inability to meet growing demand and a significant decline in hydrocarbon EROEI (a set of concepts that are commonly given in abbreviated form as “peak oil”).

I haven't seen anyone claim that. What, you think unreliable information is suddenly believable if it comes from someone other than an oil company? What sort of argument is that? Ultimately, of course, it all come down to the Hubbert curve, notice its sleek symmetrical lines and total dissimilarity to the graph of Iraqi production, which was produced for the oil companies in one of their market manipulation efforts back in the day.

They are not. If you say so, show it. Otherwise you are full of it.

They are acting as though it already happened, however. There is no other reasonable explanation for Saudi offshore drilling, BP ocean drilling at a mile's depth, fracking, tar sands extraction, mountain-top bombing and the other observable indicators that do not require statistics to understand. Most of the hydrocarbon fat has been sucked out and burned up, and now they’re tapping the bone marrow.

Mountain top removal would be an odd way to extract oil. The rest is mostly minor and political stuff.

Then there's the bizzaroland assertion that those who acknowledge depletion must necessarily favor continued dependence on oil,

Not "must", but "do, in that the most vocal proponent of that position on this thread is wintler who has made a hobby or arguing for the futility of solar, geothermal, hydro and any other conceivable alternative to burn-baby-burn.

even though depletion will eventually make that impossible; whereas those who claim without evidence that enough oil to meet demand will keep flowing at a viable EROIE (which is what the oil companies actually promote with their drill-baby-drill ideology) are the ones who want to free humanity from oil dependence! This part of it is why I shall most likely withdraw. What’s the point in arguing with an insistent, consciously adopted illogic?

I suppose there must be some correlation as in this thread there is a clearl identity between those who believe in the imminent collapse of western civilisation due to lack of oil and those who believe there can be no realistic alternative which can sustain something akin to our current lifestyles on the one hand and, on the other, between those who believe peak oil is basically a price-fixing scam and those who believe there is plenty of energy to be had from non-oil sources, as well as from oil sources, and therefore don't seen profits for oil companies as equivalent to the wellbeing of civilisation.

Several of you don’t want to believe the “Western” estimates of reserves, but you do believe the alleged Russian claims.

I don't believe the Saudi claims.

Or are these really the Russian claims? Starman, I’d like a citation on your claim of 310 Russian wells drilling from below the crust, and, assuming that number is right, on what their output is (with EROEI, if possible). Please show the work behind your assertion that sub-crust wells are responsible for a significant part of current total Russian output. If you can make this credible, I’ll have to admit your point.

Obviously, if it's true that relatively infinite abiotic oil is available from the mantle at a viable EROEI, then this means a few more centuries of oil consumption and the attendant environmental catastrophes. Conveniently for most of you in denial about hydrocarbon depletion, you are also in denial about the effects of emissions on the climate and of extraction and burning on the land, air and water.

So far you've accused people with the gall to disagree with you of supporting oil companies, claiming the oil companies are solely responsible for the bullshit peakist claims, and of supporting fracking and other extreme tactics, and now of denying AGW and the more obvious effects of oil extraction and burning. This, wintler, is what a straw man looks like.

In fact it's the peakists, with their insistence that lack of oil will destroy our civilisation, who are therefore willing to go to any lengths for it, while we "cornucopians" see that there are alternatives.

Again, some of you even manage to be in denial about what the obvious political consequences of your infinite oil dreams are: that oil dependence continues unchallenged! In best Republican style, you project your implicitly pro-hydrocarbon stance on to those who are anti-hydrocarbon!

That's another straw man as only those who believe in the scarcity and importance of hydro carbons would, and do, adopt that position. The rest of use see that there are alternatives, which you lot which not to acknowledge so you can foist the consequences of your oil-fetishising ways on us good sensible folk.

The debate over abiotic vs. biotic origins of oil is of questionable relevance. Does it mean more stores that are accessible at a viable EROEI? Do these abiotic stores not deplete? Is anyone claiming that the abiotic process produces the stuff faster than we can burn it? It doesn’t matter what the origins of oil are, unless it means there is more of the stuff to actually tap and bring into a consumable form at a viable EROIE. Otherwise it’s academic.

Who gives a shit? Totally irrelevant.

Saurian Tail, on the other hand, projections of how solar will develop as an alternative under the conditions of the current "free market" controlled by hydrocarbon companies and their bankster mates need mean nothing. These conditions would change in a hurry if the resources devoted to, for example, the fatal nonsense of the Pentagon were instead to be invested in the necessary conversion. Then a lot more could be accomplished in 30 years. Not that it becomes easy but there is a difference between drifting along and waiting for the "market" and actually treating the problem as a crisis a lot more pressing than whatever the next war is on the agenda. The primary decision (or lack thereof) is political, not "economic" in the conventional, capitalist sense.

Solar power is even less relevant than abiotic oil.

Not that I’m very optimistic about the necessary mass awakening happening soon enough. Look at the quality of this thread, in a place where people are actually supposed to be aware of the issues.

Keep sucking that oil-pumping cock.

[Stephen Morgan]

As far as 'other' renewable, alternative energy resources -- The biggest prize, perhaps even bigger and more truly revolutionary and practically inexhaustable, relatively cheap and extremely abundant than deep abiotic oil reserves is liquid high-temp sodium nuclear power, or more specifically Liquid Flouride-Thorium Reactors. It is a monstrous travesty amounting to sabotage, betrayal and a crime against civilization that the Pentagon/MIC/nuclear Uranium-Plutonium cartel decided to develop the uranium-plutonium solid-fuel reactor business model as THE dominant Nuclear Energy paradigm since it hit all the major MIC/energy-monopoly key interests. This decision was made in the early 50s, ratified in the 60s, and formalized in the 70s -- even though LFTR technology has all the major benefits nuclear power once boldly promised with almost NONE of the hazards, shortfalls and problems nuclear energy plants have since demonstrated.

Thorium is so abundant it is practically FREE (since it is mined for the rare and strategic minerals/elements it is mixed with -- an average mine say in Idaho mines enough Thorium to drive the WORLD'S electric energy needs).

That too.

This notion that somehow Big Oil is perpetuating some "myth" of Peak Oil? Since the fuck when?

I don't think they're perpetuating peak oil, rather oil scarcity in general, so as to raise prices. Although, on the Peak Oil front, since the fuck they hired Hubbert to invent the whole fucking idea of Peak Oil would probably be the when-ness of it.

Big Oil wants more Big Oil and they sure as shit do not want ANY competition for it. If they really wanted to push the idea of Peak Oil, they'd be already monopolizing solar, wind, all kinds of alternative energies and shoving them down our throats.

This is an example of making sense, is it? The reality is that if they believed in Peak Oil then they'd be jumping at the chance to invest in controlling future energy sources, rather than clinging to the scraps of last-generation production. They aren't, so they're either giving up and sucking the last oil prior to going bust or they simply don't think there's money to be made, or any sort of market, anywhere other than oil. And they're right.

They're not. They don't want us to do any of that crap, they want us to be a slave to the oil/coal teat for ever and ever, so we'll just keep paying whatever price it ends up being.

Just to clear this up, your position is that if they didn't believe oil was peaking they would waste money on what would then be useless tech, but as oil is peaking they have decided to desperately cling to it rather than invest in technology which will provide greater profits in the future? Which of us is living in bizarro-world again?

Stephen, you'll kindly note that I have not at any stage ('ever' - to provide a distinct and measurable timeframe) engaged with or addressed anything you have said before now.

This be the first and last.

From your post I have only one point I would like to address. You cite biofuels. Interesting.

I don't likes 'em, but they're there.

If a definition of modern agriculture is: "Modern agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food."

Then, a definition of bio fuels is: "Biofuels are the use of land to convert petroleum into petroleum. With a net energy loss."

Agriculture is about turning sunlight into food. Petroleum just makes the tractors more efficient. That's how the oil got there anyway, excluding the possibility of abiotics for the moment, the energy in oil derives from the sun through decomposed plant life. So parrot your slogans elsewhere.

[Nordic]

I don't think they're perpetuating peak oil, rather oil scarcity in general, so as to raise prices. Although, on the Peak Oil front, since the fuck they hired Hubbert to invent the whole fucking idea of Peak Oil would probably be the when-ness of it.

I know I said I was checking out but oh my god ...

That's about the STUPIDEST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER READ.

I've known about Peak Oil since 1979 for God's sake. Hell, everybody's known about it for fucking EVER. It ain't gonna last, nobody with half a brain expected it to!

This whole forum seems to be going rapidly downhill. It's pretty dead, and when it's not dead, it's full of nonsense like this nonsense.

Sheesh ....

You guys must think that the gold mines in California were shut down in order to keep the price of gold high. Shhhhhhhh! That's a Big Secret that only a Select Few know!

[eyeno]

..Small groups of very powerful people, a cabal perhaps, do not own F16's and they are not dropping bombs on half the middle east to control oil. I believe it, the government and the NGO's told me so.

What a laugh.....

More everything-is-a-conspiracy cliche's, how dull. You could help me differentiate you from stickdog99 by posting a coherent original thought or some evidence.

An F16 fighter raining down death and destruction is not a conspiracy cliche. The free market/supply demand aspect of the oil market was destroyed long ago. The words "free market supply demand" do not apply to the oil market. Here is some evidence. I realize that you don't believe all this is happening but it is.


^^^this is a real jet. It determines the shape of the oil market.




^^^this is a real country going up in flames.


^^^this dead guy is not a conspiracy, he is a dead guy that got killed over SUPPLY in an oil rich country.

[eyeno]

I've known about Peak Oil since 1979 for God's sake. Hell, everybody's known about it for fucking EVER. It ain't gonna last, nobody with half a brain expected it to!

I'm not insinuating that it will last forever. I understand what "finite" means. What I am saying is that there is no free market in oil and the law of supply and demand is deader than a door nail for the oil market.

[No_Baseline]

I don't believe Peak Oil is a hoax. The million year old deposits that we are mining and using is pretty easy to graph and the usage is hard to refute.

My question is very naive and may not even belong on this thread, so please use the minimal amount of derision when responding.

What other component besides decomposing plant/animal matter is necessary in creating these fossil fuel deposits? I am trying to save myself a one hundred dollar textbook purchase because ten pages of googling isn't providing anything other than peak oil debates.

I am seriously asking why we aren't creating deposits continuously from decomposing plant/animal matter. Was it the sheer number of dinosaurs decomposing all at once at that time? (again, save the heckling, I truly can't find the answer) was it the plant/animal matter combined with intense heat or just amount plus age plus compression under millions of tons of geologic layers? What made those deposits so unique?

We are decomposing all the time and are continuously (albeit slowly) creating fossils...why those abundant deposits and apparently nothing since?

I guess I am not understanding that we have used it all up in the last hundred years and haven't figured out a way to speed the decomposition of carbon matter up with added heat/compression, whatever created it in the first place?

Any help would be appreciated, I am not at all trying to add political or denying naysaying to this thread...

[Stephen Morgan]

I don't think they're perpetuating peak oil, rather oil scarcity in general, so as to raise prices. Although, on the Peak Oil front, since the fuck they hired Hubbert to invent the whole fucking idea of Peak Oil would probably be the when-ness of it.

I know I said I was checking out but oh my god ...

That's about the STUPIDEST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER READ.

I've known about Peak Oil since 1979 for God's sake. Hell, everybody's known about it for fucking EVER. It ain't gonna last, nobody with half a brain expected it to!

Funnily enough the fact that you've been banging on about the end of the world as we know it for over thirty years, coincidentally since an oil embargo specifically engineered to artificially reduce supply, doesn't convince me of the imminent collapse of civilisation. You're like Harold Camping. "Okay, wrong date, it's the end of the world this time next year."

Also, 79 is, of course, long after Hubbert was active.