Peak oil a hoax? Prove it.

[wintler2]

Whether it 'scarcity engineered by design', or 'peak oil' is correct per say, doesn't change the consequences of the last 130 years of petrochemical based industry that underpins contermpory society. Those being that we, collectively exist (and for a large part) subsist/prosper due to petrochemicals: our race's destiny is locked into a cycle of dependence.

Not the whole race, only the industrialised ones. And some of them are learning to adapt, here they call it 'downshifting'.

I'm fully down with the idea that, as others have proposed; the major elite powers are operating to an occult agenda based around keeping major supply sources of oil under wraps/under debilitating warfare, to drive price hikes and prevent an increase in growth of consumption (prolonging any downward curve on a Hubbard model of EROEI vs Supply).

I don't see why that is an 'occult' agenda, looks like plain old self interest to me, just deferred an IMHO improbable time period. But yeah, its possible, and i think the devastation of & post-US-invasion&war sanctions against Vietnam might be another example of same strategy.

Let’s assume for sure that they are: Oil will still run out eventually as present rates of consumption continue or grow slowly. Prices will rise as extraction cost go up.

Let’s assume that they don't (drill baby drill): Oil will still run out as present rates of consumption continue or grow. Prices will rise as extraction cost go up.

For those that believe that the above will not occur in either scenario... I don't know what to say. Good luck with your though processes I guess.

Writing them out on the page is a great practice.

Secondly: The problem we face (assuming the above is true either way) is that there is no technological solution to either problem. Solar panels, roof top gardens (how much roof area, is necessary to provide full, year round subsistence + work calories for one adult human btw?), communal living, Thorium, liquid salt reactors, magic free-energy beans, etc.. aren't going to solve the central problem of population growth. Sorry. Is a nice thought but won't work.

Renewables run business as usual? No. But neither oil nor fossil fuels are going to vanish overnight, and humans adapt - thats how we got this far.

Example: Magic energy beans are discovered and distributed to every household in the world. Non-polluting and infinite energy output. Drives cars and widescreen tvs - everything. Population keeps growing. Boom - we 'Easter Island' the world even more quickly than we're doing currently.

We are a swarm of locusts - as a race, so far, incapable of reversing our growing consumption of finite (or consuming faster than they can self replenish) resources.

Not all humans are expansionist and hyperconsuming - none of those who survive the century will be.

Yes we should cast off oil immediately for many reasons but one of them (the ugliest truth but perhaps the most pertinent, long term) is that it would halt and maybe reverse population growth - cheep energy supply, particularly petrochemicals, is a catalyst for growth. I don't mean to come all Rockefeller, Kissinger or Prince Phillip but, is we continue to keep growing as a race, in size then we will doom everyone.

Population is a whole other ball game, not a useful focus in my opinion except for reinforcing family planning & womens emancipation as part of the One Big Union agenda.

[wintler2]

..Funny how these "smart people" and you have in this decade of confronting the problem so far come up only with oil and ethanol-based solutions that burn carbon and require the vast distribution networks that Big Oil currently monopolizes, ennit?

You base that slur on what evidence?

And your solution for mobile energy & petrochemicals is .. ?

I'm pro oil depeletion protocolmyself, was involved a little in trying to get the Aus govt to take issue seriously but no longer, and have over last 5 years reshaped my life around less oil. I think most westerners would, like i did, benefit from cutting down or even kicking their oil habit.

Of course, I accept that total oil production will decline at some currently indeterminant point in the future. I hope that this will happen because the need for oil will have dissipated by that point because of substitution with renewable power, but I think our elite plan on burning a hell of a lot more oil before they let go of the oil distribution energy monopoly they have devised, so I would not be surprised if oil production peaks at some point in the future (my current guess would be at least 20 years down the road) because oil actually does become that scarce.

I look forward to your thread providing evidence for same.

[Hammer of Los]

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.

An astute observation jackriddler. I equate this situation (sort of) to the cancer industry. If there were cures for cancer why would there be a trillion dollar industry grown up around it? If there were cures for cancer we would simply cure cancer and do away with the trillion dollar industry right? The big pools have not been sucked dry and bigger pools await tapping. Bigger pools than any previously tapped.

There are many cures for cancer and this has been proven. But since there are thousands of ways to profit from cancer we have a trillion dollar cancer industry because the cancer cure 'spigot' is being controlled.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.166-7), Hamlet to Horatio

Yes indeed. There are a thousand ways to profit from manufactured scarcity.

It is fiendishly clever of the genocidal bastards if you think about it. If low EROEI sources like deep sea and tar sands are the long term future, you would want to create this kind of short term artificial scarcity in order to make your long term prospects viable during the transition. This kind of artificial manipulation would definitely extend the bumpy plateau as well as ease the backside of the curve ... and make your remaining high EROEI sources extremely profitable. I'm going to chew on that a while.

Bingo. Case in point. My best friend was the Vice President of Marketing for BP Oil for many years. After he quit BP he designed a device that allows enchanced retrieval of oil from oil sands. This increases production. His device specializes in extracting more oil from soil that is difficult to extract oil from. He recently sold 60% of this fledgling 5 year old company for 50 million dollars. He was able to do this even though there are free flowing oil wells on the earth.

His philosophy was to quote him "each deal must stand on its own. it does not matter if there are more efficient methods. if this one deal will produce money at the current price per barrel of oil then it is viable as a money making deal."

My friend is not even a big player. He is a teeny tiny player in a huge market. He is but a pimple on the butt of the oil industry.

Manufactured scarcity has created a thousand different ways to become a millionaire in the oil industry. Manufactured scarcity of cancer cures has created a thousand ways to profit from cancer.

The people that control the oil market with F16 fighter jets are making billions in thousands of small ways. They refuse to allow free market supply and demand into the oil market.

NOTICE: I did not say that oil is not a finite resource. I did not say the big pools will not be sucked dry some day because eventually they will. What I am saying is that the Hubbert time frame does not apply because the time frame is being manipulated by assholes. My rich friend knows the oil market is being manipulated into a state of manufactured scarcity and he told me he believes it to be true. He also believes that some day the big pools will be sucked dry. He says we have so much oil on hand that at the very least it will take many centuries to suck them dry.

He also said that what lies beneath Prudhoe Bay, Alaska DWARFS all big pool discoveries on earth at the present time. He also says that what lies beneath Prudhoe Bay probably dwarfs ALL BIG KNOWN OIL POOLS COMBINED.

So for the present time oil is not scarce. Oil is being controlled into manufactured scarcity. Will the big pools eventually be sucked dry? Of course they will. But for the time being Peak Oil is being used to control prices according to him and I can assure you that he is in a position to know.

That was a great post I thought.

At some point people might realise they are arguing with straw men versions of each other's opinions. Can't we just cut the rancour? I'm quite happy for people not to agree with me. I'm not here to convince others, but to find out for myself.

I think we nearly all agree that the oil is probably finite. And that currently and in the foreseeable future, short of radical change, demand will continue to rise. Therefore, we all agree this will act as an upward pressure on price. Over time therefore it is inevitable that we move away from these resources as they become less economically attractive as a means of energy creation, and shift to other means of energy production. That is surely what will happen. Is that a catastrophe? It depends entirely on how it's handled, but humanity has the means to turn just about anything into a catastrophe.

Peak Oil means alternative energy sources become more attractive in the marketplace; greener, less polluting, more sustainable alternatives.

Peak Oil means a likely reduction or reversal in the patterns of economic growth witnessed in the twentieth century, on the back of plentiful oil.

Peak Oil maybe means less personal vehicles.

Peak Oil maybe means less gas to drive the armies and air forces of the world.

Peak Oil means more food will be produced locally and consumed fresh.

I'm not sure Peak Oil is a bad thing. Did we want to carry on burning increasing rates of greenhouse gas producing petrochemicals indefinitely? Is that what we want? A fantasy of infinite economic growth? It can only happen if we expand beyond this world, I would guess, and I have no idea how likely or even possible that is right now.

I don't want to argue. I simply want to speak my mind. Nor do I want to insult anyone. We could come to these discussions in the spirit of disinterested enquiry, seeking to learn together something of the nature of the issue at hand. We might listen to the other out of respect and consideration and a desire to learn something. Some folk just want a fight, a battle. I'm waving a white flag here.

I think Stephen Morgan's, stickdog99 and lupercal's contributions have been clear and useful. I think folk have a lot of prejudices around here, sorry to say that. I love you all really.

[wintler2]

Might well create it out of nothing through the abiotic process,

Why don't you give it a try and lets us know when you've made your 1st litre?

Or just provide the chemical reactions and energy flows.

Even roughly, in wot like faux common bloke speak.

You are projecting current growth into the future as if it were an otherwise irreversible trend, which is the most basic of fallacies.

True. Oil companies, the IEA & the US EIA use the same fallacy for oil discovery and all-energy demand projections. Governments then use same to justify growthist economics.

[wintler2]

Congratulations. You have proved yourself to be surly, self-righteous, small-minded and imbecilic all in a single post. But you definitely "won" your "point" and isn't that what discussion is all about?

Some people just want to be liked. Some people want truth, or at least better information. Those who just want to be liked leave themselves permanently vulnerable to being socially gamed ,'normed', and i think that gaming goes on here. Being obnoxious means i have nothing to lose on that front, which is very liberating.

[DoYouEverWonder]

There’s oil on that thar moon

Posted on February 19th, 2008

Saturn’s biggest satellite, Titan is an oil baron’s dream, space scientists have revealed. The orange world – which is half as big again as our own Moon – has hundreds of times more fuel slopping about than the entire known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth.

So-called hydrocarbons in the form of methane and ethane are literally raining from the sky in the form of a persistant drizzle.

Vast quantities of the stuff is sitting around in hundreds of lakes that cover Titan’s surface. But any oil magnate hoping to get at it would face a return journey of several billion miles.

The new findings were discovered by Nasa’s Cassini probe that is in orbit around the giant ringed planet Saturn, studying it and its vast family of natural satellites.

Pictures sent back show that Titan’s surface has features just like the rivers, lakes and coastlines of Earth – except that they were carved by its liquid hydrocarbons instead of water. Mountain ranges are topped with the methane equivalent of snow that fell from the moon’s own clouds.

Cassini scientist Ralph Lorenz, of the Johns Hopkins University, Maryland, said: “Titan is just covered in carbon-bearing material – it’s a giant factory of organic chemicals. This vast carbon inventory is an important window into the geology and climate history of Titan.”

Cassini has mapped about 20 per cent of Titan’s surface with radar. Several hundred lakes and seas have been observed. Several dozen each are thought to contain more hydrocarbon liquid than Earth’s oil and gas reserves.

What is more, dark dunes that run along the equator contain a volume of organic material that is several hundred times larger than Earth’s coal reserves.

http://www.skymania.com/wp/2008/02/theres-oil-on-that-thar-moon.html

So where did all this fuel come from on a planet that doesn't have fossils?

[Stephen Morgan]

You know there are entire nebulae of alcohol out there in areas of space that have never seen a brewery.

[wintler2]

You know there are entire nebulae of alcohol out there in areas of space that have never seen a brewery.

And thats about as close to relevance as you get.


So we've established that you accept oil will peak, or at least you used to. If i was half as nasty as your friends say i am, and since you're drawn like a moth to the flame, i could try and pin you down on when. But i'm content with all the stupid you've already posted, so i'll go easy.

But do tell: how you going making that abiotic oil?

[stickdog99]

You know there are entire nebulae of alcohol out there in areas of space that have never seen a brewery.

Peak Ale?

[Stephen Morgan]

You know there are entire nebulae of alcohol out there in areas of space that have never seen a brewery.

And thats about as close to relevance as you get.

Replying to a related statement seems relevant to me. Starting a thread doesn't make you the dictator of it, nor must all discussion in a thread relate to the OP.

So we've established that you accept oil will peak, or at least you used to. If i was half as nasty as your friends say i am, and since you're drawn like a moth to the flame, i could try and pin you down on when. But i'm content with all the stupid you've already posted, so i'll go easy.

Or you could read, if you could comprehend rather better than you seem able, where I have repeatedly said that conventional oil production has peaked, but may reach a higher peak if production was to be stepped up by, for example, increased production from Iraq. And that it doesn't matter, it's not the end of the world, which is what you can't stand.

But do tell: how you going making that abiotic oil?

I'm pretty sure you don't actually read anything people post here, you just roll a dice, if it comes up one or two you accuse someone of being a troll, if it comes up three or four you say their post is irrelevant or off topic, if it comes up five or six you claim they're using a straw man and demand evidence which has already been provided or for positions no-one has actually taken. Because those are the only things you ever post.

In the event that you commence reading of other peoples posts and learn how to comprehend them:
a) abiotic oil isn't something one makes, it's the idea that oil is produced geologically within the earth rather than from prehistoric decomposing biomatter, which would make oil reservoirs renewable resources, constantly refilling from within the earth;
2) I have repeatedly said that I don't agree with the idea of the abiotic origin of oil and have only included it in a few of my posts as a list item out of consideration for the ideas of the lad who, earlier in this thread, spoke in favour of it;
iii) as you know, I am a wealthy industrialist and am currently producing oil production equipment with the industrial fabrication facility which operates from my airing cupboard.

[stickdog99]

..Funny how these "smart people" and you have in this decade of confronting the problem so far come up only with oil and ethanol-based solutions that burn carbon and require the vast distribution networks that Big Oil currently monopolizes, ennit?

You base that slur on what evidence?

That "slur" was merely a commentary on what you wrote:

Substitution is happening, where it can, thats why Big Oil has created the worlds biggest environmental crime, athabasca tar sands. But its expensive. Deep oil - another substitution - but its expensive & risky. Ethanol - expensive & big opportunity costs.

You talk like you just invented this problem, whereas as many people much smarter than you have been publicly grappling with this for a decade.

**********************************************************************************************

And your solution for mobile energy & petrochemicals is .. ?

Don't fight wars and don't use plastic. The widespread use of plastic is a disgusting habit. IMHO, it is far better for the environment to burn oil than to turn oil into plastic.

[stickdog99]

I'm not sure Peak Oil is a bad thing. Did we want to carry on burning increasing rates of greenhouse gas producing petrochemicals indefinitely? Is that what we want? A fantasy of infinite economic growth? It can only happen if we expand beyond this world, I would guess, and I have no idea how likely or even possible that is right now.

Thanks you for your moderated insight. I don't want to argue either, at least not in the manner I have been arguing. I simply find this topic interesting and think that the "conventional wisdom" of the vast majority of my educated friends (environmental well-wishers, one and all) on this topic is unnecessarily apocalyptic and unfortunately perfectly aligned with at least the short term interests of Big Oil. Therefore I enjoy discussing this topic, mostly because when my viewpoint is so different from that of my friends, we both can typically learn something from each other.

I have even learned things from wintler2's posts on this thread, albeit not the ones directed at me personally.

[stickdog99]

So where did all this fuel come from on a planet that doesn't have fossils?

Good question. What's amusing is that most planetary scientists don't even see the inconsistency. Such is the power of the reigning paradigm.

[stickdog99]

Differences aside, does anybody on the other side of the peak oil aisle agree that our current oil/gas prices give us a unique opportunity to agitate for decentralized, renewable power sources? Does anybody on the other side of the aisle agree with me that the decentralization and democratization of these replacement power sources is even more important than their carbon neutrality?

If you'd showed an ounce of goodwill at any point i'd be happy to wander off topic with you. But you haven't, you've been insulting and empty of content, so i wont.

[Searcher08]

Congratulations. You have proved yourself to be surly, self-righteous, small-minded and imbecilic all in a single post. But you definitely "won" your "point" and isn't that what discussion is all about?

Some people just want to be liked.

I can recall meeting any person that dislikes being liked, or well thought of.

Some people want truth, or at least better information.

Well the best way of obtaining more accurate information I know is the MetaModel of NLP, which is a questioning approach based on Chomsky's ideas of Transformational Grammar. Use it wisely, because applying it without empathy can feel like a linguistic vivisection.

Those who just want to be liked leave themselves permanently vulnerable to being socially gamed ,'normed', and i think that gaming goes on here.

Where here, specifically?

Being obnoxious means i have nothing to lose on that front, which is very liberating.

That is one thing, obviously.
Another is that some people of good will may refuse to engage, because their time and attention is too important to them to spend around someone obnoxious, regardless of that person's intelligence, vision or beliefs. Sometimes people may need to be persuaded - and a 'little bit of sugar' can make unpleasent medicine go down, as the song says.

As Maya Angelou wrote

“I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”