Peak oil a hoax? Prove it.

[JD]

I notice that none of MY questions get answered, so why should I answer to the demand to know my holdings in major oil companies? What's the point of asking the question anyways?

I will answer you other question though because it is a bit relevent.

Iraq development - well I don't know cuz I've never looked at Iraq's fields and don't know how much oil is in place, etc.

With the state of Iraq and 300 billion dollars capital I'd guess (and this is a massive guess, I'd need literally thousands of points of information to make a real estimate - also the scale of the estimate is three orders of magnitude higher than the stuff I'm currently doing) I could build it up to about 10mmbls per day over a 10 year period. After that it'd be permanent decline.

Now think about that. The "great Iraq" that will forever flood the world with crude.........

At current growth rates in about 10 years petreleum demand growth would soak up the whole 10mmbbls I've just added.......

Someone said something pertinent; that demand was more important than supply.

Amen! So true.

We can't supply continued growth forever, finite resource. This is simply another way of saying Hubbert's Peak.

This is such a simple concept, how come the wing nuts can't get it?

Let's cut demand, put in renewables, CONSERVE energy. This will buy us a few decades of energy security.

Oh and for the stereotypers out there; did you expect an oilman to say that?

[stickdog99]

Sorry, I just thought you knew something about the issue, JD. I didn't ask what your stake was in the Big Five. I asked what the total equity of the Big Five was. You brought up the Big Five's ROE, so I asked about the Big Five's total equity. Get it?

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the US military is doing in Iraq, JD?

As in, why are we there? What was wrong with Hussein?

And why are the British (Petroleum) our only allies there?

BTW, I'm glad all of Big Oil's real conspiracies are now almost 100 years old. When will we be celebrating their centennial?

[wintler2]

We can't supply continued growth forever, finite resource. This is simply another way of saying Hubbert's Peak.

This is such a simple concept, how come the wing nuts can't get it?

That is one of the most interesting questions in the whole shemozzle - why is the fact of a finite planet so challenging to so many?

Is it due to christianity's promise of endless fecundity? 'go forth and multiply', 'dominion over all the birds and beasts..' etc . Admitting limits requires daddy-sky-god believers to admit that daddy isn't going to rescue their ass, which kinda destroys the quid-pro-quo under which christians forfiet their autonomy. In other words, they don't want to grow up and take responsibility for their actions and appetites, its too scary, too hard, and oil depletion makes that delusion unworkable.

Is it due to lifelong ignorance about importance of cheap fossil energy reserves (oil, gas, coal), resulting in very wrong ideas about our cleverness? i.e. we can fly not cos humans are divinely clever but cos we can conveniently burn the equivalent of thousands of tonnes of wood in a very short time. We can mass produce plastics only cos we have large supply of miraculously long carbon compound feedstock - an analogy might be, imagine building a house if bricks and windows could be dug ready made out of the ground.

Whatever the reason, we as a society are much dumber than our grandparents, they knew the dangers of hubris, poverty and impractical thinking much better than our tech toy and celebrity obsessed generation.

Incidentally JD, thanks for 'coming out' as working in oil industry. A few years ago in my more militant antiglobalista days i woulda grilled you for it, now i'm just interested to get your perspective.

[stickdog99]

Great. It's wonderful to see how Peak Oil chicken littling can bring together both oilmen and revolutionistas! It's better than Christmas!

[wintler2]

Stickdog99, your last few posts have consisted of nothing but fairly vague questions. This is not a zen meditation retreat, its a thread where you are supposed to be proving what you've claimed on many threads, that PO is a hoax. Questions don't do that, they just illustrate the extent of your ignorance.

[stickdog99]

What would Socrates say about that?

[wintler2]

Socrates isn't spamming unproven claims across multiple off-topic threads.

[stickdog99]

What? What are you talking about? Would you care to supply any evidence of those charges? Have you been reduced to nothing but spurious personal attacks?

[Joe Hillshoist]

stickydog this thread is asking for proof of Peak Oil (you know scientific proof) being a hoax.

Not for opinions on what is the motivation behind todays seeming obsession with peakoil.

Not for people's theories on how the peak oil meme can be manipulated to serve the interests of Big Oil.

It is asking for proof, scientific proof that is, that Peak Oil is a hoax.

Not opinion, PROOF.

Documents, figures etc etc

So far no one has put this stuff up.

So obviously the only conclusion ignorant people like me can draw from this is:

PEAK OIL IS NOT A HOAX.



It is a reality.

This thread had nothing to do with with how Oil Companies manipulate supply and demand to their own advantage. Just had a request for the obviously non existant proof that peak Oil is a hoax.

My fear is that we have more carbon buried in the earth to burn than is wise or healthy to do (it did take millions of years for the earth romove it from the cycle we need for breatheable air)

I think we are long past that point TS

[wintler2]

What? What are you talking about? Would you care to supply any evidence of those charges? Have you been reduced to nothing but spurious personal attacks?

I apologise, stickdog99, i confused you with poster Osculum Infame who has been much busier pushing the 'its a hoax' line, tho you haven't been entirely idle
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... 5&start=30
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... 2&start=15

Its hard not to confuse you with complete time wasters, given the many times you've run the "oil isn't running out" strawman (see pgs 2 (twice!) and 6 of this thread). Neither of you have yet explained how this supposed hoax works, as evidenced by the dozens of questions i and other posters have asked and that you both routinely ignore. If you can promise to quit with the 'oil isnt running out' strawmen and 'chickenlittle' smears, i'll promise not to confuse you with OI.

You have conceded that oil extraction will peak, only question is when - note that this thread is not pushing any particular date for peaking.

You claim Iraqs oil production is somehow pivotal in global oil production, while providing no evidence that its reserves are of sufficient size to make much difference at all, nor explained how 'Big Oil' (who you haven't even bothered to name) have convinced Indonesia, Australia, Mexico, Norway, or Quatar (to pick only a few post-peak countries) to fake their declines in production. Get a clue from JoeH:

This thread had nothing to do with with how Oil Companies manipulate supply and demand to their own advantage. Just had a request for the obviously non existant proof that peak Oil is a hoax.

[cortez]

I believe both sides of this debate agree on greater parameters that surround it (at least on this forum). This debate (peak oil/abiotic oil) is interesting but is at this point, but the energy spent on it is misdirected into fear.


My contribution will be on promoting solutions to the oil problem.Here is one such practical example, I believe there are many more ways of getting energy as well.

here's a site with plenty of options, not all are valid but... "Fool's gold exists because there is real gold." -Rumi

http://freeenergynews.com/




A solar solution for world power

Ashley Seager | London, United Kingdom

In the desert of North Africa is a vast source of energy that holds the promise of a carbon-free, nuclear-free electrical future for the whole of Europe, if not the world.

We are not talking about the vast oil and gas deposits underneath Algeria and Libya, or uranium for nuclear plants, but something far simpler -- the sun. And in vast quantities: every year it pours down the equivalent of 1,5-million barrels of oil of energy for every square kilometre.

Many people think of solar power as a few panels on the roof of a house producing hot water or a bit of electricity. But according to two reports prepared for the German government, Europe, the Middle East and North Africa should be building vast solar farms in North Africa's deserts using a simple technology that more resembles using a magnifying glass to burn a hole in a piece of paper than any space age technology....

..."Contrary to what is commonly supposed it is entirely feasible, and cost-effective, to transmit solar electricity over long distances. Solar electricity imported to Europe would be among the cheapest source of electricity and that includes transporting it,'' he says. "CSP imports would be much less vulnerable to interruption than are current imports of gas, oil and uranium.''

[wintler2]

Hi Cortez, I don't blame you for wanting to focus on solutions! I agree that there is much misdirection from peak oil to fear, which is why i tried to orient this thread away from 'what will it mean' etc and towards basic credibility for the issue, which 'its a hoax' parrots are doing their best to destroy.

[stickdog99]

The bottom line is that nobody has any clue when Peak Oil will come because its very definition depends on the price people are willing to pay for oil before getting serious about conservation and energy alternatives. If people are willing to pay $80 a barrel, suddenly South America and Canada have a shitload of oil. If people are willing to pay $100 a barrel, suddenly the technical difficulties of deep ocean drilling aren't dissuasive. By the time we get to $120 a barrel all sorts of alternatives (like solar, wind, water, growing hemp, growing microbes, converting garbage, etc.) become extremely viable, using nothing more advanced than current technology.

Furthermore, this entire thread has been a transparent exercise in biased framing. See: http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=10446

[wintler2]

The bottom line is that nobody has any clue when Peak Oil will come because its very definition depends on the price people are willing to pay for oil before getting serious about conservation and energy alternatives. If people are willing to pay $80 a barrel, suddenly South America and Canada have a shitload of oil. If people are willing to pay $100 a barrel, suddenly the technical difficulties of deep ocean drilling aren't dissuasive. By the time we get to $120 a barrel all sorts of alternatives (like solar, wind, water, growing hemp, growing microbes, converting garbage, etc.) become extremely viable, using nothing more advanced than current technology.

You obviously haven't read JDs posts on the spiralling costs of oil extraction, go try rent a truck in Alberta Canada to get a picture of the cost inflation that oil industry faces. Thats cos, surprise surprise, oil compnies consume a fair bit of oil and other resources, and the rising cost of all is making extraction more expensive.

Your alternatives are irrelevant to when oil extraction will peak (not being oil, duh!), but its worth noting that global output of all of them couldn't supply even Australian demand, and thats after five years of rising prices. Theres lots more interesting stuff on the net energy problems of many of the alternatives, but you keep us in the 'its a Big Oil plot' sandpit. *sigh*

Your view that 'nobody has any clue' is obviously not shared by the US EIA, USGS, the IEA, CERA, IHS, and the many other government, corporate and independant sources who produce studies on when the peak will happen. Maybe you should let them know of your insight?

Furthermore, this entire thread has been a transparent exercise in biased framing. See: http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=10446

Poisoning the well, the last resort of a concienceless loser.

You say peak oil is a hoax. I asked you to prove it, or at least describe the workings of the hoax. You write dozens of posts, answer NONE of my questions, and now YOU say its not fair? You are a spoiler and a drizzler, adding no light and making no honest contribution. If you want to 'take your bat and go home', i'll lend you bus fare, just so the sincerely interested can get on with a real discussion.

[stickdog99]

You obviously haven't read JDs posts on the spiralling costs of oil extraction, go try rent a truck in Alberta Canada to get a picture of the cost inflation that oil industry faces. Thats cos, surprise surprise, oil compnies consume a fair bit of oil and other resources, and the rising cost of all is making extraction more expensive.

So you and JD agree that none of us should be surprised as petroleum end products steadily rise in price from now until the end of time, right? It's just a natural consequence of a finite resource and Adam Smith's invisible hand. Right? That's what all of this is about. That's what both of you are trying to sell us. Right?

Your alternatives are irrelevant to when oil extraction will peak (not being oil, duh!), but its worth noting that global output of all of them couldn't supply even Australian demand, and thats after five years of rising prices. Theres lots more interesting stuff on the net energy problems of many of the alternatives, but you keep us in the 'its a Big Oil plot' sandpit. *sigh*

Yes, it's so very difficult to have a serious discussion about why no energy source other than oil can ever be viable no matter how much petro end products inevitably rise in price when cranks like me keep insisting on bringing up irrelevant details like the entire history and current status of the supplier (Big Oil) controlled oil distribution market. In any case, the relative costs of alternative products never have any effect on a commodity's demand. Right?

Your view that 'nobody has any clue' is obviously not shared by the US EIA, USGS, the IEA, CERA, IHS, and the many other government, corporate and independant sources who produce studies on when the peak will happen. Maybe you should let them know of your insight? Laughing

Meanwhile, you mock the USGS's guesstimates while cherry picking your own guesstimates -- guesstimates that must by their very nature include fundamental assumptions about which sources of oil have viable recovery costs and which do not and that typically use current crude oil prices as their guide.

Poisoning the well, the last resort of a concienceless loser.

You say peak oil is a hoax. I asked you to prove it, or at least describe the workings of the hoax. You write dozens of posts, answer NONE of my questions, and now YOU say its not fair? You are a spoiler and a drizzler, adding no light and making no honest contribution. If you want to 'take your bat and go home', i'll lend you bus fare, just so the sincerely interested can get on with a real discussion.

As I clearly demonstrated with the CD of WTC-7 thread, you poisoned this (Big Oil) well from the start.

I have never claimed that Peak Oil is a hoax. What I have persuasively argued is that all the chicken littling about Peak Oil being an "imminent crisis" is transparent Big Oil-stoked propaganda that has been foisted on the progressive community in the guise of the far left's traditional propaganda tactics of trying to raise ecological awareness using economic scare mongering. The purpose of this ubiquitous propaganda (see "Peak Oil crisis" google ads for just one example: http://www.google.com/search?q=oil+production+peak ) is to guarantee a progressive buy in on ever rising petro end products while promoting the destructive idea that the "free energy market" (which is actually controlled by Big Oil and its US/British military wing) will inevitably come to the rescue of alternative energy sources as oil prices inevitably double and quadruple in a "natural" response to "natural" production shortages. The truth of the matter is that until the control of the global energy market is wrested from Big Oil's clutches through effective public policy initiatives, alternatives to global oil dependency will develop at Big Oil's preferred pace and not a second swifter.

Furthermore, I have argued that even if Peak Oil were actually upon us as of yesterday, scare mongering about our impending "economic collapse" and how our "entire way of life" is at stake without putting the "crisis" in the fundamental context of who is managing it to what effect and why is counterproductive to progressive and perfectly aligned with mega-corporate driven authoritarian ends.

You have studiously ignored all my points while perpetually claiming victory in "your thread" which from its inception has been continually defined by an imperial you as an unlosable game completely rigged by virtue of your initial bullshit "you must scientifically prove a negative or else I win" ground rules.