Revolutionary discovery about oil - "peak oil" is a fraud
- Thread starter _xxx_
- Start date
Please, Xxx. You're turning into one of those caricatures of internet cranks everybody laughs at. This is an ancient dead horse; oil isn't going to be replenishing automagically down in the earth at the rate we're currently consuming it at. All those hydrocarbons have to come from somewhere. They're not going to simply magic into existence down there.
Oil WILL run out. Question is when, so the prudent thing is to cut down on use while we still have plenty of it left, and not wait until we stand on the brink of energy starvation.
Oil WILL run out. Question is when, so the prudent thing is to cut down on use while we still have plenty of it left, and not wait until we stand on the brink of energy starvation.
Tempting.
A boring post would be senseless, not worth typing 
Why RPSC, we're not talking politics here. And I didn't post this with an intention to say that we can now happily burn all oil we can get our hands on like crazy. Why do you people always have to see things as strictly black and white, "with us or against us" etc.? There is a whole world of nuances in between.
Grall: where did I claim it will replenish at the same rate? That rate is still an unknown.
The planet is full of hydrocarbons. Wherever you get the idea that these are scarce, you're severely wrong. Carbon is one of the most prominent elements in the solar system. The more complex carbides are produced all the time, not only as described in the text but also by anaerobic bacteria which live below the surface all the way down to 10km depths. And then there might be other factors we yet have no idea of.
But the point is, the oil is nowhere near as scarce as assumed before and supposedly by lowering the consumption just some estimated 30% compared to today, we could reach the point of "balance", where the "new" oil will be enough to keep it.
Another point, if this makes finding new oil fields easier, many a nation will become independent of oil imports and overall the prices will go down and the US will have no need to fight wars in the middle east etc. More wealth and better life for all of us.
Mind you, this is NOT the call to continue increasing the consumption like idiots. It's just another proof that the continuous fearmongering we've been facing every day ever since the 50ies was nothing but lies, more lies and statistics in order to keep the energy prices high.
Why RPSC, we're not talking politics here. And I didn't post this with an intention to say that we can now happily burn all oil we can get our hands on like crazy. Why do you people always have to see things as strictly black and white, "with us or against us" etc.? There is a whole world of nuances in between.
Grall: where did I claim it will replenish at the same rate? That rate is still an unknown.
The planet is full of hydrocarbons. Wherever you get the idea that these are scarce, you're severely wrong. Carbon is one of the most prominent elements in the solar system. The more complex carbides are produced all the time, not only as described in the text but also by anaerobic bacteria which live below the surface all the way down to 10km depths. And then there might be other factors we yet have no idea of.
But the point is, the oil is nowhere near as scarce as assumed before and supposedly by lowering the consumption just some estimated 30% compared to today, we could reach the point of "balance", where the "new" oil will be enough to keep it.
Another point, if this makes finding new oil fields easier, many a nation will become independent of oil imports and overall the prices will go down and the US will have no need to fight wars in the middle east etc. More wealth and better life for all of us.
Mind you, this is NOT the call to continue increasing the consumption like idiots. It's just another proof that the continuous fearmongering we've been facing every day ever since the 50ies was nothing but lies, more lies and statistics in order to keep the energy prices high.
Have you read the research _xxx_? I have.
I have no problem believing that oil and gas can be produced without fossils as a purely chemical process of heat and pressure and mineral deposits. The trouble is that this theory implies that oil can be found by drilling deeper and deeper finding smaller and smaller deposits that haven't floated up to the larger pools we're already tapping into. A "successful" test of this theory drilled through four MILES of granite to locate a scant 84 barrels of oil.
As for the theories on "60% of all oil" or "30% increased efficiency balance" these are simply numbers thrown around as "what ifs" or "maybes" and even the researchers all admit that.
Basically they may have evidence that for much more money we can find more oil.
Wow.
I have no problem believing that oil and gas can be produced without fossils as a purely chemical process of heat and pressure and mineral deposits. The trouble is that this theory implies that oil can be found by drilling deeper and deeper finding smaller and smaller deposits that haven't floated up to the larger pools we're already tapping into. A "successful" test of this theory drilled through four MILES of granite to locate a scant 84 barrels of oil.
As for the theories on "60% of all oil" or "30% increased efficiency balance" these are simply numbers thrown around as "what ifs" or "maybes" and even the researchers all admit that.
Basically they may have evidence that for much more money we can find more oil.
Wow.
Yeah, though that theory claimed we will be out of oil aometime around Y2K. Which says it all right there.
Mize, I have no idea, I didn't do that research. I found it interesting to say the least, thus I posted it here. Maybe we could shoot some questions directly to the authors? they'll surely be able to answer it more competently.
I hope you know that the russians have had the equipment to drill as deep as 13km decades ago? And also, google for the "white tiger" field in Vietnam, you'll love the story - US experts were there and did their tests, afterwards claiming "there is not a drop of oil in this place". Just a little later, with the aid of the newer tech for deeper drilling, oil was found there in abundance, not just a few drops of it. Just an example which shows that there is still lots left to be found.
As I said, I have no problem with the theory, but how deep one can drill - Russian or not - at a reasonable cost is what I question. Yes, as oil gets to 200 euros or 400 euros per barrel it will be cost-effective to go deeper, but I'd rather see oil prices kept in check by efficiency and alternative technologies like biomass, solar, wind, etc.
one other thing:
What you and others are doing is dangerous - already this research has spawned political capital to stop renewable research and investments in solar, etc. because the talking point is "peak oil debunked" - it's hasn't been. Peak oil is when demand growth outstrips supply growth, not when we run out. Most people aren't able to grasp that concept so they latch on to the talking point.
What you and others are doing is dangerous - already this research has spawned political capital to stop renewable research and investments in solar, etc. because the talking point is "peak oil debunked" - it's hasn't been. Peak oil is when demand growth outstrips supply growth, not when we run out. Most people aren't able to grasp that concept so they latch on to the talking point.
We as of this very moment have enough known oil for the next 200 years if we would keep pumping at the current rate. I think it all but impossible that we will still be using oil in 200 years anyway, so in that sense it is debunked 100%, regardless of their old "oil will be gone by 2000" fairy tales.
Solar and wind will never be viable, not in a thousand years. Germany invested over 150 billion EURO into solar over the last few years with absolutely horrible results and horrible damage to both our economy and our people's wallets AND to the nature. I already posted the examples of huge solar parks built for many billions on huge areas de-forested(!) specifically for this. the balance: 70 bio. EUR for the power plant which can just theoretically produce enough power to power 15,000 households, but the efficiency of solar in central europe over the whole year is just 5%. The sun shines (direct sunlight) less than 15% of the year around here anyway. And the cells need to be renewed every ~7 years.
Had they only invested that money into research instead of building half-arsed politically driven nonsense that destroys the nature and makes us poor and the energy way more expensive - maybe that would have given us something more efficient and durable than the current solar cells.
Anything that requires such a huge destruction of natural resources and such an enormous effort for next to zero result (like solar and wind do due to their miserable "efficiency", wind is somewhat better at about 17%) is simply not viable. Let alone the crazily huge pollution introduced by the production of these - one frigging windmill requires 200 tonnes of alu - check out how alu production works and what waste comes out of it, that in itself is reason enough to stop this abomination.
We need some totally new alternatives, be it algae, some novel fuel cells, the superultratechfromouterspace or whatever. I'm still waiting for some radically new way of gaining energy and still have some hope that someone will continue the work of Tesla, Moray and such people. Transfering the Earth's magnetic resonance into energy or some way to get our hands onto zero-point-energy or some such freaky thing.
Solar and wind will never be viable, not in a thousand years. Germany invested over 150 billion EURO into solar over the last few years with absolutely horrible results and horrible damage to both our economy and our people's wallets AND to the nature. I already posted the examples of huge solar parks built for many billions on huge areas de-forested(!) specifically for this. the balance: 70 bio. EUR for the power plant which can just theoretically produce enough power to power 15,000 households, but the efficiency of solar in central europe over the whole year is just 5%. The sun shines (direct sunlight) less than 15% of the year around here anyway. And the cells need to be renewed every ~7 years.
Had they only invested that money into research instead of building half-arsed politically driven nonsense that destroys the nature and makes us poor and the energy way more expensive - maybe that would have given us something more efficient and durable than the current solar cells.
Anything that requires such a huge destruction of natural resources and such an enormous effort for next to zero result (like solar and wind do due to their miserable "efficiency", wind is somewhat better at about 17%) is simply not viable. Let alone the crazily huge pollution introduced by the production of these - one frigging windmill requires 200 tonnes of alu - check out how alu production works and what waste comes out of it, that in itself is reason enough to stop this abomination.
We need some totally new alternatives, be it algae, some novel fuel cells, the superultratechfromouterspace or whatever. I'm still waiting for some radically new way of gaining energy and still have some hope that someone will continue the work of Tesla, Moray and such people. Transfering the Earth's magnetic resonance into energy or some way to get our hands onto zero-point-energy or some such freaky thing.
chavvdarrr
Veteran
Do you have a link? Just curiosity
Mize et. al
Peak oil theory is from the hubbert curve. The original thought was big things are easier to find than small things. Now what it means is that there is a decline in production, though that doesn't mean supply.
The real underlying truth of what it means is the amount of known reserves that are economic to extract is declining. When that happens prices go up and more are economical to extract, but no matter what at some point we will reach an equilibrium where alternatives are cheaper than petroleum, tar sands, or oil shale. We have loads of oil shale and tar sands, but they are more expensive.
Peak oil theory is from the hubbert curve. The original thought was big things are easier to find than small things. Now what it means is that there is a decline in production, though that doesn't mean supply.
The real underlying truth of what it means is the amount of known reserves that are economic to extract is declining. When that happens prices go up and more are economical to extract, but no matter what at some point we will reach an equilibrium where alternatives are cheaper than petroleum, tar sands, or oil shale. We have loads of oil shale and tar sands, but they are more expensive.
By calling peak oil a "fraud" in your topic title; a very very strong word.
As already noted, peak oil is about when supply is outstripped by demand. Not when supply runs out.
So for supply never outstripping demand, new oil would have to be continuously produced somehow to replace that which we pump up.
Sorry but it was and still is a fraud - see the prior estimates which would have us with no oil left at all several years ago. In my book, such a blatantly wrong info is nothing but fraud.
We can easily satisfy the current demand and it won't change in that near of a future. We're far away from pumping full capacity.
Not in english, I'd have to look through lots of links to find where I got it from. But Wiki already has lots of info and links that can help you further: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
See the table with the countries and "years left" a bit further down the page.
Of course not all of these are economically viable or easy to reach right now, but they're there.
We can easily satisfy the current demand and it won't change in that near of a future. We're far away from pumping full capacity.
Not in english, I'd have to look through lots of links to find where I got it from. But Wiki already has lots of info and links that can help you further: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
See the table with the countries and "years left" a bit further down the page.
Of course not all of these are economically viable or easy to reach right now, but they're there.
And that's where you're missing the point. Peak oil is about rates and economic viability, not absolute quantities.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Well, there's certainly loads of Oil they are "forced" to turn their noses up at. At least within the US territories.
Regards,
SB