# Do you believe oil is a limited resource?



## akelch (Mar 25, 2013)

Curious....how many people think oil to be a non-renewable resource and that it is made from plants and animals?

What if it is not and we have a LOT more then they are telling us? What if we can never run out because the earths creates more then what we can use?

How would that change your thinking about oil as a energy source?

http://mobile.wnd.com/2004/05/24777/


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 25, 2013)

Oil is a renewable resource that comes from organic material.   There was no period of time, no epoch in which there was organic material, and after that there was no more organic material.    It's like saying the world could run out of lava if the volcanoes keep spitting up.


----------



## akelch (Mar 26, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Oil is a renewable resource that comes from organic material.   There was no period of time, no epoch in which there was organic material, and after that there was no more organic material.    It's like saying the world could run out of lava if the volcanoes keep spitting up.



Are you sure it is organic? We have been taught that it comes from the breakdown of organic materials...thus taking "millions" of years to create.

Some scientist believe that the earth makes it continuously through non organic elements ...thus the production does not take years to makes and we can never run out.

They also say that the current estimated world oil reserves could be way off....maybe by a factor of 100.

Food for thought as our gas prices reach $5.00 a gallon this summer.


----------



## editec (Mar 26, 2013)

akelch said:


> Curious....how many people think oil to be a non-renewable resource and that it is made from plants and animals?
> 
> What if it is not and we have a LOT more then they are telling us? What if we can never run out because the earths creates more then what we can use?
> 
> ...



I'm familiar with this theory that petroleum is the by product of living organisms that thrive deep down in the earth.

The problem I have with it is that no such organisms have ever been found.


----------



## Mr. H. (Mar 26, 2013)

Hydrocarbons originate from carbon-rich organic matter. It is finite in terms of the human epoch.
And yes there's more of it than we're being led to believe. 
Finding it and bringing it to market is the challenge.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Mar 26, 2013)

Yes, the sun is a limited source of energy.  It's just a matter of time.


----------



## ArmyCowboy (Mar 26, 2013)

Oil is a finite resource.

Its actually a pretty simple concept.


----------



## akelch (Mar 26, 2013)

ArmyCowboy said:


> Oil is a finite resource.
> 
> Its actually a pretty simple concept.



What is your bases for believe it?


----------



## KissMy (Mar 26, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> Yes, the sun is a limited source of energy.  It's just a matter of time.



Running out of oil is not the problem. Getting more energy from it is the problem. Declining oil EROEI & increasing Chinese consumption means a decline in the amount of oil energy each of us get reguardless of the price you pay.

This is having the same effect as "Peak Oil" theory. What we are truly having is peak net oil energy reguardless of price. Declining EROEI means declining net oil energy. That means less gas in consumers tanks because oil producers keep using more fuel to get oil out of the ground.


----------



## akelch (Mar 26, 2013)

editec said:


> akelch said:
> 
> 
> > Curious....how many people think oil to be a non-renewable resource and that it is made from plants and animals?
> ...



Sorry, that is not the theory. 
And yes, some scientist believe it is created deep in the earth (20 miles) and is made from chemical reactions and tremendous pressure....but not from organic materials.


----------



## ArmyCowboy (Mar 26, 2013)

akelch said:


> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> > Oil is a finite resource.
> ...



Oil as a finite resource | ASPO International | The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas


----------



## akelch (Mar 26, 2013)

ArmyCowboy said:


> akelch said:
> 
> 
> > ArmyCowboy said:
> ...



Didn't read the link in my original post?

So why do you believe them and not other scientists?


----------



## ArmyCowboy (Mar 26, 2013)

akelch said:


> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> > akelch said:
> ...



The vast majority do not agree with you.


----------



## akelch (Mar 26, 2013)

ArmyCowboy said:


> akelch said:
> 
> 
> > ArmyCowboy said:
> ...



Agree or not....the evidence is in my favor.


----------



## ArmyCowboy (Mar 26, 2013)

akelch said:


> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> > akelch said:
> ...



If you say so.

You obviously don't want to discuss it, you just want people to agree with you, so believe what you want.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 26, 2013)

editec said:


> akelch said:
> 
> 
> > Curious....how many people think oil to be a non-renewable resource and that it is made from plants and animals?
> ...



Living organisms that were never found before are found all the time.  

NASA Finds New Life (Updated)

Giant Viruses Are Ancient Living Organisms : Discovery News

Just a couple for instance.


----------



## akelch (Mar 26, 2013)

ArmyCowboy said:


> akelch said:
> 
> 
> > ArmyCowboy said:
> ...



My point is that if this article is true (which I believe it is) then we are being lied to by the government and the oil industry. 

Why would they lie?
Well to keep the value of oil artificially high. And to push for more tax dollars for alternative energy investments.

This is a world commodity that effects everyone.

Control the oil (if it is limited)....control the world.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Mar 26, 2013)

akelch said:


> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> > akelch said:
> ...



Maybe because WND is a bigoted "Christian" web site dedicated to spreading misinformation.


----------



## Sunni Man (Mar 26, 2013)

*Abiogenic petroleum*

Abiogenic petroleum origin is a hypothesis that was proposed as an alternative mechanism of petroleum origin. It was popular in the past, but most geologists now consider it obsolete, and favor instead the biological origin of petroleum. 

According to the abiogenic hypothesis, petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. Supporters of the abiogenic hypothesis suggest that a great deal more petroleum exists on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids that migrate upward from the mantle.

The hypothesis was first proposed by Georg Agricola in the 16th century and various abiogenic hypotheses were proposed in the 19th century, most notably by Prussian geographer Alexander von Humboldt, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev and the French chemist Marcellin Berthelot. 

Abiogenic hypotheses were revived in the last half of the 20th century by Soviet scientists who had little influence outside the Soviet Union because most of their research was published in Russian. The hypothesis was re-defined and made popular in the West by Thomas Gold who published all his research in English.

Although the abiogenic hypothesis was accepted by many geologists in the former Soviet Union, it fell out of favor at the end of the 20th century because it never made any useful prediction for the discovery of oil deposits.

The abiogenic origin of petroleum has also recently been reviewed in detail by Glasby, who raises a number of objections, including that there is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds).

Geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported, and they agree that petroleum is formed from organic material. However, the abiogenic theory can't be dismissed yet because the mainstream theory still has to be established conclusively.

Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 26, 2013)

Everything is finite.


----------



## akelch (Mar 26, 2013)




----------



## ogibillm (Mar 26, 2013)

akelch said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > akelch said:
> ...



seems like if that were the case the process would be easily duplicated in the lab.

is that the case?


----------



## RGR (Mar 26, 2013)

ArmyCowboy said:


> akelch said:
> 
> 
> > ArmyCowboy said:
> ...



Sorry but the instant you quote ASPO for something, you've already lost.


----------



## RGR (Mar 26, 2013)

ArmyCowboy said:


> If you say so.
> 
> You obviously don't want to discuss it, you just want people to agree with you, so believe what you want.



Which is exactly why you don't ever quote ASPO. True believers certainly consider neither evidence, nor facts, nor history, prior to making up their minds and then forming a religion  designed to co-opt others more gullible.


----------



## whitehall (Mar 27, 2013)

The same pop-culture idiots who believe that oil is a limited (American) resource apparently just love the stupid reality series that glorifies Arab oil wealth. What is it, the "sheiks of Beverly Hills" or some such nonsense? Yeah the resource is limited to another couple of hundred years but we need to use the God given resource while we try to create other sources of energy. Barry Hussein uses enough fossil fuel in a campaign tour to fuel every SUV in the US for a year and he never stops campaigning. The issue is phony.


----------



## Mr. H. (Mar 27, 2013)

whitehall said:


> The same pop-culture idiots who believe that oil is a limited (American) resource apparently just love the stupid reality series that glorifies Arab oil wealth. What is it, the "sheiks of Beverly Hills" or some such nonsense? Yeah the resource is limited to another couple of hundred years but we need to use the God given resource while we try to create other sources of energy. Barry Hussein uses enough fossil fuel in a campaign tour to fuel every SUV in the US for a year and he never stops campaigning. The issue is phony.



What perplexes me is the idolatry that is heaped upon the American Farmer. 
Think about it- they are the Sheiks of Dirt in this country. 

Domestic crude oil and natural gas producers are however frowned upon as simply the Dirt of this country. Yet, agriculture can not survive without hydrocarbons. 

Now tell me, who is giving lip service and who is giving service. 

Love one, fuck another.


----------



## akelch (Mar 28, 2013)

Great point!
We destroy more land (and farmland) by putting up windmills and solar panels vs drilling for oil and digging for coal.

Not to mention the wastefulness of requiring us to use corn in our gas.


----------



## idb (Mar 28, 2013)

akelch said:


> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> > akelch said:
> ...



Why would the oil industry want to keep prices high *and* encourage alternative energy investments?


----------



## akelch (Mar 28, 2013)

idb said:


> akelch said:
> 
> 
> > ArmyCowboy said:
> ...



What alternative? And who do you believe is investing in the "alternative energy"? The oil industry.

By keeping the cost of producing oil high by regulations and limited areas that can be drilled (aka not in ANWR) it keeps out competition. Plus they get tax breaks from our federal government.

So they control our energy and our government.

Open up drilling and lower regulations and you will see our economy take off.


----------



## idb (Mar 28, 2013)

akelch said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > akelch said:
> ...



You made the claim.
Here, let me remind you;


> Why would they lie?
> Well to keep the value of oil artificially high. And to push for more tax dollars for alternative energy investments.


----------



## akelch (Mar 28, 2013)

Exactly!


----------



## editec (Mar 28, 2013)

> Do you believe oil is a limited resource?



Depends, I suppose, on how one defines "limited"

Obviously there is not an_ infinite_ amount of it.


----------



## akelch (Mar 28, 2013)

editec said:


> > Do you believe oil is a limited resource?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The real questions are how much is there and how quickly does the earth make it? We are taught that we are running out and that it takes millions of years to create it.

I believe (per the articles I sighted) that we have been lied to and oil is extremely abundant and is created in large quantities by the earth every day.


----------



## editec (Mar 28, 2013)

akelch said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > > Do you believe oil is a limited resource?
> ...



The _OPERATIVE _verb in the above is BELIEVE.

Do you also have any beliefs about HOW it is being made?

Is it being made by organisms or a product of geological forces and in either case, what forces are making it and out of what materials?


----------



## tjvh (Mar 28, 2013)

Of course Oil is a renewable resource. Even if it runs out underground we can always extract it from the heads of OWS protesters.


----------



## akelch (Mar 28, 2013)

editec said:


> akelch said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...





The theory's adherents believe that oil originated as carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas rising through the deep layers of the Earth's crust.[1] If this mixture was to find zirconium-containing minerals, it would react and produce petroleum hydrocarbons. Some of these would move close enough to the surface to be exploitable by humanity.


----------



## akelch (Mar 28, 2013)

Thomas Gold's paper on Abiotic Petroleum.

http://origeminorganicadopetroleo.blogspot.com/2011/01/thomas-gold-professional-papers.html?m=1


----------



## kwc57 (Mar 28, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Hydrocarbons originate from carbon-rich organic matter. It is finite in terms of the human epoch.
> And yes there's more of it than we're being led to believe.
> Finding it and bringing it to market is the challenge.



Especially when you have an administration that is hostile to the industry.


----------



## kwc57 (Mar 28, 2013)

akelch said:


> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> > Oil is a finite resource.
> ...



Al Gore and Obama said so.


----------



## akelch (Mar 28, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Hydrocarbons originate from carbon-rich organic matter. It is finite in terms of the human epoch.
> ...



They didn't have a problem with it 100 years ago. Why now? Especially with the highway system we currently have.


----------



## akelch (Mar 28, 2013)

Another questions to ask yourself. How is so many old "tapped out" oil wells being refilled?


----------



## mamooth (Mar 28, 2013)

The conspiracy theory would be taken more seriously if there was even one single well pumping these supposed vast quantities of abiotic oil.

There isn't. No one anywhere has found anything beyond a trace of abiotic oil. That would be the very, very strong evidence that the stuff doesn't exist in quantity. The burden of proof is clearly on those claiming it must exist. They need to demonstrate how the stuff can supposedly exist in vast quantities everywhere, yet simultaneously be completely impossible to find.

To a neutral observer, abiotic oil looks to be one of the many odd conspiracy theories that the extreme right wing fringe cult is strongly encouraged to embrace. It reinforces want they want to believe in, the belief of a vast socialist conspiracy arrayed against them.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 28, 2013)

akelch said:


> Another questions to ask yourself. How is so many old "tapped out" oil wells being refilled?



That is easy to understand when you realize where the oil came from & how it became trapped in a dome reservoir into which the well was drilled. Many will fill up or replenish multiple times.


----------



## akelch (Mar 28, 2013)

mamooth said:


> The conspiracy theory would be taken more seriously if there was even one single well pumping these supposed vast quantities of abiotic oil.
> 
> There isn't. No one anywhere has found anything beyond a trace of abiotic oil. That would be the very, very strong evidence that the stuff doesn't exist in quantity. The burden of proof is clearly on those claiming it must exist. They need to demonstrate how the stuff can supposedly exist in vast quantities everywhere, yet simultaneously be completely impossible to find.
> 
> To a neutral observer, abiotic oil looks to be one of the many odd conspiracy theories that the extreme right wing fringe cult is strongly encouraged to embrace. It reinforces want they want to believe in, the belief of a vast socialist conspiracy arrayed against them.



Theory is that all oil is abiotic. Just because there is organic matter found it it doesn't mean organic matter made it.
Water has organic matter in it too.

What is odd to me is that if oil is made by millions of years of decaying plants and animals then one would suppose that it would be everywhere and not just in the arctic and at the bottom of the ocean. Plus how does it form such large pools....would it make since that it would saturated in the ground?
Plus, how can oil be found so deep in the earth? Are you saying that there is enough decaying planets and animals buried 30,000 feet down that can produce millions of barrels of oil from one deposit? 

To many questions to be so sure.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 28, 2013)

Oil isn't formed by decaying plants and animals. That would be coal. Oil is formed by decaying algae. And the same chemical markers are found in the algae and the oil. The abiotic theory has no explanation for that.

The standard oil formation theory leads to finding oil where the theory predicts oil will be found. That would be why it's accepted, because it makes predictions that come true. That's how science works. Abiotic oil theory has failed in its predictions, hence it is not accepted.

Right now, my claim that magical fairies have created unlimited oil has as much support as the abiotic oil theory. The lack of finding any oil with the fairy theory doesn't mean it's wrong. After all, can you disprove that the fairies did it?


----------



## Mr. H. (Mar 28, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Oil isn't formed by decaying plants and animals. That would be coal. Oil is formed by decaying algae. And the same chemical markers are found in the algae and the oil. The abiotic theory has no explanation for that.
> 
> The standard oil formation theory leads to finding oil where the theory predicts oil will be found. That would be why it's accepted, because it makes predictions that come true. That's how science works. Abiotic oil theory has failed in its predictions, hence it is not accepted.
> 
> Right now, my claim that magical fairies have created unlimited oil has as much support as the abiotic oil theory. The lack of finding any oil with the fairy theory doesn't mean it's wrong. After all, can you disprove that the fairies did it?



That makes me wonder why people risk millions of dollars drilling holes in the ground knowing full well that they've got a 1 in 8 chance of finding economic quantities of oil.
Even with the best of science. And if they're successful they end up burdened by a 44% effective tax rate. After all that, they're faced with Obama's proposed budget that includes over $40 billion in taxes on the oil and gas industries.


----------



## akelch (Mar 29, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Oil isn't formed by decaying plants and animals. That would be coal. Oil is formed by decaying algae. And the same chemical markers are found in the algae and the oil. The abiotic theory has no explanation for that.
> 
> The standard oil formation theory leads to finding oil where the theory predicts oil will be found. That would be why it's accepted, because it makes predictions that come true. That's how science works. Abiotic oil theory has failed in its predictions, hence it is not accepted.
> 
> Right now, my claim that magical fairies have created unlimited oil has as much support as the abiotic oil theory. The lack of finding any oil with the fairy theory doesn't mean it's wrong. After all, can you disprove that the fairies did it?



That's a lot of algae!!! Especially in weird places like deserts and the arctic. Not to mention being 30,000 feet deep.


----------



## akelch (Mar 30, 2013)

Refilling of oil wells that were once thought to be "tapped out".

http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/09/14/abiotic-oil-a-theory-worth-exploring

How can this be if it takes millions of years to make oil?


----------



## joewp (Apr 20, 2013)

akelch said:


> Theory is that all oil is abiotic. Just because there is organic matter found it it doesn't mean organic matter made it.
> Water has organic matter in it too.



I've been reading this thread with bemusement at the apparent lack of basic science education apparent in the American public. There isn't "organic matter" found in oil, oil *is* organic matter. "of, relating to, or derived from living organisms", as the dictionary says. In this context, organic matter is molecules containing carbon, mostly derived from photosynthesis. Water is hydrogen dioxide, no carbon in there. 



> What is odd to me is that if oil is made by millions of years of decaying plants and animals then one would suppose that it would be everywhere and not just in the arctic and at the bottom of the ocean.



It was made by decaying marine plants and animals in two periods, 75 and 150 mya during periods of extreme global warming. Because the poles had mostly melted, there were shallow oceans in places like Texas, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. The excess Co2 allowed the organisms to grow until they used up the oxygen in the water, died and sunk to the bottom where they didn't decay due to the lack of oxygen and were covered with sediment and through plate techtonics, were moved through the 'oil window' so the pressure and heat of the lower crust could break them down into simple and complex carbon chains, which we call 'oil'. 

This theory of oil formation is tested every single time a new well is drilled. Petroleum geologists use this theory to conjecture where there might be undiscovered oil in the world. The discovery of oil on the North Slope of Alaska was dependent on this theory. No one would have invested the time and money to drill there if the prevailing theory of oil formation hadn't been proven time and time again. 

Abiotic oil, not so much. 

Real science isn't theories, it's experimentation and observation. So far, the biotic theory of oil formation has been proven time and time again. Abiotic oil is a pipe dream hypothesis that has no basis in reality.   



> Plus how does it form such large pools....would it make since that it would saturated in the ground?



The process described above happened in more places in the world than we can find oil today. One of the key ingredients to make an oil reservoir worth drilling is something called "cap rock", a layer of impervious rock that traps the oil. Most of the time that doesn't happen, and the oil does eventually seep out to the ground. Tens of thousands of years ago, a large seep occurred in what we call Los Angeles, and thousands of ancient animals got caught in the resulting tar, which is what is left over after the lighter components of crude oil evaporate, leaving the heavier components, mostly asphalt and tar. 

Ya know, geology is a fascinating subject, and petroleum geology is even more fascinating. More people should learn this stuff. I can tell by this thread that most people have no idea.



> Plus, how can oil be found so deep in the earth? Are you saying that there is enough decaying planets and animals buried 30,000 feet down that can produce millions of barrels of oil from one deposit?
> 
> To many questions to be so sure.



First of all, it's not "millions of barrels", it's billions of barrels. If it's not several hundred millions of barrels, it's not worth the cost of drilling. 

You might think that those billions of barrels is an outstanding number (it is), but more outstanding is the fact that the would uses 33 billion barrels a year. 

But we're not finding nearly that much each year.

If there is abiotic oil, it better show up soon and in massive quantities, or we're in a lot of trouble.


----------



## joewp (Apr 20, 2013)

akelch said:


> Another questions to ask yourself. How is so many old "tapped out" oil wells being refilled?



Here's a question to ask yourself. Where the hell are these "so many" wells? I don't know about any. 

Once in a while, the source rock will partially refill a well when the pressure is relieved by extraction. But that's not a surprise to the geologists who study the formation.

But please tell me, what wells are being refilled? I'd like a list.


----------



## Politico (Apr 20, 2013)

Not in my lifetime. That's all that counts.


----------



## joewp (Apr 20, 2013)

akelch said:


> Refilling of oil wells that were once thought to be "tapped out".
> 
> Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring - On Energy (usnews.com)
> 
> How can this be if it takes millions of years to make oil?



That'a a stupid, error filled article. "some say almost inexplicably" - Those "some" are not petroleum geologists. Here's what petroleum geologists have to say: 
Reservoir Fluids and Their Migration into the South Eugene Island Block 330 Reservoirs, Offshore Louisiana


> The systematically varying extent of brine sodium depletion in two reservoirs defines south to north flow in those sands. These sands were filled from a fault that bounds the reservoirs on the south. Oil compositional parameters also show north-south variation across these reservoirs. The SEI330 oils and gases each had different sources. In contrast to published Jurassic sources for oil, carbon isotope data indicate that SEI330 hydrocarbon gases probably sourced from early Tertiary or Cretaceous sediments, after oil had migrated through them



So Eugene Island refilling isn't some big mystery. It's quite consistent with normal, mainstream petroleum geology.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 20, 2013)

akelch said:


> Great point!
> We destroy more land (and farmland) by putting up windmills and solar panels vs drilling for oil and digging for coal.
> 
> Not to mention the wastefulness of requiring us to use corn in our gas.



Pure bullshit. The wheat farmers along the Columbia River grow wheat right to the bases of the wind mills. And each mill pays them about $5000 a year. Most solar installations are on roofs or in deserts.

And they do little digging for coal, they remove mountain tops, dump them into the valleys and poison whole watershed.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFVdp1KJiqM]jean ritchie sings blackwaters - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mr. H. (Apr 20, 2013)

Agriculture is the true raper of environment and economy alike. Yet that industry is overlooked, and continually given a pass. 

We pay record prices for groceries, while the ag industry exports tens of millions of metric tons of grains each year. 

40% of corn acres are devoted to ethanol... so much ethanol that 20% of inventory is exported.

Hydrocarbon industries are of little environmental concern compared to agriculture. Yet farmers are overlooked, and continually given a free pass.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 20, 2013)

editec said:


> akelch said:
> 
> 
> > Curious....how many people think oil to be a non-renewable resource and that it is made from plants and animals?
> ...



Not that I am defending what sounds like a crackpot theory to me, but a few years ago no one had discovered any life that could live in a volcanic vent at the bottom of the ocean.


----------



## RGR (Apr 21, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Hydrocarbon industries are of little environmental concern compared to agriculture. Yet farmers are overlooked, and continually given a free pass.



Quite true. But if you tell someone they can have no food, but drive their SUV to work, versus eating well, and bicycling, they will always answer that question one way.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Apr 21, 2013)

Even the sun is a limited source.


----------



## Underhill (Apr 22, 2013)

There is oil enough for thousands of years.

The problem is getting it.   Most of it is either impossible to get to or too expensive to be worthwhile.   But as the price goes up new reserves that were thought too cost intensive will suddenly become viable.   

So we will never run out, but the cost will go up until we can no longer afford it.   

This is true of the Canadian oil sands reserves.   These are not all new finds.   They've been producing small amounts of oil since the 60's.  But the combination of low natural gas prices and high oil prices make this oil viable.   Otherwise we would still be firmly on the tit of the middle east.  

So the question isn't, 'how much is there' but 'what are we willing to pay before we give up this addiction to oil'.

My guess is around $6.00 a gallon and the US will start to see a massive shift.  Europe is already on that path.


----------



## RGR (Apr 22, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> Even the sun is a limited source.



Peak Hydrogen!!! OMG!!!!

Love it...sustainability is naught but an illusion of time...


----------



## RGR (Apr 22, 2013)

Underhill said:


> So we will never run out, but the cost will go up until we can no longer afford it.



How about this idea? The cost will go up until we no longer WANT to afford it. Certainly when I switched over to primary EV transport the cost of oil dropped off my radar screen pretty hard. The same will happen to business, for the same reasons. To get a competitive advantage, a business will one up their competition by finding a way to do it better/cheaper, and that runs right into the teeth of why they will use less as well, and when they do, the price of their product becomes less tied to the cost of crude, and as it increases, they now have a competitive advantage over their peers who are still tied to it.



			
				Underhill said:
			
		

> So the question isn't, 'how much is there' but 'what are we willing to pay before we give up this addiction to oil'.



My breaking point was about $4/gal. Now I don't even pay much attention to those silly little numbers which seem to hold the attention of so many. Freedom from oil! EV!!



			
				Underhill said:
			
		

> My guess is around $6.00 a gallon and the US will start to see a massive shift.  Europe is already on that path.



Me too. Now I've got tons more discretionary income to spend on iphones for the kids, a new driveway pavement job, all sorts of goodies! RGR...driving economic activity through the use of LESS oil...pioneering for the masses!!!


----------



## Underhill (Apr 22, 2013)

RGR said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > So we will never run out, but the cost will go up until we can no longer afford it.
> ...



All of that sounds good but there are problems.    First, there is no option for those in my position, short of a mass exodus to cities which has it's own problems.

I live in the country.   I'm about as green as someone in my position can be.   But I have to drive 20 miles each way to work, and live in the north, where EV's aren't viable thanks to decreased winter range.   

I drive an economical car and grow a lot of my own food, but I don't have a lot of options to get away from gasoline at the moment.   

And to be honest, I'm not all that worried about it.    

The one thing to remember, when it comes to 'green' energy, is that China will more than compensate for our cut backs.   The less we use, the more affordable it is for them.   The more affordable it is for them, the more they use.    And they are no where near going green.    Not even in the most remote sense.  

So there is some localized good that comes from going green, but in the long term, when it comes to the global problem, I don't see a lot of change.    It may come, but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.


----------



## RGR (Apr 22, 2013)

Underhill said:


> All of that sounds good but there are problems.    First, there is no option for those in my position, short of a mass exodus to cities which has it's own problems.



Cites are basically a paragon of energy efficiency. Those who live rural do have different issues, both pro and con. The mass exodus of which you speak has been going on for quite some time, the young, they leave for opportunity, and they rarely come back. Count me as an example of that one I suppose.



			
				Underhill said:
			
		

> I live in the country.   I'm about as green as someone in my position can be.   But I have to drive 20 miles each way to work, and live in the north, where EV's aren't viable thanks to decreased winter range.



Then buy one like mine, which happens to have a range extender to get you those last few miles before you get home. But if your roundtrip is 40 miles, you fit right in what it was designed for.









			
				Underhill said:
			
		

> I drive an economical car and grow a lot of my own food, but I don't have a lot of options to get away from gasoline at the moment.



40 miles round trip? Sure you do. But I am also forced to admit that for longer, higher speed commutes, a decent econobox/diesel of some sort or another can be a reasonable substitute.



			
				Underhill said:
			
		

> So there is some localized good that comes from going green, but in the long term, when it comes to the global problem, I don't see a lot of change.    It may come, but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.



Oh, I think it is already happening, it just isn't obvious unless you go looking for it. Driving through Kansas on I70 brings it right to your attention real quick like though. Energy production is more the key to the human future than individuals growing their own food, which is terribly inefficient in terms of time investment for food returned. Let one kansas farmer do it, and he feeds 200 people. Versus one person feeding themselves, perhaps some family members.


----------



## Underhill (Apr 23, 2013)

RGR said:


> Cites are basically a paragon of energy efficiency. Those who live rural do have different issues, both pro and con. The mass exodus of which you speak has been going on for quite some time, the young, they leave for opportunity, and they rarely come back. Count me as an example of that one I suppose.



Cities are fine for most industries, but for things like heavy manufacturing, they just don't work.   We routinely ship products in the 1-2 million pound range all over the country and overseas.   



> Then buy one like mine, which happens to have a range extender to get you those last few miles before you get home. But if your roundtrip is 40 miles, you fit right in what it was designed for.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've looked at the Volt but it's a bit out of my price range.    I get close to 34mpg to and from work, the cost is manageable.    

After all, what good is it to save money on gas when you are simply making up the difference, and then some, in car payments?   



> Oh, I think it is already happening, it just isn't obvious unless you go looking for it. Driving through Kansas on I70 brings it right to your attention real quick like though. Energy production is more the key to the human future than individuals growing their own food, which is terribly inefficient in terms of time investment for food returned. Let one kansas farmer do it, and he feeds 200 people. Versus one person feeding themselves, perhaps some family members.



I work in the energy sector and you are right when it comes to American power.   The rest of the world, no.   China, India, Africa...these places and a dozen more are still building coal and gas fired power plants as quickly as they can.    They sometimes have token wind farms, but as a percentage of their power production it barely even shows up on a graph.

As for food, efficiency doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference.   I have the space.   Space that would not be utilized without me using it.   I have the time.   Time that would be spent watching TV or on a treadmill if I was stuck in an inner city apartment.     So inefficient or not, I am growing food that would not exist without me.   Using my own time I prefer to spend doing it.   

Think of all the millions of hours wasted in the average city?   People running on treadmills and riding stationary bikes when they could be using that time and energy to do useful work that would lead to better health for themselves and their family.


----------



## RGR (Apr 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Cities are fine for most industries, but for things like heavy manufacturing, they just don't work.   We routinely ship products in the 1-2 million pound range all over the country and overseas.



Then you put the industry outside of the city and have the advantage of a large local population from which to draw workers, can depend on the mass transit and heavy transport industries all being in the same vicinity. The rural model just doesn't work very well if the issue is greening energy use.



			
				Underhill said:
			
		

> I've looked at the Volt but it's a bit out of my price range.    I get close to 34mpg to and from work, the cost is manageable.



True. But I am sensitive to the those little numbers they post at convenience stores demanding their cut (a goodly chunk of which is shipped offshore) on a weekly basis. Screw that, I want to support domestic energy production and the jobs and economic activity which go with it, so I am a fan of electrical power.  



			
				Underhill said:
			
		

> After all, what good is it to save money on gas when you are simply making up the difference, and then some, in car payments?



The answer can be found in the particulars of Capex versus Opex. To some one is critical, to others, not so much.



			
				Underhill said:
			
		

> Think of all the millions of hours wasted in the average city?   People running on treadmills and riding stationary bikes when they could be using that time and energy to do useful work that would lead to better health for themselves and their family.



Nothing wrong with exercise of any kind. And with the time which would otherwise be spent commuting, city folk could very well have more of it, those that don't bicycle to work turning their commute into exercise, versus where they get their food. I know that if there is one thing I appreciate since the day I stopped working on drilling rigs, is living close to work, coming home for lunch and to see the wife and kids, to hell with a commute.


----------



## Underhill (Apr 23, 2013)

RGR said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Cities are fine for most industries, but for things like heavy manufacturing, they just don't work.   We routinely ship products in the 1-2 million pound range all over the country and overseas.
> ...



I'm not knocking exercise.   Only saying that the notion of efficiency is a silly one.    How efficient is it to have someone live in an automated society where everything is at arms reach and requires little to no work on their part, only to have the same people run out and pay for a gym membership and walk on a treadmill?

My life means a commute.  But it means I live on the edge of  a forest.   I can look into my yard most mornings and see deer, squirrels, even the occasional skunk.   My wife has her flower gardens and a vegetable garden.   We raise chickens and ducks.    I wouldn't give up all that to live in a box.    Sure, you spend a bit more time at home thanks to a short commute.    But I have a home I want to come home to.  

But that's fine.   I'm not dumping completely on people in the cities.   There are a lot of positives to that lifestyle.   I enjoy it when I visit friends and family in Buffalo or NY.   But acting as though it is ideal is also a bit of a stretch.   People did not evolve to live in an apartment on the 14th floor of some building.

As for manufacturing, you're right.   They could have the factory 30 miles outside the city.   In which case many would end up commuting anyway.   I could always move closer, but my wife works 15 miles in the other direction.

The point of all this is simple.  Everyone cannot live your life.    Even if they could, some of us just wouldn't want to.    I don't mean that as an insult, only an observation.

edit:  One more small quibble upon thinking about this discussion.  Remember, my 20 mile commute takes 26 minutes and involves a stop sign and 2 lights.    Most of my friends and family who live in the city have a shorter commute that takes as long or longer.


----------



## RGR (Apr 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> I'm not knocking exercise.   Only saying that the notion of efficiency is a silly one.    How efficient is it to have someone live in an automated society where everything is at arms reach and requires little to no work on their part, only to have the same people run out and pay for a gym membership and walk on a treadmill?



Well, in that case, the efficiency isn't in the exercise, but the means of few people to support a modern infrastructure contained in the cities/industrial areas.



			
				Underhill said:
			
		

> My life means a commute.  But it means I live on the edge of  a forest.   I can look into my yard most mornings and see deer, squirrels, even the occasional skunk.   My wife has her flower gardens and a vegetable garden.   We raise chickens and ducks.    I wouldn't give up all that to live in a box.    Sure, you spend a bit more time at home thanks to a short commute.    But I have a home I want to come home to.



So do I. And I live in a similar environment (except without growing my own food) but I don't commute daily anymore. Once a month I go to "work". The rest of the time I'm home. The advantage being that once the kids are out of school, I won't be tied to any location. Right now it's the mountains, but the wife is hoping for more beach later. As long as it has broadband and a phone, I can live pretty much anywhere in the lower 48. I have a few peers who's children are growing up in this kind of rootless modern existence, doing their work from Switzerland and Germany and California but being based in Virginia somewhere. Technology has its advantages.



			
				Underhill said:
			
		

> People did not evolve to live in an apartment on the 14th floor of some building.



True. But if that is where opportunity knocks, that is where the young and talented will migrate.



			
				Underhill said:
			
		

> The point of all this is simple.  Everyone cannot live your life.    Even if they could, some of us just wouldn't want to.    I don't mean that as an insult, only an observation.
> 
> edit:  One more small quibble upon thinking about this discussion.  Remember, my 20 mile commute takes 26 minutes and involves a stop sign and 2 lights.    Most of my friends and family who live in the city have a shorter commute that takes as long or longer.



When I commuted daily,it required 2 minutes. City commuting does suck, but careful planning counts for much. Living near the Metro in DC for example means most of those city commuting problems just aren't that big of a deal.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Apr 23, 2013)

We will never run out of oil. We'll just kill some more dinosaurs to replenish the supply.


----------



## Mr. H. (Apr 23, 2013)

It may be limited, but there's a shit-load of it that hasn't been discovered and still more that will never be discovered.


----------



## JiggsCasey (May 18, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> It may be limited, but there's a shit-load of it that hasn't been discovered and still more that will never be discovered.



cool story.... especially the utterly unfalsifiable claim at the end.

so as always, at what cost? define "shit-load" in this context? link please.

Yawn.

You may have heard this one, but I never saw you respond to it:

I can pretend I've found 10 trillion barrels of sweet light crude behind the moon. Even prove it exists! ... Unfortunately, that says nothing about the logistics of bringing that oil to market, nor the public's ability to afford the price.

Get it yet?

Peak oil is not about reserve totals. It's about flow rates and cost. Always has been, no matter how desperately some people around here want to change the definition to suit their straw men.


----------



## RGR (May 19, 2013)

JiggsCasey said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > It may be limited, but there's a shit-load of it that hasn't been discovered and still more that will never be discovered.
> ...



Jesus this is so easy it isn't fair.

IEA, 2008/09 cost curve for global resources.

Want me to read it to you as well Jiggsy? Or can you have a local kindergarden kid do that for you? That 9000 in front of the word BILLIONS, to someone who doesn't have enough fingers and toes to count all the zeros in that number I suppose this is just a waste but you did ask for it.






So there is your cost. And your shit load. Ready to go back into hiding under that rock yet? Where is your religion's cost/supply curve? Come on Jiggsy, post one to refute the IEA, I DARE you.


----------



## Mr. H. (May 19, 2013)

JiggsCasey said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > It may be limited, but there's a shit-load of it that hasn't been discovered and still more that will never be discovered.
> ...



No, I don't "get it". Just as I've never gotten any of the nonsensical bullshit that you've been spewing around here. 

Peak Oil is some far off land that you keep espousing. 

Reserve totals, flow rates, and cost are about are about the here and now.

That's where I live in this industry, Juggs Buttly.


----------



## akelch (May 21, 2013)

JiggsCasey said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > It may be limited, but there's a shit-load of it that hasn't been discovered and still more that will never be discovered.
> ...



Your right.... So why do we make it so costly to drill for oil (federal regulations)?


----------



## RGR (May 21, 2013)

We? You mean, like you object to the price set by the free market in its desire to seek a balance between supply and demand?


----------

