Oil discoveries dispel "Peak Oil" as myth

[mdn2000]

So how is it, not all the oil is discovered or known but the democratic-scientist can make wild claims about something that is unknown.

\Desire Petroleum Plc Share Price Up As Company Makes Oil Discovery

Share prices at Desire Petroleum plc (LONES) rose up significantly as the company reported that it had made an oil discovery at Falkland Islands. Falkland Islands is one of the territories which belongs to the United Kingdom however being claimed by Argentina. Despite losing in the war, Argentina has continued to claim Falkland Islands.

The company is expected to complete the wire logging and wireline sampling programme to obtain information about reservoir and the quality to assess the importance of the discovery.

Desire Petroleum (LONES) expects that there might be a lot more oil and gas findings in the region that could be commercially viable.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Yet, despite all the Oilphobes crying the sky is calling, the world remains powered by oil and the chicken littles have no solution but to use oil ever faster.

Why is the solution to peak oil to use oil faster, why do the environuts propose using more oil to save oil.

Not one proposal saves oil. Not solar nor wind, not geothermal.

What's clear is that you're trying to learn as you go along on this topic.

 

[mdn2000]

Yet, despite all the Oilphobes crying the sky is calling, the world remains powered by oil and the chicken littles have no solution but to use oil ever faster.

Why is the solution to peak oil to use oil faster, why do the environuts propose using more oil to save oil.

Not one proposal saves oil. Not solar nor wind, not geothermal.

What's clear is that you're trying to learn as you go along on this topic.

What is clear is you have no response, no facts, no theory that can make your point.

What is clear is you have no rebuttal to common sense.

What is clear is the green energy solution uses oil at a faster rate.

Why propose to use more oil to save oil.

The fact is, green energy is simply a plan to make the middle class poor, to make the politicians more powerful, to give the government control over everyones life, as well as to make corporations extremely rich by increasing demand for oil.

I have presented many facts showing that all green energy sources increase demand for oil, not one has yet to be disproved.

Over and over I prove this and all you can do is ignore the threads, start new threads to bury the proof.

I know what you can do, call me names, that will prove I am wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, since oil was created by long extinct organisms millions of years ago, one could argue that "peak oil" has already happened. As there is no more being created. We have always been running out of a scarce resource.

As we continue to run out, the price of the good will gradually increase to points where either it is better to use alternative resources for that particular use, or the cost will become prohibitive for that use. Either way, as time goes on the price will continually rise.

Also, there are price levels where we will start to see substitution.

But you know, I have lived through a long time of people preaching we were going to be out of oil really soon. Back in the early 70's it was accepted as gospel that all the oil would be gone by 1980. there is still a lot of oil sloshing around. It is a finite resource. And soon or late we will run out. And the chicken little types will be able to say "I told you so." But that date is not yet.

Unless of course if oil is just a natural byproduct of putting rocks under heat and pressure

 

[loosecannon]

Yet, despite all the Oilphobes crying the sky is calling, the world remains powered by oil and the chicken littles have no solution but to use oil ever faster.

Why is the solution to peak oil to use oil faster, why do the environuts propose using more oil to save oil.

Not one proposal saves oil. Not solar nor wind, not geothermal.

What's clear is that you're trying to learn as you go along on this topic.

What is clear is you have no response, no facts, no theory that can make your point.

What is clear is you have no rebuttal to common sense.

What is clear is the green energy solution uses oil at a faster rate.

Why propose to use more oil to save oil.

The fact is, green energy is simply a plan to make the middle class poor, to make the politicians more powerful, to give the government control over everyones life, as well as to make corporations extremely rich by increasing demand for oil.

I have presented many facts showing that all green energy sources increase demand for oil, not one has yet to be disproved.

Over and over I prove this and all you can do is ignore the threads, start new threads to bury the proof.

I know what you can do, call me names, that will prove I am wrong.

what do you call a person who starts with a thesis before he knows a solitary thing about a topic?

mnd2000.

A world champion at being wrong!

 

[loosecannon]

Well, since oil was created by long extinct organisms millions of years ago, one could argue that "peak oil" has already happened. As there is no more being created. We have always been running out of a scarce resource.

As we continue to run out, the price of the good will gradually increase to points where either it is better to use alternative resources for that particular use, or the cost will become prohibitive for that use. Either way, as time goes on the price will continually rise.

Also, there are price levels where we will start to see substitution.

But you know, I have lived through a long time of people preaching we were going to be out of oil really soon. Back in the early 70's it was accepted as gospel that all the oil would be gone by 1980. there is still a lot of oil sloshing around. It is a finite resource. And soon or late we will run out. And the chicken little types will be able to say "I told you so." But that date is not yet.

Unless of course if oil is just a natural byproduct of putting rocks under heat and pressure

money is just the fruit that naturally grows on trees too.

but don't tell anybody!

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

the space program has made a total mockery of the twin notions of "peak oil" and that earth based hydrocarbons are "fossil fuels"

the planets and even moons are awash in hydrocarbons and there were never dinosaurs on any of them.

dont tell them that, they wont understand it.

oops... wrong again. Just like we understand that faint traces of alcohol in space are not evidence that Duff beer rains down from the heavens.

Grow up, and think before posting.

What's most interesting in threads like this is that anti-peak bloviators from both camps never lock horns against eachother. Some of you admit oil is finite (Samson), while others insist it's abiotic and infinite (this genius above).

Yet, you'll never openly dispute eachother. All you think you know is that there is no problem, and the IEA is somehow lying to the world. ... Nevermind the skyrocketing cost of food, fuel and consumer goods, and the growing insolvency of U.S. states and sovereign nations. That's all just caused by the U.S. mortgage crisis, and nothing deeper. LOL.

To you guys, if you just spend endless sums of money to drill dry holes and pray really hard, God will just put more oil in the ground.

There are oceans of chemicals in space Water alcohol methane ,
Just because you are posting on the internet it doesnt mean you are an expert. Your posts prove you are not.

 

[mdn2000]

What's clear is that you're trying to learn as you go along on this topic.

What is clear is you have no response, no facts, no theory that can make your point.

What is clear is you have no rebuttal to common sense.

What is clear is the green energy solution uses oil at a faster rate.

Why propose to use more oil to save oil.

The fact is, green energy is simply a plan to make the middle class poor, to make the politicians more powerful, to give the government control over everyones life, as well as to make corporations extremely rich by increasing demand for oil.

I have presented many facts showing that all green energy sources increase demand for oil, not one has yet to be disproved.

Over and over I prove this and all you can do is ignore the threads, start new threads to bury the proof.

I know what you can do, call me names, that will prove I am wrong.

what do you call a person who starts with a thesis before he knows a solitary thing about a topic?

mnd2000.

A world champion at being wrong!

I feel righteous when the attack is personal, my facts stand unchallenged in yet another post, thank you.

 

[JiggsCasey]

What is clear is you have no response, no facts, no theory that can make your point.

Actually, this subforum is drenched in my facts, and I never run out of response to flat-earth bloviators like you. Don't kid yourself.

What is clear is you have no rebuttal to common sense.

No greater irony has ever been uttered in the history of this site. The "common sense" card from a "drill baby drill", hope-based zealot? That's rich.

What is clear is the green energy solution uses oil at a faster rate.

Perhaps to build. But once the infrastructure is built and in place, then your short-sighted argument swirls down the toilet.

For the 12th time, no one is saying that renewables will save us. Only mitigate the crisis and perhaps buy a bit of time for future generations. Grow up, and try and be honest about your opponents' argument. Liar.

Why propose to use more oil to save oil.

Because with time, there is little choice. You can enact this transition willfully, or mother nature will take care of it for you at much greater shock.

The fact is, green energy is simply a plan to make the middle class poor, to make the politicians more powerful, to give the government control over everyones life, as well as to make corporations extremely rich by increasing demand for oil.

Emptiness, supported by extrapolation. What a whiney partisan loser. People like you are, ultimately, an enemy to humanity, because you can never be intellectually honest about what is at stake here. Nothing receives greater federal subsidy than the oil giants you so admire.

I have presented many facts showing that all green energy sources increase demand for oil, not one has yet to be disproved.

No you haven't. Regardless, when dealing with me, your enemy isn't "green energy." Your enemy is simply peak. Don't straw man my position, desperate little Palin-ite. Oil is running down, prices will spike, and supply contraints are undeniable. Debate that, or stop talking.

Over and over I prove this and all you can do is ignore the threads, start new threads to bury the proof.

You're fucking retarded. Can you even keep track of who you're arguing with? What was the last thread I created in this forum? Months ago?

Further, let's be clear: I don't ignore your tripe if it's relevant to my argument. Try and focus, angry con.

I know what you can do, call me names, that will prove I am wrong.

No, the labels you earn are self-evident.

What I "can do" is keep pushing your face in the facts. Fats like 34 of 51 oil producing nations are past peak, the IEA and Joint Chiefs admit a 10 mbpd shortfall in light crude by 2015, that we use 4 barrels today for every 1 barrel we discover, and that demand continues to rise while no one knows where the near-term future capacity is going to come from. Then simply watch you squirm and avoid and deflect and distort and create little straw men.

You can't deny the geology, just like your limited ally, Samson. Better get used to it, because "blaming government" and liberals for it all isn't convincing anyone of anything.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, since oil was created by long extinct organisms millions of years ago, one could argue that "peak oil" has already happened. As there is no more being created. We have always been running out of a scarce resource.

As we continue to run out, the price of the good will gradually increase to points where either it is better to use alternative resources for that particular use, or the cost will become prohibitive for that use. Either way, as time goes on the price will continually rise.

Also, there are price levels where we will start to see substitution.

But you know, I have lived through a long time of people preaching we were going to be out of oil really soon. Back in the early 70's it was accepted as gospel that all the oil would be gone by 1980. there is still a lot of oil sloshing around. It is a finite resource. And soon or late we will run out. And the chicken little types will be able to say "I told you so." But that date is not yet.

Unless of course if oil is just a natural byproduct of putting rocks under heat and pressure

money is just the fruit that naturally grows on trees too.

but don't tell anybody!

Be fucking ignorant all you want, the Soviets got hydrocarbons by putting marble, rust and water under heat and pressure. Thems the facts and there wasn't a dead dino anywhere near the experiment

 

[JiggsCasey]

Be fucking ignorant all you want, the Soviets got hydrocarbons by putting marble, rust and water under heat and pressure. Thems the facts and there wasn't a dead dino anywhere near the experiment

And beer rains from the heavens.

Get back to us when your new heroes, the "Soviets" use marble, rust, water and heat to create 85 million barrels per day of equivalent. Or, just a tenth of it.

Until then, STFU, and GTFO.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Be fucking ignorant all you want, the Soviets got hydrocarbons by putting marble, rust and water under heat and pressure. Thems the facts and there wasn't a dead dino anywhere near the experiment

And beer rains from the heavens.

Get back to us when your new heroes, the "Soviets" use marble, rust, water and heat to create 85 million barrels per day of equivalent. Or, just a tenth of it.

Until then, STFU, and GTFO.

I'm sorry you were lied to your whole life about fossil fuels. It sucks. But at a certain age, you need to man up and face the facts: there is no such thing as fossil fuels.

We're on a planet jackoff, a planet and it would have made hyrdocarbons, just like almost every other planet and Moon in this system, even if there were never any velicoraptors. Get a clue. Think for yourself. Use some common sense

 

[JiggsCasey]

I'm sorry you were lied to your whole life about fossil fuels. It sucks. But at a certain age, you need to man up and face the facts: there is no such thing as fossil fuels.

We're on a planet jackoff, a planet and it would have made hyrdocarbons, just like almost every other planet and Moon in this system, even if there were never any velicoraptors. Get a clue. Think for yourself. Use some common sense

Ah yes, the "common sense" card again, from someone who glosses over when presented with a chemical equation.

Anyhow, let's pretend your new heroes, 1950s Soviet scientists who've been long-since debunked by peer-reviewed papers, are somehow correct. Great... Where is it then? If it's infinite, where is it in any semblance of abundance?

Ooops. There goes your ultimate argument. <flush>

 

[westwall]

"Peak Oil" is a myth perpetrated by the very oil companies you claim are trying to prevent technological innovation to get us off of fossil fuels. The reason why they perpetuate the myth is to drive prices up. Duh! Internal memo's were released a few years ago that provided ample evidence of this.

Added to that are the well known discoveries of oil fields that are recharging, such as the Eugene Island 330 field wich began producing 15k barrels of oil per day with reserves of 60 million barrels and subsequently dropped to 4k barrels per day then quite literally overnight began producing 13k barrels per day and the reserve jumped to 400 million barrels. It was also found that the new oil was a different geologic period.

The Middle East has more than DOUBLED its reserves in the last 20 years despite the fact that there has been a 50 year period of intense exploitation.

There was a man (I think his name was Gold) years ago who came up with the theory that oil was created deep underground by temperature and pressure and then percolated up to the surface where we grabbed it. There was a test hole drilled several years ago in the middle of a kraton somewhere to test the theory and they did in fact find a small amount of oil very deep. I don't recall the depth it was found but it was over 15,000 feet. This, in the middle of a continental granitic body...not in sedimentary rock.

 

[mdn2000]

What is clear is you have no response, no facts, no theory that can make your point.

Actually, this subforum is drenched in my facts, and I never run out of response to flat-earth bloviators like you. Don't kid yourself.

What is clear is you have no rebuttal to common sense.

No greater irony has ever been uttered in the history of this site. The "common sense" card from a "drill baby drill", hope-based zealot? That's rich.



Perhaps to build. But once the infrastructure is built and in place, then your short-sighted argument swirls down the toilet.

For the 12th time, no one is saying that renewables will save us. Only mitigate the crisis and perhaps buy a bit of time for future generations. Grow up, and try and be honest about your opponents' argument. Liar.



Because with time, there is little choice. You can enact this transition willfully, or mother nature will take care of it for you at much greater shock.



Emptiness, supported by extrapolation. What a whiney partisan loser. People like you are, ultimately, an enemy to humanity, because you can never be intellectually honest about what is at stake here. Nothing receives greater federal subsidy than the oil giants you so admire.



No you haven't. Regardless, when dealing with me, your enemy isn't "green energy." Your enemy is simply peak. Don't straw man my position, desperate little Palin-ite. Oil is running down, prices will spike, and supply contraints are undeniable. Debate that, or stop talking.

Over and over I prove this and all you can do is ignore the threads, start new threads to bury the proof.

You're fucking retarded. Can you even keep track of who you're arguing with? What was the last thread I created in this forum? Months ago?

Further, let's be clear: I don't ignore your tripe if it's relevant to my argument. Try and focus, angry con.

I know what you can do, call me names, that will prove I am wrong.

No, the labels you earn are self-evident.

What I "can do" is keep pushing your face in the facts. Fats like 34 of 51 oil producing nations are past peak, the IEA and Joint Chiefs admit a 10 mbpd shortfall in light crude by 2015, that we use 4 barrels today for every 1 barrel we discover, and that demand continues to rise while no one knows where the near-term future capacity is going to come from. Then simply watch you squirm and avoid and deflect and distort and create little straw men.

You can't deny the geology, just like your limited ally, Samson. Better get used to it, because "blaming government" and liberals for it all isn't convincing anyone of anything.

Perhaps to build. But once the infrastructure is built and in place, then your short-sighted argument swirls down the toilet.

No perhaps, fact, you use more oil to produce less energy, you admit this, so explain why its better to use more oil at a faster rate.

For the 12th time, no one is saying that renewables will save us. Only mitigate the crisis and perhaps buy a bit of time for future generations.

Using oil faster mitigates the crisis, how.

Emptiness, supported by extrapolation. What a whiney partisan loser. People like you are, ultimately, an enemy to humanity, because you can never be intellectually honest about what is at stake here. Nothing receives greater federal subsidy than the oil giants you so admire.

The Oil industry was built with subsidies, not at all. What is a fact is we are building Wind Farms and Solar plants with subsidies, the complete infrastructure for Green energy is subsidized, not only that but we must replace everything from power lines to the meters in our homes, all for Green Energy, all this will take even more oil, again depleting oil faster than if we did nothing.

I am partisan, if trying to keep money in my pocket is partisan I am more than happy to be called partisan, thank you, that is a compliment.

If you have all these great threads, bump one to the top of the forum, I will be more than happy to take a look and comment.

I am proud to be partisan, those who are right should stay firm in their position.

So you wish to speak of individual nations, or states, or a well, that is past its peak and ignore the rest of the world which has not been explored, that is a straw man argument.

wow, talk about pushing my face into the facts.

 

[JiggsCasey]

"Peak Oil" is a myth perpetrated by the very oil companies you claim are trying to prevent technological innovation to get us off of fossil fuels. The reason why they perpetuate the myth is to drive prices up. Duh! Internal memo's were released a few years ago that provided ample evidence of this.

That's quite a statement. Why don't you provide that link, rather than insist we trust your claim on face value. What context? I'll put even money that your "ample evidence" is completely irrelevant when it comes to global flow rates. This is always the case.

Your camp constantly cites mole hills in order to assert the condition of mountains, ... rinse repeat. It's what you do.

I look forward to your link of this "internal memo", and putting it in proper perspective. Prices get "driven up" for a lot of things. That does nothing to dispel the basic math of overall resource depletion. Zero.

Added to that are the well known discoveries of oil fields that are recharging, such as the Eugene Island 330 field wich began producing 15k barrels of oil per day with reserves of 60 million barrels and subsequently dropped to 4k barrels per day then quite literally overnight began producing 13k barrels per day and the reserve jumped to 400 million barrels. It was also found that the new oil was a different geologic period.

And here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about above. It's always funny watching abiotic advocates squawk about ONE pool containing 5 days worth of energy, suddenly experiencing a brief uptick as a result of fault migration, as evidence that ALL global fields just magically fill up. It's sorta like when they pretend climate change is a myth because of a New England snow storm in late April. Unfortunately, after a very short increase, that tiny pool is still dying... rapidly. Like most of the rest. .... We find 1 new barrel for every 4 we consume today. That's a problem, and won't last much longer.

Here's Richard Heinberg crushing the tired old Eugene Island claim, as he always does with "reserve growth" claims:

The ?Abiotic Oil? Controversy | Energy Bulletin

While it is true that the estimated oil reserves of Eugene have increased, the numbers are not extraordinary. The authors note that &#8220;From 1978 to 1988, these operations, activities, and natural factors [including better exploration and recovery technology] have increased ultimate recoverable reserves from 225 million bbl to 307 million bbl of hydrocarbon liquids and from 950 bcf to 1.65 tcf of gas.&#8221; Other estimates now put the estimate of total recoverable oil as high as 400 Mb.

None of this is especially unusual for a North American oil field: most fields report reserve growth over time as a consequence of Securities and Exchange Commission reporting rules that require reserves to be booked yearly according to what portion of the resource is actually able to be extracted with current equipment in place. As more wells are drilled into the same reservoir, the reserves &#8220;grow.&#8221; Then, as they are pumped out, reserves decline and production rates dwindle. No magic there. ​

Do better.

The Middle East has more than DOUBLED its reserves in the last 20 years despite the fact that there has been a 50 year period of intense exploitation.

OPEC: "What? You're buying elsewhere? Suddenly, we have lots more oil!"
People like you: "Good enough for me! Where do we sign?"

OPEC nations sell their oil according to quotas, which are based partially on their reported reserves. The more reserves a nation reports, the more oil it is allowed to sell. This particular quota system went into effect in the 1980s, and almost immediately all OPEC nations&#8217; oil reserves jumped significantly. These nations have a direct, vested interest in exaggerating their reserves, not only to make more money, but because petroleum income directly translates into regional power.

Gosh, look at those sudden vertical jumps, in succession, by OPEC nations in the 1980s? Sure looks like an accounting gimmick to me.

In addition, adding tens of billions to reserve totals because you believe dirty, heavy shale and tar sands is the same as light crude is also vastly misleading. Heavy oils are not cost effective, and unlikely ever will be.

There was a man (I think his name was Gold) years ago who came up with the theory that oil was created deep underground by temperature and pressure and then percolated up to the surface where we grabbed it. There was a test hole drilled several years ago in the middle of a kraton somewhere to test the theory and they did in fact find a small amount of oil very deep. I don't recall the depth it was found but it was over 15,000 feet. This, in the middle of a continental granitic body...not in sedimentary rock.

Yeah, his name is Thomas Gold, he's the author of "The Deep Hot Biosphere," and his work has been thoroughly peer-reviewed and crushed. Welcome to the discussion with your west coast slow pony, though. Gold's irrelevant work has been covered here and put into perspective.

Finding traces of methane in the earth's core does not mean the enormous quantities of crude oil that we consume is abiotic, nor infinite, .... just like finding traces of alcohol in space doesn't mean vodka comes from the sky.

Even if the stuff IS abiotic, great! Where the 'F' is it then? The USGS and the IEA would surely love to know. As would all big oil producers and sovereign governments. Your ploy is irrelevant. We're debating peak oil, not the endless debate of how oil originates. The question remains: If there's somehow "plenty," where is it? In what amount?

Show the proven reserve data, admit global consumption rates up against the figures you think you have, and we can have a starting point for discussion. Until then, your entire platform is hope-based, and void of hard math.

 

[westwall]

"Peak Oil" is a myth perpetrated by the very oil companies you claim are trying to prevent technological innovation to get us off of fossil fuels. The reason why they perpetuate the myth is to drive prices up. Duh! Internal memo's were released a few years ago that provided ample evidence of this.

That's quite a statement. Why don't you provide that link, rather than insist we trust your claim on face value. What context? I'll put even money that your "ample evidence" is completely irrelevant when it comes to global flow rates. This is always the case.

Your camp constantly cites mole hills in order to assert the condition of mountains, ... rinse repeat. It's what you do.

I look forward to your link of this "internal memo", and putting it in proper perspective. Prices get "driven up" for a lot of things. That does nothing to dispel the basic math of overall resource depletion. Zero.

Added to that are the well known discoveries of oil fields that are recharging, such as the Eugene Island 330 field wich began producing 15k barrels of oil per day with reserves of 60 million barrels and subsequently dropped to 4k barrels per day then quite literally overnight began producing 13k barrels per day and the reserve jumped to 400 million barrels. It was also found that the new oil was a different geologic period.

And here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about above. It's always funny watching abiotic advocates squawk about ONE pool containing 5 days worth of energy, suddenly experiencing a brief uptick as a result of fault migration, as evidence that ALL global fields just magically fill up. It's sorta like when they pretend climate change is a myth because of a New England snow storm in late April. Unfortunately, after a very short increase, that tiny pool is still dying... rapidly. Like most of the rest. .... We find 1 new barrel for every 4 we consume today. That's a problem, and won't last much longer.

Here's Richard Heinberg crushing the tired old Eugene Island claim, as he always does with "reserve growth" claims:

The ?Abiotic Oil? Controversy | Energy Bulletin

While it is true that the estimated oil reserves of Eugene have increased, the numbers are not extraordinary. The authors note that &#8220;From 1978 to 1988, these operations, activities, and natural factors [including better exploration and recovery technology] have increased ultimate recoverable reserves from 225 million bbl to 307 million bbl of hydrocarbon liquids and from 950 bcf to 1.65 tcf of gas.&#8221; Other estimates now put the estimate of total recoverable oil as high as 400 Mb.

None of this is especially unusual for a North American oil field: most fields report reserve growth over time as a consequence of Securities and Exchange Commission reporting rules that require reserves to be booked yearly according to what portion of the resource is actually able to be extracted with current equipment in place. As more wells are drilled into the same reservoir, the reserves &#8220;grow.&#8221; Then, as they are pumped out, reserves decline and production rates dwindle. No magic there. ​

Do better.

The Middle East has more than DOUBLED its reserves in the last 20 years despite the fact that there has been a 50 year period of intense exploitation.

OPEC: "What? You're buying elsewhere? Suddenly, we have lots more oil!"
People like you: "Good enough for me! Where do we sign?"

OPEC nations sell their oil according to quotas, which are based partially on their reported reserves. The more reserves a nation reports, the more oil it is allowed to sell. This particular quota system went into effect in the 1980s, and almost immediately all OPEC nations&#8217; oil reserves jumped significantly. These nations have a direct, vested interest in exaggerating their reserves, not only to make more money, but because petroleum income directly translates into regional power.

Gosh, look at those sudden vertical jumps, in succession, by OPEC nations in the 1980s? Sure looks like an accounting gimmick to me.

In addition, adding tens of billions to reserve totals because you believe dirty, heavy shale and tar sands is the same as light crude is also vastly misleading. Heavy oils are not cost effective, and unlikely ever will be.

There was a man (I think his name was Gold) years ago who came up with the theory that oil was created deep underground by temperature and pressure and then percolated up to the surface where we grabbed it. There was a test hole drilled several years ago in the middle of a kraton somewhere to test the theory and they did in fact find a small amount of oil very deep. I don't recall the depth it was found but it was over 15,000 feet. This, in the middle of a continental granitic body...not in sedimentary rock.

Yeah, his name is Thomas Gold, he's the author of "The Deep Hot Biosphere," and his work has been thoroughly peer-reviewed and crushed. Welcome to the discussion with your west coast slow pony, though. Gold's irrelevant work has been covered here and put into perspective.

Finding traces of methane in the earth's core does not mean the enormous quantities of crude oil that we consume is abiotic, nor infinite, .... just like finding traces of alcohol in space doesn't mean vodka comes from the sky.

Even if the stuff IS abiotic, great! Where the 'F' is it then? The USGS and the IEA would surely love to know. As would all big oil producers and sovereign governments. Your ploy is irrelevant. We're debating peak oil, not the endless debate of how oil originates. The question remains: If there's somehow "plenty," where is it? In what amount?

Show the proven reserve data, admit global consumption rates up against the figures you think you have, and we can have a starting point for discussion. Until then, your entire platform is hope-based, and void of hard math.

Yes that's the name I remember. So the fact that methane was found where it categorically should not exist is meaningless? Where to find it? Probably where it allready is. I find the little missive about reserves growing as more wells are drilled to be a little odd. Then claiming that the reserves are based on SEC reporting requirements is a little disingenuous, don't you think?

Here is one of the memo's

http://cwd.grassroots.com/energy/rp/4302.pdf

And many more can be found here....

The Foundation For Taxpayer & Consumer Rights (FTCR)

Knock yourself out, there are plenty of reports and memo's showing collusion between government and the oil companies to increase the price of fuel across the board.

And for the record I am not an abiotic advocate, I do find it interesting that people like you completely denigrate it when a pool of energy was found where none should have been. According to every theory of hydrocarbon production what was found should not have been. On the other hand the only people with anything to lose if that theory is accurate, is you and yours, and the oil companies.

I merely would like to see another hole drilled someplace else to see if it happens again. That is after all the essence of science you know..repeatability. Or put another way, you folks have been warning us about hitting peak oil for oh over 50 years now, and we still havn't hit it, no matter how you keep defining and re-defining what peak oil is. And here is little old Mr. Gold (did he even have a PhD?) predicting hydrocarbons would be found where they shouldn't and looky here he did it. Gold is batting 1,000 and you guys are batting 0.000.

 

[mdn2000]

Where is the peak oil thread with all the wonderful facts Jiggs, I saw the link to Tar and Dinosaurs in the energy forum, how about something real, right here.

Jiggs keeps claiming Jiggs has the facts, post a name of the theory, the author and his paper.

Jiggs knows that facts as told by an author of an article of a paper that Jiggs refuses to post.

I guess Jiggs says its so, so its so, most likely anything posted will be the same, "see I said it, its so"

 

[JiggsCasey]

Where is the peak oil thread with all the wonderful facts Jiggs, I saw the link to Tar and Dinosaurs in the energy forum, how about something real, right here.

Jiggs keeps claiming Jiggs has the facts, post a name of the theory, the author and his paper.

Jiggs knows that facts as told by an author of an article of a paper that Jiggs refuses to post.

I guess Jiggs says its so, so its so, most likely anything posted will be the same, "see I said it, its so"

Tool. Look to the other parallel thread where you make the same tired, baseless pronouncement.

I've posted this subject matter all over this subforum, with dozens of links.

The "authors" I cite are the IEA, the Joint Chiefs, the US Dept. of Energy, the EIA, Total Oil, Oxford Univ., Lloyds of London. Perhaps they're all in on this "vast conspiracy" you guys insinuate. LOL.

It is both a near and longterm crisis.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUVY2qrEfd8[/ame]

 

[JiggsCasey]

Yes that's the name I remember. So the fact that methane was found where it categorically should not exist is meaningless? Where to find it? Probably where it allready is. I find the little missive about reserves growing as more wells are drilled to be a little odd. Then claiming that the reserves are based on SEC reporting requirements is a little disingenuous, don't you think?

Here is one of the memo's

http://cwd.grassroots.com/energy/rp/4302.pdf

And many more can be found here....

The Foundation For Taxpayer & Consumer Rights (FTCR)

Knock yourself out, there are plenty of reports and memo's showing collusion between government and the oil companies to increase the price of fuel across the board.

And for the record I am not an abiotic advocate, I do find it interesting that people like you completely denigrate it when a pool of energy was found where none should have been. According to every theory of hydrocarbon production what was found should not have been. On the other hand the only people with anything to lose if that theory is accurate, is you and yours, and the oil companies.

I merely would like to see another hole drilled someplace else to see if it happens again. That is after all the essence of science you know..repeatability. Or put another way, you folks have been warning us about hitting peak oil for oh over 50 years now, and we still havn't hit it, no matter how you keep defining and re-defining what peak oil is. And here is little old Mr. Gold (did he even have a PhD?) predicting hydrocarbons would be found where they shouldn't and looky here he did it. Gold is batting 1,000 and you guys are batting 0.000.

You didn't answer a single one of my questions, just created more irrelevant "abiotic vs. biotic" loop.

Here, I'll re-iterate them for you to ignore again:

Even if the stuff IS abiotic, great! Where the 'F' is it then? The USGS and the IEA would surely love to know. As would all big oil producers and sovereign governments. Your ploy is irrelevant. We're debating peak oil, not the endless debate of how oil originates. The question remains: If there's somehow "plenty," where is it? In what amount?​

You and Soviet-science sympathizer Tom Gold can pretend you've found a 5 trllion barrel reservoir 500 miles under the earth. Great. But if we can't get to it, who gives a crap?