Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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>
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?
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]
I did answer your question or can't you read? I said you will probably find it where it allrerady is. In other words drill in the old fields and see what happens.
More importantly I would like to see another hole drilled in the middle of nowhere to see what happens. Don't you? Aren't you even the slightest bit curious? You are the person being anti science here. I am at least curious, why aren't you?
In what way was Gold a Soviet science sympathizer (whatever the hell that means) and what relevance does that exactly have on the subject? Or are you just trying to tar Gold with bad juju to make your argument stronger? So far you have been the person to resort to non-sequiter, and that is a sure sign you don't know a thing about which you speak.
I dont play youtube videos in the threads, if I want TV I will turn on the TV and watch a sitcom.
I did answer your question or can't you read? I said you will probably find it where it allrerady is. In other words drill in the old fields and see what happens.
Unrivaled fail. That's one too many "probablies" in your statement. In other words, you have no idea where the new oil will come from. But you HOPE the old fields have "filled up" like one tiny field in the Gulf did 20 years ago... Zzz.
More importantly I would like to see another hole drilled in the middle of nowhere to see what happens. Don't you? Aren't you even the slightest bit curious? You are the person being anti science here. I am at least curious, why aren't you?
Because it costs enormous amounts of capital to just drill dry holes in the ground everywhere. You understand the process, yes?
In what way was Gold a Soviet science sympathizer (whatever the hell that means) and what relevance does that exactly have on the subject? Or are you just trying to tar Gold with bad juju to make your argument stronger? So far you have been the person to resort to non-sequiter, and that is a sure sign you don't know a thing about which you speak.
If you actually read Gold's book, you would know that abiotic theory is rooted in the research of a rogue group of Soviet scientists from the 50s desperate to counter the West's encroaching paradigm. It's been peer-reviewed, and put in perspective. Gold can suggest oil is abiotic by only the lamest extrapolation that traces of methane were found deep under the earth's crust. Again, that hardly means the 2 trillion barrels of the stuff comes from the mantle of the Earth, and far more evidence exists that it is biotic in origin -- mostly plant life. As mentioned before, It's really irrelevant either way, considering no one knows where it's going to come from going forward. That's what we're discussing.
In order, if oil was found in one area and oil is truly abiotic then it stands to reason that you will find it there again. That is following a basic rule of science. It is called Occams Razor, look it up.
In order, if oil was found in one area and oil is truly abiotic then it stands to reason that you will find it there again. That is following a basic rule of science. It is called Occams Razor, look it up.
Occams Razor is not a "rule of science," genius. It is a general suggestion towards a hypothesis. If you want to talk about rules of science, your Eugene Island anomaly really winds up being embarrassing for you. Try the basic laws of thermodynamics. Those are rules. There is no varience, no nuance, "no tends to be" qualifiers.
I'll ask you once more, and hopefully you'll do better than "let's blindly drill and find out!":
Where is the oil going forward that will make up for existing dying capacity?
If you can't point to proven reserves found by advanced seismic technology exploration, please stop posting. Because you appear to be just another hope-based flat earther, who can't recognize the symptoms of a world MUCH sicker than 30-50 years ago.
You can pretend the people of 50 years ago are "me" all you like. I can tell the profound differences between then and today, but clearly you can't. Not surprising, considering you feel "Occam's Razor" is a "rule of science."
Occams Razor is a rule of science nimrod, it ranks right up there with "correlation does not equal causation".
Eugene Island is not a singular event either, Mexican Hat recharges on average every 20 years or so. It is a small field so internet "experts" will have never heard of it. You may have heard of the Aneth oil field however, and it too has exhibited some recharge.
The Laws of Thermodynamics are of course unalterable and when you can point out to their relevance for this particular argument please feel free to enlighten us otherwise see post above about pointless insults.
One other thing you need to know about science, because you clearly do not exhibit a good grasp of how it works,
is that consensus is anathema to science. It is also usual for a scientist to say "it is our current belief, based on the empirical data at hand that "X" will occur if "Y" is done. Scientists realise that knowledge is allways changing as our instruments become ever more sensitive and powerful.
As far as drilling another hole in the middle of nowhere, yes that is exactly what I would like to see. Instead of pissing a million dollars down the rathole of whatever pointless environmental research you choose to name I would like to see some much more solid research done on a whole host of scientific endeavors. I am a geologist, I actually have worked in the field for 35 years.
You insult people and "talk" about science....I DO science.
At a balmy minus 179º C , Titan is a far cry from Earth. Instead of water, liquid hydrocarbons in the form of methane and ethane are present on the moon's surface, and tholins probably make up its dunes. The term ‘tholins’ was coined by Carl Sagan in 1979 to describe the complex organic molecules at the heart of prebiotic chemistry.
Cassini has mapped about 20% of Titan's surface with radar. Several hundred lakes and seas have been observed, with each of several dozen estimated to contain more hydrocarbon liquid than Earth's oil and gas reserves. The dark dunes that run along the equator contain a volume of organics several hundred times larger than Earth's coal reserves.
Occams Razor is a rule of science nimrod, it ranks right up there with "correlation does not equal causation".
Wrong. It's a maxim, one that refers to a best guess based on induction and pragmatism. A RULE would be something concrete and irrefutable, not something that refers to tendency.
Ironically, Occam's Razor would be far more in my corner on this overall debate, considering no one knows where future oil is going to come from in the amounts required to sustain our paradigm. The simplest answer, obviously, is that because most nations are past peak (fact), the stuff is gonna be much harder and more expensive to find (logic). That's Occam's Razor. That's the simplest answer.
Eugene Island is not a singular event either, Mexican Hat recharges on average every 20 years or so. It is a small field so internet "experts" will have never heard of it. You may have heard of the Aneth oil field however, and it too has exhibited some recharge.
Great. And 60-yard field goals can occasionally be successful in the NFL, but you don't see teams structure their strategy based on the assumption of their extremely rare success.
Your smarmy condescension aside, you're not dealing with a mere "internet expert" here, ok self-asserted "scientist?" I'm not here to crow about what I do for a living, but let's just say that I can tell from our brief exchange that I know more about global flow rates, proven reserve totals and demand growth than you do, or just more than you're willing to be honest about.
You're going to need to link to support your claim. Pointing to a few tiny fields that may have "recharged" a few days worth of energy at current consumption rates over 10-20 years is hardly axiomatic of the overall process of crude origin, and far more evidence exists that we are past the halfway point. How much "recharged?" Point to a single field that "recharged" more than a billion or so barrels? Heck, how bout 50 million barrels? It doesn't happen. Period. But I'm sure you're very anxious for that to be the case, so I'm all ears, bring it on.
You entered the discussion with pointless insults with your baseless "peak is a myth... duh!" rant, so you earned it. Anyhow, scientist, let's paraphrase the basic laws of thermodynamics, and then you can tell us how they're somehow irrelevant to the overall energy discussion being covered here (admittedly, the third and or zeroth laws are irrelevant):
1st law: energy cannot be created or destroyed; rather, the amount of energy lost in a steady state process cannot be greater than the amount of energy gained.
in other words - you can not get something for nothing... (and "something for nothing" is the platform that abiotic theorists DEPEND upon)
2nd law: Otherwise known as the law of entropy. In all energies exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy state will always wind up being less than the original state.
in other words - entropy always increases as the process goes along, and you can never break even. Along those lines, Peak deniers have little-to-no grasp of EROEI, and seldom factor in the energy required to even get at, extract, refine and deliever the energy being sought.
So there are two LAWS that people must always ask themselves when considering alternatives, or in your case, a mandate to "Just drill deeper!" Occam's Razor is not.
There are no replacements for what easy-to-extract, light crude has provided complex societies. We are where we are today (empire) because of it, and now all the low-hanging fruit has been picked.
Yeah, I'd say that's quite relevant.
irony
Right, and what are they saying today about oil fields "refilling?" How common is it, exactly, and in what proven, recoverable amount? Where? Obviously you're awesome, as you've proclaimed, so this should be easy for you to produce. What is their "consensus" regarding your theory that a few tiny fields have "filled back up" a bit?
As far as drilling another hole in the middle of nowhere, yes that is exactly what I would like to see. Instead of pissing a million dollars down the rathole of whatever pointless environmental research you choose to name I would like to see some much more solid research done on a whole host of scientific endeavors. I am a geologist, I actually have worked in the field for 35 years.
Then you must be among the most irresponsible scientist in the history of man. I'm sure Big Oil would sprint to hire guys like you who advocate they blindly drill in the middle of no where. To heck with the costs, right? "It's GOTTA be down there! Look at Eugene Island and Mexican Hat?"
Surely it's all a big conspiracy against the oil giants, because they're somehow NOT just poking holes all over the Earth and hoping for the best, like you'd advocate. Must be liberal agenda hampering their blind ambition, not the USGS or anything.
You insult people and "talk" about science....I DO science.
LOL... Get over yourself. You could say you're Thomas Gold himself, if you like. Doesn't do much for this discussion. Based on what you've offered in this exchange, I'm gonna call bullshit. Perhaps you're a rig operator who knows more than your bosses, like the men in the video I provided, who all confirm peak is here.
Either way, scientist, you're still pretending you know more than those behind decades of innovation and know-how, and that they are all just somehow keeping the oil from us by not drilling wildly everywhere. Good one.
Ultimately, you've been challenged to prove where the oil is going forward to meet our 86 million barrel per day appetite (and growing, via developing Asian nations), and the best you've come up with is to suggest a few tiny fields have shown tiny reserve growth, oil must then be abiotic, and we should insist that Big Oil go bankrupt drilling everywhere and hope for the best.
Fail.
Hope is not a policy. And hope will not be used to set the domestic energy agenda, no matter how much money you (print up and) throw at the problem.
One last time... Where is the oil, going forward? How much? At what cost? Heck, guesstimate the costs... Just tell the forum where the oil is? I'm sure Chevron, BP, Exxon, Total and all the others would kill to know. ... Because they don't seem to be buying your tired claim that the fields are all "refilling" on their own.
There you go, O Google Challenged Fool.
King Hubbert : The peak petroleum and gaz
I. King Hubbert's searches on the oil peak of production (all resources).
1) Who is King Hubbert?
King Hubbert was born on October 5, 1903 to San Saba in Texas, he obtains his doctorate in Sciences in the university of Chicago in 1937, where he studies in parallel geology, physics and mathematics. He is senior analyst in 1942-1943 in Washington, he leads to it his first studies on the mineral resources.
King Hubbert works for Shell in Houston during 20 years, he is here a Geophysicist , then a director of the investigation and the production, and finally consultant chief of the geology. He leaves Shell in 1963.
He is also a Geophysicist of search to " US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY " and professor of geology and geophysics in Stanforde's university. He leaves Stanforde's university in 1968 and he returns in the university world in 1973, in Berkeley in California. He retires in 1976 quite in active remainder within "US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ", He dies on October 15, 1989 at the age of 86 years.
2) " Hubbert's curve ".
"Hubbert's curve" allows to have a theoretical curve of the production of petroleum. The curve of the investigation in the same shape as that of the production, but the peak of the curve of the investigation arrives much earlier that that of the production. And so from the peak of the oil investigation in United States in 1930, it was able to predict the peak of production of the petroleum in this last one in 1970. Then it is from the peak of the world investigation of the 1970's that he anticipates the future oil peak of production. Wars and energy crises return this more chaotic curve in practice, but it does not change anything the tendency. Once the past peak of production, the thorough tendency will be for a decline of the long-term production, wars and crises will make only decrease or increase in the short run production, long-term it does not change anything.
It predicted the peak of production in 1970 did it? Then where the hell are we getting all this pesky petrol from!There you go, O Google Challenged Fool.
King Hubbert : The peak petroleum and gaz
I. King Hubbert's searches on the oil peak of production (all resources).
1) Who is King Hubbert?
King Hubbert was born on October 5, 1903 to San Saba in Texas, he obtains his doctorate in Sciences in the university of Chicago in 1937, where he studies in parallel geology, physics and mathematics. He is senior analyst in 1942-1943 in Washington, he leads to it his first studies on the mineral resources.
King Hubbert works for Shell in Houston during 20 years, he is here a Geophysicist , then a director of the investigation and the production, and finally consultant chief of the geology. He leaves Shell in 1963.
He is also a Geophysicist of search to " US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY " and professor of geology and geophysics in Stanforde's university. He leaves Stanforde's university in 1968 and he returns in the university world in 1973, in Berkeley in California. He retires in 1976 quite in active remainder within "US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ", He dies on October 15, 1989 at the age of 86 years.
2) " Hubbert's curve ".
"Hubbert's curve" allows to have a theoretical curve of the production of petroleum. The curve of the investigation in the same shape as that of the production, but the peak of the curve of the investigation arrives much earlier that that of the production. And so from the peak of the oil investigation in United States in 1930, it was able to predict the peak of production of the petroleum in this last one in 1970. Then it is from the peak of the world investigation of the 1970's that he anticipates the future oil peak of production. Wars and energy crises return this more chaotic curve in practice, but it does not change anything the tendency. Once the past peak of production, the thorough tendency will be for a decline of the long-term production, wars and crises will make only decrease or increase in the short run production, long-term it does not change anything.
Wow, who was the illiterate that wrote that?
I'll tell you what genius. After you have gotten a handle on the English language you can come back and speak with the adults. I have provided a link below to a handy thesaurus and as you can see "rule" is a synonym for "maxim". Now if you had the education to go with the attitude you might have something to add to the discussion.
I look forward to the day that you obtain that education.
Maxim Synonyms, Maxim Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
Wow, who was the illiterate that wrote that?
U.S. production peaked in 1971... that is a fact, and that's what it refers to.
Wake up, and follow along, dishonest fool.
I'll tell you what genius. After you have gotten a handle on the English language you can come back and speak with the adults. I have provided a link below to a handy thesaurus and as you can see "rule" is a synonym for "maxim". Now if you had the education to go with the attitude you might have something to add to the discussion.
I look forward to the day that you obtain that education.
Maxim Synonyms, Maxim Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
When all you have in response is an extrapolated semantics argument, it's clear you're out of bullets.
Abiotic theory is irrelevant, drilling holes and hoping for oil is retarded, and you're unable to show ANY new discoveries of any significance. I'd say your efforts in this thread spoke for themselves. Based on your punt above, Occam's Razor clearly indicated that when it comes to world oil reserves, you don't know what you're talking about. That' s a "rule."
White flag accepted
Wow, who was the illiterate that wrote that?
U.S. production peaked in 1971... that is a fact, and that's what it refers to.
