Oil - Produced by the Earth?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]lixy wrote:
tedro wrote:
I don’t think our demand is going to change greatly.

You’re either abnormally self-centered or completely out-of-touch with reality.

American demand will not change greatly. It’s the demand from emerging markets with people breeding like bunnies that is increasing dramatically, thus driving prices ever so high.[/quote]

Which is irrelevant to my post. The point is to end reliance on OPEC so that they lose their ability to drive oil prices. That doesn’t mean prices won’t increase, it means US oil consumption stays fairly flat, which gives us an idea of how much domestic energy we need to replace foreign oil. What was so difficult to understand about this?

22

[quote]lixy wrote:
tedro wrote:
I don’t think our demand is going to change greatly.

You’re either abnormally self-centered or completely out-of-touch with reality.

American demand will not change greatly. It’s the demand from emerging markets with people breeding like bunnies that is increasing dramatically, thus driving prices ever so high.[/quote]

He was talking about American demand too, you nitwit.

23

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
lixy wrote:
tedro wrote:
I don’t think our demand is going to change greatly.

You’re either abnormally self-centered or completely out-of-touch with reality.

American demand will not change greatly. It’s the demand from emerging markets with people breeding like bunnies that is increasing dramatically, thus driving prices ever so high.

He was talking about American demand too, you nitwit.[/quote]

I took that into consideration by saying that it was a self-centered statement. I mean, plenty of Americans love to drive their gas-guzzlers (EarthFucker 2000?) or invade oil-rich countries, but I doubt that anything the US does or does not do will bring the barrel back to its pre-Dubya era.

The era of cheap oil is long gone. Accept it, move on and let the oil companies and dictators line up their pockets.

24

[quote]lixy wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
lixy wrote:
tedro wrote:
I don’t think our demand is going to change greatly.

You’re either abnormally self-centered or completely out-of-touch with reality.

American demand will not change greatly. It’s the demand from emerging markets with people breeding like bunnies that is increasing dramatically, thus driving prices ever so high.

He was talking about American demand too, you nitwit.

I took that into consideration by saying that it was a self-centered statement. I mean, plenty of Americans love to drive their gas-guzzlers (EarthFucker 2000?) or invade oil-rich countries, but I doubt that anything the US does or does not do will bring the barrel back to its pre-Dubya era.

The era of cheap oil is long gone. Accept it, move on and let the oil companies and dictators line up their pockets.[/quote]

Plenty of Muslims like to blow themselves up in the name of Allah and take innocent people with them. (people fucker 2008) Political instability and the lack of civilized discourse in the Arab world is driving prices far more then emerging markets growth.

The largest driver of oil prices is speculation. The speculation is based on instability from unreliable suppliers. If a modern first world country sat above the Arabian penninsula then the world would not be worrying about oil supplies. We will either develop alternative sources or install a modern first world nation as the worlds largest producer.

The US will get off the Arab oil spigot thru innovation. Oil in the Arab world will run out and America will prosper while the Arab’s will go back to the desert. Accept it and move on.

25

[quote]lixy wrote:

The era of cheap oil is long gone. Accept it, move on and let the oil companies and dictators line up their pockets.[/quote]

Absolutely and completely incorrect. We have barely touched the available oil.

If we want accurate numbers, then we need to get them from the United States Geological Survey. The numbers used (proved) are numbers given by oil companies and countries. They are not really designed to give accurate numbers of available oil.

For example the proven reserves of North America are over 55 billion. (2000 numbers.) While the USGS gives a recoverable number at almost 398 billion. (Again same year.)

And this does not even include unconventional sources such as heavy oil, oil sands, and oil shale.

If we are supposed to believe peak oil theories of Hubbert, America was supposed to run out 5 years ago.

Regardless, if a person is driving 25,000 miles a year, and gas goes up $1, then that person is paying about $70 a month extra. (Assuming an average of 30 mpg.) Many people have $400 a month car payments or more. If you change to a cheaper car, say $330 a month, that increase in gas is paid for.

Or people could do what I do and choose to have no car payment. Imagine how many months of saving that car payment it would take to cover most repairs on an older car. (Also gas would have to go up ~$5.75 a gallon before the increase would cost me a car payment.)

Once you have paid over $400 a month for medicine to keep your wife alive, (in addition to thousands in medical bills,) you don’t worry too much about an extra $70 a month for gas.

26

(sigh…)

Lots of misinformed people here. I’m a geologist, and will not be responding to this thread after I post, but I would like to clarify a few things.

  1. Oil production has peaked. Period.

  2. The “abiogenic” theory lacks credit and should not be taken too seriously.

“If we are supposed to believe peak oil theories of Hubbert, America was supposed to run out 5 years ago.”

I suppose you just read the wikipedia article on Hubbert and made all your assumptions based it. Well, logically, you couldn’t be more wrong. It’s equivalent to saying, “Newton’s theory of gravity was incorrect, so general relativity isn’t true.”

Hubbert did the best with the data he had. The data has changed since his time, but the principal of the theory is still sound.

I’m not going to waste time trying to defend my arguments. It’s self-evident if you do the research. If you think I’m wrong, go talk to some geologists who specialize in estimating petrol reserves, read some more, and think about it again.

27
28

[quote]guerillajoeisdead wrote:
(sigh…)

Lots of misinformed people here. I’m a geologist, and will not be responding to this thread after I post, but I would like to clarify a few things.[/quote]

So what you are saying is that you are going to pop in out of nowhere, post once, and disappear into the ether. Guerilla posting? (Hey, that matches your name.)

Maybe your reading this, maybe not, but you lose a lot of respect by doing this. Also exactly why should we even believe anything you are saying on this issue? I personally believe you are not a geologist, and are simply a peak oil “cult” member spreading his “gospel” across the web.[quote]

  1. Oil production has peaked. Period.[/quote]

Bullshit. Complete and total bullshit. According to peak oil theory America was supposed to have run out completely by now. And the peak date keeps changing. (Besides I thought they were now saying 2011, not that it has peaked.)

The “peak” is supposed to occur when we hit the 50% level, and yet we have only taken a total of 18% (as I have read recently) meaning we still need to pump 177% of what we have already pumped since oil was “discovered” to reach that 50% peak. And this is the recoverable oil we know about.

Then the whole idea of the sharp drop in production is flawed. Like I said, America was supposed to run out of oil, and that has not happened.[quote]

  1. The “abiogenic” theory lacks credit and should not be taken too seriously.[/quote]

Well since you said it, I must believe it.

I never really took it too seriously, yet thought it was interesting. But I have to admit that it kind of seems funny that they keep getting more oil then expected from the wells. When a well produces 4 times what was initially projected, and is still running, (true event, and not just once) either they are seriously and repeatedly, underestimating the oil, (which is entirely possible, and still leads to peak oil being faulty,) or maybe there is some truth to the abiogenic theory.

While it is not well accepted, I do not think anyone has actually proven it to be wrong. If you know otherwise, please show us how it was proven wrong.

Oh wait, you won’t defend your arguments.[quote]

“If we are supposed to believe peak oil theories of Hubbert, America was supposed to run out 5 years ago.”[/quote]

Actually the number changes every time the predicted date comes up.[quote]

I suppose you just read the wikipedia article on Hubbert and made all your assumptions based it. Well, logically, you couldn’t be more wrong. It’s equivalent to saying, “Newton’s theory of gravity was incorrect, so general relativity isn’t true.”[/quote]

Yes, we read wikipedia, and found that Newton’s theory of gravity was wrong, and so was Einstein.

Hubbert was no Einstein, and I don’t know about anyone else, but I didn’t get anything from WIKI.[quote]

Hubbert did the best with the data he had. The data has changed since his time, but the principal of the theory is still sound.

I’m not going to waste time trying to defend my arguments. It’s self-evident if you do the research. If you think I’m wrong, go talk to some geologists who specialize in estimating petrol reserves, read some more, and think about it again.[/quote]

Interestingly after this thread was started, I found a link to a video of a speech given to OPEC, I believe by the guy who runs Saudi Arabia’s oil “company”. And he was discussing the increased oil production over the next decades, and what was needed to achieve this. Shouldn’t he know that’s impossible?

Anyway, I do have to admit that it is possible for oil to peak sometime in the future. (Assuming we do not change to another energy source by that time.)

But what will peak is light sweet crude. We will still have heavy oil, and all the other sources for oil.

Oh and since you won’t be defending yourself, your a lying piece of crap. Geologist my ass.

29

The best way’s to start the curve off of Oil is to first build new Auger Style Nuclear Reactors they are the safest and cleanest energy source available at this time (They are so safe that the North Koreas refused them). Why, because they do not get hot enough to create plutonium. That would cut Americas dependence immediately by 20%. Then you build new and more efficient refineries to produce the petro needed. This places more supply in the market(A new refinery has not been build in America since the mid 1980â¿¿s). Drill in Alaska. Donâ¿¿t use CORN for fuel. That drives up the price of food that uses corn, which is in approximately 15% of the food sold today. It also is a low quality Fuel source about 10% less miles per gallon and only approximately 83% the power of Gasoline from oil. These elements would knock the Arab oil barons on their ears.

30

[quote]joeisdead wrote:
(sigh…)

Lots of misinformed people here. I’m a geologist, and will not be responding to this thread after I post, but I would like to clarify a few things.

  1. Oil production has peaked. Period.

  2. The “abiogenic” theory lacks credit and should not be taken too seriously.

“If we are supposed to believe peak oil theories of Hubbert, America was supposed to run out 5 years ago.”

I suppose you just read the wikipedia article on Hubbert and made all your assumptions based it. Well, logically, you couldn’t be more wrong. It’s equivalent to saying, “Newton’s theory of gravity was incorrect, so general relativity isn’t true.”

Hubbert did the best with the data he had. The data has changed since his time, but the principal of the theory is still sound.

I’m not going to waste time trying to defend my arguments. It’s self-evident if you do the research. If you think I’m wrong, go talk to some geologists who specialize in estimating petrol reserves, read some more, and think about it again.[/quote]

Useless post. Discuss the issue or don’t bother.

31

[quote]MainelyTrucks wrote:
The best way’s to start the curve off of Oil is to first build new Auger Style Nuclear Reactors they are the safest and cleanest energy source available at this time (They are so safe that the North Koreas refused them). Why, because they do not get hot enough to create plutonium. That would cut Americas dependence immediately by 20%. Then you build new and more efficient refineries to produce the petro needed. This places more supply in the market(A new refinery has not been build in America since the mid 1980â¿¿s). Drill in Alaska. Donâ¿¿t use CORN for fuel. That drives up the price of food that uses corn, which is in approximately 15% of the food sold today. It also is a low quality Fuel source about 10% less miles per gallon and only approximately 83% the power of Gasoline from oil. These elements would knock the Arab oil barons on their ears. [/quote]

Good post. Welcome to the forum.

32

“Oh and since you won’t be defending yourself, your a lying piece of crap. Geologist my ass.”

I wasn’t going to post again, but this is too funny. I stated my opinion. You don’t like it. Tough cookies. It’s funny how easily upset you get. How old are you?

FYI, I’m not a peak oil conspiracy theorist. I don’t believe in lack of oil will cause the apocalypse, or any of that nonsense. And I don’t care if you don’t believe that I’m a geologist.

I suggest you think a little more before making comments.

33

I didn’t want to get into this, but I’ll post it anyways.

  1. World crude oil production peaked in 2005, I think around 73.5 million b/per/d. Data from ASPO and other independent sources confirm this. Keep in mind, that’s crude oil only. I think overall oil production peaked in 2006 somewhere in the 84 mbpd, but I could be wrong.

  2. While researching “abiogenic” theory, I only managed to find a few serious journals that mentioned it, and those that did bashed it.

“Many fundamental concepts in the biogenic theory in the origin of crude oil do not correspond to actual data on its composition, properties, conditions of occurance, and carbon balance in the earth’s core, as observed repeatedly.”

Chemistry and Technology of Fuels and Oil, Volume 39, 1-2 (2003)

As for Hubberts curve, my point was that it is essentially correct, but not the final say on everything. Just as Newton’s theory wasn’t entirely correct, you can still use to the inverse square law to predict movements fairly accurately in everyday life. Although it’s far from perfect, most geologist consider his ideas sound and still use his principals.

I have a couple journals about this still on my desktop, if anyone likes, I can email them to you.

34

Can someone with at least a few brain cells to rub together tell me why the FUCK we’re not drilling in ANWAR yet?? This dolt we have in the White House was for all of about 2 right things: Keeping taxes low and drilling in ANWAR. Seven years in office and he couldn’t push ANWAR through?? Are you kidding me?

There’s NOBODY THERE (in Alaska)!!! Alaska is MASSIVE, and the WHOLE STATE has 800,000 people! New York City – a CITY – has 8 MILLION!!! Are we REALLY going to let people who want to protect 3 caribou scare us off from securing a key aspect of our national security and economy?

WTF?!?!?!?

Drill that freaking state like it’s Swiss cheese!!

35

[quote]joeisdead wrote:
“Oh and since you won’t be defending yourself, your a lying piece of crap. Geologist my ass.”

I wasn’t going to post again, but this is too funny. I stated my opinion. You don’t like it. Tough cookies. It’s funny how easily upset you get. How old are you?
[/quote]

Actually I wasn’t upset. I knew if I posted that line you couldn’t keep from posting again. (Sorry, I was intentionally provoking you.) But since you did post, and yet say you didn’t, what exactly does that mean? (I notice that you changed your name.)[quote]

FYI, I’m not a peak oil conspiracy theorist. I don’t believe in lack of oil will cause the apocalypse, or any of that nonsense. And I don’t care if you don’t believe that I’m a geologist.[/quote]

Ah, but if your a geologist, why do you ignore the USGS data? And why would any scientist do that guerrilla posting as I pointed out, and not want to debate the issue?

If you have the science, present it.

[quote]I didn’t want to get into this, but I’ll post it anyways.

  1. World crude oil production peaked in 2005, I think around 73.5 million b/per/d. Data from ASPO and other independent sources confirm this. Keep in mind, that’s crude oil only. I think overall oil production peaked in 2006 somewhere in the 84 mbpd, but I could be wrong.[/quote]

ASPO? The association for the study of peak oil and gas? Seriously? They are a political organization, not a scientific one, even though they act as if they are a scientific one.

I wouldn’t expect honest information about the health of consuming animal protein from PETA, and the same is true of the peak oil debate.[quote]

“Many fundamental concepts in the biogenic theory in the origin of crude oil do not correspond to actual data on its composition, properties, conditions of occurance, and carbon balance in the earth’s core, as observed repeatedly.”

Chemistry and Technology of Fuels and Oil, Volume 39, 1-2 (2003)[/quote]

Interesting, a real journal quote. Did you read it? Read what you posted again. (Hint: It says biogenic, not abiogenic.) Especially fascinating. And I have been seriously doubting the abiogenic theory, but looking for real facts, not politics.[quote]

As for Hubberts curve, my point was that it is essentially correct, but not the final say on everything. Just as Newton’s theory wasn’t entirely correct, you can still use to the inverse square law to predict movements fairly accurately in everyday life. Although it’s far from perfect, most geologist consider his ideas sound and still use his principals.[/quote]

There was a serious look into Hubberts peak about a year or two ago by Cambridge Energy Research Associates who state:

"The new report describes CERA’s liquids supply outlook as ‘not a view of endless abundance.’ However, based on a range of potential scenarios and field-by-field analysis, CERA finds that not only will world oil production not peak before 2030, but that the idea of a peak is itself “a dramatic but highly questionable image.'”

36

They had Kurzweil on Glenn Beck a weeknight ago. He was claiming that solar panels would improve to the point that they would solve our energy problems.

Anyways, I drive a 2001 Honda Civic hatchback, which I own completely, so I do pretty good on the gas mileage. Still hurts, but at least I’m not driving an SUV.

37

Fun, fun, fun. I figured you were trying to get a reaction out of me and you did a good job. Hope there are no hard feelings.

I would post the link to these journals, but unless you have an account with Springerlink you’ll have to find hard copies of this on your own.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe my profs have been misinformed.

Some good journals to start with:

Hubbert�??s Petroleum Production Model: An Evaluation
and Implications for World Oil Production Forecasts,
Cavallo, Natural Resources Research, Vol. 13 (2004)

An Analysis of U.S. and World Oil Production
Patterns Using Hubbert-Style Curves
Bartlett, Mathematical Geology, Vol. 32 (2000)

An Assessment of Oil Supply and Its Implications for
Future Prices
Santini, Nonrenewable Resouces, Vol. 7 (1998)

Theses authors argue much more eloquently for Hubbert’s principals than I ever could. If you want, I can email them to you.

38

[quote]The Mage wrote:
joeisdead wrote:
“Oh and since you won’t be defending yourself, your a lying piece of crap. Geologist my ass.”

I wasn’t going to post again, but this is too funny. I stated my opinion. You don’t like it. Tough cookies. It’s funny how easily upset you get. How old are you?

Actually I wasn’t upset. I knew if I posted that line you couldn’t keep from posting again. (Sorry, I was intentionally provoking you.) But since you did post, and yet say you didn’t, what exactly does that mean? (I notice that you changed your name.)

FYI, I’m not a peak oil conspiracy theorist. I don’t believe in lack of oil will cause the apocalypse, or any of that nonsense. And I don’t care if you don’t believe that I’m a geologist.

Ah, but if your a geologist, why do you ignore the USGS data? And why would any scientist do that guerrilla posting as I pointed out, and not want to debate the issue?

If you have the science, present it.

I didn’t want to get into this, but I’ll post it anyways.

  1. World crude oil production peaked in 2005, I think around 73.5 million b/per/d. Data from ASPO and other independent sources confirm this. Keep in mind, that’s crude oil only. I think overall oil production peaked in 2006 somewhere in the 84 mbpd, but I could be wrong.

ASPO? The association for the study of peak oil and gas? Seriously? They are a political organization, not a scientific one, even though they act as if they are a scientific one.

I wouldn’t expect honest information about the health of consuming animal protein from PETA, and the same is true of the peak oil debate.

“Many fundamental concepts in the biogenic theory in the origin of crude oil do not correspond to actual data on its composition, properties, conditions of occurance, and carbon balance in the earth’s core, as observed repeatedly.”

Chemistry and Technology of Fuels and Oil, Volume 39, 1-2 (2003)

Interesting, a real journal quote. Did you read it? Read what you posted again. (Hint: It says biogenic, not abiogenic.) Especially fascinating. And I have been seriously doubting the abiogenic theory, but looking for real facts, not politics.

As for Hubberts curve, my point was that it is essentially correct, but not the final say on everything. Just as Newton’s theory wasn’t entirely correct, you can still use to the inverse square law to predict movements fairly accurately in everyday life. Although it’s far from perfect, most geologist consider his ideas sound and still use his principals.

There was a serious look into Hubberts peak about a year or two ago by Cambridge Energy Research Associates who state:

"The new report describes CERA’s liquids supply outlook as ‘not a view of endless abundance.’ However, based on a range of potential scenarios and field-by-field analysis, CERA finds that not only will world oil production not peak before 2030, but that the idea of a peak is itself “a dramatic but highly questionable image.'”

Nice job Mage. I think this is a college kid we are dealing with not a professional. The confusion of biogenic and abiogenic is telling.

Joe, keep posting. You might learn something or teach us something.

39

Yes, I’m a student. Not a professional, never claimed to be.

Anyways, forgive the typo in my biogenic/abiogenic post. I have several folders on my computer full of articles on both, and in my haste to post I choose the wrong one. Regardless, there are still lots of skeptical reports on the theory out there. I’ll see if I can post one later.

Next, I might as well tackle some other issues. For one CERA’s report has been heavily criticized, not just by the ASPO. CERA’s funding is also, I might add, directly supported by several oil conglomerates.

ASPO has challanged CERA’s claims by literally betting $100,000 dollars they’re wrong. See the story below.

http://www.energycurrent.com/index.php?id=4&storyid=8698

Next, I spent a whopping 5 minutes on google and found other organizations like the EIA that have numbers that also support my claims. Certainly the ASPO is biased, but if you reread my post you’ll notice I said it could be verified by others.

Bottom line:

Looking at data, crude oil production has peaked. Demand is higher than ever, yet supply has shrunk. It hasn’t even been able to stay level. Global production, including unconventional sources, also reached a high and has not been able to surpass it. ASPO and others like them seem to think that it will rise again and peak around 2010. Personally, I would go so far as to say it has peaked already, period. However, I could be proven wrong very easily if the numbers go up this year. We’ll see.

The numbers will settle the score eventually, eh?

40

[quote]joeisdead wrote:
Yes, I’m a student. Not a professional, never claimed to be.

Anyways, forgive the typo in my biogenic/abiogenic post. I have several folders on my computer full of articles on both, and in my haste to post I choose the wrong one. Regardless, there are still lots of skeptical reports on the theory out there. I’ll see if I can post one later.

Next, I might as well tackle some other issues. For one CERA’s report has been heavily criticized, not just by the ASPO. CERA’s funding is also, I might add, directly supported by several oil conglomerates.

ASPO has challanged CERA’s claims by literally betting $100,000 dollars they’re wrong. See the story below.

http://www.energycurrent.com/index.php?id=4&storyid=8698

Next, I spent a whopping 5 minutes on google and found other organizations like the EIA that have numbers that also support my claims. Certainly the ASPO is biased, but if you reread my post you’ll notice I said it could be verified by others.

Bottom line:

Looking at data, crude oil production has peaked. Demand is higher than ever, yet supply has shrunk. It hasn’t even been able to stay level. Global production, including unconventional sources, also reached a high and has not been able to surpass it. ASPO and others like them seem to think that it will rise again and peak around 2010. Personally, I would go so far as to say it has peaked already, period. However, I could be proven wrong very easily if the numbers go up this year. We’ll see.

The numbers will settle the score eventually, eh?[/quote]

In the first line of your first post:

[quote]joeisdead wrote:
I’m a geologist, …[/quote]

Note that “geology student” is NOT equal to “geologist”.

In any event, I think your argument misses wildly due to the fact that there are huge amounts of fossil fuels in the ground that were not economically viable when oil prices were lower. Now that prices have risen dramatically, those huge supplies are becoming economically viable. When production of these sources kicks in to gear, the supply of available oil will increase quite a bit.

It seems as though you are arguing that we have consumed over half of what is in the ground, and that is simply not true.