Shell exec says world not running out of oil
President of U.S. operations questions predictions of peak theorists
Posted: March 20, 2008
10:00 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Shell U.S. President John Hofmeister
John Hofmeister, the Houston-based president of Shell Oil's U.S. operations, expressed doubt about the validity of peak oil theory in an appearance on CNBC's Squawk Box show.

"The peak oil theory has really swamped the world. God bless Matt Simmons," Hofmeister told CNBC anchor Carl Quintanilla, according to a transcript provided to WND by CNBC. "His assumptions are correct based on his hypotheses, but his hypotheses are too narrow."

Matt Simmons, a Houston-based investment banker who specializes in the energy industry, is widely known for his 2005 book, "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy," in which he analyzed oil depletion data from Saudi Arabian wells.

The peak oil theory argues the world's oil resources are finite and will be completely exhausted at a future date.

Simmons, one of the most vocal and visible of the peak oil advocates in the industry today, has also been a frequent television guest arguing that the world is running out of oil.

In a recent YouTube.com-archived appearance on Bloomberg TV, Simmons argued the world has hit peak oil now, predicting prices as high as $300 a barrel

The peak oil theory, first espoused by Shell Oil geoscientist M. King Hubbert in 1956, has come under increasing criticism in recent years, as repeated predictions of world oil depletion have failed to match empirical data documenting increasing reserves.

For instance, data produced by the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration currently shows 1.3 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves worldwide, more than ever in recorded history, despite a doubling in world oil consumption since the 1970s.

In what has become a contentious worldwide debate over whether peak oil is fact or fiction, Simmons dismisses statistics that are not consistent with his depletion models.

The Energy Information Administration "has been as inept at forecasting oil outlook in both production and prices as anyone," Simmons told WND in an e-mail, "yet so few ever remember their awful forecasts."

Hofmeister explained to the CNBC audience why he believed Simmons' hypotheses were too narrow.

"In other words, Simmons is looking at conventional oil only," Hofmeister said. "In the industry, we look at unconventional oil as well."

Unconventional oil is a reference to oil that is not found as crude oil in reservoirs contained in sedimentary rock layers just below the surface of the earth.

An example of unconventional oil is the oil sands in Alberta, Canada, from which oil is produced.

When President Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001, the price of oil was approximately $24 a barrel, too low for the oil sands to be converted to oil economically.

But now, with the price of oil hovering near $100 a barrel, conversion of the oil sands has become economically feasible. Canada has become the largest supplier of foreign oil to the U.S., supplying the U.S. with more than 70 million barrels of oil a day, according to current EIA statistics.

Hofmeister also questioned whether Simmons' models accurately estimated the probability of new discoveries of previously unknown oil reserves.

"Simmons is also basing his conclusions on a particular study of one country, Saudi Arabia, while there are a whole lot of other reservoirs around the world we're still discovering," Hofmeister continued. "Some day we will peak, but not because we don't have enough oil."

For instance, WND recently reportedBrazil's announcement of the discovery of a new ultra-deep offshore oil field in the Atlantic Ocean, containing an estimated 5 to 8 billion barrels of oil, enough to expand the country's proven reserves by 40 to 50 percent.

Again, Simmons is dismissive.

"The great Brazil find, as best laid out in the February issue of World Oil, is a great example of a handful of extremely expensive, rank wildcat wells finding at least traces of hydrocarbons," he said.

"But until scores of other wells are both flow-tested and also cored, there is no solid idea of how much oil might ever be recovered," he continued. "Given the severe deepwater rig shortage, it might take a decade or more to genuinely test the Santos Basin."

"I would be delighted to be wrong on all this," Simmons wrote, "but too much hard data is too specific, and the optimist case is all faith-based theories."

Brazil disagrees with Simmons' pessimistic outlook.

Sergio Gabrielli, the chief executive officer of the state-run oil firm Petroleo Brasileiro SA claims the new find off the coast of Brazil may contain as much as 80 billions barrels in oil reserves which Brazil is moving to commercially exploit and further explore right now.

Simmons' pessimistic focus on oil depletion statistics are today being contested, even by traditional oil industry experts such as Daniel Yergin and his Cambridge Energy Research Associates, or CERA, in Cambridge, Mass.

"This is the fifth time that the world is said to be running out of oil," Yergin says in industry speeches. "Each time, technology and the opening of new frontier areas has banished the specter of decline. There's no reason to think that technology is finished this time."

Yergin came to world fame in the oil industry with the publication in 1991 of his now-classic book, "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power."

A Jan 18 press release on the CERA website presents additional data questioning one of Simmons' key assumptions.

In a study that examined oil depletion data from 811 separate oil fields accounting for about two-thirds of current global production and half of the total proved and probable conventional oil reserve base, CERA concluded the aggregate global decline rate is 4.5 percent, not the 8 percent cited in many studies.

The study, drawing from a source CERA described as "the most extensive field production database in the world," demonstrated lower decline rates in recent years due to better reservoir management practices and the impact of new technology.

CERA concluded the new data means "no near-term peak oil" is likely, directly countering the predictions of peak oil advocates such as Simmons.

Finally, as WND recently reported, new scientific discoveries have produced important evidence supporting the abiotic theory of the origin of oil.

Scientists have recently reported abiotic liquid hydrocarbons exuding from the mantle of the earth in fissures such as the Lost City Hydrothermal Field on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean and abundant abiotic liquid methane found on Titan, the giant moon of Saturn, as found by the Cassini-Huygens mission jointly launched by NASA, the European Space Agency and the Italian Space Agency.

Traditional petro-geologists have maintained that oil is biological in origin, arising from organic material deposited in sedimentary soil.

The organic theory of the origin of oil has served as a logical underpinning of the tautology at the heart of the peak oil theory.

Only a finite amount of biological material was deposited in sedimentary soil capable of forming oil, so there has to be a finite amount of oil.

The abiotic theory suggests oil is formed naturally in the mantle of the earth by chemical reactions such as are described in the Fisher-Tropsch equations the Nazis developed to make synthetic oil from coal prior to World War II.

The abiotic theory would suggest more deep-earth discoveries of oil should be forthcoming, especially with new technology to find and recover cost-effectively offshore oil.

With more than 70 percent of the earth covered by water, much previously unexplored territory remains to be explored for oil, as ultra-deep drilling technology continues to progress.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59502

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/political-map.jpg

http://www.oilempire.us/

OK, so peak oil is a "scam" because of abiotic theory?

There is strong abiotic theory -- which means oil will always gush out of the earth like crazy. None of the geologists propounding abiotic oil believe in "strong abiotic."

All abiotic geologists believe in "weak abiotic theory," which says that the oil can be replenished in geological time -- 1,000 years, 10,000 years, 10 million years.

In short, not quick enough to bring down the price of gasoline.

Also, Alex, I know you believe in good faith debate. Good faith debate means agreeing on definitions of terms, and sticking with those definitions. Here's my definition of Peak Oil, and why it's a problem:

The Maximum Rate of Production of Oil, during which production rate experiences a "bumpy plateau" for a time, then production falls off a cliff.

The Peak Oil theory has held up for every oil well and every oil producing region. The most prominent example is US production. The United States peaked in 1971 at 10 million barrels a day, and now we are down to 5 mbd.

There will always be some oil -- it's not a problem of running out.

The real problem is the growth economy. Let me repeat that.

The real problem with Peak Oil is the growth economy.

Our whole society, our whole civilization, requires continual economic growth to sustain itself. This means we always need more fuel to burn, more widgets to make, more people to buy those widgets and race around in them or use them to blow away leaves or whatever.

After the Global Maximum Oil Production is reached, and then goes into decline, bye bye growth economy, and therefore bye bye civilization as we know it, barring a KILL OFF of billions of people.

A kill off could save the growth economy (temporarily) by setting the clock back to the population of, say, 1950. With a global population of 2 billion, we could live on a mere 70 mbd, maybe less!

Let's just hope that most of those 2 billion or so survivors are honkies like us! :D

[I don't see a problem. Oil is cheaper than milk. Known reserves are larger than ever. New technology is developing daily. New discoveries like the one below happen all the time. In short, I see nothing the market can't respond to.]

Potential Oil Discovery at the Maricopa Project

Highlights

· The Wellington Maricopa #6 well has been successfully drilled to a total depth of 3,550 feet.

· Electric logs indicate a potential oil pay of approximately 130 feet in the primary Contact Sand objective.

· The well is being prepared for production testing.

http://newsstore.smh.com.au/apps/previewDocument.ac?docID=GCA00826097SGY

[All I see is bright Whites out there kicking ass, far as the eye can see.]

Gas field could be most vital discovery

Chesapeake Energy Corp. hinted Tuesday that its unconventional natural gas field in Louisiana unveiled this week has a chance to be its most significant find and likely "the most important operational announcement in the company's 19-year history.”

Aubrey McClendon, chairman and chief executive of Chesapeake, talked about the find during a morning conference call with investment analysts.

McClendon called the Louisiana find in the Haynesville Shale "major” and said his company estimates it holds at least 7.5 trillion cubic feet equivalent of natural gas and perhaps as much as 20 trillion cubic feet equivalent.

To give some perspective to that number, consider this: The company's reported proved reserves in the Barnett Shale at the end of 2007 were just more than 2 trillion cubic feet equivalent.

"We have tried hard during the past two years to keep our work on this new play secret, and we were successful until the last month or so, when other companies started to release information,” McClendon said.

http://newsok.com/article/3220806/1206506469

I see no reason to be endtimistic when it comes to any mineral or resource. The unfortunate news is we're not going to be done in by the things bruited in the press but by the things the press suppresses.

Well, look where the price of a barrel of oil is. Over 100 a barrel, an all time high.

All that happy news about discoveries and reserves hasn't brought the price back down to 30 a barrel.

Peak Oil?
Posted by Lew Rockwell at March 27, 2008 08:53 AM

Writes Matt Machaj: "The Polish currency was much sounder in recent years than the dollar

"It might be fun to see how the price of oil changed as supposingly 'peak oil' came in.

"In 2006 when oil was traded at 75 dolar per barrel, the dollar was worth 3.1 zlotys. This gives us the price of 232 zlotys per barrel.

"Today a barrel is worth 105 dollars, but the dollar is worth 2.25 zlotys. This gives us the price of 236,25 zlotys per barrel.

"In dollars the price of oil rose by 40%. In zlotys by 1.7%.

"Please tell me - is it peak oil or anti-peak fiat money?"

UPDATE from Matt: "Since Polish zlotys are also a fiat currency, subject to inflation, maybe it is worthwhile to consult other prices.

The price of a barrel of oil in:

Gold: 2006 - 0.125 of an ounce; today 0.111 ounce. Oil is 12.6% cheaper in terms of gold.

Silver: 2006 - 6 ounces; today 5.77. Oil is 3.99% cheaper in silver.

Platinum: 2006 - 0.0682 of an ounce; today 0.0525. Oil is 30% cheaper in platinum.

"I would love to see the price for oil expressed in apples."

"I would love to see the price for oil expressed in apples."

That obviously varies from region to region, fruit prices are very localized, but if you'd invested in apple trees here, rather than oil, you'd have a few more cents in your pocket after the last two years, and I can't believe I could actually answer that question, considering it wasn't even serious, but you can make the stats say anything.

If you compare the price from around 1981, which was about the $70 mark, and take into account inflation, then the price now is actually low.

If you compare the price from around the 1860/70's, which was around $80, and take into account inflation, then they are almost giving it away today.

If you compare the price from about 1998, about $12, and take into account inflation, then it looks very scary.

Oil is a very volatile market.

[I don't see a problem. Oil is cheaper than milk. ]

The entire U.S. economy isn't powered by cheap milk. American oil production peaked in 1970. It has steadily fallen since then. This is a major problem because the more oil we import from OPEC, the more we cede pricing power to them, and now with the growth of China and India the Arabs can always sell their product to Asians, which is why the price of oil has doubled since 2004.

Known reserves are larger than ever.

That doesn't mean those reserves will go to the United States or that they are comparable to the "easy oil" that has been wasted.

New technology is developing daily. New discoveries like the one below happen all the time. In short, I see nothing the market can't respond to.]

The free market collapsed into dust in mid-March; bankrupted by subprime mortgages, CDOs, and over-the-counter derivatives. The Federal Reserve has now pumped over half a trillion dollars into the banking system. Also, the free market responded to the oil shock of the 1970s by creating SUVs and more suburban sprawl than ever before.

"It might be fun to see how the price of oil changed as supposingly 'peak oil' came in.

The chaos in oil prices isn't being caused by Peak Oil, although it has the potential to give us a preview. No, the mischief can be traced back to the "structured finance" ponzi scheme and the laissez-faire capitalism of the last two decades.

Regulation of financial markets was relaxed under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and W. which allowed all these exotic new securities to be created. This culminated in 1999 with the repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act. Decades of offshoring has blown up the trade deficit which has systematically undermined the dollar. Real wages stagnated and predictably the savings rate declined and millions of Americans went into debt. This is exactly what happened in the Roaring Twenties.

Conservatives have spent the last fifty years trying to take us back to the Hoovervilles and margin calls. It looks like they may finally get their wish.

Oil is a speculative commodity that is sold on the world market. In a nutshell, it's simply a case of supply and demand. Both India and China, now becoming industrialized, is causing an increasing demand for oil. The recent rise in gas prices is more due to falling dollar, however.

The principal problem with most of these vast "discoveries" is seldom discussed:
EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI)
It's not something that can be overcome with money.

Oil is a speculative commodity that is sold on the world market. In a nutshell, it's simply a case of supply and demand. Both India and China, now becoming industrialized, is causing an increasing demand for oil. The recent rise in gas prices is more due to falling dollar, however.


I hope you are being sarcastic.

I hope you are being sarcastic.

No. In what sense is what I stated inaccurate?

Oil is a speculative commodity that is sold on the world market. In a nutshell, it's simply a case of supply and demand. Both India and China, now becoming industrialized, is causing an increasing demand for oil. The recent rise in gas prices is more due to falling dollar, however.

CAMBRIDGE , Mass. (March 19, 2008) – “The new fundamentals”—global financial dynamics and new cost structures—are driving the momentum that pushed oil prices to record highs around $110 a barrel, well ahead of what had been the previous inflation-adjusted record high of $103.59 set in April 1980, according to Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), an IHS company.

“Oil has become the ‘new gold’—a financial asset in which investors seek refuge as inflation rises and the dollar weakens,” said Daniel Yergin, chairman of CERA and executive vice president of IHS. “The credit crisis has been fueling the flight to oil and other commodities, and that will last until the dollar strengthens or the recession becomes more pronounced.”

“Shortages of equipment and personnel are dramatically raising the cost of developing an oil field,” said James Burkhard, managing director, Global Oil Group at CERA, citing the latest IHS/CERA Capital Cost Index, which shows a doubling of oil field costs over the last three years. “Adding to this pressure is increasingly heavy fiscal terms on oil investments in the form of higher taxes and greater state participation in oil projects. The net result is much higher oil prices are needed to support development of new oil supplies.

“These financial and cost structure dynamics are new in the sense that they were not strong forces in determining the oil price in the 1990s and even earlier this decade,” he continued. “The ‘old fundamentals’—the balance between demand and supply—still matter, but it is these new factors that are the driving force behind the record high.”

“Today, the falling demand for dollars is just as important as the rising demand for oil in determining the oil price,” said Yergin.

Press release continues (http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=9358)

Peak Oil Theory – “World Running Out of Oil Soon” – Is Faulty; Could Distort Policy & Energy Debate

Correct Model for Post-2030 Oil Supply is Undulating Plateau

In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new analysis of the subject by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) finds that the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels -- three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the theory’s proponents -- and that the “peak oil” argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future.

Complete Press Release

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., November 14, 2006 – In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new analysis of the subject by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) finds that the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels -- three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the theory’s proponents -- and that the “peak oil” argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future.

“The global resource base of conventional and unconventional oils, including historical production of 1.08 trillion barrels and yet-to-be-produced resources, is 4.82 trillion barrels and likely to grow,” CERA Director of Oil Industry Activity Peter M. Jackson writes in Why the Peak Oil Theory Falls Down: Myths, Legends, and the Future of Oil Resources. The CERA projection is based on the firm’s analysis of fields currently in production and those yet-to-be produced or discovered.

“The ‘peak oil’ theory causes confusion and can lead to inappropriate actions and turn attention away from the real issues,” Jackson observes. “Oil is too critical to the global economy to allow fear to replace careful analysis about the very real challenges with delivering liquid fuels to meet the needs of growing economies. This is a very important debate, and as such it deserves a rational and measured discourse.”

“This is the fifth time that the world is said to be running out of oil,” says CERA Chairman Daniel Yergin. “Each time -- whether it was the ‘gasoline famine’ at the end of WWI or the ‘permanent shortage’ of the 1970s -- technology and the opening of new frontier areas has banished the specter of decline. There’s no reason to think that technology is finished this time.”

The report emphasizes the importance of focusing on the critical issues. “It is not helpful to couch the debate in terms of a superficial analysis of reservoir constraints. It will be aboveground factors such as geopolitics, conflict, economics and technology that will dictate the outcome.” The report also points to such aboveground questions as timing and openness to investment, infrastructure development, and the impact of technological change on demand for oil.

http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/imageDisplays/imageDisplay.ashx?PK=16152&t=Image&f=gImageData&n=iImagePK

Continues (http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=8444)

I think that the Peak Oil theory is essentially correct. Kievsky made an important observation. It doesn't matter, insofar as the economic or ecological arguments are concerned, whether oil is a biological residue or whether it is abiotic in origin. The significant fact for these purposes is that it does not replenish at anything close to the speed at which we use it. Therefore, we are not in a steady state situation, but rather we are in a drawdown situation, and sooner or later the deposits will be diminished to the point beyond which they will have no more practical utility.

That point, as Dennis Lawrence noted, occurs when the energy needed to extract a barrel of oil, refine it, and transport its products to the end user, exceeds the energy contained in a barrel of oil. After that moment, oil is no longer a net energy resource, but is an energy sink. In order there to be any advantage in trying to use it, the EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested) for oil must be greater than one.

I believe that oil is a biological residue of very prehistoric plants, that its chemical potential energy is derived from sunshine via photosynthesis. I also suspect that any methane dissolved in the Earth's mantle would react with oxygen or oxygen bearing minerals to form CO2, water, and other more oxidized compounds. When a volcano outgases, you don't observe copious quantities of methane; rather, you can observe that a large fraction of it is carbon dioxide, as might be expected from chemistry. But whether my opinion on this matter is correct or not, it is certainly correct that there exists for our practical purposes a fixed supply of oil, and when we have used it all, we will be short on energy, as well as on such important derivatives of oil as artificial fertilizer, pesticides, plastics, and so on, and suffering from the loss of a readily transportable (because fluid) high-energy density resource.

"When will the oil run out?" is A question. But it is not THE question. The answer to it, by the way, is "never," because there will still be some oil left in the ground when it is no longer energetically profitable to attempt to extract it.

"When will the EROEI of oil become less than one?" is a better question because it addresses the primacy of energy physics over market economics as the real basis of life on Earth. The answer to it is "probably in less than 30 years." But this is not THE question, either.

THE question is "When will be start having big troubles on account of an insufficiency of energy resources?" And the answer is "As soon as any of the major currently producing oil fields, which are being kept at present at a sustained peak of extraction rate by seawater pumping, become so depleted that they are no longer worthwhile on account of a local EROEI < 1. That could happen (to, say, Ghawar) most any time.

There are two reasons, and they work together like synergistic devils. First, there's plain old supply-and-demand. Fossil fuel supply rates will go into decline. There's some dispute over when that will happen, and I happen to think that, globally, it already has begun to happen, that the rise in fuel and commodity prices means exactly what it seems to mean (i.e., 911 was a conspiracy, the holocaust is a hoax, but peak oil is neither), and that the end of civilization really is heading our way. Rising prices are a continuous spectrum kind of thing, but they trigger toggle events, such as a major trucking company or supermarket chain going out of business, in the same way that a rise in photon energy triggers the photoelectric effect.

As China's industry grows and its technology modernizes, it will bid for more and more of the world's remaining fossil fuel energy. What it gets, America and Europe do not get. That's why Bush sent US soldiers to Iraq, and it is why those troops are going to stay in Iraq. A similar thing can be said of India and for some other parts of the Third World. More people in the future than in the past will want energy, and there will be less of it in total global supply, and much less of it per bidder.

But besides supply and demand, we in the West have an aggravating condition: fractional reserve banking, monetized debt... in short, Jewish fake currencies posing as real money. The Jews began this game way back in 1850 when the Rothschilds agitated up moral outrage over slavery (they'd have tried to sew division between American Protestants and Catholics if slavery had not been more convenient). They continued the agitation until North and South went to war with each other, borrowing Jewish phony money to gear up their armies. The biggest purpose of the Civil War was to disunify and endebt the United States.

After the war was over and Lincoln was shot for issuing greenbacks and trying to send the Blacks back to Africa, the Jewish bankers hijacked the Senate and the House of Representatives, whose corrupted members cheated up the 14th Amendment - which to this day has no actual legal existence, however much the government tells us to the contrary at gunpoint. The 14th Amendment had two major purposes: (1) paving the way for race-mixing and (2) forbidding Congress to repudiate the public debt of the United States. Of course, since the 14th Amendment has no legality, Congress may indeed repudiate the public debt, and it may indeed make the United States a White country again, by law. It does not because of political pressures which the Jews continue to exert through the banks and through the media.

The next step was the Federal Reserve System, which is a privately owned (by Jews) central bank which has stolen from Congress the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. Louis T. McFadden tried to warn America of what the Jews were up to, and the Jews killed him for it. Kennedy tried to reverse that fiat accompli, and the Jews killed him, too. Ignorants like to point out that the President of the United States nominates the chief governor of the Federal Reserve, and the Senate must decide whether to confirm him or not. But it is a mistake to think that the Jews care one whit whether this Jew or that Jew will serve as the visible liaison to the US government for the next several years, and a liaison is all he is.

Anyway, the Federal Reserve exists to create money "from nothing" by loaning it into existence. The bankers do no work to justify its creation. They do no work to recompense the country for the income the derive from the interest payments. They don't even pay income tax on that income, and they are the only for-profit corporation in the United States with that particular exemption. They even have advantages over counterfeiters (of the illegal sort) in that they can make the American taxpayer buy them the materials to print their money with, the paper to print it on, and the labor involved in the process.

The key fact is that all money in circulation in the United States (or very nearly so) is the aggregate principal of a great many loans. There is no other money set aside, interest free, to pay the interest with. And that means that the country as a whole can never escape endebtedness, so long as it continues to play the game by the Jews' rules. That's why the 14th Amendment's prohibition on repudiating the US public debt was so important to them. In fact, that debt must, by mathematical laws, continue to grow and grow unstoppably, eventually to the point where the whole productive power of the American people can no longer suffice to pay even the maintenance costs, the interest owed on the principal.

Although a few people will escape their own endebtedness through hard work, clever trades, or by means that are or ought to be illegal, they can do so only by capturing a portion of someone else's loan money, thereby leaving that fellow worse off than he was before.

The game is rigged so that the Jews can, at the time of their choosing, snatch away from us every worthwhile thing we have made and appropriate it for their own use, without doing any compensatory labor for our benefit in exchange.

Not content with even this, however, the Jews on the Federal Reserve banks augment their basic strategy with a contrived cycle of booms and busts. During the boom times, the Jews lower the interest rates to encourage Americans to borrow their fake money and use it to hire workers to build valuable things, or to buy them once built. Such as houses, for example. But at the moment the Jews believe that Americans are as deeply into debt as they are going to ever get, they contract the money supply and leave tens of millions of debtors without the means to repay their obligations. This is how the Jews "squeeze the sponge." They emerge at this time to haul the debtor Americans into court, whereupon they strip us of what all that we had made with our minds, with our hands, at our risk, and dump us into homelessness, into the prisons, or into our graves.

Demand for energy resources rises exponentially because debt-interest increases the owed amounts at an exponential rate. As long as the supplies of energy kept pace with this demand, most of the people subject to Jewish economics could keep their place through constantly accelerating the rate at which they used energy. That's why prices have already begun climbing, even though the rate of oil extraction has been maintained at a plateau, for the moment, by seawater pressure. A plateau isn't good enough to keep the Jewish vampire away. He will emerge from his crypt and destroy us with our own courthouses unless we either regain an exponentially increasing energy supply, force the US government to quit pretending that the 14th Amendment is real law, or else kill all the Jews involved in the monetized debt scams that threaten us.

When the rate at which energy becomes available begins to decline the Jew cannot fail to emerge to drink our blood. He might even find ways to go after those of us who believe ourselves safe because we are not in debt. For example, the Jews might start manipulating the property tax laws. Every Jewish home? A temple. It has a religious tax-exemption. Every gentile home? A den of vice! It must be taxed double or triple, or a dozen times what it was before, until the goy homeowner can pay no more, at which time the sheriff will appear to dispossess him, and his house will be bought at auction by those Jewish banks who will already have in their hands the homes of the gentile debtors.

Jerry Abbott

I agree with Jerry . His points are valid .

Oil is just going to become progressively more scarce , therefore expensive .

Oil , being the life's blood of industrial societies , will choke off growth in those most dependent on it . The countries that can produce with the least use of oil will prosper .

France and Japan with their massive nuclear capacity , Switzerland with cheap hydro and electric trains , will be prime examples of nations that will prosper .

The US is in the worst situation , long distances , history of reliance on cheap oil , no mass transit to speak of . Worst and most destructive of all , a dumbed down population of mixed races . Rio , here we come ( without nice beaches and paradise weather).

I think that the Peak Oil theory is essentially correct. Kievsky made an important observation. It doesn't matter, insofar as the economic or ecological arguments are concerned, whether oil is a biological residue or whether it is abiotic in origin. The significant fact for these purposes is that it does not replenish at anything close to the speed at which we use it. .......

Jerry Abbott

Probably one of the best posts I've read on here.

Bravo sir!

Yeah, kudos to Jerry for that post.

The classic piece on Peak Oil:

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr70.html

I personally think oil is abiotic, but I don't know enough about the subject to argue the point one way or the other. I just don't see how prehistoric plants get miles underground. Also I completely subscribe to the expanding earth theory. Neal Adams' stuff on that is killer.

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

You can find them on jewtube as well, but the navigation is a bit screwed up between the parts.

When the rate at which energy becomes available begins to decline the Jew cannot fail to emerge to drink our blood. He might even find ways to go after those of us who believe ourselves safe because we are not in debt. For example, the Jews might start manipulating the property tax laws. Every Jewish home? A temple. It has a religious tax-exemption. Every gentile home? A den of vice! It must be taxed double or triple, or a dozen times what it was before, until the goy homeowner can pay no more, at which time the sheriff will appear to dispossess him, and his house will be bought at auction by those Jewish banks who will already have in their hands the homes of the gentile debtors.

Jerry Abbott

While I agree that they'll start trying to find ways to get the stubborn goyim who won't go into debt to pay them, I find this scenario a bit steep. It would violate the doctrine of equality, and the "chosen" already have a lot of pressure on them to adhere to their own contrived ideology, as evidenced by the new surge in Leftist "anti-semitism" (a reaction to Jewish behavior in Israel).

A substantial rise in property taxes could be the impetus for violent rebellion (particularly among the gun-toting red-staters working steady-wage jobs).

The absolute subjugation of America won't be the same as it was for Russia. American Society, unlike Russian Society, is not composed of meek peasants. There's still plenty of the "you're no gooder'n me" attitude among American citizens (equality at its finest), no matter how stupid.

Americans, while Lemmings, are still principled (this is why Kwans, operating on equality principles rather than tribal principles, still refuse to see reality as America is destroyed before their eyes). A property tax differential based on race/religion would result in loud protest. If Jews tried to pull what you're describing, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

It's much easier for Organized Jewry to steal by inflating the money supply. When you tell a typical white that he's getting his hourly wages cut in half over the next five years, he's going to get pissed off. But if prices for goods and services doubles, and he receives a ten-percent pay raise in that same time, he'll be none the wiser. Blank eyed and busy with idle pleasures - the modern Kwan is a consumer and nothing more.

It's much easier for Organized Jewry to steal by inflating the money supply. When you tell a typical white that he's getting his hourly wages cut in half over the next five years, he's going to get pissed off. But if prices for goods and services doubles, and he receives a ten-percent pay raise in that same time, he'll be none the wiser. Blank eyed and busy with idle pleasures - the modern Kwan is a consumer and nothing more.

70% of the official US economy is consumer spending. The jews depend on the official US economy to make their money.

They are killing the goose that lays the golden egg in destroying the American middle class. The middle class, who keep society running, will become voluntarily poor, but to adapt to this they will develop a local economy that cuts out the jewish and ZOG middlemen.

After many years of careful consideration, I have concluded that the jewish manipulation of our economy and culture has not been part of a long term evil plan, but more a way to "fart in our faces" and laugh about it for the short term. They don't plan for the long term, and this serves them well in some ways. Our economy is on a jewish timeline -- what is the profit for the next 3 months? Our culture of a 5 second attention span is also a jewish timeline.

An American middle class that becomes voluntarily poor will change these timelines. They will make their local economy sustainable in the long term, and they will start thinking about bigger and bigger ideas again, which will be VERY BAD FOR THE JEWS.

The power to liberate ourselves is in our hands. We have powerful European brains and tremendous accumulated knowledge at our fingertips. We just haven't been using them, collectively speaking. And so we need to teach more and more of our people how to actually use their brains, for a change.

Yes, the Jews have been thinking only short-ter-guh, why do I give a shit explaining things... ?

If they wanted to raise property taxes, then that means rent prices will have to rise. This is not tolerable to the majority of the population. They can't deal with such a rise in rent prices without revolt.

I had a consistent theory to explain things, but I realize no one would give a shit about understanding it, so I stopped caring, and I'm happy to reap the rewards that come with understanding it - what about you?

World's largest oil field in...N. and S. Dakota and Montana
World's Biggest Oil Reserves
In S Dakota, E Montana
Author Unknown
7-7-9

The U.S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota; western South Dakota; and extreme eastern Montana ..... check THIS out:

The Bake is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Purdah Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels.. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.

'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea..' says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.

'This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years.' reports, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin, but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bake.' And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U.S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

1. That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight.

2. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from TWO YEARS AGO!

U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World! Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.

Here are the official estimates:

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

- 18-times as much oil as Iraq

- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait

- 22-times as much oil as Iran

- 500-times as much oil as Yemen

- and it's all right here in the Western United States.

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East - more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace - it has to.. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so!

Now, while you're thinking about it .... and hopefully P.O'd, do this:

3. Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you want to complain about gas prices .. because by doing NOTHING, you've forfeited your right to complain.

Now, I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.

This is all true. Check it out at the link below. GOOGLE it or follow this link. It will blow your mind.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

The USGS estimate of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil has a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels. Scientists conducted detailed studies in stratigraphy and structural geology and the modeling of petroleum geochemistry. They also combined their findings with historical exploration and production analyses to determine the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil estimates.

the US uses 20 million barrels a day. 4.3 billion barrels is about 215 days worth of oil just for the US. For world consumption, which is now at 75 million barrels, down from 84 million barrels, it's 2 whole months worth! 75 million times 60 days equals 4.5 billion barrels.

The person hyping the report claims there is 503 billion barrels, but it doesn't say that anywhere in the report. You need to actually read the link, and not just the hyped up spintro for the link.

1 cubic meter of natural gas, burned in oxygen, gives 3.9e7 J of heat energy, which must be used, subject to thermal and mechanical losses, to generate electricity. Doing some conversion in units, one cubic foot of natural gas yields 0.306 kWh (in primary heat).

Burning 20 trillion cubic feet of natural gas yields 6.12e12 kWh (in primary heat). The annual electrical energy consumption of the United States is 4e12 kWh. Once you account for the thermal, mechanical, and transmission losses, the Haynesville Shale won't even provide 1 year's worth of electrical power to the United States, even if the upper estimate for its capacity is true.

I think that the Peak Oilers are probably right. From what I've heard, the big oil fields in Saudi Arabia are getting the seawater pressure treatment to keep them producing oil at high rates for as long as there remains any oil at all to be produced. What would have been an almost "bell curve" in extraction versus time thus becomes a plateau, followed by a cliff -- a sharp drop to zero -- when the oil is finally gone.

Remember, this depletion phenomenon has already been observed in the case of individual wells, particular oil fields, and whole countries. It's not so much of a generalization to figure it will happen to the entire world. It hasn't happened YET, but it will ONLY happen ONCE.

A significantly more conservative estimate for the utility of the Bakken oil field is found here (http://www.green-planet-solar-energy.com/bakken-oil.html). An obvious motive for hyped resource claims is to induce investors to speculate and then lose their shirts.

Jerry Abbott

the US uses 20 million barrels a day. 4.3 billion barrels is about 215 days worth of oil just for the US. For world consumption, which is now at 75 million barrels, down from 84 million barrels, it's 2 whole months worth! 75 million times 60 days equals 4.5 billion barrels.

The person hyping the report claims there is 503 billion barrels, but it doesn't say that anywhere in the report. You need to actually read the link, and not just the hyped up spintro for the link.

I merely cut and pasted that from another forum. It's probably bunkum. You know a lot more about this stuff than me.

Nice to read your posts and essays Mr. Abbott. Way over my head, but still nice to read. The one on the front page about Blacks and IQ was exceptional.

Affirmative Action truly is an anti-white abomination.

what they want is all the oil to go to china so they can sell us cheap wothless plastic shit for 10,000 times cost.

Annual Average Domestic Crude Oil Prices
1946-Present
U.S. Average
(in $/bbl.)
Year Nominal Inflation Adjusted
1946 $1.63 $17.73
1947 $2.16 $20.84
1948 $2.77 $24.86
1949 $2.77 $25.10
1950 $2.77 $24.84
1951 $2.77 $23.02
1952 $2.77 $22.50
1953 $2.92 $23.49
1954 $2.99 $24.02
1955 $2.93 $23.56
1956 $2.94 $23.35
1957 $3.14 $24.09
1958 $3.00 $22.42
1959 $3.00 $22.20
1960 $2.91 $21.24
1961 $2.85 $20.57
1962 $2.85 $20.32
1963 $2.91 $20.51
1964 $3.00 $20.86
1965 $3.01 $20.59
1966 $3.10 $20.60
1967 $3.12 $20.18
1968 $3.18 $19.69
1969 $3.32 $19.53
1970 $3.39 $18.84
1971 $3.60 $19.18
1972 $3.60 $20.57
1973 $4.75 $22.89
1974 $9.35 $40.84
1975 $12.21 $48.91
1976 $13.10 $49.66
1977 $14.40 $51.22
1978 $14.95 $49.47
1979 $25.10 $73.89
1980 $37.42 $98.07
1981 $35.75 $84.93
1982 $31.83 $71.20
1983 $29.08 $63.00
1984 $28.75 $59.71
1985 $26.92 $53.98
1986 $14.44 $28.41
1987 $17.75 $33.69
1988 $14.87 $27.16
1989 $18.33 $31.88
1990 $23.19 $38.17
1991 $20.20 $31.99
1992 $19.25 $29.59
1993 $16.75 $25.02
1994 $15.66 $22.78
1995 $16.75 $23.71
1996 $20.46 $28.12
1997 $18.64 $25.05
1998 $11.91 $15.77
1999 $16.56 $21.39
2000 $27.39 $34.29
2001 $23.00 $28.03
2002 $22.81 $27.33
2003 $27.69 $32.47
2004 $37.66 $42.97
2005 $50.04 $55.21
2006 $58.30 $62.36
2007 $64.20 $66.66
2008 $91.48 $91.35
2009 Partial $43.11 $43.56

For cognoscenti, primary heat is adiabatic.

I think this whole debate is ridiculous. When people pay for anything in a free market economy, it is usually a purchase made with respect to every other purchase opportunity, not a single commodity like oil. In the case of energy, the purchase of oil will be made in accordance with market needs. Other sources will rise up to meet needs as the price of oil rises. Once economies of scale kick in for these new technologies, the prices will go back down.

Back in the 80's oil fell to less than 20 dollars a barrel and that killed off research into solar energy. As oil has risen to 80-100 dollar per barrel in recent years, solar research has taken off again. Frankly, we are there now. As a story linked from Kurzweilai.net pointed out the other day, crystaline silicon solar power cells are actually cost competitive with commercial power NOW. We simply need to get the infrastructure in place.

Even if solar power didn't pan out, there are a lot of other technologies. MIT technology review had an article a while back about how Craig Venter is looking to put bio-engineered algae, producing light oil, into production within 10 months.

The biggest problem in all this, as usual, is the ham handed government meddling. For example, corn ethanol subsidies which entrench an approach that can never work in the end.

The problem with peak oil advocates is that they make the classic mistake of all socialist. They look at problem in isolation without understanding the larger economic context. Part of the larger economic context is hidden from them (i.e. wealth creation and business building) and so they distrust economic models that rely on such things. From their perspective, there is no direct linear relationship between economic cause and effect. They believe (wrongly) that government planning is more rational and predictable.

I believe this why they get their analysis wrong.

WN have an additional error. I think there is a fair amount of wishful thinking going on. The Great WN Apocalypse demands the descent of civilization into a Mad Max style collapse. Somehow (waving our hands furiously here) this will save white people from the ignominious slow roll genocide currently being conducted against them. Because of this error in thinking WN tend to gleefully attach themselves like a lamprey to any disaster scenario that floats by.

What is more likely to happen is that we will muddle through (as I have said before). Oil will fluctuate and more and more technologies will come on line as the basic science and manufacturing improves. Efficiencies will also increase and eventually those two trends will converge such that the current energy "crisis" will simply fade from our memory (to be replaced by another, no doubt).

We may have a Gerald Celente style "collapse of sorts, but that will be due to the credit bubble and hyper-inflation, not oil, and even then it wont give us what we want. All it will do is entrench and justify the depredations of the government.

In the end, if white people are to be saved, it will be by (intelligent) action, not by sitting around rooting for the end of the world.

-Brian

Other sources will rise up to meet needs as the price of oil rises. Once economies of scale kick in for these new technologies, the prices will go back down.

Brian,

I have, in other posts, spoken about why oil is going to be very difficult to replace. It is a very portable energy, it had a very high EROEI in its heyday, it is used for many things besides burning diesel and gasoline such as plastics, fertilizers, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, et cetera.

What do you plan to pave the roads with? Solar panels? Algae?

Replacement technologies such as building massive windmill farms would require a large oil based economy to ramp up.

So if you want to make a credible technofix argument, demonstrate a knowledge of all the things oil is used for, and what techno replacements you envision for oil, and how you think those technofixes will be put into place as the EROEI of oil extraction moves ever closer to neutral.

You are a smart guy, but you are picking an argument in an arena where you have not done enough research. You think it's a slam dunk debate. it's not. The technofixers have been slammed. You come along, you want to rehash the technofix argument. That's fine, but do your research first. Take this debate seriously, if you want to step into it at all.

I actually know some algae energy investors. It's a good idea, but it's not scaleable to replace 85 milllion barrels of oil a day.

Actually I HAVE done research in this area Kievsky.

I worked in a RF plasma deposition lab for over 2 years (I'm dating myself there, lol) ,working on making better semiconductor substrates and finding better ways to deposit superfine layers of silicon dioxide on crystaline silicon wafers. My specific job (actually my teams jobs) involved measuring the thickness of the SiO2, creating computerized 3D surface topology maps and determining the resistivity and conductivity of the chips.

After that I worked on molecular modeling techniques, which wasn't directly involved in solar research, but was still in the general vicinity (in terms of scale).

Beyond that, I have built my own solar panels and PEM fuel cells and am in the process of writing a book on those subjects.

So believe me, I am very much aware of the technology.

My previous post wasn't meant to recapitulate the history of this technology or do a run down of all the technical pro and cons, it was simply meant to make the point that the problem is really more economy and infrastructure than technical.

I could write a book on this subject (In fact I AM), so I really don't want to post all that either.

Gasoline has about 34 MJ of energy per liter. That kind of energy density will be hard to beat for something that burns that slow (i.e. isn't explosive). Also, as you point out, gasoline is portable.

I have made the point on VNN before about this very thing. As I pointed out then, and I will point out again, the solution to our energy problems will be in the form of differentiated solutions.

What will happen is that these differentiated technologies will percolate throughout the economy and find niches where they can be useful. They wont all be able to replace gasoline everywhere, but they will replace gasoline in their respective niches. This in turn will free up gasoline for the wider market.

This is a common theme in market economies. Cars for example, went from being mostly steel, to mostly aluminum, plastic and ceramic because of this trend. It will happen in energy production as well.

Anyway, I don't want to belabor the point, I just wanted to point out that the problem is largely economic, not technical.

Brian

Actually I HAVE done research in this area Kievsky.

I worked in a RF plasma deposition lab for over 2 years (I'm dating myself there, lol) ,working on making better semiconductor substrates and finding better ways to deposit superfine layers of silicon dioxide on crystaline silicon wafers. My specific job (actually my teams jobs) involved measuring the thickness of the SiO2, creating computerized 3D surface topology maps and determining the resistivity and conductivity of the chips.

After that I worked on molecular modeling techniques, which wasn't directly involved in solar research, but was still in the general vicinity (in terms of scale).

Beyond that, I have built my own solar panels and PEM fuel cells and am in the process of writing a book on those subjects.

So believe me, I am very much aware of the technology.

My previous post wasn't meant to recapitulate the history of this technology or do a run down of all the technical pro and cons, it was simply meant to make the point that the problem is really more economy and infrastructure than technical.

I could write a book on this subject (In fact I AM), so I really don't want to post all that either.

Gasoline has about 34 MJ of energy per liter. That kind of energy density will be hard to beat for something that burns that slow (i.e. isn't explosive). Also, as you point out, gasoline is portable.

I have made the point on VNN before about this very thing. As I pointed out then, and I will point out again, the solution to our energy problems will be in the form of differentiated solutions.

What will happen is that these differentiated technologies will percolate throughout the economy and find niches where they can be useful. They wont all be able to replace gasoline everywhere, but they will replace gasoline in their respective niches. This in turn will free up gasoline for the wider market.

This is a common theme in market economies. Cars for example, went from being mostly steel, to mostly aluminum, plastic and ceramic because of this trend. It will happen in energy production as well.

Anyway, I don't want to belabor the point, I just wanted to point out that the problem is largely economic, not technical.

Brian

Ok, so you do some technical work. How do you plan to pave the roads? Are you planning on keeping the car system going, or moving to mass transit?

The problem is still a technical one. You haven't said very much in the above post about how you will replace plastics, fertilizers, and pharmaceuticals, and keep the cars running.

Replacement technologies such as building massive windmill farms would require a large oil based economy to ramp up.

Maybe off topic, but thought I would add that the NC General Assembly passed a law last week banning windmills from mountain tops.

I am working on solar at my home. Hot water for my boiler to offset oil use but you can only get so much heat per day out of a panel. Also have some solar for backup power for my home. Mainly, it will run the fridge, the boiler and a few lights. That is it. Anyone that is going total solar or water, etc. will have to police their energy use and won't be able to live like they do with a power plant supplying every electron.

Getting rid of oil is not rational. Too many things are dependent on it. I agree with Kievsky. Just fertilizer alone. How many would starve without it? If peak oil theory holds true then civilization is going to go backwards for a while should we run out. And, yes, we do need a petroleum based society to make solar panels and other items using plastic.

As for roads, Kievsky, I note that some of the Roman roads still exist. Meanwhile, my state paves a road and we are lucky if it can last three or four years.

@ Brian: I used to have to replace a lot of CMOS devices when I did repair work. Why can't you fuckers make them less susceptible to static, overvoltage, etc?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5588

Renewable Transition 2: EROEI Uncertainty

Posted by jeffvail on August 10, 2009 - 10:11am
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: eroei, original, peak oil, renewable energy, systems theory, transition [list all tags]

In the first part of this series, I discussed the practicality of a future transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources—specifically renewable sources of electricity such as solar and wind power. One little-discussed hurdle is the fact that, because we must invest energy in renewables up front, a rapid transition threatens to greatly impact near-term demand for energy resulting in unwanted economic and political effects. Another is that, because we will initially use fossil fuels to build our renewable infrastructure, the transition to renewables will result in a short-term increase in carbon emissions. The extent to which both of these impacts will be significant, even their potential to foreclose the possibility of such a transition, will turn on the net energy, or Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI), of available renewable energy technology.

As I alluded to last time, while there are many EROEI numbers floating about for solar, wind, etc., these numbers are far less accurate or verifiable than is, I believe, commonly assumed. I’ll argue that our measurements of EROEI are fundamentally flawed, at least for some purposes. Most EROEI studies serve as a tool to compare different technologies or to gauge advances in technology--a role for which they are generally well suited. However, when viewed from a complete systems perspective, current EROEI figures fail to provide an inclusive measurement. I’ll argue that, for purposes of planning a civilizational transition, a meaningful meansure must be inclusive of all energy inputs. Finally, I’ll propose a possible proxy-measurement to address the methodological issues surrounding EROEI.

“Conventional” EROEI vs. “systemic” EROEI measurements: I’ve been fairly candid with my critique of conventional EROEI measurements, even suggesting that many such measurements are more accurately characterized as marketing copy than empirical, verifiable measurements. This is perhaps a bit unfair--the core of my critique is that these conventional EROEI measurements, while valuable and perhaps even accurate for some purposes, are wholly inadequate to measure the systemic implications of a transition to these alternatives. Here, to assist this critique, I’ve divided EROEI measurements into two broad categories.

What I’m calling “conventional” EROEI measures use an artificial boundary to simplify their accounting by excluding energy that, while certainly an input, is several steps removed from the direct manufacture of the renewable. This includes standard input-output analysis, process analysis, and hybrids of these two. This type of EROEI estimate (as it must fairly be called) seems to have utility in two areas: 1) comparing the relative EROEI of similar renewables (for example, two different turbine designs), and 2) measuring the progress of design advances (for example, the effect of improving the design of one given type of turbine).

The second type of EROEI is what I’m calling “systemic” EROEI. While I think this terminology is self-explanatory, here I mean a complete system-wide measure of all outputs compared to all inputs. The value of such a measure is in determining the viability of such technologies to support human civilization as a whole, to sustain certain levels of growth (or contraction), etc.

The problem with calculating EROEI: Why the need for two sets of EROEI calculations? Why not just use one fundamentally “true” measurement methodology and call it a day? The answer is that measuring EROEI is far more challenging than is commonly presumed because of (among several reasons) the following question: how attenuated an energy input is necessarily included in our calculations? Certainly the electricity and natural gas used in a turbine manufacturing plant must be included. What about the energy used to build that plant? What about the energy used to build the machinery used to build that plant? What about the energy used to build the plant to build that machinery, ad infinitum? This is just the tip of the iceberg, but already you can see where this is going: we must draw an artificial boundary if we hope to actually count these energy inputs, but by so doing we necessarily exclude a portion of the actual energy inputs—inputs the significance of which are unknown and unknowable (because we can only know their significance by actually counting them—which brings us back to our initial problem). The outcome of these methodologies, while admittedly the result of actual counting of measurable inputs and outputs, remains but an estimate.

Are these excluded inputs inconsequential? Do we really need to count the energy used to harvest the grains used to feed the longshoreman that loaded the component ores on a dock in Asia as an energy input to the turbine parts that were produced from that ore? And what is the aggregate impact of these attenuated inputs? First, I suggest that we do not and cannot know, as argued above. See the figure below:

rest at link

The problem with innovation is that if it were predictable, it wouldn't be innovation. All we can say is that it will happen.

The socialist mindset insist that present problems will continue in a linear fashion toward an indefinite future, the free enterprise mindset insist that if the price is right, someone will find a solution.

History is a standing rebuke to the former proposition and a continual comfort to the latter.

Beyond that, I can only say that a lot really depends on what you WANT to believe.

My experience in life is that people find the solutions they are looking for if they look hard enough. The question is, what solutions are you looking for?

Brian

hey brian, this is a weird question and feel free to ignore. I noticed you were a foster child growing up and it seemed you had a few foster families (although they seem to have done really well by you).

was just wondering if you think being adopted at a young age for life by a homo couple (let's say two lesbians ince that is less controversial than two men), while nowhere near as good as a hetero couple, would be better than being a foster child?

@ Brian: I used to have to replace a lot of CMOS devices when I did repair work. Why can't you fuckers make them less susceptible to static, overvoltage, etc?

Alas, what really matters is how close an EMP event is and the size of the circuit element, so I'm afraid you'll have to blame God. :)

Whenever you have a static discharge, it emits an EMP that in turn induces a current in nearby circuit elements. In modern integrated circuit elements (e.g. and intel cpu) the circuit tracings are about 35 nanometers wide. That is about 3-4 hydrogen atoms wide.

Such small circuits can easily be shorted out by even a seemingly insignificant static burst, but they are generally well protected as long as they are properly installed.

I never really made cmos chips per se' though. My research was at a more basic level (i.e. developing consistent deposition procedures to be used in chip design)

-Brian

was just wondering if you think being adopted at a young age for life by a homo couple (let's say two lesbians ince that is less controversial than two men), while nowhere near as good as a hetero couple, would be better than being a foster child?

At the risk sounding like I'm copping out, I guess I could say "that depends."
It depends on the adopting parents involved.

I wouldn't have said that a couple decades ago. I would have said unequivocally that being placed in foster care is infinitely preferable to growing up with homos (of either gender), but now I'm not so sure.

Even when I was a ward of the state, there was a lot of corruption, perversion, incompetence, and general mayhem. These days it is tremendously worse. Frankly, if you put a female child in one of these state run homes, she WILL be sexually abused. Boys sometimes as well.

Add to that to the drugs and unsupervised delinquents (they mix in child offenders with normal foster kids because they think it makes everyone feel better) as well the indifferent staff members and it's a wonder any kid makes it out whole.

One of the dirty little secrets of these 'group homes' is that they are run by the lowest common denominators of the "social work" professions (psychology, etc). These jobs pay next to nothing and the people who take those jobs are people who almost flunked out of college. The upshot here is that there is a high percentage of niggers (yes that is the appropriate word in this context).

These cretins are barely literate and often on the prowl. In fact I can say with a great deal of certainty that one of the reasons they take these jobs is for the chance to score some underage ass (male or female).

Anyway, my point here is that a child in these circumstances in going to encounter homos, it's just a matter of how and where. Under those circumstances, being raised by a couple of lesbians my not be the worst choice.

My first choice however would be for a loving and supportive foster home. The first foster home I stayed in (the farm) was mostly like that, except that the foster parents were both in their early 60's by the time I was there. They had kept children for over 30 years and had become very distant and cold toward the kids (I expect as a defense measure).

-Brian

At the risk sounding like I'm copping out, I guess I could say "that depends."
It depends on the adopting parents involved.

I wouldn't have said that a couple decades ago. I would have said unequivocally that being placed in foster care is infinitely preferable to growing up with homos (of either gender), but now I'm not so sure.

Even when I was a ward of the state, there was a lot of corruption, perversion, incompetence, and general mayhem. These days it is tremendously worse. Frankly, if you put a female child in one of these state run homes, she WILL be sexually abused. Boys sometimes as well.

Add to that to the drugs and unsupervised delinquents (they mix in child offenders with normal foster kids because they think it makes everyone feel better) as well the indifferent staff members and it's a wonder any kid makes it out whole.

One of the dirty little secrets of these 'group homes' is that they are run by the lowest common denominators of the "social work" professions (psychology, etc). These jobs pay next to nothing and the people who take those jobs are people who almost flunked out of college. The upshot here is that there is a high percentage of niggers (yes that is the appropriate word in this context).

These cretins are barely literate and often on the prowl. In fact I can say with a great deal of certainty that one of the reasons they take these jobs is for the chance to score some underage ass (male or female).

Anyway, my point here is that a child in these circumstances in going to encounter homos, it's just a matter of how and where. Under those circumstances, being raised by a couple of lesbians my not be the worst choice.

My first choice however would be for a loving and supportive foster home. The first foster home I stayed in (the farm) was mostly like that, except that the foster parents were both in their early 60's by the time I was there. They had kept children for over 30 years and had become very distant and cold toward the kids (I expect as a defense measure).

-Brian


very depressing. sounds like you were one of the lucky few in that at least your situation, while not ideal, wasn't abusive. thanks for your thoughts.

Brian,

Your post reminded me of a Gary Larson cartoon, "And then a miracle occurs."

The problem with innovation is that if it were predictable, it wouldn't be innovation. All we can say is that it will happen.
Brian

http://politicalderby.com/wp-admin/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/miracle_occurs.jpg

Brian,

Your post reminded me of a Gary Larson cartoon, "And then a miracle occurs."


That's more descriptive of your side. All peak oil has is a prediction in chart form. The cornucopian side has pretty much all history on its side. Is there any kind of mineral for which there aren't more proven reserves today than at any point in history?

My point is, I think when you and other anti-cornucopians argue that people ought to live X way instead of Y because it has (A, B, C advantages), you're plausible, on a practice by practice basis. When you argue people ought to live X instead of Y because of (global warming) (peak oil), you're not credible at all.

To rejoin peak oil in a phrase,

Inevitability doesn't need a p.r. firm.

Hey, I got this great idea. Since the oil is running out according to the "peak oil" guys how about we help the oil companies recoup some of their investment for all the oil rigs, tankers and pipelines they paid for. We could call it the Oil Depletion Allowance or something. Give-em a big tax break so they can make even more money and invest it in say..."nukeler" power or perhaps even the purchase of politicians and "experts" so as to help legislate the peak oil and stuff.

Damn, sometimes I amaze myself with my brilliance.

The government has ways of lowering the CPI (lying, and removing fast rising items. Housing was replaced with owner's equivalent rent in the early 80's.

Let us use postal rates as a proxy for price rises. In 1958, stamps were three centz. To-day, they are forty-four centz. This is 5.4%/year over 51 years.

Regular gas in 1958 was thirty centz- to keep up with postal rates, to-day is should be $4.40 per gallon. But it'z only $2.63, a mere 60% of the prediction!

If there were a shortage of crude, then. . .

Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel'
New evidence supports premise that Earth produces endless supply
Posted: February 01, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com


A study published in Science Magazine today presents new evidence supporting the abiotic theory for the origin of oil, which asserts oil is a natural product the Earth generates constantly rather than a "fossil fuel" derived from decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs.

The lead scientist on the study ? Giora Proskurowski of the School of Oceanography at the University of Washington in Seattle ? says the hydrogen-rich fluids venting at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean in the Lost City Hydrothermal Field were produced by the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in the mantle of the earth.

The abiotic theory of the origin of oil directly challenges the conventional scientific theory that hydrocarbons are organic in nature, created by the deterioration of biological material deposited millions of years ago in sedimentary rock and converted to hydrocarbons under intense heat and pressure.

While organic theorists have posited that the material required to produce hydrocarbons in sedimentary rock came from dinosaurs and ancient forests, more recent argument have suggested living organisms as small as plankton may have been the origin.

The abiotic theory argues, in contrast, that hydrocarbons are naturally produced on a continual basis throughout the solar system, including within the mantle of the earth. The advocates believe the oil seeps up through bedrock cracks to deposit in sedimentary rock. Traditional petro-geologists, they say, have confused the rock as the originator rather than the depository of the hydrocarbons.

http://www.wnd.com/images/story/proskurowski.jpg
Giora Proskurowski

Lost City is a hypothermal field some 2,100 feet below sea level that sits along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at the center of the Atlantic Ocean, noted for strange 90 to 200 foot white towers on the sea bottom.

In 2003 and again in 2005, Proskurowski and his team descended in a scientific submarine to collect liquid bubbling up from Lost City sea vents.

Proskurowski found hydrocarbons containing carbon-13 isotopes that appeared to be formed from the mantle of the Earth, rather than from biological material settled on the ocean floor.

Carbon 13 is the carbon isotope scientists associate with abiotic origin, compared to Carbon 12 that scientists typically associate with biological origin.

Lost City Vents

Proskurowski argued that the hydrocarbons found in the natural hydrothermal fluids coming out of the Lost City sea vents is attributable to abiotic production by Fischer-Tropsch, or FTT, reactions.

The Fischer-Tropsch equations were first developed by Nazi scientists who created methodologies for producing synthetic oil from coal.

"Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water and moderate amounts of heat," Proskurowski wrote.

The study also confirmed a major argument of Cornell University physicist Thomas Gold, who argued in his book "The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels" that micro-organisms found in oil might have come from the mantle of the earth where, absent photosynthesis, the micro-organisms feed on hydrocarbons arising from the earth's mantle in the dark depths of the ocean floors.

Affirming this point, Proskurowski concluded the article by noting, "Hydrocarbon production by FTT could be a common means for producing precursors of life-essential building blocks in ocean-floor environments or wherever warm ultramafic rocks are in contact with water."

Finding abiotic hydrocarbons in the Lost City sea vent fluids is the second discovery in recent years adding weight to the abiotic theory of the origin of oil.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59991

Terms like "fossil fuels" and "non-renewable" always seemed to have more than a whiff of self-serving.

That's more descriptive of your side. All peak oil has is a prediction in chart form. The cornucopian side has pretty much all history on its side. Is there any kind of mineral for which there aren't more proven reserves today than at any point in history?

Alex,

Oil wells have produced and depleted according to Hubbert's Curve. M.K. Hubbert predicted the US oil production would peak in 1971 and it did. Global oil production is likely to follow the same Hubbert curve. What more do you want?

Silver has also peaked, to answer your second question. There's more silver above ground than known reserves. Known reserves of coal

There are two abiotic oil views, strong abioticism, and weak abioticism.

Strong abioticism says that oil will keep gushing up like volcanoes, quickly replenishing depleted oil wells. None of the proponents of abioticism believe in strong abioticism.

Weak abioticism says that oil wells will eventually replenish, in geological time. Too late for us, in other words -- in hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of years. All proponents of abioticism believe in weak abioticism.

as for coal:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4061

Three states (Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia) produce 52 percent of the higher-quality coal in the US. All three of these states seem to be in decline or plateau. Since the Northeast was the area of the nation earliest settled and was long a primary center for industrial manufacture, it is not surprising that the coal of this region was exploited preferentially. Today, Pennsylvania’s anthracite is almost gone. Mining companies there are now exploiting seams as thin as 28 inches. West Virginia, the second largest coal-producing state (after Wyoming), where much coal is surface mined in an environmentally ruinous practice known as mountaintop removal, is nearing its maximum production rate and will see declines commence within the next few years, according to a recent USGS report. (www.byronwine.com/files/coal.pdf)

The interior region—consisting of Illinois, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Western Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas—is the smallest coal producer of the three main producing regions. The Illinois basin boasts large reserves of bituminous coal, but production has fallen there since the mid-1990s. Its coal generally has a high sulfur content (3 to 7 percent), which runs afoul of US environmental laws, especially the Clean Air Act of 1990. Prior to this legislation, power plants burning high-sulfur coal released emissions resulting in acid rain that decimated forests throughout much of the nation. The lignite steam coal of Louisiana is an exception within the region: its sulfur content is low and so production has risen substantially in recent years. After 2018, sulfur scrubbers will be mandatory for coal-fired power plants in the US, perhaps facilitating a move to increase production of coal from the Illinois Basin.

Wyoming has some bituminous coal, but most of its reserves consist of sub-bituminous and lignite. Production from the state (primarily from the Powder River Basin) has increased sharply since 1970, because its coal is abundant, cheaply surface-mined, and low in sulfur. Wyoming is currently responsible for 80 percent of coal production west of the Mississippi.

Montana also has large deposits of lower-quality coal (sub-bituminous and lignite), but these have not been tapped. The current state governor, Brian Schweitzer, is pushing for development of these resources using gasification and carbon sequestration technologies, but there are reasons to doubt whether this will occur soon or on a meaningful scale. Montana’s coal contains salts that will almost inevitably find their way into the environment if widespread surface mining occurs, contaminating rivers and creating problems for cattle ranching—the state’s economic engine and a locus of considerable political clout.

For the nation as a whole, future supply hinges on the question of how long rising production of lower-quality coal from Wyoming—supplemented in the future perhaps by coal from Montana and the Illinois Basin—can continue to compensate for declining amounts of high-quality coal from the East. Clearly, the US has the potential to produce enormous quantities of coal. But the gradual depletion of coal with higher heating value is already necessitating the mining of larger quantities of lower-quality coal to yield an equivalent amount of energy, and as coal is sourced more from Montana and the Illinois this will require the building of more rail transport infrastructure and the overcoming of environmental problems and regulatory hurdles.

Over sixty percent of coal mined in the US is dug from the surface. This is a higher percentage than in most nations, and it is largely due to the contribution of Wyoming. In the eastern states, most coal still comes from deep mines, which are moving toward the recovery of ever-thinner seams. Highwall mining systems and new technologies for longwall mining may lead, ultimately, to remote-control mining involving few or no personnel working underground. These new and more efficient technologies will enable some coal to be mined that would otherwise be left behind, but they are unlikely to be applied throughout the entire industry due to high up-front investment costs.

In surface mining, the largest extraction cost is often incurred in removing overburden (soil and rock). Over the years, the coal industry has introduced ever-larger earth-moving machines for this purpose. However, truck size has probably reached a practical maximum, as the biggest vehicles cannot be maneuvered on roads.

However coal is mined, the industry must always confront the bottom line: the cost of getting coal out of the ground cannot exceed the market price for produced coal. Thus the current price determines whether marginal coals will be mined profitably, or simply left in the ground. On the other hand, however, as the costs of bringing coal to market rise, this can cause the price of coal to increase—unless and until higher prices suppress demand. Given that demand for electricity continues to expand, and that cheap alternatives to coal for power generation do not exist in sufficient quantity in the short run, there seems to be no near-term cap to coal prices. As a result, marginal coalfields are now more likely to be mined.

How can the "peak-oil" Luddites be so certain that every barrel of oil on Earth is accounted for, every reserve known, no new fields waiting to be discovered, and if found, forever unaccessible?
Why do they insist that all of us be dragged kicking and screaming back to an Amish-like existence?
(Fine for the Amish but I don't like horses, they scare me, they poop too much, and it makes my ass sore to ride them.)
When discussing "peak-oil" I'm always reminded of a line from the movie The Formula when the L.A. detective character played by George C. Scott says to Marlon Brando, portraying the CEO of a multi-national oil conglomerate,:
"You're not in the oil business, you're in the oil shortage business."

Alex,

Oil wells have produced and depleted according to Hubbert's Curve. M.K. Hubbert predicted the US oil production would peak in 1971 and it did. Global oil production is likely to follow the same Hubbert curve. What more do you want?

So oil peaked here forty years ago, according to one claim,...and might peak globally. What I want is market evidence that we're running out of oil. I don't see that. How many new ways of finding and recovering oil have been developed since 1971? How many new ways will be developed in the future? I'd put my bet on those new ways long before us running out of oil.


Silver has also peaked, to answer your second question. There's more silver above ground than known reserves.

And silver's under $15/oz. I don't see a problem.


For the nation as a whole, future supply hinges on the question of how long rising production of lower-quality coal from Wyoming—supplemented in the future perhaps by coal from Montana and the Illinois Basin—can continue to compensate for declining amounts of high-quality coal from the East. Clearly, the US has the potential to produce enormous quantities of coal. But the gradual depletion of coal with higher heating value is already necessitating the mining of larger quantities of lower-quality coal to yield an equivalent amount of energy, and as coal is sourced more from Montana and the Illinois this will require the building of more rail transport infrastructure and the overcoming of environmental problems and regulatory hurdles.

If we ever have a real power problem we'll just go nuclear.

If we ever do start running out of coal/oil/whatever, we'll just shift to something else. That's the likeliest outcome in my opinion. It's wiser to let the market drive energy policy rather than religious hysterics. If one resource becomes too expensive, people will develop alternatives. That's the way it always has been. It's the best solution.

Alex,

Oil wells have produced and depleted according to Hubbert's Curve. M.K. Hubbert predicted the US oil production would peak in 1971 and it did. Global oil production is likely to follow the same Hubbert curve. What more do you want?

Silver has also peaked, to answer your second question. There's more silver above ground than known reserves. Known reserves of coal .

Completely wrong. There is more oil off the coast of California than in Saudi Arabia. It's not pumped because the state won't allow it.I worked for Unocal many years ago when they were ordered to clean up the mess they made off the coast of central Ca. for the last 40 years. I talked to some of the oil workers who had been there for near that long. They told me that all the wells had been capped on orders from the state and that given the word they could begin full production again in a matter of months.

There is a modern refinery at Gaviota Beach just sitting there with a skeleton crew. Three large pipelines connect it to giant oil platforms off the coast that are running at about 5% capacity for the reasons listed above. From what I was told this is the case in many parts the continental US. Plenty of oil but it doesn't get pumped because of politics, environmentalists and deliberate policy of the oil companies not to pump it to maintain the price.


Hubbert just crunches numbers. Sure, he knew oil production would peak in the 70's because that's the way it was planned. Less oil means a higher price and that is what oil companies want. It doesn't have anything to do with the world running out of oil or "peak oil". The supply is limited on purpose. An example would be Iraq. Fedzog didn't go there to steal Iraqi oil for itself and the US market. Fedzog went there to control Iraqi oil and keep it in the ground and not on the market where it would affect the price.

It is the same with silver. To say that there is more silver above ground that below it is utterly absurd. As I have said before in previous posts. Mining companies deliberately don't mine silver so as to maintain the price. I have been told this by people who work in the mining industry. Silver isn't that rare. It might have been in the past when mining was done by men with shovels and mules and was hard to get too but in the modern age with modern mining techniques and equipment it can be got at with ease. But it isn't done because doing so would make the price plummet. And if you're a mining executive....that's bad for business.

Don't buy into the "we're running out of oil bs". We're not, it's a sham by rich people and large corporations designed to maximize profits by scaring the gullible goyim into believing something that isn't true. Kind of like Sadamms WMD. They never existed.

Tomorrows lesson.....alien abductions and why it might be bullshit.

...
If we ever have a real power problem we'll just go nuclear.
...

Of the 30 countries with nuclear power, the percentage of electricity supplied by nuclear ranged widely:

78 percent in France
54 percent in Belgium
39 percent in Republic of Korea
37 percent in Switzerland
30 percent in Japan
19 percent in the USA
16 percent in Russia

France’s EDF, their public/private utilities company tried to get permission from the US to build nuclear plants in the US. Nope! No can do. That’s funny. It takes the French about 7 years from decision to on-line plant. In the US—15 years minimum. Toshiba of Japan is building small autonomous nuclear plants the operate without humans. They are essentially huge batteries about 20 feet by 8 feet by 8 feet. They are delivered on flatbed truck, hooked up, and run for twenty years. When they run down, a flatbed truck picks it up, drops another one off, and takes the old one off to be recycled.

But, it doesn’t matter. Steve B. is right. We’ve still got enough oil, that without drilling another well we couldn’t run out if we tried. Google searches are useless. You can prove anything by cherry-picking Google searches. If you don’t have any inside information, it’s hard to come up with anything persuasive. Do I have inside sources? Well, kinda. I know two men who worked at Prudhoe Bay. One, a grunt; the other a metallurgist and professional engineer. Both have told me that there are giant reserves at Prudhoe Bay, already tapped, and capped. They are just sitting there, waiting for…? I’m from the Texas Gulf Coast, and I’ve heard the same for there. I’ve heard it as well about off California. Could all these people I know, be lying? Fuck no. They are just ordinary men. They have no agenda, and they are not dumb or foolish. They just report what they’ve seen.

None of this has anything to do with biotic or abiotic oil. The question is interesting, but the answer is not needed to understand that we are not about to run out of oil. Nor has anyone that I know of on this forum ever suggested that oil is inexhaustible. Maybe someone has, but I can’t recall that. Oil may possibly run out…who knows? But it won’t run out in our lifetimes, or become scarce, or even diminish in any measurable way. Maybe someday, but not for a long time, probably hundreds of years.

Mike

Can someone tell me what font and size to use in Microsoft Word, so that when I compose a post and paste it into the forum, it comes out looking normal. I used to do this, and it worked. Either something has changed, or I've gotten senile. I wonder if there is a cure for that?

Of the 30 countries with nuclear power, the percentage of electricity supplied by nuclear ranged widely:

78 percent in France
54 percent in Belgium
39 percent in Republic of Korea
37 percent in Switzerland
30 percent in Japan
19 percent in the USA
16 percent in Russia

France’s EDF, their public/private utilities company tried to get permission from the US to build nuclear plants in the US. Nope! No can do. That’s funny. It takes the French about 7 years from decision to on-line plant. In the US—15 years minimum. Toshiba of Japan is building small autonomous nuclear plants the operate without humans. They are essentially huge batteries about 20 feet by 8 feet by 8 feet. They are delivered on flatbed truck, hooked up, and run for twenty years. When they run down, a flatbed truck picks it up, drops another one off, and takes the old one off to be recycled.

But, it doesn’t matter. Steve B. is right. We’ve still got enough oil, that without drilling another well we couldn’t run out if we tried. Google searches are useless. You can prove anything by cherry-picking Google searches. If you don’t have any inside information, it’s hard to come up with anything persuasive. Do I have inside sources? Well, kinda. I know two men who worked at Prudhoe Bay. One, a grunt; the other a metallurgist and professional engineer. Both have told me that there are giant reserves at Prudhoe Bay, already tapped, and capped. They are just sitting there, waiting for…? I’m from the Texas Gulf Coast, and I’ve heard the same for there. I’ve heard it as well about off California. Could all these people I know, be lying? Fuck no. They are just ordinary men. They have no agenda, and they are not dumb or foolish. They just report what they’ve seen.

None of this has anything to do with biotic or abiotic oil. The question is interesting, but the answer is not needed to understand that we are not about to run out of oil. Nor has anyone that I know of on this forum ever suggested that oil is inexhaustible. Maybe someone has, but I can’t recall that. Oil may possibly run out…who knows? But it won’t run out in our lifetimes, or become scarce, or even diminish in any measurable way. Maybe someday, but not for a long time, probably hundreds of years.

Mike

Can someone tell me what font and size to use in Microsoft Word, so that when I compose a post and paste it into the forum, it comes out looking normal. I used to do this, and it worked. Either something has changed, or I've gotten senile. I wonder if there is a cure for that?



Mike in Denver,

I grant the possibility of a vast conspiracy to hide the real oil reserves. Perhaps manufactured oil shortages will be used as an "artificial famine."

Even if oil is infinite, fresh water and topsoil are also failing. Industrial Agriculture is destined to fail within the next few decades if not sooner. Industrial Ag rests on a tripod of fossil fuels, water, and soil, and if any single one of these resources fails, Industrial Ag fails and we have mass starvation and die-off.

Can someone tell me what font and size to use in Microsoft Word, so that when I compose a post and paste it into the forum, it comes out looking normal. I used to do this, and it worked. Either something has changed, or I've gotten senile. I wonder if there is a cure for that?

About 12 to 14 point type depending on the font use.

About 12 to 14 point type depending on the font use.

I used Ariel 12, which should have worked, or at least come close. Remember Jimbo, who used to post in a microscopic red font? I gave up trying to read his posts. I'm going to experiment with editing my above post. If I get it right, I'll edit this post and report the change. Kind of important, this.

Mike

Ha! OK, I selected all the text and clicked on the little funny A at the top left of the reply box. I know for a fact that this doesn't always work. I think you may have to create the post, and then re-enter to edit, before this trick works.

Even if oil is infinite, fresh water and topsoil are also failing. Industrial Agriculture is destined to fail within the next few decades if not sooner. Industrial Ag rests on a tripod of fossil fuels, water, and soil, and if any single one of these resources fails, Industrial Ag fails and we have mass starvation and die-off.
__________________
Hey, Kievsky!
Your a wild man, Bro!!
Some day you and me gotta PARTY DOWN!!!:rofl:rofl:rofl

Mike in Denver,

I grant the possibility of a vast conspiracy to hide the real oil reserves. Perhaps manufactured oil shortages will be used as an "artificial famine."

Vast conspiracy? No, the political forces against nuclear, coal and oil are all too real. I have read about and heard directly from a PhD relative in the business that the continental US in many ways is locked down due to leftist political pressure. It is an undeniable fact that political pressures prevent industry from extracting proven resources.


Even if oil is infinite, fresh water and topsoil are also failing. Industrial Agriculture is destined to fail within the next few decades if not sooner. Industrial Ag rests on a tripod of fossil fuels, water, and soil, and if any single one of these resources fails, Industrial Ag fails and we have mass starvation and die-off.

Never happen. Devise a bet, I'll take the other side of it.

There is no global ecological catastrophe. There are specific local or regional problems.

The entire record is of increased extractive know-how and larger yields from crops. That's the way to bet, not on famine and die-offs.

I used Ariel 12, which should have worked, or at least come close. Remember Jimbo, who used to post in a microscopic red font? I gave up trying to read his posts.

Are you trying to say that your eyes are more important than jim's ego? Perish the thought. A secondary reason he was banned.

Same thing with others here. They don't care enough about their fellow White man to make blocked, paragraphed posts so that their brothers most easily can read them. If they're disloyal in small things, if their ego overrides the good of the cause in small things, is it likelier to be true in big things? No. It is not.

Millions of online "warriors" willing to "kill" for the cause...tens willing to post correctly for the cause.

Petroleum is the world's largest industry in terms of dollar value. With that kind of money involved, lots of people have a lot of incentive, billions and billions of incentives, to spin the argument one way or the other. The kind of power that can be had from control of oil production, distribution, and sales is astonishing. It's the kind of power that the tyrants of antiquity could not even imagine. I'm sure the most of the people directly employed in the oil industry are in the dark as to the true quantity of recoverable oil reserves. So what hope does the layman have of coming to the truth of the matter? Through careful consideration of arguments both pro and con, and by avoiding the lure of falling into the conspiracy theory trap, one can piece together something that is pretty close to the truth.

First, lets dispense with some of the conspiracy theory nonsense. The biggest crackpot theory is that oil supplies are unlimited, that oil is produced deep in the earth's core by heat generated by some type of radioactive furnace. This idea is patently idiotic, since the simple fact is that nothing on this planet is limitless. Even if oil were a product of radioactive heating, fission reactions don't continue forever. Eventually the nuclear fuel would be depleted.

Oil is not a fossil fuel, but has a abiogenic origin. This argument is moot. Let's assume that it is true, and that most petroleum is abiogenic. As I've stated above, nothing on this planet is limitless, including oil. What difference does it make if oil is abiogenic or not?

The only valid questions are:


How much oil is still in the ground?

How difficult will it be to extract that oil?

Are there any substitutes for oil that can compete at current oil price levels?


So, how much oil is still in the ground on this planet? The honest answer is that no one knows for sure. The Saudis claim reserves of X, but will not allow independent verification. The Russians ape the Saudis, they make claims, but will not allow independent verification. I'm guessing that their self reported reserve numbers are inflated, since there is a lot of incentive inflate the numbers.

How difficult will it be to extract the oil that's still in the ground. Since average oil prices are trending upward, it's my belief that the easy oil(cheap oil) is very nearly gone. That doesn't mean that oil production will stop. It will be possible to buy a gallon of gas a hundred years from now, however, very few people we be able to afford it.

No problem, we'll use technology to find substitutes for oil. Sorry, but in my house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics. The fact is that there is no other practical energy source available to us that provides anything like the energy density of a gallon of oil. Yes, we can use substitutes for oil. No, the world will not end when the cheap oil dries up. What will happen is that life on this planet, and especially in the USA, will be radically transformed. For starts, the American suburb is a dead end, a few first ring suburbs may survive, but the outer ring burbs will shrivel up and blow away. The way we produce our food and get it to market will also undergo a convulsive change.

Anyone who thinks it will be business as usual is in for a steel-toed boot of reality to the shorts.

Well, Alex, any bets I would make would take a few years to settle one way or the other.

I think the "food apocalypse" is already here. Instead of starvation, we have obesity and diabetes. The food supply is poisonous.

OK, I'll make a bet. I bet the population in 2020 is less than it is now, which I think is 7 billion. How's that? That's a bet you want to lose.

Well, Alex, any bets I would make would take a few years to settle one way or the other.

I think the "food apocalypse" is already here. Instead of starvation, we have obesity and diabetes. The food supply is poisonous.

OK, I'll make a bet. I bet the population in 2020 is less than it is now, which I think is 7 billion. How's that? That's a bet you want to lose.

I would have to study that before agreeing. From what I've read, the global population is already scheduled to drop for demographic reasons, but I don't remember precisely when.

I found a site that show this in understandable numbers and lists.

http://www.vnnforum.com/images/misc/wikipedia_icon.gif List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate


Every country under 2.1 on this list has a birth rate that will lead to a drop in population. Mexico has had one of the most dramatic drops in birth rate. It is now at 2.2, just barely replacement, but only 5 years ago was 2.4. I guess we will start running out of Mexicans some time ahead.

The birth rates of Iran and Tunisia are below replacement.

The birth rates of Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, and Morocco are barely above replacement, and are dropping rapidly. Other Muslim countries have falling birth rates, as well.

Almost the only countries, Muslim, Christian, or otherwise, that are maintaining high birth rates are Sub-Saharan countries (That would be nigger countries.)

It looks like within the near future, the population of the Earth will begin to drop. I've not found any source that gives any predictions on when. I'll take Kievsky's bet if we can extent it to 2045. I'll be 100, and won't know if I've won or lost.

Mike

Late edit: The site with the list is kept current. I made essentially this same post some time ago, and since then, the birth rate of Mexico has dropped from 2.2 to 2.1. Mexico is now exactly at replacement. Look at the huge list of countries below 2.1. All of these countries are below replacement, some far below.

Alex,

Take a good read of Fissile's post. If I had more horsepower between the ears, I would have wrote something like that.:D

Scientific proof by scientific researchers in Sweden of the existence of mass deposits of oil formed from abiotic origins has blown the 'peak oil' theory sky high.

I would have to study that before agreeing. From what I've read, the global population is already scheduled to drop for demographic reasons, but I don't remember precisely when.

Population to drop for "demographic reasons" ?

Demographics are a result not a reason.

Population to drop for "demographic reasons" ?

Demographics are a result not a reason.

No, they're a measure of existing populations. If you know the populations as they exist and behave today, you can make some projections. Of course, things change, but the demographic projections are that the world population will peak at maybe 9 billion (I could be off) and then drop after that. Perhaps it is wrong. But the studies I've seen projection a rise and then drop, unrelated to oil or food.

Alex,

Take a good read of Fissile's post. If I had more horsepower between the ears, I would have wrote something like that.:D

Lots of verbiage that doesn't explain why this "finite" (like Fissile knows enough to judge) resource costs no more than milk, a renewable resource.

Rather than worrying your pretty little heads over stuff that is beyond your level, why not take the unthinking man's way and simply check the price at the pump? Price isn't just an exchange level, it conveys information about supply and demand. If oil truly is going to run out or become to expensive to produce, that will be surely be evident at the pump long before the last drop is drilled.

Belief in peak oil is not a whit different from believe in the return of Jesus. Rapture bunnies have the Bible, peakers have some dude's chart.

Alex,

Do you think that energy shortages, and the second coming of Jesus, have the same probability of happening?

Alex,

Do you think that energy shortages, and the second coming of Jesus, have the same probability of happening?

IMO, Jesus never existed, or, there was no one person doing the doings ascribed to 'boozer in the big book o' bullshit. So, the chance of Jeboo II is nonexistent.

As for energy shortages, sure, it could happen. My opinion is it probably won't, and if it does, if we really are running out of oil, the fact will be indicated by pump prices, causing the market adjust accordingly. I see general collapse as result of our basic food-energy system as extremely unlikely. Now, collapse as result of insane politics and racial degeneration is a different matter...

Scientific proof by scientific researchers in Sweden of the existence of mass deposits of oil formed from abiotic origins has blown the 'peak oil' theory sky high.

You got any links on this? How long is it supposed to take oil abiotically to generate?

Since I'm an obsessive peak-oil deus ex machina of doom-tard, I'll provide you with some commentary on Fuzzy's cited Swedish researches on abiotic oil.

http://www.rense.com/general58/biot.htm

The 'Abiotic Oil' Controversy
By Richard Heinberg
10-6-4
The debate over oil's origin has been going on since the 19th century. From the start, there were those who contended that oil is primordial - that it dates back to Earth's origin - or that it is made through an inorganic process, while others argued that it was produced from the decay of living organisms (primarily oceanic plankton) that proliferated millions of years ago during relatively brief periods of global warming and were buried under ocean sediment in fortuitous circumstances.

During the latter half of the 20th century, with advances in geophysics and geochemistry, the vast majority of scientists lined up on the side of the biotic theory. A small group of mostly Russian scientists - but including a tiny handful Western scientists, among them the late Cornell University physicist Thomas Gold - have held out for an abiotic (also called abiogenic or inorganic) theory. While some of the Russians appear to regard Gold as a plagiarist of their ideas, the latter's book The Deep Hot Biosphere (1998) stirred considerable controversy among the public on the questions of where oil comes from and how much of it there is. Gold argued that hydrocarbons existed at the time of the solar system's formation, and are known to be abundant on other planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and some of their moons) where no life is presumed to have flourished in the past.

The abiotic theory holds that there must therefore be nearly limitless pools of liquid primordial hydrocarbons at great depths on Earth, pools that slowly replenish the reservoirs that conventional oil drillers tap.

Meanwhile, however, the oil companies have used the biotic theory as the practical basis for their successful exploration efforts over the past few decades. If there are in fact vast untapped deep pools of hydrocarbons refilling the reservoirs that oil producers drill into, it appears to make little difference to actual production, as tens of thousands of oil and gas fields around the world are observed to deplete, and refilling (which is indeed very rarely observed) is not occurring at a commercially significant scale or rate except in one minor and controversial instance discussed below.

The abiotic theorists also hold that conventional drillers, constrained by an incorrect theory, ignore many sites where deep, primordial pools of oil accumulate; if only they would drill in the right places, they would discover much more oil than they are finding now. However, the tests of this claim are so far inconclusive: the best-documented "abiotic" test well was a commercial failure.

Thus even if the abiotic theory does eventually prove to be partially or wholly scientifically valid (and that is a rather big "if"), it might have little or no practical consequence in terms of oil depletion and the imminent global oil production peak.

That is the situation in a nutshell, as I understand it, and it is probably as much information as most readers will need or want on this subject. However, as this summary contradicts some of the more ambitious claims of the abiotic theorists, it may be helpful to present in more detail some of the evidence and arguments on both sides of the debate.

Oil at the Core?

Gold is right: there are hydrocarbons on other planets, even in deep space. Why shouldn't we expect to find primordial hydrocarbons on Earth?

This is a question whose answer is only partly understood, and it is a complicated one. The planets known to have primordial hydrocarbons (mostly in the form of methane, the simplest hydrocarbon) lie in the further reaches of the solar system; there is little evidence of primordial hydrocarbons on the rocky inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars). On the latter, possibly the hydrocarbons either volatized and escaped into space early in the history of the solar system, or - as Gold theorizes - they migrated to the inner depths. (Note: very recent evidence of methane in the atmosphere of Mars is being viewed as evidence of biological activity, probably in the distant past. (1)) There is indeed evidence for deep methane on Earth: it vents from the mid-oceanic ridges, presumably arising from the mantle, though the amount vented is relatively small - less than the amount emitted annually in cow farts (incidentally, there are persuasive biotic explanations for the origin of this vented methane).

A new study by the US Department of Energy and Lawrence Livermore Lab suggests that there may be huge methane deposits in Earth's mantle, 60 to 120 miles deep. (2) But today oil companies are capable of drilling only as deep as six miles, and this in sedimentary rock; in igneous and metamorphic rock, drill bits have so far penetrated only two miles. (3) In any attempt to drill to a depth remotely approaching the mantle, well casings would be thoroughly crushed and melted by the pressures and temperatures encountered along the way. Moreover, the DOE study attributes the methane deposits it hypothesizes to an origin different from the one Gold described.

More to the point, Gold also claimed the existence of liquid hydrocarbons - oil - at great depths. But there is a problem with this: the temperatures at depths below about 15,000 feet are high enough (above 275 degrees F) to break hydrocarbon bonds. What remains after these molecular bonds are severed is methane, whose molecule contains only a single carbon atom. For petroleum geologists this is not just a matter of theory, but of repeated and sometimes costly experience: they speak of an oil "window" that exists from roughly 7,500 feet to 15,000 feet, within which temperatures are appropriate for oil formation; look far outside the window, and you will most likely come up with a dry hole or, at best, natural gas only. The rare exceptions serve to prove the rule: they are invariably associated with strata that are rapidly (in geological terms) migrating upward or downward. (4)

The conventional theory of petroleum formation connects oil with the process of sedimentation. And, indeed, nearly all of the oil that has been discovered over the past century-and-a-half is associated with sedimentary rocks. On the other hand, it isnít difficult to find rocks that once existed at great depths where, according the theories of Gold and the Russians, conditions should have been perfect for abiotic oil formation or the accumulation of primordial petroleum - but such rocks typically contain no traces of hydrocarbons. In the very rare instances where small amounts of hydrocarbons are seen in igneous or metamorphic rocks, the latter are invariably found near hydrocarbon-bearing sedimentary rocks, and the hydrocarbons in both types of rock contain identical biomarkers (more on that subject below); the simplest explanation in those cases is that the hydrocarbons migrated from the sedimentary rocks to the igneous-metamorphic rocks.

Years ago Thomas Gold recognized that the best test of the abiotic theory would be to drill into the crystalline basement rock underlying later sedimentary accumulations to see if there is indeed oil there. He persuaded the government of Sweden in 1988 to drill 4.5 miles down into granite that had been fractured by a meteorite strike (the fracturing is what permitted drillers to go so deep). The borehole, which cost millions to drill, yielded 80 barrels of oil. Even though the project (briefly re-started in 1991) was a commercial failure, Gold maintained that his ideas had been vindicated. Most geologists remained skeptical, however, suggesting that the recovered oil likely came from drilling mud.

The Russians (I must remind the reader that I am actually talking about a minority even with the community of Russian geologists) claim successes in drilling in basement rock in the Dneiper-Donets Basin in the Ukraine. Professor Vladilen A. Krayushkin, Chairman of the Department of Petroleum Exploration, Institute of Geological Sciences, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Kiev, and leader of the exploration project, wrote:

The eleven major and one giant oil and gas fields here described have been discovered in a region which had, forty years ago, been condemned as possessing no potential for petroleum production. The exploration for these fields was conducted entirely according to the perspective of the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins. The drilling which resulted in these discoveries was extended purposely deep into the crystalline basement rock, and it is in that basement where the greatest part of the reserves exist. These reserves amount to at least 8,200 M metric tons [65 billion barrels] of recoverable oil and 100 B cubic meters of recoverable gas, and are thereby comparable to those of the North Slope of Alaska. (5)

However, independent assessments of the situation do not support these claims. First, the US Geological Survey does not agree that the Dneiper-Donets reserves are that large (it cites 2.7 billion barrels for total oil endowment). Second, the appearance of oil in basement rocks is unusual but not unheard of, and there are various ways in which oil can appear in basement rock. In the process of drilling through overlying sedimentary rock, oil can be expelled downward so that it appears to come from below. Then there are situations where igneous or metamorphic rocks have migrated upward, or sedimentary rocks have migrated downward, so that basement rock covers sedimentary rock (in some cases, the overthrust may be hundreds of square kilometers in extent). In his paper "Oil Production from Basement ReservoirsóExamples from USA and Venezuela," Tako Koning of Texaco Angola, Inc., cites source rocks such as marine shales in nearly all instances. (6) More to the point, numerous studies cite the existence of sedimentary source rocks in the Dneiper-Donets region. (7)

Refilling Fields?

Abiotic theorists often point out evidence of fields refilling. The most-cited example is Eugene Island, the tip of a mostly submerged mountain that lies approximately 80 miles off of the coast of Louisiana. Here is the story as related by Chris Bennett in his article "Sustainable Oil?" on WorldNetDaily.com:

A significant reservoir of crude oil was discovered nearby in the late '60s, and by 1970, a platform named Eugene 330 was busily producing about 15,000 barrels a day of high-quality crude oil. By the late '80s, the platform's production had slipped to less than 4,000 barrels per day, and was considered pumped out. Done. Suddenly, in 1990, production soared back to 15,000 barrels a day, and the reserves which had been estimated at 60 million barrels in the '70s, were recalculated at 400 million barrels. Interestingly, the measured geological age of the new oil was quantifiably different than the oil pumped in the '70s. Analysis of seismic recordings revealed the presence of a "deep fault" at the base of the Eugene Island reservoir which was gushing up a river of oil from some deeper and previously unknown source. (8)

A "river of oil" from an unassociated deep source? This does sound promising. But closer examination yields more prosaic descriptions and explanations.

According to David S. Holland, et al., in Search and Discovery, the reservoir is characterized by

1. Structural features dominated by growth faults, salt domes, and salt-related faulting.

2. Thick accumulations of predominantly deltaic deposits of alternating sand and shale.

3. Young reservoirs (less than 2.5 m.y. old) with migrated hydrocarbons whose origins are in deeper, organic-rich marine shales.

4. Rapidly changing stratigraphy, due to deposition and subsequent reworking.

5. Numerous oil and gas fields with stacked reservoirs, long hydrocarbon columns, and high producing rates. (9)

While it is true that the estimated oil reserves of Eugene have increased, the numbers are not extraordinary. The authors note that "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." 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 "grow." Then, as they are pumped out, reserves decline and production rates dwindle. No magic there.

Production from Eugene Island had achieved 20,000 barrels per day by 1989; by 1992 it had slipped to 15,000 b/d, but recovered to reach a peak of 30,000 b/d in 1996. Production from the reservoir has dropped steadily since then.

The evidence at Eugene Island suggests the existence of deep source rocks from which the reservoir is indeed very slowly refilling - but geologists working there do not hypothesize a primordial origin for the oil. In "Oil and Gas - 'Renewable Resources'?" Kathy Blanchard of PNL writes, "Recent geochemical research at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution has demonstrated that the wide range in composition of the oils in different reservoirs of the Eugene Island 330 field can be related to one another and to a deeper source rock of Jurassic-Early Cretaceous age." (10) Her article explains that this kind of migration from nearby source rocks is hardly unique, and discusses it in the context of conventional biotic theory. A technical paper by David S. Holland, et al., "Eugene Island Block 330 Field - U.S.A. Offshore Louisiana," published by AAPG, notes that the Eugene Island oils show

abundant evidence of long-distance vertical migration. Based on a variety of biomarker and gasoline-range maturity indicators, these oils are estimated to have been generated at depths of 4572 to 4877 m (15,000 to 16,000 ft) at vitrinite reflectance maturities of 0.08 to 1.0% and temperatures of 150 to 170C (300 to 340F). Their presence in shallow, thermally immature reservoirs requires significant vertical migration. This is illustrated on Figure 36, which represents a burial and maturation history for the field at the time of petroleum migration, that is, at the end of Trimosina "A" time approximately 500,000 years ago. A plot of the present measured maturity values versus depth is superimposed on the calculated maturity profile for Trimosina "A" time to illustrate the close agreement between measured and predicted maturity profiles. The clear discrepancy between reservoir maturity and oil maturity is striking and suggests that the oil migrated more than 3650 m (12,000 ft) from a deep, possibly upper Miocene, source facies. Petroleum migration along faults is indicated based on the observed temperature and hydrocarbon anomalies at the surface and the distribution of pay in the subsurface. These results are consistent with those of Young et al. (1977), who concluded that most Gulf of Mexico oils originated 2438 to 3350 m (8000 to 11,000 ft) deeper than their reservoirs, from source beds 5 to 9 million years older than the reservoirs. (11)

Biomarkers

The claims for the abiotic theory often seem overstated in other ways. J. F. Kenney of Gas Resources Corporations, Houston, Texas, who is one of the very few Western geologists to argue for the abiotic theory, writes, "competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological materials since the last quarter of the 19th century." (12) Reading this sentence, one might assume that only a few isolated troglodyte pseudoscientists would still be living under the outworn and discredited misconception that oil can be formed from biological materials. However, in fact universities and oil companies are staffed with thousands of "competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men [and women!] knowledgeable of thermodynamics" who not only subscribe to the biogenic theory, but use it every day as the basis for successful oil exploration. And laboratory experiments have shown repeatedly that petroleum is in fact produced from organic matter under the conditions to which it is assumed to have been subjected over geological time. The situation is actually the reverse of the one Kenny implies: most geologists assume that the Russian abiotic oil hypothesis, which dates to the era prior to the advent of modern plate tectonics theory, is an anachronism. Tectonic movements are now known to be able to radically reshuffle rock strata, leaving younger sedimentary oil- or gas-bearing rock beneath basement rock, leading in some cases to the appearance that oil has its source in Precambrian crystalline basement, when this is not actually the case.

Geologists trace the source of the carbon in hydrocarbons through analysis of its isotopic balance. Natural carbon is nearly all isotope 12, with 1.11 percent being isotope 13. Organic material, however, usually contains less C-13, because photosynthesis in plants preferentially selects C-12 over C-13. Oil and natural gas typically show a C-12 to C-13 ratio similar to that of the biological materials from which they are assumed to have originated. The C-12 to C-13 ratio is a generally observed property of petroleum and is predicted by the biotic theory; it is not merely an occasional aberration. (13)

In addition, oil typically contains biomarkers - porphyrins, isoprenoids, pristane, phytane, cholestane, terpines, and clorins - which are related to biochemicals such as chlorophyll and hemoglobin. The chemical fingerprint of oil assumed to have been formed from, for example, algae is different from that of oil formed from plankton. Thus geochemists can (and routinely do) use biomarkers to trace oil samples to specific source rocks.

Abiotic theorists hypothesize that oil picks up its chemical biomarkers through contamination from bacteria living deep in the Earth's crust (Gold's "deep, hot biosphere") or from other buried bio-remnants. However, the observed correspondences between biomarkers and source materials are not haphazard, but instead systematic and predictable on the basis of the biotic theory. For example, biomarkers in source rock can be linked with the depositional environment; that is, source rocks with biomarkers characteristic of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, while petroleum biomarkers associated with marine organisms are found only in marine sediments.

The Bottom Line

The points discussed above represent a mere sampling of the issues; it would be difficult if not impossible for me to address all of the arguments put forward by the abiotic theorists in a brief essay of this nature. I circulated a draft of this essay on two energy-related email newsgroups and received about a dozen thoughtful comments, one defending the abiotic theory but most of the others critiquing it. About half of the comments were from physicists, geophysicists, or geologists. It quickly became apparent to me that a book-length treatment of the subject is called for.

J. F. Kenney has put forward a succinct and persuasive paper arguing for the abiotic theory (5), but there is no prominently published rebuttal piece that systematically discusses or attempts to refute his assertions. A reader of Kenney's web site might find fault with some of my statements in this essay (for example, as a counter to my description of the depth "window" of oil formation, a reader might refer to Kenneyís discussion of Russian experiments that have shown that oil can be formed at high temperatures and high pressures - conditions similar to those that must exist in the Earthís mantle). Yet among the draft comments I received from scientists were convincing criticisms of Kenney's claims (returning to my example: even if oil were formed in the mantle, as more than one commenter pointed out, abiotic theorists have suggested no plausible means by which it could rise to the depths at which we find it without passing through intermediary regions in which the temperature would be too high and pressure too low for liquid hydrocarbons to survive). Many other assertions made by Kenney and critiqued by the experts are more technical in nature and more difficult to summarize.

So, rather than continuing along these lines, I would prefer now to pull back from a focus on details and again emphasize the bigger picture.

There is no way to conclusively prove that no petroleum is of abiotic origin. Science is an ongoing search for truth, and theories are continually being altered or scrapped as new evidence appears. However, the assertion that all oil is abiotic requires extraordinary support, because it must overcome abundant evidence, already cited, to tie specific oil accumulations to specific biological origins through a chain of well-understood processes that have been demonstrated, in principle, under laboratory conditions.

Now, I like scientific mavericks; I tend to cheer for the underdog. Peak oil is itself a maverick idea, and for the past several years I have been promoting a view that the Wall Street Journal recently described as "crackpot." (14) So I feel a bit unaccustomed and even uncomfortable now to be on the side of the scientific "establishment" in arguing against the abiotic oil theorists. The latter certainly deserve their day in the court of scientific debate.

Perhaps one day there will be general agreement that at least some oil is indeed abiotic. Maybe there are indeed deep methane belts twenty miles below the Earthís surface. But the important question to keep in mind is: What are the practical consequences of this discussion now for the problem of global oil depletion?

I have not personally inspected the oil wells in Saudi Arabia or even those in Texas. But nearly every credible report that I have seen - whether from the industry or from an independent scientist - describes essentially the same reality: discoveries are declining, and have been since the 1960s. Spare production capacity is practically gone. And the old, super-giant oil fields that the world depends upon for the majority of its production are nearing or past their all-time production peaks. Not even the Russian fields cited by the abiotic theorists as evidence for their views are immune: in June the head of Russia's Federal Energy Agency said that production for 2005 is likely to remain flat or even drop, while other officials in that country have said that growth in Russian production cannot be sustained for more than another few years. (15)

What if oil were in fact virtually inexhaustibleówould this be good news? Not in my view. It is my opinion that the discovery of oil was the greatest tragedy (in terms of its long-term consequences) in human history. Finding a limitless supply of oil might forestall nasty price increases and catastrophic withdrawal symptoms, but it would only exacerbate all of the other problems that flow from oil dependency - our use of it to accelerate the extraction of all other resources, the venting of CO2 into the atmosphere, and related problems such as loss of biodiversity. Oil depletion is bad news, but it is no worse than that of oil abundance.

Given the ongoing runup in global petroleum prices, the notion of peak oil hardly needs defending these days. We are seeing the phenomenon unfold before our eyes as one nation after another moves from the column of "oil exporters" to that of "oil importers" (Great Britain made the leap this year). At some point in the very near future the remaining nations in column A will simply be unable to supply all of the nations in column B.

In short, the global energy crisis is coming upon us very quickly, so that more time spent debating highly speculative theories can only distract us from exploring, and applying ourselves to, the practical strategies that might preserve more of nature, culture, and human life under the conditions that are rapidly developing.

Footnotes

1. See New Scientist www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996425

2. www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-09/dlnl-mid091304.php

3. http://wow.osu.edu/Geology/ebmf.htm

4. See Kenneth Deffeyes, Hubbertís Peak, pp. 21-22, 171; Walter Youngquist, Geodestinies, p. 114.

5. www.gasresources.net/energy_resources.htm

6. www.dur.ac.uk/react.res/RRG_web/hydrocarbons_meet.htm

7. www.911-strike.com/pfeiffer.htm (link expired; click on "cached")

8. www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645

9. #20003, 1999, www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/97015/eugene.htm

10. www.pnl.gov/er_news/08_95/er_news/oil1.kb.html

11. www.datapages.com/97015/eugene.htm

12. See footnote 9.

13. www.giss.nasa.gov/gpol/abstracts/1997/FungFieldB.html

14. "As Prices Soar, Doomsayers Provoke Debate on Oil's Future," 9/21/2004

15. www.mosnews.com/money/2004/06/17/oilproduction.shtml

- Richard Heinberg is the author of Powerdown: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World and The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies; he is a Core Faculty member of New College of California in Santa Rosa. www.museletter.com

Gotta have something to worry about. I could not imagine fretting over "running out."

If you want to worry, worry over the looming dictatorship- the one that is already here, actually.

Demise of Peak Oil Theory

by David Deming

Peak Oil is the theory that the production history of petroleum follows a symmetrical bell-shaped curve. Once the curve peaks, decline is inevitable. The theory is commonly invoked to justify the development of alternative energy sources that are allegedly renewable and sustainable.

Peak Oil theory was originated by American geologist M. King Hubbert. In 1956 Hubbert predicted that US oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. When production peaked in 1970, it was interpreted as proof that Hubbert's model was correct and that US oil production had entered a period of inexorable and irreversible decline. Unanswered was the question of whether or not US production had declined simply because it had become cheaper to purchase imported oil.

Peak Oil is a theory based upon assumptions. Like other scientific theories, it is subject to empirical corroboration or falsification. Although Hubbert correctly predicted the timing of peak US oil production, several of his other predictions based on Peak Oil theory were wrong.

Hubbert predicted that the maximum possible US oil production by 2011 would be one billion barrels. But actual production in 2011 was two billion barrels. Hubbert predicted that annual world oil production would peak in the year 2000 at 12.5 billion barrels. It didn't. World oil production in 2011 was 26.5 billion barrels and continues to increase. Hubbert was grossly wrong about natural gas production. In 1956 he predicted that by 2010 US annual gas production would be 4 TCF. But in 2010, US wells produced more than 26 TCF of gas.

The flaw of Peak Oil theory is that it assumes the amount of a resource is a static number determined solely by geological factors. But the size of a exploitable resource also depends upon price and technology. These factors are very difficult to predict.

The US oil industry began in 1859 when Colonel Edwin Drake hired blacksmith Billy Smith to drill a 69-foot-deep well. Subsequent technological advances have opened up resources beyond the limits of our ancestors' imaginations. We can drill offshore in water up to eight-thousand feet deep. We have enhanced recovery techniques, horizontal drilling, and four-dimensional seismic imaging. Oklahoma oilman Harold Hamm is turning North Dakota into Saudi Arabia by utilizing hydraulic fracturing technology. US oil production has reversed its forty-year long decline. By the year 2020, it is anticipated that the US will be the world's top oil producer.

For at least a hundred years, people have repeatedly warned that the world is running out of oil. In 1920, the US Geological Survey estimated that the world contained only 60 billion barrels of recoverable oil. But to date we have produced more than 1000 billion barrels and currently have more than 1500 billion barrels in reserve. World petroleum reserves are at an all-time high. The world is awash in a glut of oil. Conventional oil resources are currently estimated to be in the neighborhood of ten trillion barrels. The resource base is growing faster than production can deplete it.

In addition to conventional oil, the US has huge amounts of unconventional oil resources that remain untouched. The western US alone has 2000 billion barrels of oil in the form of oil shales. At a current consumption rate of 7 billion barrels a year, that's a 286-year supply.

Nine years ago, I predicted that "the age of petroleum has only just begun." I was right. The Peak Oil theorists, the malthusians, and the environmentalists were all wrong. They have been proven wrong, over and over again, for decades. A tabulation of every failed prediction of resource exhaustion would fill a library.

Sustainability is a chimera. No energy source has been, or ever will be, sustainable. In the eleventh century, Europeans anticipated the industrial revolution by transforming their society from dependence on human and animal power to water power. In the eighteenth century, water power was superseded by steam engines fired by burning wood. Coal replaced wood, and oil and gas have now largely supplanted coal. In the far distant future we will probably utilize some type of nuclear power. But for at least the next hundred years, oil will remain our primary energy source because it is abundant, inexpensive, and reliable.

Petroleum is the lifeblood of our industrial economy. The US economy will remain stagnant and depressed until we begin to aggressively develop our native energy resources. As Harold Hamm has said, "we can do this." What's stopping us is not geology, but ignorance and bad public policy.

April 9, 2012

David Deming [send him mail] is associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma. His book, Black & White: Politically Incorrect Essays on Politics, Culture, Science, Religion, Energy and Environment, is available for purchase on Amazon.com.

http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming9.1.1.html

Doug Casey on Peak Oil

Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator

L: Doug, in our conversation last week about Syria, we talked about implications for the oil business, and you mentioned Peak Oil. That's a controversial subject to some, and we've had questions about it. Care to comment?

Doug: There shouldn't be any controversy, as the facts are clear – and there wouldn't be any, if so many people weren't so obstinate about misunderstanding plain English. For instance, I was just reading an article the other day, entitled Whatever Happened to Peak Oil?, in which the writer comes across as if not an idiot, then at least intellectually dishonest. He does so first by his reference to an apocalyptic religious prediction, where he implies that those who credit M. King Hubbert's Peak Oil theory are like foolish religious fanatics, as opposed to analysts of a possible geological reality, and second – and more important – by showing a complete failure to grasp the very simple essence of the Peak Oil argument.

L: Which is?

Doug: In essence, that there is a finite amount of conventional light, sweet crude in the earth's crust. That statement may not seem like a cosmic breakthrough, on its face. After all, if you have a 42-gallon barrel of oil and you consume 21 barrels, it's simple arithmetic that 21 barrels remain. On the other hand, wealth is something men create, not something that they simply find. That philosophical fact, however, doesn't really have much to do with Peak Oil theory.

This theory is widely misunderstood, even by economically literate people, oddly enough. Such people rightly point out that the world will basically never run out of anything, as long as the market is free to set prices. Decreased supply increases prices, which simultaneously causes people to economize, and incentivizes new producers and new alternatives to enter the field. That's absolutely true, but irrelevant to Hubbert's point, which was strictly a geological one: The number of conventional deposits of light, sweet crude in the US are finite, and the search for them has been more thorough than anywhere else in the world, and a documented decline in discoveries had to lead to a documented decline in production – of this particular kind of oil.

Peak Oil is a major reason why, in spite of a rapidly cooling global economy, oil prices are still near historic highs, at over $95 a barrel. In part, this is due to so-called "quantitative easing" – i.e., money-printing – but it's also clearly evidence of the essential correctness of Hubbert's theory, which accurately predicted the peaking of light, sweet crude-oil production in the US circa 1970. It was not only technically daring, but occupationally and politically dangerous in the '50s for Hubbert to forecast that the US, and then world production, would go into decline. And he was right.

L: Oil sands were not part of his consideration.

Doug: Right. To my knowledge, he never said anything about oil sands, shale oil, oil from coal, heavy oil from Venezuela, or deep ocean drilling off the coast of Brazil or other places. He did not say, and Peak Oil does not mean, that the world is going to run out of oil. All he said was that the lowest-hanging fruit was picked – the production of that particular kind would go into permanent decline. Technology is constantly pushing both production costs lower and expanding economic supply. But the simple fact that the low-hanging fruit is being depleted at an accelerating rate worldwide is simultaneously pushing costs up. In fact, for many years – especially the '0s and '60s – people discovered a lot more oil than the world produced. But since 1980, the world has produced more oil than people discovered. Petroleum geos believe there are about two trillion barrels of recoverable conventional oil, and we now appear to have produced a bit over half of it.

Unconventional oil supplies of all types could easily be ten times as great as the light, sweet crude supplies we're depleting – but that's simply not relevant to Hubbert's theory, which was a geological statement, not an economic one.

L: There's no real argument on this point, right? US light, sweet crude production did peak, just as he foresaw.

Doug: That's correct. And he also predicted that in about 2005-2010, light, sweet crude production would peak globally – and it has.

A lot of people pooh-pooh Peak Oil saying, quite correctly, that we'll never run out of oil. That's true partly because of the huge amounts of unconventional oil available, partly because of constant improvements in technology, and because of the basic economic arguments I mentioned earlier. But again, these things are irrelevant to Hubbert's point and its documented correctness.

The take-away point from all this is that the cost of oil production has likely found a new floor. Peak Oil doesn't mean we run out of oil – only that the cost of production, which now often runs about $40 per conventional barrel and up to $80 per unconventional barrel, all-in, is never going back down to where it was. Prices can never go back to where they were either, because if they drop – or are forced by law – below the cost of production, there won't be any production.

Even considering the current economic downturn, which is in fact the Greater Depression beginning, the developing world, especially the Chinese and Indians, is going to be using a lot more oil. It's just going to have to come more and more from higher-cost, unconventional sources. It's worth noting that oil consumption in the developed world – North America, Europe, and Japan – is flat and has been for years. The growth in consumption – and there will be growth – is coming from China, India, and the rest of the world, where 80% of the people are.

L: Is there really no chance of ever running out? Even the unconventional stuff must be finite…

Doug: No – or rather, it's an academic point. As a matter of basic science, oil is really a simple chemical. It's just carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, all of which are common and abundant on our planet. We can make oil in the lab now; and at high-enough prices, it would be economic to make oil products in chemical plants, out of these three basic elements. If we're right about nanotechnology, the cost of synthesizing gasoline and almost any molecules you can think of will drop to trivial levels – with no waste or byproducts.

L: If we ever get cheap, programmable assemblers…

Doug: Even without that, they – in particular Craig Venter, who is also responsible for huge breakthroughs in sequencing the human genome – are already working on algae that make oil. There are lots of technological fixes for this. It simply makes no sense to worry about running out of oil in particular or fuel in general. It's not going to happen.

L: That doesn't stop the Mad Max wannabes from citing Peak Oil as scientific proof that The End is nigh.

Doug: [Chuckles] Yes, there seem to be two schools of thought relating to Hubbert's theory. Both are basically reflections of the psychology of the people in question and have nothing to do with Peak Oil. One group says the world is running out of oil completely – the "Mad Max" group you referenced. The other says Hubbert was wrong, and we'll never run out of oil. Of course, they are right that we'll never run out, but Hubbert was right about conventional light, sweet oil – which is basically what the world has run on for the last century.

L: Investment implications? People wonder if these more-expensive-to-produce, alternative oil supplies are viable, and the answer is…

Doug: Yes. The answer is yes. But even that's no big deal, over the long haul. Oil is the most compact, dense store of easily transportable energy we have, making it ideal for vehicles today. Fifty years from now, however, there will be a dozen cheaper and better technologies.

The chattering classes have an innate and most regrettable tendency to become hysterical over any possible problem – most of them temporary, illusory, artificial, or imaginary. Global warming, overpopulation, immigration, food shortages, nuclear power, drugs, genetically modified organisms – they're all blown up out of all proportion, just like the so-called energy crisis. That's because hysteria leads to calls for political action, and political action feeds power to the state and its minions.

The fact of the matter is that most things are nonproblems... or absolutely would be if the market was allowed to solve them.

L: Sure – just look at how far electric cars have come. Nobody wanted them before, because something like a golf cart is simply not practical for driving the kids to school, bringing home a cord of wood, or driving across the country. Enter the Tesla Roadster – the thing can accelerate faster than my Corvette. If it could go both as far and fast as my 'Vette, I might just buy one. But that design is already several years old, and batteries and electric motors keep getting lighter and more powerful. As they get better, there won't be any point in governments forcing people to buy electric cars – they'll want them because they are better cars. I've already seen free electric-charging stations at rest areas between my house and Vancouver – this could work for me.

Doug: Exactly. Moore's Law applies here too, though maybe at a different rate. As I like to point out, there are more scientists and engineers alive today than during all the rest of history combined – and they are busy doing things.

L: So would you buy stock in Tesla Motors (Nasdaq: TSLA)?

Doug: I might, but I don't know the company well enough. And the stock market doesn't impress me as a bargain, either. Anyway, a great idea doesn't always make for a great company. It's a pioneer, and pioneers often wind up full of arrows. I leave that sort of thing to Alex Daley and the Casey Extraordinary Technology team.

L: Other investment implications?

Doug: Well, as I was just saying, oil prices have probably reached a new plateau, based on the cost of production, which is driven by the Peak Oil factor. Prices of raw materials cannot fall below the cost of production, even with government price controls – not for longer than stockpiles last, anyway.

I think the same argument applies for gold and silver – and many other elements and minerals, by the way.

L: So are you buying oil stocks now, or are you looking for lower prices, given your bearish view of the global economy in the near term?

Doug: As with Alex and the technology stocks and you with mining stocks, when it comes to particular oil companies, I follow whatever Marin Katusa says in our energy letters very carefully.

But I have to say that the oil business is different from mining. Mining is a tough and, in today's world, basically a crappy business. It's unwanted, expensive, high risk, and has a myriad other problems. They can be addressed, but they never go away. At least on technical grounds, oil is a much easier business; you can see what you're usually looking for with 3D seismic surveys and one drill hole can both make your discovery and put it into production. Some of those holes can deliver thousands of barrels of oil per day for years. So, as far as the economics, science, and engineering goes, it's a much better business than mining – but for the same reasons, it's become much more politicized. That makes government risk even greater than mining.

At any rate, my gut sense is that just like the junior mining stocks, junior oil stacks are bouncing around near a bottom. And oil juniors are almost as volatile as junior mining stocks.

L: Well, whether it's in oil, technology, or metals exploration, when you go from having nothing but an idea to having a discovery with measurable value, the results for shareholders can be spectacular. The change in value from nothing to something – whatever that "something" is – can make for three- and four-digit percentage gains in days. That's why we like these "most volatile stocks on earth," as you call them.

Doug: That's right. Speculating on a discovery in any of these fields takes nerves of steel and a true contrarian mindset, but for those who have the discipline, the results can be life-changing.

There are literally thousands of these little venture companies you could bet on. You have to be diligent – ruthless, actually – about narrowing the field, which is what makes our "8 Ps" approach to separating the wheat from the chaff so important.

L: The 8 Ps – my mantra and my marching orders. Okay then, thanks for the clarification on Peak Oil.

Doug: My pleasure. See you next week at our upcoming Carlsbad Summit. I look forward to spending time with many of our readers there.

L: Me too – always fun. And for those who can't make it, we'll both be at this year's New Orleans conference.

Doug: Well, speaking of other gatherings, there are efforts to start new Casey phyles in Thailand and Tennessee. If any of our readers live in those areas and are looking for like minds – or if they live somewhere else and would like to find or start a Casey group, they can find out more by emailing phyle@caseyresearch.com.

L: Very good. See you soon!

August 30, 2012

Doug Casey (send him mail) is a best-selling author and chairman of Casey Research, LLC., publishers of Casey’s International Speculator.

http://lewrockwell.com/casey/casey133.html