Thread: What's up? Gas Prices Down???

Originally Posted by Daculling

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Not necessarily. What's more, technology offsets these challenges. There was a time that the only "accessible" oil was that which percolated up to the Earth's surface. Then we figured out how to drill for it. Then we figured out how to use pressure to force more oil out. Then we figured out how to water wash deposits from between rock strata. Technology solves many problems..

Yes, you prove my point exactly. Over time petroleum production requires increased technology and energy to produce. No more cheap oil.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

It is impossible to say when oil will peak because we can only vaguely guess at what new finds will be located and how emerging markets like China will impact consumption. Using currently available data and limited assumptions predicated on current technologies, I think that it would likely be many decades before there is any sort of serious peak oil concern. I have seen estimates of 60 to 70 years that appear realistic, but in that span of time so many variables will come into play that it's hard to even call such speculation an educated guess.

Yes, it is hard to tell.. most likely demand destruction will take effect before a peak is seen. I diverge with your 70 year prediction though. I think it will be seen within the next 20 years. More reason to fix our problems at home.

I have to disagree about technology. Technological advances can make production cheaper. It does not necessarily increase costs. Look at the cotton gin or the sewing machine.

I have a good basis for my igure, even if it is based on many unknowables. For one thing, we have seen a recent trend of megafinds of accessible reserves. The Gulf of Mexico reserves referneced above, for example, should prove fairly inexpensive to produce and will potentially provide a lrge portion of our domestic consumption for many decades.

Originally Posted by Daculling

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

[
What's more, you can't read very well. The source for one chart was Bloomberg, the source for the other was the Illinois Oil and Gas Association. I'm not sure how you interpret either of those as being "governmental data."

CPI-U Inflaction index - www.bis.gov

I'm not sure what your link (which does not come up) was meant to convey, but some statistics are necessarily governmental in nature (the census, for example). I believe that you are just trying to be confrontational with such nitpicking because you have no meaningful rebuttal for my presentation of a factual basis for refuting your claim that the costs of oil production are increasing in any sort of meaningful way. They have, in fact, gone down considerably over the last several decades after that 1970s peak.

CG - In reference to this:

World has ample oil supplies, Exxon Mobile chief says
The head of the petroleum company Exxon Mobil has moved to debunk what he says is a myth about an imminent oil shortage.

Exxon Mobil chief executive Mark Nolan has told 600 petroleum engineers at the Asia-Pacific Oil and Gas Conference in Adelaide that there is ample oil in the world to supply future demand.

Proponents of the peak oil theory say supplies will start to dwindle in less than 20 years.

Mr Nolan says there is still at least three trillion barrels of oil left in the world, and consumers have used just one trillion barrels so far.

Mr Nolan has also rejected the carbon emissions trading scheme, saying it is not a long-term solution, and has questioned the overall environmental benefits possible through alternative fuels such as ethanol.

The conference runs until Wednesday.

Is this your rebuttal?

Do you want to believe "our" people or just some of them?
Picking and choosing indeed.
The 3 trillion barrels he speaks of says nothing about abiotic oil or that the theory of abiotic oil is being used by exxon mobile to find and produce oil.

The 3 trillion barrels they speak of are things such as tar sands and heavy oils in venezuala.
This is where the knowledge of EROEI and URR becomes very important.

Now you mentioned something earlier about the "HUGE MEGA" find in the gulf of mexico and the caspian region.
Well heres a link and after that I will explain:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14678206/ LINK

Ok 3 to 15 billion barrels is the initial estimate of this "HUGE FIND".
The US consumes roughly 7.5 billion barrels per year so at best it runs us for 2 years.

When they suggest 3-15 billion barrels they are talking about equivilent hydrocarbons which means not just oil but natural gas condensates etc etc and that ratio is usually around 80% petroleum and 20% condensates = .8

Then we need to look at URR or ultimately recoverable resources and to date most areas produce around 70% of the total proven resources = .7

So the "huge mega" find that you claim was one of the largest oil finds ever.....was not found using abiotic oil theory - was found by using traditional biotic oil theory:
could end up being as little as 3 billion/.8/ .7 = 1.68 billion barrels = approx 2.5 months of US demand.
could end up being as much as 15 billion/.8/.7 = 8.4 billion barrels = a little over one year of US demand.

The caspian region has optomistically been said to contain upto 40 billion barrels yet only around 10 bb recoverable.

Heres a link:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...21/ai_63127268

ok this one says 30 billion so lets roll with that ok.
30 billion/.8 /.7 = 16.8 billion barrels and the world uses? 31 billion per year and the US uses 7.5 billion per year.
2 years for america and 1/2 a year for the world.

Yeah real "huge" finds there.
A perfect example of unfounded optomism and denial of the very real situation we are facing.

The caspian region also explains the pipeline and why we needed afghanistan.

I am not going to deny that our leaders are doing what is right for this country.
I just wish they would tell the truth as to why.
People who do not understand whats really going on rest well at night believing it is all a conspiracy as even with that thought there is the belief that at least someone is in control.

Oil exploration costs are not rising but getting cheaper you say?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=107255 LINK

Oil production costs are not rising but getting cheaper you say?
http://www.forbes.com/markets/2006/0...ml?partner=rss LINK

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...&from=business LINK

What you are referring to is that production costs did come down at one time as new technology was applied to exploration and production yet oddly enough as the price rises so does the price of everything else as it takes energy to find energy and now it is taking more energy to find less energy.

These are not "huge" finds by any definition of the word.
None of them were found by using anything but the latest technology which applies the fossil origin/sedimentary basin "logic" wether it is above or below water.
All of the giants were found with the FO/SB theory.
Costs of both exploration and production are up.

In regards to the geotimes article and abiotic oil theories yes again but please bare with me.

If you want to look at the Gulf of mexico then first you need to look at its history.
For many years geologists would walk into and out of meteor impact sites without ever realizing it so to say the science has came along way is an understatement yet given recent developements within the field we should not swing to the other side of the spectrum and suggest that we now know everything.

Now - we can look the world over and rarely find a "good" circle yet look at the moon and you see just how many impacts could have hit the earth.
The yucatan peninsula is most definately an impact area yet zoom out a bit and have a look at the entire gulf...
Yes......a circle.
We have a completely depressed, fractured and bowl (sedimentary basin) shaped area.
My belief is that this area is a huge crater and I bet I wouldnt have to look to far to find scientists who would concur.

Ya know I hope abiotic theory saves us yet I simply cannot believe that.
Some of us know too much and the others dont want to know.......

Now continue to amuse us with current joystick geology that sits confident with the knowledge that it sees and knows all or the russian claims as it is hard to trust anyone during wartime comrade......

I believe I will choose the side of 40 year veterans and others who are only now coming forth telling the truth regardless of the labels people such as yourself desire to attach to them only because you yourself cannot come to grips with the very likely truth.

Now in the beginning of my involvement with this "rant" I tried to show the lurkers here a reason why everyone is asking why.
It all ties in nicely folks and I am unable to unconnect the dots as I now see them.

videos seem to work best so heres my favorite peak oil and related links to date - enjoy:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...suburbia&hl=en The end of suburbia - trailer.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ke+and+mirrors OIL SMOKE AND MIRRORS - wow!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...06&q=911&hl=en
The history of War - helped me to understand how we got to this point.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=loose+change This one can make a grown man cry....most people cannot suspend their disbelief long enough to actually contemplate what is being said yet these indy filmakers are not alone.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...n+report&hl=en
and
http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/bestof.php
veterans for truth.

Why do I mix up the subjects? because they are all just pieces of a big puzzle that relate to a thread on an illegal immigration forum concerned with gas prices.
I love my country and cannot believe what I am seeing - yet I can no longer deny it!
When you get to this point CG send me a message maybe.....

I wonder why we will build a wall when the mexicans will just tunnel underneath!
I wonder why we will build a wall when its our own people who pull up in trucks to pick up cheap labor!
I wonder sometimes if some things are just used to divide us.........

Whats really going on world?

Dude, I am through debating you because you are dishonest and your criteria keep shifting. You claimed that I had posted no corroborative links when I had already done so. I can't help that you don't like peer-reviewed scientific papers but rather prefer environut punditry which reduces the debates to sloganeering. I can't help that you don't know the difference between a geophysicist/astrophysicist and an astronomer, or that you prefer to make vain attempts to discredit each and every person who disagrees with your precious "peak oil" nonsense rather than rebutting their valid arguments. I cannot do anything with the fact that you take a single supporting excerpt from my post and try and pretend that it is the entirety of my argument by asking "is that your rebuttal." What a thoroughly CHEAP bit of sophistry that was! I can't help that you dishonestly claim that i cannot product "a single link" demonstrating that even one significant find has been located using the abiogenic model, yet when I produce multiple links showing that some 100 fields have been located using that method, rather than admitting your OBVIOUS error, you try to shift the argument to some other nonsense.

I don't accuse those I am debating of dishonesty until they repeatedly use illegitimate or dishonest tactics. Sir, I am accusing you of dishonesty and an absolute refusal to debate honestly. I don't know what your angle is or what dog you have in this hunt, but it sure as hell is not the honest pursuit of the truth of the matter or else you would acknowledge all the points for which I have provided ample substantiation and all the points on which you have quite simply been in error.

To recap:

1. You claim that no oil is being found using the abiogenic model, yet I have proven that this is not only untrue, but that substantial oilfields are being located using this model.

2. You attempt to deflect the theories of thomas Gold by attacking him personally and pretending that he is an "astronomer" whenhe was in fact a highly respected researcher who was qualified as an engineer, geophysicist, astrophysicist, and across other scientific disciplines.

3. You keep making claims to the effect that there is no serious debate as to the validity of peak oil, yet I have provided links proving that both major players in industry and in the environmental movement, not to mention a large percentage of actual geologists, doubt the peak oil theory as currently presented.

4. You have no answer as to how hydrocarbons could exist in large quantities of the Saturn moon Titan if it is not of abiogenic origin.

As always, I leave it to the intelligence of anyone auditing this debate to determine whose points have been made and whose have not. I also encourage anyone interested in the topic to read Gold's book and to review the various links provided on both sides. I don't need cheap rhetorical devices to support my opinion.

Quick follow-up for anyone else following the debate:

Please note how dogmaitc environmentalists and alarmists refuse to debate honestly. Rather than rebutting the facts presented, they attempt to ridicule them, even when they (the debaters) are utterly unqualified to pass judgment on peer-reviewed works by experts in the field. The use cheap rhetorical gimmicks, as above when "Tex" attacks a detailed rebuttal by selecting a single quote and pretending that it is the entirety of the rebuttal, are another earmark of desperate dogmatism. That's called a straw man arument, because rather than debating the facts presented, the dishonest debater attempts to focus on either what he perceives as the weakest of several arguments presented or else fabricates an argument not made by his opponent. "Tex" has done this several times in the course of this debate. Furthermore, he makes evidenciary demands and poses questions for which he demands answers, yet refuses to achnowledge those answers that refute his argument, refuses to provide any factual rebuttal (in fact providing no evidence that he even reviewed the information provided), and refuses to answer direct questions put to him, as when he deals with the existence of plentiful hydrocarbons on Titan and the existence of some 90 oilfields produced by the Russians alone using the abiotic model by simply dismissing them.

I write this post because I have had far too many debates on this site in which there is no debate, but rather the repeated posting of the same material and a refusal to address the valid counterpoints or to provide any factual rebuttal other than rebroadcasting the same argument.

Let's make this a logical exercise. Viewpoint A proposes a given model for a given process. Viewpoint B proposes a separate model. If all evidence of viewpoint A can also be addressed by Viewpoint B, yet much of the evidence of Viewpoint B cannot in any wise be explained by Viewpoint A, what is the logical conclusion? It is that either both viewpoints are valid under certain conditions or that only Viewpoint B is valid. My personal and informed opinion is that only Viewpoint B in this case (abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons) is accurate, but note that throughout I have been willing to acknowledge the possibility that both mechanisms may be at work. My opponent dogmatically holds that the abiogenic mechanism is either not in play or that it is responsible for insignificant quantities of petroleum even though there is ample evidence to the contrary. That is an untenable position from a logical standpoint and one that he does not even attempt to factually or logically defend. The best he can do is to use the invalid claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, even though there is plentiful evidence.

Put another way, primitive men believed that salamanders were creted from fire because they squirmed from logs used in campfires. Once evidence was presented that salamanders laid eggs and those eggs were hatched without the presence of fire, the superstitious belief became logically invalid. Similarly, because all the oil that was found in the first hundred years of serious petroleum exploration was found according to a certain theory (that it was produced from organic matter trapped in rock strata), the theory held sway in the geological community. However, once the presence of hydrocarbons that could not be accounted for in that model were discovered, the theory lost credibility and needed a revision. That the replacement theory accounts for the growing amount of petroleum produced from ednse granite structures that could not hold reserves under the prevailing model, that earlier model could no longer be held to be accurate or at least exclusively so.

Sadly, we appear to entering a sort of new Dark Ages in which entrenched interests dogmatically cling to discredited scientific models and attempt to shout down any contrary theory that challenges their orthodoxy. This is a frightening development. It is all the more frightening when undereducated masses are indoctrinated into the orthodoxy and taught to shout down the opposition. In many ways, this is the intellectual sibling of the sort of display we have seen on college campuses when those with contrary opinions are not only challenged, but in fact are not even allowed to speak.

Again, I ask that anyone who has an interest in this subject review ALL of the available research and eschew punditry for actual peer reviewed works, all the while applying the rules of logic. When the powers that be tell you there cannot exist a given creature, yet that creature is standing before you, it has come time to question the orthodox line and to question the motives of its purveyors.

Some people believe their own eyes rather then the outcome of an online discussion with less structure then a high school or college debate.

Some people like to talk alot while others prove points with links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._King_Hubbert <---link to M.King Hubbert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory <----link to hubbert peak theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Deffeyes<----- link to Kenneth S. Deffeyes
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/index.html<---- link to Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak
By Professor Kenneth S. Deffeyes

Readers comments on Professor Deffeyes' book:

"We are all hooked on oil, and oil is getting scarcer. Like it or not, changes are coming. But do we understand our choices, or even the variables that control our choices? Using aggressive analysis, common sense, and a liberal dash of humor, Deffeyes lays out our options. It's your life, your choices, your future; you can't afford to miss this book"
—Brian J. Skinner,
Eugene Higgins, Professor of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"With his folksy style and penetrating vision, Deffeyes tells it like it is. This book is another nail in the coffin of the age of oil."
—David Goodstein,
Vice Provost, California Institute of Technology,
and author of Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Worldwide oil production is now in the process of peaking and will soon begin an irreversible decline. With compelling, down-to-earth reasoning, this book explains both why the decline of our most precious fuel is inevitable, and how challenging it will be to cope with what comes next."
—Richard E. Smalley,
University Professor, Rice University,
and Nobel laureate in chemistry, 1996


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A valuable encore to Hubbert's Peak, this new book by Professor Deffeyes offers a wide-ranging overview of the world's energy alternatives 'beyond oil.' Its crystal-clear prose, easily understood by the layman, is peppered with anecdotes, memories, and scientific insights, mirroring the author's half century of first-hand experience in the industry."
—A.M. Samsam Bakhtiari,
Senior expert, National Iranian Oil Company


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In his new book, Professor Deffeyes stands on the world's peak oil output, like Moses peering from the mountaintop to the Promised Land. Beyond Oil is a must read for anyone who wants to learn more about one of the biggest challenges humanity has ever faced."
—Matthew R. Simmons,
Chairman, Simmons & Company International

__________________________________________________ ________

Now my president and vice have not openly suggested peak oil yet the geopolitical trends and some of their speechs do seem to suggest an energy crisis is upon us.
Jimmy Carter and the democrats went about telling america in a more direct way yet america chose to ignore and vote that "wacky" guy out of office.

The Hirsch report is an example of how our government is communicating the issue of peak oil throughout its own institutions:
http://www.energybulletin.net/7524.html
A more direct link to this report is here:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_peak...udy_hirsch.htm

Video: Rep. Bartlett's Peak Oil Presentation to the US Congress
http://www.energybulletin.net/5080.html <---link to videos

And for the democrats we have:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/dis...07/11/midday2/
A conversation with Bill Clinton - to the right is the AUDIO link to the show - 9 minutes into the interview ole billy boy states what is really on his mind.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...e+Rose+AL+GORE
<---LINK to Al gore on Charlie Rose show. A good review of "an inconvenient truth" and if you pay attention to the end of the interview you get to hear Al say peak oil is a serious concern or something to that effect.
30 minutes into the show gore says peak oil and at the end I believe.

I really dont know what else people like CG need to see to believe besides perhaps the price of a barrel of oil over $100 or maybe gas at $5 a gallon.
Same thing applies to climate change, how much more do you need to see to believe?

Lastly anyone with open eyes and half a mind can see who is the most honest and revealing here.
You tried to strawman Peak oil right from the get go with your abiotic argument BECAUSE it doesnt really matter where oil comes from - countries and region are peaking, it is getting more and more expensive to produce and explore for oil and most people agree we are fighting for it currently.

Why is the US allies with countries such as Saudi Arabia if indeed oil is not running out as Saudi arabia are human rights abusers - alot of these countries use slave labor and child slave labor and on and on...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/03/human.traffic/

None of those countries will ever be sanctioned as long as they have oil reserves and I wonder why........."because everyone knows that oil is abiotic and is replenishing all of our oil wells at rates that will more then make up for increased demand".........hardly and thats exactly what Crockets ghost would have people believe.

CG - do you realize that for someone to dig deep into peak oil then abiotic oil is the first myth or even irrelevant fact that they will face?
It is completely beside the point - OIL IS RENEWABLE! great.... yet it takes millions of years apparently so not great....

Now tell us how we will "find" fusion and or build new nuclear plants in every county/region in order to switch to the Hydrogen economy or maybe that we can grow biofuels to replace oil et al.

I ask for links so I can see what you see and yes be critical of the subject matter.
You know you should expect criticism.
All you are doing is standing Thomas Gold and the "russians" up against the rest of the peak oil proponents who for the most part are massively accredited, educated and experienced and then expecting me not to ask "who is thomas gold?".

If you go about winning arguments online then you do so by bully tactics.
Say alot - link to little or nothing relevant - nothing substantial or directly relevant - stay on the attack while you deflect any/all criticism.
Yep - a very popular position indeed.

Good day to you sir.

I am suspicious. Has this happened to anyone else

I believe the Oil Companies have a vested Interest that The republicans maintain the majority in congress, and that is their way of contributing for that to happen. If gas prices stayed very high or kept increasing there would have been a very good chance that voters would have tried to punish republicans in the november elections which would have been extremely bad for those oil companies. just my opinion.

The first portion of your post was unmitigated bloviation, so I'll address all the errors of the portion you directly address to me:

Originally Posted by texascowboy911

CG - do you realize that for someone to dig deep into peak oil then abiotic oil is the first myth or even irrelevant fact that they will face?
It is completely beside the point - OIL IS RENEWABLE! great.... yet it takes millions of years apparently so not great....

That's a new claim, and one for which you provide no substantiation. No one knows the rate at which petroleum is produced by the Earth. The point is that if it is abiotic, the potential quantities that ALREADY EXIST are probably VASTLY greater than that hypothesized under the biogenic model. The rate of replenishment has no practical meaning in our lifetimes if anything resembling the quantities postulated by the abiogenic model exist. So your claim is without merit.

Originally Posted by texascowboy911

Now tell us how we will "find" fusion and or build new nuclear plants in every county/region in order to switch to the Hydrogen economy or maybe that we can grow biofuels to replace oil et al.

I don't understand your premise. I do understand that you're at least ten years off the state of the art in energy research. Scalar wave generation, room temperature superconductors and carbon nanotube storage are the emerging technologies, but the simple fact is that all this stuff is driven by economics. Petroleum remains the least expensive energy source and will continue to remain such until the price permanently reaches several multiples of the cost in places like Europe, where the price is already more than double what it is here.

Originally Posted by texascowboy911

I ask for links so I can see what you see and yes be critical of the subject matter.

Oh, I see. My links regarding abiogenic fuel have kicked yer butt, so now you want to totally change the subject.

When you have rebutted the links regading abiogenic petroleum I will consider moving on to debate another topic. Until that time, I no longer consider this a debate but rather a one-sided drubbing from which you deal with your defeat by trying to change the subject.

Originally Posted by texascowboy911

You know you should expect criticism.
All you are doing is standing Thomas Gold and the "russians" up against the rest of the peak oil proponents who for the most part are massively accredited, educated and experienced and then expecting me not to ask "who is thomas gold?".

That is a damned lie, which you would know if you had looked at those links that you so disingenuously demanded. This is why I say without hesitation that you are not here to honestly debate the subject at hand.

Originally Posted by texascowboy911

If you go about winning arguments online then you do so by bully tactics.
Say alot - link to little or nothing relevant - nothing substantial or directly relevant - stay on the attack while you deflect any/all criticism.
Yep - a very popular position indeed.

Good day to you sir.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! If I have said little, as you claim, then it is even more PATHETIC that you can actually rebut not so much as one iota of it!

I'll give you this - You have your Leftist idealogue attack rhetoric down. How sad that you don't also have the capacity to offer anything even remotely resembling a factual rebuttal.

See, when you have a good argument with sound factual backing, you don't need endless links. One good argument beats a thousand tenuous ones.

I am leaving town for a week tomorrow, so I will once again remind you of the arguments you have been utterly incapable of addressing:

1. You claim that no oil is being found using the abiogenic model, yet I have proven that this is not only untrue, but that substantial oilfields are being located using this model.

2. You attempt to deflect the theories of thomas Gold by attacking him personally and pretending that he is an "astronomer" whenhe was in fact a highly respected researcher who was qualified as an engineer, geophysicist, astrophysicist, and across other scientific disciplines.

3. You keep making claims to the effect that there is no serious debate as to the validity of peak oil, yet I have provided links proving that both major players in industry and in the environmental movement, not to mention a large percentage of actual geologists, doubt the peak oil theory as currently presented.

4. You have no answer as to how hydrocarbons could exist in large quantities of the Saturn moon Titan if it is not of abiogenic origin.

My prediction is that you will answer this with even more misdirectional blather, thereby yet again avoiding actually answering anything.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

The first portion of your post was unmitigated bloviation, so I'll address all the errors of the portion you directly address to me:

Why must you start all your post like this? Debate 101: Don't open with an insult.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

The rate of replenishment has no practical meaning in our lifetimes if anything resembling the quantities postulated by the abiogenic model exist. So your claim is without merit.

What about your childrens' lifetime?

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Petroleum remains the least expensive energy source and will continue to remain such until the price permanently reaches several multiples of the cost in places like Europe, where the price is already more than double what it is here.

Which is why some are so concerned. There seems to be few alteratives when you take our lifestyle into concideration.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

HAHAHAHAHA!!! If I have said little, as you claim, then it is even more PATHETIC that you can actually rebut not so much as one iota of it!

Again... what's with the outrage? All I can say is that I'm sure glad that no one has figured out how to punch someone in the face over TCP/IP

Originally Posted by texascowboy911

I wonder why we will build a wall when the mexicans will just tunnel underneath!

Well maybe it will stop some.. maybe it will stop most. The other option is to stand around scratching your head looking stupid.