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

Originally Posted by loservillelabor

Originally Posted by Daculling

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Sorry, but I don't consider a couple of charts based on extremely limited information to constitute serious "competition."

What's the prize/

We don't know. There seemed to be a glove thrown down or rather a tinfoil hat.

I really am sorry about the tinfoil hat comment. To all please excuse me.

Yep...there is definite market manipulation on gasoline at the pump.

It's $2.39 in Eastern NC today....could be lower again tomorrow. We have some "extra" taxes they added on last year or it might even be lower by now.

Anyway, it's falling like rocks at the pump because these CEO's are about to poop their pants over the risk of anti-trust investigations and criminal prosecutions. Remember...Congress had some hearings. All those CEO's looked like a bunch of Mafia Thugs lined up at the tables...all saying the same thing, working off the same script.....under oath which subjects them to Perjury and Obstruction of Justice Charges along with their actual price fixing and gouging games.

So....since Ken Lay....Congressional Hearings....they're all real scared.

Alas!! Prices start falling like rocks.

Also, I think they are afraid "their boy" in the White House might be impeached and then we'd have an all new Justice Department....hungry, eager, possibly even some legal idealists....like the good ole days....ready to hunt down and pounce on injustice and criminal behavior that hurts our nation and our citizens. Yep...their scared poopy less.

Originally Posted by Daculling

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Daculling

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Again, you should read up on the available evidence that the Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins is accurate.

I have read quite a bit about abiotic oil. But it does not explain what I see on the graph. Why have discoveries declined since the mid-sixties?

Didn't you read your graph? It's based on Exxon-Mobil. It is the Russians, who are now leading the world in oil production, by the way, who have been locating their oilfields using the abiotic model, not Exxon-Mobil. Only Western finds have decreased since the mid-'60s. Siberian finds are up.

Ok, you don't like the source. Here's the USGS that says the same.




Well heres a report from the Army Corps of Engineers that puts global peak petroleum production at 2015. They obviously have some input to the situation because you can't run tanks and planes on love and kindness right?

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTR...c=GetTRDoc.pdf


The Hirsch report to the Department of Energy puts it sometime between 2016-2036

http://www.hilltoplancers.org/stories/hirsch0502.pdf[/img]


Now for your Russian friends... when they stop believing in UFOs and Remote viewing I'll listen to them. Yes they are producing more than Arabia now but that does not prove that oil is abiotic. My question to you now is why does abiotic oil only work in Russia?

That chart STILL utterly ignores the INCREASE in finds in Russian controlled territory using the abiotic model. It's meaningless UNTIL you stop citing what the guys are finding using the old model without taking into account the vast new finds by Russia. Do you have an ulterior motive or are you just an underinformed alarmist?

Russia saw some declines in production following the breakup of the Soviet Union, but have rapidly boosted production since exploration was semi-privatized. Russia now exports over 50% of its production.

The CIA used the Western method for determining potential production when it made the flawed determination back in 1985 that the Soviets were overexploiting their oilfields and would see such an immediate decline that they would become net importers within a decade. Here we are twenty years later and Russia has become the largest exporter of petroleum. The CIA was completely wrong, which is why you have to be careful citing governmental projections.

BTW - Despite your chart's bogus projections, two of the largest oilfields ever discovered have been found in the last year, one being the massive Caspian find and the other being the Gulf of Mexico find recently announced by Chevron. Add to that recent massive Siberian finds and the P95 projection on the chart is farcical. The P5 projection looks more like a more realistic guess.

.....under oath which subjects them to Perjury and Obstruction of Justice Charges along with their actual price fixing and gouging games.

I thought that Congress did not require the oil execs to be under oath? I don't think we've got the testimony or evidence to prove price fixing. Can anyone prove price fixing to CG and Daculling? Not me.

Originally Posted by loservillelabor

.....under oath which subjects them to Perjury and Obstruction of Justice Charges along with their actual price fixing and gouging games.

I thought that Congress did not require the oil execs to be under oath? I don't think we've got the testimony or evidence to prove price fixing. Can anyone prove price fixing to CG and Daculling? Not me.

Well, again, you would have to prove that someone was somehow influencing commodity bids in the open market or that they were providing false information in an attempt to influence investors. Oil companies simply do not set prices.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

That chart STILL utterly ignores the INCREASE in finds in Russian controlled territory using the abiotic model. It's meaningless UNTIL you stop citing what the guys are finding using the old model without taking into account the vast new finds by Russia.

Well I'm quoting studies from the Department of Energy and the US military... are you saying that I must only quote information from Russian? Please provide a graph that shows Russian reserves endlessly refilling themselves because I've spent an hour looking for one and I can't find it.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Do you have an ulterior motive or are you just an underinformed alarmist?

No and No.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Russia saw some declines in production following the breakup of the Soviet Union, but have rapidly boosted production since exploration was semi-privatized. Russia now exports over 50% of its production.

Imagine that, Capitalism out producing Communism.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

The CIA used the Western method for determining potential production when it made the flawed determination back in 1985 that the Soviets were overexploiting their oilfields and would see such an immediate decline that they would become net importers within a decade. Here we are twenty years later and Russia has become the largest exporter of petroleum. The CIA was completely wrong, which is why you have to be careful citing governmental projections.

Well it looks like I can no longer site projections from the most authoritative sources. So please answer these questions for me about this abiotic oil that will save us?

1.Why have the Texas oil fields haven't magically re-filled themselves by now.

2. In PA oil used to just gush out of the ground. Why does it only produce 7000 barrels a day almost 100 years now after it peaked and declined.

3. How do you explain the fact that in every known oil/gas reservoir the hydrocarbons are depleted in Carbon-13, given that the only chemical process known to cause such depletion is photosynthesis?

4. Why have the old fields drawn-down to the point that they no longer produce oil? Are all the old fields not connected?

5. Abiotic oil... what good will it do since it is apparently not appearing in sufficient quantities in sufficient time to mean anything.

6. Of the oil fields that we depend on, which are being replaced by abiotic processes at a rate that will fuel cars and fly airplanes this year.

7. Which is better... the oil that comes out of the ground as soon as the well is installed or the abiotic kind that you have to go 10 miles deep and lift 10 miles.

Originally Posted by Daculling

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Daculling

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Again, you should read up on the available evidence that the Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins is accurate.

I have read quite a bit about abiotic oil. But it does not explain what I see on the graph. Why have discoveries declined since the mid-sixties?

Didn't you read your graph? It's based on Exxon-Mobil. It is the Russians, who are now leading the world in oil production, by the way, who have been locating their oilfields using the abiotic model, not Exxon-Mobil. Only Western finds have decreased since the mid-'60s. Siberian finds are up.

Ok, you don't like the source. Here's the USGS that says the same.




Well heres a report from the Army Corps of Engineers that puts global peak petroleum production at 2015. They obviously have some input to the situation because you can't run tanks and planes on love and kindness right?

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTR...c=GetTRDoc.pdf


The Hirsch report to the Department of Energy puts it sometime between 2016-2036

http://www.hilltoplancers.org/stories/hirsch0502.pdf[/img]


Now for your Russian friends... when they stop believing in UFOs and Remote viewing I'll listen to them. Yes they are producing more than Arabia now but that does not prove that oil is abiotic. My question to you now is why does abiotic oil only work in Russia?

You're not presenting anything new. Those guys keep using the same tired models and coming up with the same wrong answers. That's why the projection in your chart is already wrong just six years after it was produced.

Again, we have found several of the largest oilfields EVER just this year. I'm sorry that the facts refuse to square with your doom and gloom prognostications, but given a choice between hard facts and government guesswork, I'll take the hard facts.

As for your absurd claim that abiotic oil only "works" in Russia, I would suggest that you are grossly underinformed. The abiotic model is accepted by a wide and widening range of geologists. As usual, the government hacks are the last to catch up with the state of the art.

Originally Posted by Daculling

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

That chart STILL utterly ignores the INCREASE in finds in Russian controlled territory using the abiotic model. It's meaningless UNTIL you stop citing what the guys are finding using the old model without taking into account the vast new finds by Russia.

Well I'm quoting studies from the Department of Energy and the US military... are you saying that I must only quote information from Russian? Please provide a graph that shows Russian reserves endlessly refilling themselves because I've spent an hour looking for one and I can't find it.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Do you have an ulterior motive or are you just an underinformed alarmist?

No and No.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Russia saw some declines in production following the breakup of the Soviet Union, but have rapidly boosted production since exploration was semi-privatized. Russia now exports over 50% of its production.

Imagine that, Capitalism out producing Communism.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

The CIA used the Western method for determining potential production when it made the flawed determination back in 1985 that the Soviets were overexploiting their oilfields and would see such an immediate decline that they would become net importers within a decade. Here we are twenty years later and Russia has become the largest exporter of petroleum. The CIA was completely wrong, which is why you have to be careful citing governmental projections.

Well it looks like I can no longer site projections from the most authoritative sources. So please answer these questions for me about this abiotic oil that will save us?

1.Why have the Texas oil fields haven't magically re-filled themselves by now.

2. In PA oil used to just gush out of the ground. Why does it only produce 7000 barrels a day almost 100 years now after it peaked and declined.

3. How do you explain the fact that in every known oil/gas reservoir the hydrocarbons are depleted in Carbon-13, given that the only chemical process known to cause such depletion is photosynthesis?

4. Why have the old fields drawn-down to the point that they no longer produce oil? Are all the old fields not connected?

5. Abiotic oil... what good will it do since it is apparently not appearing in sufficient quantities in sufficient time to mean anything.

6. Of the oil fields that we depend on, which are being replaced by abiotic processes at a rate that will fuel cars and fly airplanes this year.

7. Which is better... the oil that comes out of the ground as soon as the well is installed or the abiotic kind that you have to go 10 miles deep and lift 10 miles.

I'll skip over the first part of your post, which is just a load of evasion, and go right to the enumerated questions:

1. Some Texas oilfields have in fact replenished after a period of inactivity, and there's nothing magic about it. I'm not sure where you are getting your information that Texas oilfields are depleted in the first place. Most simply are not pumping until prices go high enough. That's because they are privately owned and used by families as a perpetual family revenue source. It makes no sense to pump when prices are low.

2. Any given pocket of oil may or may not be insular. You are using a very old and tired rhetorical device called the error of insufficient sample. You can't use a single alleged case to set a rule.

3. Your premise is errant. There are interplanetary dust particles that are similarly depleted of Carbon-13. Unless you are claiming that there are plants on Jupiter, your premise is flawed. The simple fact is that the entire concept of Carbon-13 as a reliable marker has long been called into question because the various processes that may account for varying levels of the isotope are poorly understood at best.

4. Are old oilfields not connected? To what? Some pockets are isolated. Others have clearly shown the ability to refill. The point is that oil appears to be a product of the deep layers of the Earth that is constantly being extruded into the upper crustal regions. The only question is the rate at which the Earth is producing these hydrocarbons and the most active regions of extrusion.

5. That comment does not make sense. If the Russians and the MANY Western geologists who now agree with them are correct, ALL oil is abiotic. That is to say, while primordial life may well have developed from such hydrocarbons, such hydrocarbons did not develop from primordial life. Your premise is so thoroughly locked into the axiom that oil is a biological product that you can't even seem to see the logical flaws of the conclusions you're leaping to.

6. Another (intentionally?) stupid question. Since nothing resembling the totality of all oilfields has yet been mapped, there is no way to know how much oil (there is no such thing as abiotic versus biotic oil) is being produced. However, new finds are getting larger, not smaller. Ixtoc was the largest offshore find when crappy Mexican workers screwed up and dumped almost the whole field into the Gulf of Mexico, and that was less thirty years ago. The new Gulf find is larger than Ixtoc. The Caspian find is one of the largest ever, and recent Siberian finds are on par with those. We appear to be in a new golden age of oil exploration with huge finds occurring yearly. Your facts are as flawed as your premise.

7. Oil is oil. There is no such thing as an "abiotic" kind. You appear to completely misunderstand the concept. The idea is that ALL oil is produced the same way. The only difference is the extent to which anaerobic bacteria may have introduced additional organic matter into the given field. Just as all magma is magma until it punches through the crust and to the surface as lava, so is all petroleum just petroleum. Magma may remain deep within the Earth's core, it may form "lakes" that are more or less static for long periods, or it may gush forth under pressure. Petroleum can behave in the same manner, which is why there are large open deposits, more difficult to access shale deposits, open tar pits, etc.

At first I thought I was debating someone who actually understood the topic. Now I see that you are simply quoting bad government charts and rummaging around the internet for anything that will support the position you have staked out. Read Gold's book as I suggested and then get back to me.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

I'll skip over the first part of your post, which is just a load of evasion, and go right to the enumerated questions:

You asked the questions so I answered them. I’m sorry I didn’t realize that they were at best rhetorical but possibly just a character attack meant to deflect attention from the debate at hand.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

1. Some Texas oilfields have in fact replenished after a period of inactivity, and there's nothing magic about it. I'm not sure where you are getting your information that Texas oilfields are depleted in the first place. Most simply are not pumping until prices go high enough. That's because they are privately owned and used by families as a perpetual family revenue source. It makes no sense to pump when prices are low.

If they have in fact replenished then well head pressure should have risen and the flow should have increased when in fact it has dropped steadily since the early 1970’s despite implementation of secondary recovery methods. While some individual fields may have increased production after resting this is most likely due to a deeper structure migrating up after the pressure of the upper structure initially drops, this is the exception and not the rule. Your statement that the owner’s simply are not pumping it is absurd on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin. Oil is near record high prices adjusted for inflation. There is no disincentive to produce the oil. If you are going to suggest that the good people of Texas are somehow more concerned for their children’s future welfare and therefore conserve the oil then you will have to produce some sociological evidence backing up that claim.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

2. Any given pocket of oil may or may not be insular. You are using a very old and tired rhetorical device called the error of insufficient sample. You can't use a single alleged case to set a rule.

Then I will use all of the samples as I did previously. Please see the graph I posted previously of US oil production. It has declined as a whole since the 1970’s. When I give consolidated data you complain. When I give a specific data you call it an “old and tired device”. I’m sorry, you can’t have it both ways depending on what day it is.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

3. Your premise is errant. There are interplanetary dust particles that are similarly depleted of Carbon-13. Unless you are claiming that there are plants on Jupiter, your premise is flawed. The simple fact is that the entire concept of Carbon-13 as a reliable marker has long been called into question because the various processes that may account for varying levels of the isotope are poorly understood at best.

I understand. You call into question Carbon-13 dating as a concept. I will not debate you on this because it is another debate entirely. I withdraw the question.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

4. Are old oilfields not connected? To what? Some pockets are isolated. Others have clearly shown the ability to refill. The point is that oil appears to be a product of the deep layers of the Earth that is constantly being extruded into the upper crustal regions. The only question is the rate at which the Earth is producing these hydrocarbons and the most active regions of extrusion.

As I stated before the refilling can be explained by the migration of oil from one structure to another after the initial drop in pressure. You are right to question the rate at which the production is occurring. I’m questioning that as well.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

5. That comment does not make sense. If the Russians and the MANY Western geologists who now agree with them are correct, ALL oil is abiotic. That is to say, while primordial life may well have developed from such hydrocarbons, such hydrocarbons did not develop from primordial life. Your premise is so thoroughly locked into the axiom that oil is a biological product that you can't even seem to see the logical flaws of the conclusions you're leaping to.

The comment does make since and assumes that in fact all oil is abiotic as you claim. Our economic setup requires cheap and easy to produce oil. The harder it is to produce the more strain it puts on the world economy. Not only do we have to produce at least as much oil as we consume now but we have to continually increase production to account for rising populations and increasing economic activity. Everyone should know that zero GDP expansion general sucks. I call into question the rate that the oil is being replaced and its ability to essentially increase supply forever.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

6. Another (intentionally?) stupid question. Since nothing resembling the totality of all oilfields has yet been mapped, there is no way to know how much oil (there is no such thing as abiotic versus biotic oil) is being produced. However, new finds are getting larger, not smaller. Ixtoc was the largest offshore find when crappy Mexican workers screwed up and dumped almost the whole field into the Gulf of Mexico, and that was less thirty years ago. The new Gulf find is larger than Ixtoc. The Caspian find is one of the largest ever, and recent Siberian finds are on par with those. We appear to be in a new golden age of oil exploration with huge finds occurring yearly. Your facts are as flawed as your premise.

First off personal insults do not help your argument. I agree that there is no way of knowing how much oil is out there but you are missing the point that it’s not how much is there but how much we can produce. Most new finds are harder to produce, are in unstable parts of the world or are under 7000 feet of water in hurricane prone areas such as the Jack2 wildcat I think you’re referring to. I hardly share your optimism about a “golden age” of oil exploration. These facts only prove desperation. I would comment and site evidence about the specific fields you mention but you have not provided any evidence and when I site evidence from legitimately recognized authorities you reject it so I will not… moving on.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

7. Oil is oil. There is no such thing as an "abiotic" kind. You appear to completely misunderstand the concept. The idea is that ALL oil is produced the same way. The only difference is the extent to which anaerobic bacteria may have introduced additional organic matter into the given field. Just as all magma is magma until it punches through the crust and to the surface as lava, so is all petroleum just petroleum. Magma may remain deep within the Earth's core, it may form "lakes" that are more or less static for long periods, or it may gush forth under pressure. Petroleum can behave in the same manner, which is why there are large open deposits, more difficult to access shale deposits, open tar pits, etc.

Ok, assuming that all oil is abiotic and now that the easy to produce fields are declining how long do I have to wait for these fields to recharge. And don’t give me “it depends”. I want years and I would prefer cited material to back that up but I really don’t expect it. What is riding on this theory is our entire way of life. We have to be sure about this because the alternative is a nightmare.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

At first I thought I was debating someone who actually understood the topic. Now I see that you are simply quoting bad government charts and rummaging around the internet for anything that will support the position you have staked out. Read Gold's book as I suggested and then get back to me.

Like I stated previously, personal attacks on my character do nothing for your argument. As for the “rummaging around the internet and looking at government charts” I am attempting to post evidence from government sanctioned organizations that are peer reviewed as well as the major corporations involved in the production of petroleum. I seek information from diverse sources. While your comment seems intended as an insult I’ll take it as a compliment for you simply post your opinion based on what you read in one book written by one man. The difference is night and day. Read a book is really not a valid defense of your position. If it was, I would be telling you to read any number of books on oil depletion but I’m not going to do that. I don’t know if I’ll contribute to this threat any longer but I just want you to know that deep down I really hope your right about this and that I am wrong. Because I like to do things like drive, eat and not fight resource wars. All that goes out the window if you’re wrong.

/tips hat