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

Originally Posted by Daculling

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.

It was less that the questions were rhetorical than that your answers were not answers.

Originally Posted by Daculling

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.

LOL!!! Ah, so ALL well head pressure everywhere has dropped and never replenished and you know this to be a fact? HILARIOUS!

Perhaps you can explain the INCREASE in production at Eugene Island, for starters?

Originally Posted by Daculling

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.

Again, you are using data from ONLY US production, which is predicated on the biotic theory. You also (again) ignore cases like Eugene Island in which declining wells spontaneously began to INCREASE production.

Originally Posted by Daculling

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.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Daculling

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.

The mechanism by which some deposits refill is unknown, but there is no evidence that it is due to connection to other static deposits. As a matter of fact, that answer makes no sense because a static deposit would have static pressure which, once relieved, should not again increase. At places like Eugene Island, pressure did in fact increase. This points to the injection of more petroleum through a replenishing process, not simply the intrusion of more petroleum from another static reserve.

Originally Posted by Daculling

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.

You can "call into question" whatever you like, but the fact is that huge new reserves are being located and that extraction of petroleum is still and will long remain the most cost-effective energy source capable of meeting global demand. Compare petroleum to other alternatives:

Ethanol: Requires the use of vast amounts of cropland (the use of which will eventually increase food prices) and produces a fuel with only about 80% the power per volume of gasoline.

Biodiesel: Cannot be created in sufficient amounts to offset actual diesel consumption.

Windpower: Cannot be generated in sufficient quantity to offset standard hydrocarbon production.

Nuclear power: Still (rightly or wrongly) considered too risky by many communities.

There are other sources of energy that are vastly superior to hydrocarbons, but the same technology can easily be weaponized and so has been rigorously suppressed.

Originally Posted by Daculling

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.

The insult was not personal, as it characterized the question (relative to answers previously provided) rather than the questioner.

You begin this response with a false generalization. The Caspian find will not be "harder to produce," nor will the new Gulf of Mexico find be any harder to produce than any other offshore find.

As to your claim that I have not provided any specifics, you can find all that you want on the Caspian find with a simple websearch. Ditto the Chevron find in the Gulf.

As for your "recognized authorities," it si not their credentials nor is it your citing of them per se that I criticize, but rather your refusal to cite or accept the vast body of contrary opinion in the West and the former Soviet Union. You present your little charts as though they are universally accepted as accurate, while I point out that the same government that porduced those charts also produced the grossly inaccurate assessment of Soviet reserves that had Russia becoming a net importer of petroleum ten years ago!

Originally Posted by Daculling

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.

Your circular logic is like that used by the "global warming" nuts who want no part of the simple fact that global warming and cooling is CLEARLY and inextricably linked to solar activity. You state that the reserves are dangerously declining because they are allegedly dangerously declining. That's not a position. It's dogma. The fact is that American PRODUCTION has been declining for various reasons, many of them having nothing whatsoever to do with available reserves. In the mean time, ME oil production has increased. South American production has increased. Russian production has increased. Scandinavian North Sea production has increased. There's a reason that you insist on citing only figures relating to US production!

Originally Posted by Daculling

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

I have repeatedly explained the deficiency of your cites. I have provided alternate sources of information including the definitive book on the subject of abiotic oil and a study citing geologists from all over the world refuting the concept of dangerously declining reserves. That you choose to ignore them, ignore the global increase in production, and cite only figures relative to US production, the reduction of which has as much to do with political and environmental factors as anything, is to your discredit.

Finally, a news article on it.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... 19-ON.html

$2-a-gallon gas? Crude prices keep falling

Associated Press
Sept. 19, 2006 01:10 PM


WASHINGTON - The likelihood of finding $2-a-gallon gasoline in some parts of the U.S. is increasing by the day.

The nationwide average at the pump is already below $2.50, and with a huge decline in oil and gasoline futures on Tuesday analysts say the outlook for motorists is only getting better.

"We'll see sub-$2.25 a gallon retail (prices) by October," said Tom Kloza, director of the Oil Price Information Service, adding that prices below $2 can already be found in Kansas, Missouri, South Carolina and other states. advertisement




Oil prices sank by more than $2 a barrel Tuesday to settle near a six-month-low as worries about supply threats eased and signs of economic weakness in the U.S. signaled a potential cooling of energy demand.

The selloff brought crude oil futures to a six-month low, and helped weigh down already sinking gasoline prices.

"The real-time fundamentals of supply and demand are bearish," said Societe Generale commodities analyst Mike Guido.

Global inventories of crude oil are rising and in the U.S. - the world's biggest energy consumer - demand is tapering off. "There are signs that the housing market could have a bigger impact on the economy going forward," he said.

Moreover, pre-summer fears that hurricanes would disrupt Gulf of Mexico oil production have so far not materialized and speculators who had once helped to drive prices higher are now making bets on further declines.

While the market's psychology has clearly shifted, traders remain cautious about the West's diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear program, though they are increasingly less fearful than they once were that Iran will pull oil off the market.

Light sweet crude for October delivery fell $2.14 to $61.66 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, where gasoline futures tumbled 7.58 cents to $1.5038 a gallon.

It was the lowest close for front-month crude futures since March 21, when oil settled at $60.57. Oil prices have fallen 20 percent from a record settlement of $78.40 a barrel on July 14.

Also influencing trade, analysts said, was the market's preparation for a shift in the gasoline contract. At year's end, the unleaded gasoline contract the market has traded since 1983 will be replaced by a futures contract known as the reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygen blending, or RBOB, which is already being traded actively on Nymex.

The move stems from the refining industry's decision to introduce ethanol as a substitute for methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, in summer blends of gasoline. The unleaded gasoline contract had been reformulated for summer with MTBE.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries confirmed traders' suspicions about the impact of a slowing economy on global demand by announcing that the fourth-quarter demand for its oil would be 320,000 barrels a day lower than previously forecast.

In 2007, OPEC expects demand for its crude to average 28.1 million barrels per day, or 800,000 barrels per day less than the 2006 average, in part because non-OPEC supplies are rising. As a result, some analysts believe the Vienna-based cartel, which is pumping close to 30 million barrels a day, may soon cut its output.

"If we get below $60, they're going to begin to take away barrels," Guido said. "But it's not going to make a difference."

Some analysts believe trimming production could backfire because it would signal to a market that has worried for several years about tight supplies that the world finally has oil-production capacity to spare.

"OPEC has some tough decisions to make," said John Kingston, director of oil at Platts, a division of McGraw-Hill Cos

OPEC President Edmund Daukoru told Dow Jones Newswires Tuesday that the need for an immediate output cut was eased on Monday after BP PLC announced that production at a massive platform in the Gulf of Mexico won't begin before mid-2008. Analysts had been expecting BP's Thunder Horse platform to produce as much as 250,000 barrels a day of oil by early 2007.

"This most certainly does remove the prospect of OPEC cutting production (in the near-term)," Daukoru told Dow Jones Newswires.

Hey all!
Hey Texans!! hoot!
first time poster here.

CrocketsGhost, hello

For starters:
Yer tellin me we import over 14 million barrels per day from them damn arabs while the stuff is refilling itself in oklahoma and texas?!!

Yer telling me that my nephew and cousin are in Iraq for some other reason besides oil?
I am fit to be tied buddy and even the 9/11 stuff is starting to ring true.
You want links and citing - well hold on then partner - we ride hard and fast round here......

Eugene island is a petroleum anomally and it occurs because of cracks or "fissures" in a sedimentary basin and the general cause of this is believed to be meteor strikes yet it could be other naturally occuring phenomenon as well.

Also rain will often times retain in the porous source rock and actually push more oil to the wellhead just like secondary and tertiary petroleum production technology does to this day yet this "natural" occurence is responsible for very little URR or ultimately recoverable resource.
Water and gas injection are all very common.

The abiotic argument concerning petroleum has been perpetuated mainly by a man named Joe Vialis who also liked to tinker with Aliens and other good CT or conspiracy theories and hey! who am I to say there are no aliens as I do not want to offend any alien lovers here but that should give you some idea of what ole joe vialis was up to.

I say the argument supporting abiotic oil and static reservior pressure is old hat as we all know most things are "dynamic".

A simple sea floor shift could explain this away - talk to any oceanographer about the "dynamics" of the ocean/sea floor.
__________________________________________________ _
Links of importance:

Heres the list of stuff I have gathered in the last few months and personally I cannot believe my eyes.
I am an american patriot and it hurts my eyes people!!!
I think video is the best way to introduce people to a subject and also prove many points vs. the conrucopian conspiracy position people like the ghost seem to have.
Sure theres tons of sticky conspiracy , collusion and lies as the US government has caught the Oil majors before.
They usually lie about their reserves and say they have more when they have less.
Let us hope that does not apply to middle eastern reserves which rose pecularly during the 80's to say the least.
I happen to have a chart that shows this "anomally" perfectly well:

This is from a man named Colin Campbell who has been speaking to heads of nations the world over about the very frightening subject of peak oil.
Huge banks such as the deutsche bank have contingency plans based on this mans predictions.
And he is not alone.
What is he? A geologist with over 40 years of experience as I recall.

Regardless here is some of my video collection that spans from Peak oil to 9/11.
WARNING: if you are subject to bad heart disease or other condition that may get aggitated easily then do not I repeat do not watch these videos.
I showed my sister and she has never been the same and I regret even bringing this here tonight as I am much more concerned about mexicans taking my job as this stuff yet it appears more and more each day that I should be worried about this also.

Peak Oil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMQd5nGEkr4<-- link to a video that explains peak oil fairly well in my humble opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHrzaloLM<-- link for one of the best peak oil videos - trailer for end of suburbia

Hubbert told the US in 1956 and they laughed him off the podium.
Who was laughing by 1971?



The next one is a shocker really - these guys are experienced geologists and other professionals the world over yet listen to what they are suggesting.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...+mirrors&hl=en

and that leads to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLgUUcrSEQs
and here is the entire movie
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...e+change&hl=en

I hate that music but otherwise I could not believe my eyes yet my brain was sayin "yep yep yep".

I dont think theres much worse to add besides what seems to be another truth that I resisted for a long time and thats global warming.
I hate Al Gore and have voted republican all my life but my daughter has a mind of her own and practically dragged me into see the movie one day.
Well I tell ya - after doing some searching of my own I find that the science behind this isnt perfect but these ole boys have a pretty good eye on the ball here which seems to be co2 and 600,000 years of artic sea ice data.
I dont claim to have the answers yet the more I look or in the case of my daughter " forced" to look well the more I start to see.

Heres a trailer everyone should see to a movie everyone should see <-- my daughter made me type that

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...nt+truth&hl=en

Now I want to ask everyone - what does OUR government say about peak oil publicly?
What do they say about 9/11 openly?
4 brave young ladies had to force an investigation into 9/11
What is the Oil majors saying about peak oil?
What do they say about global warming?
Yep you got it and almost in unison they say:
1: PEAK OIL IS A SCAM
2: 9/11 WAS A TERROR ATTACK
3: GLOBAL WARMING NEEDS MORE STUDIES

I dont think so ladies and gentlemen I really in my heart of hearts do not think so.
I leave you with a video link about the 4 BRAVE young ladies who lost their husbands during 9/11.
This is where all the hype began:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...or+truth&hl=en

Another one my daughter "made" me watch and I think she is trying to drive me crazy
I am a youtube google video addict i admit it but that is beside the facts these videos present.

Good luck folks - back to lurk mode for me...

Originally Posted by texascowboy911

Hey all!
Hey Texans!! hoot!
first time poster here.

CrocketsGhost, hello

For starters:
Yer tellin me we import over 14 million barrels per day from them damn arabs while the stuff is refilling itself in oklahoma and texas?!!

Yes, that's what I'm telling you. The "damn arabs" don't have the same environmental restrictions or cost of labor. Also, the Arabian oil is owned by single families in each of the major oil-producing Arabic states (other than Iraq), and so there is less need to tie production to price. Many producers in the US have different economic realities (they aren't monachs or dictators) and so pump oil only when prices are at peak prices.

Originally Posted by texascowboy911

Yer telling me that my nephew and cousin are in Iraq for some other reason besides oil?

Don't insult me or yourself with that Leftist silliness.

Originally Posted by texascowboy911

I am fit to be tied buddy and even the 9/11 stuff is starting to ring true.
You want links and citing - well hold on then partner - we ride hard and fast round here......

Eugene island is a petroleum anomally and it occurs because of cracks or "fissures" in a sedimentary basin and the general cause of this is believed to be meteor strikes yet it could be other naturally occuring phenomenon as well.

Also rain will often times retain in the porous source rock and actually push more oil to the wellhead just like secondary and tertiary petroleum production technology does to this day yet this "natural" occurence is responsible for very little URR or ultimately recoverable resource.
Water and gas injection are all very common.

The abiotic argument concerning petroleum has been perpetuated mainly by a man named Joe Vialis who also liked to tinker with Aliens and other good CT or conspiracy theories and hey! who am I to say there are no aliens as I do not want to offend any alien lovers here but that should give you some idea of what ole joe vialis was up to.

This stuff is just nonsense, particularly the nonsensical claim that the "abiotic argument concerning petroleum has been perpetuated mainly by a man named Joe Vialis who also liked to tinker with Aliens..."

First off, the Russians have used the abiotic theory as the predicate for their oil exploration for the better part of the last century. Also, MANY very credible geologists, such those I have cited earlier in this thread, adhere to the abiotic model. Nice try, but the stuff you claim above is just silly.

Originally Posted by texascowboy911

I say the argument supporting abiotic oil and static reservior pressure is old hat as we all know most things are "dynamic".

"We all know?" Let's see how many other special pleadings and other illegitimate rhetorical devices we can spot in this sad excuse for a rebuttal...

Originally Posted by texascowboy911

A simple sea floor shift could explain this away - talk to any oceanographer about the "dynamics" of the ocean/sea floor.

A, so the entire Russian geological community just overlooked a simple explanation that "any oceanographer" knows? When you have spent time in Russia and seen how deadly serious and dedicated their researchers are rather than seemingly getting your information off of an ELF site, we'll have a serious discussion.
__________________________________________________ _

Originally Posted by texascowboy911

Links of importance:

Heres the list of stuff I have gathered in the last few months and personally I cannot believe my eyes.
I am an american patriot and it hurts my eyes people!!!
I think video is the best way to introduce people to a subject and also prove many points vs. the conrucopian conspiracy position people like the ghost seem to have.
Sure theres tons of sticky conspiracy , collusion and lies as the US government has caught the Oil majors before.
They usually lie about their reserves and say they have more when they have less.
Let us hope that does not apply to middle eastern reserves which rose pecularly during the 80's to say the least.
I happen to have a chart that shows this "anomally" perfectly well:

This is from a man named Colin Campbell who has been speaking to heads of nations the world over about the very frightening subject of peak oil.
Huge banks such as the deutsche bank have contingency plans based on this mans predictions.
And he is not alone.
What is he? A geologist with over 40 years of experience as I recall.

Regardless here is some of my video collection that spans from Peak oil to 9/11.
WARNING: if you are subject to bad heart disease or other condition that may get aggitated easily then do not I repeat do not watch these videos.
I showed my sister and she has never been the same and I regret even bringing this here tonight as I am much more concerned about mexicans taking my job as this stuff yet it appears more and more each day that I should be worried about this also.

Peak Oil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMQd5nGEkr4<-- link to a video that explains peak oil fairly well in my humble opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHrzaloLM<-- link for one of the best peak oil videos - trailer for end of suburbia

Hubbert told the US in 1956 and they laughed him off the podium.
Who was laughing by 1971?



The next one is a shocker really - these guys are experienced geologists and other professionals the world over yet listen to what they are suggesting.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...+mirrors&hl=en

and that leads to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLgUUcrSEQs
and here is the entire movie
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...e+change&hl=en

I hate that music but otherwise I could not believe my eyes yet my brain was sayin "yep yep yep".

Why not just cite the environmentalist alarmist site where you got all these links?

Also, how does any of this rebut serious works like "The Deep Hot Biosphere"?

Originally Posted by texascowboy911

I dont think theres much worse to add besides what seems to be another truth that I resisted for a long time and thats global warming.
I hate Al Gore and have voted republican all my life but my daughter has a mind of her own and practically dragged me into see the movie one day.
Well I tell ya - after doing some searching of my own I find that the science behind this isnt perfect but these ole boys have a pretty good eye on the ball here which seems to be co2 and 600,000 years of artic sea ice data.
I dont claim to have the answers yet the more I look or in the case of my daughter " forced" to look well the more I start to see.

More silly pop science. You have to look no further than recent headlines or the mountain of material produced by Sen. Inhofe to understand how heavily disputed anthropogenic global warming is.

May I respectfully suggest that the simply compare a graph of solar output with global surface mean temperature to put an end to any BS claims of anthropogenic warming. The link to solar output is beyond dispute, and the solar factor is is so major and direct that the effects of human activity are like a BB up against a bazooka by comparison.

But thanks for showing us where you're coming from. More ELF propaganda, but I have to give you credit for staying on top of the trend of Leftists and environuts by prefacing your propaganda with a bogus disclaimer, which generally takes the form of a supposed claim of disdain for leading enviro-wackos or else a claim that starts, "I have been a lifelong Republican/Conservative/etc. but now I can no longer ignore the facts that..."

Originally Posted by texascowboy911

Heres a trailer everyone should see to a movie everyone should see <-- my daughter made me type that

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...nt+truth&hl=en

Now I want to ask everyone - what does OUR government say about peak oil publicly?
What do they say about 9/11 openly?
4 brave young ladies had to force an investigation into 9/11
What is the Oil majors saying about peak oil?
What do they say about global warming?
Yep you got it and almost in unison they say:
1: PEAK OIL IS A SCAM
2: 9/11 WAS A TERROR ATTACK
3: GLOBAL WARMING NEEDS MORE STUDIES

I dont think so ladies and gentlemen I really in my heart of hearts do not think so.
I leave you with a video link about the 4 BRAVE young ladies who lost their husbands during 9/11.
This is where all the hype began:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...or+truth&hl=en

Another one my daughter "made" me watch and I think she is trying to drive me crazy
I am a youtube google video addict i admit it but that is beside the facts these videos present.

Good luck folks - back to lurk mode for me...

Ah, and a nice touch with the "youtube/google" claim. It directs readers away from the idea that all this nonsense was gleaned from one or two enviro-lobby sites. Clever, but transparent.

BTW - At least your little video admits that proponents of "peak oil" have been grossly wrong in the past. The same doomsayers who created the "peak oil" theory originally had us reaching the peak in the 1970s. Hmmm... That was 30 YEARS AGO. The same numbnuts prompted the CIA to conclude that Russian overproduction would make the Russians net importers by 1990. Let's see, who is the current LARGEST PRODUCER of petroleum? Oh my, IT'S RUSSIA! Russia's massive continued oil exports are driving its economy while America's terror instilled by the environuts has us continuing to cut domestic production and remaining the largest net IMPORTER to our economic detriment.

The rest of your first video link is CLASSIC alarmism. Any savvy researcher should INSTANTLY recognize all the standard propaganda ploys. There are claims that everything from size of automobiles (which, incidentally, have been getting BIGGER, not smaller) to housing starts are tied to peak oil. How convenient! Just as the 1970s alarmists seized on a brief cooling spell to terrorize Americans with seemingly serious claims that we were imminently headed for a human-induced ICE AGE (even TIME Magazine devoted a cover to the coming global deep freeze), so are these guys just taking the immediate items of interest from the headlines to use to spread fear. Housing starts down? Sure they are, following the largest housing boom in US history. It couldn't keep up, but of course to an alrmist with an agenda, it's an evil portent of the doom and destruction Gaia is about to visit upon man for his waste (which is of course the ONLY sin to a Gaiaist). As the little ELF drones on about peak oil, images of stacks of money (presumably being lost), icky smokestacks and all manner of other un-PC horrors flash Clockwork Orange style. It's quite laughable, except for the knowledge that a good many unsophisticated viewers may actually be taken in by this pap.

Silly, silly, silly.

Again, compare the track record of these "peak oil" guys with the inverse success enjoyed by the Russian abiotic petroleum adherents. Compare the accuracy of the ever-shifting alarmist claims of the enviro-wackos with that of real scientists. Let's see, according to the nuts, we should have already been in a man-induced ice age, followed by man-induced melting of the ice caps (huh?). We should be roasting under a porous ozone layer (which inexplicably appeared in the location on Earth most remote from human activity), when instead the thing closed up all by itself (it was really caused by the hottest solar maximum on record, but why confuse folks with facts?). The Russians should have all but run out of oil a decade ago, but instead they are pumping more than ever and continuing to increase production for the forseeable future. We were supposed to have a global warming-induced hurricane holocaust, but instead we had one of the quietest hurrican seasons in recent memory.

What do all the false claims have in common? Again, they seize on whatever the current hotbutton issue happens to be. We had a fake energy crisis (which was yet another monetary event misinterpreted as a supply-demand event) in the early 1970's, so all the environuts spread doom and gloom claiming that oil reserves were all but depleted. We have a couple of cold winters in the late '70s, so of course that meant we had an ice age coming. It got warmer because the sun heated up a bit and started throwing some off-the-scale solar flares at us, so of course we're causing the poles to melt. If you can't see the reactionary (and patently FALSE) nature of these claims then you are, with all due respect, an easy mark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Is that all you can do?
Really this is why I rarely post on any of these forums.

Well for starters these peak oil people are our people mainly.
Seems to be the same talent that guided all the oil majors and the USGS who BTW predicts a peak at 2035 which some people find wildly optomistic yet still a peak none the less.
Here is the peak projections from our own United states Geological Survey or USGS:



Your position is that basically everyone is lying and there is plenty of oil in the ground!

You can call me a leftist all you want.
Thats an attack on my character.
I find this alot and it really seems to be ripping the republican party apart.
I think we are in trying times and that attitude wont help anyone.

Our own president says we have a problem and he calls it an "addiction".
Have you ever dealt with an addict?
First stage is denial, second stage is rationalization.
I know this because I helped my father get through alcoholism.
All apologies but that is how I see people who dont look at the facts.

You have posted no links BTW.
At least as far back in this thread as I can see - nothing to add to the credibility of your position.

Cheney in 1999 said we have a problem and he was alittle bit explicit

For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?

Now if you are that informed then you understand the importance of getting oil to the rest of the world as well as the US.
The caspian sea area and the major pipeline build means nothing?
The north sea declines mean nothing?
The situation with Cantarell means nothing?
Links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4577497.stm
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.900c598.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...2o0&refer=news

So yer gonna stand there and tell me what? that the BBC, the dallas morning news and bloomberg are all in on spreading this "propaganda"?
Our governments own EIA admits a peak.
Our governments own USGS admits a peak.
The international energy agency admits a peak.

This is why I lurk instead of post mainly.
A good lawyer could convince us that the devil is innocent or that he does not even exist.

I am starting to question many things.
Right now I wonder why anyone would try to defend such an undefendable position as to suggest that peak oil is not reality.
Post some links and stop trying to attack me instead of the issue of peak oil.
Most of the time I just think I am going nuts but then someone says peak oil and I perk up...cant help it.....I even hear it in the news yet few media outlets cover it with much time and when they do.... who espouses no peak no problem ??? economists....
Oh yeah I want to learn about geology from an economist and I guess we know where I will learn about economics from right?

I am just glad that our boys are over there now assuring our energy needs of the future.
I am glad we attacked iraq and afghanistan and contrary to popular opinion - I think I know why now....
Our leaders cant just come right out and say it yet they do leave some clues for those who are looking.

Good luck ghost - I dont want to debate with you anymore and it has nothing to do with your inability to grasp such a basic concept as finite.
The personal attacks and your cavalier methods tell me I have just wasted my time.

More falsehoods. An ad hominem attack is an attack on the person, not on a person's silly arguments. Hiding behind false claims of ad hominem attacks is so very Left of you.

Now, your first REAL false claim is that I said that everyone is "lying". First off, for "everyone" to be lying, "everyone" would have to be claiming that we are running out of oil. The entirety of the mainstream Russian geology field disagrees with that premise. A HUGE number of domestic geologists dispute that premise. I have alredy cited some of the main opponents of peak oil, yet all that you have done to rebut their science is to REALLY use ad hominem attacks against them by reducing their vast numbers to one allged UFO nut. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

As for what our President says, he is a politician, NOT a geologist. He's not even a very good politician! What he "says" is utterly immaterial to the science.

As for the statement by Cheney, the fact that we will need more production is, of course, correct... assuming that we do not develop alternate fuel sources that are cheaper and that the global population and demand continue to grow, which is reasonable speculation. Now, he qualifies his claims by saying that they're predicated on "some estimates." Ah, but you make no such qualifiers. No, no, no... for you, EVERYONE knows and EVERYONE agrees with your premise, unless of course you consider the thousands of domestic geologists and tens of thousands of Russian ones who disagree.

But getting back to the VP's comments, there is far more to production than pumping of raw crude. There are certainly issues of delivery and refining. But you will note that since Cheney's comments, several of the largest reserves ever have been located. That's the way these things work. You hit a little lull and everyone goes nuts, then a few huge finds and everything is back to normal until the next time, and so on.

As far as whether the media is "spreading this propaganda," yeah, that's what I'm saying. I can't say whether they are aware that it's propaganda, but alarmism makes better news than announcing that everything is just fine. That's why they tell us when an 18-wheeler overturns on the expressway, but don't bother to tell us when a day passes with no major traffic accidents. If you don't understand that...

Now, our government doesn't "admit" a peak, nor does anyone else, because this is more of your propagandistic delivery. To "admit" would mean that the fact is a universally foregone conclusion that is only grudgingly being revealed. I submit that it is in the government's interest to keep a certain level of alarmism at play because without it the American people would care precious little about what happens in the Middle East. Furthermore, we're back to that inconvenient little fact that tens of thousands of geologists do not believe in the peak oil theory as presently espoused. Might there be a point at which consumption exceeds the Earth's ability to replenish? Of course! But we will never figure out what the reality is as long as we pretend that 19th century understandings of geology are the end-all, be-all or that there is a huge body of evidence contrary to governmentally accepted model.

I encountered a similar gulf between official government dogma and emerging science when a large group of physicists, many of whom had left NASA because of its inflexible orthodoxy, banded together to promote an electrogravitic capacitance model for the solar system. Even though events such as solar flares were repeatedly predicted by their model while rigid adherence to the old NASA model caused us to lose several expensive interplanetary probes, NASA still openly attacked these guys and their clearly superior model. Ironically, even as NASA was defending its archaic model, DARPA was promoting weather modelling based on the electrogravitic capacitance model. Whether this was a case of keeping the public (which is more likely to follow NASA's proclamations than DARPA's actual projects) in the dark or just poor interagency cooperation is unknown, but it is a classic example of how bureaucrats continue to promote archaic dogma over cutting-edge science.

Now, you move on to ask why "anyone would try to defend such an undefendable position as to suggest that peak oil is not reality," as if such a question has any meaning at all. In my case, I question peak oil because I have weighed the evidenc and found peak oil, based upon archaic "fossil fuel" presumptions, to be wanting. Again, the success of the Russians speaks for itself.

I should also offer by way of disclaimer that I was a former partner in a fuel additive company. Our product increased fuel economy and drastically reduced emissions, so we were sandbagged at every occasion by the mainstream petroleum industry. I certainly have no love for those guys, but then I have no love for phony alarmist enivornuts either. There is little that gets my dander up more than bad science and the non-scientists who ignorantly promote it. As I said, I am a former partner in that company. I no longer work in that field, but I certainly have a substantial resevoir of knowledge of it and had a vested interest in learning the truth rather than swallowing a load of propaganda. I would leave this at the opinion that you have simply swigged the Koolaid...

But then you go much further than just ignorantly espousing an opinion. You have to support your nonsense with lie after lie, as when you make another rhetorically indefensible claim that the only people espousing what you call "no peak no problem " are economists. What a DAMNED LIE that is, and you know it. That you refuse to accept a model embraced by the entirety of the only other (though former) superpower or the well-documented opinion of a large segment of our working domestic geologists is your problem, but it does not justify BLATANT LIES about the nature of the support for theory, does it? Of course not. The fact that you perpetually stoop to such cheap rhetorical devices identifies you as a dogmatic environut, not a person seriously seeking to get to the bottom of the matter.

Lastly, I want to take the opportunity to point to your dishonesty by pointing out your final fallacy. You accuse me of failing to grasp the concept of "finite," but it is you who have a comprehension problem. Natural resources are frequently renewable. Trees for example. We used to burn them for fuel. We didn't run out, and we never ran a serious risk of doing so. We can still burn wood if we so choose because once we ran a serious rick of depleting the renewable resource past a point at which it could continue to serve our needs, we moved on to something else. We didn't use up all the trees because more grew. Not finite. See, not everything is finite. The only issue is not getting to a point that consumption exceeds possible location of new sources or renewal of old ones. We're nowhere near that point, and we won't figure out what it is so long as the debate is dominated by gloom and doom alarmists with other agendas than getting to the truth.

Thanx for the much needed education in this area guys.
Peak Oil is something I've often wondered about but had nil knowledge.

CROCKET, I've heard about the "renewable theory" but never knew much more. I truly enjoyed this debate.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

Thanx for the much needed education in this area guys.
Peak Oil is something I've often wondered about but had nil knowledge.

CROCKET, I've heard about the "renewable theory" but never knew much more. I truly enjoyed this debate.

Again, I highly recommend for The Deep Hot Biosphere by Thomas Gold anyone interested in the subject. For anyone unfamiliar with Gold, he was one of the most renowned physicists of our time. He was a cross-discipline genius who, in his 80+ years (he died in 2004), contributed groundbreaking research on the workings of the inner ear, oversaw the construction of the world's largest radio telescope at Arecibo and, among other things, originated the now accepted theory that pulsars were in fact rotating neutron stars. So he is not some quack, but rather one of the world's great minds.

In support of his abiotic (he uses the term "abiogenic") origin of hydrocarbons, he conducted a well-known experiment in Sweden in which he and a team of Swedish researchers drilled 6 km into solid granite (a matamorphic rock that is extruded from deep within the Earth and which therefore should have provided no means for organic matter to have collected) and succeeded in finding hydrocarbons. He explains the presence of organic-appearing molecules in such deep resevoirs by theorizing that, just as bacteria and other organisms have been shown to exist around super-hot vents in the ocean floor spewing seemingly deadly compounds, so does the biosphere extend deep into the Earth's crust where similar lifeforms survive without light and other food sources by using geothermal energy and consuming hydrocarbons.

Yeah, I used to be naive and believe that we had a free market until GATA opened my eyes. The Working Group, aka the Plunge Protection Team is a group of wall street types, bankers, the Fed and Treasury along with some other key folks, who actively intervene in the market to achieve the desired political results. Throw a rock at Hank Paulson and you will hit a Goldman-Sachs exec in the head. The disconnect between world events, the dollar, and the gold and silver commodity markets makes it clear as crystal. New DJ high?? Don't make me laugh. The federal reserve note has lost 40% of it's purchasing power since 2000, and 95% since 1913. It was G-S restructuring their commodity index, reducing the percentage of gasoline, which hammered the price. Paulson is a former high up muckety muck with G-S. Any questions?

Buy gold, buy silver, buy ammo.
go GATA
http://www.gata.org

Crockett - where's your links buddy?

Wheres the many links to the many russians scientists who of course we should trust over the rest of the worlds geologist?
Yes please show US....

Back anything you just said up with some FACTUAL linkage and prepare to be countered.........until I see something substantial you are barking up the wrong tree........... thank you!!!