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

Originally Posted by texascowboy911

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!!!

Read a book, Tex. Most of the stuff on the internet is reactionary commentary, not actual studies.

I again point to The Deep Hot Biosphere, which is carefully annotated. I know that the pretty pictures from the internet and all those spiffy videos with images of desertification and starving kids in Africa (for whatever that has to do with oil production) are mezmerizing for those with short attention spans and can be absrobed in mere minutes while reading a book can take a day or two, but that's the price of getting good information versus being led around by the nose by well-funded groups with an agenda.

I'll also point you back to the link I did provide at the top of page 3. Because you seem to either be intentionally ignoring that link or else overlooking it, I post below the introduction to the study to which it links:

CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT RECENT PREDICTIONS

OF IMPENDING SHORTAGES OF PETROLEUM

EVALUATED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF

MODERN PETROLEUM SCIENCE.




J. F. Kenney

Joint Institute of the Physics of the Earth

Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow;

Gas Resources Corporation, Houston.








ABSTRACT: For almost a century, various predictions have been made that the human race was imminently going to run out of available petroleum. The passing of time has proven all those predictions to have been utterly wrong. It is p ointed out here how all such predictions have depended fundamentally upon an archaic hypothesis from the 18th century that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolved from biological detritus, and was accordingly limited in abundance. That hypoth esis has been replaced during the past forty years by the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins which has established that petroleum is a primordial material erupted from great depth. Therefore, petroleum abundances are li mited by little more than the quantities of its constituents as were incorporated into the Earth at the time of its formation; and its availability depends upon technological development and exploration competence.

What say you stop carping until you have commented on Deep Hot Biosphere or the linked study? There is little point debating this with you if you are going to keep falsely claiming that I have provided nothing to back my position.

Sice Tex has chosen to reopen this discussion (though not by providing any meaningful rebuttal or providing anything of substance to augment the previous propagandistic offerings), I'll offer some additional food for thought on the subject.

For starters, the Cassini probe discovered hydrocarbons and methane clouds on Titan, a moon of Saturn. Now I ask you, where did that stuff come from if hydrocarbons are of biogenic origin? Are we now saying that there were ferns and dinosaurs on Saturn's moons?

For those who may not understand the formation of hydrocarbons, they are based on molecular chains primarily comprised of CH2 substituents capped with alkyl radicals on the open ends in their stable or "saturated" forms. Heavier hydrocarbons may be "cracked" under heat and pressure to form lighter hydrocarbons and lighter hydrocarbons may be cracked and polymerized to form heavier hydrocarbons. The point here is that methane and oil are fundamentally identical except for molecular size. That is to say, any process that can create methane needs only afew simple mechanichal processes applied in order to create petroleum.

So now, I again ask: How can there be hydrocarbons on Titan if hydrocarbons are of biogenic origin? CLEARLY abiogenic hydrocarbons exist, and they must do in order to exist on other planets.

Now, what about this "peak oil" nonsense? What are the forces pushing this propaganda? Environmental activist Walter Sheasby wrote an article called "The Coming Panic Over the End of Oil - Coming to a Ballot Box Near You," in which he documents the forces promoting the peak oil scare. Guess what? The major proponents are major players in the petroleum industry with billions at stake in oil production. They include the likes of Natthew Simmons of Simmons and Co., International. Sheasby documents the link between the major proponents of peak oil from the geological community and big oil. Sheasby's essay has gotten harder to find online since his death, but I found a reprint of it at this link:

http://www.dasbistro.com/pipermail/nvgr ... 02498.html

It should be noted that Sheasby was a Green Party activist from S. California who was not exactly the type you would expect to be contesting the notion that petroleum is a non-renewable resource.

You choose to believe an Astronomer/ plagiarist and the Russians over the rest of the world including but not limited to most if not all american geologists?
Pot meet kettle.
The irony.

Ok crocket.
Here's a link on Thomas Gold The ASTRONOMER:
http://www.gasresources.net/Gold_pla...omplaints).htm

Ok and as a counter:
http://www.rense.com/general58/biot.htm
The 'Abiotic Oil' Controversy by Richard Heinberg

You choose an austrian astronomer so I raise ya an american journalist!

And thats probably not good enough so here:
http://www.oilempire.us/abiotic.html

and here:
http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UA ... leID=12333

You quote Simmons as if he isnt an american nor a texan!
Or perhaps as if anyone who has worked for any administration is guilty before being proven innocent.
What are you suggesting exactly?

I think the bottom line here is why is oil so hard to find?
Why do we go way out into the gulf of mexico?
Why has something like 54 of the worlds 70 or so producing nations peaked and never recovered?
Why does america produce 7 million barrels a day now and 11 millions barrels a day in 1971?
Why dont all the wells just fill back up since somewhere underneath they are connected to the core where oil is made right?
Ever hear of biomarkers?
The nazi's had to convert coal to oil yet they were far superior to the world in enginerring and such so instead of taking african and heading toward the middle east why didnt they just dig abit further down?

If you look hard at history sometimes it stares back at you and with that thought in mind please watch the following video which not only made me laugh but also taught me a thing or two:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...y+of+oil&hl=en
The history of oil.
Makes more geopolitical sense then the peak oil denial position.
I am not too blind to see the correlations.

If I did not know any better I would say you are motivated by something other then truth to suggest that the russians and other foreigners are right above our own people.
My daughters science class has a poster hanging up all about Peak oil.
Our president has said we are oil addicts.
Cheney also said it would be the war that would not end in our lifetime and for some reason I do not think he was talking about WMD or foreigners.
Republican representative Albert Bartlett Rep from maryland was the first person to bring the issue of peak oil and put it on record.
Both Bill clinton and mr gore have stated peak oil for whatever that is worth.
The hirsch report - a department of defense document all about Mitigating the effects of what???? thats right - peak oil.

Sorry but this thing has gone non partisan and may soon really explode upon the uninformed world soon enough.
Now I watch the news also and I watch for Peak oil - when I see it up for debate there is usually some economist hardly ever a geologist that the media pits against the peak oil "theorist".
Thats why I say we want Economists to tell us about geology.
I guess the geologist can sing us a lullaby so maybe we can sleep while attempting to believe total nonsense.

AND SORRY but you are dead wrong - the IEA and the U.S. EIA both predict peak oil will occur in the next 30 years +/-.
now that is either blatant denial of the facts or an outright lie.
Course I might not be around then but my daughter will and her kids so this concerns me.
I have read both sides - I'm a big boy to say the least yet I can find nothing to disprove peak oil.

You hinge your argument on psuedo science and foreigners yet note what forum we are in?
You want us to believe the russians who went bankrupt in the 80's/90's by the way over pretty much everything including science and our own people?

I am not the one over the top here.

Now I will counter my own argument by saying that currently russia is producing more oil then any country and they use so little that makes them the worlds leading exporter.
By their own reported reserves - none of it abiotic BTW - They should peak in production in the very near future.

If they push their production hard then they may be able to extend the peak for a few years yet their ultimately recoverable resources will be hurt by this as hydrocarbon formations reach depletion much faster with applied technology thus in this scenario when russia peaks it will be high rate of decline.

Perhaps abiotic oil is correct - if it worked about say 1000 times faster maybe it would make a difference!!!

Britian is about to become a net importer just like the US did in 1971 just like Hubbert predicted in 1956.
Do you honestlybelieve that britian or any 1st world nation for that matter would somehow not be aware of the great biotic oil "lie" and not be out drilling like madmen to keep from having to purchase oil ???
Oil depletion is happening no ifs ands or buts...
The mergers.
The geopolitics.
What appears to be outright lies in reserve estimates.
Man o man the crap is thick fer sure.

You see there are so many reinforcing arguments for peak oil yet so few good arguments if any against it.
I have read as much as a slow reading person can read in 6 months on a subject because it scared the crap out of me and I aint afraid of nothin!
I dont even want to believe this crap yet I cannot prove it wrong.
Immovable object meet unstoppable force.

Now I am reading a page on petrol dollar and fiat currency.
Is it true that the federal reserve is not really "federal"?

anyways ....Good luck with your mind Crocket and thanks for the debate.

Originally Posted by texascowboy911

You choose to believe an Astronomer/ plagiarist and the Russians over the rest of the world including but not limited to most if not all american geologists?
Pot meet kettle.
The irony.

Ok crocket.
Here's a link on Thomas Gold The ASTRONOMER:
http://www.gasresources.net/Gold_pla...omplaints).htm

Ok and as a counter:
http://www.rense.com/general58/biot.htm
The 'Abiotic Oil' Controversy by Richard Heinberg

You choose an austrian astronomer so I raise ya an american journalist!

And thats probably not good enough so here:
http://www.oilempire.us/abiotic.html

and here:
http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UA ... leID=12333

You quote Simmons as if he isnt an american nor a texan!
Or perhaps as if anyone who has worked for any administration is guilty before being proven innocent.
What are you suggesting exactly?

I think the bottom line here is why is oil so hard to find?
Why do we go way out into the gulf of mexico?
Why has something like 54 of the worlds 70 or so producing nations peaked and never recovered?
Why does america produce 7 million barrels a day now and 11 millions barrels a day in 1971?
Why dont all the wells just fill back up since somewhere underneath they are connected to the core where oil is made right?
Ever hear of biomarkers?
The nazi's had to convert coal to oil yet they were far superior to the world in enginerring and such so instead of taking african and heading toward the middle east why didnt they just dig abit further down?

If you look hard at history sometimes it stares back at you and with that thought in mind please watch the following video which not only made me laugh but also taught me a thing or two:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...y+of+oil&hl=en
The history of oil.
Makes more geopolitical sense then the peak oil denial position.
I am not too blind to see the correlations.

If I did not know any better I would say you are motivated by something other then truth to suggest that the russians and other foreigners are right above our own people.
My daughters science class has a poster hanging up all about Peak oil.
Our president has said we are oil addicts.
Cheney also said it would be the war that would not end in our lifetime and for some reason I do not think he was talking about WMD or foreigners.
Republican representative Albert Bartlett Rep from maryland was the first person to bring the issue of peak oil and put it on record.
Both Bill clinton and mr gore have stated peak oil for whatever that is worth.
The hirsch report - a department of defense document all about Mitigating the effects of what???? thats right - peak oil.

Sorry but this thing has gone non partisan and may soon really explode upon the uninformed world soon enough.
Now I watch the news also and I watch for Peak oil - when I see it up for debate there is usually some economist hardly ever a geologist that the media pits against the peak oil "theorist".
Thats why I say we want Economists to tell us about geology.
I guess the geologist can sing us a lullaby so maybe we can sleep while attempting to believe total nonsense.

AND SORRY but you are dead wrong - the IEA and the U.S. EIA both predict peak oil will occur in the next 30 years +/-.
now that is either blatant denial of the facts or an outright lie.
Course I might not be around then but my daughter will and her kids so this concerns me.
I have read both sides - I'm a big boy to say the least yet I can find nothing to disprove peak oil.

You hinge your argument on psuedo science and foreigners yet note what forum we are in?
You want us to believe the russians who went bankrupt in the 80's/90's by the way over pretty much everything including science and our own people?

I am not the one over the top here.

Now I will counter my own argument by saying that currently russia is producing more oil then any country and they use so little that makes them the worlds leading exporter.
By their own reported reserves - none of it abiotic BTW - They should peak in production in the very near future.

If they push their production hard then they may be able to extend the peak for a few years yet their ultimately recoverable resources will be hurt by this as hydrocarbon formations reach depletion much faster with applied technology thus in this scenario when russia peaks it will be high rate of decline.

Perhaps abiotic oil is correct - if it worked about say 1000 times faster maybe it would make a difference!!!

Britian is about to become a net importer just like the US did in 1971 just like Hubbert predicted in 1956.
Do you honestlybelieve that britian or any 1st world nation for that matter would somehow not be aware of the great biotic oil "lie" and not be out drilling like madmen to keep from having to purchase oil ???
Oil depletion is happening no ifs ands or buts...
The mergers.
The geopolitics.
What appears to be outright lies in reserve estimates.
Man o man the crap is thick fer sure.

You see there are so many reinforcing arguments for peak oil yet so few good arguments if any against it.
I have read as much as a slow reading person can read in 6 months on a subject because it scared the crap out of me and I aint afraid of nothin!
I dont even want to believe this crap yet I cannot prove it wrong.
Immovable object meet unstoppable force.

Now I am reading a page on petrol dollar and fiat currency.
Is it true that the federal reserve is not really "federal"?

anyways ....Good luck with your mind Crocket and thanks for the debate.

If you do a web search of "biogenic abiogenic" you will note that multiple articles make clear that even mainstream US geologists now accept the existence of abiogenic oil. It's rather hard not to when you have hydrocarbons on Titan and the Russians producing oil from granite. There is no question remaining as to whether abiotic hydrocarbons exist. The only question is whether there is enough to be commercially viable or whether it is the primary or only source of oil. The Russians are answering the former question in the resounding affirmative. The second question is still open to debate.

Now, I am not the guys citing sources from environut websites (except of course for the one that demonstrates that even enviro-activists dispute peak oil). If anyone has an agenda, it is not me. I simply happen to have a better command and UNDERSTANDING of the facts than you do, "Tex".

As for your question about whether the Federal Reserve is a federal governmental entity, Wright Patman settled that controversy half a century ago when he successfully demanded back taxes from the Federal Reserve. (They managed to avoid paying them by placing their building on the D.C. Mall and the land it sat upon in trust to the federal government.)

Now, as for your various errors. Thomas Gold was not an astronomer. He was a physicist who was responsible for breakthroghs in numerous fields. He identified the source of pulsed deep space radio transmissions. He made breakthrough discoveries in explaining the workings of the human ear. He oversaw the construction of the Aricebo radio telescope. He correctly hypothesized the nature and density of lunar dust.

From Gold's bio:

Thomas Gold (May 22, 1920 – June 22, 2004) was an Austrian astrophysicist, a professor of astronomy at Cornell University, and a member of the US National Academy of Sciences. Gold was one of three young Cambridge scientists who in the 1950s proposed the now mostly abandoned 'steady state' hypothesis of the universe. Gold's work crossed academic and scientific boundaries, into biophysics, astrophysics, space engineering, and geophysics.

The first link you provide (http://www.rense.com/general58/biot.htm ) is a standard hit piece used by any of a number of environut sites to attack he abiotic argument. It is merely an opinion, and actually contains numerous errors, such as the claim that the abiogenic theory is employed by only a small minority of Russian geologists. It's a hit piece.

As I have pointed out previously, your claim that Gold was an "astronomer" is fallacious, and so your attempt to cite journalists as competent sources predicated on that fallacy is illegitimate.

Let's look at some of your other silliness:

My daughters science class has a poster hanging up all about Peak oil.

LOL!!! And...? My sixth grade class was taught that we were running out of oil back in 1972. There is all sorts of idiocy and propaganda in the public schools.

Our president has said we are oil addicts.

He has also said that immigration is not a problem. Do you believe everything that politicians tell you? What was Bush's degree in?

Cheney also said it would be the war that would not end in our lifetime and for some reason I do not think he was talking about WMD or foreigners.

Again, LOL!!! You can't even say for sure what he was talking about but it must be proof of your argument? Ludicrous!

Republican representative Albert Bartlett Rep from maryland was the first person to bring the issue of peak oil and put it on record.
Both Bill clinton and mr gore have stated peak oil for whatever that is worth.

You do well to add the disclaimer, "for whatever it's worth," because it is worth precious little. Politicians are politicians. They regurgitate whatever special interest groups pay them to regurgitate.

The hirsch report - a department of defense document all about Mitigating the effects of what???? thats right - peak oil.

We're swimming in circles now. I already expressed my opinion of official government science, which has been repeatedly proven wrong on endless subjects. Being a bureaucracy, it is is an exercize in reinforcing the established dogma and is more often than not driven by politics rather than science.

Any competent individual attempting to follow this debate should review the actual papers presented by researchers in the field (such as the one for which I provided a link several pages back) and determine for himself the legitimacy of the abiotic argument. He sure as hell isn't going to learn anything from the pap you are providing. You provide a bunch of opinion pieces rather than actual research papers and then claim to have proven something. All you have proven is that there are a number of groups with an interest in promoting peak oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Abiogenic_theory

Abiogenic theory
Main article: Abiogenic petroleum origin
The idea of abiogenic petroleum origin was championed in the Western world by astronomer Thomas Gold based on thoughts from Russia, mainly on studies of Nikolai Kudryavtsev. The idea proposes that hydrocarbons of purely geological origin exist in the planet. Hydrocarbons are less dense than aqueous pore fluids, and are proposed to migrate upward through deep fracture networks. Thermophilic, rock-dwelling microbial life-forms are proposed to be in part responsible for the biomarkers found in petroleum.

However, this theory is a minority opinion, especially amongst geologists and no oil companies are currently known to explore for oil based on this theory.

The truth is probably that oil is both abiotic and biotic yet most of the vast sediments we have found are most definately of biotic origin.
I guess you would have a link to at least one oil exploration and production company that uses ABIOTIC origin to find oil???

Just one please....

Nice how you side stepped pretty much all the HARD points of my argument - stick and move yep.

This is revisionists history and pseudo science ladies and gentlemen.
They want to change the dictionaries and science based on something that they cannot prove.
Yes and let us "DEBUNK" evolution and start teaching creationism as well.

Show me a link to just one company JUST one company that used this theory to find oil and we can continue this debate otherwise you are suggesting that a conspiracy of grand proportions is being perpetuated over the entire world and usually when people start talking that way - the men with the pretty white jackets show up and take them away......

repeating the truth is okay yet the repetition of falsehoods degrades the entire debate and besides this and even with my admission that some oil could be of abiotic origin it still does not solve depletion, increasing demand, geopolitics of oil, petrol dollar warfare and on and on.

Learn about EROEI and then you might begin to understand the enormity of the challenge we face as a nation and as a species.

We need leadership not more studies.
Our boys are fighing for oil right now and you know it!
Sad state of affairs folks.

Originally Posted by texascowboy911

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Abiogenic_theory

Abiogenic theory
Main article: Abiogenic petroleum origin
The idea of abiogenic petroleum origin was championed in the Western world by astronomer Thomas Gold based on thoughts from Russia, mainly on studies of Nikolai Kudryavtsev. The idea proposes that hydrocarbons of purely geological origin exist in the planet. Hydrocarbons are less dense than aqueous pore fluids, and are proposed to migrate upward through deep fracture networks. Thermophilic, rock-dwelling microbial life-forms are proposed to be in part responsible for the biomarkers found in petroleum.

However, this theory is a minority opinion, especially amongst geologists and no oil companies are currently known to explore for oil based on this theory.

The truth is probably that oil is both abiotic and biotic yet most of the vast sediments we have found are most definately of biotic origin.
I guess you would have a link to at least one oil exploration and production company that uses ABIOTIC origin to find oil???

Just one please....

Nice how you side stepped pretty much all the HARD points of my argument - stick and move yep.

This is revisionists history and pseudo science ladies and gentlemen.
They want to change the dictionaries and science based on something that they cannot prove.
Yes and let us "DEBUNK" evolution and start teaching creationism as well.

Show me a link to just one company JUST one company that used this theory to find oil and we can continue this debate otherwise you are suggesting that a conspiracy of grand proportions is being perpetuated over the entire world and usually when people start talking that way - the men with the pretty white jackets show up and take them away......

repeating the truth is okay yet the repetition of falsehoods degrades the entire debate and besides this and even with my admission that some oil could be of abiotic origin it still does not solve depletion, increasing demand, geopolitics of oil, petrol dollar warfare and on and on.

Learn about EROEI and then you might begin to understand the enormity of the challenge we face as a nation and as a species.

We need leadership not more studies.
Our boys are fighing for oil right now and you know it!
Sad state of affairs folks.

Yes, I know for a fact that most of the more recent Russian finds have used the abiotic model. In case you haven't figured it out, metasearch engines that use a heirarchy based on the most commonly read articles are scarcely the best way to obtain actual industry or academic papers. What you find is endless insipid punditry and "encyclopaedias" to which ANYONE may post an article. Heck, I was one of the first people that Wikipedia asked to contribute, but I declined based upon the nonexistent fact-checking of the site.

So in answer to your challenge, here's a little article I saved by Louis Hissink from April 2004

"The small Norwegian oil company DNO finished drilling the Nabrajah-2 in Yemen's Block 43, at a TD of 8,350 ft. The well confirmed oil in the Qishn interval, which is the main reservoir. However, well logs indicated that at there was hydrocarbon further downhole, at TD, in the lower basement. A subsequent production test in the basement interval flowed 3,000 boe per day (15.2 MMcfgd and 313 bpd condensate). Nabrajah-2 is the first of two appraisals to determine the size of the Nabrajah oil discovery reported earlier this year. The second appraisal, drilling in the western area of Tasour field in Block 32, spudded on September 2. When the Nabrajah-2 test is combined with the results from earlier Nabrajah-1 basement tests, there are indications that the hydrocarbon discovery could be of significant size. DNO is the operator of both Block 43 (56.67%) and Block 32 (38.95%)

Basement is generally considered to be composed of igneous and metamorphic rock and in some cases, other types of very low intergranular-porosity rock, with very different properties from the overlying rock. It is a loosely defined term that usually means the surface below which there is no current exploration interest, since there are no sediments at or below basement. However, hydrocarbons are sometimes found in basement, possibly due to downward expulsion or some other mechanism. Oil is produced from basement in both Block 14 operated by Nexen, some 25 mi from the Nabrajah structure, and Block 10 (operated by Total).

Oil in Basement? Shock Horror, but not to the scientifically literate - after all oil CANNOT be produced from dead fish, dinosaurs or vegetable matter for thermodynamic reasons, so this oil being discovered in the basement is NOT misplaced oil from sediments further up in the sequence, but oil being continuously produced in the upper mantle, known as the Russian-Ukrainian Abiotic Oil theory here"

Then there's this excerpt from an article called Peak Oil Theory vs. Russian-Ukrainian Modern Theory by George Crispin:

By 1951, what has been called the modern Russian – Ukrainian Theory Of Deep Abiotic Petroleum Origins was born (maybe born again would be more accurate), and debated, studied and peer reviewed for twenty years, all in Russian of course, and completely ignored by the West.

It has long since been much more than a theory and for twenty years Russian drillers have successfully brought in super deep wells using it. The deepest exploratory hole went to 40,000 feet. Russia, once regarded as having little potential, is now, along with ourselves and Saudi Arabia one of the top three oil producers in the world. There are more than 80 oil and gas fields in the Caspian district, all producing from crystalline basement rock. 90 petroleum fields have been developed in western Siberia. "11 major and one giant field have been developed in the Dnieper-Donets basin;" there are 20 wells in Viet Nam producing at 17,000 feet in areas that Western experts considered not worth exploring.

Then there's this article from the June 2003 Geotimes:

http://www.geotimes.org/june03/NN_gulf.html

"We're dealing with this giant flow-through system where the hydrocarbons are generating now, moving through the overlying strata now, building the reservoirs now and spilling out into the ocean now," Cathles says.

He's bringing this new view of an active hydrocarbon cycle to industry, hoping it will lead to larger oil and gas discoveries. By matching the chemical signatures of the oil and gas with geologic models for the structures below the seafloor, petroleum geologists could tap into reserves larger than the North Sea, says Cathles, who presented his findings at the meeting of the American Chemical Society in New Orleans on March 27.

This canvas image of the study area shows the top of salt surface (salt domes are spikes) in the Gas Research Institute study area and four areas of detailed study (stratigraphic layers). The oil fields seen here are Tiger Shoals, South Marsh Island 9 (SMI 9), the South Eugene Island Block 330 area (SEI 330), and Green Canyon 184 area (Jolliet reservoirs). In this area, 125 kilometers by 200 kilometers, Larry Cathles of Cornell University and his team estimate hydrocarbon reserves larger than those of the North Sea. Image by Larry Cathles.

Cathles and his team estimate that in a study area of about 9,600 square miles off the coast of Louisiana, source rocks a dozen kilometers down have generated as much as 184 billion tons of oil and gas — about 1,000 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent. "That's 30 percent more than we humans have consumed over the entire petroleum era," Cathles says. "And that's just this one little postage stamp area; if this is going on worldwide, then there's a lot of hydrocarbons venting out."

Then there's this set of excerpts from the rense.com site article, Stalin and Abiotic Oil:

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not the work of any one single man -- nor of a few men. The modern theory was developed by hundreds of scientists in the (now former) U.S.S.R., including many of the finest geologists, geochemists, geophysicists, and thermodynamicists of that country. There have now been more than two generations of geologists, geophysicists, chemists, and other scientists in the U.S.S.R. who have worked upon and contributed to the development of the modern theory. (Kropotkin 1956; Anisimov, Vasilyev et al. 1959; Kudryavtsev 1959; Porfir'yev 1959; Kudryavtsev 1963; Raznitsyn 1963; Krayushkin 1965; Markevich 1966; Dolenko 1968; Dolenko 1971; Linetskii 1974; Letnikov, Karpov et al. 1977; Porfir'yev and Klochko 1981; Krayushkin 1984)

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not untested or speculative. On the contrary, the modern theory was severely challenged by many traditionally-minded geologists at the time of its introduction; and during the first decade thenafter, the modern theory was thoroughly examined, extensively reviewed, powerfully debated, and rigorously tested. Every year following 1951, there were important scientific conferences organized in the U.S.S.R. to debate and evaluate the modern theory, its development, and its predictions. The All-Union conferences in petroleum and petroleum geology in the years 1952-1964/5 dealt particularly with this subject. (During the period when the modern theory was being subjected to extensive critical challenge and testing, a number of the men pointed out that there had never been any similar critical review or testing of the traditional hypothesis that petroleum might somehow have evolved spontaneously from biological detritus.)...

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge has been over for approximately two decades (Simakov 1986). The modern theory is presently applied extensively throughout the former U.S.S.R. as the guiding perspective for petroleum exploration and development projects. There are presently more than 80 oil and gas fields in the Caspian district alone which were explored and developed by applying the perspective of the modern theory and which produce from the crystalline basement rock. (Krayushkin, Chebanenko et al. 1994) Similarly, such exploration in the western Siberia cratonic-rift sedimentary basin has developed 90 petroleum fields of which 80 produce either partly or entirely from the crystalline basement. The exploration and discoveries of the 11 major and 1 giant fields on the northern flank of the Dneiper-Donets basin have already been noted. There are presently deep drilling exploration projects under way in Azerbaijan, Tatarstan, and Asian Siberia directed to testing potential oil and gas reservoirs in the crystalline basement.

And here is a site specifically created to address the Russian-Ukranian abiotic oil theory:

http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm

So you see, answering your ridiculous challenge took just a bit of free time (of which I have very little) on a single evening.

I think that most following this debate can now see that your bogus claims stink worse than the La Brea Tarpit.

BTW - Check this article from ABC News, Sept. 11, 2006:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 738143.htm

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.

So the claim that "everyone" is on board with your nutty peak oil scare tactics is again refuted. Hey, you'd think that big oil would have an interest in maintaining fears of fuel shortages to drive up prices, not debunking the fearmongering.

Here's another in which a Saudi oil exec. claims that no more than 18% of the world's reserves have been tapped:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ ... 530716.htm

In wildcatting terms, I think I just brought in a gusher while you're still drilling a dry hole.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

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.

There is no doubt that peak oil is a reality. Every system has it's limits just like...

Peak grain - There is only so much land to grow grain.

Peak water - Not making anymore of that unless you count burning hydrocarbons or a comet striking the earth. We depend on the earth to distill it and return it to the aquifer. We are running out of this too.

Peak Uranium - It's not being renewed unless you count the sun.

When any of these peaks occur is a matter of debate but they will happen at some point.

Is your assertion that oil can be infinitely produced from the earth? As in the volume of the moon or Jupiter?

You provide a compelling argument for abiotic oil and I have to agree that perhaps oil is both biotic and abiotic. Tex's assertion that oil is finite I think is incorrect. Oil is renewable, but I do agree with him in that it is not renewable in the time spans that we require for "business as usual". The point of peak oil is not that the oil will peak but that our economies and generally our whole way of life is based on cheap and easy to produce oil. It seems that every day that goes by it is becoming more expensive and harder to produce.

Daculling,
Do you have some type of vested interest in oil or a need to be right? You have come on here for some time and seem to only argue about oil and such.

Just curious.

Originally Posted by jp_48504

Daculling,
Do you have some type of vested interest in oil or a need to be right? You have come on here for some time and seem to only argue about oil and such.

Just curious.

Well, I am very concerned about "peak oil". Now... why I'm here... how peak oil plays out in the US is very dependent on on our immigration situation. First of all we do not need an increasing population. Second we do not need a population that is in-cohesive. If we are going to transition from a fossil fueled economy (by force of nature, not choice) then the two aforementioned problems we face need to be dealt with or a bad situation may become a nightmare. Oil is tied to everything, including immigration. That is why I'm here.

BTW, I check my posts, they are about 50/50 immigration and oil

Originally Posted by Daculling

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

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.

There is no doubt that peak oil is a reality. Every system has it's limits just like...

Peak grain - There is only so much land to grow grain.

Peak water - Not making anymore of that unless you count burning hydrocarbons or a comet striking the earth. We depend on the earth to distill it and return it to the aquifer. We are running out of this too.

Peak Uranium - It's not being renewed unless you count the sun.

When any of these peaks occur is a matter of debate but they will happen at some point.

Is your assertion that oil can be infinitely produced from the earth? As in the volume of the moon or Jupiter?

You provide a compelling argument for abiotic oil and I have to agree that perhaps oil is both biotic and abiotic. Tex's assertion that oil is finite I think is incorrect. Oil is renewable, but I do agree with him in that it is not renewable in the time spans that we require for "business as usual". The point of peak oil is not that the oil will peak but that our economies and generally our whole way of life is based on cheap and easy to produce oil. It seems that every day that goes by it is becoming more expensive and harder to produce.

The issue, as you would note that I have clearly stated, is not whether there is a point at which our consumption with outstrip the planet's ability to replenish stocks, but rather whether the currently espoused theory of peak oil as an imminent reality has any merit. My point, which I have amply supported with facts based not upon wild speculation but upon sound state of the art geological science, is that the theory as espoused is predicated upon archaic models that GROSSLY underestimate available reserves.

You can CLAIM that there 'is no doubt" until you're blue in the face, but there is in fact PLENTY of doubt, with most of that doubt being harbored by working geologists who understand that the prevailing biogenic model in the West is sadly lacking and CANNOT explain the existence of many recent finds, including those that have made the Russians the top petroleum producers in the world.

Your claim that oil is becoming prohibitively expensive to produce is also wrong. When you adjust petroleum prices for inflation, you will see that oil has been trading at or below historical averages except for this recent run-up caused by a confluence of weather-related spot shortages, ME regional instability, dollar devaluation due to a national debt that has almost doubled in the last five years, and the simulataneous topping off of several nations' strategic reserves. Here are a couple of charts of inflation-adjusted crude prices:





Note that this has occurred with the US shutting down much of its domestic production due to environmentalist pressure. Furthermore, the constant harping on the threat of a looming "peak oil" crisis plays its own role in artificially driving speculation, which in turn raises prices. If you will look at the inexplicable price spikes in the 1970s you will see a similar phenomenon brought about by us monetary policy, NOT by actual petroleum supply and demand.