Peek Oil Denial?

[Javaman]

Various people have posted on DU, complaining about the rising cost of gas at the pump. And they call for all sorts of protests, threats, etc., that we should launch to lower the prices.

And yet at the same time, we scream and yell that peek oil is here, saying, "boy, America is going to have one heck of a wake up call". Well, guess what, we are that same America and that wake up call is now.

Is it me or is there a colossal disconnect?

Yes, I agree that the bastard oil companies are gouging us, but on the other hand, supplies are growing short and it's no mystery that the Saudi's are at their pumping limits to cover the rising demand.

China and India are demanding more and more oil. China in particular. They are making major trading deals with the countries in the middle east. They see how morons* war hasn't solved a thing and has indeed made things far worse for us. Our lack of diplomacy is literally killing us.

The reality is now folks, high gas prices are here to stay. Ranting, raving and stamping our feet isn't going to do a thing anymore. Accept the concept that cheap gas is a thing of the past.

Moron* pays us nothing but lip service. Not one of his* recent proclamations regarding our "addiction" to oil is backed up by money, action, laws or conservation. Cutting shipments to the strategic oil reserves is a temporary fix at best and the cuts to the environmental requirements on gas production to "help" the oil companies refine more fuel, won't make a difference either and cause more pollution, he* said it himself that it's still going to be a long hard summer at the pump and probably won't make much of a difference. So why the cuts? Obvious. To fill his oil buddies pockets some more.

If we really want to make a difference, write to congress and tell those do nothing fools to pass a bill on conservation and to tax the profits of the oil giants. And with those taxes, lay out a real energy policy and plan that would remove our dependency on oil and promote alternative energy. That's a movement/protest I could get behind.

Until congress gets a spine or moron* gets his walking papers, we will and are suffering from a death by a thousand cuts.

We have made our future. We are the ones that buy huge houses, drive huge cars, demand millions of plastic made items. It's us, we the people fed by a never ending stream of oil that we gladly gobble down that have caused this. We can bitch and complain about moron* from now until forever, but we knew this was coming years ago and at the end of the day, does the majority of this nation, walk, ride a bike, or take mass transportation home from work? I think we know the answer to that one.

Jimmy Carter warned us and we laughed. Reagen took the solar panels off of the White House and nothing was said in protest. As much as we have the military industrial complex, we as a nation have been playing host to the other 2 ton elephant in the room. The industrial corporate oil giant.

As long as we got our cheap gas we played the game and went right along with the "American Dream". But folks, there never was an American dream. That was bullshit fed to us by gov't sponsored ad agencies to prop up a society based on a finite resource. This is/was a truly vicious cycle of stupidity based upon immediate gratification after years of depression and war. We did without then and didn't want to go back to those days, ever again.

As a result, this societal illusion based on cheap energy was furthered by a never ending supply of cheap goods and a concept of living the way we should because "we are Americans" and by a gov't that made sure, that no matter what happened, we out did the Soviets. This fed into and promoted a mentality of wanting more and more and giving back less and less. Rampant consumerism.

Ever really think about that term "consumer"?

And here we are, our consumer demands can't meet supply and we get pissed???

Life, society and the world in general is changing and until we as Americans wake up from our oil drunken stupor to that fact, nothing, not a thing will change and we will be regulated to the trash bin of history as a country that got greedy on something that would never last. Truly a fools Paradise.

Face it, the American Century was based on oil. Removed oil from the equation and honestly, would we as a nation be where we are today? Would any nation? No.

Oil has provided the means for the world to expand beyond it's limits. Like a sun going red giant, it expands beyond it's nearest planets, until it exhausts it's last remaining fuel, only then to collapse upon itself. A shell of what it once was. Is that our destiny? Or do we as a nation wake up, demand from our leaders a real path out of this cycle into a world that will be different. I consider the American Dream as: a world, a society, that gives back more than we take away.

Now is that time, that is my dream

[radwriter0555]

1. NO one is saying there is a shortage ANYWHERE. NOT even the oil cos are

proclaiming such a position.

There is NO shortage. There is NO Crisis.

Peak oil is a total myth.

There is no increased demand. There is no decreased production.

It's merely profit taking thanks to bush's policies of screwing YOU while his pals make a mighty profit.

[Teaser]

4. prove it or shut it

prove peak oil is a total myth.

First I want you to show me that Hubbard's equations are wrong.

Then I want to refute ALL of the empirical evidence as catalogued at http://www.theoildrum.com

[DrGonzoLives]

6. So....prove a negative?

Just curious...

[laheina]

33. Negatives can be proven.

It is a common fallacy that they can't be. The only place where it gets sticky is with existence, i.e. god, aliens, bigfoot, etc..

It was one of the contributions to mathematical logic by Bertrand Russell.

Just sayin'. :shrug:

[radwriter0555]

27. Easy! Here is an outstanding link with additional links. Dave McGowan is

one of the more credible people in recent history to present a case against the whole peak oil scheme, and his articles are enumerated here. His research is always, always impeccable and I defer to his work for my entire position.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html

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

It appears that, unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been, for quite some time now, two competing theories concerning the origins of petroleum. One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite quantities near the planet's surface. The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by natural processes in the Earth's magma. One theory is backed by a massive body of research representing fifty years of intense scientific inquiry. The other theory is an unproven relic of the eighteenth century. One theory anticipates deep oil reserves, refillable oil fields, migratory oil systems, deep sources of generation, and the spontaneous venting of gas and oil. The other theory has a difficult time explaining any such documented phenomena.

So which theory have we in the West, in our infinite wisdom, chosen to embrace? Why, the fundamentally absurd 'Fossil Fuel' theory, of course -- the same theory that the 'Peak Oil' doomsday warnings are based on.

I am sorry to report here, by the way, that in doing my homework, I never did come across any of that "hard science" documenting 'Peak Oil' that Mr. Strahl referred to. All the 'Peak Oil' literature that I found, on Ruppert's site and elsewhere, took for granted that petroleum is a non-renewable 'fossil fuel.' That theory is never questioned, nor is any effort made to validate it. It is simply taken to be an established scientific fact, which it quite obviously is not.

So what do Ruppert and his resident experts have to say about all of this? Dale Allen Pfeiffer, identified as the "FTW Contributing Editor for Energy," has written: "There is some speculation that oil is abiotic in origin -- generally asserting that oil is formed from magma instead of an organic origin. These ideas are really groundless." (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/04_04_02_oil_recession.html)

Here is a question that I have for both Mr. Ruppert and Mr. Pfeiffer: Do you consider it honest, responsible journalism to dismiss a fifty year body of multi-disciplinary scientific research, conducted by hundreds of the world's most gifted scientists, as "some speculation"?

There is a lot to read at that link, but damn! It's good! Thanks for playing!

[Spider Jerusalem]

29. Anyone who espouses the theory of abiotic petroleum origins...

is an obvious crank who has no real credibility. No serious scientist in the field of geology accepts the theory; all oil discoveries have been made based on what constitutes a likely prospect under the theory of biotic petroleum origins; chemical analysis of various crude oils from around the world consistently reveals bio-markers that betray their biological origin.

And peak oil is not a myth; there's no shortage, YET, but it's damned close (production is within 1 million barrels a day of consumption, demand is increasing, and there's no spare production capacity to raise the output level significantly anywhere in the world, even in Saudi Arabia). Pretty soon, a rising demand curve is likely to meet a declining production curve, and when it does, the result will be economic chaos.

Addednum: The reality of peak oil is undeniable on a region-by-region basis; oil production has peaked and gone into decline in the US 48, North Slope/Prudhoe Bay/ the North Sea, the former Soviet Union, Oman, Mexico's Cantarell oilfield, Kuwait, and several other provinces. It logically follows that there is a point at which total global production will peak and decline.

[radwriter0555]

43. Perhaps you should read the links instead of blindly defending that which

makes you the most comfortable.

snip

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not a vague, qualitative hypothesis, but stands as a rigorous analytic theory within the mainstream of the modern physical sciences. In this respect, the modern theory differs fundamentally not only from the previous hypothesis of a biological origin of petroleum but also from all traditional geological hypotheses. Since the nineteenth century, knowledgeable physicists, chemists, thermodynamicists, and chemical engineers have regarded with grave reservations (if not outright disdain) the suggestion that highly reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high free enthalpy (the constituents of crude oil) might somehow evolve spontaneously from highly oxidized biogenic molecules of low free enthalpy. Beginning in 1964, Soviet scientists carried out extensive theoretical statistical thermodynamic analysis which established explicitly that the hypothesis of evolution of hydrocarbon molecules (except methane) from biogenic ones in the temperature and pressure regime of the Earth's near-surface crust was glaringly in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

They also determined that the evolution of reduced hydrocarbon molecules requires pressures of magnitudes encountered at depths equal to such of the mantle of the Earth. During the second phase of its development, the modern theory of petroleum was entirely recast from a qualitative argument based upon a synthesis of many qualitative facts into a quantitative argument based upon the analytical arguments of quantum statistical mechanics and thermodynamic stability theory. (Chekaliuk 1967; Boiko 1968; Chekaliuk 1971; Chekaliuk and Kenney 1991; Kenney 1995) With the transformation of the modern theory from a synthetic geology theory arguing by persuasion into an analytical physical theory arguing by compulsion, petroleum geology entered the mainstream of modern science.

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.

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

It appears that, unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been, for quite some time now, two competing theories concerning the origins of petroleum. One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite quantities near the planet's surface. The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by natural processes in the Earth's magma. One theory is backed by a massive body of research representing fifty years of intense scientific inquiry. The other theory is an unproven relic of the eighteenth century. One theory anticipates deep oil reserves, refillable oil fields, migratory oil systems, deep sources of generation, and the spontaneous venting of gas and oil. The other theory has a difficult time explaining any such documented phenomena.

So which theory have we in the West, in our infinite wisdom, chosen to embrace? Why, the fundamentally absurd 'Fossil Fuel' theory, of course -- the same theory that the 'Peak Oil' doomsday warnings are based on.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/davemcgowanstalinandabioticoil05mar05.shtml

[Spider Jerusalem]

44. I;ve ALREADY read the links.

I've already read both sides of the debate, thanks. I'm very well-informed on this. Unlike SOME people, I'm not in the habit of saying things without really knowing what I'm talking about. But thank you so much anyway for your presuming that I don't, and your ill-mannered condescencion.

[radwriter0555]

46. This isn't condescension, this is disagreement and frustration over the

defense by smart, intelligent people, of oil co endorsed positions based on archaic and fallible junk science that they're molding to fit their PR hysteria.

[Spider Jerusalem]

49. Sorry, but you're the one pushing 'junk science'.

And just because ONE oil company (Shell, IIRC) has stated that reasonably near-term peak in oil production is likely DOESN'T mean it's NOT true. Rejecting something on that basis is just irrational. It's like saying 'Pat Robertson says the sky is blue. I fucking loathe Pat Robertson. Therefore the sky must actually be chartreuse.'

[radwriter0555]

51. You didn't read the links. Therefore, you're uninformed. Abiotic oil

theory is based on century-old THEORY, not the far more recent science I'm trying to direct you towards, which you refuse to read about.

And tell me why we should believe shell oil? That's like saying we should believe the bush regime when they tell us that iran is going to kill us, so the US should attack them.

Shell has a lot to gain by scaring you into believing you're going to run out of oil. It keeps their prices high and profits even higher.

Please just read the links I've posted and do some more research on your own. But the first rule is to toss out anything by a US oil co, since, believing their snake oil pitch is like believing anything coming from the bush regime.

[Spider Jerusalem]

52. And I say again, I HAVE read the links.

I've read Thomas Gold's book, I've read about the Russian theory. I've read it, and you still insist I haven't (you apparently conclude this from the fact that I don't agree with you).

And you also obviously have no understanding of what the word 'theory' means in scientific terms as opposed to colloquial terms; a scientific theory is 'A comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community but has not yet been decisively proven. See also hypothesis and scientific law.' (definition per http://college.hmco.com/geology/resources/geologylink/glossary/t.html .)

[MacDuff]

62. Just Curious

how many barrels of "abiotic" oil anybody has pumped?

because I'm pretty confident the # is 0

so we are runing out of ACTUAL oil - but theres' an infinte amount of neato "THEORETICAL OIL"?

cool - you should buy short on oil futures then, because once they start pumping all that abiotic oil, you could get rich!

[grottieyottie]

53. Peak Oil - Myth

Peak oil relates to cheap and easy crude period. When factoring in the tarsands of Venezueala and Canada - there is absolutely no shortage. Hence the reason Venezuala is now listed as the country with the most oil reserves in the world, surpassing Saudi Arabia.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

65. as soon as they figure out how to process it for less than $300 a barrel

then we'll all be sitting pretty, right? :eyes:

[dipsydoodle]

11. Notwithstanding the current excess profit issue

there is only a finite supply of crude oil in the world which took millions of years to create. It cannot be topped up in a shorter time period. With increasing absorbtion of the available supply by China, India and other devoloping nations the overall demand for oil will sooner or later outstrip the realistic supply rate. The result as with any other commodity will be increasingly higher prices.

Aside for from anything else if you had a scarce commodity , which the Arab and other countries have and which could never be replenished, would you want to sell it for anything less than the maximum amount possible ? In that statement I'm not saying that the oil companies are not making hay while the sun shines with regard to their current profit levels.

If you're concerned about current prices at the pumps then I can only suggest you get Bush to release the entire US reserve - that would soon lower the prices at least in the short term. After that ..............?

[Coastie for Truth]

12. Quit drinking the Leftie Kool-Aid

Start with "Geology for Dummies" ("An Introduction to Economic Geology and Its Environmental Impact" by Anthony M. Evans), Ken Deffeye's two books ("Beyond Oil : The View from Hubbert's Peak" and "Hubbert's Peak : The Impending World Oil Shortage"), and "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy" by Matthew R. Simmons, and see what your fellow DUers say,

1)

2)

3)

The meme of visceral hatred of everything and everybody even remotely associated with Bush is an opiate that diverts our attention from the underlying issues and greases the skids into Jim Kunstler's Malthusian nightmare scenario, "The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century".

[ptolle]

19. please to add

With your permission I'd add the following to your list
http://www.postcarbon.org/

[radwriter0555]

28. Good idea! I'll believe the bought and paid for corporate scientists!

Yep, whatta great concept! Buying into the lies and myths generated by PR firms like the "Cato Institute" or some such.

Sorry, I defer to the best researchers on the planet. See my post above, check out this link.

I stand by my case and I stand by the case presented by my friend Dave McGowan. I don't buy the lies and hype...

http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html

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

It appears that, unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been, for quite some time now, two competing theories concerning the origins of petroleum. One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite quantities near the planet's surface. The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by natural processes in the Earth's magma. One theory is backed by a massive body of research representing fifty years of intense scientific inquiry. The other theory is an unproven relic of the eighteenth century. One theory anticipates deep oil reserves, refillable oil fields, migratory oil systems, deep sources of generation, and the spontaneous venting of gas and oil. The other theory has a difficult time explaining any such documented phenomena.

So which theory have we in the West, in our infinite wisdom, chosen to embrace? Why, the fundamentally absurd 'Fossil Fuel' theory, of course -- the same theory that the 'Peak Oil' doomsday warnings are based on.

I am sorry to report here, by the way, that in doing my homework, I never did come across any of that "hard science" documenting 'Peak Oil' that Mr. Strahl referred to. All the 'Peak Oil' literature that I found, on Ruppert's site and elsewhere, took for granted that petroleum is a non-renewable 'fossil fuel.' That theory is never questioned, nor is any effort made to validate it. It is simply taken to be an established scientific fact, which it quite obviously is not.

So what do Ruppert and his resident experts have to say about all of this? Dale Allen Pfeiffer, identified as the "FTW Contributing Editor for Energy," has written: "There is some speculation that oil is abiotic in origin -- generally asserting that oil is formed from magma instead of an organic origin. These ideas are really groundless." (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/04_04_02_oil_recession.html)

Here is a question that I have for both Mr. Ruppert and Mr. Pfeiffer: Do you consider it honest, responsible journalism to dismiss a fifty year body of multi-disciplinary scientific research, conducted by hundreds of the world's most gifted scientists, as "some speculation"?

[toymachines]

57. Converging Catastrophes is a great read

Really opened my eyes. I saw the bigger picture and stopped focusing on the little things.

[Coastie for Truth]

58. I think Jim is a wee bit Malthusianist

But at a seminar he gave, he implied that I was "just another techie cornucopialist." (One who expects a technological fix for all problems). I am.

;)

[The2ndWheel]

21. "There is no increased demand."

How would that even be possible?

If someone says there is no increase in demand for energy around the globe, there is no point in even going any further into a discussion. Debating price gouging is one thing. Not seeing an increase in demand is just crazy.

[lostinacause]

31. He or she likely doesn't understand what demand is.

[laheina]

35. True. One would have to be in willful denial to accept that.

All that a person needs to do is to look at the population stats and economic developments in industrializing nations.

[radwriter0555]

36. I was refering specifically to the USA, certainly not globally. This is

a dialogue about how US oil cos are gouging US people thanks to the policies of the bush regime...unless you can show us how the bush regime policies are affecting a global price gouging?

Focus please. Stop trying to denigrate the messenger simply because I go against the lemming flow of hysteria and hype.

[Spider Jerusalem]

42. Increase in GLOBAL demand = GLOBAL increase in prices.

The USA imports over 60% of its oil. The price per barrel is set on the world market. Total demand has increased by 10% over the past five years, and by nearly 30% over the last ten years, mostly thanks to India and China. Which means that the US is in increasing economic competition for oil, and thanks to the increased demand and the fact that production is NOT keeping pace (total global production is at 84-85M bbl/day; demand is at 83.5M bbl/day, and spare capacity is EXTREMELY limited) prices on world markets have risen significantly, and will rise much further if there's any serious supply disruption (such as an Iranian embargo), which would have the effect of causing GLOBAL demand to be greater than supply.

On a global market, it doesn't MATTER if US demand has increased significantly or not, especially when 2/3 of our supply is imported; that's EXTREMELY basic economics.

[radwriter0555]

45. But the rest of the planet isn't being gouged like the US consumers are.

Our prices for gas here in europe have only increased by about .05c in the past couple of months.

The US prices have almost doubled in the past couple of years.

[Spider Jerusalem]

48. Faulty comparison involving incompatible time scales.

And an increase of US $0.05 over a couple of months, in a place where gasoline (or 'essence', since you're in France) is sold by the LITRE, represents a rise of almost US $0.20 per GALLON. And given the very different economics involved in the European vs American markets, a direct comparison fails anyway. Nice try, though.

[anarch]

24. umm, so then oil is a renewable resource?

Then how come U.S. production peaked some thirty-odd years ago? Shouldn't the wells that had run dry in the 70's have, you know, filled back up by now?

[radwriter0555]

37. Oil doesn't come from melted dinosaurs. It IS in fact a self-renewing

source as many scientists have proven.

Oil is NOT a 'fossil fuel'. That is a misnomer.

[anarch]

55. while it would be nice to believe this,

I don't. There may be some abiogenic replenishment in specific cases, but the effect of such replenishment on the global oil supply is negligible at best. It would be nice to believe in perpetual motion, too. But I don't.

[Javaman]

56. Explain then, why the oil fields in Pennsylvania...

which have been tapped dry, haven't refilled themselves?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

66. "many scientists"... yet you site only one nt

[lostinacause]

30. There is increased demand.

The price has gone up over the last few years and in aggregate (across the world) total consumption continues to rise. These are sufficient conditions for a increased demand as any economic text book will tell you. Contrary to the beliefs of some there doesn't have to be any shortages for demand to increase.

Peak oil does not require there to be a shortage. It just requires the supply declines, which it inevitably is going to do.

And so you know Bush is not the king of the world. Much of the increase in price is out of his control.

[rman]

54. no-one? bullshit

just google "peak oil".

A lot of people and institutions are saying there is increasing shortage of oil.

It has even been discussed in US Congress:

“Peak Oil Is Not A Theory”
Congressional Hearing Explains Peak Oil
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/120805_peakoil_nottheory.shtml

Demand has been increasing by 3% per year on average ever since we started using oil on an industrial scale - demand grows as economies grow. "Peak Discovery" was in the 60's and 70's. No so called mega fields have been discovered since. Hubbart correctly predicted the peaking of US oil production in the 70's. Production of most large oil fields already is in decline. These are not secrets, it's all out there.

[MacDuff]

61. Peak Oil is a MYTH???

BAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That's AWESOME!!!! GREAT NEWS!!!

so you are an oil geologist? you've spent your whole life working in the oil industry? or studying the issue?

why don't you try learning a little on the subject?

can you tell me when US oil production peaked? because Dr Hubbert predicted the date in 1956 - I'm curious if you even know when it actually happened? Did you know he was exactly correct in his prediction for the lower 48?

How about the North Sea? do you know when that peaked?

Did you know that 3 of the 4 largest oil fieds in the world are KNOWN to have peaked? (and the one we don't know in Saudi Arabia they are pumping sea water in at massive rates - something that helps pump fast, but ruins the field quickly - something you would only do after production PEAKED)

have you studied decline rates versus new discoveries?

just start with Wikipedia's overview on the subject, then progress to The Oil Drum and Life After the Crash

and get back to us.....


OR you could keep living in your (unsupported) fantasy world where there is an infinate amount of oil and you can drive your SUV into the sunset forever....

[Viva_La_Revolution]

64. Peak oil is a myth??!

What rock have you been living under?

:popcorn:

[endarkenment]

2. Yes - big disconnect

On the other hand, why not play this for political advantage. The fascist bastards in power claim that there is no peak oil problem. So make them fix the price problem. They can't. They are stuck in corner.

[Avalux]

3. I cannot agree that peak oil is here.

What I observe is corporations and our government using fear, war and feigned shortages to burden the people of this country while they reap huge profits. Did you forget those in power are oil men, and the energy bill was written by oil men? If we are in the midst of a peak oil crisis then neither party seems the least bit concerned about it.

This isn't about consumer demands. This is about being held hostage by a group of very powerful men.

[lostinacause]

32. Actually peak oil would not worry the oil companies, especially since

the concept of peak oil implies a high demand and high prices. Companies get what is called scarcity rents. Money associated with owning the rights to a resource that has a high demand and a fixed supply.

[lvx35]

59. They (US big oil) don't necessarily own the rights

Saudi Aramco does, and US companies have to pay more per barrel to bring to US markets like everybody else.

[lostinacause]

67. They own some rights. They will also get rents through having expertise in

certain recovery techniques. As the price goes up the value of getting more of the oil also increases.

[laheina]

39. I don't know that they would accept the fact of a crisis

or admit it to the public if they did, but I also agree with you. This is too sudden of a development to be the onsetting of peak oil. More likely, the WH and their cronies are allowing us to be price gouged.

I do think, however, that peak oil is a fact that we will eventually have to deal with.

[niyad]

5. the reality is that there is PEAK oil, but that has NOTHING to do with the

price gouging in which the oil companies are currently engaged. that is exacerbated by the insanity of the thugs currently squatting in the white house, threatening the world with nukes, and playing masters of the universe. two separate issues.

[laheina]

40. Exactly! nt

[lvx35]

60. Thanks for the sanity.

That's the impression I have as well. Two very established facts are that:
1) oil production cannot keep up with global demand in the coming years
2) us oil companies are posting record profits.
These support your thesis.

[DrGonzoLives]

7. So, what's your plan?

Do you have one, or are you just here to pontificate?

I try to do everything within my means to cut down on energy use, but the fact is, I and everyone else in this country still need it.

So, present a plan for averting peak oil and avoiding massive societal breakdown.

[Javaman]

10. Obviously you didn't read the whole thing...

"If we really want to make a difference, write to congress and tell those do nothing fools to pass a bill on conservation and to tax the profits of the oil giants. And with those taxes, lay out a real energy policy and plan that would remove our dependency on oil and promote alternative energy. That's a movement/protest I could get behind."

[RufusEarl]

16. Thats a solid plan

tax big oil for financing alternatives for renewable energy sources. Now that a plan i could get behind, it's very late in the game but we need to start now.

Unfortunately i believe that our government want to support nuclear energy, and i'll fight that purposely.

[Coastie for Truth]

17. Yes - at least a start

Start by reading "Winning the Oil Endgame" by Amory B. Lovins and ""The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century" by James Howard Kunstler (disregarding his core Malthusianism) - and then

Conservation - strict CAFE standards, end of exurbian MacMansions, transit/bicycles/shoe leather express, high density transit villages, neighborhood schools.

Engineer our way out of it - revisit nuke with the modern European and Japanese reactors, solar, wind, enzyme synthesized fuels (ethanol, bio-diesel) for the few remaining internal combustion vehicles.

Become much less transportation intensive - Pimentel (who is kind of flakey) has previously published that we use more petroleum transporting agricultural products around then we use in growing the food or manufacturing fertilizers.
:shrug:

[Coastie for Truth]

8. We blame politicians - and never look in the mirror

A good read is "The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century" by James Howard Kunstler -- and the boring, uninteresting "techie"-"geekie" stuff is in Ken Deffeye's two books ("Beyond Oil : The View from Hubbert's Peak" and "Hubbert's Peak : The Impending World Oil Shortage"), and the really scary political stuff starts from Engdahl ("A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order") and Michael Klare ("Blood and Oil : The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum" and "Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict") and goes to the NeoCon-PNAC Bible, " Rebuilding America's Defenses".

But rather then looking in the mirror (MacMansions in exurbia, SUV's, pedestrian unfriendly planning, bicycle unfriendly planning, sixty years of dismantling transit, frivolous law suits against econo cars and electric cars) or doing the easier and more gradual fixes of the Carter era - we are walking into a full blown crisis.

[Beelzebud]

9. Peak Oil is real, but not here yet. This is just old fashioned GREED.

[converted_democrat]

13. That's how I feel about it too.. n/t

[Coastie for Truth]

18. We are in the first stage of peak oil

1. Resource wars in Iraq (and Bushco probably trying to destabilize Chavez in Venezuela)

2. The OPPORTUNITY for Big Oil's Greed to be manifested so openly and successfully.

[Turbineguy]

14. Good post

One of the things that has occurred in the last 20 or so years is an increase in refinery efficiencies, that is the amount of high value products squeezed from every barrel of oil. The residual oils from the refineries have become progressively lower in quality.

We are drilling deeper (and using new methods) and and in more hostile places. Fields that had stopped economic production are being put back on line at higher oil prices.

At the "consumer" level, all this has been mostly ignored. When oil prices go up we scream "price gouging!". But the price increases are essentially psychological. At first it was $1 then $2 and now $3 (obviously the Katrina related rise was an understandable and temporary aberration).

As a society we have not done well in approaching transportation from a BTU per ton mile- or whatever other metric you care to use. Europeans put in elaborate public transportation systems way back when oil was $3 per barrel.

[trof]

15. U.S. and many other nations have already hit Peak Oil.

Many credible analysts and experts suggest that a large part of the problem is peak oil. The peak is from a model of oil production named after the geophysicist M King Hubbert, who worked for Shell Oil. Hubbert estimated total US reserves and calculated when output from them would be at maximum, based on the observed rate of depletion of individual oil fields. Contrary to what a lot of people - especially hyper-optimistic economists - appear to believe, oil fields are not underground lakes of petroleum, waiting to be sucked up like the contents of a milkshake. Rather, they are formations of oil-bearing rock under pressure, and without maintenance of sufficient pressure around the area where a given well is drilled there is no economically feasible way to extract the oil. Oil fields are said to be depleted when it takes an equivalent amount of energy - through injecting water, natural gas, and so on - to extract the oil as is obtained from the extracted oil itself. There is thus plenty of oil - sometimes nearly half of the initial deposit - left in depleted oil fields. Hubbert determined that the exploitation of fields followed a bell-curve shaped trajectory from the initial drilling through to depletion. After the peak of the bell-curve, there is a gradual but inexorable decline in production.


Based on his model, Hubbert predicted that American oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970, approximately 40 years after the peak in US oil discoveries. He gave a paper on his theory in 1956 at a meeting of the American Petroleum Institute, and was regarded as crazy. But he turned out to be right, as American oil production peaked in 1971. Subsequently, about 50 oil-producing countries have reached their production peak. These countries include the former Soviet Union (which peaked in 1987), Brunei (1979), Libya (1970), Iran (1974), and Indonesia (1997). The peak in global oil discoveries occurred in 1964, and new applications of Hubbert's model suggest that global production should be reaching its maximum rather soon and then start falling. Optimistic studies suggest that 2020 will be the peak; more realistic models indicate that it will arrive later in this decade. The peak oil hypothesis is, therefore, that global oil production is at maximum output already, or shortly will be, and that oil production will subsequently decline. One expects, in this scenario, that easily recovered and cheaply processed oil is the first to peak out, followed by deposits in hard to reach areas (such as beneath the oceans) and/or with plenty of sulfur and other impurities.

<snip>

Peak oil theorists thus argue that with recoverable reserves of oil limited, energy costs are likely to increase. However, the serious peak oil warnings are coming from people like Matt Simmons, chairman of Simmons and Company International (www.simmonsco-intl.com), an oil investment bank and an advisor to US Vice President Dick Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force. In other words, he's an oil industry insider. He even supports drilling in the highly fragile ecosystem of the Arctic, for example, which is anathema to most people outside of the oil industry. But he's also an intelligent and principled player in the oil markets, who began wondering a few years ago if optimistic outlooks for oil production, especially from Saudi Arabian oil fields, were realistic. Saudi Arabia, as noted above, is the only producer with the potential spare capacity to supply increasing demand. The key issue for Simmons was that 90% of Saudi production comes from just 5 big fields, about a half-century old, and there has been no credible data on production for over two decades.
http://japanfocus.org/article.asp?id=397

[lostinacause]

34. Thanks for the good information

[WalrusSlayer]

20. Exactly my thoughts

A few days ago there was an article in our local rag on gas prices. An elderly gentleman was quoted as saying, "Gas will probably go up to $3.00/gal before this is all over". Which is probably true in the strict literal sense, but the underlying assumption that it will go back down on any kind of permanent basis is wildly optimistic at best.

I personally am more and more in the camp that this is Peak Oil arriving, or at best, the early stages. And as others have noted, the pain at the pump will soon become the least of your worries. Oil is the underpinning of everything: transport (personal AND commercial), agribusiness (i.e. food on your table), plastics (i.e., a big chunk of the goods you buy), pharmaceuticals, etc. etc.

How we plan for this transition will make all the difference in how much pain we endure. Yet there is no serious national discourse on the topic. Consumers whine about expensive fossil fuels, politicians posture as if this is a temporary problem that only they can remedy (so's we can go back to the "old days" of $1.50/gal), and meanwhile the situation just gets worse.

And even worse than that... I no longer have faith that we can even have a serious debate on the subject. The current state of the government, media, and electorate are such that I simply can't envision where that kind of serious leadership and sacrifice are going to emerge.

[Nordmadr]

22. Nice post, might want to fix the spelling, it's "peak".

While I have no doubt the oil men (including the ones in office) are taking full advantage of energy issues; I think denying that there is a plateau in oil resources, and that we are hitting that plateau (or very close) is foolish and simply an effort to try and push the blame somewhere while denying the reality. It isn't too terrible of a possibilty to happen, and it will happen. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it can't be true.


The evidence seems clear to me that it is happening, and instead of fixing it, we're spending $300 billion in Iraq that we don't have.

I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again, but this is one of those things that I am pretty damn sure about. I've researched it fairly extensively.

One poster reports that no one is claiming that there is no change in demand; that there is no change in supply. That simply defies logic to me.

Bill Clinton said something about it just the other day.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1020426&mesg_id=1020426



Have you read the Hirsch Report?
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf
(PDF)

Have you listened to the retired geologists speaking out on it such as Colin Campbell of ASPO?

http://www.peakoil.net/
http://www.peakoil.ie/downloads/newsletters/newsletter64_200604.pdf
(PDF)

Have you looked at the statistics?
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gene/peakoil/index.html
http://www.peakoilportal.com/html/energy_statistics.html

USGS info on this is widely critiqued as being fanciful and completely unrealistic in its optimism and, as I recall, they put the peak somewhere after 2030, conveniently outside of their study assessment which went to 2025 as I recall.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-060/

Their estimates for growth have already been shown to be wildly overestimated since the report was done in 2000.

Early critique of report
http://www.oilcrisis.com/laherrere/usgs2000/

This is just a touch of evidence that is out there. Now I don't want to come across as misleading, there are a number of folks out there that have a different opinion on this, but I have generally found their arguements to have far less merit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Critique

That's all for now.

Olafr

[Javaman]

25. Opps! Can't fix Peak, to late to edit. Very good post though. :)

[Nordmadr]

26. Thanks. I regularly post about peak oil here, and for the most part get

crickets; which just amazes me.

It is first and foremost a resource availability issue that is complicated and compounded by geopolitical activity.

Sutainability and localization need to be implemented, but are ideas largely ignored.

It is like that scene in "Titanic" when one chap is refuting the ability ofthe ship to sink, even though it has just struck and iceberg.

The engineer replies (and I paraphrase): "The ship is made of iron, I assure it can sink".

I fear we are on a global Titanic.

I highly recommend reading "Powerdown" by Richard Heinberg.

Olafr

[lostinacause]

38. I find I get ignored quite a bit too. It seems to happen when

people don't like what I am saying but don't have anything good information to the contrary.

[MacDuff]

63. Even better...

I like the idea that we are on the Titanic and we are arguing about the placement of the deck chairs....

it amazes me that people will believe crackpot "science" like abiotic oil - or bogus conspiracy theories - just to convince themselves that they don't need to change, that everything will remain the same.....

Like the end of the first Termanator movie - I feel like Linda Hamilton at that (ironically enough) gas station in Mexico -
Her "what did he say?"
Man "he says there's a storm coming!"
Her: "I know"

I can see the storm coming, but I don't know how to convince people like out abiotic friend....

[Bushwick Bill]

23. Listen the Oil Drum Editors

Read this article.

"We strongly feel that the leaders of both political parties are not only headed in the wrong direction with respect to gas prices, but we also worry that they fundamentally misunderstand the factors behind the current situation at gasoline stations around the US. Public statements by political figures over the past several days would seem to suggest that oil companies and their record profits are the sole factor determining the price of gasoline. Not only is this untrue, but it is dangerous to give the American people the impression that only oil companies are to blame. The American people need to understand that the phenomenon of high gas prices cannot be attributed to a single source. They also need to understand that no one political party will be able to fix our current woes."
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/4/26/121441/891

[lostinacause]

41. It's reasonably good information. Obviously some information is

a little slanted and some is left out.

[Hissyspit]

47. I knew cheap oil was a thing of the past about five years ago when I went

to visit several weeks in England, with its small vehicles and high petrol prices. I had a greater sense of artificiality of the situation here in the U.S.; people buying Hummers and oblivious that this was an anomalous situation. But Americans were oblivious to a lot five years ago.

[skids]

50. The answer is closer than you think...

Right after asking about the disconnect, you did what some peak oil posters fail to:

Yes, I agree that the bastard oil companies are gouging us, but on the other hand, supplies are growing short and it's no mystery that the Saudi's are at their pumping limits to cover the rising demand.

...which is why you only have a few flames, not pages and pages.

Most of the people (with a few exceptions) here in netizen-land which you think are suffering a "disconnect" just don't want to see the oil companies hold themselves blameless, which they are trying to do by sending out shills from within the media establishment to say there's no gouging, that it's just peak oil (though they avoid using the word.)

And most of the people here in netizen-land who want to pursue some way to bring down gas prices are not trying to find a permanent fix, just a way to put a bit of slack in the line so people just recently woken up about this can adjust as best they are able rather than immediately going belly up -- which is what is happenning as things are pretty desperate out there. Oil companies have that slack in their grotesque profits and excesses, but are reluctant to surrender it.

Now as for the population at large, we live in a culture where we don't expect geopolitical realities to actually impact us. That's not something that changes on a dime -- it's a paradigm shift for the average joe/jane to realize and internalize that the boring stuff in the business newspapers actually matters to them and they had better start paying attention. It takes time for that turnabout to happen (and sadly with some it never will) so patience is tantamount.

If delivered in a manner which tries to understand the mindset and sympathize with the situation of the audience, the message of peak oil will sink in. It's not hard to understand. However, peak oil is only one meme among many, and unless it respects that and acknowleges the social justice issues involved in the gas price debacle, it will not be greeted well.

(P.S. relegated)

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. A debate on Peak Oil on Democracy Now on Friday, 28 Apr 06-link:

Here is the link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/28/1439240


"With the price of oil soaring to record highs and oil companies reporting record profits, many are asking whether the world has reached peak oil production. Peak oil occurs when half of all existing oil has been pulled from the ground. Some experts believe we are at peak now while others disagree. We host a debate on the issue with Julian Darley of the Post Carbon Institute and Michael Lynch of the Strategic Energy & Economic Research."